Talk:Passport/Archive 4

Trinidad and Tobago passport, proposed article split
For the benefit of editors not familiar with the extensive debate which occurred here following notification at CENT, I have proposed that the 'visa section' at this article be split to Visa requirements for Trinidad and Tobago citizens, in line with the general consensus and practice relating to 'visa free blocks' - see Talk:Passport/Archive 2 and specifically Talk:Passport/Archive 3 ('Edward's compromise agreement'). RashersTierney (talk) 09:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is wholly uncontroversial, go right ahead. By the way, is it just me or does 'Saltprune416' reek of sock-puppetry? — what a crazy random happenstance 10:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming good faith, but having now seen their earlier contributions at the article under discussion, it is stretching credulity a bit to believe they were unaware of the extensive debate here on splitting passport articles. RashersTierney (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Slovak passport
Intend splitting content to Visa requirements for Slovak citizens per general consensus on national passport articles - (recent re-application of 'Visa-free block' at this article). RashersTierney (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Done. RashersTierney (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a general topic forum, but here's a comment from a general user.
Guys, resolve this passport nonsense. The colored maps and lists of countries under "Passport" were great. If you're moving them to "Visa requirements for Country X" put a link on the old Passport page, or somehow notify people. These pages are butchered and all the useful information can only be found in previous versions--a pain in the neck.

I've changed to www.doyouneedvisa.com, but as always there's a lot of discrepancies between sources. Also refer to the Henley & Partner's annual list.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.54.162 (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All split passport articles should contain a link at 'See also' to 'Visa requirements for...' and vise versa per the agreed procedure. If any are missing, please apply. The relevant Talk Pages ('Talk:X passport' and 'Talk:Visa requirements for X citizens' must contain this template

as in these examples ; Talk:Trinidad and Tobago passport and Talk:Visa requirements for Trinidad and Tobago citizens. All split articles require this template for attribution. I have applied it to a range of articles so far but certainly there are more to do. If anyone would like to assist, please do so. If you're not sure what to do, drop me a line at my TP. RashersTierney (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion on Kosovan passport biased title
I am posting this here as well as I did on the Talk:Kosovo: I am planning to put a pov-title template on the Kosovan passport article as per discussion on the talk page. The discussion appears to have come to a stalemate so I am asking for some other opinion before I tag the article. Please discuss at the Talk:Kosovan passport for the time being. The issue may be connected to similar articles (Abkhazian passport and others) and I am not sure where to post this request. Best regards, --Biblbroks 's talk 21:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Israeli stamping
This article states Israeli border guards now rarely grant requests to not stamp your passport, but during a trip in 2008, I had no trouble avoiding getting stamped on five separate occasions. And I'm pretty sure they would've have agreed to not stamp the sixth time if I hadn't gotten distracted by a cute IDF soldier. This is original research of course, otherwise, I would correct the article. 99.69.127.45 (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Article
There's a lot missing from the article - e.g. is it mandatory to have a passport for a US citizen to re-enter the US, and a UK citizen to re-enter the UK, and a French one to re-enter France? And if so, when did it become mandatory? Similarly, what are the actual dates/years when countries started requiring foreigners to have passports or similar documents to enter, assuming that they do in fact have such requirements? 86.147.173.194 (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The answers to your questions are not as straight forward as they might appear. States have imposed documentary proof of identity for entry at various times, generally during war or 'state of emergency', and have later relaxed such restrictions. Some states require citizens of certain states to show passports, with or without visas, but will accept other IDs from others. Standardisation of the form, and normalisation of the system began in earnest through the League of Nations in 1920 (briefly mentioned at history section) and has continued since through ICAO. States generally accept the right of citizens to abode and therefore entry, but will insist on evidence of such citizenship. One way to demonstrate this is by producing a passport. I'm not aware of states that have accepted the citizenship of one of its nationals, but have refused entry because a passport was not produced, but am open to correction on this. A good general reader is Torpey's The Invention of the PassportRashersTierney (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

name/content change of European Union visa lists
A discussion is running on Talk:European Union visa lists on a name and/or content change of the wiki. By lack of a relevant project (and in view of the (now notorious?) history of passport pages with visa requirement pages) I am posting this notice here. Feel free to join in if you like... L.tak (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of sources
is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits), and most of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Requests for comment/Jagged 85. That's an old and archived RfC. The point is still valid though, and his contribs need to be doublechecked. Thanks!

