Talk:Visa requirements for Iranian citizens/Archive 1

Archive 1

Why two shades of blue?

How come Guyana has different shade of blue than Venezuela? Same for Syria vs. Turkey. The key refers to one shade of blue only. 24.87.130.101 (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hong Kong?

What about Hong Kong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.128.91.242 (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what problem you have with the edits?

They reflect current Timatic info for KLM, else sources are provided for very recent changes.

Azerbaijan - I've given 2 sources for this, it changed to visa on arrival in August 2016. Iraq - It's been visa on arrival for 15 days at 2 key airports for a long time now. Belarus - Read the KLM info, it's visa on arrival at Minsk with health insurance to be paid. Vietnam - It's stated for a long time now, visa on arrival for 30 days at Phu Quoc. Colombia - evisa, the site provided, very clear from the KLM info. Moldova - Same as above, just check the KLM info, site is given.

The rest of the edits were just extra info on certain countries where a visa for the EU/US etc can allow a visa free period or visa on arrival, as with some Latin or E.Euro nations. I got it from the KLM links, it's only to help people.

So what do you disagree with exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.25.190 (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I've accepted the points made on Moldova, Vietnam and Iraq so I've left them as they were before. Belarus, Colombia and Azerbaijan needed editing. KLM state visa-on-arrival for Belarus (at Minsk) and an eVisa for Colombia. I've provided 3 sources inc. the official Azerbaijan gov site, to show 15 days visa-on-arrival in Azerbaijan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.25.190 (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that you are presenting the rules that are applicable only for a small region in some country as rules for an entire country. So for example visa on arrival that exists in Kurdistan exists only in Kurdistan and yet you change the visa rules for entire Iraq as visa on arrival which is simply not true. In Vietnam visa is not required in Phu Quoc. And that's it. One tiny resort island. Yet you change the entire country of Vietnam to be shown as having the rules that exist only in this small island. That's deeply misleading. Please check the size and location of Phú Quốc and then come back again to tell us if you still insist that we should say that the entire Vietnam should be listed as per rules that are valid at Phu Quoc only And then of course the entire list of countries that do not actually provide visa on arrival routinely such as Belarus but require the visa to be approved in advance or documentation including a certified invitation letter to be submitted well in advance. This is visa pick up at the airport, not visa on arrival as in other countries where the only requirement is to pay a fee. In general many of your edits are not wrong but belong to the notes column.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok that's fair, I understand. But that leaves Azerbaijan, which is Visa on Arrival for 15 days since August 2016. Babakesma also left this edit alone. I provided 3 sources for this including the official Azerbaijan gov website. (Before Aug 2016 it was only for a region).

I will edit Azerbaijan and provide 3 sources again. Please don't undo it unless you check them out first and find a reason to undo it.

I'll also add key notes for certain countries, based on the info for KLM linked to every country. Please don't undo this unless you check them out and actually disagree.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:4709:FD00:C92:5F33:FA07:F993 (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Syria - How do you know the IATA/KLM didn't update Syria for over 3 years? How do you know the Syrian government didn't update IATA/airlines/others in over 3 years? The 2014 article doesn't state *all* visitors, has no date for the law coming into force, doesn't quote any official, is 'reported'. There are lots of articles on the net like this for any country, only a % of them turn out to be accurate in the end.

Belarus - Why has this been reverted back to Visa Required multiple times? The IATA/KLM info states Visa on arrival at Minsk, with health insurance paid on arrival. There's no stated regional restriction, nor requirement for special permission/letter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.25.190 (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I know because I created the visa policy of Syria article in 2013 and have been following the IATA page ever since.

As for Belarus it's not a straightforward routine visa on arrival. Documents need to be sent will in advance of travel meaning this is a visa pick up.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Belarus - Where does it say documents need to be sent well in advance before picking up a visa on arrival? Not on the IATA/KLM info. It says visa on arrival at Minsk, with health insurance paid on arrival.

Until you give me a source to prove what you claim, I'll keep it visa on arrival by IATA/KLM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:4709:FD00:C92:5F33:FA07:F993 (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

§== Removal of information regarding executive order ==

@Babakesma: Decided to start this on the talk page rather than with an edit summary in a revert. Babakesma, could you please explain your removal of the information regarding the executive order? Regardless of the current standing of whether or not it is being enforced, as I've said before, the information is relevant to the article. I assume you wouldn't recommend deleting the article on the 18th Amendment simply because it's no longer enforced, correct? Please elaborate on your reasoning. Also pinging Twofortnights for convenience / further discussion. Pishcal (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Today the Trump team abandoned litigation of the blocked executive order and said they'll issue a fresh one sometime next week. We'll see how that goes. There's no point having a massive paragraph for USA regarding an order that's been abandoned. This is not the page for a running commentary on Trump's policy aspirations, especially if abandoned.

