Talk:Canadian passport/Archive 1

Archive 1

Wording on reverse of cover

When did the wording change from "The Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada requests,..." to "The Minister of Foreign Affairs..." ? My passport was issued in 2002 and I always thought that the wording was a bit curious considering that there has been no "Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada" since 1993 (having been replaced by the title "Minister of Foreign Affairs") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.99.116.51 (talk • contribs)

Why? Laziness or ineptitude on the part of Passport Canada. For the same reason, recently released passports in this year are printed with a logo for "Foreign Affairs Canada" even though that federal department no longer exists; it's actually called the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Actually, the Department of Foreign Affairs has never exisited. It was the Department of External Affairs until 1995 when legislation continued the department under the name "Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade." (R.S. 1995 c. 5)

Legislation was introduced during the 38th Parliament to split Foreign Affairs and International Trade into separate departments. Although the legislation was defeated, the Departments had already taken some steps towards separating their identities (including the new passport stock).

Generally speaking, Departments and Agencies are allowed to use up old (albeit inaccurate) stock. Since the prayer page and the inside back cover of the passport are printed in intaglio, it is extremely expensive to prepare new plates.--Visagrunt 16:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Harmonization with Passport Canada

• In response to G2Bambino's edits, just for the record, according to the Passport Order, Passport Canada directly issues, refuses to issue or revokes passports, except in the case of national security, where it was in the power of the Minister to do so (that power is of course invalid following the Kamel case). Rumplefurskin (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to pare down the background information on refusal to issue a passport for national security grounds to remove details more related to the individuals involved in those cases rather than the passport itself. What's relevant for passport purposes is knowing what can and cannot be done with regards to refusal and why. Further background info can already be found in other pages and those can be linked accordingly. Rumplefurskin (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Two things in response:

• The ruling in the Kamel case doesn't appear to state anything about an inability for the GG to refuse the issuance of a passport, to reclaim a passport, etc. It only seems to cover the denial of an application for a passport. This would make sense as passports are the property of the monarch and not the holder of the passport.
• Where else is the information you've removed covered? --G2bambino (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The information regarding Khadr is on his own page. The information regarding Kamel's background is nowhere else yet, as far as I know, but if it should be on wikipedia it should be on a page relevant to him or to suspected terrorists or canadian national security issues or something. The only information that needs to be on this page relating to him as that which is also related to the passport. Background factual information isn't relevant to the legal issues surrounding the order. Rumplefurskin (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • As for the Kamel, you're a bit off the mark. The GG wasn't been involved in the second Khadr refusal or the Kamel refusal - those refusals were done under s. 10.1 of the Canadian Passport Order directly by the Minister. And it was a refusal to issue the passport. See the amended version of the order or this english summary of the case: [1] Rumplefurskin (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Possibly wasn't clear enough here: the GG (on the advice of the Minister) can't revoke or refuse to issue or renew a passport on grounds that aren't set out in the Passport Order. That was established in the Khadr case. That's the reason national security grounds were added to the order, but those grounds are now invalid following the Kamel case. Rumplefurskin (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, first off, the info on Khadr and Kamel was moved here from Order-in-Council precisely because it did relate to passports. If Khadr's info is in his article, fine, but as Kamel doesn't have an article, the info should stay here until he does; cited material can't just be tossed out.

I really think that if Kamel's personal background needs to be in wikipedia you should draw up a page for him, but if we don't agree, it's better it be somewhere than nowhere... Rumplefurskin (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, the GG is involved in all passport refusals as it is the prerogative of the viceroy, on behalf of the monarch, to issue and deny passports, as is stated in the Passport Order itself. As such, the GG is not bound by the Passport Order in the issuance or denial of passports, as is also stated in the order. From the summary of the Kamel case, it seems the court found the procedure by which the decision to deny a passport was reached was improper, not that the minister can nevermore recommend that the GG not issue a passport to someone. --G2bambino (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The GG is still bound by judicial review whether acting under law or prerogative, and the court of appeal in the Khadr case affirmed that she can NOT refuse a passport for grounds not set out in the order. You are correct that the reasoning for that decision was based on the doctrine of legitimate expectations, which applies to procedure rather than substance, but as the trial judge explained, in this case they are effectively one and the same. The case stands for the principle that citizens have a legitimate expectation that their passport application will only be defeated on grounds they can apprehend ahead of time. Rumplefurskin (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Latest edits are me, forgot to login. Rumplefurskin (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Passport ownership

And now, because JDM feels it his duty to purge Wikipedia of any mention of the monarchy, we have two simultaneous issues going on. Well done! However, in this case, perhaps JDM would be so kind as to explain how the Canadian Passport Order is "erroneous." Any justification for that? --G2bambino (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The Queen doesn't own all passports, the Crown does. There's a big difference. JDM1991 (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I take it, then, you didn't read the Passport Order. Section 3: Every passport (c) shall remain the property of Her Majesty in Right of Canada.[2] Or, are we engaging in OR again? --G2bambino (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And the difference isnt as great as many people think...--Cameron (t|p|c) 20:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between the Queen's personal property and that of "Her Majesty in right of Canada," i.e., the Canadian Crown. Property that is owned by "Her Majesty in right of Canada" (i.e., the Canadian Crown) is handled according to the advice of the Canadian government. She can do whatever she likes with her personal property. Kindly read the first paragraph of the article on the Crown. The Queen doesn't own passports. The Crown does. JDM1991 (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can explain how the Queen and the Crown are not the same thing, especially given Section 35 of the Interpretation Act, then please, go ahead. --G2bambino (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I recommend that you read the article on the Crown. For one thing, if the Queen and the Crown were one thing then Britain and Canada would be one country: British Crown = Queen = Canadian Crown. JDM1991 (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take the Interpretation Act over a Wikipedia article, thank you. --G2bambino (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

HM's note

Does it say this in Canadian passports too? Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State Requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary. --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly. The Canadian passport note is shown in the article. --G2bambino (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

*Turns red* Sorry I totally over looked that!--Cameron (t|p|c) 16:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Royal prerogative

User:Lonewolf BC has objected to the phrase: Canadian passports are governed by Royal Prerogative. The source [3] now provided to support this says: 4(3) Nothing in this Order in any way limits of affects Her Majesty in Right of Canada's royal prerogative over passports. 4(4) The royal prerogative over passports can be exercised by the Governor General on behalf of Her Majesty in Right of Canada. Thus, there is no misrepresentation of facts. --G2bambino (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The sentence Canadian passports are governed by Royal Prerogative makes no sense. The issuance of passports is a royal prerogative. The Canadian passport order was given by the Governor General in Council under the royal prerogative. Thus, Passport Canada exercises the royal prerogative. Though the Queen or the GG could, in theory, issue a passport directly, they would have to be advised to do so by the Privy Council. Again, in a constitutional monarchy the monarch reigns, she doesn't rule. JDM1991 (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the actual issue? Lonewolf questioned the fact that the issuance of passports falls under the Royal Prerogative, the source affirms that it does. Though your hypothesising affirms that the Queen could issue herself a passport, I don't think the Passport Order will affirm that she doesn't require one because they are issued in her name. --G2bambino (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you capitalize royal prerogative when your Canadian source, issued by the Queen's Canadian viceroy, does not? JDM1991 (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia does; I know capitalisation is one of your infatuations, but is it really an important issue to raise here and now? --G2bambino (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It violates Canadian usage in a Canadian article. JDM1991 (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Her Majesty in Right of Canada