I searched the Requests for comment/Jagged 85/Cleanup6, and found 2 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edit). Tobby72 (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

visa policy of ... articles
At Articles for deletion/Visa requirements for Palestinian citizens, the discussion is generalized to what to do with "Visa requirements of ..." wikis in general. In view of the discussion on the split between passport wikis and "visa requirements wikis" in the beginning of this year on this page, some of you might be interested in joining the discussion there... L.tak (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed U.S.-specific assertion re passport revocation in cases of child support arrears
I removed an unsupported assertion saying, "A limitation or a revocation is generally subject to judicial review. In the United States, persons with debts exceeding $2,500.00 in child support may have their passports revoked whilst still valid." from the passports as government property section because the assertion appears to be unrelated to the topic of the section.

The assertion appears to be incorrect, in that the threshold for denial or revocation in cases of child support arrears appears to be $5,000. See, ,. Even if corrected, this point seems too detailed for this article -- even for the United States section. A corrected and source-supported assertion might pass WP:DUE considerations in the United States passport article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Why did you remove the general statement  A limitation or a revocation is generally subject to judicial review? This right of JR is not limited to the US, and demonstrates constraints on the concept of 'government ownership' of passports, despite what might be written on them or elsewhere.If you feel it need a ref. why not just tag it ? RashersTierney (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2010


 * That was unintentional, and was an error. I've restored the material which I removed in error. Thanks for pointing out my error. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No prob. RashersTierney (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Iroquois passport
See - Iroquois passport is listed as "fantasy passport" in Schengen. In contrast to SMOM passport. Maybe we should move it to the fantasy/camouflage section? Alinor (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Dimensions of passports
The section on ICAO standards is silent on size standards. Are all passports the same size? Does the term "passport sized photo" mean exactly the same thing everywhere? Roger (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That old chestnut
I have removed a stale reference to the JPost in the Israeli visa restrictions, notably that for Saudi Arabia. Although it is widely assumed that KSA restricts entry to people who visited Israel (and a conspicuous Ben Gurion stamp is probably not going to earn you the immigration official's sympathy), to my knowledge there is no such restriction de jure. I tried to check the reference provided, which a priori seemed to be an opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post, but that is no longer available, so I have removed both the link to the source and the assertion it was alleged to support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.85.106 (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove 'stale' or 'dead' links. Mark them with this template instead Template:Dead link. If you disagree with the assertion, that is a different matter which can be discussed here. RashersTierney (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Naming Russian passport articles
Hi, RashersTierney! Just noticed that you've reverted my two atricle renamings: Unfortunately you did not choose an opportunity to ask me about the reasons for my renaming — I'm online now, working upon the whole scope articles about passport systems of Russian Empire, USSR and Russian Federation. I know that you are not obliged to do that, however…
 * Passport (Russian Federation) back to Russian passport
 * Passport (USSR) back to Soviet Union passport

You wrote in your comments, that the versions you insist upon are "more consistent with other national passport articles". I shall not argue against this approach as a whole, but let me point at one obvious flaw — at least, in the name Russian passport. This name is applicable to the two historical epochs, two different types of passports. I mean the ones of Russian Empire and of Russian Federation. Both are called "Russian passports" in literature and in common parlance — however here, in Wikipedia this is a classical case for a disambig.

So far, let me insist upon reverting back the first change I mentioned: allowing me to use "Russian passport" later on to create a disambig page — as soon, as I write Passport (Russian Empire). I hope for your understanding that my renames were not the result of momentary desire :))), and that the reasons for having Passport (Russian Federation) had their grounds. Regards, Cherurbino (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Russian passport → Passport (Russian Federation)
 * Please do not revert these changes. This is not a unique naming situation. See for example British passport and British Indian passport - German passport and East German passport. Your approach to article naming is entirely inconsistent with other passport article names. If you need further clarification, please seek it either here or at the relevant article talk pages. RashersTierney (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the prompt reply (and for the template that I'll surely borrow:))!
 * Well, how about:


