Talk:World Passport

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

What is a World Passport?[edit]

Over the last year and a half, I don't know how many times I have had to argue my point here. One editor feels I am within "right" and then the next not, to have my link (link removed it links to an adult site) and description of the "world passport project" under the world passport page of Wikipedia.

My reasoning is: If World Passport Authority can link under this topic, then so can anyone who issues world passports under whatever premise they wish: Be it pseudo-official; art-based or concrete philosophical discussion.

Just because the word "authority" is in World Passport Authority's title doesn't mean they are a real authority. Just because the booklet that they issue, looks like an official document doesn't mean it is. They scam people to pay an amount of money for something that doesn't actually exist. More details are seen below in my last discussion on this page.

A World Passport is a conceptual idea and doesn't belong to any one organisation. FYI: Another artist who discusses this is Tom Muller: http://www.galeriedusseldorf.com.au/GDArtists/Mueller/TMHomoGlobus02.html. And therefore I and anyone else should also be able to link information about this concept too. In my case, the two websites are about the same issue: a world passport. The only difference is that I, Sonya Spry; have a completely different view about how to bring the concept and topic of a world passport to the forefront than the founder of http://www.worldservice.org, Garry Davis. World Passport Authority already has a page to itself, since it is a business. It cannot however, have "sole ownership" to the concept of nor the word: world passport. Tourdottk (talk) 17:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the difference here is that Garry Davis' WPA has been around for over half a century, has been described in multiple, independent, non-trivial printed works, has received major media coverage over the years, and so passes WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS. Even if your claim to being able to issue a world passport is equally legitimate (which I'm not questioning), you need to establish verifiability, notability, and reliable sources for inclusion here. Heather (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a particular artifact, not a concept. Even if the proposed content met the required criteria for inclusion in the project, it would more correctly belong in a separate article, however named. RashersTierney (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the article dealing with the general concept would be at World passport. Rich Farmbrough, 10:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I feel this article is extremely biased in treating the World Passport as some kind of "scam" document rather than a conceptual piece of protest and consciousness expansion. Lengthy discussions about all the ways in which it is not "legitimate" because no countries accept it miss the point, which is not to create valid documents but to protest the entire system of nation-state control that restricts peoples' movement unless they have official "permission" from whatever country lays claim to them. The creator Garry Davis renounced his U.S. citizenship after his exposure to the killing fields of World War II and he was a courageous lifelong activist who opposed nationalism at great personal risk and sacrifice. The World Passport is a tool and a provocation in the movement for human freedom; it does not purport to be a generally usable travel document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0AE:BBF0:98B4:DAE4:6903:12E6 (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation. Whether you accept the legitimacy of nation states or not is wholly your decision. The existence of national borders and the rights of sovereign states to control who may penetrate those borders, however, are indisputably observable phenomena in the world. The document, along with fantasy birth certificates etc, is marketed as a travel document and does not feature a disclaimer that it is not a real travel document. For these reasons, I do not feel that the article is in any way biased. --Île flottante (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editors: This article contains an internal contradiction re. the Achille Lauro hijacker Youssef Majed al-Molqi. The body text claims he used his World Passport to escape Italy and travel to Spain but his entry in the "List of notable World Passport holders" claims he never used the document for travel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0AE:BBF0:98B4:DAE4:6903:12E6 (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have therefore proposed the removal of that table further down on the talk page. --Île flottante (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware[edit]

Please be aware, the world passport is NOT a government issued passport and NOT accepted by Notary Public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.118.100.117 (talk) 00:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted by?[edit]

Is this passport accepted by USA and EU? Unsolicited 14:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not accepted by anyone. Spartaz 14:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For immigration purposes, probably no longer accepted. Just FYI, by practice, it is accepted as identity document such as in post offices or banks of some countries (especially, if the bank is not required to collect nationality information).119.104.106.131 (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where to use it?[edit]

To check into a hotel... To do banking transactions, after changing to use this form of ID... As ID to get a mobile phone in repressive regimes, (Greece)... To buy a car, a boat, and (hopefully) some land...

Sure to find more uses soon, other than travel Maybe we should have a (talk/article?) section for (non-state) services that do and do not recognise it? Notawsabod (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References for work in progress[edit]

March 19, 2010: again and again: Just wondering what the reasoning is behind deleting the link to www.worldpassport.tk from the page titled "world passport" on wikipedia? As far as I can tell, a world passport is not an internationally recognised official document and therefore the 'title and concept' cannot be claimed by any one individual nor organisation. A World Passport remains a conceptual idea.

While I have read the wikipedia guidelines and I understand that it is not a publisher of individual thought, I am then confused as to why the World Service Authority can voice their philosophical viewpoint and mislead potential readers/purchasers into believing in the power of a document that does not give any true identity nor real access at worldwide borders. (except of course in a couple of extremely rare, or "case-by-case" as they would like to put it, circumstances).

You could also argue that the www.worldpassport.tk link leads to a website, but it was placed in the same external link section as the link to the World Service Authority. While the artist's website only requires thoughtful discussion, which generates a world-wide point of view on the ideology behind the concept of a world passport, the World Service Authority charges a fee for all their so-called "world-wide" documents: World Citizen Card: registration fee is $30 plus $30 annual assessment. World Passort: 3 years: $45. 5 years: $75 8 years: $100. World Donor Passport: with special cover added is issued gratis to contributors for $400 or more to the World Refugee Fund. (btw: connected directly to the World Service Authority) World Identity Card: $20 World Birth Certificate: $20 World Marriage Certificate (only for registered World Citizens): $30. For the World Political Asylum Card (only for registered World Citizens): $10. For the World Press Card (only for members of the World Media Association): $30 (2 year membership fee). Shipping and handling fees are extra (of course!)

Now if one would want to get pedantic about the interpretation of what is and what isn't encyclopaedic content, then I really have to argue that while the World Service Authority appears to have an official website and official authority it is no more than a scam to take money out of the hands of the desperate. And if there is anyone that knows about how desperate they are, it is myself. I have read and answered so many requests from those who actually believe that there is the possibility of buying your way out of an impossible situation.

