Talk:Passports of the European Union

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gallery[edit]

The image gallery is incomplete so far. Missing images EU passports of Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Rep, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. Can someone please get some good pictures for the above remaining countries.

Also, the current photos of the Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish and Romanian passports do not show an EU passport, because the words "European Union" at the top of the front cover page are missing, and in the case of the Lithuanian passport, the cover color is wrong. Markus Kuhn 20:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the words European Union are not on them they are still EU Passports, the countries to join the EU in 2004 and 2007 have been a little slow in updating their passports, some even updated to Biometric Passports in 2006 but did not place the words European Union on the passport, none the less they are still EU passports. The Lithuanian Passport is the current new biometric one (issued from 2006 onwards), which for some reason Lithuania decided to make it green and not the standard EU color. Lithuania will be issuing newer EU style Passports late 2007/early 2008, which will have the words "European Union" and be the standard color, so as of yet, the green one is the latest and current.

Poland and Malta only started to put the words "European Union" on as of late 2006, but no pictures available, maybe someone can get some? 22:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

that is not true! Malta issued passports with EU on it on first of May 2004, the same day it joined the EU--Melitikus (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have updated the Polish one with passport issued late 2006, has the words European Union —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.113.45 (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:MaltaPassportCover.jpg[edit]

Image:MaltaPassportCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:GreekPassportCover.jpg[edit]

Image:GreekPassportCover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visa free Travel[edit]

Because the EU is trying to achieve visa mutuality with a number of countries, I think it would be worth to create a subsection in this article that deals with the issue. The EU's goal is that the passports of its member states will be equally accepted al over the world, and visa requirments will be equally applied or abolished. For exmaple, last year many Eastern and Cental European EU citizens needed to apply for a visa if they intended to spend a short period of time in Canada. This restriction did not apply to Western or Northern European EU citizens. Because of the EU policy and other factors, Canada abolished its visa requirement for all EU citizens except Romania and Bulgaria, which will come later. Due to this policy of attemting to create a uniform visa system for all EU citizens, Wikipedia should also dedicate a section to this policy.

I already wrote some about it, but since it somehow made it impossible to see the gallery, it was removed. Here it is again:

Visa-free Travel[edit]

Although member states issue their own passports, the EU is has a common visa policy. It is also working to achieve visa mutuality, respective to all member states. Today, EU passport holders are allowed to visit Mexico and Panama under the same condititions. The same is true for Canada save for Bulgarian and Romanian visitors; however, the visa requirement for those countries is expected to be removed in the near future.

The EU might have a common visa policy in theory, but in practice those EU countries that are not in the Schengen area (e.g. the UK, Ireland) have different visa policies and issue their own visas. Ondewelle (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a political goal of the European Union to achieve freedom from visa requirements for citizens of the European Union at least in such countries the citizens of which may enter the Schengen area without visa. To this end, the European Commission negotiates with third-countries, the citizens of which do not require visas to enter the Schengen area for short-term stays, about the abolishment of visa requirements which exist for at least some EU member states. The European Commission involves the members state concerned into the negotiations, and has to frequently report on the mutuality situation to the European Parliament and the Council.[1] The Commission may recommend the temporary restoration of the visa requirement for nationals of the third country in question.

The European Commission has dealt with the question of mutuality of the abolishment of visa requirements towards third countries on the highest political level. With regard to Mexico and New Zealand, it already has achieved complete mutuality. With respect to Canada, the Commission considers to recommend “appropriate steps”; with respect to the U.S. it suggests to examine the effects of new legislation enacted there, but reserves itself “the right to propose retaliatory measures”.[2] Involvement of the Canadian Prime Minister; p. 10 to 11: Involvement of the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and of the President of the United States; p. 11 to 12: Conclusions.