User:Lonewolf BC has objected to the use of the term Her Majesty in Right of Canada. The source [4] provided to support this says: 3. Every passport (c) shall at all times remain the property of Her Majesty in Right of Canada. Lonewolf has claimed that this is "legalistic arcana"; this is just a personal opinion and thus no ground on which to accept his edits. Further, his preferred term Government of Canada is ambiguous; Her Majesty in Right of Canada is used to specify to which part of the government of Canada passports belong. --G2bambino (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Her Majesty in the right of *** formula is used throughout the Commonwealth realms. Just a tip: Perhaps somebody should be doing more reading and less accusing. --Cameron (t|p|c) 16:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My take on this does not come through very well in G.'s presentation, so I should clarify:
I think that the article should say that the passports are the property of the Government of Canada, just as the documents themselves say inside. This is readily and rightly understandable to an ordinary person, which is what WP should aim for, and is why the passports themselves put it in those words. "Her Majesty in the right of Canada" means the same thing, but is opaque to an ordinary person, so we should not use it here. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Lonewolf. While "Her Majesty in right of Canada" is legally correct, it is also opaque. The documents themselves use clear language that should be used in this article. JDM1991 (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue is, Her Majesty in Right of Canada does not necessarily mean the same thing as Government of Canada. Yes, the Queen is the government, but the term Government of Canada has wider meanings that take in all the ministries, civil service, parliament, etc., which all have nothing to do with passports. (There's a section dedicated to this point at Government of Canada.) Further, the source itself says Her Majesty in Right of Canada, not Government of Canada, and so using the latter is simply a biased selection of one meaning of the phrase to replace a cited one. If people don't know what Her Majesty in Right of Canada means, they can click on the link and read about it; the purpose of Wikipedia is to present information for readers' consumption to improve understanding, not foster confusion by being "common" but unclear. --G2bambino (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that some editors want to use obscure legalese over plain English. Passports themselves make the point abundantly clear, stating that they remain the property of the government of Canada. Her Majesty in right (it's a small r) of Canada refers to the entire Canadian federal government, which is exactly what Canadians mean by government, in contrast to the British usage, in which government only refers to those bits under the Prime Minister. JDM1991 (talk) 21:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the issue is that some editors want to obscure cited words in order to achieve a personal agenda. The Passport Order makes the point abundantly clear, stating that passports remain the property of Her Majesty in Right of Canada (with whatever capitalisation - that can be fixed later, if wrong). To use Government of Canada you apparently have to start postulating on what Canadians mean when they say the words, which seems more than a bit presumptuous. We can put both Her Majesty in Right of Canada and Government of Canada if you like - they may clarify each other - but it seems a little redundant to me. Not so much that I'd strongly object to it, though. --G2bambino (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with G2...HM i.t.r.o.C is not the same as the Canadian government. Where talking about a legal topic it is fine to add "legal talk" seeing as there is no simplification of the term. --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. One must note that Government of Canada is not the equivalent of Her Majesty in Right of Canada - they are legally distinct and do not refer to the same thing.--Cahk (talk) 03:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The Queen

I have removed the unsourced assertion that the Queen does not require a Canadian passport for international travel. The source used refers only to British passports. The Queen is not a Canadian citizen (not falling into any of the categories mentioning in Canadian citizenship legislation past or present), and, therefore, does not qualify for a Canadian passport. JDM1991 (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What article are you reading? Nowhere does this one attempt to venture into whether or not the Queen qualifies for a Canadian passport. In fact, the section you removed says she does not use one as they're issued in her own name; no more, no less. --G2bambino (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems bizarre to state that the Queen doesn't use a Canadian passport for international travel when she wouldn't qualify for one in the first place. The source you cite only explains why she doesn't use a British passport.

In addition, the British monarch is not in a position to state that she does not require a passport for international travel, since her entry into other countries falls under their jurisdiction, not hers. She has so far not required a passport because other governments have, out of courtesy, simply never asked her for one ... but they would be perfectly within their rights to require one if they wanted to. But all this belongs in the article on British passports, not Canadian ones. JDM1991 (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

First off, it's only your own personal opinions of whatever information you may (or may not) have at hand that says the Queen doesn't "qualify" for a passport.

Secondly, the source does not relate solely to the United Kingdom; it states: "In realms (Commonwealth countries where The Queen is Sovereign), a similar formula is used..." Hence the non-necessity for the Queen to bear a passport applies to all her countries, not just the UK. --G2bambino (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The source you cite states: "When travelling overseas, The Queen does not require a British passport."

The Canadian Passport Order explicitly states that no Canadian passport will be issued to a person who is not a Canadian citizen under Canadian citizenship legislation. The Queen was not born in Canada, is not descended from a Canadian and has not been naturalized as a Canadian citizen (she wouldn't qualify because she has never lived here). Therefore she is not a citizen and does not qualify for a Canadian passport.

The statement that the Queen does not require a Canadian passport for international travel is the logical equivalent of stating that Raoul Castro, George Bush and Pope Benedict do not require Canadian passports for international travel. They don't qualify, and neither does she.

JDM1991 (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's still your personal interpretation of what the documents say; that is called original research. I've already stated how the cite supports what's said in the article. --G2bambino (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Canadian Passport Order states, "No passport shall be issued to a person who is not a Canadian citizen under the Act." That's not original research, it is a documented fact. JDM1991 (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be "original research" to put something like "Canadian passports may only be issued to Canadian citizens, therefore the queen cannot have a Canadian passport" into the article (unless one found a source for it -- that is, for the "therefore" part of it). It is certainly not "original research" to argue thus here on the talkpage, towards the conclusion that it is silly and nonsensical to note, in the article, that the queen needs not a Canadian passport. If the policy against "original research" really forbade WP editors from making their own arguments on talkpages, in the discussion of editorial issues, such discussion would scarcely be possible. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

While neither a born nor naturalized Canadian citizen, she is the Queen of Canada (note that this is distinct from being the Queen of the UK or any other realm). Legally, she does not require a passport, because passports in Canada are issued by royal prerogative, which is to say, by her. Obviously, she need not issue a passport to herself. It follows that she can enter and leave Canada as she wishes, with or without a passport. She is the sovereign. Rumplefurskin (talk) 04:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

She enters and leaves Canada without a passport because she isn't subject to Canadian immigration legislation, which doesn't bind the Crown. However, were she to need a passport to travel to, say, Cuba, she would not qualify for a Canadian passport because she is not a Canadian citizen and therefore does not qualify for a Canadian passport. JDM1991 (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

On further reflection, I would add that, should she actually wish to do so, the Queen could clearly issue herself a Canadian passport, since she is the ultimate holder of her own prerogative. It doesn't matter whether she is a Canadian citizen or not. Within matters of prerogative, she is supreme. Even the courts may not review the wisdom of her exercise of that authority. Rumplefurskin (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Through the Canadian Passport Order, the Queen's Privy Council for Canada has advised her not to issue a passport to herself. The monarch cannot ignore the advice of her government without subjecting herself to a charge of tyranny. Constitutional monarchs reign, they don't rule. JDM1991 (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The Privy Council doesn't tell the Queen what she can and cannot do; as Rumple says, the prerogative is the Queen's, not the PC's. Regardless, this is all just more personal opinion. The source says what it says: the Queen does not issue herself a passport in the UK, this is the same in other realms. Done. --G2bambino (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that's original research. The source is British and only states that the Queen doesn't require a British passport, even though she was born in the U.K. and is, therefore, a British citizen. JDM1991 (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take it from that comment you didn't actually read the source. It goes on to say: "In realms (Commonwealth countries where The Queen is Sovereign), a similar formula is used." All the rest is only your own personal opinions based on your selective "research". --G2bambino (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that United States passports are issued in the name of the Secretary of State, but the U.S. Secretary of State has a passport. Foreign governments simply humour the British monarch by not asking her for one. JDM1991 (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the bit about the queen and the GG out of the lead, at least, as being an obscure detail, at most. I quite agree with JDM that the sourcing is not good enough, and that the claim that it is good enough is "original research". Perhaps that is what the source is driving at, but perhaps not. The whole statement seems pointless, anyhow. I really think it should be taken out of the article altogether, but I've found a more fitting place for it, at least for the interim. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, thank goodness you're not the sole decider of what is and is not a good enough source! Otherwise your "original research" that the Buck House one is not might actually be taken seriously. Pointlessness also seems to be your favoured opinion, but, it always remains just that: an opinion. --G2bambino (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of the quality of the source (which I have not questioned). It's a matter of whether the source means what you want it to mean. It's not clear that it does. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you do question the quality of the source; you have, on more than one occasion now, dubbed it "inadequate" and "not good enough." Strangely, according to your postulating, it is inadequate and not good enough at supporting a sentence that is nearly verbatim taken from the source itself. Truly bizarre. --G2bambino (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. As I said, it is a matter of source's interpretation, not of its reliability. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I am; your earlier words do not support your present stance. However, as you are the one making a matter, perhaps you'd like to clarify what exactly it is? --G2bambino (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You're certainly mistaken in supposing that I've questioned the source's reliability, and now also in supposing that my earlier words do not support my present stance.* One more time: It is not clear, from the source, that the source is saying that the queen does not need a Canadian passport. That might be what it is driving at, or it might not. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
*i.e. my position has not changed, as the contrasting of "earlier words" with "present stance" wrongly implies that it had. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about the source's reliability, and nor did you, before recently. You said it was inadequate and not good enough. Anyway, that particular subject is quickly becoming as much of a waste of time as it is for us to sit here and theorise on what we each think the source says. The link says what it does: the Queen does not require a British passport because they are issued in her name, a similar formula applies in the other realms where she is head of state. Unless someone is seriously trying to argue that there's doubt over whether or not Canada is a realm where the Queen is head of state, why does this sillyness persist? --G2bambino (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

