Talk:Passport/Archive 2

message: The old review has been overtaken by time. Time for another. Spartaz 07:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: Okay, started this section a bit late, but as I commented to Spartaz earlier, this article contains information pertaining to visa-free travel (and in fact the visa article specifically points readers to this article to find out about visa exemption schemes). This struck me as very strange. There should be links between the visa-free travel and passport-free travel sections (since they are sometimes related and since passports and visas are also closely connected), but they should be under their respective articles, i.e. Visa (document) and Passport respectively. Although related, visa-free travel and passport-free travel are not the same thing.
Now that the gallery has been removed (which is good since galleries can very well form their own articles, e.g. Gallery of banknotes) there should be more space, but unfortunately you can no longer quickly link to the articles about the passports of individual countries. Therefore I suggest that a template of the world's passports organized by continents should be made (the template would have to have the "Hide" and "Show" feature of course so it wouldn't fill up too much of the page).
Finally I think there might be enough information about "Common Passports" or "Common Passport Designs" to warrant a new section in the article. After all there are common formats for passports of countries from various regional organizations such as the European Union (EU), Caribbean Community (CARICOM), Central America (Parlacen or CACM - not sure under which the common passport falls), Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) - with a common passport as well as a common travel certificate which can be used in place of a passport, the Andean Community and the East African Community (EAC). There was also apparently a proposed common passport for the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) but this was overtaken and made redundant by the CARICOM passport and there are plans (or at least suggestions) for a Mercosur passport and a passport for the Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa (CEMAC) which may or may not have come into existence yet. So overall thats at least 6 regional organizations on 3 continents that have common passport designs with 2 more that have plans for such passports. Related to this (but more appropriate under the Visa (document) article is the issue of common visas (Schengen visas for most EU and some non-EU states, the CARICOM visa and the Central American common visa).72.27.6.86 03:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. lets write it up and see how it looks. Spartaz 07:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, well the last part should be fairly simple since there is already a subsection in the article on "Common designs" (under "Standards"), I had thought that the amount of additional information might make the subsection so long that we should just turn it into a new section, but then again the current format looks fine. The current subsection though only details 3 existing common designs and one proposed (one which I had left out too), so I'll see if I can find more information on the ECOWAS and EAC passports (the ECOWAS wikipedia article only has 2 sentences on the ECOWAS travel certificate and the ECOWAS passport and the EAC article says nothing about passports although a web reference made mention of the launch of the EAC passport). I'll start though by summarizing the information for the Andean passport and the failed OECS passport from their wikipedia articles.72.27.6.86 03:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating ''Visa''-free from ''Passport''-free Travel, Passports template and Common Passports 

message: If it's true that Russia is still issuing and continues to honor USSR passports, perhaps this should be noted somewhere in the article? And if this is true, how does this relate to the legality of USSR camouflage passports? metaspheres 15:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Russia has used up its old stock of former USSR passports and are now only issuing Russian passports - both with MID and UVD.  I am very sceptical of the Soviet Camouflage passports. Until someone provides reliable sources that are not some dodgy website, I'm not persuaded that they exist. --Spartaz 16:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet passports still being issued? 

message: Article was semi protected to deter a persistant IP linkspammer. I have already asked for it to be lifted at WP:RPP and was told it would be gone in a day or two. Can someone remind me to check or make a further request if this doesn't happen? --Spartaz 22:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-Protection 

message: In documents about the Barbary Wars I find several passports for ships (and those aboard).  Most of the documents are text, although I have one image.  Their purpose seems to be similar to passports for individuals (identification as belonging to the United States and request to be allowed to travel).  Is a different name now used for this kind of document?  (SEWilco 06:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not heard of that before. Is this still current I wonder? Might be worth aspearate article. They way we are going we will soon need  a disambiguation page. --Spartaz 06:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found a U.S. government PDF which refers to it as a Mediterranean Passport which was used during that time period (but mentions through 1845, which is 30 years after Second Barbary War).  I see the British called it a "Mediterranean Pass".  Anyone know of other usage?  (SEWilco 17:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Created Mediterranean pass and will link to it.  (SEWilco 19:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I left you a note on your talk page but well done for putting that together so quickly. --Spartaz 20:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ship passports 