So, if you delete the link www.worldpassport .tk, then the World Service Authority link should be removed as well. It is only a wonderful concept put into the hands of a true misleader, and personally I believe, all information about this organisation should be taken from wikipedia. It only gives it a more "true" status.

Voicing an artists' view, equal rights of discussion and thought and speaking up for those without the freedom to travel thoughout our world.

Wikipedia, please be consistent, but most of all be responsible!

Kind regards

Sonya Spry www.tour.tk | what a wonderful world tour | travelling the world on bicycle since 2006 www.sonali.tk | justifiable web design www.underthesamesky.net | an artist's take on art www.worldpassport.tk | an artist's view on the topic of the world passport —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.26.152 (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Ratherhaveaheart 17:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the text below has written this excerpt with a particular political bent that opposes the fundamental and universal human right to freedom of movement. See the questions in CAPITAL letters within the text.

The World Passport is a document issued by the World Service Authority, a private (WHERE IS THE SOURCE FOR THIS?), non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C., purportedly (THIS WORD CARRIES AN UNDERLYING EMPHASIS THAT IS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED) under the authority of Article 13, Section 2, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. World Passports have allegedly (THIS WORD CARRIES AN UNDERLYING EMPHASIS THAT IS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED) been implicitly accepted on a de facto, case-by-case basis by over 150 countries and, at one time or another, on an explicit, legal or de jure basis by Burkina Faso, Ecuador, Mauritania, Tanzania, Togo and Zambia. However, Burkina Faso withdrew its de jure recognition of World Passports in 1992(WHERE IS THE SOURCE FOR THIS STATEMENT?), and there is evidence going back to 1996 that Zambia has also withdrawn its recognition (WHERE IS THE SOURCE FOR THIS STATEMENT?). Procedures for verifying the identity of applicants are lax (WHERE IS THE SOURCE FOR THIS--THIS STATEMENT IS A VALUE-JUDGMENT), and passports issued by the World Service Authority have been mentioned in U.S. indictments for fraud and providing material support to terrorists (WHERE IS THE SOURCE FOR THIS). Canada[1], New Zealand[2], Switzerland[3] and the United States[4] (ONLY PARTS OF THESE GOVERNMENTS HAVE GUIDELINES ON THIS--THESE GUIDELINES DO NOT REFLECT THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT'S VIEWPOINT WHICH IS WHAT SEEMS TO BE STATED HERE. THIS IS NOT ACCURATE AS OTHER DEPARTMENTS OF THESE SAME GOVERNMENTS HAVE RECOGNIZED THE DOCUMENTS) have all stated that they do not recognize such documents because they are issued by a private organization, not a competent government authority, and thus do not meet the definition of a passport. It is unclear whether any country currently accepts WSA passports. (THIS STATEMENT IS NOT BASED UPON ANY QUANTITATIVE EVIDENCE OF LACK OF RECOGNITION.)

Does any country accept the world passport[edit]

Can anyone give me the list of countries that accept the world passport issued by WSA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tbaba (talk • contribs) 16:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Their website has a list of 150 + countries that have accepted it at least once (including most countries that you could think of) but only six (apparently since reduced) that do so as a matter of policy. In other words, if you catch some customs guy sleeping on the job, you might get a visa--on the same principle that some people have managed to travel on passports issued by the United Federation of Planets--but don't count on it.

Hi J. Delanoy

Have no idea if I am in the right section or not??? But anyway...

Just wondering what the reasoning is behind deleting the link to www.worldpassport.tk from the page titled "world passport" on wikipedia? As far as I can tell, a world passport is not yet an internationally recognised official document and therefore the 'title and concept' cannot be claimed by any one individual nor organisation. A World Passport remains a conceptual idea.

While I have read the wikipedia guidelines and I understand that it is not a publisher of individual thought, I am then confused as to why the World Service Authority can voice their philosophical viewpoint and mislead potential readers/purchasers into believing in the power of a document that does not give any true identity nor real access at worldwide borders. (except of course in a couple of extremely rare, or "case-by-case" as they would like to put it, circumstances).

You could also argue that the www.worldpassport.tk link leads to a website, but it was placed in the same external link section as the link to the World Service Authority. While the artist's website only requires thoughtful discussion, which generates a world-wide point of view on the ideology behind the concept of a world passport, the World Service Authority charges a fee for all their so-called "world-wide" documents: World Citizen Card: registration fee is $30 plus $30 annual assessment. World Passort: 3 years: $45. 5 years: $75 8 years: $100. World Donor Passport: with special cover added is issued gratis to contributors for $400 or more to the World Refugee Fund. (btw: connected directly to the World Service Authority) World Identity Card: $20 World Birth Certificate: $20 World Marriage Certificate (only for registered World Citizens): $30. For the World Political Asylum Card (only for registered World Citizens): $10. For the World Press Card (only for members of the World Media Association): $30 (2 year membership fee). Shipping and handling fees are extra (of course!)

Now if one would want to get pedantic about the interpretation of what is and what isn't encyclopaedic content, then I really have to argue that while the World Service Authority appears to have an official website and official authority it is no more than a scam to take money out of the hands of the desperate. And if there is anyone that knows about how desperate they are, it is myself. I have read and answered so many requests from those who actually believe that there is the possibility of buying your way out of an impossible situation.

So, if you delete the link www.worldpassport .tk, then the World Service Authority link should be removed as well. It is only a wonderful concept put into the hands of a true misleader, and personally I believe, all information about this organisation should be taken from wikipedia. It only gives it a more "true" status.

Voicing an artists' view, equal rights of discussion and thought and speaking up for those without the freedom to travel thoughout our world.

Wikipedia, please be consistent, but most of all be responsible!