 * 1) Passport of the Russian Federation or Russian Federation Passport (a new name; it shall fit in the standard)
 * 2) Passport (Russian Federation) — you may delete it upon renaming; I agree it doesn't fit
 * 3) Russian passport — please leave it as redirect until I'll make a disambig on it? Cherurbino (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If Russian Federation was an article distinct from Russia, then I think you would have an obvious case for having 2 separate passport articles. But the former term is just a redirect to the later, which is how I think Russian Federation passport should be handled, as a re-direct to 'Russian passport'. Soviet Union passport should be considered separately, as it is at the moment. I find no pressing need for a dab page for Russian passports, which would needlessly fork historically related content. RashersTierney (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: "If Russian Federation was an article distinct from Russia — it's another problematic point here in en-wiki. From two basic points of view, historical period + territory, there should be two separate articles. The necessity for that is indirectly confirmed by your statement, which I unreservedly support :
 * "Soviet Union &#91;passport&#93; should be considered separately"
 * USSR is something between Russian Empire and Russian Federation, thus breaking all historical continuities. Hence, materials related to specific objects which can be found in both of these hypostasis, may have all reasons to be presented separately. Oppositely, a lacuna related to the USSR should inevitavely gape in this article.
 * As for the passports, it seems to be clearly evident that the ones of Russian Empire and the ones of Russian Empire should be presented in different articles. Two different types of documents, two different states. Not only by territory, but (what is more important in this case) in terms of their political and state structures. Which ultimately predetermines the organization of police, ministries and, finally, the forms of documents.
 * So, speaking in terms of fork, I would insist that the one exists in the present state of the Russia article. To be consistent to the end, one may want to merge USSR amidst it. If you consider this idea to be kinda WP:DISRUPTPOINT — I shall agree, and add that the same approach should be applied to the idea about merging two kind of "Russian passports". Beleive me: passports of Rus.Emp. and Rus.Fed. are not a "historically related content"!— Sincerely, Cherurbino (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

travel within china
While you need a national id card to travel between mainland china, macao, or hong kong, you also need one to travel between any of the provinces. This is mostly because they try to schedule and plan population growth at the provincial level, but the only thing that is special about travel to the special administative regions and the rest of china is that the national id card, issued by china, has the name of the SAR instead of any other province. Back when Hong Kong was a different country there used to be a difference going beyond the title of the document, to allow travel back to mainland china. Now, and for some time, the appearance is basically the primary difference. --—  r obbie  page talk 22:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No, what you probably referring to is the hukou (household registration) system; it is used to regulate immigration within the country in a way by restricting certain government services available to those outside of their registered place of residence. One can move their household registration to somewhere else, but that means lots of paperwork. The national ID card is not used as a travel document; its purpose is to establish the identity of the holder. There are no immigration checkpoints at the provincial borders within mainland China; immigration checkpoints exist between mainland China and the SARs. And no, the national ID card isn't used to travel between the SARs and the mainland; Two-way Permit (for mainlanders) and Home Return Permit (for SAR residents) are used. Also, the various documents looks nothing alike (see also Hong Kong Identity Card and Macau Special Administrative Region Resident Identity Card, which are issued by the respective SARs). -- Joshua Say "hi" to me!What I've done? 11:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

British Common Travel Area
New section is needed for the common travel area of the Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man where no formal national documentation is required for nationals of each territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.120.224 (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

19th century British passport message
Copperplate script 7617 We, Archibald Philip Earl of Rosebery, Viscount Rosebery, Viscount Inverkeithing, Baron Primrose and Dalmeny in the Peerage of Scotland, Baron Rosebery in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, a  Baronet of Nova Scotia, a Member of Her Britannic Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council,  a Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Her Majesty's Principle Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, &c., &c., &c., Request and require in the Name of Her Majesty, all those to whom it may concern to allow William Alfred Rae Wood (British Subject) traveling on the Continent to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford him every assistance and protection of which he may stand in need. Given at the Foreign Office London the 8 day of September 1893. [signature] Roseberry Signature of the Bearer W.A.R. Wood --Pawyilee (talk) 11:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Why are you posting this info here? Are you seeking comment for inclusion in the article? RashersTierney (talk) 11:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I am. As presently reads, For example, in a United Kingdom passport, the rubric reads: ..., I propose changing to: For example, in a late 19th century United Kingdom passport, the rubric in copperplate script read: "WE [names and titles of secretary of foreign affairs, amounting to 66 words] &c., &c., &c., Request and require in the Name of Her Majesty, all those to whom it may concern to allow..., but since considerably shortened to.... If the change is made, should the bracketed remark remain more-or-less as is, or replaced with the full title from this one 1893 example? --Pawyilee (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That section also contains a number of contemporary 'requests' of other states, so the inclusion of a historic example would be an anomaly, in my opinion. RashersTierney (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I agree with you. What about History? That section currently has an image of a 19th Japanese passport, and furthermore says, Early passports included a description of the passport holder. W.A.R. Wooods' had none on the message page, but the only image I have is of that one page, in his copyrighted book.--Pawyilee (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: As this is primarily a tourism article, I'll just leave the historical note here and wait to see if it attracts any interest. --Pawyilee (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

