Talk:Passport/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Passport/Archive 2:

Here are some tasks you can do:

Passport/Archive 2 has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives
1 2

[edit] Types of Passports

Removed from article in rewrite

A lookalike passport may be issued by countries with complex nationality laws. In the United Kingdom, as a result of its colonial heritage, and domestic constitution has developed different classes of citizenship. Some passports are simply travel documents which offer no right of abode, while others indicate full right of residence. Meanwhile, not all UK citizens are automatically European Union citizens, and are issued with passports which carry no EU endorsements.

Multiple passport regimes can operate in one country. The main example of this is China, where the One country, two systems model has resulted in Hong Kong and Macao having their own passports and immigration regulations. Numbers of countries and territories offering visa-free entries to these three type of passports vary.

Why remove these two points? The rewrite of the types of passports section is good, but isn't a lookalike passport a type of ordinary passport (a sub-type in essence)? After all both issues passports for British citizens in the UK and similar passports for other British nationals and Tonga has a passport for its citizens and a passport for its protected persons. "Mulitple passport regimes" could easily just be relocated to somewhere else in the body of the article, possibly incorporated into the introduction. Information shouldn't be entirely deleted from wikipedia unless of course it is incorrect. Oh and while you are organizing you might want to consider separating Visa-free travel and Passport-free travel (I am going to start a new section on this in this discusson page - see below).72.27.6.86 18:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I moved them here because I didn't want to lose the information and can work it in elsewhere but neither of the above are recognised types of passport. There is no such thing as a lookalike passport for a start - just different types of national status. Thanks for your suggestions. Please feel free to make other suggestions as the article develops. Ta. --Spartaz 19:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. Hmmm...well I figured that "lookalike" passports were not a recognized type, but perhaps you could include it under Types of Passport under a new subtopic, or maybe give it a section of its own. You could also easily link the lookalike passport and multiple passport regimes under the same subheading in the article. By this I mean you could probably add a new section called "Lookalike" Passports (with the quotation marks to indicate that this is just a colloquial name) and then in the text make it clear that "Lookalike" passports are not a recognized type of passport (and thus do not officially exist) but are so called because they differ in some way from other passports issued by the same country due to differing types of national status. Then you could go on to detail the British "lookalike" passports. I haven't seen a Tongan Protected Person Passport (and the only Tongan passport picture I have seen on the web is of extremely low quality), but it probably does look similar to the Tongan Passport, so maybe it could be included (although it would also have to be linked to alien's passport and other similar travel documents). Then of course there are the three different passports for in use for the People's Republic of China (PRC): those for resident citizens of the Mainland, those for Hong Kongers and those for Macanese (in the broad senses of residents of Hong Kong and Macau). And by detailing the three PRC passports you could then incorporate the information about the multiple passport regimes. By the way, what about the proposed credit card sized US passport ("passport cards") for land and sea travel in the Western Hemisphere[1] [2]? What category will these "passport cards" fall into?72.27.6.86 02:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm - to the best of my knowledge a Tongan Protected Person has the same passport as a Tongan, its simply the stated nationality is different. Pretty much, the UK is the only major state that has several flavours of citizenship and this would not fit well in this article although it could be exanded on fully in the British passport article. I would agree that a very short mention of the different types of Chinese would be useful and I could mention the British stuff here as an aside. The gallery suffers from pretty much being incorrectly copyright tagged. The images that still exist can be found from the page history - just go back to a version of the page that stull had the gallery. I haven't seen the stuff on the US passport card, but if its a card not a passport than I would tend to view it as an ID card. Spartaz 06:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, a Tongan Protected Person passport would seem to fall into the colloquial category of a lookalike passport since it would look pretty much like a regular Tongan passport with only small differences being due to nationality. I never envisioned a very long section, per se, just possibly something like this (you can edit it for inaccuracies or if it seems to imply something which isn't fact):

*"Lookalike" passport is the term used unofficially to refer to various passports which are similar in appearance that may be issued by countries with complex nationality laws such as the United Kingdom which has developed different classes of citizenship. as a result of its colonial heritage and domestic constitution. Some of these passports are simply travel documents which offer no right of abode while others indicate full right of residence, cf. a Tongan Protected Person Passport and a Tongan National Passport. Multiple passports dependent on citizenship and residency are also issued in the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), where the One country, two systems model has resulted in Hong Kong and Macau having their own passports and immigration regulations, separate from the rest of the PRC. This system is an example of Multiple passport regimes. The numbers of countries and territories offering visa-free entries to these three types of passports from the People's Republic of China vary.

For more information see: British passport, HKSAR Passport, MSAR passport and Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China.