Kind regards

Sonya Spry www.tour.tk | what a wonderful world tour | travelling the world on bicycle since 2006 www.sonali.tk | justifiable web design www.underthesamesky.net | an artist's take on art www.worldpassport.tk | an artist's view on the topic of the world passport 189.182.236.236 (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian citizen tries to enter Latvia with World Passport[edit]

It might be worth mentioning that citizen of Georgia tried to enter Latvia with World Passport at 27. July. He was arrested. Interestingly - he also had an valid Georgian passport with him. Later he asked for political asylum. http://www.baltic-course.com/eng/baltic_states_cis/?doc=43953 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.110.115.79 (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinely concerned[edit]

I am genuinely concerned by this article, its general content and the way things are presented. Wikipedia should be not supportive of something that it's a mere demostration from a non-profit group (if worse not a scam) than anything else. The entity issuing those ID documents has no authority for doing so and the fact that some distract public officials has stamped those documents does not mean they are a valid ID or those countries accept it. The stamp on those passeports can be equated to a stamp on a fake passport. Also on the website of the WSA there is the scan of a passport stamped in Italy by a Post Office !!!

I am going to propose a number of serious modification to this article and to highlight the issue to some administrator. The article cannot remain as it is today. Wikipedia cannot make direct - or indirect - promotion for such a thing. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't clear to me why you think the project is being promotional on this subject, as opposed (possibly) to some individual editors. If you feel the article can be improved, be bold, bearing in mind policy. The page is not protected, so not sure why you think admin intervention is necessary at this time. RashersTierney (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May issues exist. The first one is that too much sourcing in this article come frome the website of the WSA. This is not acceptable because it does not comply with WP:CIRCULAR. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the editor who's done most of the expansion of this article. I don't know what you think is "promotional" about the article. Having an article about a topic based on secondary sources is not the same as "promoting" a topic: Nazi Germany, Ku Klux Klan, Murder, etc. I spent a long time searching the internet in three different languages for newspaper articles and government statements about this topic and summarised what I found, including all the cases where the World Passport was rejected by border officials, used by criminals, resulted in heartbreak for refugees, and the like. I have been careful to refer to the World Passport as "the World Passport" (capitalised as a proper noun) or a "document" to avoid implying that it is a real passport.

I also don't see why you think that "too much sourcing in this article come frome the website of the WSA". There's more than 50 citations in this article. A grand total of eight or nine come from the WSA website. And there's precisely one paragraph and one sentence of article content (out of seventeen total pagagraphs) which are supported by a citation to the WSA website:

The latest edition of the World Passport, issued January 2007, is an MRD (machine readable document) with an alphanumeric code bar enabling computer input plus an embedded "ghost" photo for security, printing covered with a plastic film. According to the WSA website, the application fee is $45 for a three-year passport, $75 for a five-year passport, and $100 for an eight-year passport.

And

The World Service Authority promotes the World Passport not just as a document for international travel, but a "neutral, apolitical document of identity".

The first I do not think should be controversial to mention, unless you think the WSA is lying about what their document looks like or how much they charge. The second statement is clearly identified as the WSA's own viewpoint and not a statement in Wikipedia's editorial voice, per WP:SELFPUB. You can eliminate it if you want but that just leaves the paragraph without an opening sentence and it'll sound weird. The other seven citations to the WSA website in the table which I have just modified to make it clear that there's no third-party verification of the alleged acceptance. The rest of the article content is entirely written based on reliable secondary sources. 61.18.170.192 (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, firstly I would more than appreciate to talk with a logged user and not to an IP address (and I guess you should have one because you contribute significantly on en:wiki). Let's enter in the organic matter of the question. Perhaps the article should say that today everyone can apply for a World Passport without giving any document proving his/her identity. So you realise that you can create your World Passport identity from scrap?

This should be enough to make clear that this booket it's just a booklet and not a form of identity. And I will rephrase the text in order to make it crystal clear. Also it should be said that the WSA is not the authority in charge of ensuring the respect of the principles set in Article 13, Section 2, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Each state internationally recognised has this responsability, not Mr. Garry Davis. --Silvio1973 (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Well, the fact that Snowden was "stranded" and his "world passport" granted him passage means it is "accepted" as a valid passport by at least one country that we know of. Is there some test that must be passed concerning the number of countries that accept your passport before it is "a real passport"? If so, then it becomes a popularity test rather than a document. There's quite a few countries that do not and will not accpet my Israeli passport. That doesn't make it a "not real" document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.74.223.213 (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Assange honorary World Passport[edit]

Why was this edit removed as 'promotional material'? The link seems genuine, and Julian Assange was issued a world passport on Garry Davis' initiative, just as with Jawaharlal Nehru, the Dalai Lama and others. http://www.expertclick.com/NRWire/Releasedetails.aspx?id=41434 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.192.58 (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy Travel Document[edit]

