Talk:Identity document

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law Enforcement (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Merge with ID card?[edit]

needs merging with ID card. Morwen 17:33, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page (Identity card) be moved to the more generic Identity document?
  • The common Acronym "ID" IIRC is short for "Identity document"
  • Many (most) identity documents are not in card form - eg. passport.--snoyes 18:50, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Done. Merged.

Roman empire[edit]

From the article: Portable documentary identifiers may date from the days of the Roman Empire.

Can we have some cites for this?-- The Anome 18:23, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

South Africa[edit]

Isn't South Africa a common law country? -- Error 01:30, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

According to Politics of South Africa, "The legal system based on Roman-Dutch law and English common law." --Josh3736 10 Jan 2005 9:32 EST

Discarding ID[edit]

Can anyone tell me what this means?

In some countries like Spain, if their identity, age or citizenship cannot be ascertained, laws on foreigners may give them a longer term for pleading or staying, compared to adult nationals of states like Morocco, that have signed fast repatriation agreements.--Yath 06:41, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
A Moroccan young man smuggles into Spain. The police captures him. If his documents show that he is an adult, he is expelled back to Morocco. If he carries no documents, the police can't be sure if he is a minor. Minors are not expelled, if not claimed by their families, and remain under the tutoring of the authorities. Actually a X-Ray of the hand cartilagus is used to determine the age of the doubtful minors. -- Error 00:13, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Declaring an interest[edit]

For clarity's sake, my comment about checking the NPOV of my edits to this article is because I must declare an interest, as a campaigner against the current ID card proposals of the British government. — OwenBlacker 13:01, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)

ID cards in Europe[edit]

Last time I checked, ID cards are non-mandatory in France (except that, as with driving licenses and non-driving IDs in the US, they are de facto very useful for practical living). David.Monniaux 19:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok, another user removed Sweden from the list. I think the list should warrant some proofreading. David.Monniaux 22:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In Sweden it is not required to own (or carry) an ID card. However, certain operations (such as opening a bank account, or receiving registered mail) are unavailable to people who are unable to present a valid ID card. Also note that a driver's licence and a Swedish EU passport may be used in place of an ID card. Since Swedish driver's licences are plastic cards of the same size and shape as an ID card, people who possess a driver's licence usually don't possess a separate ID card. The Swedish non-EU passports (all of which probably already have expired) are not valid as ID cards. (Stefan2 10:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC))
And I also doubt the accuracy of the "Privacy international" linked document. David.Monniaux 22:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In Germany, it is compulsory to have an identity card (Personalausweis), but not to carry it. It's not clear what compulsory means in the article.
All persons have to possess identification documents. This is based on federal and state laws. German citizens over 16 need to possess an ID card or passport. EU and EEA citizens need a passport or valid substitute (such as an ID card, if their country issues them; for children, an entry in one parent's passport is sufficient), non-EU citizens have to possess a passport (and a visa and/or residence permit, depending on country of origin). Neither the ID Card Act nor the Passport Act nor laws on immigration state that ID documents must be carried at all times, only possession is mentioned – the only exception being when crossing borders. Willicher 23:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
(edited by 15:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC))

An identity card or passport is the mandatory personal identification document for a citizen of Latvia or a non-citizen who lives in Latvia and has reached 15 years of age. I've moved Latvia from the list of countries without identity documents to the list of countries with mandatory identity documents. 00:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Too specific[edit]

"In some countries like Spain, if their identity, age or citizenship cannot be ascertained, laws on foreigners may give them a longer term for pleading or staying, compared to adult nationals of states like Morocco, that have signed fast repatriation agreements."

Too specific and would have to be checked for accuracy. Rephrased. David.Monniaux 22:42, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

this page reads like a self-conscious blog[edit]

some pov editing is needed: the page is like a two headed man trying to get up the nerve to whup himself

This article is incorrect, it is compulsory in Canada to have ID card on your person. if u are caught by the cops without ID you can be charged for failure to provide ID or something like that.