message: With regards to the recent edits to the introduction (), it seems an appropriate source would be... well, a country saying so. A private individual asserting "there is no need for a passport if they agree in advance with a country that they will travel without one" implies a country exists which will recognise such an agreement, and we can thus point to that... a video by an obscure political group doesn't seem the best of sources. (The wording also seems somewhat polemical to me, but that's another issue)
The CCPR which you linked to doesn't mention passports; it does mention a freedom of moment within a state and freedom to leave a country in Art. 17, but it also states that this is able to be subject to restrictions "which are provided by law ... and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant". It seems a bit of a stretch to reach the quoted conclusions from it Shimgray | talk | 00:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "No need for a passport", etc 

message: In the USA, it is possible to get a second passport for use to get visas while traveling and dealing with situations where one country denies entry to people who have visited another country. It might be useful to include some information on this provision and other situations that allow for a person to have multipal passports. 76.190.206.44 02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obtaining a second US passport 

message: "In both systems [UK and Schengen] it is not allowed to stamp the passports of persons not subject to Immigration Control, for example citizens of that country (or other EU nationals within the European Union)."
Does this mean that you may get an EU entrance stamp in EU passports if you are going from a non-EU, non-EFTA country and directly into a Schengen country or the UK, but not if you travel between Schengen and the UK? I was able to, upon request, obtain a Dutch entrance stamp in my Swedish passport at Schiphol airport when entering Schengen from Japan. (Stefan2 22:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: EU countries do not stamp passports from EU countries ever. (though your case proves that if you ask nicely they may stamp them). I have a six year old passport, which does not have a single stamp in it, though in that time I have been in and out of most western European countries many times. TiffaF 07:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Also if you have an EU format residence permit you don't get stamped in and out of Schengen. Spartaz Humbug! 08:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have a stamp in my Danish passport for leaving Copenhagen, and entering both Italy and Austria. I suppose it is possible and they do it! 209.121.221.235 07:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU stamps in EU passports 

message: This is another identity document issued by governments that can be used to travel to other countries in lieu of a passport.  It's used by merchant seamen.  I suppose it's similar to a military ID.  Do military personnel need a passport when traveling?
:I have heard of a "Seaman's Card" which seamen carry instead of a passport. I have also heard that this exempts you from some visa requirements, for example if travelling to join a ship you can enter a country at an airport and travel directly to the port using a seaman's card (or vice-versa). There is no article on this in Wikipedia (I looked a few months back). Can any seamen out there say if this system still exists?
:Re: military personnel, they are covered by whatever agreement exists between the country they belong to and the "host" country, see Status of Forces Agreement. This usually allows the foreign military to transport troops and their equipment direct to a military base without needing to go through passport or customs (what is the customs duty due on a tank? :-)). Civilians (families) are sometimes not covered, and do need passports and to go via customs. Of course if the military personnel are invading the country, nobody is going to ask for their passports! TiffaF 07:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Holders of seqaman's books on duty don't require visas if both the recieving country and the issuer of the seaman's book have signed ILO convention 108. Nato forces can travel within Nato on military ID cards (+orders in some cases) Spartaz Humbug! 08:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about seaman's papers? 