Given that this document is not issued by a recognised authority, such as a national passport agency or an internationally recognised body, that the ‘appicant’ supplies their own details for the document, and the fact that no countries officially declare that they accept this document, I think that it safe for us to conclude that this is a fantasy travel document. The occasional, if unproved, acceptances by certain countries who do not officially accept the document is more a sign of lax immigration controls than of accpetance of this document. I had tried to include the term ‘fantasy travel document,’ but was on two occasions reverted by an anonymous IP user. Instead of further reverting his/her reversion, I wanted to know what other users felt. --Île flottante (talk) 06:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100 p/c. They're not real passports. Not sure that fantasy is the right word, as that makes it sound like something they'd give you in a theme park. I had a look at some of the synonyms and I think bogus is the best word. Counterfeit and fake imply they are copies of legitimate documents. The use of the word bogus is already in use for stamps, not for forgeries of genuine stamps but for issues from totally fictitious countries. The same applies to these so-called passports.--Dmol (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thanks for your input. I'll make the edit. --Île flottante (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A passport is a document issued by a recognized sovereign entity. The "World Passport" is a fantasy document. Nothing else. --Silvio1973 (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
no DisagreeThere are no such definition. Issuer of a passport or a travel document is not necessary be a "recognized", "sovereign entity". Interpol Travel Document DPRK passport 124.244.119.124 (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FYI. One of the anonymous IP user you have mentioned (not me) should be the staff of WSA. 119.104.115.2 (talk) 06:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
no DisagreeI disagree 100%. There are no basis to definite this document a "fantasy travel document". The World Passport is obviously not like a fantasy passport sold in theme park etc.
1. It is created and issued as a passport, a travel document. Even nowadays in actual practice it is not accepted by most countries for entry/exit purposes, it does not change its definition. (e.g. North Korean passport is not accepted in Japan and not recognized as a "passport" by Japanese government, but it is definitely a passport.)
2. At least it has the nature as an identity document and actually be accepted in many places.
The most important, there are no trustworthy source have such definition "fantasy document". Also, the validity and effectiveness of this document as a "travel document" and "identity document" are being argued, as we can see many articles on media.[2][3][4] It is dangerous to make such irresponsible definition just by subjective feelings without strict basis since Wikipedia may effect some legal or non-legal affairs and this may be unexpectedly harmful to people in some scenes in the real world (e.g. it may be the only document for some refugees - this may be irregular in your countries but it happens). [5] Most holders take World Passport for identity document as it designed, but not for fantasy.
Thus my suggestion is to use "passport", at least we should leave it "identity document" as its characteristics.124.244.119.124 (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. These arguments have all been dealt with elsewhere in the page. The DPRK is a recognised sovereign state. Interpol is an international organisation whose members accept its laissez passer. These arguments are poorly thought. Île flottante (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
no Disagree Acceptance by specified immigration authorities does not change its definition. Editor should not give a specified definition just by personal feeling without any source or objective basis while there are most opposite articles from multiple trustable sources. I have added citation needed and please add your source.210.80.194.132 (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum nor a place for promotion. These issues have been discussed ad nauseum, and I do not intend to restart the same arguments again.--Dmol (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Also Wikipedia is not a place to make definitions by personal estimation or this argument will be continued and this will be a shame. Articles should be neutral. I'm not interested to make any promotions and I hope so are you.
Would it be good if remove any personal-defined words and only leave "a document" in the main definition? About the "Fantacy passport", this is a unilateral view, it should be fine to be stated in the followed paragraphs in the article, as same as other contents which claim it to be a functional passport. Leave those issues which is being argued in the real world as is and do not make judgements in Wikipedia. 119.104.115.2 (talk) 06:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read, WP:SOAP, WP:RS, WP:V, and the rest of the long-running discussion on this talk page. It has all been covered repeatedly. --Dmol (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I want to say, please read WP:SOAP, WP:RS, WP:V, before you reverse some changes to irresponsible definition without good source.119.104.106.131 (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just another politically vandalised document upheld by a small group of gatekeepers. Wikipedia is almost useless these days since it is easily controlled by tiny political interest groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.99.121 (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Accepted by" section[edit]

This section is essentially a collection of unverifiable incidents upon which, at some point over the past fifty or so years, an immigration official has stamped a so called World Passport. It is not based on reliable sources of information such as individual countries' immigration agencies' websites. I suggest that the table be removed as it may mislead a reader into believing that the document is valid for those countries. --Île flottante (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the "See Also' section for deletion relating to "camouflage passports".[edit]

The World Passport is not a "camouflage passport". A camouflage passport is a fake or novelty travel document which typically created using the name of a non-existent country. The World Passport is a document issued by the World Service Authority to support their mission as a nonprofit humanitarian organization. The World passport does not contain the name of any existing, or nonexistent territory or nation, that issues (or at one time issued) government authorized passports. The implied reference to the World Passport being similar to a "camouflage passport" is completely false.

This article contains biased, opinionated, inaccurate and intentionally misleading information[edit]

I am nominating this article for deletion because the author seems to be using Wikipedia to advance a personal agenda.

The author appears to be engaging in a negative publicity campaign against the World Passport and the World Service Authority (the nonprofit organization that issues the document).

The author of this article is using his creative writing licence in a very liberal manner.

The media articles and references the author uses to support his claims about the  World Passport being nothing more than a  "fantasy travel document" is also incredibly biased and opinionated.

Surely, the author could have chosen better sources of information about the World Passport for this article.  There are plenty of news articles and media references about the World Passport on the World Wide Web.  Not of all the articles put this document in a negative light.

I have a World Passport.  I do not work or volunteer for the organization that issues this document. The author of this article is not the voice of general consensus. The author does not speak for the global population.

I have a Bachelor of Science degree in criminal Justice (including constitutional law classes). I have been employed as a legal investigator for government agencies and major law firms for more than twenty-five years (I've also investigated quite a few fraud cases). I'd like to know what  qualifications and credentials the author possesses, which (he believes) gives him superior authority (over everyone else) to maintain this biased article on Wikipedia in it's current form?

The World Passport has had defacto acceptance by many nations on several occasions.  Any nation can chose to accept or reject the World Passport at their own discretion.  Therefore, the author's arguments are untrue and invalid.

The opening sentence in this article is unnecessarily misleading.  It conveys a negative view of the "World Passport".  The use of the phrase "fantasy travel document" is biased and opinionated.  The author of this article could have chosen to use more appropriate and accurate descriptive terminology in it.

Secondly, The World Service Authority does not "sell" World Passports. The World Service Authority is a 501c3 organization. Meaning, they do not make a profit. I'm sure any money received goes towards the cost of producing the World Passport and other administrative expenses.

The author is acting maliciously by maintaining this article in it's current form.  I'm sure the language contained in this article is causing substantial damage to the operation of this lawfully recognized nonprofit organization.  

