Jump to content

Talk:Irish passport/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Rights to a passport [setting out the facts]

Anyone who is the son/daughter of someone is an Irish citizen or who was entitled to be an Irish citizen is automatically an Irish citizen. Most often this takes the form of an Irish grandparent. Please note the word "anyone" this is not soemthing that specifically applies to the USA, although this is commonly accepted as fact in the USA and in my view is symptomatic of American arrogance. Please check out wikipedia's article on Irish Citizenship. I was born in the UK, and have an Irish grandparent, and I claimed the passport quite easily.

86.14.16.5 (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Rights to a passport

Individuals with an Irish parent or grandparent are automatically Irish citzens and upon providing the right documentation can obtain an Irish passport that is also good for entry into any EU country. Anyone Born on the Island of Ireland before 31/12/04 is entitled to Irish Citizenship I was born in Northern Ireland I Have a British passport because Northern Ireland is Part of the United Kingdom (England,Scotland,Wales,Northern Ireland=the United Kingdom) but people born in Northern Ireland are British Citizens but are if they are born before the above date can have an Irish passport ..im applying at the moment for my Irish Passport if born after the above date you have to Prove that your Parents have a Connection with the Geographical island of Ireland this (through sy them being born on the Island of Ireland for example)

In accordance with WP:VERIFY, material maybe removed at any time if there are no reliable published sources. the reference links provided are not accessible, thus cannot be verified. Noblesham 06:50 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have updated that link to a working one. Djegan 13:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo

The photo sucks, but it's all I've got, I'd welcome a better one. - FrancisTyers · 19:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Reference

Is it just me or does that reference appear twice on the page? Djegan 20:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Just once here. - FrancisTyers · 20:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It appears twice when I log in to Firefox and Iexplore, in the "References" section. When I log out of both it appears only once. Strange. Djegan 21:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Whatever caused it its gone now. Relief. Djegan 21:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Shielding

Section removed from article as possible original research. The only source that mentiones Ireland is the register and the information there doesn't cover the text by far. Please properly source the information if you wish to insert it and in particulat I'd like to see some articles about shields in irish passports. --Spartaz Humbug! 20:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC) Second thought, is the register a reliable source? --Spartaz Humbug! 20:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think we need to reproduce the offending section here. Djegan 21:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough I struck the text. Its in the history anywhy. Spartaz Humbug! 21:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
While I'd usually be uncomfortable using The Register for this kind of information, their article points to a number of additional sources for the information it's used for (i.e., that there isn't a shield present and that shields are used in US passports), and additional sources also in the text you've removed appear to corroborate it also. I'd suggest leaving it in this case. The 'nine metres' claim can be referenced to the Times Online article already in use. This leaves only the statement that "criminals could access the names, digital photos and passport numbers without even coming into contact with the passport owner," which contradicts information in the Times article, and therefore without further sourcing for it I'd suggest striking this sentence but leaving the rest of the paragraph intact. JulesH 21:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the extra eyes JulesH. I'll have a go at saving the removed section after I have had some sleep. I have lost the ability to spell through tireness so now is not a good time. --Spartaz Humbug! 22:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys. I wrote the section on Shielding as I feel it is a genuine area of concern with the new passsport. I put it in as the original wikipedia article appeared to state that the Irish passport doesn't suffer from security concerns. This does not appear to be the case as the articles I cited showed. The Irish ePassport was developed by BearingPoint Ireland Ltd. (formerly KPMG consulting) a company who developed the Dutch and German ePassport to US specifications. The articles I referenced from the Irish Sunday Times, the Washington Post, US State Department and New Scientist were designed to compensate for the lack of editorial oversight in the Register (which, to be fair isn't exactly IndyMedia.ie to begin with). I had a reference from the Irish times which I didn't put in as (a) it pretty much used the information from those sources I already cited and (b) require a subscription. Here it is anyway: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/finance/2006/0818/1155714789654.html . The Irish Passport wikipedia article was pretty much unreferenced before I added this section so it can't be said that the section I added was referenced to a lower standard to what was already there. I welcome any edits other users make to my work - disagree with statements, ask for citations, etc. That's what makes wikipedia such a great resource but deleting sections before even giving the author a right of response is, in my opinion extremely brash and unfair. --Rubensni 15:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Section: Visa Free Entry