G.: "I didn't say anything about the source's reliability, and nor did you, before recently."
I've been using "quality" and "reliability" interchangeably. In this context, they mean the same thing: the "quality" of the source is its reliability. I would not have thought that needed explaining.

G.: "You said it was inadequate and not good enough."
I said that the sourcing for the article-content in question is inadequate (not good enough), not that the source is poor (unreliable). The sourcing is inadequate because the source does not actually say* anything about the queen's need or lack of need for a Canadian passport. I would not have thought that needed explaining yet again.

G.: "Unless someone is seriously trying to argue that there's doubt over whether or not Canada is a realm where the Queen is head of state..."
No one is making any such arguement. Neither does the issue depend on the making of such an arguement.

-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
*Just for the sake of being utterly clear about what I mean by "actually say", here and below, I mean that the source makes no such direct statement. If the source "says" such a thing as that "the queen does not need a Canadian passport" (in particular, such a thing as that she does not need one because Canadian passports are issued in her name), it does so only insofar as that readers are meant to draw that conclusion from the things it says directly. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Again: as the source and the sentence in question are nearly identical in wording, it follows that you are, strangely, trying to argue the source isn't adequate at supporting itself. Your new claim about the Buck House web page not making any reference to Canadian passports could only stand if Canada was not a realm where the Queen is head of state. Yet, that is, of course, inaccurate, and you said nobody is trying to make such a claim. So, again, the real issue here remains elusive. --G2bambino (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

G.: "Again: as the source and the sentence in question are nearly identical in wording,..."
Similarities in wording notwithstanding, you're using material from the source to manufacture something that the source does not actually say.

G.: "...it follows that you are, strangely, trying to argue the source isn't adequate at supporting itself."
No, that does not follow because similar wording does not necessarily have identical meaning. And no, I am not arguing as you suppose.

G.:"Your new claim..."
I'm not making any new claim.

G.:"...about the Buck House web page not making any reference to Canadian passports..."
I have not said, and am not saying that it makes no reference to Canadian passports.

G.:...could only stand if Canada was not a realm where the Queen is head of state."
Maybe, but whether you are right or wrong to suppose so does not matter because I'm not making the "new claim" that you suppose I am making.

G.:"Yet, that is, of course, inaccurate, and you said nobody is trying to make such a claim."
Of course it would be inaccurate to deny that Canada is (Commonwealth) realm with the queen as its head of state. But no one is either claiming that directly or saying anything that would depend upon its being true.

G.:"So, again, the real issue here remains elusive."
The issue is this straightforward: You are using the source in question as a "source" for something it does not actually say.

-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 07:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(De-indenting to level of first post on this discussional branch, at 23:31, 7 April 2008 -- LW, 18:24, 11 April 2008)
You keep making claims that the wording of the sentence here doesn't have the same meaning as the wording of the sentence in the source. Yet, the two sentences are almost identical, not just similar. The source talks about British passports, and then says a similar situation exists in other realms where the Queen is also head of state. Ergo, the source claims that the relationship between the Queen and passports in Britain is similar to the same relationship in Canada. If you don't see it that way, perhaps you could explain how? --G2bambino (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In the first place, "almost identical" is not identical, but still a species of "similar". Beyond that, whereas it is even possible to use direct quotes from a source so as to create something that source does not say, the closeness of similarity in wording (that is, the wording in the source against the wording you would have in the article) is ultimately beside the point. The last paragraph on the webpage is about the requests (for free passage and needed help) in the passports of Commonwealth realms. It notes that they use a similar formula to the request in British passports (quoted in full in the second paragraph) while pointing out the salient differences. It is not about the queen's need or lack of need for Canadian or other Commonwealth-realm passports. "Formula" means formula of the requests. You are using the source as if it actually said that the queen does not need a Canadian passport, which it does not say. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to create a copyvio by duplicating sources word-for-word in Wikipedia? Also, can you can only prove yourself correct by placing your own limitations on what the source is saying? On top of this you are willfully ignoring a simple equation; complete the following: British passports issued in her name = Queen doesn't require one; Canadian passport issued in her name = [?]. And all for what? --G2bambino (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

G.:"Would you like to create a copyvio by duplicating sources word-for-word in Wikipedia?"
Of course not. I would, though, have the meanings of sources accurately represented and not warped or exceeded, where they are cited in Wikipedia. We can have that without directly quoting everything. You are implying a false dilemma.

G.:"Also, can you can only prove yourself correct by placing your own limitations on what the source is saying?"
Your question "begs the question" in supposing that they are my limitations rather than simply what the source actually means. I don't really foresee proving myself correct in your eyes by explaining how I figure you are wrong about what the source is saying, though there is always that chance. I do hope some other editors will read this matter, and agree with my points afterward if they did not agree beforehand. If nothing else, though, giving my interpretation of the source's intent shows that it is open to interpretations differing from the one you want -- which goes back to what I said at the outset: the sourcing is inadequate because the source does not necessarily mean what you are presenting it as meaning.

G:."On top of this you are willfully ignoring a simple equation;...
Your "simple equation" only goes to show up your own "original research" conclusion for what it is, which is even more glaringly plain from your last post than it was from your post before it ("ergo"). The source itself draws no such conclusion.

Also, please mind your tone. Phrases such as "willfully ignoring" are uncivil and a form of personal attack, which have no proper place here -- likewise, the condescension of your "complete the following".
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The false dilemma was your creation when you pointed out that the wording of the source was not identical to the wording of the sentence here in the article. I'm glad you agree verbatim copying is not necessary; we can toss that aside. Now, as for interpretations of what the source says, I'm also glad you realise yours are only your own; thus, the limitations you place on the source's words to support your take of what it says go no further than your own mind. As anyone can read a source differently, your taking this particular cite in another way to me is of no consequence. What matters is the presentation of a fact: the Queen does not require a Canadian passport as Canadian passports are issued in her name. My equation, which is no doubt of my own creation, was only a tool to give further credence to the above fact. Of course, it is the Buck House website - outlining, as it does, the similarities between the Queen, passports, Britain, and her other realms - that gives the fact much more valid support. Yet, you won't recognise the source as supporting what it does. So... where to go from here?