User:Davidlubimoff (User talk:Davidlubimoff)

Hi thanks for your input. Given that no country has a de facto or de jure policy of accepting this document when it is presented at international borders, this document cannot reasonably be considered to belong to the same category of documents that are accepted by nearly every immigration authority in the world, i.e. actual passports. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform, and consequently articles are not written with the goal of promoting things in a positive light, rather articles are written in such a manner as to present information clearly and accurately. I disagree with you that describing the World Passport as a fantasy travel document is biased. A fantasy travel document is a document issued by a person or organisation lacking the normal authority to issue passports; authorities able to issue passports are, generally speaking, international organisations or immigration authorities. Your argument about WSA being a non-profit and the the selling of World Passports brining in revenue to support the production of the aforementioned is bizarre and doesn't lead to a conclusion. Île flottante (talk) 07:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Davidlubimoff, if you have reliable sources that support some of your claims, such as the WSA not selling World Passports, you are at liberty to edit the article as you work with others to reach consensus. Academic Challenger (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear lle_flottante, I've read DavidLubimoff's comments and your response to it. I think you are trying to rationalize and defend the derogatory way in which this article is written. No matter how you try to intellectualize your position on this issue, your arguments sound convoluted and unconvincing (in my humble opinion). Paladin999 (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Challenger,

I think its appropriate to identify what product or service the WSA is "selling" in the context of a nonprofit organization. How you are defining the word "selling" as it applies to this particular situation? The term "selling" is customarily used in commerce language, where the meaning has to do with business related transactions. In this context, the WSA would have to derive a profit from the issuance of the World Passport in order for it to be considered an item they are "selling". That doesn't seem to be the case here. Therefore, DavidLubimoff might be correct in his argument that the WSA is not selling the World Passport to the public. This may be considered a false statement. Paladin999 (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm afraid this argument also isn't very logical. The World Passport is sold for a fee, that fee is received by WSA and it is therefore profit derived from that sale. In legal terminology, the World Passport and the fee paid for it are both parties' considerations for the contract of sale between WSA and the purchasing party. Whether or not WSA is profitable is dependant on how many World Passports they manage to sell, but this is ultimately irrelevant to the fact that World Passports are indeed sold. --Île flottante (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the nature of contracts. I took a contracts class in law school.

The WSA does not appear to be a corporate entity engaged in "selling" their products or services to the public for a profit.

Your usage of the word "selling" is incorrect in this situation. You are referring to a contract for sale of a different nature. The meaning you put to the word "selling" in this article implies that the WSA is a merchant engaged in a profit-making venture. Your argument seems bit nonsensical to me.

When you pay a fee to renew your drivers license, does the Department of Motor Vehicles "sell" you the license? The individual who pays the fee derives a certain kind of personal benefit in possessing the driver card. However, we understand this kind of transaction does not qualify as a sales contract.

It's quite obvious to me that you are applying the generally accepted meanings of words in this article and adapting them to suit your needs.

As another person commented elsewhere in this Talk, you could have used better language in writing this article. Paladin999 (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is really getting ridiculous. We are getting off on a tangent here about whether they are sold or not, but that's getting away from the fact that they are NOT passports anyway. They are NOT officially issued as a normal passport would be, and have NO official standing.--Dmol (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if it's being sold for profit. Charities can still sell things, be that for profit or not. The DVLA analogy is irrelevant, because the former is a government agency charging a fee to issue a an official government document, whereas WSA is an organisation charing a fee for a produce they've produced.Île flottante (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest the following to replace the first sentence in the article?

The World Passport is a de facto travel document of limited use. It is provided for a fee by the World Service Authority, a non-profit organization founded by Garry Davis in 1954.

This would address the issue that it is not a de jure passport, it is not used very widely, and it is (possibly) not "sold" according to the legal definition. Hulten (talk) 13:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I oppose this change. The World Passport is not a de facto travel document; it is not widely accepted and no state officially accepts it, therefore it cannot be said to fulfil the function of a travel document. I disagree with your contention that it is not sold. A contact of sale is concluded between the seller and the purchaser, therefore making 'sell' the appropriate verb. Île flottante (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose this change. It is not a travel document, de facto or otherwise. The "fantasy passport" designation is well referenced and long-standing. Have a look at the talk page, and the edit history, and you will see a long list of single-use accounts trying to change this fact.--Dmol (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on World Passport. 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) 06:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Factual Information with Proper Citations being replaced by Opinion?[edit]

I respect Dmol and know he is trying to do the right thing, but I have a question for him and the community. Why was an edit I made deleted when it improved the article with factual information? Here are the three paragraphs to replace the first sentence:

World Passports are issued by the World Service Authority (WSA) a non-profit organization in Washington DC. The passport states that it is issued pursuant to Article 13:2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [1]: "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."[2] The World Service Authority was founded by Garry Davis[3] in 1954.[4]

Although the WSA displays copies of VISA entry and exit stamps by 187 countries,[5] such recognition is inconsistent and many of the same countries frequently reject it. The European Council has classified it under its category "fantasy documents"[6]

Issuance of passports by non-state agencies dates back to 1922, when Fridtjof Nansen launched the Nansen Passport which was issued to stateless refugees. Adopted by the League of Nations, his passport was eventually recognized by over 50 governments.[7]

Since each of these statements are documented and since they include Dmol’s concern that the word “fantasy” be mentioned, why were they deleted and replace with an opinion? Here's what was referenced in the citation section: 1. World Passport page 2 2. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/%7Ctitle=Universal Declaration of Human Rights|website=www.un.org|language=en|access-date=2017-10-10} 3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/garry-davis-gadfly-and-world-citizen-no-1-dies-at-91/2013/08/06/2c1544c8-fdde-11e2-96a8-d3b921c0924a_story.html?utm_term=.13e989ef775b 4.[http://www.worldservice.org/gov.html "What is the World Government of World Citizens” [5]http://www.worldservice.org/visas.html [6]Table of travel documents entitling the holder to cross the external borders and which may be endorsed with a visa - (Parts II and II) and Part V (documents to which visas cannot be affixed. Council of the European Union. 1 December 2008. The World Passport is placed in the latter category [7] http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/nansen-passport-refugees ArthurKane (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using the word 'issue' is dishonest. This would imply that the World Passport is something more than a private creation without any legal force. Here's a lesson in public international law: in order for someone to make a legal act on the international scene, they need to be a subject of international law. The WSA is not a subject of international law and it is not de jure regarded as one by any other subject of international law. Due to not being a subject of international law, WSA cannot issue lawful passports. Visa should not be written in capital letters. Customary international law evolves; I do not accept that 1922 customary law would have allowed for a private organisation to sell private passports, it is clear that in 2017 international customary law does not allow private persons (moral or physical) to issue their own passports. Your edits are not facts, they are just misunderstandings of the elementary notions of public international law. Furthermore, a private person cannot make a binding interpretation of the UDHR. For these reasons, your edits were revoked. Île flottante (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. As you can see, there is considerable discussion here already on this subject, so I will just point out a few pertinent factors.