Their is potentially a logical error in this section in particaular that on Europe, it says "European Union unlimited access", however it also mentions that their is a 90 day limit in "Faroe Islands", "Monaco", "San Marino", "Vatican City" and annotes these as "same as Denmark", "same as France", "same as Italy" and "same as Italy" respectively. Note that Denmark, France, and Italy are part of the European Union and that "unlimited access" can hardly be equated with "90 days (same as XXX)". So which is correct "unlimited access" or "90 days (same as XXX)"? Djegan 14:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"Faroe Islands", "Monaco", "San Marino", "Vatican City" are not part of the European Union. European citizens are allowed to move freely within the Union and "EFTA" countries. That's why the word "unlimited access" used. However, "Faroe Islands", "Monaco", "San Marino, "Vatican City" are neither EFTA nor EU. There are still immigration regulations imposed on EU citizen, which is equivalent to the Schengen Treaty adopted by their neighbour countries, namely Denmark, France and Italy. That's why "90 days (same as "XXX")" was used. Is such a matter serious enough to delete my contributions? Noblesham 15:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
In accordance with WP:VERIFY, an official policy, material maybe removed at any time if their are no reliable published sources. With that in mind I will give the option that sources be provided, but failing their appearence the material maybe removed at any time, by any editor. Djegan 14:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Is IATA timatic not a verifiable sources? so please tell me what is?! Noblesham 06:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think your tit-for-tat removal and request of souces is at best WP:POINT and at worst WP:VANDAL, and I will treat it accordingly because your just repeating back the policies I have named and reverted my work as well. I have treated the material you have added in good faith by giving you the option of referencing when you completed the table but have removed it because it is a long detailed list and remains unreferenced. It is unreferenced now and undoubtable it will have a short shelf life as immigration issues are in constant flux, in any case as I originally suggested an external link to a website would be the most appropriate manner of providing information rather than duplicating it here because in any case Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Djegan
In the end of the day my rationale is as simple as this: if you want to keep visa details on worldwide travel destinations then you sure need to be able to reference it so correctly it can be checked. Because when someone finds their way onto the visa details and says "hey, this is useful and cool and beats having to check inaccessable official resources" then their should be no doubt as to its fitness and correctness. It is a long list of information and not a narrative and either needs to be undoubly correct or not their at all. Djegan 14:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
This article about the Irish Passport as an artefact needs to be kept separate from Irish visa policy (and other matters relating to migration and State control in a general sense), not materially evident in the document itself. Agree fully with Djegan. RashersTierney (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Visa section

Where is the Visa Free access map of the irish passport? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.27.0.215 (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing a section for a legitimate reason isn't vandalism!

A Irish passport doesn't entitled anyone to an visa anywhere! Possession of Irish citizenship may entitle people to visa free travel or a visa on arrival, but this has a very tenuous link to a passport. Many countries accept other kinds of identification. This is simply the wrong article for this kind of information. At worse it should have its own article, at best it should be moved over to Wikitravel.