National conditions on passport issuance
The first line of this section was recently changed from Each country sets conditions for the issue of a passport. to Countries can set conditions for the issue of a passport. (my emphasis). The new wording is more ambiguous than the former, in my view. It gives the impression that a state's prerogative on setting 'conditions' for the issuance of passports is the exception rather than the default, or that some other entity (ICOS?) has a say in deciding whether or not a passport should be granted. All states determine their own conditions for granting passports. They may or may not even recognise an explicit legal/constitutional right to a passport. The new wording adds nothing but doubt on this matter, and should be reverted or otherwise clarified. RashersTierney (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The phrase "each country sets conditions" implies that each and every country does so. Is that a fact? As far as I know, there are some countries in which the only requirement is that you're a citizen of that country. The new phrase, in combination with the rest of the chapter, states that countries have a right (but not an obligation) to set conditions, and gives a few examples. Nothing ambiguos about that.
 * However, if you prefer, you could start with "Many countries set conditions" or even "Most countries set conditions".
 * Richard 08:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is a fact. Name one state that doesn't retain the right to determine its own conditions for the issuing of passports, or to alter them as it sees fit? The distinction you imply is spurious. States retain the right to grant or refuse passports as a matter of sovereignty. RashersTierney (talk) 09:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rashers. The debate is not if those conditions are light or heavy, but whether they are imposed by the (government of the) state. And even if the condition is mainly nationality, there will be other conditions of a practical nature (provide a photograph against a red/grey/white background, without a scarf; pay a fee; come in person etcetc). To remove the focus on each country, we could remove "each" (Countries set conditions), so that there is not too much focus on the "each and every country"-part... L.tak (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've no problem with the wording being tweeked on such lines, so long as the fundamental meaning outlined is retained. RashersTierney (talk) 09:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, with reference. RashersTierney (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied with the current wording. However, when I tried to access the reference, I was presented with a page that states "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book". After removing the quotes from the query that problem was solved. Richard 09:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Europe
The page says "However, all Turkish Cypriots are entitled by law to the issue of a Republic of Cyprus EU passport,..." Using the definition of Turkish Cypriots given by the hyperlink: "Turkish Cypriots (Turkish: Kıbrıs Türkleri or Kıbrıslı Türkler; Greek: Τουρκοκύπριοι) are ethnic Turks living in or originating from Cyprus." that is manifestly incorrect. Only persons (residents of Northern Cyprus or otherwise) who can claim Cypriot citizenship by descent are recognized as citizens of the Republic of Cyprus, to the exclusion of most ethnic Turks whose parents and/or ancestors migrated from Turkey after 1974. Offspring of two parents with pre-1974 Cypriot status reportedly are readily recognized; some offspring of one such parent have reported bureaucratic hurdles, whatever that means. Apparently something over 30,000 denizens of the North carry RoC passports.

The problem is that nobody wants to say much for the record about what TRNC passports are worth and whether and how a so-called "special passport" issued by Turkey is available to those who cannot get RoC passports. The State Department's "Reciprocity Page" denies validity to TRNC passports and indeed puts in scare quotes just about every legal act of the nonrecognized government: "Constitution" and "law" included. In reality, at least in the past, the USA and a number of other countries would take TRNC passports at least as proof of identity and then issue a travel document on a separate secure form. The TRNC Government claimed as late as Jan. 29, 2013 that six countries (USA, Australia, UK, France, Sweden, Turkey) allowed travelers to use TRNC passports: https://web.archive.org/web/20130129203423/http://www.trncinfo.com/index.asp?page=272 (the site is apparently now down, that's the Wayback Machine version). In real life, it's hard to say: TRNC is a "non-state" and yet it is a democratic "non-state" with free and fair elections (the State Dept. Human Rights Report says) with laws and citizens and a system that works internally. It's one of those things where "plausible denial" notwithstanding, countries work with the TRNC authorities by reason of necessity: to hinder crime including terrorism, money laundering, drug smuggling and so on.