De Jure & De Facto[edit]

By my count, this article mentions "De Jure" and "De Facto" three times. It's rather repetitive. Can someone please simplify this? There's also repetition in other sections, but I'm too tired to mention it now.

What do you mean? Those are legal terms of art. Yes, one could take out the latter usages, but then one would have to replace them with plain English alternatives that would be much less concise and far more confusing. The problem with identity documents is that their importance arises from the law (otherwise they're just pieces of paper or plastic like any other), so their significance has to be explained with reference to the law. In my opinion, de jure and de facto get the distinction across quite well. --Coolcaesar 13:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


I do not believe this article is entirely neutral with regards to ID, especially with regards to ID in the USA. It seems that a proportion of comments regarding the US focus on how inconvenient it is to lack an ID system.

"In the absence of one, government agencies and businesses have had to improvise with a clumsy patchwork of documents."

The information regarding the RealID act is tucked away at the end of the section on Driving Licenses, not countering the previous claim that "All legislative attempts to create one have failed" as it ought to be.

And then the repetition of the first quote, as shown, "In the absence of a national identity card, the typical American citizen is forced to carry a bewildering number of documents issued by many different legal entities."

Overlooking that at least the following,

"Credit cards and debit cards, Membership cards issued by private clubs (social, athletic, educational, alumni, etc.), Membership cards (called loyalty cards) issued by private companies (supermarkets, warehouse club stores, etc.), Membership cards issued by professional organizations, Membership cards issued by private associations"

And probably the following,

"Internal identification card issued by one's employer, university or school, Proof of professional certification (for members of regulated professions), Access documents issued by private or governmental organizations, such as a press pass, or a stage pass"

Would still be separate from any ID card scheme, and are thus not meritable arguments for the ID system, as is implied.

Have you ever actually lived in the United States? Most Americans (like myself) endure numerous irritating bureaucratic hassles on a daily basis because we do not have a nationwide identification card, and thus have to carry around wallets bulging with dozens of documents. For example, there is the hassle of having to bring out the Social Security card (which most people keep in a safe place most of the time for security reasons) just to verify identity for the standard I-9 immigration form that everyone has to fill out when they start a new job. The form requires two forms of identification from two categories;
Actually, a passport is sufficient. If one presents a US passport, no second document is needed to prove citizenship and eligibility to work.
I carry my driver's license and credit card. My work access badge clips on my belt instead of going in my wallet. I carry my library card as well because I'm a frequent borrower. Aside from these, I don't have to carry any other "ID" documents on a daily basis. Getting my Social Security card when I change jobs is less hassle than having to retype my resume information into a potential employer's database...
Septegram 15:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

this is so that illegal immigrants seeking employment have to commit the crime of counterfeiting twice.

Every year, newspaper columnists and pundits point out that if we had a standardized national identification card with tight security (and backed by draconian data privacy laws), nearly all of those documents could be consolidated together onto a single smart chip on a single card.
However, you are correct that the article is slightly inconsistent as to the issue of how the U.S. has no national identification card. In response to your criticism, I have changed the article to make it more coherent. --Coolcaesar 01:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Didn't this article used to say something about how virtually no one in countries that have ID cards complain abou them? I mean, in removing the obvious bias, that might be helpful.

This entire article needs to be deleted. It is concealing its obvious commercial interests and links to security industry and is therefore offensive to Wikipedia standards. The editors are on a mission to delete all non security industry information and any and all information that challenges any need for identity documentation. It is too biased and too corrupted by its editors to continue. It will be vandalised on a regular basis if it remains biased for pro security industries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sale to private companies[edit]

The bit about the Britain selling the ID Card database to private companies is factually wrong, I know it was just a link to a newspaper article but it was an extremely partisan one and has been firmly denied by the Government.

""The Government has no plans whatsoever to sell individuals' details to private companies," he said. "The legislation we have introduced to set up the scheme will ensure that the ID cards database will be secure and confidential. Private companies will not have access to the information held on it and any unauthorized disclosure will be a criminal offense."" Tony McNulty Home Office Minister.