I haven't found any wikipedia article on a regular PRC passport, Tongan passports and Tongan protected person passports (so I assume the articles don't exist) but we could add the links when such articles are created. As for the passport card just check the 2 links I gave, from what I've seen they are more than ID cards and are supposed to have more security features.72.27.6.86 02:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried that we might fall foul of the original research rules here. Unless we can find a reputable reference to lookalike passports than we shouldn't use the term. We can look at including the information elsewhere in the article. I wonder if we can get round this by adding a section on national status and discussing it there. Spartaz 05:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well then we should probably find a reputable reference, although I'm not sure if there will be any such reference for an unofficial term. I did a quick search and found these though: The UK Identity and Passport Service, British Embassy, Kathmandu and Expedia.co.uk passport and visa info for travel to Belgium. We can always get around this, if none of these references is suitable for the lookalike passports and if no reference is found for "multiple passport regimes" by simply re-wording the points, something like: Countries with complex nationality laws may issue various passports which are similar in appearance, for example the United Kingdom which has developed different classes of citizenship as a result of its colonial heritage and domestic constitution. Some of these passports are simply travel documents which offer no right of abode while others indicate full right of residence, cf. a Tongan Protected Person Passport and a Tongan National Passport. Multiple passports dependent on citizenship and residency are also issued in the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), where the One country, two systems model has resulted in Hong Kong and Macau having their own passports and immigration regulations, separate from the rest of the PRC. The numbers of countries and territories offering visa-free entries to these three types of passports from the People's Republic of China vary.72.27.29.151 03:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I worked the above into the article as national status but we need a little cleanup if you have time because I'm not going to be free for a couple of hours. How does it read? The reference to lookalike passports on the IPS an dKathmandu websites may be sloppy editing. I'll ask in the British Embassy here when I pop in this morning and get back to you. Spartaz 06:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It reads well, made a few minor corrections. The reference at the British Embassy in Kathmandu might be sloppy editing, but what about the official UK government Identity and Passport Service?72.27.29.151 05:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dunno about that. Possibly just sloppy - a lot of websites are run by techs who end us using all kinds of incorrect langauge because they don't know any better. I forgot to ask in the Embassy. I'll try and remember today. Thanks for the tidy. Spartaz 05:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review

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

[edit] Separating Visa-free from Passport-free Travel, Passports template and Common Passports

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)

I agree. lets write it up and see how it looks. Spartaz 07:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

I've already removed any sections that should definitely fall under the visa article and have begun to expand that article as well.72.27.29.151 05:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet passports still being issued?

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)

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)

[edit] Suggested Changes after Peer Review.

There are very few cites for the length of article, in particular the history has only one. It seems very disjointed as well, I think it should be cut back quite severely and only general information included, with as little country-specific stuff as possible (as there are too many countries to mention them all on the page, and to focus on particular ones is POV).
Perhaps some country's passports are worthy of their own article while others aren't, I don't know, but it shows a lack of consistency. The whole topic could really do with some standardisation.

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.^[1]
Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.^[2]
Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.
Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.^[3]
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.^[4]
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
- it has been
- is considered
- might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please ~~strike~~ this comment).^[5]
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 20 additive terms, a bit too much.
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”
- Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am ~~now~~ using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
Please provide citations for all of the {{fact}}s.
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. ^[6]

[edit] Semi-Protection

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)

[edit] Ship passports

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))

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)

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))

Created Mediterranean pass and will link to it. (SEWilco 19:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

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)

[edit] "No need for a passport", etc

With regards to the recent edits to the introduction ([3]), 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)

[edit] Obtaining a second US passport

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)

[edit] EU stamps in EU passports

"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))

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)

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)

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)

[edit] What about seaman's papers?

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)

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)

[edit] British monarch

The Commonwealth Secretariat refers to the Head of the Commonwealth as the British monarch[4]. There appears to be no official sanction for the expression "Commonwealth realms monarch." Indeed, neither the Commonwealth Secretariat's[5] nor the Canadian government's[6] Web sites use the expression "Commonwealth realms." Jonathan David Makepeace 16:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I should also point out that Elizabeth II would only qualify for a British passport since she is not a citizen of any of her other realms. Jonathan David Makepeace 20:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The queen is not a citizen or a subject of any of her realms - she is the Sovereign, which is a separate entity of classification with only one member. She does not have a passport [7], nor would she have the need to posess one - British passports state 'Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State requests and requires in the name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.' Presumably she can ask for any assistance directly by herself if needed. --68.7.112.12 (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC) David Barkhimer

Of course the British Monarch is Head of the Commonwealth; irrelevant to this issue, however. Capitalization of "realm" is an issue for another discussion going on elsewhere; irrelevant to this issue. No source proves EIIR is a citizen of any country. --G2bambino 00:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

She was born in London at a time when jus soli applied in Britain. See History of British nationality law. Her husband and children all travel on British passports. Jonathan David Makepeace 21:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A Monarch stands above the concept of citizenship. Hence as Monarch, the Queen is the fount of all honour in all her Realms and cannot therefore be described as a citizen of any of them. However, before Accession, the present Queen was solely a citizen of the United Kingdom & Colonies. JAJ 03:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Attribution? Jonathan David Makepeace 00:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking for something like this to be laid down in statute, it's not. But ask yourself - how can the Queen be Her own subject?? JAJ 03:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

British subject status has been abolished for all but a small number of stateless people. But it doesn't really matter because the expression "Commonwealth Realms [sic] monarch" enjoys neither official sanction nor common usage. As I pointed out above, the Commonwealth Secretariat refers to her as the British monarch. Wikipedia's article on Elizabeth II refers to her as "of the United Kingdom." This has all been debated and settled. G2bambino is simply trying to insert his POV here. Jonathan David Makepeace 22:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually British Subject is a national status so the people are not stateless. There are still a lot of people left alive born in Ireland before 1949 who wished to retain Britishness. They are all British Subjects with the Right of Abode. To all practical intents and purposes they are British Citizens. It's just that they can't pass it down to their kids who become Irish. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, JDM, what has been "debated and settled" at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Talk:Commonwealth Realm, Talk:British monarchy, Talk:Monarchy in Canada, etc., etc., is that EIIR is equally monarch of sixteen different countries. If you contest this, it is you who'll have to prove otherwise. Until you do it's simply incorrect to attach EIIR to one particular country when speaking of her in a context that encompasses all the countries of which she is monarch; it contravenes the Balfour Declaration, the Statute of Westminster, constitutional experts, and judges who speak of "symmetry" amongst the Realms.