To make matters worse, the use of flag templates on the page is in clear violation of Wikipedia:Flags, and it isn't sourced. Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Visa-free sections are common on all passport pages and are encylopedic content. As for this not being sourced : you are right, and please do so. Check the other passport pages on how. Passportguy (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
You're right they certainly are common. But this doesn't mean they should be there at all! Have you considered a "Visa-free travel for X citizens" article series. Anyway I'll go ahead and add an unreferenced tag and remove all the templates these aren't necessary. Blue-Haired Lawyer 10:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
If you want to add an unreferenced tag, please go ahead. Please do not remove the tenmplates, as they greatly facilitate the sorting and setup of these lists ! The use of these templates is well established on these pages. If you want to request an article split (for all passport pages), post to the appropriate request page. I wouldn't mind the latter, however for passport pages with less content especially, this does not seem worth while. Passportguy (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Too late it's already done. Splitting up the pages isn't required because the passport articles are too long. It's required because the visa policies of other countries have nothing to do with passports. They are completely different topics! Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Note that the info on the page is not "Visa requirements by Bhutan" but rather info on where holders of Irish passports may travel visa free. hus it is related to the page. I'll fix the refs later on. Passportguy (talk) 11:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly enough the word passport doesn't make it into the "Visa-free and Visa-on-arrival (VOA) Travel" section. It refers to "Irish citizens". And you're right it isn't about the "Visa requirements by Bhutan" but the visa requirements of over 130 other countries. Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add a substantial amount of material and then declare it is based on copyrighted material - see WP:COPYRIGHT. Continued placement can result in template:copyvio been tagged on the page. Please provide only links to substantial amounts of copyrighted work. Djegan (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Taking data from any source, be it books, films or other publication is always permitted if the 1) source is given, and 2) there is a substainal amount of own work involved, (in this case the lookups), i.e. the information (or in this case the entire database) is not copied and pasted in its entirety. None of this is apllicable here. If you want to contend that sourced information as such in not permissible on Wikipedia, almost the entire Wikipedia webisite in its entitrely would have to be deleted, as all of it's information is copied from other sources. Passportguy (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
So the reference is only partially valid, in that case I will remove it. Everything requested must be referenced. No copyrighted material unless your are been specific on what part of wikipedia policy you are claiming. I am not interested in an abstract court case in some minor court somewhere that allowed reproduction of a recipe. Djegan (talk) 14:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Please refer to WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:3RR and WP:VERIFY. Djegan (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
There are several convincing reasons that proves the visa-free or VOA section are not copyright violations (many of which are explained by Passportguy) ; therefore these sections should not be removed. Moreover, editors put the government websites as their source an for those countries that yet do not have a visa info website, the sources are IATA based websites which are also put as the source.

According to the copyright laws, the publisher of certain information may use them if he/she mentions the source and/or the copyright holder. Majalinno (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The question of copyright is discussed in detail below. Djegan (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Incidentially this comment was only forthcoming after this kind of desperate canvassing. Djegan (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a request for comment. Question : Is it a copyright violation to use data from a copyrighted source (e.g. book, website), provided that the source is given ? Comment : If so, I might add that nearly all of the visa section on passport pages will have to be deleted, as almost all statistical info on sports pages, politics related pages, currencies and many more. All have their data from books or source which are copyighted. If taking that data as such violates Wikipedia policy, a lot will have to deleted here. Passportguy (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The points I made above stands. Djegan (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
For the record : I have no problem adding individual sources as on other passport pages. I do not contend that the article was not ideally sourced. However, before I go to the great lengths of sourcing every etry individually, I need to be certain that adding sourced data from copyrighted sources to Wikipedia is permissible. You are contending that it is not, as the data is supposedly copyrighted as such. As I said above, that would lead to the demise of Wikipedia, as nearly all data available here is taken from copyrighted sources. Passportguy (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Firstly the "en masse" usage of copyrighted material is not permitted. Secondly why would you possibly want to go to the trouble of individually referencing every country when all you need to do is provide a single external link to one external source? This is a bit like reinventing the wheel. See WP:NOT, in particular WP:NOTMIRROR, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE -- the top of that page states "This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy". Thanks. Djegan (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Because there is no single external source that is not copyrighted. I might add that this is not comparable to a copy-and-paste. This page is not a mirror of anything either, as the information of the site consist of data that was obtained in individual lookups, akin to looking something up in a book. Passportguy (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
It would make a hell of a lot more sense if we just gave a link to the Delta website. Why just copy lots of stuff that available elsewhere? Blue-Haired Lawyer 15:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Because one is a database and one is a readible article. If i followed your article we could just substitute links to (often better written) books and websites for almost all articles. Passportguy (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Please also bear in mind what was stated by other users at Talk:Irish_passport#Visa_section. This article is about the Irish passport its not a Visa entitlements of Irish nationals articles. Their is a difference! Please only place material relevant to the Irish passport in the article. Don't bulk the article up based on other similar articles. Provide references on request and no "en masse" copyrighted material - but even then material maybe removed.