  • "Never believe anything to be true until it has been officially denied". The Government also promised that the ID Card scheme would be voluntary, and that they wouldn't get involved in sleazy acts like selling peerages. Besides, the unparlimentary executive powers the Home Secretary is arrogating to himself will allow ad-lib changes to legislation, so even if they genuinely at the time of speaking had no plans, they can't promise that this or other governments won't later tweak the law in whatever way they like. SleekWeasel 09:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Arrested vs detained[edit]

It makes no sense to arrest a person that doesn't have an ID card, since you don't know who is it that you're arresting. (Assuming here that going without an ID card is not a criminal offense anywhere in the world.) Such persons may only be detained until their identity is established. GregorB 15:39, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

That's an interesting argument; in California, the cops arrest people all the time even before they have verified the identity of the suspect. That is, they say, you are "under arrest," they read the Miranda warnings, and they handcuff the suspect. Most Americans (especially criminal defense lawyers) would call that an arrest, not a detention. They would limit the use of the word detention to describe the Terry stop as outlined in the case of Terry v. Ohio.
Also, in California, a person can be arrested if they commit any violation of the California Vehicle Code (whether in a vehicle or not) and fail to present identification. For example, the Supreme Court of California in 2002 upheld the conviction of a teenager for methamphetamine possession, where the only reason underlying the arrest and subsequent search for drugs and weapons was the fact that the kid was riding on the wrong side of a public street, and then could not produce a driver's license when the officer attempted to issue a citation (the teenager was 16 years of age). In California it is an infraction to ride a bicycle on the wrong side of the street.
The reason for this harsh rule is to prevent people from giving the name of someone else; otherwise, innocent people would get speeding tickets when they were nowhere near the location of the alleged infraction. The justification is that people are under no legal obligation to carry identification as long as they are careful to avoid committing any violation of the Vehicle Code (for example, by staying in their own home). --Coolcaesar 17:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Countries with non-compulsory cards[edit]

Just a few references:

Austria: Canada: Netherlands:

POV problems corrected or Removed[edit]

The anti-arguments regarding totalitarian government comparisons seem to have been written in POV fashion favoring the pro side. A statement like "Some hard-line opponents resort to extreme comparisons with totalitarian governments..." is not NPOV as "resort to" and "extreme" are POV in this context. Also the following statement would need to be clarify who considers them "extremistic and tantamount to paranoia" for it to be NPOV. "However, these argumentations are considered extremistic and tantamount to paranoia, and disregarding that actually most democratic countries had and have identity cards." " As such I have removed it now.

I removed the quote below as it address totalitarianism in general and not national identity cards and thus is out of place in my opinion. "One of the fundamental contrasts between free democratic societies and totalitarian systems is that the totalitarian government relies on secrecy for the regime but high surveillence and disclosure for all other groups, whereas in the civic culture of liberal democracy, the position is approximately the reverse." - Professor Geoffrey de Q Walker (Dean of Law at Queensland University)--Cab88 14:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Identification in Germany[edit]

PersAuswG, § 1, Ausweispflicht: (1) Deutsche im Sinne des Artikels 116 Abs. 1 des Grundgesetzes, die das 16. Lebensjahr vollendet haben und nach den Vorschriften der Landesmeldegesetze der allgemeinen Meldepflicht unterliegen, sind verpflichtet, einen Personalausweis zu besitzen und ihn auf Verlangen einer zur Prüfung der Personalien ermächtigten Behörde vorzulegen; dies gilt nicht für Personen, die einen gültigen Paß besitzen und sich durch diesen ausweisen können. ...

Translation: ID Card Act, Section 1, "Compulsory Identification": (1) Germans (in the sense of Section 116, Paragraph 1, Basic Law) who have attained 16 years of age and are subject to mandatory registration (following the obligations of State Registration Laws) are obliged to possess an identity card and to submit it, upon request, to an authority which has been authorized to check people's personal details; this does not apply to persons in possession of a valid passport, who can use this to identify themselves. ...