And don't bring up the red herring of "Commonwealth Realms monarch" - the section hasn't been titled as such for a good few edits now. --G2bambino 22:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's irrelevant anyway. Either make 16 sections for the monarch of each Commonwealth Realm, or make one section that covers the one person. To single out one country in the section head and then speak about others within the section is disingenuous. --G2bambino 21:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Amazing how I'm waiting here with crickets chirping while an edit war goes on in the article. Could this say something about the other editor(s)? --G2bambino 15:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I still feel like I'm talking to myself here, but for the sake of process I'll add a comment on my latest edit:

1) The section can't be titled "British monarch" when within the section itself more countries than just the UK are mentioned.

2) The UK is a Commonwealth Realm, so the wording "In Commonwealth Realms (which share the same monarch as the UK)..." is incorrect. --G2bambino 18:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see the 'edit warring' has stopped. Dare I say it again 'edit wars are unproductive & disruptive', work out differences on 'discussion page' first. We don't need this page 'protected' or valued editors blocked (3RR breach). GoodDay 23:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Passport

This is a dispute over the titling and contents of a particular section within this article, namely that pertaining to the non-use of a passport by Queen Elizabeth II.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

1) The section can't be titled "British monarch" when within the section itself more countries than just the UK are mentioned. 2) The UK is a Commonwealth Realm, so the wording "In Commonwealth Realms (which share the same monarch as the UK)..." is incorrect. --G2bambino 22:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
As cited above, the Commonwealth Secretariat calls her the British monarch, and the title of Wikipedia's article on the Queen is Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, not of the Commonwealth realms. "British monarch" enjoys both official sanction and common usage. No evidence has been presented that she would qualify for the passport of any other country. Besides, the section applies to all British monarchs, not just the current one. Jonathan David Makepeace 23:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
User:TharkunColl: Pending

Comments

I would suggest replacing British monarch with Commonwealth monarch (in both the section title and content), with a wiki-link to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. Do we really want to go through UK, first among equals VS All are equal again? GoodDay 22:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No, that is a misunderstanding of what this is about. What it's actually about is whether the British monarch is monarch of 15 other countries. Or whether, as G2bambino believes, such an assertion is illegitimate because of the legal separation of the crowns. To answer this question let me quote from a 2006 speech by the Rt Hon Don McKinnon, Secretary-General of the Commonwealth [8]:

"We now have only 16 countries that retain the British monarch as their Head of State." [my bold] TharkunColl 22:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you really going to start this ridiculous debate all over again? What was decided on at all the talk pages I pointed out to JDM above is still there, Thark, and you were a participant in those discussions! So, you well know that EIIR is monarch equally, symmetrically, what have you, and that only the UK is under the British Monarch. --G2bambino 23:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

PS - you really should add your take to the RfC statements by involved editors above; you are one of the parties to this dispute. --G2bambino 23:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The Secretary-General of the Commonwealth clearly takes a more realistic view. He states that all 16 countries have the British monarch as their head of state. And yes, I was a participant in those discussions. But you came back and undermined the consensus almost immediately. TharkunColl 23:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

And they all have the Canadian Monarch as their head of state; you argued as much at Talk:British monarchy. Shall we retitle the section "The Jamaican Monarch"? --G2bambino 23:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

No I didn't. In any case, there is no citation for "Jamaican monarch" - only "British monarch". This should neatly solve all those linguistic circumlocutions and evasions on quite a few other pages as well, now that we have such an authoritative citation for its use. TharkunColl 23:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, you simply dismissed my pointing out that "by your arguments the UK is under the rule of Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, who's an element of the Canadian federal parliament. I guess the UK isn't an independent nation after all."

Well, I have plenty of citations for the "Queen of Canada" and "Canadian Monarch." Shall we retitle the section accordinly, then? --G2bambino 23:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As you know full well, I was referring to the citation for the British monarch being head of state of 16 countries. Do you have any similar citation for the Canadian monarch? TharkunColl 07:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It was already agreed at British monarchy that the British Monarch is head of state of 16 countries (though I disagree). However, it was also agreed that conversely the Canadian Monarch, Tuvaluan Monarch, New Zealand Monarch, etc., etc., are each head of state of 16 other countries, as they are - as you keep incessantly pointing out - one and the same person. Thus, in a pan-Commonwealth situation (such as the section in question) it is totally your POV to place the UK above all others. This is why nobody accepts your stupid quote-out-of-context at British monarchy, and it equally isn't acceptable here. --G2bambino 14:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why the quote is "stupid" and "out-of-context". TharkunColl 15:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You're taking one statement - which may or may not be correct - and giving it a blanket application that overrides decades of constitutional evolution throughout countries across the globe, as though it somehow trumps reams of legal documents, scholarly writings, judicial rulings, Commonwealth conference findings, etc., etc. Giving it such an elevated position is what I mean by out of context.

Perhaps the quote itself isn't stupid, but what you're trying to do with it is. --G2bambino 15:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's correctness or otherwise should be a simple enough question for you to answer. TharkunColl 15:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's correctness is not the point. I will not engage you in this straw man argument. --G2bambino 15:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Presumably because you have no answer. TharkunColl 15:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's because I choose not to answer. There's a big difference. --G2bambino 15:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you would like to stomp your foot too. TharkunColl 15:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Haha. Naw, I'll leave that kind of stuff up to you. --G2bambino 15:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to think up some reason why the citation is invalid, and then let me know, okay? TharkunColl 15:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be retitled. I've been observing the arguments for a while and concluded that it was, let's say, a hot mess that I didn't want to touch. I have to step in to say though that it is terribly pointless to push British monarch this and that while mentioned Canadian passports, etc. I have a Canadian passport and it expressly mentions the Canadian government and The Queen and not a mention of anything British. Charles 23:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, apart from the Queen herself, who is of course British. Remember that she's a real person, and not just a constitutional abstraction. TharkunColl 15:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but she's also Canadian in that respect. Charles 17:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