As for your claims of uncivil behaviour on my part: I can't help but hear the word "hypocrisy" in my mind. Regardless, no derision intended; perhaps you're just too sensitive? --G2bambino (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestions of hypocrisy and over-sensitivity on my part only carry on the same troublesome pattern of personal attack. Please stop it now, and concentrate on the editorial issue. "Words can never hurt me", but such flak is counterproductive. If you believe that I've been uncivil, myself, please say how so and I will take your views into consideration. However, I have not meant to be, and think I have not been.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 22:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to concentrate only on the editorial issues, why start complaining that others' words somehow don't meet the personal standards of address you feel entitled to? I mean, either you are rather sensitive, or you don't know that "willfully ignorant" means purposefully ignoring a fact in order to maintain your argument, and "complete the following" is just an instruction. Also, I imagine you know well how you've been uncivil in the past; if you dont, well, there's no sense in going into it again, especially not here.
(G2bambino 00:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC), extracted from below. -- LW)

I've objected to your continual petty incivilty because it was getting in the way -- also on the principle that civility is not optional. Please just stop it now, and I'll have no cause to say any more about it -- and neither shall you. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

G.:"The false dilemma was your creation when you pointed out that the wording of the source was not identical to the wording of the sentence here in the article."
This is strictly a side-point, but no, the false dilemma arose when you asked a rhetorical question implying the existence of such a dilemma. I never said anything to suggest that we must choose between either quoting sources verbatim or unfaithfully representing their meanings. On the contrary, I have been at pains to point out that likeness of wording is no proof of faithfulness to meaning. The reason I have been at pains to point that out is that you seem to be arguing as though it were such proof (here, here and here). It is not. (I have never pointed out that the wordings are not identical, nor had any cause to do so, firstly because you have never claimed the wordings to be identical, and secondly because likeness of wording is not the real issue. I did once point out, parenthetically, that "nearly identical" falls within "similar", after you'd wrongly implied a material difference between your choice of words and mine, but that is a side-point to a side-point, here.)
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was you who pointed out that similar (which is what I said about the wording here) is not the same as identical. As nobody raised the issue of identical wording but you, who else but you could it have some value for? Regardless, it is indeed, and always was, but a side point, which was my point.

If you wish to concentrate only on the editorial issues, why start complaining that others' words somehow don't meet the personal standards of address you feel entitled to? I mean, either you are rather sensitive, or you don't know that "willfully ignorant" means purposefully ignoring a fact in order to maintain your argument, and "complete the following" is just an instruction. Also, I imagine you know well how you've been uncivil in the past; if you dont, well, there's no sense in going into it again, especially not here.

So, as it seems this argument has been stripped of its excess down to a simple difference in interpretation of a source; you can't convince me of yours, and I can't convince you of mine; where do we go? --G2bambino (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

G.: Actually, it was you who pointed out that similar (which is what I said about the wording here) is not the same as identical. As nobody raised the issue of identical wording but you, who else but you could it have some value for?
No, you've got that pretty much backwards and inside-out. I pointed out that "nearly identical" (which is what you were saying about the wordings) falls within "similar" (which, along with "similarities", I had used is such reference), and I did so because you had seemed to contrast "nearly identical" with "similar". I never "raised the issue of identical wording", much less suggested that verbatim quotation is necessary. Moreover, such a suggestion would have been of no argumentative value to me (partly because it is rather foolish). The only charitable sense I can make of your insistence about this is that you badly misconstrued my comments of 04:29, 11 April. That's okay if you did; anyone can make a misinterpretation. I hope you understand rightly now, though. Please let me know whether you do or do not. Your misunderstanding needs to be dispelled, so that it cannot crop up and cause confusion in further discussions. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

G.:"I'm glad you agree verbatim copying is not necessary; we can toss that aside."
And I am glad you are ready to toss it aside. I wish you'd never raised it up to begin with. It's a red herring.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(Note: "[now deleted]", just below, is wrong. My comments of 01:40, 13 April are in their right place, further up the page, where I posted them. They were briefly missing from the page through some confusion caused by G2bambino's shuffling them down to here twice. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

(In reply to Lonewolf BC at 00:31, 13 April 2008 [above] and 01:40, 13 April 2008 [now deleted])And still you continue to raise non-issues instead of dealing with the actual one you originally raised. Perhaps it's a non-issue as well? --G2bambino (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

<irony>Yes, that would follow.</irony>
Just clearing away some mist so that it cannot blow back in later. One thing at a time. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(In reply to G2bambino at 23:04, 7 April 2008, above)
The Canadian monarch, needs a Canadian passport? Why? GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

What? --G2bambino (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly; Elizabeth II doesn't need a Canadian passport. She's Canada's Head of State. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, sort of. The source states she doesn't use a passport because it's issued by her own authority; it's redundant for her to grant herself permission to pass into other lands. Rather like it's redundant for her to approve her own driving capabilities by giving herself a driver's licence. --G2bambino (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be very interested to see a source that states she is a British subject! A subject of her self? Sounds rather odd to me...besides she doesnt have a British passport either = )...--Cameron (t|p|c) 11:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

British citizens are nolonger British subjects. In fact, there are very few British subjects left. JDM1991 (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well we could argue as to that: De jure I am not but de facto I am: I am British and a subject. Just as all Canadians are Candian and a subject...--Cameron (t|p|c) 16:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

International protocl dictates that when a HoS is visiting another country, he/she would not be subjected to immigration control and thus, they do not need a passport, though they could have one legally.--Cahk (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"Request" in the lead

User:Lonewolf BC objects to the phrase: essentially being a request from Canada's head of state for safe passage of the bearer. The source [5] provided to support this says: Inside the front cover is a letter issued in the name of Her Majesty the Queen. Like Nehemiah's letter, it also requests safe passage and protection for the bearer. Thus, there is no misrepresentation of facts. --G2bambino (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The source says this:
" Today's Canadian passports still carry such a letter of request [as Nehemiah's letter]. Inside the front cover is a letter issued in the name of Her Majesty the Queen. Like Nehemiah's letter, it also requests safe passage and protection for the bearer."
Carrying such a request is not the same thing as "essentially being" such a request. The former is a matter of objective fact. The latter is a subjective judgement about what a Canadian passport is "essentially" -- whatever "essentially" means in this connection. (Myself, I'd say that a Canadian passport is most essentially a proof of the bearer's Canadian citizenship.) The source makes no such judgement of "essential-ness"; it only reports the objective fact. Saying Canadian passports are essentially safe-passage requests from Canada's head-of-state is thus unsourced and intrinsically point-of-view. They are such requests in a conceptual sense (though of course the monarch is not personally involved in the request made by a given passport) but they are many other things as well.

Over and beyond that, the request already gets ample treatment in the article, being quoted in full in its own dedicated section, "Passport note". I don't think it needs mention in the lead, too.

(By the way, although the historical comparison is interesting, Nehemiah's letter was not exactly a passport but an internal royal safe-conduct. Nehemiah was a servant of the Persian king, travelling within the Persian Empire, of which Judah was a province at the time.)

-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 07:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

"Essentially" is just a turn of phrase; if that was really what you objected to, why not just re-word the sentence accordingly? --G2bambino (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I think that it does not need mentioning in the lead at all. The "essentially" thing was an aggravating factor -- albeit one needing more explanation.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Please use this discussion to seek consensus for how this material should be handled. Don't re-introduce it to the lead in the lack of consensus for that.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, what you think is abundantly clear. However, what you alone think is not the sole influence on this article. If you'd like to start an RfC on the matter, please go ahead. --G2bambino (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[Add after LW's addition above] There's no consensus to be sought; you are the sole person who objects to it being in the lead, and have completely failed to give any rational grounds for why this is so. This is exactly how you have functioned in the past; it is irritating, conceited, and worst of all, disruptive. The sentence is not misleading or inaccurate, so there's no reason to remove it from the article. This is seemingly only a matter of your personal preference for what goes in the lead and what doesn't, but, as I already said, what you think isn’t the only guide of this article. --G2bambino (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No single editor's opinion is the sole influence of the article -- and that includes yours. However edits do need consensus, which is lacking here. Please use this discussion to seek it.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol. Of course not, but, again, you're the only one contesting this particular sentence. I should tell you, then, to get consensus, which is lacking here. Please use this discussion to seek it. --G2bambino (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC) PS- You do realise that there's a difference between deleting and moving material, don't you? --G2bambino (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been explained to you a number of times, G., that when an edit is contested the article is supposed to stay as it was until and unless consensus for the edit (or some compromise edit) is reached. The onus to get consensus is on the would-be changer or changers, not on those against the edit. That I'm the only one who has opposed the edit is of no significance whatsoever under the present cirucumstances: You and Cameron have been its only supporters, and two against one is not consensus for the edit by any stretch of the imagination. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, I'm not going to play that game with you; there is no policy dictating what happens here, and suggestions certainly shouldn't be manipulated to your advantage. If you're the only person who thinks it should be deleted, it's up to you to explain why; the onus was only on me to prove the fact correct, and that has been done. --G2bambino (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no game-playing or manipulation of anything on my part, here. Edits need consensus. The policy is Consensus; the flow-chart there should be instructive to you. I've already said why I don't think the bit in question should go in the lead: The information is amply covered by the article already (so there is no genuine issue of "deleting" the material), and it is not important enough to need to be in the lead, too. My opinion? Yes, my opinion -- and your opinion is yours and they differ. Neither opinion is invalidated by any of that. The onus on you is not merely to prove the correctness of facts (which scarcely needs doing, in this case); there are also the matters of their most fitting presentation in an article and even (though not in this case) of whether a particular fact rightly belongs in a given article at all. These are matters of editorial judgement, which is were consensus comes in. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is game-playing; it's an old tactic on your part: remove the material, say "get consensus," and leave it hanging in limbo; you get your way behind the guise of following "policy." The problem is, in order to do this you must ignore the point that you're as bound to get consensus as I am, and you have not.