Courts have always ruled that this law does NOT imply an obligation to CARRY an identity document at all times. 12:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

This is wrong. German police forces have always the right to ask for identification. Therefor you need the Personalsausweis. --Willicher 22:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
No, it is not wrong. While police officers may ask you for your identity card or passport under certain circumstances, you are NOT obliged to carry it with you everywhere you go (the law ONLY mentions possession–an obligation to CARRY your document with you would have to be explicitly stated). If the police think it necessary to see your document, they can accompany you to the place where you have it (home, office, etc.), or can oblige you to bring it to the police station within a few days. Besides, police officers may well be satisfied if you identify yourself with a driving licence, student ID or similar document. If you do not believe me, it is worth reading, "Gerüchte und Legenden" (Rumours and Legends, unfortunately only available in German) 15:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


The Netherlands is listed under the compulsory ID catagory as well as the non-compulsory catagory.

I assume this is a mistake, if not it requires explanation. <Unsigned>

From the website linked
"You must submit your identity document upon the police’s request. You must therefore have it on you. If you are unable to identify yourself, you might be taken along to the police station. Your identity will then be checked at the police station. You may also be fined."
So I guess it is compulsory. Fixing. 10:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
As does France Mucky Duck 15:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Fixed. But it should be it its own article. 10:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like BS[edit]

removing. if you wnt to put it back you might reference it first and explain why a policeman who checks ID would want to know this

Intro Paragraph[edit]

I'm having trouble with this sentence:

"Unlike other forms of documentation, which only have a single purpose such as authorizing bank transfers or proving membership of a library, an identity document simply asserts the bearer's identity."

it seems to be self-contradictory. It says "Unlike other IDs, an ID simply asserts identity." So it has one purpose, that of proving identity. So how does that fit with the statement that other forms of documentation "only have a single purpose"?

I propose changing the sentence to something like: "Unlike other forms of documentation, which have additional purposes such as authorizing bank transfers or proving membership in a library, an identity document simply asserts the bearer's identity." any comments or concerns? YggdrasilsRoot 13:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion is definitely an improvement.

I think the original writer was trying to express that an identity document can be used in many very different situations, while these other documents (a) are generally useful in only one or two situations each, and (b) these other documents do not actually assert the bearer's identity.

For example, the unique number on my library card is tied to a mailing address used for sending overdue book notices. When I tell the librarian I've moved, the librarian doesn't even look at my old card. The librarian pulls out a fresh new card with a pre-printed new unique number and types in my new mailing address with no strong links to my previous records. There are several people in my city with the same name as me, and it's not possible to tell from the library records which one of them (if any) is the one that moved to my new address. My understanding is that all the kids from any one family have interchangeable library cards. The card doesn't uniquely identify any particular one of the kids, since the unique number on each of their cards are all linked to the same mailing address. Would you say that all these kids share the same identity? Would you say that a person who changes address a dozen times has had a dozen different identities? --DavidCary (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Arguments in Favor[edit]

"DNA could reveal one's genetic health defects, sexual orientation as well as true paternal blood-lineage, as unwanted side-effects. (For example, the latter of these arguments had been deemed crucial in France, where an estimated 12% of the population were not in fact conceived by their legally registered fathers, thus the issue could become socially disruptive.)"

I removed this. How does DNA reveal sexual orientation? Why does the risk of revealing "true paternal blood-lineage" need to be discussed at all? If someone wants to expound on the DNA drawbacks, that's one thing, but this stuff is just silly.