~~:::If this a Rfc or continuation of the previous discussion? My Rfc comment shouldn't be disected. Simply place your own comment. GoodDay 23:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)~~

In truth this issue has no part in this article as it should be covered in British Passport. What this article needs is focusing on passports general with country specific issues on individual national articles. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So very tiresome. The argument against using "British monarch" appears to be that under G2bambino's specific understanding of the exact constitutional relationship among the various commonwealth realms, we can never ever under any circumstances use the phrase "British monarch" unless we are specifically referring to the monarch in their role as monarch of the United Kingdom. While I think this is a ridiculous point, in and of itself, it's also worth noting that the supposedly offending passage does, in fact, only use the term with respect to the United Kingdom, and then goes on to add some additional details about the other Commonwealth realms. john k 16:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So, you point out the contradiction between the title of the section and the section's contents, yet refuse to acknowledge the contradiction?

Of course it's wrong to use the term "British Monarch" in a context outside of or above the United Kingdom; it sets up a contradiction within Wikipedia wherein some articles say (rightly) that the Monarch is shared equally, yet other articles attach the monarch predominantly to one country. Perhaps it's the fact that you're not from what more than a few editors here seem to still view as "the Colonies" that prevents you from understanding the problem with this.

It's not as though it's a big deal to right the wrong; it's only those with a republican bent (JDM) and those with a imperial pro-British attitude (Thark) who cause a problem when the UK is made to be - horror of all horrors! - equal to the other Realms of the Commonwealth. --G2bambino 19:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with JD Makepeace that there is no sound reason not to use "British monarch". As he points out, it enjoys both official sanction and common usage. Everyone knows what it means. Moreover, this section is primarily about the British monarch, or at least was, originally. More on that in a moment.
I also agree with john k that this business is tiresome, and caused by one user's riding into this article on one of his favourite hobby-horses. Wikipedia is not a soapbox from which to try to supplant a common usage which one disfavours with a personal favourite usage advertising one of one's favourite legal facts (or interpretations, it matters little which for these purposes) in contexts where it is irrelevant, and especially not when doing so causes bloated pedantic language, as here (and elsewhere, with this same issue). Finally, I agree somewhat with Spartaz: I don't think that the section should be deleted altogether, though. I should just say less, or nought, about the Commonwealth-realm passports.

This brings me to a proposed solution: This section is naturally about the British monarch's lack of need for a British passport. The stuff about how and by whom Commonwealth-realm passports are issued is tangential -- it happens to be included in the cited webpage, but it is still tangential and its presence there does not oblige us to include it here, in the section in question. Moreover, the section has crept away from its original content, and now says more about the issuance of sundry passports than about the Queen's not needing one. So, ditch the other stuff, and re-focus on the original subject. I suggest:

==British monarch==
The British monarch does not hold a passport, and can travel internationally without need of one. This is because British passports are, formally, documents issued by the British monarch, asking that the bearer be allowed to pass freely and given any needed assistance. It would thus be nonsensical for British monarchs to issue passports to themselves. All other members of the British royal family have passports. (In actual practice, British passports are issued in the monarch's name, not by the monarch, personally.)

There is no need to bring the issuance of passports in the sundry realms into this at all. It is not germane. Notice that I have brought in mention of the other royals (taken from the same source), which is a much more direct and natural connection.

I'm not sure why the referenced page bothers to mention the realms stuff, but it looks to me like a by-the-by, arising from the treatment of the issuance of British passports. I can see no need for the under-discussion section of this article to ape the referenced page, and if we just leave the realms out of it the whole problem goes away.

-- Lonewolf BC 21:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion of Commonwealth monarch hasn't been accepted (that's cool with me). Elizabeth II is acceptable (afterall, we all 'agree' Liz is Liz). GoodDay 21:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The trouble with that proposal is that the information is not particular to Elizabeth II, but applies as well to all British monarchs, past (back to whenever) and future. Use of her personal name implies that the information is somehow peculiar to her. It is that only in the sense that while she is British monarch she's the only person it applies to, but it has applied, would apply, and shall apply to whoever else sat, and sits the British thone. -- Lonewolf BC 21:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You all know my 'distate' for edit wars, it usually ends up in page protection (thus causing innocent editors to be -blocked- from editing a particular page), an inconvienance. Very well, restore British monarch (because of historical reasons), this section doesn't pertain to 'one' individual. Let's end this continuation of All are equal VS UK, first among equals (at this article, anyway). GoodDay 21:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The edit explicitly states that it is not limited to Elizabeth II, but to her predecessors as well. Charles 22:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

~~::::Agreed. GoodDay 22:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)~~

Indeed it does, Charles. Also, perhaps Lonewolf would explain how he came to decide what it tangential and what is not. The larger section of the article is about international travel without passports. Elizabeth II travels without a passport. This isn't just as Queen of the UK, she doesn't hold an Australian, Jamaican, Belizian, or any other passport for the coutries of which she is monarch. Why then, again, single out one country?