The other issue is that there are only two people involved here, so the consensus to be sought is, so far, between them only. The more inflexible you prove to be, the longer this will go on. Now, you say the material "isn't important enough"; that is a subjective statement without rational grounds. You also say the material is already covered in the article; the contents of the entire lead are already covered in the article, so that's not a reason to remove the particular part you oppose. On the other hand, including the sentence - a mere sentence! - in the lead familiarises readers right off the bat with one of the main purposes of a passport (right there along with all the others). You said earlier you found the passport's function as a proof of citizenship to be its most important purpose. While that may be valid, it is merely your opinion, and no more or less valid than mine. So, there's not really much reason to include one statement and not the other. --G2bambino (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not helping yourself, or anything, with that kind of railing. Although you might view this editorial disagreement in terms of "game-playing", "tactics" and "getting ones way", I do not. I told you once already that I'm not "game-playing"; it behooves you to take my word for that. If you nevertheless persist in thinking ill of me, please keep that to yourself.
Wikipedia works the way it works, and in this case the way it works is, so far, frustrating an edit you wish to make: You need consensus for the edit, and someone does not consent to it. That is not an uncommon experiece when editing WP. You should take it with good grace. You could either leave the matter be or, if it is important enough to you, you could try to get consensus through the various legitimate means available to you. Calm, polite, rational presentation of why you think the edit should be made would be a good beginning. This hinges on the relative importance of the "passport note" in comparison with other facts about the Canadian passport, so I recommend that you concentrate on why you believe it is important enough to mention in the lead. If you make a good case, you might convince me, and even if not it might sway the opinion of other editors. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems you believe there are rules in place that empower you to be the decider of what is acceptable and what is not. I'm afraid that's not how consensus works, let alone good faith editing; it most certainly isn't my duty to grovel in your presence and try to convince you to let my edit pass. I've outlined above why the request for safe passage is, at least, as important as a passport's purpose as an identifier of citizenship; and if one is in the lead then there's no reason not to have the other. There are no other editors' opinions to take into account here, so it would speed things along if you could ramp up your cooperation skills and tone down the reverting in the article space and blustery rhetoric here.

Some sort of compromise that satisfies us both is the desired outcome, not just your desired outcome. I'll try again to achieve this, but if you continue to be a blockade against this what else could one assume but that you are not here to improve the project? --G2bambino (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(Beginning of what was origninally "Recent reverts" section, farther down the page, carrying on discussion of this issue -- LW, 21:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

I find the recent reverts rather upsetting. Why are historical (sourced) facts being removed from the article? --Cameron (t|p|c) 14:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm mistified by the fuss. I'm not clear as to what the objections are to the source provided. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So am I, obviously. LW apparently has decreed that the passport's purpose as a request for safe passage isn't important enough for the lead, but.. well, just him saying so seems to be sufficient for us all to just bow and agree. --G2bambino (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've no ideas as to how to break the logjam. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Take LW to task over his uncooperative nature? --G2bambino (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted Lonewolf's revert, in hopes he'll respond here. If things aren't cleared up? I don't know, what to do. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I surmise you gents mean the recent business about mentioning the "passport request" in the lead. Assuming so, please note that:
Cameron, there are no facts being removed from the article, whereas the "request" is already well covered;
GoodDay, the objection has nothing to do with objection to the source provided.

The "passport request", and particularly its mention of the monarch, are just not very important in relation to Canadian passports -- a formality and an ornament, historical in origin and retained out of convention. If the note were changed to remove any mention of the monarch -- and I'm not suggest that it should be, nor that it will be, but if it were -- the functioning of Canadian passports would not be affected one iota. If the passport note were totally depersonalised, or even removed altogether, then the same thing would be true. The "request" is of a certain interest, largely an interest of an historical and traditional nature, but treating it in the lead gives undue prominence to something which is actually inconsequential.

I should add that if there is a general feeling that the request should be mentioned in the lead, then I don't mind abiding by that (though without agreeing) -- that's consensus. If one editor wants it (and wants to bull it through by edit-warring, rather than getting consensus), that's a different kettle of fish. This talk by G about "Lonewolf has decreed" and "[he expects] us all to just bow and agree" is uncivil, negatively personalising, and completely miscasts my attitude. All edits need consensus, no matter who they're by, and no matter who objects to them, if anyone does. When they are reverted they're not supposed to be repeated until that consensus is gotten. Again, that is the same for everyone.

I'm not totally clear on where GoodDay and Cameron stand, because of the seeming misunderstandings in their messages above.
To Cameron: Is it you opinion that the "passport request" should be mentioned in the lead, notwithstanding that it is given full treatment and quotation in the body of the article? If so, why?
To GoodDay: understanding that the issue is not sourcing and that, again, the "request" is given full treatment in the body, do you think that mention of it belongs in the lead? Please keep in mind that we need not include everything in the lead (nor even in the article) just because it is sourceable.
(Actually, I have not even looked at the source provided, yet, because the essential fact that the passports include the request is undeniable. There are various ways of phrasing facts so as to colour them this way or that, though, so if the source is liable to be inobjective there might be problems with borrowing its phrasing. I'll have to look.)

All of this is with all due respect for opinions differing from mine. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The "passport request", and particularly its mention of the monarch, are just not very important in relation to Canadian passports. And here is exactly the type of "decree" I speak about; partly unfounded (the monarch isn't mentioned once in the sentence) and wholly personal opinion, yet supposedly so infallible as to never be questioned. A personal take on consensus guidelines is used to support this stonewalling tactic, simultaneously freeing you from the need to participate in any resolution finding, and indefinitely maintaining your preferred version of the article. Whether or not you intend to do this, it is what you are doing.

Perhaps you don't fully understand that consensus is a resolution found through disputing parties conceding and compromising; it may not be what either party thinks is perfect, but it satisfies them both to enough an extent that each will let the final decision sit. You, however, have removed yourself all-together from this process, which is precisely how the edit wars start in the first place. So, perhaps you'd like to adopt a new, more collegial tactic here? --G2bambino (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the mention in the intro is correct and does not give it undue prominence in the article. It is an interesting and histotic information regarding the Canadian passport and the history thereof. Please also note that consensus works both ways. Hoping for positive discussion. --Cameron (t|p|c) 18:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Could I have a brief & simple summary of the current dispute (i.e. in laymens terms) gentlefolk? GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I will try and sum up my take on this:

• An article lead is supposed to act "as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic" and "stand alone as a concise overview of the article"; thus, counterpoints r.e. repetition run contrary to editing guidelines.[6]
• The original purpose of all passports was to be an official note requesting safe passage of the bearer.[7]
• One of the purposes of all passports today is to be an official note requesting safe passage of the bearer (as outlined in the passport's, well... note).[8]
• As one of the key purposes of a Canadian passport, mention should be made of it in the lead. --G2bambino (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I do hope to be fair in this (feel free to correct it!): LBC doesnt think that the historic roots need to be mentioned in the intro as he does not think they are important enough to merit a mention in the intro. He does not oppose the info being included later on in the article. He does not have a problem with the source. G2 would like the historic roots (the passport ultimately is a request from HM The Queen to grant the traveller safe pass) mentioned in the intro as he thinks it important. G2 has a valid source that he wishes to use. --Cameron (t|p|c) 19:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So, G2 wants passports 'historic roots' included in the intro, as he claims it's important. Lonewolf, claimes it's not important, thus his objections. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, my good friend...--Cameron (t|p|c) 19:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I have no desire for historic roots to be mentioned in the lead. I outlined my points above. --G2bambino (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a paradox, in this dispute. G2 wants something in the intro, which he feels is important; while Lonewolf doesn't want that something in the intro, as he feels it's not important. Here's the paradox - If it's not important, then what's the harm in having it in the intro? Objecting to the something being in the intro, seems to give it importants. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. Now you've got it. --G2bambino (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry GD but that's not it at all. There is no paradox. Granting for the moment that the "passport request" is unimportant, the problem with mentioning it in the lead is twofold: the lead should not be cluttered with unimportant information, and including information about the "request" in the lead wrongly implies that it has an importance which it actually lacks. This makes mentioning it in the lead bad writing -- so it is not harmless to do so. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to you guys, to decide. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't blame you for not wanting to get involved. As you can see, LW's whole case rests on the assumption that one of the passport's main purposes is unimportant; but never mind even an attempt to convince us of why, let alone the flexibility for any kind of compromise. It'll just be revert, "unimportant," revert, "unimportant," revert, and so on... --G2bambino (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds rather disruptive to me. I do hope nobody shall be forced to invoke the 3RR rule...--Cameron (t|p|c) 10:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. All passports have requests in them. The fact that Canada's is made in the name of the Queen is trivial. It is aptly covered in the section on the note. JDM1991 (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed ridiculous; the request being made in the name of the Queen is irrelevant to this debate, and the repetition "argument" has already been rebutted. --G2bambino (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

America Table

I updated informations about entry requirements for Chile, but it makes a very ugly large table. Is there anyone able to correct it? Thank You --S23678 (talk) 03:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

PassportGuy

Thank you! I don't know how to post a message on wikipedia for a specific contributor but I really want to thank you for your unbelievable work! You deserve a medal for having the courage to go trough all those regulations for so many passports! Truly Impressive! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.248.250 (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Australia

Why is Australia colored as if a visa was required for canadians in the Canadian passport page, but colored visa-free for US citizens in the US Passport page? Both US and Canada are in the same category from an australian perspective. --zorxd (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Passport as the proof of citizenship?

Please support the statement that the Canadian passport serves as the proof of Canadian citizenship with proper citations. Citizenship and Immigration Canada did not include passport in the list of acceptable documents to be used in the citizenship verification process. Anyway, for the time being, I am going to remove the statement that a Canadian passport is a proof of Canadian citizenship. Almikul (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Canadian passports are proof of citizenship in the eyes of the Canada Border Services Agency, CIC and for probably 99.9% of other border agencies around the world. Reference is here : http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/enf/enf04-eng.pdf (p. 32, s. 9.3) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoupidou1 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The link you provided only covers the examination of Canadian citizens at the port of entry. Naturally, passport will suffice since it is intended to serve as the travel document. However, the Citizenship and Immigration Canada did not include it in the list of documents to be used in the citizenship verification process which can only mean it is not a proof of Canadian citizenship (at least within Canada when dealing with CIC). Almikul (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you link directly to the 'list' you are referring to? RashersTierney (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

http://www.ppt.gc.ca/cdn/section4.aspx?lang=eng&region=Canada Also, Passport applications do not accept a passport as proof of citizenship. 78.50.80.12 (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/kits/citizen/0001E.pdf (p. 7) Almikul (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the inner page of a passport indicates: "The bearer of this passport is a Canadian citizen."[9] Need anything else be said? Bosonic dressing (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think permanent residents can get one too, have to double check... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.136.13 (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Canadian special e-passport.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Canadian special e-passport.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 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) 14:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Visa free access to the United States

"Canadian passport is entitled to 180 days or 6 months visa free stay in the United States" Can someone give more details on that. Thanks.

Awaypitchch (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

RFID passports?

Does anybody know about Canadian plans for RFID passports and the requirement of Canadian passports when crossing the US/Canada border? And if they have any co-relation?

If there is one, it's scary.

I am aware of the plans yes, i have no idea when they are to take effect, Passport Canada Website, and this article say nothing of it, at least not yet.--Zappedgiants (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Biometric Passports are expected to be introduced by the end of 2012 Milesgilbert (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

spanish language missing

With Nafta and Free Trade, I am surprized that the passports are not trilingual like the US and Mexican passports. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.177.75 (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is because the official languages of Canada are English and French. Spanish is not one of them. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason USA and Mexico passports are trilingual has nothing to do with NAFTA. USA passports have Spanish because of Puerto Rico, which is a Spanish-speaking part of the US. Mexico passports have English and French as international languages, in addition to the local language Spanish. All passports around the world, to the best of my knowledge, have English on the inside in addition to the local language, and many also have French as an additional international language to English. This is pretty much international protocol. For this reason, USA passports have French in addition to the local languages, English and Spanish. For Canada, it just so happens that English and French are (both) the local languages. Skyduster (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Does size matter?

I came here seeking for the size of a Canadian passport, but could not see it. I believe this information would be a useful addition to the article. (I can't be the only reader wanting to know this.) HairyWombat 18:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Later. Passports are ID-3 size, 125 mm × 88 mm (4.921 in × 3.465 in). I have added this to the article. HairyWombat 04:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Where did you get this information from? I just measured my Canadian passport and it is 125 mm × 98 mm (4.921 in × 3.858 in). I also measured an Australian passport that came out at 125 mm × 87 mm (4.921 in × 3.425 in). It would seem from this that Canada does not use ID-3 as their size, but Australia does (think the 1mm difference fits within margin of error). Qazp 04:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Just received a new Canadian passport of the electronic variety. They've reduced the size somewhat. They now measure approximately 125 mm × 88 mm (4.921 in × 3.465 in). Also, should be noted I made a mistake above, and my old passport was really 125 mm × 93 mm (4.921 in × 3.661 in). Qazp 04:00, 08 November 2013 (UTC)

Arkelian

I've removed a long passage, purportedly published by a legal scholar named A. J. Arkelian for the following reasons:

• 1. The argument he made were published in 1983 - the citations in the article clearly referenced the Federal Court of Appeal rulings on the constitutionality of the CPO in 2009/2013.

• 2. There are no information on the author based on a Google search, beyond one or two articles written by Arkelian.

• 3. It added no useful information about the "Right to Passport" section.

--Cahk (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Signature removed from data page?

The section called "Data page" states that the bearer's signature is printed on the passport data page (page 2). I know this was the case in the past, but I got a new passport in July 2015 and my signature was not printed on the data page. Can anyone find a source supporting this change? I heard from a Passport Canada employee that they have recently removed the signature from page 2 but I don't think a verbal report justifies editing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.186.19 (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found a source on the Passport Canada website and updated the section to indicated the signature is no longer printed on the data page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.186.19 (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Canadian passport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090131222520/http://cnews.canoe.ca:80/CNEWS/Politics/2009/01/29/8196011-cp.html to http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2009/01/29/8196011-cp.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080312021814/http://www.travel.state.gov:80/travel/cbpmc/cbpmc_2223.html to http://travel.state.gov/travel/cbpmc/cbpmc_2223.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100730050633/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/story/2010/07/26/spy-russia-passport.html? to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/26/spy-russia-passport.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080229225431/http://www.budget.gc.ca:80/2008/pamphlet-depliant/pamphlet-depliant1-eng.htm to http://www.budget.gc.ca/2008/pamphlet-depliant/pamphlet-depliant1-eng.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Place of Birth