There are no other users who state: "This article is about the Irish passport its not a Visa entitlements of Irish nationals articles." there is only you an one other user which from the similarities of the way of writings and your thoughts, it pretty much seems that it is your alternate account:(sockpuppeting).

secondly, if visas are not related to passports, then why do government stamp the visas in them?? As a passport holder of any country you are allowed to know what countries/territories you can travel to without a visa. Here, some users have provide information while mentioning the sources and put them altogether for the convenience of people holding a certain nationality. Majalinno (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, if you want to accuse someone of sockpuppetry then their is an appropriate forum, but if the best you can do is use false claims to motivate others your cause is bound to fail... Djegan (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
In fact how do I know that Passportguy and Majalinno are not sockpuppets? One has "passport" as part of their name whilst the other pretty much only ever contibuted on passports. Your case for Djegan and Blue-Haired Lawyer is very shallow and based on one article out of all our contributions. Don't wonder if you get laughed off whilst an err of suspicion at yourselves becomes the norm... Djegan (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Passportguy and Majalinno - if you think their are sockpuppets you can also request CheckUser. Djegan (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As the flier at the bottom of every edit box says:

Please note:

  • If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.
  • Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include most web pages or images.
  • See our policies and guidelines for more information on editin

Regards. Djegan (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment via WP:3o I'd understand taking data as a literal copy and paste which is not allowed per WP:COPYRIGHT#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others. If however, taking data refers to reading the copyrighted data and using it to formulate the additions to article in your own words then I can see no problem. Nk.sheridan   Talk 21:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Material must be referenced on request and all parties appear to agree on this. However it is not good enough to take a large amount of information from one website and reproduce it here as that material is clearly copyrighted when the page is visited. Nor is their any point to just cutting down the information to the point whereby the reference is no longer relevant. Above all an encyclopedia is a collection of information, not merely a reproduction or summary of information from other sources. If an external link, such as a database in this case can suffice, then their is simply no need to reproduce the information here. Indeed a link to an external database, that is regularly updated and of broad depth is better than a long summary that quickly becomes stale.
A reading of WP:NOT makes it abundantly clear that Wikipedia is not just a reproduction of information elsewhere that might be better described as a database, directory, guidebook, list, manual, mirror. Lets get realistic - lets keep the information to a consistant and professional standard - we don't a big list in the middle of the article of which their are copyright and reference concerns. Djegan (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Biometric 'logo' in text

There seems no good reason for this graphic to be part of the general text. Could one of the proponants now explain their apparent determination for inclusion.RashersTierney (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. The image does not appear to serve any useful purpose, and the icon is already on the passport pictured on the article. It's also interesting to have a look at MOS:ICON. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 19:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Resolved. Applying eds blocked as confirmed User:Ronron101010 socks. RashersTierney (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sales aspect

The 1930s section has been moved down because in terms of "most-recent" the fraudulent use should be above sales (legal or not), and sales above the 1930s subject or citizen debate.86.42.200.4 (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think blogs, for example this ref, are sufficient for such contentious issues relating to living persons. RashersTierney (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Never mind. Alternatives applied. RashersTierney (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

File:IrishPassportData.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:IrishPassportData.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

It was me that uploaded the IrishPassportData.jpg file. After reading all the issues involved I consent to it being deleted. Can someone please do this?

LukeL (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Irish 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Irish 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

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) 04:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Irish_passport/Archive_1&oldid=920700767"