Lonewolf does have a point, though, about the vice-regal's or ministers' role in issuing passports. That doesn't seem to have anything to do with EIIR's lack of a passport. --G2bambino 01:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

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.^[7] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I support this wording. Jonathan, Please see reason Brian | (Talk) 19:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR Warning

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Umm, let's not go down this road again. GoodDay 21:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Do they? What are the names of these monarchs then? TharkunColl 21:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ah guys? Let's put out the spark on this keg? GoodDay 21:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. What did I say above about the same people instigating the same useless argument? --G2bambino 00:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another possibility

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)

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)

Hey, I like option numbet two. GoodDay 22:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the section completely. I hope everyone is happy now. Perhaps now that you have nothing to fight over you can go and make your contributions elsewhere. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I love a happy ending. GoodDay 23:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

Your proposal was 'historically limited', British passports existed before Elizabeth II's reign. GoodDay 16:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

Composition is acceptable, title isn't (don't name it Elizabeth II). GoodDay 21:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is the title "Queen Elizabeth II," then, not acceptable for the section it heads? --G2bambino 15:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-read the proposal (I was confused - due to Commonwealth Realm discussions fatigue). Elizabeth II is acceptable. GoodDay 18:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] A less extreme attempt at a solution

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)

On second thoughts, best to leave a note on my talkpage besides or instead, or I'm liable not to notice it as soon -- Lonewolf BC 04:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I appreciate your efforts Lonewolf BC, but I ask that we leave the section at the status quo ante. There is no inherent contradiction in issuing a passport to oneself in one's own name. The U.S. Secretary of State does it. The British monarch simply choses not to, and nobody makes a fuss about it. Jonathan David Makepeace 00:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] An even less extreme solution

I want to highlight Brian's suggestion above by giving it its own section, because I think it makes the most sense:
I'm willing to bet that many, many monarchs are in the same position as Elizabeth II with regard to not having a passport, simply by virtue of their being sovereign of whatever country they reign over, i.e. sovereigns obviously don't issue passports to themselves. If that's true then all we need to do is confirm that this situation is not confined to Elizabeth, then we can retitle the section "Monarchs" and talk about them all in general, thus avoiding pretty much all the contention. -- Hux 11:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That does sound plausible, if we can find the information about other monarchs. In the meantime my above EIIR specific composition still awaits criticisms that actually render it unusable. --G2bambino 14:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm also curious whether we can source information on other monarchs. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought of that, too. Once upon a time someone added something to the section about, if I rightly recall, Norwegian monarchs, saying that they do carry passports. I can't recall for sure whether they sourced it, though; I think not. -- Lonewolf BC 16:52 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This news article on Ertuğrul Osman the last Ottoman Sultan says he wrote his own passport in 1974 and used it for 20 years. I would question the initial description of a passport as a travel document issued by a national government since the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and Malta also issue passports while not being a nation government.

Ertugrul Osman was never sultan. john k 15:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Warring, again

Is this page gonna be 'protected' too (see Rideau Hall)? Not if I can help it, I'm adding a compromise edit (til things are straigtened out). GoodDay 20:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I made a proposal above. In a total of eight days, one person dissented and then ceased to elaborate on his comments. Two people, besides myself, supported it, including you. ~~What gives you the authority to now remove said proposal merely minutes after it was put in?~~

Lonewolf himself had ample time to comment on the proposal; he did not do so at all. What my last edit replaced was what he himself said was possibly a temporary composition which would be reverted if there were any serious complaints. I raised a question about it, but it went unanswered. Thus, it seems the onus is now on him to explain why he suddenly has a problem with what I proposed last week replacing his supposedly temporary edit. --G2bambino 20:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I struck out the above as I see what you did to the article while I was writing my comments here. Still, I can see that title causing issue; in fact, I don't see it as quite valid myself. --G2bambino 20:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I just don't want to see 'innocent' editors suffer through another 'page lock'. Nor, do I want to see 'good faith' editors getting 'blocked'. GoodDay 21:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Tweaked 'compromise addition'; There's no such thing as Commonwealth monarch - There's 16 seperate monarchies in the Commonwealth (Liz, happens to be all 16 monarchs). GoodDay 21:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Tharky, please stop -- and discuss your objections here (at this talk page). GoodDay 22:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have discussed it all before. Why don't you stop edit warring? TharkunColl 22:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've only done 2 reverts (with no intentions of a 3rd), if you want the article 'locked' -- so be it. GoodDay 22:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You've discussed it all before and every time failed to convince anyone of your POV, Thark. None-the-less, as previously, you've moved to another article to start the whole debate again, and again it will end with the facts ruling the composition of the text. If anything, you're at least consistent.

I suspect you're tired of arguing about this because you don't actually have an argument to make; thus, you've resorted to crude reverts and dubbing everything as "pedantry." As someone aptly said to me somewhere: put up or shut up. --G2bambino 22:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Bring 'threeway conversation' back here - It looks like LonewolfBC had the right idea: nuke the section, as it's proving (again) to be a lightning rod. GoodDay 23:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

But then we actually lose useful information, in exactly the same way as we would if we were not allowed to mention the taboo word "British". TharkunColl 23:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeez. Talk about a distortion of words.

But, no, I don't believe removing the section is the proper answer. Temporarily, perhaps, but not as a final solution. --G2bambino 23:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just contacted 'Lonewolf BC', requesting he get his nuke gun ready (just in case). GoodDay 23:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'd commented in oppostition to G's proposal a priori (21:43-45, 10 Aug), less than 24 hours before he made it (14:03, 11 Aug), and G. had commented in indirect reference to that comment-of-opposition (strictly speaking, he answered someone else's follow-up comment to my comment) just a few hours before making the proposal. Under the sensitive circumstances, G's implementing of his proposal on the 19th, despite the lack of consensus, was at best unwise. -- Lonewolf BC 19:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you check again: you're saying you commented on a proposal before it was even made. In fact, the proposed composition I put forward on Aug. 11 took your concerns expressed on Aug. 10 into account. As you relayed no further comments on my suggestion - while still engaged in discussion here - it could only be assumed you had no problems with my wording. --G2bambino 19:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No, your proposal really did not satisfy those concerns, though you might have thought so. I think that your assumption was not reasonable. You may disagree with me on that, but that's neither here nor there at this point. Under the sensitive circumstances, instead of implementing your proposed edit, you should have put another note on the talk-page, asking if it was okay to implement it and saying that you would do so if there were no further comment, and then waited a week or so. I don't think it was reasonable for you to assume you had consensus, if that was your assumption, and of course you see that you did not have it. -- Lonewolf BC 20:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

You said the earlier composition made it seem that the current circumstances were pertinent only to Elizabeth II. I put forward a proposal the following day that took that comment into account. How then, does it not satisfy those concerns?