Let me know what you think. Thanks,

Overseas territories[edit]

What about overseas territories of EU member states? I believe - with a few exeptions for some British dependences - they are all visa-free for EU-passport holders? Aren't they? --BotevFixer (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, indeed except for a few British (e.g. Pitcairn/BIOT/Ascension) und uninhabited French ones (e.g. Kergueles), that require pre-issued landing permits. Passportguy (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added them. And I also added Cook Islands and Tokelau - I am not sure but I think they are also visa-free since they are New Zealand's territories. And what about Falkland Islands? --BotevFixer (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I double-checked this and it looks like we made a mistake : Several British dependancies have not (yet) extended their visa-free travel privledges to Romanians/Bulgarians, specifically Anguilla, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. So I'll remove them from the list again. Passportguy (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


European Union Passports[edit]

the name of the article should change to European union passport or passports - As it is now, European passports, the article should also include non-EU countries but European ones e.g. Moldova, Albania - they are also Europeans thus their passport is also a european one--Melitikus (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should not change it because what is really important here, is the citizenship, i.e. a Polish passport is a passport issued to Polish citizens and a European passport is a passport issued to European citizens. The European citizenship as such exists only in the European Union. --Botev (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Botev, it should stay for EU Member passports only, we dont have pages for "Asian passports" or "African passports", this page is not about passports for the continent, but passports for European Union Citizens.--Overseasflight

I too think that Melitikus's suggestion is a good one: for one thing, it would avoid potential ambiguity, since what is being discussed are the passports issued by EU countries to their citizens, not passports issued by all European countries. Ondewelle (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Gibraltar Passport.gif[edit]

The image Image:Gibraltar Passport.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Fair use rational added. --Gibmetal 77talk 10:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australia eVisitor[edit]

Australia should be added to the list of Reciprocal Visa Free Countries with the EU since Passports of the EU and other ETA European Passports will get the eVisitor System on the 27th October 2008, this replaces the ETA (Electronic Ticket Authority). This should be left onPryde 01 (talk) 05:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The eVisitor is still a visa. You just don't apply for it at the embassy but directly at Australian authorities online. Look for example at the website of the Australian Embassy in Warsaw: http://www.poland.embassy.gov.au/wsaw/home.html It clearly states that the eVisitor is an electronic visa. --Botev (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers mate. I understand that this culminates the EU and Australia Visa Reciprocal Agreement. But when the EU Passports and other ETA European Passports have access on the 27th October 2008 Australia should be listed on those Passports and Australia should be coloured in the Visa on Arrival ColourPryde 01 (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not really "visa on arrival" because it requires pre-arrival actions! --Botev (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I know but for other eligible Passports that have Electronic Ticket Authority Access do have Australia coloured in the "Visa on Arrival". Like the US for example: [[1]]. Think about all the other EU and ETA Eligible Passports and how they will not have access to the ETA anymore cause eVisitor has replaced it. So I guess that someone will have to leave the VOA Colour on but change it to eVisitor on the list.

Its interesting that you dont know what your talking about Australia not being coloured as VOA. I dont agree with you. But I do agree that it does have pre visa actions, but you its a 'label free' system. Anyway it completes the EU Australia Visa Reciprocal Agreement in case you didnt know. So yes I say that Australia does be coloured as VOA. If you dont agree with me refer to these websites, then hopefully you will agree and someone will colour Australia as VOA. [[2]]Pryde 01 (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

gallery[edit]

