Talk:Apostille Convention

International relations: Law Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

29 May 2007: Have added denmark to the list of countries that are party to the convention

Why isn't Canada a party?

Why isn't Canada a party to the convention? As far as I can see, it's the only major Western nation that isn't. This needs an explanation, not just a bare statement of fact. Loganberry (Talk) 14:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's now a party, afaik. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 02:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Since their creation in 2004, this article and Apostille have covered exactly the topic, although the text of the articles has been different. They were even created by the same person. I can't imagine why they were not merged long ago. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the lack of objection, and that the topic of the two articles in question is virtually identical, I have carried out the merge. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

move proposal

The name now is very long an certainly not a common name. I propose to move to Apostille treaty]] per WP:common name. L.tak (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest leaving the title alone and petitioning your government to negotiate a shorter name for the treaty. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that suggestion (but i will not do that). At wikipedia, not the formal name, but the most use name is used, as is explained in WP:common name. I cannot imagine that this name is the name most people would use to refer to it.... Most well-known treaties go by their shorter name (e.g. Chemical Weapons Convention).L.tak (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked this document of the site of the hague convention:. It calles it the "apostille convention". It is therefore even used as a common name within the official documents (here. I will propose the move shortly and invite to comment... L.tak (talk) 19:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. ukexpat (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents → Apostille convention — The page now has the formal name, which is too long to be also a usefull WP:common name. Documents on the website regarding the convention (here) use the name Apostille convention. ...As do thousands of websites (according to a google search), including several ministries of foreign affairs (e.g. here) (NB: see also the previous discussion directly above this section).--L.tak (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:COMMONNAME, seems like a no-brainer to me and if there are no significant opposes in a day or two, I'll move it. – ukexpat (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Write this for lay people

Why does the Procedure section start out with a technical phrase: "states parties" ? Especially at the start of a paragraph it is very difficult to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.225.34.68 (talk) 09:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it a bit; hope that helps! L.tak (talk) 10:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison with Notarization

I don't like the following sentence: "It is an international certification comparable to a notarisation in domestic law." This is imprecise ("notarization" is not a single thing) and not really accurate. The classic examples of "notarization" are: (1) taking an acknowledgment; and (2) administering an oath. Part of the notary's job is verifying the identity of the person making the acknowledgement or the oath, but that's only part of the job. The only purpose of the apostille is to certify the identity and authority of the notary or other person whose signature is to be certified. So I would just take this out. Tfolkman 14:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfolkman (talk • contribs)

I tend to agree. The only thing I can think of in domestic law is when a county or state official issues a certificate that the signature of a notary on a document appears genuine, and such a certificate is even more obscure than the apostille, so mentioning it will not enlighten readers. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure/examples not very clear

For example, can the organization in country A issue an apostille confirmation for a document issued in country B? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

then that text should be improved. the answer is: NO, an apostille certifies the correctness of the signature and is performed by the country of issue.... L.tak (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, the apostille certifies the correctness of the signature of the officer who his under the jurisdiction of the issuer of the apostille. But that officer might have certified a document from another country. For example, a person who possesses a power of attorney that was executed in France goes to an American notary and the American notary produces a certified copy. The Secretary of State for the notary's state then issues an apostille certifying the correctness of the American notary's signature. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, it's a nice surprise to find competent people watching this page :) If you could update the article and clarify this and potential other issues, it would be great! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of term “Apostille”

Could anyone with background address the etymology of the odd term “apostille”? I assume it’s a feminine form of apostil, a marginal note, which perhaps the apostille was meant to be an instance of, a brief, marginal stamp affirming the status of the document in question...? Xenophonix (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does fr:Apostille help?--ukexpat (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated

The information in this article and image is outdated. For example, Germany has withdrawn its objection to Peru's accession to the treaty and Paraguay has acceded to the treaty as well. Fix! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.50.101.30 (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "Abuse" section

I disagree with the removal of the "Abuse" section. Most of that material was added in this edit. RichardWeiss thinks it was a copy & paste, but it doesn't look like a copy & paste to me.

I also think the section is important and should be included. I have followed Internet forums about getting university degrees online, and I saw that there are quite a few scummy schools who try to prop up their worthless diplomas with apostilles. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. My copyvio statement was after doing a google check. It may be that lots of people are copying us. I suggest you find some secondary sources, the section only has primary refs whch are not sufficient, making the section vulnerable to being removed or at the least heavily edited. The thing with secondary sources is they are good for proving notabiliy, the current refs do not prove the notability of the section and as I dont agree with you re the notability of the section, getting secondary sources is the proper way to resolve the conflict. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a journal article. Apostilles are not the main topic of the article, but it does describe their use in one of the cases examined. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit regarding diploma mills

In the Abuse section, after the material on diploma mills, there was the text: "The issue of using apostilles in connection with degree mills was described by Alan L. Contreras.[15]". I have read the cited material. It is about one particular "diploma mill" but it does not describe the use of apostilles - nowhere in the short article is apostille mentioned. I removed the material with edit summary "Deleted text. The citation does not mention apostilles". User Jc3s5h reverted my edit with the Edit summary "The text shows that authorities other than apostille-related authorities are concerned about degree mills". Yes it does. But this article is about the Apostille Convention and apostilles, and not about degree mills. The text and citation might be useful in the Diploma mill article. I have therefore undone the reversion, and explained my action here (to avoid edit war) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see #Removal of "Abuse" section immediately above. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the piece should go. It is good to have secondary sources confirming the stance of the Hague conference (and we really need them), but it is not needed to state "there is an article about the problem" is that article does not even mention the Apostille. L.tak (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jc3s5h, I saw that, but it is not the case that the reference "does describe their use in one of the cases examined": it doesn't Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section "States parties" name change

I have retitled the section "States parties" to "States that are signatory to the convention" in the spirit of an earlier observation to write this for lay people. (I would have used a capital C for Convention but WP rules are rules!). BUT ... do we really need the section at all? The table is very colourful and pretty, but more-or-less repeats the data at the HCCH website, and is asking to become out-of-date every time a change to the Convention is made. A (rather grumpy) IP user noticed above the propensity of this page to go out-of-date. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have rephrased a bit (signatories has a very different meaning in real life indeed; but stating "signatory" when we mean accession or ratification is incorrect from a formal standpoint) and I am in favour of keeping the section... It has never been much out of date and offers info not present in other pages (the number of objecting states only with the states objected against, but also those that object)... L.tak (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Apostille Convention. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apostille Convention. 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://archive.is/20140918150157/http://mersanlaw.com/2014/08/13/entrada-en-vigencia-del-convenio-de-apostilla-en-paraguay/?lang=en to http://mersanlaw.com/2014/08/13/entrada-en-vigencia-del-convenio-de-apostilla-en-paraguay/?lang=en

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Apostille Convention. 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/20100730153503/http://vermont-archives.org/notary/guide/Notary5.htm to http://vermont-archives.org/notary/guide/Notary5.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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]