Yet even having searched all morning, I can't find anything authoritative on TRNC passports. Except that they exist, and that there are TRNC representatives in London and New York among other places who issue them.

I am not intending to "discuss the subject" but rather show why (aside from correcting that one statement I cited at the beginning) it's not possible to draft an analysis of TRNC using secondary sources. There is simply nothing reliable out there, only anecdotal information: what people actually do and say they do. And AFAIK "primary sources" are excluded from Wikipedia. Andygx (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Around the World in Eighty Days
There was a long addition today citing a passage from Around the World in Eighty Days. It seems a bit wordy and off topic, but I'd appreciate the input of others. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your analysis was spot on: wordy and irrelevant. I deleted it.  It was more commentary. Onel5969 (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Quebec no longer issue passport card.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport#North_America

Quebec is no longer issuing its version of passport card, the Permis de conduire Plus.

http://www.saaq.gouv.qc.ca/en/driver_licence/licence_plus/activation.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.222.118 (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Added Argentine Passport Message Due to Lack of S. American Messages
I added the Argentine passport message due to a lack of S. American passport messages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcat9 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Request page
Unless someone can find a source justifying the importance of comparing different countries' requests (let alone doing so verbatim), I think the whole section should be trimmed to the current first two sentences. FourViolas (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Maybe you could keep the last sentence, but given the fact that it has an unfulfilled citation request since June 2012, I don't think it would really be missed. Richard 08:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ with last sentence kept for now. FourViolas (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Passport validity map
What does it mean if a country is striped on the map? 108.254.160.23 (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That not all passports issued by that country have the same validity. Richard 09:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Passportland.com is gone
It looks like www.passportland.com is no more. There are 52 links to that site from this and other articles. Should we remove them, or does anybody know if the content is available somewhere else in which case we could change the links to the new address? Sjö (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Swedish ID card and passport-free travel
The Swedish police is so full of sh*t (excuse the language). They somehow believe that, just because they will stop you if trying to leave Schengen from a Swedish airport without a passport, you could impossibly change flights in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Poland...you name it, and reach the desired destination with only an ID card, provided the destination country accepts it.

My grandmother regularly goes to Macedonia (neither in the EU nor Schengen, but accepts ID cards) and does not have a passport. She simply changes flights in Vienna or takes the bus from Budapest on the outbound trip, and flies directly on the return trip (which is possible according to the passport law)