Why do we need a gallery of every single passport? Why is it still here, they're against WP policy.- J.Logan`t: 12:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why whould they be against WP policy? It's not a random selection. - SSJ ☎ 12:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Galleries in general are against policy, it is somewhere under WP:NOT I think. These articles are meant to be about text rather than lots of pictures. I'm sure we can do with just two or three to illustrate the fact that they're red and have certain writing on them - and all the other passport pages can use an image of each of them.- J.Logan`t: 00:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that an article's main focus should not be on pictures. However since this article does talk about European passports, I find it quite useful to have a gallery illustrating what the article is talking about. Despite having a common type design, the design does vary substantially from country to country, a fact that is much easier to illustrate than to explain in text. Passportguy (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bold WP:BRD type edit, taking what Passportguy said above, I added two of the best quality (clear scans) recent passports with distinctively different designs higher up in the article to illustrate the text that describes the design of the passports. They should be more informative up there than if buried down at the bottom. Also, since there are only two images now there's room for them to be slightly larger so the text on them is (hopefully) readable. I then replaced the gallery with a link to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Passport#Europe which (I think?) includes all the passports from the gallery here. This is a suggestion by example type edit, so feel totally free to revert/modify/discuss further. Siawase (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Belgian Passport 2008 cover.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Belgian Passport 2008 cover.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jersey passport.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Jersey passport.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:British Passport cover 2010.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:British Passport cover 2010.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, no consensus on better name. (If a subsequent discussion yields a consensus for a name, I think it could be so moved as a technical request) -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Passports of the European Union → European Union common passport design – Relisted. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 23:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC) As the lead of this article clearly points out it is about something that doesn't exist: EU Passports. What the article is actually about is the common design of the passports issued by the member states of the European Union. Hence the proposed new title. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 12:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. Gosh. You want to make a revolution on Wikipedia :p Subtropical-man (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • no Disagree - the existing name (Passports of the European Union) is the best and simple. You want to change "on the strength" good name on worse name. Better proposal is requested move Passports of the European Union to European Union passport. Also, proposed name of European Union common passport design is wrong and unconstructive, article (present and future) is not only about "design". Subtropical-man (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Fine by me too. (Addresses possible confusion as implied immediately above.) We still of coarse have the discreet articles on the passports of the EU states, their individual histories etc. RashersTierney (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed name of European Union common passport design is wrong and unconstructive, article (present and future) is not only about "design". Subtropical-man (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the article? Yes, it is (at least in its present form) ONLY about design. --Igor alexandrov (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is (at least in its present form) not ONLY about design. Also, this is unconstructive and no development name, article may be extended in the future and a new name will be restricted. Subtropical-man (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, it is. The lead is about design and it only has two main sections: the first one's name says for itself ("Common design features"), the second is the gallery of images. I don't think the possible future development of the article should be taken into account when deciding on the title for the existing content. It might or might never be expanded. If you care so much about keeping the current title, maybe widen the article for the non-design related substance and stop pierdzielić jak potłuczony. --Igor alexandrov (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The passport of one of the states of the European Union is both - passport of state and EU passport. Using such a passport outside the EU (for example in Africa), we are treated both as a citizen of one of the EU states and citizen of European Union. PS. Please do not write naughty words in Polish. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We are still treated as EU citizens even if we carry old pre-EU passports. --Igor alexandrov (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a move from the current title. "Passports of the European Union" does not accurately reflect the article's contents. The article is not about the various passports of the EU — those are dealt with in individual articles. I could support ➊the proposed title although it is a bit unwieldy, ➋"European Union passport design", which is more succinct, or even ➌"European Union passport" (along the lines of the other similar articles mentioned above, e.g. Andean passport) which is vague but not as inaccurate as the current title. —  AjaxSmack  02:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I re-opening this move discussion. I think the closing admin was premature in closing and I can see no reason why I should have to re-propose. Moreover he appears unwilling to answer queries put to him on his talkpage. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 22:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to AjaxSmack I can't see the proposed title as being too unwieldy. It has the same number of words as the current title. In the passports template this article is listed in the row labelled "common designs". — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 22:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: the proposed title is unncecessarily complicated. The current title is apt and simpler. --RJFF (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So it doesn't matter that it refers to something which doesn't exist! — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 20:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They don't exist? I have one though. Or is it a figment of my imagination? If European Union passport should be preferred, I would by okay with that, too. --RJFF (talk) 20:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What was the issuing authority? It was certainly not the EU. RashersTierney (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the city of Leipzig. Should I start an article on City of Leipzig passports? --RJFF (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a passport in the EU common design as well. Mime includes an invitation by the Irish minister for foreign affairs to allow the bearer to pass freely and without hindrance. I suspect yours carries an similar invitation by the German federal minister for foreign affairs, and not the mayor of Leipzig, however such an important office that may be. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 23:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's very interesting. The issuing authority of mine is indeed the mayor of Leipzig, and not the German foreign minister. I guess it has something to do with the autonomy of German municipalities. But on the first page it has "Europäische Union" and "Bundesrepublik Deutschland". --RJFF (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about Passports of European Union member states? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.148.250 (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Burgundy?[edit]