I added a mention that "Place of Birth" is no longer mandatory. In my quick searches on the interwebs, I could not figure out when this change took place, but I included the references to the current policy and references of where it came from. Open questions: can/would the passport office refuse to remove Place of Birth? Is the field left blank, or can it be replaced with "new" information? Comments welcome, as always. --geoff_o (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Information on Omission of Place of birth (including the proper form to fill out) can be found here: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/passport/apply/omit-place-birth.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadianpoliticaljunkie (talk • contribs) 21:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Canadian 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160103185848/http://www.ine.gob.bo:80/indice/general.aspx?codigo=40111 to http://www.ine.gob.bo/indice/general.aspx?codigo=40111
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160327125835/http://www.sernatur.cl/wp-content/plgs_p/download-monitor/download.php?id=LlegadaTuristasExtranjeros-act-dic15.xlsx to http://www.sernatur.cl/wp-content/plgs_p/download-monitor/download.php?id=LlegadaTuristasExtranjeros-act-dic15.xlsx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160416135743/http://servicios.turismo.gob.ec/index.php/anuario-de-estadisticas-turisticas/anuario-2010-2014/244 to http://servicios.turismo.gob.ec/index.php/anuario-de-estadisticas-turisticas/anuario-2010-2014/244
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.statsfiji.gov.fj/index.php/document-library/doc_download/1546-visitor-arrivals-tables-december-2015
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160114224049/http://www.nsb.gov.sc/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/VISITOR-ARRIVALS-2000-2015.xlsx to http://www.nsb.gov.sc/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/VISITOR-ARRIVALS-2000-2015.xlsx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160327183224/http://tourism.go.th/farms/uploaded/00Statistic/2015/International/By%20Nationality/Inter_Jan-Dec_2015.xls to http://tourism.go.th/farms/uploaded/00Statistic/2015/International/By%20Nationality/Inter_Jan-Dec_2015.xls
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2013/tyr/tyr_e/vig2015_e.htm

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: 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) 02:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Canadian 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313015522/http://www.ctv.ca:80/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051205/khadr_passport_051205/20051205?hub=Canada to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051205/khadr_passport_051205/20051205?hub=Canada
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090606171616/http://www.ctv.ca:80/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060830/khadr_application_060830/20060830?hub=TopStories to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060830/khadr_application_060830/20060830?hub=TopStories
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160825180935/http://www.dadosefatos.turismo.gov.br/export/sites/default/dadosefatos/anuario/downloads_anuario/Anuario_Estatistico_de_Turismo_2016_Ano_base_2015_Excel.pdf to http://www.dadosefatos.turismo.gov.br/export/sites/default/dadosefatos/anuario/downloads_anuario/Anuario_Estatistico_de_Turismo_2016_Ano_base_2015_Excel.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160412211621/http://www.mfem.gov.ck/mfemdocs/stats/statistical-series/tourism-and-migration-statistics/1234-12-migration-statistics-table-december-2015/file to http://www.mfem.gov.ck/mfemdocs/stats/statistical-series/tourism-and-migration-statistics/1234-12-migration-statistics-table-december-2015/file
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tourism.gov.mv/download/december-2015-update/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160424003756/http://investstlucia.com/downloads/getdownload/275 to http://www.investstlucia.com/downloads/getdownload/275

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: 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) 04:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Excessive detail on application procedures

I think there is way too much detail on the application procedures. If someone is applying for a Canadian passport, they should not get their information from Wikipedia. They should only get it from IRCC, which issues passports. In the event of a discrepancy between the two, Wikipedia will be wrong and IRCC will be right. We cannot rely on volunteer Wikipedia editors to keep this information up to date with every minor change IRCC may make. Providing this level of detail falsely implies that Wikipedia is reliable or authoritative on this matter. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide.

I propose to remove most of the "Application" section, leaving only general descriptions to explain the process to someone interested in learning about the Canadian passport system, rather than to someone planning to apply for one.

I have removed the links to forms per Wikipedia policy. Ground Zero | t 06:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree.

First, I don't think many Canadians will look for passport application procedures on Wikipedia when the government website provides much clearer instructions, especially when they have to send their applications to the government anyway. To be honest, when I first started to fix the page I never expected it would be viewed by so many Canadians.

Second, the section is modeled after the similar section on the page United States passport with similar contents (forums, photographs and everything) while providing the unique information on the annoying guarantor policy.

The main purpose of this section is for people who are interested in learning about the passport to understand the redundant process and bureaucracy of applying for a passport in this country. I do think, however, that there should be more background information and historical legislation regarding the passport itself so the main focus of the page would not be on the application.

Nevertheless, I am interested to hear your proposal for change. I do believe that WP:NOTAGUIDE allows the "describing to the reader how people or things use or do something", which is considered encyclopedic. Also you are more than welcome to make a similar proposal on the page United States passport. C-GAUN (talk) 08:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree that certain parts of this section are excessively out of scope, in particular the Passport photos part. I can not think of anyone who is not applying for Canadian passport and who would find all this specific information on the requirements for the passport photo useful not to mention non-Canadians simply looking for a bit of info how this functions in another country. And not to mention that while it may not seem so this information is also prone to sudden changes (US example). Also many other parts could be turned into prose and still illustrate a point rather than blunt listing of heaps of forms that are required hoping that the reader's reaction would be"oh my this is terrible, look at all that bureaucracy". You can achieve the same results by merging all that together into a unique text rather than a list of documents that is expected to produce an impression.--Twofortnights (talk) 08:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't really understand your question. The discussion is for the application procedures section, which is already in prose. Bluntly saying the application procedure is bureaucratic is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV. Also English Wikipedia is not Simple English Wikipedia, which is focused on English learners, so editors should avoid using prose as much as possible unless they are not capable of constructing a full paragraph.

In comparison with other passport pages which have no such section, I think the more logical thing is to blank out the entire "application" section. Also someone should really suggest the same thing on the page United States passport. C-GAUN (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Please recheck because passport photos section IS part of the application procedures section. And it's all but prose, it's a bulleted list.

As for the claim how it's the Simple English Wikipedia that should have the prose and we should have the lists, that's some confusion right there. Writing (or reading for that matter) prose requires far greater language skill than creating a simple list. Even the Wikipedia MoS clearly says Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not.. As the matter of fact there is a cleanup template used to instruct the users to help turning lists into prose (or tables where appropriate) right here on Wikipedia, and I will go ahead and add it to the Photo section, hopefully some of the readers will have enough free time to rewrite that bit.

And if the US passport article has the same issues then it only means both articles should be fixed and not that this one should be left without improvement.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I have added a proposed prose for the photo section as a hidden comment. Feel free to edit and then add to the article when you are done.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The US passport article may well be in need of editing, but the matter of discussion of this talk page is improving the Canadian passport article.

It looks to me like the article just reproduces the refreshments from government website, which serves no purpose. If there is an issue about bureaucracy and redundancy, then it would be better to identify that as an issue with reference s to the sources that make that argument. And, for balance, add a discussion of the need for appropriate security measures. Simply dumping in the requirements and hoping that readers will figure it out for themselves is not what an encyclopedia article should do. I certainly did not read that and come to any conclusion about bureaucracy or redundancy.

Later in the week I will take a run at revising this section and post it on the talk page for comment, unless anyone else wants to take a crack at it first. Ground Zero | t 13:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, no one can bluntly spell out the word "bureaucracy" in this article because it would be a clear violation of NPOV. However, it has been clear to me that the general public (including editors) are not able to get the idea, since the majority of readers simply do not have the experience of living in several countries or dealing with government bureaucracies for different countries. Also after comparing with the other articles I do realize that the Canadian and U.S. passport articles are the only ones with application procedures, hence there is little information for the public to do side-by-side comparisons.

I would still suggest blanking out the entire "application" subsection to bring it in line with other articles (same should be done with the U.S passport article). As for the bureaucracy part, I would focus on adding more information on government laws and the loopholes it created over the time.