It has been sugested by some that sexual orientation is (wholly or partially) determined by genetics. While this theory is unproven (for now) it could become an issue in the future. Of more immediate concern is the possiblilty of using DNA to determine ones ethnicity which could be a very dangerous tool in the hands of certain governments. BTW It is a good idea to sign posts on discussion pages 20:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

One Sided Article[edit]

The article suffers from being to much ID Cards and not enough ID Documents. It needs significantly expanding to include passports, Driving Licences etc etc etc Spartaz 11:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

French ID cards[edit]

I just deleted the following:

In France, it is forbidden to walk around without one's ID, a remnant of the anti-vagabond laws which were voted during the 19th century to fix in some location workers).

According to a Guardian article of 2003 (,3604,1047628,00.html) French ID cards are not compulsory (or, at least, they weren't compulsory in 2003).

The article states this too, so it was self contradictory. I'm not sure what the truth actually is... Jim (Talk) 23:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

More info[edit]

This page needs more info like which famous people wore pendants, lots of stories and LOTS OF INFO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Non-governmental ID[edit]

It also lacks any discussion on non-govermental ID cards, such as ones used by companies and others.-- atuomi 10:10 30.9.2006 (GMT+2)

Sorting of countries[edit]

I don't understand why France, UK and US are all in 3.3 :

3 Identity cards worldwide 
3.1 Countries with compulsory identity cards 
3.2 Countries with non-compulsory identity cards 
3.3 Countries without an identity card system 
3.3.1 France 
3.3.2 United Kingdom 
3.3.3 United States 
3.4 Other non-sovereign state ID cards

Apokrif 14:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

And i can not understand why Italy is in "non-compulsory". --ChemicalBit 08:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

History of Identification[edit]

I was looking for the year and place where identification documents started and i couldnt find it in this page. Am i looking in the wrong article? If not, i think it would be useful to add ID history to this article. ( 23:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC))

Phishing is unaffected ?[edit]

It is not true to say that Phishing is unaffected by ID cards. If you use a smartcard to authenticate, then there is no password to steal and smartcards can't be stolen by phishing (yes the unlock code could be, but you still need the physical token)

DNA is an identity card ?[edit]

It depends how much you spend on the testing. Standard DNA profiling tests don't look at the whole DNA, but pick out 13 "loci" which characterise people. Each locus is common to about 10% of the population with little overlap. This means that if you test all 13 loci, the chances of being wrong are pretty small but this is expensive (although costs are plummeting). A typical test might only cover 3 loci in which case there is a 1/1000 chance of being wrong.


The article says "A number of countries have non-compulsory identity card schemes. These include...Canada". I live in Canada and am not aware of any national card that fits this description, although of course there are various cards that people carry for other reasons and which may also prove their identity. I wonder what the writer has in mind. 00:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no description of the Malaysian Identity Card?[edit]

There is a brief description of the Singaporean one. -- (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably because noone wrote one? Go ahead if you have the knowledge. JurgenG (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Guilt by association[edit]

I moved this section in Arguments against to here because it's guilt by association and not a proper argument in this case, and thus needs some modification before reinsertion:

Historically, totalitarian governments which issued identity cards to citizens used them forcefully. For example, Nazi Germany made use of tattooed identification numbers on the arms of concentration-camp detainees. More recently, the apartheid-era government of South Africa used pass books as internal passports to oppress that country's black population.

That is, it just states evil examples who have used identity cards, without actually reasoning against the identity card system itself. It wasn't this procedure per se that caused the evilness. The identity card system was simply used to a higher degree than optional. It needs to point out why this would be a negative effect of identity card system today, even if only moderately used. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that such a system being in place facilitates the plans of a future oppressive regime. An argument in the same vein is the prohibition to carry firearms: it makes violent escalation easy if someone loses control of himself. (likewise, an ID card makes things like profiling or genocides easy when some more fascist types get power.) But dunno: I am foreigner to this conversation. --Rpmcruz (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

UK ID's[edit]

Should the UK ID's not go in "Currently Implemently" due to the recently passed bill? Munci (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Name tags[edit]