From the images shown, it doesn't look like they are all burgundy. In fact, that seems to account for about half the passports. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well they're meant to be burgundy. I think the problem might be poor quality scans. But don't mention the war or we'll have the image mafia descend down on top of us. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 14:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, burgundy can’t be both “mandatory” and a “recommendation”. Mr Larrington (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ The details of the procedure are set out in Article 1 sec. 4 and 5 of the Regulation (EC) No. 539/2001 (consolidated version).
  2. ^ Cf. Commission of the European Communities: Third report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on certain third countries' maintenance of visa requirements in breach of the principle of reciprocity, doc. COM(2007) 533 final dated 2007-09-13; cf. p. 10:

Emergency travel document[edit]

This needs to be talked about: The Member States may issue an emergency travel document using a EU-standard model for a single journey. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LSU/?uri=CELEX:41996D0409 – Kaihsu (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've  Done the appropriate edits. BushelCandle (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be renamed[edit]

The article's current name is "Passports of the European Union". Its very first sentence is: "The European Union does not issue passports" - So the current name is obviously not a good choice. It should be something like "Passports of European Union member states".176.4.43.219 (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All passports of the European Union bare the title European Union at the top. That is why this article has a correct name. Thanks for your concern though.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are no "Passports of the European Union". The EU doesn't issue passports - simple as that.
European Union member states' national passports bear "European Union" on their covers.176.0.3.58 (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are no European Union passports but there certainly are Passports of European Union. Intricacies of English language.--Twofortnights (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So here, on this talk page, you say "There are no European Union passports" - and on e.g. Visa policy of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines you insist on the wording "Holders of European Union / EFTA passports" ?
How can there be "holders of European Union passports" when "there are no European Union passports" ?176.0.3.58 (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's just a short form for Holders of passports of the European Union. Your analysis on EU law was proven wrong and reverted many times in other articles by other users, I have no reason to think your analysis here isn't wrong again. I am sure you have good intentions but your limited knowledge of the subject and slightly lower understanding of certain intricacies of English language means that you shouldn't be so sure your analysis on the EU law is right. Just remember how your edits on overseas territories were treated by other editors who pointed out major flaws in your views that you attempted to present as the only truth on Wikipedia. So please try to accept that there are people more knowledgeable on the subject than yourself.--Twofortnights (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have "analysed" EU law ? I have been proven wrong ? By other users ?
It is YOU who reverts ALL edits anyone does to any visa-related article. Not only my edits but ALL (and by all i mean "ALL") edits.
My Gibraltar, Akrotiri and Dhekelia etc edits were correct.
I gave EU regulations, international treaties, government websites as references.
Gibraltar is part of the EU. It's a fact. There is nothing to analyze. EU, IS, FL, NO and CH are entitled to freedom of movement there. It's a fact. There is nothing to analyze. The SBAs got an open border with Cyprus. Cyprus' (and thus the SBA's) visa policy is carried out by the EU - as is clearly stated on the website of the SBA's government. It's a fact. There is nothing to analyze.
I copy/pasted those government websites language into articles.