message: Does anyone actually object to my proposed wording:
:Queen Elizabeth II
:Though Elizabeth II is separately monarch of sixteen countries, she does not possess any passport as in each state passports are issued in her name as Queen of that particular kingdom. This situation similarly applied to the present Queen's predecessors, within the various territories of which they were sovereign.  
If so, please explain why.
From my view it addresses the concerns of User:Lonewolf BC (extraneous info r.e. GGs and ministers); User:Jonathan David Makepeace (previous monarchs); and Charles and myself (POV elevation of UK above other countries). --G2bambino 14:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The present Queen's predecessors weren't 'Head of the Commonwealth', they were 'Head of the British Empire'. The British monarch edit is more historically accurate. GoodDay 15:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Queen's father was Head of the Commonwealth, but I fail to see the relevance.  The section in question says nothing about anyone's role as Head of the Commonwealth, nor should it. Could you explain? --G2bambino 16:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The passport in the UK and the British empire/Commonwealth, existed long before George VIs reign. By using Elizabeth II it give the impression the passport (in question) came into existance 'only' in 1952. GoodDay 17:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, GoodDay, I just don't get it. What does the Head of the Commonwealth have to do with anything pertaining to passports? Indeed, what do you mean by "the passport"?  The section's speaking about sixteen passports - non-existent ones, mind you - and my proposal does mention that the current situation similarly applied to EIIR's predecessors within the various territories over which they reigned, be they colonies, Dominions, or Realms. --G2bambino 00:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your proposal does not address my concerns.  Saying that the British monarch doesn't need a Papua New Guinean passport when travelling abroad (Papua New Guinea being a Commonwealth realm) is rather like saying she doesn't need a Mongolian passport when travelling abroad.  It is superfluous to the point of being absurd and bewildering.  Jonathan David Makepeace 17:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Your parallel might make sense if EIIR were actually Queen of Mongolia. So, what in my proposal, again, is superfluous? Please be specific. --G2bambino 00:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this wording. Jonathan, Please see reason Brian | (Talk) 19:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: Please can everyone involved in this unseemly dispute see the above link. I'm a regular editor on this article and have recused from admin activity but its only fair to warn you all that the revert warring on this article needs to stop, Now.  3RR is about revert warring. You don't need to have made 4 reverts to receive sanctions and this is extremely likely if this issue continues to be fought over in edit summaries. Please use the talk page to reach a consensus and stop disrupting the article on such a narrow point. The article is being considered for an improvement drive. I doubt people will bother if the article is unstable or protected because of a revert war. Your actions have the potential to prevent the improvement of this article. Please stop now.  Spartaz Humbug! 10:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed 'wholeheartedly'. These 'edit wars' have been popping up all over the 'Commonwealth' related articles. The repeat offenders  should be blocked. Page protection hurts innocent editors (which is unfair & unproductive). This constant dispute of All are equal VS UK, first among equals (which links these continous edit wars) is highly 'disruptive'. GoodDay 15:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps instead of asking for everyone you don't like to be blocked, it might be more productive in the long run to have all users adhere to the facts that were well established at a number of other articles, instead of some going from article to article in an attempt to push the POV based edits that they failed to be able to do elsewhere.  It's that which starts up the same old argument again and again.  This matter of the Realms being equal has been settled for a long, long time now at Commonwealth Realm, Balfour Declaration of 1926, Statute of Westminster 1931, British monarchy, Monarchy in Canada, Monarchy in Australia, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, etc. Yes, I'm generally a participant, given my interests and knowledge, but I'm sure if you look at the history of those pages and their related talk pages, you'll see the pattern of just who the characters are who time and time again start this type of edit war and repetitive, circular argument, tying up incalculable amounts of time and bandwidth. --G2bambino 16:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming you're speaking to me - I neither 'like' or 'dislike' anyone at Wikipedia ('cause I've never met them personally). Continued discussion on the 'discussion pages' is no problem (I find them highly intelligent & educational), there's limitless space. The 'edit wars' on the other hand are annoying, disruptive, unproductive and tend to highten emotions in everyone. If you're not speaking to me (but rather Spartaz), my blooper. GoodDay 17:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting silly now. I have held back from making many comments over this, however, it is time for this to end, however, when it ends, on all articles needs to be correct, and correctly, it is not British Monarch ruling the waves any more. Each Realm (which is capitalised on the Place site, I've just checked) has their Own Monarch. I was reading a offical Aussie government document the other day, that states that the Queen is a citizen or subject of nowhere, and the Royal Family Members are Subjects of the Queen, in all Her Realms (NB Subject, not citizen) Brian | (Talk) 20:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Each realm has their "own" monarch, who just happens to be the British monarch. It is disingenuous to try and claim otherwise. TharkunColl 21:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only the UK Realm has the British Monarch, Realm of New Zealand, Commonwealth of Australia, has the New Zealand Monarch, and the Australian Monarch respectably etc Brian | (Talk) 21:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, let's not go down this road again. GoodDay 21:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do they? What are the names of these monarchs then? TharkunColl 21:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be Elizabeth II of New Zealand, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Elizabeth II of Australia, this is all backed up by the British, NZ and Aussie governments! I am going to agree with GoodDay and not continue down this road TharkunColl, you will never see reason on this topic, never Brian | (Talk) 21:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd that they all have the same name, isn't it? Perhaps it's because they're all the same person. TharkunColl 21:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Meaning no offence, Brian, but I must say that your taking part in an edit-war by reverting to the version you favour, and then admonishing everyone else to use the talk-page, was not exactly cricket and more than a little hypocritical.  If you want people to stop edit-warring, do not further the edit-war, yourself.  Granted, that is somewhat "cold", now, on the time-scale on which this page has been operating, but please think about it for the future. -- Lonewolf BC 21:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lonewolf FYI, my revert was sound, I reverted an edit, that was not made with consensus on the tlakpage, it was one revert, and I was asking users to take his issue to the talkpage, not the article page. Brian | (Talk) 21:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to say this, but no, it was not sound.  It was a revert (albeit the first by yourself) in an active edit-war, and only fostering the war's continuation.  Neither version then had consensus (or does now) any more than the other.  If you want to get technical, Bold-Revert-Discuss would have given some legitimacy to a revert to the last stable consensus on this stuff, but your revert was in the opposite direction to that.  By this stage in the war, though, common sense would have dictated your leaving the text alone until talk-page discussion had settled the matter.  If I have not now convinced you to act differently henceforth, should you come upon alike situations, then let us drop this.  And again, I mean no offence by raising it.  The revert, especially given its edit-summary, struck me as odd and unfitting, back when I first saw it, and the partisanship your subsequent posts show for that version has prompted me to say something.  Please think about what I have said, but it does not matter any more, here. -- Lonewolf BC 22:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The Secretary-General of the Commonwealth does not agree with your separatist view of the nature of the monarchy. TharkunColl 21:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah guys? Let's put out the spark on this keg? GoodDay 21:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. What did I say above about the same people instigating the same useless argument? --G2bambino 00:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:G2bambino_reported_by_User:Lonewolf_BC_.28Result:.29|3RR Warning]] 