As you edited the section on Aug. 12 without seeking permission first, you said afterwards that you would self-revert if there were objections. I raised a concern and it went unanswered. When JDM said he disagreed with your move you rebutted him and kept the section as per your satisfaction. It sat that way for seven days.

During that time there were three actual comments on my proposal made here on Aug. 11: 1) JDM made some strange analogy about the Queen not needing a Mongolian passport, and, when pushed for further clarification on his concerns, fell silent; 2) GoodDay originally objected but eventually came to accept the content but not necessarily the heading; 3) Brian fully supported it. With your admission that what you'd done on Aug. 12 was potentially temporary, three supports and only one incompletely voiced opposition made over eight days towards my Aug. 11 proposal, nothing I did could be construed as unreasonable. --G2bambino 20:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

??????? Shall we protect this page or will you guys stop edit warring over this point? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't see what's wrong with G2's proposal. The content is accurate & the title is 'neutral' (no one disputes the name of 'Elizabeth II', do they?). PS- Please stop the 'edit warring', PLEASE. GoodDay 20:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

G., you really must take greater care to tell the truth, especially where your falsehoods imply dishonourable conduct by someone else. When I re-introduced a cut-down version of the section, I pledged to self-revert it back to nought if anyone said it was unacceptable to them. No one did. To hear you tell it, I made a promise and then reneged on it, which amounts to calling me a liar.

The truth is that two people, you and JDM, voiced some sort of dissatisfaction with the re-introduced version. That was fair enough, but voicing dissatisfaction with a thing is not the same as saying it is unacceptable. Indeed, it is quite unrealistic to expect everyone to be entirely satisfied with any version of a section about which there has been so much disagreement. The aim was only for something that everyone could live with. You said that the re-introduced version was okay with you, but asked whether it oughtn't be extended (diff). JDM said he preferred the status quo ante(diff). Although that did not sound to me like non-acceptance, but merely a preference for something else, I asked him for clarification, pledging once more to self-revert the re-introduction if he found it unacceptable, and saying that he need only tell me so (diff). He did not answer. I must assume this means that the re-introduced version was acceptable to him, though not his first choice. My plege has stood ever since, though.

Your attempt to "satisfy my concerns", still gives the same troublesome false impression that "no passport needed" is unique to Elizabeth. It just "mends" the problem by adding a closing sentence to the contrary. This is awkward and plainly inferior to just not giving the false impression to begin with. The larger problem with your composition is that it re-introduces the bone of contention -- the other Commonwealth realms -- into the section. Both those things are rather obvious, I think. I'm still somewhat amazed that you went ahead with an edit that, considering the circumstances and the objections, was fairly-well tailored to stir things up again. -- Lonewolf BC 06:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; as I read it, saying something is unacceptable is an expression of dissatisfaction. As long as something is lacking or insufficient, efforts will continue to be made in order to remedy the problems. Thus, what I read from your "promise" was that if your insertion was seen as imperfect in any way you would remove it to set the slate clean and start again.

As for "bones of contention," if they're fuelled by an incorrect POV then there's no reason to consider them, especially when it comes to censorship of completely valid and correct information. The only people who really seem to have a bone of contention with equalizing the wording of the section are a) Tharkie, and b) JDM. The first is renowned for subverting all non-UK Realms under the UK, and the second is a Canadian republican who wants the UK put first and foremost for political reasons. But, in this case, Tharkie did not offer input on any proposal here, and JDM made a strange comment and then never followed up on it. The other participants, save for you, supported my wording, and, without serious concern expressed on your part, it seemed acceptable to change what you had said would be temporary, and which wasn't really loved by anyone. I'm certainly not saying what I put in was perfect, but it seemed to satisfy most people offering feedback, even if it was stylistically awkward.

Your criticisms and observations seem less politically motivated, but I still don't see them as fully justifying either the submission of the non-UK Realms, or the dismissal of them all-together. Indeed, "British monarch" plainly creates just another false impression - either that the non-UK Realms are subservient to the UK, or that there's somehow no relation between EIIR and passports outside of the UK, depending on what's put, or not put, in the section. I'm not yet sure what the answer is, but I can definitely say that good style should not override accuracy and the inclusion of relevant and clarifying information. --G2bambino 14:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Saying something is unacceptable is, sure enough, an expression of dissatisfaction with it, but not all expressions of dissatisfaction with a thing are sayings that the thing is unacceptable. Here, there were only lesser expressions of dissatisfaction, with no declarations of unacceptability -- despite earnest urgings that such be made by anyone who found the version unacceptable.
Thus your reading of my promise this most peculiar, given that it says "unacceptable" (not "imperfect in any way", or some such thing). Further, a version that everyone agrees is perfect is plainly an unrealistic hope, here, so it is unreasonable to suppose that I promised to delete the version if anyone thought it merely imperfect. Furthermore, if you truly wanted the section nuked, you need only have declared it unacceptable to you, which you did not, and have not. (You still could, by the way, as could JDM or anyone else.)
-- Lonewolf BC 20:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can/Brit monarch

Tharkie, I hope you now see how pointless the sentences about the British Empire and "retained" monarch are; because each country parallels the other in terms of monarchy, no matter what you write about Canada being under the British Monarch I can mirror with sentences about how the UK is under the Canadian Monarch. A silly game, I know, but trying to discuss this matter with you maturely and openly on your talk page obviously proved fruitless.