YOU reverted those edits, not "other users" - and gave a discussion board (ridiculous) as a reference for nonsense like "there are no immigration rules in the SBA's".176.0.3.58 (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you try to keep dozens of articles (ALL visa-related articles) under your control - you might (not) want to read this: Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles#Examples_of_ownership_behaviour 176.0.3.58 (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I told you already that your behavior has irked many other editors in other articles where you tried to present your peculiar views of how the EU (and especially special overseas territories) functions and you were proven wrong. But due to your personality you don't accept that you were proven wrong by them and you try to push your peculiar views on other EU issues into articles, despite being wrong on them as well. As for only me doing it and not other editors, well Wikipedia has something called edit history, so at least in that department you can't lie like you do with the EU reglations - diff. As for Cyprus, the source you provided does not mention Schengen at all, not a single mention - [3] yet you used it as a reference for a link to Schengen Area. And all of this has nothing to do with the subject here.--Twofortnights (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The formulation 'Passports of the European Union' is no different to for example 'Passports of Europe' or 'Passports of the Earth'. All formulations include some kind of geographical area, and there are issuers of passports within each of the geographical areas, so an article with one of those titles would contain a list of the passports issued by the passport issuers within the relevant geographical area. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1."all of this has nothing to do with the subject here"
yes, true ... but may i remind you that it was YOU who started going offtopic [4]
2. "you can't lie like you do with the EU reglations"
Does that mean that...
a) "DIRECTIVE 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely" ... does not entitle EU/EAA citizens to freedom of movement in each others territories (e.g. British Gibraltar) ?!?
b) the "Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons" ...does not entitle EU and Swiss citizens to freedom of movement in each others territories ?!?
3. Akrotiri and Dhekelia: The government's website says: "These crossing points [...] control the movement of [...] persons [...] in accordance with EU regulations".[5]
So I wrote: "...in accordance with EU regluations". My source given in the article was that government website.
You insist on "there are no immigration rules" - and provide a discussion board as a "reference".[6]
4. The user you metioned above insisted on: "British passport holders have the right to stay in Gibraltar without any restriction" [7] [8] [9] - and insisted on Timatic as a "reference"[10] - even though that webiste doesn't say anything like "stay without any restriction". I reworded the section and linked the EU's regulation (2004/38/EC) on free movement of persons [11] . That user didn't revert a fourth time (3RR) - but then you popped up and made the same changes - reverting all edits done to that article, insisting on the same wording and the same crappy references as that other user.176.3.90.51 (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As said, you might want to read this: Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles
(and i recommend you to also read those: Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry, Wikipedia:Harassment) 176.3.90.51 (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't descend into paranoia that I have multiple personalities staged to harass you when I point to the above comment by user Stefan2, which should explain to you why this article should not be renamed.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You said it yourself: "Wikipedia has something called edit history"
If you don't change your behaviour concerning ownership, harassment, justified edits etc., I will collect dozens of your words/edits - made here, in several edit summaries, on users' talk pages - and report you.176.3.90.51 (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by Rob984[edit]