message: Let's omit mention of the 'monarch'. That way we can remove the All are equal VS UK, first among equals tiresome argument. GoodDay 20:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or option number two, remove this section all together. Or, number three, I'm sure there must be other world monarchs who do not, and can not have a passport, if do, this section should then be expanded to include all Monarchs Brian | (Talk) 22:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I like option numbet two. GoodDay 22:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I love a happy ending. GoodDay 23:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not going to put it back. But I'd still like to see some valid discussion about my proposal above. Not a pressing matter, though. --G2bambino 00:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your proposal was 'historically limited', British passports existed before Elizabeth II's reign. GoodDay 16:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: And that's exactly what my proposal says.  Let me highlight it for you: This situation similarly applied to the present Queen's predecessors, within the various territories of which they were sovereign. --G2bambino 19:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try a different section heading - British Imperial/Commonwealth monarchs it's reflects the evolution of the 'British Empire' becoming the 'Commonwealth'. GoodDay 19:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "Commonwealth Monarchs" include those of Lesotho, Malaysia, Brunei, etc. Again, my proposal already addresses monarchs before EIIR. Are there any actual issues with my suggested composition? --G2bambino 01:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Composition is acceptable, title isn't (don't name it Elizabeth II). GoodDay 21:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Why is the title "Queen Elizabeth II," then, not acceptable for the section it heads? --G2bambino 15:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-read the proposal (I was confused - due to Commonwealth Realm discussions fatigue). Elizabeth II is acceptable. GoodDay 18:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, I see.  Well, Commonwealth Realm fatigue is understandable.  It's become somewhat of an epidemic, I think. --G2bambino 01:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another possibility 