"Name tag" and "nametag" both redirect here. A name tag is often an informal, disposable bit of adhesive-backed paper one affixes to one's clothing to facilitate introductions at an event where everyone may not know each other. It could also be a "passport" to areas intended for registered participants in an event, such as a convention. But the former is not really a "document", and the latter is not discussed in this article at all. B7T (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. nametag now redirects to the name tag article which discusses that popular little sticker. --DavidCary (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit claim in the article[edit]

This post adds nothing to the discussion

Contents - Mexico, error?[edit]

The page contents goes something like this:

1 Possible information inclusions in ID documents

2 Identity cards


3 Mexico

Is Mexico's placement as number 3 (rather than as another member of number 2) an error? It also seems to me strange because the United States, among several other countries are listed under Mexico. It screams to me that its an error, but as my knowledge on the subject is limited, I'm not going to touch it.

Also notice that there is another card usually more accepted as an ID, the IFE card (voter's card), since it is a photo ID. Curiously enough, in Mexico, driver's licenses are not considered official IDs. (Source: I'm a Mexican citizen) -- (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Name tags[edit]

Name tag redirects here, but a sticker that says "Hello my name is . . ." is not in the scope of this article. I wanted to suggest dropping the redirect. --otherlleft (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Some times an identity card is used in war to tell people you are not german. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Page titles in languages other than English on en wiki[edit]

I see that there is an inconsistency in naming of pages relating to national ID cards on English Wikipedia - some are translated in English (Estonian ID card) eventhough they are called differently in the native languge (Estonian ID-kaart), but others have the page titles in the original language (Občanský průkaz), but that could be translated into Czech ID card. Is there a policy? Meelosh (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of POV from French article[edit]

when it helped the Vichy authorities identify 76,000 for deportation as part of the Holocaust. Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben often underlines this, showing how anthropometry may be used by the state

Is it necessary to state this, seeing as even in the German article nothing is mentioned regarding Nazi public policy? Lstanley1979 (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

History of ID cards[edit]

A recent querent at the Humanities Reference Desk asked about the history of the ID card and I noticed this article doesn't have such material: What was the earliest recorded ID card? What country? What information was on it? Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Many images do not align with the section, especially in the second half. I want to fix it but don't know how. Can someone help? --RayYung (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Identity cards led to the Holocaust[edit]

All the bad things the Nazis did to the Jews were based on them having identity cards/documents that identified them as Jews. Without the identity cards, the forced ghettoization, wearing of the Star Of David, and the Holocaust, could not have been enforced. This is described in Breath Deeply My Son by Henry Wermuth. (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the Nazis forced the jews to get identity cards and have "jew" marked on them. Your accusation is like blaming TV for 9/11 2001 since it was seen on TV by most people. See also the "Guilt by association" discussion above. You have written a very good example of "Guilt by association": "Nazis issued identity cards" "Nazis did evil things helped by them" that is "Identity cards are always evil". --BIL (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

National identity cards in Sweden[edit]

I wrote on every place in article stating that a national identity card can be used all over the EU, that "except by Sweden when travelling to/from non-Schengen areas like the UK", based on an official source and personal experience. This was reverted as doubtful. I checked this further and found out that it is so only for Swedish national identity card that they can't be used for travel to the UK (Swedish passport law 5§), but that national identity cards from other EU countries are acceptable (Swedish alien law 17§). Sounded odd to me but that is the law. --BIL (talk) 09:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