Rob984 seems to have a particularly strongly held point of view that the newly introduced Irish Passport Card is really a plain, old, ordinary Identity Card masquerading under a false and thoroughly misleading name because the current Irish governement is too pusillanimous to call a spade a spade because their populace would rise up in arms if they revealed the awful truth to them. I have a degree of sympathy for this position - after all you can hammer a nail into wood with the heel of a heavy man's shoe and the Irish Passport Card is certainly a card that can be used for domestic identification purposes as well as it's primary purpose of international travel.

However, because of the sentiments expressed at Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth, until such time as authoritative and reliable sources can be found for such a point of view and in terms of writing an accurate encyclopedia that intelligently summarises and reflects current published debate within the relevant fields (in other words, an overview of the relevant literature), this is just his own original research.

Since the issuing authority of the Irish Passport Card has described it on the face of its own document as a ""PAS/PASSPORT/PASSEPORT" in three of the official languages of the EU (Irish, English and French), my editing will reflect the published authoritative sources rather than the beliefs of Rob984, however genuinely and passionately they may be held.

In practical terms this means that, until such time as these missing sources that negate the stance of the Irish governement are publicised, I will likely revert PoV pushing edits like these ones that weaken the accuracy of the article. BushelCandle (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are inferring "passport" refers to both the standard, booklet form, as well as passport cards. That usage is not supported by reliable sources. Passport cards are considered distinct to "passports" in reliable sources. Implying otherwise is original research. Regards, Rob984 (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS, just because you added a comment to the talk page does not make it OK to reinstate your change. Your attitude really is not helping. I am not going to promptly reply, knowing every time i have to spend 10 minutes reverting a tonne of contentious changes. And you aren't going to win over other editors by being unpleasant. Rob984 (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the Irish Passport Card has only been in circulation for a month or so, I defy you to cite reliable sources that state "passport" does not refer to both the standard, booklet form, as well as passport cards. By contrast, I have an excellent source that states that the Irish Passport Card is indeed what it says on the tin - a passport. ICAO is also of the same opinion. My two sources are ICAO and the Irish Government. What are your sources that state that the Irish Passport Card is not a passport? Please remember that a passport is simply a request in physical form (explicit in most cases, implicit in some cases such as Swiss passports) from the issuing authority (usually a sovereign state but could be a chivalric order, an international organization or an indigenous tribe) and typically to all whom it may concern, to afford the bearer such protection and assistance as may be necessary in their international travels. Before photographs became cheap, the person (or family or group of children) were identified descriptively in copperplate handwriting, now advances in technology mean that fingerprints (and perhaps DNA data or retina scans) may be included in machine-readable chips embedded in the physical manifestation of that request. Originally there was an implied threat that if that request from a sovereign power was ignored, war or a severe deterioration in state-to-state relations might result. Now that international travel (and terrorism) is commonplace, identification of their nationals has become of paramount importance for most passport issuing authorities, but never forget that some passports do not state the bearer's nationality at all! In the past, you could be confident that a visa was a piece of paper. Now a 'visa' may not exist in a form you can pick up or put a ballpoint pen line through - it may just be annotations in an Australian government computer system. Now we have the first true Passport Card that has not been castrated by the issuing authority. In the future, the "protecting power" may just certify to the interrogating authority abroad by electronic links that your DNA matches that of one of their citizens and that nothing derogatory is known... BushelCandle (talk) 06:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As it is written by me on Talk:Irish passport, it is disputed that ICAO specifies passports in the 54x88 mm (TD1) size. I know you disagree, you write it there, but that does not make your view undisputed.--BIL (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that there are Wikipedia editors who don't believe that anything that is not a passport booklet in TD3 size format can be called a "passport". The continuing problem you have is you've been unable to find any authoritative source for your stance and that is why you should stop editing Wikipedia to produce an unsourced result.
By contrast, the Irish Government have officially stated that their new TD1 size passport card is a passport. Shortly PRADO will state the same, so until and unless you can cite reliable sources that they're wrong, you're flogging a horse that has already died. (ICAO, very wisely, avoids these nomenclature disputes entirely by laying down standards for Machine Readable Official Travel Documents (MROTDs) in the TD1 credit card size formats whether they're called Identity Cards, Laissez Passer, Passport Cards, Crew Member Certificates, Seamen Identity Documents or whatever.) BushelCandle (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Passports of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First picture (Austrian Passport)[edit]

The very first picture on the top of the article is supposed to show an example of an EU passport. The "Austrian" passport is chosen. It is not a scan or an image of the actual Austrian passport though, as can be seen in the section "Overview of passports issued by 28 Member States" under Austria.

Specifically: The word "PASSPORT" is missing under "REISEPASS". Also the font is not correct. Couldn't we just use the same picture as in the list instead of the wrong one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quetzcoatl (talk • contribs) 09:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland: Passport Card[edit]

Ireland is still the only EU country to issue a passport in card format appears to be misleading. Maybe the text should be amended as follows: Ireland is still the only EU country to issue a passport in card format in addition to a valid passport booklet. Regards, Olli1800 (talk) 08:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Passports of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

Please note the proposed merge of passports of the European Economic Area into this article. --Glentamara (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Passports of the European Union. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Passport rankings table should be deleted ...[edit]

... because it has nothing to do with passports. The visa requirements are for citizens of that country, not for their passports. (If someone has dual nationality and thus two passports, their options for visa-free travel arise from one or other of their nationalities. Obviously they will present the relevant passport as prima facie evidence of their nationality but legally that is incidental). The "who has the most powerful passport?" is just tabloid click-bait and not encyclopedic.