The World Passport is not a passport. It is one of several ‘fantasy passports’ sold by a private organisation to promote a political ideal. (Similar to the other fantasy passports in that respect).

They are not issued by any official government or country, and do not have an official country code.

There is no official acceptance that I know of anywhere in the world, and most cases were they have been ‘accepted’ is due to incompetence or ignorance on the part of officials. As stated in the article, they look like real passports. (As do some refugee documents, but they are also not passports).

Until there is official international government acceptance of these items by the rest of the world, they will remain fantasy passports.--Dmol (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DETAILED RESPONSE: Glad to hear you are interested in International Law. Then please consider this: 1. In 1948 The United Nations General Assembly unanimously passed the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard "for all peoples and all nations" and added that "every individual and every organ of society" shall "promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition."

Article 13 (2) states, “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.” The World Passport was created to give people a tool to exercise this right.

2. The UDHR, which defines the human rights agreed to by treaty in the UN Charter, is binding international law as was adjudicated in numerous court cases including the 1980 Filártiga v. Peña-Irala decision. In Namba v. McCourt, the Oregon Supreme Court looked in part to the human rights provisions of the U.N. Charter to support its findings: “When our nation signed the Charter of the United Nations, we thereby became bound to the following principles (Article 55c, and see Article 56): “Universal respect for, and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.” For numerous other cases see: http://scholarship.law.uci.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1077&context=ucilr The US Constitution States in Article 6 that “All Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” The fact that that the US and other nations sometimes violate their treaty obligations by denying this basic human right to freedom of movement does not in any way make the World Passport a “fantasy passport.”

3. The WSA is a respected human rights organization carrying out the UDHR’s mandate -- for over half a century. WSA has a Legal Advocacy Department that defends the rights of world citizens before local and international judicial venues such as with the Immigration Ombudsman and the European Court of Human Rights. Anyone may visit the WSA office at 5 Thomas Circle in Washington DC. There you will be able to see for yourselves the file cabinets full of moving letters from previously undocumented refugees and stateless people. Many have used these human rights documents to obtain freedom and in some cases to save their lives.

4. Please understand that the use of the word “issue” is correct. To issue means to “supply or distribute.” The World Passport is issued by the World Service Authority (WSA) legally incorporated as a non-profit organization in Washington, DC.

5. You have mentioned the passport is “not issued by any official government.” What makes a government official? WSA is the administrative branch of the World Citizen Government founded in 1953 to which hundreds of thousands of human beings have pledged their allegiance. It may be considered a government in microcosm for now, but all governments start with a small number of like-minded individuals who unite to work together for the greater good and the good of all. The UDHR says "the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of Government." Almost all constitutions say the same thing. The ninth amendment of the US constitution reserves to people all rights not specifically enumerated in the constitution. Since America's founders also stated in the Declaration of Independence that it is "the right of the people to institute new government," clearly Garry Davis and the 750,000 people who registered as world citizens (more than the population of many nations at that time) did have the right to "institute new government" at the global level, where there was no existing government. Everyone has the right to choose your own political allegiance. New nations have often taken decades gathering recognition before they became generally recognized. Governments in exile have often issued passports, such as the Green Book issued by the Tibetan Government in exile. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois_passport Or take a look at the Iroquois Passport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois_passport The Wikipedia pages on those documents don’t begin by calling them Fantasy Passports. Rather they accurately describe what it is and times they have or have not been recognized or stamped. It’s fine to note that the passport is not universally recognized. Under a subheading of “Controversy,” it would even be fine to note the argument about “fantasy.” But it is inappropriately biased, and inaccurate, to put that at the top of a page about an important human rights document with a history of over a half a century of usage, as well as de jure recognition, and de facto recognition by consulates, embassies and border guards from practically every nation. The WSA has been serving its limited but important governmental functions in Washington DC, unimpeded since 1954 -- because under law whatever is not prohibited by law is allowed by law, and world law is outside and beyond the jurisdiction of a single national government. So yes, this government may be functioning in microcosm, but it is a beginning, and it can be the inspiration for more of us to join together to pave the way for instituting the the rule of law at the global level.

6. Because the World Citizen Government represents individuals all over the world both through its Documentation Department and its Legal Advocacy Department, its passport is subject of international law. Article 13 of the UDHR and Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights affirm the right of EVERYONE to leave any country, which is the legal basis of the World Passport. The UDHR, like the US Declaration of Independence did not invent these rights, rather they recognized that they are everyone’s innate and “unalienable” human rights. The World Passport is an expression of the right to freedom of movement and the right to identify ourselves as human beings and world citizens, first and foremost.

7. 187 countries have placed visa, entry and exit stamps in the World Passport as evidenced at www.worldservice.org/visas.html. The website only provides a few examples of each country but the WSA maintains an offline archive with many examples of ongoing de facto recognition. To dispel the notion that these were merely accidents by border guards, consider the fact that a great many of the passports were submitted through the governmental processes of various nations and issued visas by government officials, not merely by border guards. In addition, six countries have given de jure recognition to the passport since its founding in 1954. More than 750,000 World Passports have been issued and close to 5 million documents have been issued. This means that more than a million individual human beings have recognized the WSA as a valid authority. Individuals (“private persons” as you call them) make binding agreements every day – these are contracts between people that they can exercise privately or publicly. If you understand international law, you will know that states do not have “rights,” they only have powers. Look at national constitutions for the proof of this statement. Only people have rights.