Please stop being a disruptive editor. --G2bambino 15:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

When did Canada have an empire, Bambi? How could former members of the British Empire "retain" a monarch (the Canadian one) who never reigned over them? Your nationalist anti-British POV has led you into a grotesque logical absurdity. TharkunColl 15:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Who stated Canada had an empire?

The Canadian monarch has reigned over the UK since 1931; the UK continues to choose to share the Canadian monarch as theirs; hence, the Canadian monarch is "retained" (your choice of words, btw, not mine).

Accusations of anti-Britishness are completely unfounded; working within the established parameters of equality that exist amongst the Realms under EIIR does not, in any way, show an anti-British sentiment. In fact, it is your continued pushing of a nationalist, pro-British POV in every single place you can possibly get away with it, with absolutely no supporting evidence, that shows who's operating under a logical absurdity. --G2bambino 15:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

No. The whole point about the sentence as it stood was to explain the former imperial connection. To say that the members of the Empire, upon independence, retained the Canadian monarch is simply untrue, because in those days there was no Canadian monarch, even under your definition. So "retain" is completely incorrect. Your mangled version makes no sense at all. Also, on another point, the idea that the UK was itself part of the British Empire is not quite as simple or clear cut as you are making out, and depends on context. TharkunColl 15:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A) Why is the former imperial connection even relevant here?

B) Retain means to continue to keep; the UK continues to keep a monarch that is shared with other countries, one of which is Canada. Thus, the UK is one of 16 countries that retain the Canadian monarch as head of state. Perhaps you meant retained?

C) Funny you should bring up context - did you pay any attention to what I explained in detail at your talk page?

D) Disguising your POV pushing as innocent explanation of former imperial connections is weak and dishonest. It's clear from this edit and this edit (especially note the changing of "Canadian monarch" to a subheading of "British monarch", lol) that your actual intent was to, yet again, subvert Canada to an inferior position under the United Kingdom. --G2bambino 16:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I tire of your straw man versions of my position, Bambi. At no point have I said that Canada is inferior to the UK. The imperial connection is relevant, once you had added a paragraph about the Canadian monarch, in order to explain to our readers why she's the same person. And no country upon granting of sovereignty retained the Canadian monarch as head of state, because none of them had had the Canadian monarch as head of state prior to that event (because there was no such thing as a Canadian monarch). Yet again your tunnel vision and narrow POV causes you to distort the English language to breaking point and beyond. TharkunColl 18:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

G2B, I've had 2 pints of cider tonight so won't at the moment try and argue about something I don't know a lot about, but wasn't at least part of Canada part of the British Empire at one point, so why are you wanting there not to be a very brief mention of something that is a historical fact?Merkinsmum 19:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Canada as a whole was part of the British Empire. But whether it was or not is not my main problem here. What I didn't, and still don't, understand was a) why the Empire is even relevant to passports, and b) the sentence Thark tried to impose that contained mention of the British Empire also stated Canada was under the British Monarch. Removing said sentence, because of it's murky accuracy, being unacceptable to Tharkie, I inserted an equally accurate parallel sentence re. the UK being under the Canadian monarch. Pointing out how Tharkie's edits are unnecessary and result in ambiguity obviously really raises his ire. --G2bambino 14:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's more accurate to say, Canada 'acquired' the British monarch as it's own monarch & head of state (just like the other 14 non-UK monarchies). GoodDay 20:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've also removed the 'linkage' between the Briths monarch & Canadian monarch sections; there's no need for it. GoodDay 21:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is. Otherwise the false impression is given to the reader that there are two different people involved. And because of Bambi's intractable POV the section on the British monarchy has now been removed, which is ridiculous when so many other countries are described in the article. TharkunColl 21:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

My last content edits - replaced British monarch with Elizabeth II & Canadian monarch with Elizabeth II. That could've worked. GoodDay 22:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The same problem, though perhaps in reduced form, would arise. It is possible that two countries have monarchs with the same name and number, and we must assume ignorance in our readers. If Canada is included, we need to say up front that we're talking about the same person. But in fact we only need one example of a country reigned over by Elizabeth II, and if we had to pick just one then I don't think anyone would argue that the UK is the only reasonable choice. TharkunColl 22:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm now in agreement with 'Spartaz' - Removing the sections is best, they can be added to their own respective articles. GoodDay 22:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

So should we remove mention of all other countries from the article? If not, on what grounds is the UK, a major power and world cultural centre, and without doubt the world's most famous monarchy, excluded? TharkunColl 22:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, remove mention of all other countries. GoodDay 22:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, go on then. TharkunColl 22:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've requested 'Spartz' to remove them (since he's removed 'Britain' & 'Canada'). GoodDay 22:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, look's like Bambi has succeeded in having the section on the UK removed from this article (which is even more ridiculous because the illustration it uses is of a British passport!). I can't understand it really. For a self-confessed monarchist, why does he take every possible opportunity to belittle the country where his beloved monarchy originates and resides? Is it some sort of knee jerk reaction of former colonies against their creator, some inferiority complex that must always lash out at the mother country? It's quite sad really. TharkunColl 11:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Tharkie, Tharkie. As usual you squirm in the face of presented evidence, slandering everything that contradicts you as either POV or straw men. Your edits I highlighted above make it very evident that they were done for the sole purpose of putting one country in a subservient position to the UK; how about you actually deal with that. Though, I'm not sure you can convince us that your edits aren't actually guided by strong personal opinions, especially when it's added to the long list of other revealing commentary elsewhere about the non UK-Realms being colonies and non-monarchies. In fact, your own statement above reveals much about your position: obviously if the UK is made equal to other countries it has been "belittled."