message: I've re-added a different version of the section, in the hope that by cutting the contentious parts and concentrating on the original topic of the section -- the British monarch's lack of a need for a passport, and the reason for that -- the fighting over it will be quieted without losing the information altogether.If the revised, re-added section is unacceptable to you, say so below and I will self-revert its addition. -- Lonewolf BC 01:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this 'latest' edit (re-addition of British monarch, with modifications) gets reverted or edited to Elizabeth II; then it's best to leave section 'out'. GoodDay 16:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have any issue with what you did; it explains the situation in the UK quite well.  But, what about the other countries?  EIIR is queen of 15 other nations and doesn't have a passport from any of them either for the same reason she doesn't have one in the UK.  How do we address that, if at all? --G2bambino 19:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the appreciation -- and also for making me realise that I'd made interpretations going beyond what the source actually says -- correct interpretations, I think, of what the source is driving at, but "original research", even so.  I've re-edited to cut them out.  Your comment about the US S-o-S ;-) are likewise OR-ish; perhaps the source's explanation does not altogether make sense, but that is what it says.Going back to the status quo ante of this section is, I think, a very bad idea under the present circumstances.  If we open the worm-can of the other Commonwealth realms again, by putting mention of them back into the section, we'll have a big mess of worms crawling all over the place again, so to speak.  If you consider the present version unacceptable, though -- I'm unsure whether you consider it that, or whether you'd just rather reinstate the old version -- just let me know and I'll self-revert it back to nought.  I'm afraid that's really what this business has come to. :-( -- Lonewolf BC 07:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A less extreme attempt at a solution 

message: Can someone acquainted with the disputes on this page please reconstruct your RfC so that outside editors can know what issues you're wanting comment about? See WP:RFC for instructions on how to properly prepare an RfC. Your listing at Template:RFCsoc list states "This RfC is improperly constructed with no place to offer comments on the talk page." --Yksin 21:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I researched the talk page edit history & fixed the RfC tags myself. Carry on. --Yksin 21:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do you want comments about? 

message: i've noticed than when i go on vacations, that all hotels now require a photocopy of your passport.  why is this?  and is this really allowed?  (Simon.uk.21 01:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Within the Schengen countries, and many other countries the hotels must register the name, citizenship and number of every foreign guest. For this, the passport (or maybe a photocopy, or within EU a national ID card) must be shown at check-in. This is to locate criminals and terrorists. --BIL (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  hotels and passports 

message: Is the section on really necessary? It seems to belong to a debate on Irish citizenship???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.137.71 (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland 

message: Some edits by previous editors are questionable and it seemed that the editor are not very familiar with the subject. Terms like "Hong Kong passport" are seldomly used by locals, nor the PRC govt (HK never issue passports on its own right). He failed to realise the existence of British Nationality Selection Scheme (and PRC's attitude towards the scheme). Some corrections have been made.
BN(O) (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  HK and Macau 

message: I came back to this article after a lengthy break and I see that the article now requires considerable amounts of clean up. I intend to start this over the next week or so. My intention is to push this towards being an article about passports in general and hive off material that is relevant only to a specific document to that countries passport article. There also seems to have been an increase in unreferenced opinion in places and this will be removed or restored to straight facts. I have posted this note to allow users on this page to discuss and comment on my views before I start. Spartaz Humbug! 11:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: The line about the ROC point of entry bothers me, but I didn't want to delete it in case it was actually real. I ended up tagging it as needing a citation. Any thoughts? --Superpika66 (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PRC vs. ROC 

message: Someone might want to verify point four of the requirements for Pakistani Muslims.......doesnt quite sound right but not having a Pakistani Passport handy, I cant verify it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.56.199 (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  National conditions on passport issuance 

message: Isnt the image of the "israeli passport" actually an identity card ?
Please remove image from article if so  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.166.20 (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen an Israeli passport before, but the document in the picture states clearly that it is a passport. --Joshua Say "hi" to me!What have I done? 15:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli passport 

message: One relatively common type of unusual passport is a Seaman's passport used by those working on ships, which generally allow the skipping of visa formalities in most countries for those entering the country for a limited period and then exiting via sea again. —Sladen (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seaman's passport 

message: l cant print  passport  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.74.28.235 (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  cant print 

message: Do Heads of State have passports? I know that in the UK the Queen has no passport and I assume that she has no passport issued by any other of her realms and territories. Do other Heads of State carry passports? Is the lack of a passport particular to monarchs? What about the pope? Does he have a German passport, a Vatican passport, or no passport?--Oxonian2006 (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heads of State 