8. All passport issuing authorities charge fees for issuance of their documents. The documents themselves are free; the applicant is paying the fee for the service of having the documents issued. The WSA is a non-profit and is not “selling” passports. Rather the issuance fees are used to provide free passports to stateless refugees who cannot afford them and to carry out the charitable purposes of the organization to promote universal respect for human rights.

9. The term “fantasy” comes from a category this passport was placed in along with passports from Native American nations and others in one document. It is only a guideline and does not determine what the entire world can do. 159 other countries can and do make their own determinations about the validity and legality of the passport. 10. With regard to the Schengen Area Agreements, these regulations only apply to short-term visas, they do not abrogate a government’s obligations under human rights law, and they do not prevent the issuing of visas or residence permits to World Passport holders. First, they have no applicability to visa or residence permit requests for stays over three months (Schengen Acquis Article 18; Visa Code Article 1(1)). For those stays, national visas are to be issued in accordance with national laws. Moreover, the European governments have on a de facto basis recognized the World Passport by placing immigration, entry, and exit stamps in World Passports. This recognition confirms the government's’ on-going acceptance of the World Service Authority as a competent authority.

Conclusion:

The attempts to block and revoke documented facts about the World Passport and to substitute writer's opinions is inappropriate for Wikipedia. It seems to be based on the false view that the nation-state is the only legitimate authority in the world, when in fact International Law is evolving and law exists above the nation state level, as is evident from the African Court, Inter-American Court, European Court of Human Rights, the International Criminal Court, the Human Rights Committee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Human Rights Council of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Individuals are subject of international law, specifically of human rights covenants, conventions and treaties that pertain to the rights of individuals and groups. When Wikipedia was started, it could easily have been dismissed as a "fantasy encyclopedia." It didn't exist like the "real" Encyclopedia Britannica. Someone made it up. But then it took on a life of it's own and became an important evolution of human knowledge. Now, as an encyclopedia of, by and for the people of the world, Wikipedia should be in the forefront of encouraging the evolution of human rights at the global level and respect for human rights at the individual level. As it says in the UDHR, “every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance." Words have a real-world impact. Wikipedia is not just an academic exercise. Do you realize that your words are actually impacting people’s lives? The WSA has received reports from refugees and stateless people whose rights were going to be upheld, whose passports were going to be accepted, but then the official happened to look at the Wikipedia article and then decided to refuse them. Do you want to accept personal responsibility for damaging the forward movement of human rights in the world? And for causing this negative impact on people’s lives -- people who are already in a vulnerable position due their lack of documentation from the nation-state and lack of respect for their innate and unalienable rights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArthurKane (talk • contribs) 18:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]


1) Art. 13 al. 2 UDHR does not oblige any state to grant leave to enter to any person other than their own citizens, to whom the state would issue their own passport. Art. 13 al. 2 UDHR is not an absolute right, so national governments can restrict, for example, the rights of criminals to travel.
2) This is not relevant.
3) Amnesty International, et al. are 'respected human rights organisations;' WSA is a relatively unknown organisation.
4) The process of acquiring a World Passport is the same as any other online purchase; it is a contract of sale. For this reason, 'sell' is the appropriate verb.
5) A government is the executive of a state, for the purposes of this discussion. In order to be a state, three or four preconditions must be met: there must be a regular population, it must have a territory, and it must have a government. Fourthly, certain scholars argue that a state must also be a subject of international law and recognised as such by other subjects of international law. WSA meets none of these conditions. 'World law' is not a thing.
6) A passport cannot in any circumstance be a subject of international law. An ordinary passport, such as one issued by the French Republic, is a document issued by a recognised subject of international law. Identifying as a human instead of favouring nationalistic flag-waving is great and it would be amazing if the world were like that, but that is not the case. Humans of different nationalities are different, especially in regards to immigration regulations; a US citizen has no legal right to enter Russia in the same way that a Russian citizen does.
7) A good number of those photos are very dated and others (all Schengen stamps) were made in error. These photos are, if anything, proof that human boarder guards make mistakes.
8) State do have rights; states are legal persons of public law, as such they have rights and obligations both within their own jurisdiction and to other states. In certain cases they even have obligations to humanity as a whole (c.f. ius cogens).
9) Indeed those countries could decide to abolish immigration controls but they haven't, so your point doesn't really mean very much.
10) Schengen visas of no nature can be placed in World Passports as they are regarded as fantasy passports by the European Commission. (https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/borders-and-visas/document-security/docs/list_of_known_fantasy_and_camouflage_passports_en.pdf)
Île flottante (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed reply, Île flottante. You’ve covered all the pertinent points, and I think it would be fitting to close this discussion at this point.
Wikipedia is not a blog for advocacy, which is what this user is promoting. A quick look back over the history of this article over just the last twelve months shows over a dozen new or IP users pushing the same arguments, and in all these cases (bar 1) they are only editing the World Passport article or Garry Davis, its creator. I strongly suspect that some, or all, of these are the same person or a small clique of people pushing the same agenda. They register a user name, make the edits, and disappear.
Almost all of these users seem to take umbrage with the word ‘fantasy’ despite widespread acceptance of that term by governments. .
Is there some sort of arbitration that can close this discussion once and for all with a definitive ruling on the wording in the lede. .
Thanks again for your hard work.--Dmol (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dmol. I also agree that it is important that people remember that Wikipedia is not a platform to campaign for issues; it is a reference that must reflect reality. Île flottante (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on World Passport. 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) 16:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WSA justifications section[edit]