Pushing edits that are unsupported by any factual evidence is what makes you a disruption at every article you touch. Even where you've been given respect for your greater knowledge of a subject, you still resorted to personal jabs and bad attitude. But, I see no willingness on your part to alter these patterns. That's what's truly sad. --G2bambino 14:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Every citation I give, such as the one from the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth stating that the other realms retain the British monarch, is, according to you, "irrelevent" or "taken out of context". I think that you have convinced yourself, by a selective reading of the evidence over many years, that your view is the only possible one. But it really isn't as simple as that. TharkunColl 15:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's obviously simple enough, for you, that it can be summed up in one sentence said by one man.

There is much more evidence out there than one or two quotations from a couple of people; and even if their words are accurate, they aren't always appropriate to convey the full situation clearly in every context. But, subtleties such as that wouldn't matter to someone who's only intent is to bulldoze every country under the UK, and who sees the UK being placed on an equal level as "belittling." --G2bambino 15:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

How dare you, yet again, try and claim that my argument involves trying to make the UK supreme. This is just typical of your technique of arguing people into the ground to get your way. The Queen lives in the UK and is paid for by British taxpayers. Her ancestors have ruled here for 1500 years. Why is it so unreasonable to single out the UK when talking about the Queen? Being Queen of the UK is what she is most famous for the world over. TharkunColl 16:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

How dare I? lol. Very easily, is how. Without doubt, your argument is about making the UK supreme - how else does one explain your edit history and recorded statements? Indeed, right after feigning shock over an accusation of being driven by such an opinion, you launch straight into the same tired, old rant about EIIR being Queen of the UK above all other countries.

The idea of context really does slide right over you; you can never grasp that sometimes it is okay to single out the UK when talking about the Queen, but not always. --G2bambino 16:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did you bother adding a paragraph about Canada at all to this article? It mentioned the UK, but it only listed certain selected countries anyway, so why was there any need for it to mention Canada? After all, by your own POV, the Canadian monarchy has no connection whatever with the British, so the fact that the British monarchy was mentioned was in no way a slight on Canada. And in an article about passports, the most famous and influential monarchy in the world surely deserves a mention. The result of your "me too, me too, at any cost" policy has been to devalue this article. TharkunColl —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:02, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

I don't see any particular selectivity in the inclusion and exclusion of countries - the section deals with international travel without passports and lists all known examples. If, in the absence of a single, accurately worded sub-section on the shared monarch, there is to be separate sub-sections for each country, then why should there not be one for Canada? The Queen of Canada issues Canadian passports and does not herself require one for international travel.

Frankly, I'd say it was your "me first, me first" attitude that really pulled things down hill - as it has elsewhere. After all, what valid reason, beyond national hubris, could anyone have to eschew a succinctly worded section that expressed existent equality in favour of a biased, pro-UK standpoint? And then, not satisfied simply with the UK having its own section, adamantly insisting that another country’s separate section still needlessly make reference to the British monarch and past colonial subservience!

There is a way to do this fairly, Thark, but you block that road every, single time. --G2bambino 18:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Your phrase "past colonial subservience" highlights your motivation quite clearly. Plain old fashioned chip-on-your-shoulder reaction against the former colonial power. When the Queen travels around the world the main reason why she doesn't have a Canadian passport is that she isn't Canadian! If you include sections on both the UK and Canada, then we have to tell our readers that the monarch in question is the same person. To not do so would be remiss. TharkunColl 16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it plainly highlights your motivation, Thark. Perhaps what you need to focus on is your phrase "past colonial power," with an emphasis on the "past" part. I have no issue with clarifying that the Canadian and British monarchs are the same person, but the rest of your statement is pure POV. --G2bambino 16:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You guys should continue this All are equal VS UK, first among equals struggle at your respective talk pages (since the disputed sections have been deleted); Jus a suggestion. GoodDay 18:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you did not charactarise my argument in those terms, because that is not what I'm arguing. And don't you think we should re-add the UK, if the other countries are staying? I also have no objection to Canada being re-added, as long as it's made clear that they have the same monarch (Bambi's original addition strangely forgot to mention this). TharkunColl 18:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You have no issue if Canada is re-added as long as it's a sub-section of the United Kingdom section, it's stated the British monarch is the Canadian head of state and Canada is a former part of the British Empire. And you say this isn't about the UK coming first? Please. --G2bambino 18:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile the sections remain 'deleted'; it will probably remain that way too (as long as this 'old' dispute continues). GoodDay 18:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The wording on http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page4871.asp is "Queen and Passport":

When travelling overseas, The Queen does not require a British passport. The cover of a British passport features the Royal Arms, and the first page contains another representation of the Arms, together with the following wording:

Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State requests and requires in the name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.

Perhaps the section, once it is restored and deleted a few hundred more times, should be modelled on this text. --66.102.80.239 23:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What do you want comments about?

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)

Okay, I researched the talk page edit history & fixed the RfC tags myself. Carry on. --Yksin 21:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I initiated the RfC to start dispute resolution, and then became so involved in debate I neglected to fix my incomplete request. Thanks for taking care of that. --G2bambino 14:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hotels and passports

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))

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)

[edit] Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland

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)

Answer by Passportman (8/3/2008) Necessary, because qualification for a passport should be discussed on the Passports page. The real problem is that Republic of Ireland & Northern Ireland is under "Passport limitations", which is not the right heading for facts about qualifying for a passport of this or that country.

I created the heading "Conditions on passport issuance", and moved Pakistan and Ireland/Northern Ireland to it. Pakistan has a religious qualification for obtaining a passport. Ireland/NortherIreland has place-of-birth and parental citizenship qualifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Passportman (talk • contribs) 12:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HK and Macau

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)

Categories: To do | Old requests for peer review