message: I've been trying to find the claimed "consensus" for Blue-Haired Lawyer's deletion-spree. Can't find it here. where is it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Seb. Do you hold a position on the proposal? It might be helpful if you were to give your views on the matter so that others have an opportunity to allay your concerns. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. My main concern is the very nature of a centralized discussion (apart from a deletion spree w/o clear consensus). While it might be true that some of these articles aren't well-maintained, that does not warrant jumping to the conclusion that all of them aren't well-maintained and/or updated. I do not see any reason why a specific group of editors should launch a discussion that affects such a large group of articles. I am for de-centralization, if you will. Let individual articles be individuals. As for the legal concerns and all that yada-yada, it was already stated that we have a disclaimer - and that disclaimer is also valid for much graver situations. If wikipedia cannot be held liable for somebody's dying of a heart-attack or stroke due to the "medical advice" found on this site, then I don't think we have to worry about someone's getting stopped at some border or airport, either. The only way this thing could ever stick is if you guys were to get consensus for writing something like that into the Manual of style. Until then, this is quite a messy, edit-warry situation. The fact that I was only alerted to this during vandal-patrol should ring a bell; it won't take long until one of the most eager edit-warriors in this matter gets a huge load of vandal-warnings and/or 3RR templates slapped onto their userpage. Writing an edit summary that directs me to some page where there's supposedly some "consensus" reached doesn't really fly when I come here and find no clear consensus. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your comprehensive answer. On the matter of centralised discussions generally I think that is a much larger question and cannot adequately be addressed here and probably belongs at a more centralised location such as the Village Pump. In any case we are where we are and an editor who was to start new discussions on an article-by-article basis could be interpreted as forum shopping. Content editing during the process of seeking consensus is intrinsic to the process, otherwise how could we determine when consensus had been reached? On the point of 3RR, I don't know of any editor in the coarse of this proposal who has come remotely close to that situation. A notion that no content change can take place until a 'declaration of consensus' has been filed is a fundamental misunderstanding of the process in my opinion. RashersTierney (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't quite my point. Certainly, no-one's barred from editing, and changes can be made, but one editor going around deleting large portions of 20-some articles in rapid succession and then another promptly reverting him at the same speed makes one wonder, esp. when looking at RecentChanges w/o any context at hand... In any case, I simply believe that such a "consensus" will be difficult to enforce, if at all. There isn't really any way that someone could claim a "decision" made here will be binding for the 140,000-odd editors of wikipedia -- unless it becomes policy.Apart from that (and to get back to the actual issue), I can only re-iterate my point about the disclaimer. I strongly diagree with the person who started this discussion. Wikipedia isn't legal advice, period. I would not want to set the precedent of having to go around deleting all sorts of possibly outdated pieces of information just because someone could interpret it as legal, medical, or otherwise binding guidance. We don't have WP:NLT for no reason. If such proposals hold ground, you could just as well get rid of , because anything and everything possibly inaccurate would have to be removed immediately. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Far more controversial issues than this are regularly addressed on Wikipedia, and agreed procedures generally adhered to. Certainly no consensus arrived at here would be beyond challenge in the future and perhaps subject to a new consensus. A mechanism for giving some level of 'stability' to this question is that it might form part of a special MOS for passport articles, as was mooted further up. This might include such issues as - the image at the lead being the front cover of the current national passport, rather than a historic one. Also questions of 'privacy' could be addressed where images of passport pages show personal details of non-notable figures, who may or may not be still living. A standard guide has many advantages. But one step at a time. On the issue of legal disclaimers, my point above was slightly tongue in cheek and was intended to highlight the fact that even the best sources for these sections refuse to stand over their accuracy, so how reliable can they really be? RashersTierney (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I'm re-hashing things, but just to be clear. If in the end there will be such a guideline, that's fine. I'm just doubtful that will happen, and I'm against creating fait accompli's sp? before the guideline exists.  Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If a comprehensive guideline is ever to emerge, then a centralised discussion will have to occur. Perhaps this is the tentative beginnings of a Passport manual of style. Whether or not, there are genuine concerns re inclusion of these sections anywhere on Wikipedia but particularly within the passport articles as clearly evidenced above. RashersTierney (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

text: well, as much as I agree with assessing this problem on a case-by-case basis, your last point is merit-less. This is English wikipedia - it doesn't matter what other projects do. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [arbitrary break]