I think such a section, detailing the justifications and reasons for producing this document, as given by the issuing organization should be added. This might be subjective, but, nevertheless, the reasons given by this organization since 1954 should be listed. DL1982 (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Wikipedia is not a platform to publish private political opinions; it's an encyclopaedia.Île flottante (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article about the Iroquois passport describes it in the first sentence as "a form of identification and an "expression of sovereignty", based on the claims by the Iroquois League. Later in the article, the EU list of non acceptable documents is quoted in listing the Iroquois passport as a "fantasy passport". This is reasonable enough. Why is then the WSA passport defined in the first sentence as a "fantasy travel document", bases solely on the EU list? Why is the Iroquois passport not described as a "fantasy document" "sold" to "customers"? Who decides what is a "real passport"? The WSA passport is not the same as a souvenier sold by Conch Republic or NSK; it has a history of 60 years of use, archives to prove said use (photos of stamps on WSA site are only examples), and a legal department which actually intervenes on behalf of users vis a vis national officials. The lack of constant universal recognition does not make it "not real"; de facto and de jure recognition over the years make it valid. Many passports are not universaly recognized: The above mentioned Iroquois passport, passports issued by SMOM, Somaliland, Abkhazia abd even Republic of China (Taiwan) and Israel are not universaly recognized; that does not make them not valid or not real. Moreover, why is the insistence to claim WSA passports are "not recognized by anyone", when there are 1)official letters of recognition from six states and 2) thousands of visas and stamps on passport pages? You can not say all of those were "a mistake by border officials", especially not the visas and confirmations issued by consulates; in many cases, said officials must have had specific reasons to grant passage to the passport holder. In addition, getting a WSA passport is definietly not an "online purchase" - you get it either from a WSA agent, from a WSA stand at various conventions, directly from the office at Washington DC, or by mail - with an actual printed form AND a proof of identity. Also, unlike actual souvenier or fantasy passports, the WSA sends detailed information and documantation about its' passport to all states every several years. For your consideration. (The undersigned is not affiliated with WSA except for being a user of its' documents).DL1982 (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been discussed ad infinitum and therefore I'll only address new points not already discussed on this article's talk page. Israel and Taiwan have a government, a territory, a population, and are able to enter into agreements with other subjects of international law; the WSA has none of these characteristics and therefore the comparison between official documents issued by the ROC in Taiwan/Israel and fantasy documents sold by the WSA is ridiculous. The letters of recognition etc. are all antiquated; all stamps were issued in error; humans make errors. The Iroquois League is an organisation that represents a people, albeit a people lacking sovereignty. Let's be honest, the World Passport is just a toy produced by an organisation that lacks a solid understanding of international public law. Île flottante (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, to conclude that "all stamps were made in error" is a subjective opinion, especially for printed machine readable visa stickers, in which cases the individuals who received them were surely thoroughly checked. The years of the letters of recognition does not make them less official. As you know, admittance and visa issuance is arbitrary, ofthen depending on your ethnicity and bank account (actually, showing a bank statement helps to get a visa on a World Passport... and any other passport). As for being a gimmick or a toy.. Garry Davis would have agreed, as he said "national passports are a joke on us, so we made the World Passport which is a joke on them".. It is a tool you must know how to use. I have spoken with WSA president and personaly met Garry Davis - they aren't there to dupe people, but for a cause - all WSA documents are part of an aim to get human rights protected and respected by law - globaly. And finaly - the WSA might be an organization, but it is the administrative arm of the World Government of World Citizens - which represents a people lacking a soveregnty - humanity. DL1982 (talk) 08:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about adding a single sentence, for example: "The organization claims that the document derives its' legitimacy from..." ? DL1982 (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is starting to get annoying. You have no intent of contributing to Wikipedia and are only using it to advocate for the WSA and its products. This is not a forum, nor a soapbox for promotion. --Dmol (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I second Dmol’s sentiments entirely. This superfluous discussion does nothing to improve the article or Wikipedia. Île flottante (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holders of World Passport[edit]

My recent edit adding a list of several holders of World Passport was removed by user:Dmol, claiming "these are not official "souveniers". The fact is, the list of World Passport holders already contains persons who received a passport directly from Garry Davis, and this is the same for my recent edit, which shows exactly what it claims: persons who were given a World Passport on their name personaly by Garry Davis, with references from books which were published and printed, including photographs of said meetings. And calling this document "souvenier" is a subjective opinion - you might as well call the SMOM passport or Somaliland passport "souveniers". DL1982 (talk) 11:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the term ‘holder.’ The appropriate term is owner. If you were to buy any other product, you would be described as its owner; someone who buys a gameboy is not a gameboy holder. Using the word ‘holder’ dishonestly implies that the World Passport is an actual passport. Île flottante (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have converted the list to text and trimmed it to several prominent examples over a few different categories. --Dmol (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely "holder". Even for a membership card we call it holder. A World Passport has the obvious characters of an identity document and it is not a gameboy. You must submit required application documents and get it issued, and WSA is the only organization can issue it. You cannot buy World Passports from a shop. (I don't know what happened to you personally with WSA but please stop your harassment.) 119.104.106.131 (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted de jure by six nations[edit]

The article pretends that the only instances of acceptance in these nations are several decades old. As a matter of fact, the World Service Authority has stamps and visas for these nations as recent as 2017, and that's besides the fact that these six nations (Burkina Faso, Ecuador, Mauritania, Tanzania, Togo, and Zambia) officially accept the passport. As in, they consider it valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.209.158 (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you can source a recently issued official document issued by one of the aforementioned countries explicitly listing the World Passport as a suitable document for entry at their borders, then you’d be right. Currently all the WSA has to show are some mistakes made by government officials who probably didn’t know they had been presented with a fantasy passport and not a genuine travel document. Here’s an example. Suppose a Swiss border guard stamped a non visaed Russian passport to grant visa-free entry to that particular Russian national; that would not mean that the Schengen visa policy suddenly grants visa-free access to Russian nationals, but rather it just means that that border guard made a mistake. Likewise, all these stamps and visas are just examples of humans not being machines and making mistakes. Île flottante (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Île flottante. There's reams of the same discussion on this talk page, all claiming the same arguments. And once again, it's a single use account who has no intention of contributing to Wikipedia in any way other than to spam the World Passport. --Dmol (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Passport&oldid=1206080242"