Does anyone have a convincing reason to keep it? --Red King (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. Visa requirements are established based on the passport that is presented at the border. If someone has a dual nationality but presents only one passport then the visa policy for the nationals of that country would apply.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Red King... It is all about nationality, of which showing a passport is just an indication.. L.tak (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But do you have anything to substanatiate your claim with? Because passport is a legal proof of citizenship, not an indication.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Practically everywhere in the world, there are people who are citizens of their own countries who have never even seen a passport, let alone possess one (many of them live in the US). A passport may be obtained fraudulently, it does not confer citizenship, merely attests it. In a famous case in Northern Ireland, a person who asserts that she is Irish (in accordance with the Good Friday Agreement), has an Irish passport and has never held a British passport, was nevertheless declared by a (British) court to be a British citizen (though in Irish law, she is Irish).[1]
But all that is neither here nor there. As an example, the US visa policy in respect of Roumania is about Romanian citizens, not about their passports. Yes, if someone turns up at Kennedy Airport with a Romanian passport and no visa, they will be turned away – because they are Romanian, not because of their passport. It just makes the INS officer's job easier. --Red King (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to philosophize about this matter, passports are travel documents and can be ranked accordingly. Passports are inherently tied to bearer's citizenship. And I don't understand why would travel visa requirements matter to persons who do not hold a passport?--Twofortnights (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not philosophising, it an attempt to separate reality from evidence of that reality.
Let me try another way: Country A sets its visa policies to permit citizens of country B, C, and D visa-free entry; citizens of other countries must obtain a visa prior to travel. The citizens of countries B, C and D use their passports to demonstrate to the border police that they are citizens of their respective countries and so permitted to enter without a visa. The passport holder may still be refused entry because of who they are, irrespective of citizenship (e.g., because they are a persona non grata): the Border Police have two reasons to check passports, first to verify general visa-status by citizenship and second to verify that this individual is welcome. Their non-personal permission to enter visa-free arises because of their citizenship, not because of their passports. It is not their passport that has 'power', it is their citizenship. It is sloppy tabloid journalism to say otherwise. --Red King (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that they can excercise their visa-free right based on citizenship without a passport?--Twofortnights (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my example above, nationals of County B to Country A above must present just one document, a passport, so that their identity may be checked against the non-grata list. Nationals of Countries E F and G etc must present two documents, a passport and a visa, and both must satisfy the border control officer. US citizens may enter Canada and Mexico with no more than a driver's license, no passport involved. But they are still checked for criminal records etc. and may be turned away. (So the answer to your question in this case is yes). I fail to understand why you cannot distinguish between citizenship and evidence of citizenship: the visa requirement (or lack thereof) is addressed to the country concerned.--Red King (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. You are actually referring to Non-visa travel restrictions. I suggest to assess in which ways that article could be improved.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not and entirely orthogonal to this discussion. --Red King (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it, but you are talking about non-visa related restrictions such as personal (persona non grata) status. These are not related to general policies concerning passport holders but are related to concrete persons, regardless of their citizenship. If someone is a persona non grata then this status doesn't change if they present another passport.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Emma De Souza: Home Office appeal of case is upheld

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Burgundy:

"A. Passport format

The passport format will be uniform. The format will be decided upon by a working party taking into account technical problems and in particular those posed by the possible insertion of a laminated card.

Should a laminated card be inserted, it should have the dimensions stated in the draft ICAO recommendation."

B. Passport cover (a) Colour : burgundy red." Can anything be found to say it was not compulsory? Croatia had an opt-out as Burgundy was the old Yugoslav colour for passports I believe.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:41981X0919&from=EN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.200.177.1 (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cover colour[edit]

It states in the lead and in the Common design features section that passport covers are burgundy red except Croatia. At least one other country's passport is a different colour namely France, which uses bordeaux red. The lead claims that the burgundy red colour is compulsory (citing a non-binding EU resolution), although immediately contradicts itself by citing the case of Croatia's blue passport. Later in the Common design features section it again contradicts the lead by listing several non-binding resolutions.

So I suggest removing or changing the lead claiming the compulsory colour. AJKGORDON«» 14:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Passports_of_the_European_Union&oldid=1199380715"