In fact, from July onwards, direct travel to Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Ireland, Romania and the United Kingdom will be permitted with an ID card, though not to Albania, Bosnia, Georgia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia (even though they accept them) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.201.96 (talk • contribs)
 * The article does not say that it is not possible. It says it is not allowed. Citizens of the German Democratic Republic were generally not allowed to travel to Western Europe. It was allowed to travel to Hungary. From there, they could travel to other countries - even those in Western Europe. The fact that the Hungarian authorities did not stop them, does not mean their own government approved. Richard 08:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I get what you mean, but due to this way of describing it, as a kid I always thought my ID card (Swedish) was invalid in countries like the UK. Only in recent years have I realized otherwise, and Wikipedia should not spread such misleading info just because Swedish police does.
 * The Swedish ID card is just as accepted in Europe as other EU/EEA ones (except not in Egypt or Turkey, unlike, say, German cards, and also, like other EU/EEA cards, not in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine).
 * Also, again, the passport law only prohibits leaving Schengen without a passport: for re-entry, it does not require a passport "if the citizenship can otherwise be made clear" André Devecserii (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC).
 * Yes, it is a Swedish thing. It has got confusing since the Swedish police and therefore media (who has asked the police) has claimed that they were not valid in the UK and some more EU countries, which was not true since around 2007.--BIL (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If I have understood correctly, the Swedish rules are based on a badly formulated EU rule saying that the passport control has to accept foreign national identity cards, which was then interpreted too literally to mean that domestic national identity cards aren't accepted. Outside Sweden, a Swedish national identity card is a 'foreign' national identity card, meaning that it should be accepted everywhere. This means that you can't take a direct flight from Sweden to the UK using a national identity card but that you can fly from Sweden to the UK using the same card provided that you transit through a third country, or you could take the train. Very stupid rule. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My point exactly! Imagine the following two trips being made: Stockholm - Copenhagen - London - Stockholm and Stockholm - London - Copenhagen - Stockholm. The first is possible with only an ID Card, whereas the second is not.
 * I actually asked Justitieministeriet why they won't allow travel anywhere that accepts the ID card (just like all other countries!) now that they're about to allow for pan-EU travel. I simply got "it's not included in the project". Well, that's not an answer, only begs the question. André Devecseri (talk) 07:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually the former Swedish law, not to allow national id cards when leaving Schengen but not EU, was based on a misunderstood comment about the suggested law change from the prison authority which wrote lengthy about the problems to get back escapees who have fled the country, and that Swedish law allowed cancellation of passports but not national id cards for prisoners. In the end of the text they wrote that they accepted the suggested law but wanted cancellation of national id cards for prisoners. Someone did not read to the end of the text and summarised the comments to the law by writing that the prison authority did not approve the law. This time when the law allowing national id cards to outside Schengen was to be introduced, the prison authority wrote much shorter approximately "we accept the law change but do, like last time, wish that national id cards can be cancelled for prisoners."--BIL (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How is the following incorrect? Sweden issues National Identity Cards, but its Passport Law does not allow a Swedish citizen to travel outside the Schengen Area without a passport, which is in violation of EU freedom of movement. [64][65] However, in practice, all European countries except Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Turkey accept the card, as does Georgia. Travel is therefore possible to these countries by changing flights in another Schengen country*
 * It clearly states that according to Swedish law, it is not allowed to use the card outside Schengen, but in practice, this can be circumvented by changing planes, because other countries do accept it. It is a fact and furthermore, the sentence points out both sides of the coin 178.83.201.96 (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't incorrect, but neither was what was there before. However, when you put it the article, you undid some other unrelated changes. By the way: I don't think the principle only works for air travellers. Richard 08:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Passport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070801212645/http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/08/epassport to http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/08/epassport
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120911092930/http://www.immigration.govt.nz:80/nzis/operations_manual/5495.htm to http://www.immigration.govt.nz/nzis/operations_manual/5495.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Passport vs. letter of recommendation
The history part about Nehemia is quite fascinating - never thought of that as an early type of passport.

I have been wondering though if this wasn't more like a letter of recommendation, which - I would imagine - must have been quite common even way back in history. Wouldn't messengers of kings etc. usually have some sort of letter or document with them to identify and legitimatize them?

Wondering: Would passports and letters of recommendation actually be historically related? Might be interesting to find out, and possibly add to the article. Unfortunately, the Nehemia section is unsourced, so it's kind of difficult to follow up on that. --93.212.232.58 (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Passport pic in lead
Up until approximately a month ago, the lead had no picture of a passport. Then someone added (I think it was Lebanese) a passport photo of a generic passport. Since then, there have been several other passport put up. Didn't really have a problem with it, until the last few days when a Russian one was replaced, and then relatively quickly the Russian one was put back. Unless we can come up with a consensus on which passport should be in the lead, we should probably not have one, to pre-empt any potential edit wars over a certain country being there. Thoughts?  Onel 5969  TT me 17:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more if I wanted to. Richard 08:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like this would be the answer. Should there not also be a "criticism" section?  (Particularly with the introduction of biometric data, the growing concerns attendant upon such measures, and the increasing demands of proof of identity in the wake of the "War on Terror" and so forth.)  Just a thought.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:1AB2:2D00:3469:BF11:3FB5:7D0E (talk) 06:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I have to disagree. Every Wikipedia article should have an image or photograph in the lead, and the fact that editors aren't agreeing on which of the many photos we have available to use for the article does not, in my mind, equate to us having no photo at all.  It isn't possible to protect the passport image chosen unless the entire article is edit protected, which also seems to be a bad idea.  We could do this: we could insert an image of a passport and include an HTML remark telling editors not to change it without prior discussion here on the talk page.  Alternatively, we could include a single image composed of several other images of passports (maybe 4 or 6) which would make it very difficult for an editor to justify replacing it with an image of just one passport, and would require that editor to put together an image him/ herself of an equivalent number of such images in order to justify replacing the existing image, and my guess is that this just won't happen.  I will put together a composite image myself this evening and insert it into the article and see what happens, unless there are any objections. A loose necktie (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Or fewer
Should be "or fewer" rather than "or less" in the png. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.172.2 (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

" Графа 5 "
" Язык "

176.59.198.76 (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)