One other thing, the bureaucracy is a part of the greater debate on whether a country should issue ID cards for its citizens and maintain a database, although Canada's population is relatively small so this has not been an issue, hence not many articles have been written. The U.S., on the other hand, are still scrambling on the compliance of Real ID Act and abundant sources are available. C-GAUN (talk) 07:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Edited

Per our discussion, I have taken a run at editing this section to provide a useful summary rather that the full list of rules. I have also moved the Khadr case to its own section instead of having it as a subsection of the application section. Comments and changes are welcome. I'll leave the discussion of the bureaucracy to those who know when to find reliable sources to support such a discussion. I haven't seen such discussions anywhere other than here. Ground Zero | t 21:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion has no final outcome, and to my understanding a summary of application procedure is not needed, period. This is because similar pages have no information on application procedures, except for New Zealand passport which can be applied online. Also a detailed summary has the potential to violate WP:NOTAGUIDE as you kindly pointed out. See Australian passport and British passport.C-GAUN (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand that we do not have consensus on this, and this is why I invited comments and changes. Only three editors have expressed opinions thus far, you, me and Used:Twofortnights. I cannot speak for Twofortnights, but note that s/he thanked me for my edits. WP:NOTEVERYTHING tells us that:

"Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject."

This is what I was aiming for in editing the article. I do not think that my summary is "detailed", but would be interested to see a discussion of which points should be left out to make it more general. Perhaps the fee information could be, although since the fees have not changed since 2013, I am not concerned about it becoming out of date. I would be concerned about that if the fees changed annually. The fact that other passport articles don't have general summaries of application procedures suggests to me that those articles could be improved by adding them. Ground Zero | t 23:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I think a good job was done. The information that is now left in the article doesn't look like a "this is how you do it" type of text. In other words it can hold my attention as a person who is not applying for a Canadian passport.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Passport fees

I think that fees for express pickup, urgent pickup, and pickup after ten days absolutely do not belong in an encyclopedia article. This is an article about Canadian passports. Details about pickup fees are on the Canadian Passport Office website and do not need to be reproduced here. I would rather take out the whole section on fees than leave these minutiae in. Ground Zero | t 23:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

As there has been no further down on this issue for several days, I will make the edit tomorrow. If you disagree with this edit, please discuss it here instead of reverting. Ground Zero | t 15:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Your argument is razor thin: as you previously pointed out, the price serves as a summary of Canadian passport, and people need to have a general idea on how much a passport is cost. But since you and Twofornights form the majority option here, I will not take any action. The overall result is a huge disappointment to me as I have worked hard on this article, and in my opinion, your changes just made it farther from perfection than it were. I will refrain from editing this article in the future other than related news on the passport. C-GAUN (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

We do seem to be on the same page here: the summary I wrote does provide "a general idea on how much a passport is cost", and that fees are levied for urgent service or replacement of a lost or stolen passport. What I have taken out are the details of those additional fees. I appreciate your hard work on this article, but I am glad that you recognize that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. I have always found that my own work benefits from the perspectives of others. I really do think that it had gotten too far away from being the summary that an encyclopedia should be. The information that I've removed is available on the Passport Office website. Regards, Ground Zero | t 21:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Very well. I am also glad we can finally wrap this up. C-GAUN (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Canadian 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160413085047/http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publications/pub/bsf5023-eng.html to http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/publications/pub/bsf5023-eng.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160411053608/http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100037504/1100100037508 to http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100037504/1100100037508
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/26/spy-russia-passport.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051205/khadr_passport_051205/20051205?hub=Canada
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060830/khadr_application_060830/20060830?hub=TopStories
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150905135526/http://www.tourism.australia.com/statistics/arrivals.aspx to http://www.tourism.australia.com/statistics/arrivals.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170214102501/https://www.austriatourism.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2017g-kalenderjahr-2016-hochrechnung-zusfassung.pdf to https://www.austriatourism.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2017g-kalenderjahr-2016-hochrechnung-zusfassung.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ine.gob.bo/indice/general.aspx?codigo=40111
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170202093128/http://www.discoverhongkong.com/common/images/about-hktb/pdf/tourism_stat_12_2016.pdf to http://www.discoverhongkong.com/common/images/about-hktb/pdf/tourism_stat_12_2016.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150905182403/http://www.ltdc.org.ls/TourismDocs/RandD/Other/2013%20Arrival%20Stats%20Annual%20Report.pdf to http://www.ltdc.org.ls/TourismDocs/RandD/Other/2013%20Arrival%20Stats%20Annual%20Report.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161001010009/http://www.sboc.fm/dl.php?fn=Vm0weE1GbFhSWGxVV0d4VVlteEtWbGx0ZUV0V1JteFlaRVYwYVUxV2NERlpNR2hQVkd4YWRGVnJXbFppV0doUVdWVmFTMlJIVmtWUmJVWlhWakZGZDFkV1pIcGxSbHBZVW10V1YySkdXbGhXYlhSM1VrWmFSMXBFVW1sTlJGWjZWa2Q0YzFsV1NsVldiR2hXWWxob1lWcFZXbXRqTVZwMFpFVTVVMDFXYjNkV2JURXdVekZXVjFkclZsSldSM001 to http://www.sboc.fm/dl.php?fn=Vm0weE1GbFhSWGxVV0d4VVlteEtWbGx0ZUV0V1JteFlaRVYwYVUxV2NERlpNR2hQVkd4YWRGVnJXbFppV0doUVdWVmFTMlJIVmtWUmJVWlhWakZGZDFkV1pIcGxSbHBZVW10V1YySkdXbGhXYlhSM1VrWmFSMXBFVW1sTlJGWjZWa2Q0YzFsV1NsVldiR2hXWWxob1lWcFZXbXRqTVZwMFpFVTVVMDFXYjNkV2JURXdVekZXVjFkclZsSldSM001
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161202165752/http://ww2.mincetur.gob.pe/ to http://ww2.mincetur.gob.pe/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.stb.gov.sg/statistics-and-market-insights/marketstatistics/ivastat_dec_2016%20%28updated%2014feb17%29.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160507190931/http://tourism.go.ug/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&download=36%3Astatistical-abstract-2014&id=4%3Astatistics&Itemid=300 to http://tourism.go.ug/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=category&download=36%3Astatistical-abstract-2014&id=4%3Astatistics&Itemid=300
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2013/tyr/tyr_e/vig2016_e.htm

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) 03:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Canadian 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160329232336/http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/passport/fees/result.asp?countrySelect=CA&lob=PASS to http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/passport/fees/result.asp?countrySelect=CA&lob=PASS
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170510184229/http://www.sib.org.bz/Portals/0/docs/publications/abstract/AbstractofStatistics_2013.pdf to http://www.sib.org.bz/Portals/0/docs/publications/abstract/AbstractofStatistics_2013.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170131184002/http://www.tourism.gov.np/images/download/Nepal_Tourism_Statistics_2015_forwebsite_edited.pdf to http://www.tourism.gov.np/images/download/Nepal_Tourism_Statistics_2015_forwebsite_edited.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Canadian 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161005110319/https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100013800/1100100013801 to https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100013800/1100100013801
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170218194339/http://tourism2.tourism.go.th/farms/uploaded/00Statistic/2016/International/By%20Nationality/17012017%20%E0%B8%88%E0%B8%B3%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%99%E0%B9%81%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A2%E0%B9%84%E0%B8%94%E0%B9%89_%E0%B8%98%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%84%E0%B8%A1%2059P%20%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%A1.xls to http://tourism2.tourism.go.th/farms/uploaded/00Statistic/2016/International/By%20Nationality/17012017%20%E0%B8%88%E0%B8%B3%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%99%E0%B9%81%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A2%E0%B9%84%E0%B8%94%E0%B9%89_%E0%B8%98%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%84%E0%B8%A1%2059P%20%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%A1.xls
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160114224049/http://www.tdc.co.tt/pdf.php?pdf=2.1.4.TnTStopoverMkts95toYTD.pdf to http://www.tdc.co.tt/pdf.php?pdf=2.1.4.TnTStopoverMkts95toYTD.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://vietnamtourism.gov.vn/english/items/11311

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) 22:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Ranking

hi guys in these tow sours, Canada Passport in Rank number 4, in 2018,,,, but in this article Canada passport still in ranking giving 6, should be change here and also in Visa requirements for Canadian citizens

It is ranked sixth in the latest report - [10]--Twofortnights (talk) 10:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

References

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:

• JTK Stearne Passport.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Canadian passport biodata page.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)