clear law indeed. I think it applies to UK/Ireland only, as the others (Bulgaria/Romania/Cyprus) are party to Schengen, but just didn't open their borders yet. I will ask our Schengen expert (user:Blue-Haired Lawyer ;-)here to have a look... Rgds L.tak (talk) 12:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
According to this source [1] (Swedish only) on the police website, which lists Schengen countries, Romania and Bulgaria are not included.
The Swedish passport law (Swedish passport law 5§) says in my translation:
5 § A Swedish citizen must not travel out of the country without bringing a valid passport.
This paragraph is not valid for:
1. Sea crew etc 2. Air plane crew etc 3. Citizens also of other countries etc.
4. those who travel to Switzerland or to any country which are connected to the treaty on implementation of the Schengen agreement of 14 June 1985 or which has made an agreement on cooperation according to the convention with the convention countries. --BIL (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I actually argued with the Swedish border control on the last half sentence when travelling to the UK, but they did not agree on that. I had my passport in case they did not agree, which I needed to show. A friend of mine was denied passage at the same place earlier this year, and had to abandon the trip.--BIL (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not really much of an expert on Schengen or reading Swedish, although I do take a bit of an interest in the former. As far as I know the rules requiring member states to admit individuals with the possession of valid (EU) identity cards is part of the freedom of movement provisions and applies irrespective of Schengen. Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the free movement directive (pdf) say that:
"Without prejudice to the provisions on travel documents applicable to national border controls, all Union citizens with a valid identity card or passport and their family members who are not nationals of a Member State and who hold a valid passport shall have the right to leave the territory of a Member State to travel to another Member State."
"Without prejudice to the provisions on travel documents applicable to national border controls, Member States shall grant Union citizens leave to enter their territory with a valid identity card or passport and shall grant family members who are not nationals of a Member State leave to enter their territory with a valid passport."
Unfortunately I too have had occasion to argue with a brick wall. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 21:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Italy - cards for foreigners[edit]

Under Italy, it says "Additionally permanently resident foreigners can ask to be issued an Italian ID card by the local authorities of their city/town of residence". Does this mean that nationals of other EU countries can use an Italian ID card as a travel document, or is it stamped "Non valida per l'espatrio"? This should be clarified. NFH (talk) 13:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

A valid travel document must state the citizenship. --BIL (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


They are not required to carry with them always but are obligated to present them to the lawful authorities if requested.

This paragraph need to be re-edited for clarification. Does this mean that a citizen can be detained for 6 hours while the police is reproducing it like in the Chilean case? --Rpmcruz (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Spain, not in the article[edit]

Could anyone add the Spanish ID to the article? I can't log into my Wikipedia account for some reason: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

File:MD card.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:MD card.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Tunis ID card[edit]

Are you sure this is actual sample tunesian ID card? I cannot find any sources, and honestly, it looks silly - as if someone posted it as a joke. Apologies if this is the actual card and this post would offend someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Cedula venezolana.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Cedula venezolana.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons 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 upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • 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 Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

File:RG-FRENTE.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:RG-FRENTE.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Identity card of malaysia.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Identity card of malaysia.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Identity card of malaysia.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Arguments against ‘like Hitler did’[edit]

The final dot point in the ‘arguments against’ subheading read ‘If religion or ethnic group is registered on mandatory ID documents, that can be used to track and harass them, like Hitler did.’ I removed the italicised text, because it seemed unnecessary and didn't impart any relevant information. Of course, if I've made an error of judgement, please revert. WikitorrensT 10:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Spellling in this article[edit]

How does Wikipedia decide which spellings should be used in a long, multi-section article like this? Searching for “color” and “colour” reveals many instances of both in the one article. Consistently using one would be better. — Spel-Punc-Gram (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The "official guideline" for handling "color" vs "colour" is spelled out at MOS:ENGVAR. It agrees with you -- consistently using one or the other within an article would be better than the current mixture, although some articles "need" to be in "British English with Oxford spelling", others articles need to be in "Canadian English", "Irish English", "American English", or etc. Is there a good reason to use any one particular variety of English for this "identity document" article? --DavidCary (talk) 15:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Cost of ID cards[edit]

"The cost of introducing and administering an identity card system can be very high. Figures from £30 (US$60) to £90 or even higher have been suggested for the proposed UK ID card. However, this argument is also refuted, because in countries like Chile the identity card only costs up to £6 and in countries like Venezuela the id card is free and reliable."

Obviously ID cards in Venezuela are not free. Somebody is paying for them. And what do they mean by reliable? Whoever added that part doesn't know what they are talking about. It should be removed. (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)