Regarding Guyana, it's as straightforward a visa on arrival as Uganda which you approved as visa on arrival. Bringing a confirmation letter from the place you're staying at, or providing its contact details, is easy/routine. You're not seeking authority approval prior to arrival in both cases, which is my point. I conceded Somalia as Visa Required on this basis infact. @Pishcal:@Babakesma:@Twofortnights: 2A02:C7D:4709:FD00:FCE4:F649:9A09:412 (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

In all articles Guyana is not listed as visa on arrival so it should not be listed as visa on arrival here either. In all other articles visa on arrival is reserved for situations where only an entry tax is paid without any further requirements in form of documentation. There is nothing straightforward about Guyana if you need to have a local host/sponsor. Before you disagree think about how many people do you know in Guyana who would sponsor your visit.--Twofortnights (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, accepted, all resolved for now. I'll leave the USA info until a fresh order is done. 2A02:C7D:4709:FD00:FCE4:F649:9A09:412 (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

"This is not the page for a running commentary on Trump's policy aspirations, especially if abandoned." - Is this not an encyclopedia? Wikipedia is not just some directory or travel guide - if there is relevant encyclopedic content to be included on this page, there's no reason to delete it just because it's not the absolute most current information it possibly can be. Pishcal (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Me and Babakesma disagree, and I won't repeat why for the umpteenth time, especially since the order was officially abandoned yesterday. However I've left the info as it is for now, until a new order is issued. 2A02:C7D:4709:FD00:506F:EBB2:7865:6DC2 (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC) @Pishcal:

I understand that you disagree. I'm challenging your logic. You support removing the information, claiming that it's no longer relevant. What I'm saying is that this page isn't just some directory of current policies - it's an encyclopedia page, and as such should include and relevant information, historical or not. Furthermore, it's a stretch to even call the information "historical" - it's about as current as current events come. By the way, when responding on talk pages it's common form to place one more ":" at the start of your post than the one you're responding to in order to indent your post - this way, chains of responses appear in a more readable "tree" format, rather than as one giant block. Pishcal (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Virtually all notes regarding visa requirements for/by every country just state the current policy. Otherwise one could write paragraphs of decades worth of policies for each one of these notes spaces ... which is thousands I'd imagine. These pages are a directory of sorts, lengthy write ups on controversial past/abandoned policies of nations is typically found elsewhere. But like I said I'm content to leave it alone for now. 82.132.220.232 (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC) @Pishcal:

"These pages are a directory of sorts" - Please see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. "Lengthy write ups" on history are what Wikipedia is about: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost. That's what I'm arguing: you can't just say that the information is "no longer relevant". As I've said before, it's like deleting the article on the 18th amendment because it's no longer enforced. Pishcal (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes it's what Wiki is generally about, the info is relevant just generally not in the notes spaces of these Visa pages, but elsewhere. The 18th Amendment doesn't really belong in the notes space of a visa page either. Historical wiki articles VS these Visa pages' notes spaces; quite different. The vast majority of Visa page note spaces are brief and directory like with the bare facts of current policy only. You can't deny that surely. 82.132.220.232 (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC) @Pishcal:

"The 18th Amendment doesn't really belong in the notes space of a visa page either." - I think you might have missed my point, and if this was a joke then the humor is lost on me. It may be true that other visa pages follow a similar style to this one, but this is not any sort of rule or precedent: in fact, pointing out that other stuff exists is generally frowned upon in discussions like these. There's no sort of policy-based reasoning for not including the content. Pishcal (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

If all visa pages follow the style/format I've highlighted, it is self-evidently a precedent. It is reasonable to follow the same on the USA space of the Iran page. Political interest for some on the US/Iran dynamic is understandable, as is the view of just treating it as any other visa notes space. I think that's enough on this for now :) 82.132.220.232 (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC) @Pishcal:

You seem incredibly eager to get this discussion over with. First it was the deletion of talk page content, and now it's mentioning how you're "done" or "willing to let it stay as it is" every message. Again, other stuff existing is not a valid argument - just because other pages are not following content guidelines is not rationale to do the same on this page, it's laziness. If you have policy or guideline that you can cite as to why the information should not remain in the article then please put it forth, but otherwise the only argument that you have is that "other pages don't have information on them so we shouldn't either". Also, please read what I wrote about talk page formatting, for convenience. Thanks, Pishcal (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

If I may just add, the same note is in articles on all countries affected by the travel ban.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It's the opposite, content not existing, as nearly all visa page note spaces list current policy in brief only. That's not accidental or incorrect. You're taking a general point about Wiki generally being encyclopedic to justify content that's out of place. Sections of many types of pages follow a style by convention eg) if you wiki a country you have a section listing the bare facts with a map pic, other sections of the page for the historical write up.

Given the ban was abandoned on the 16th, it's not only out of place but now misleading to only write up about its intro and pending status, as if the order is still alive. Those nations aren't currently affected anymore, yet still you both insist otherwise.

I tried to end the debate as I was warned about warring/conflict before and felt it was best to leave it be and move on. I replied as you insisted otherwise. 2A02:C7D:4709:FD00:A425:4195:93CB:AA41 (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC) @Twofortnights: @Pishcal:

You can't compare having an infobox in an article to not including relevant content in an article because of some completely made up tradition. I'm not talking a general point: first of all, there's nothing "general" about Wikipedia being an encyclopedia - there's no sort of factual ambiguity. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it includes encyclopedic content. This encyclopedic content is only removed for widely agreed upon and specific reasons, often through processes designed to give it the benefit of the doubt. You've cited reasons for not including it as this page serving as more of a "directory", and specifically I have refuted this by pointing out WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Your argument about current relevancy is again invalid - I think a compromise here would be to include the information under a new section rather than in the table, perhaps "International Actions" or something to the same effect. Pishcal (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The content is relevant if in full, including Feb 16th which nullified the order, just not on the notes space of a visa page. My argument is also against incomplete info. And eg) cluttering up info boxes etc with write ups wouldn't go down well. Wiki as an encyclopedia is a general statement, doesn't mean every bit is encyclopedic; the link is a guideline on what it's intended as. Including encyclopedic content doesn't mean it appears everywhere, hence 'general'. Precedent, convention, tidiness matters. I'd wait to see the fresh order next week, may amount to nothing. I never said content shouldn't be moved or expanded on, I suggested it. 2A02:C7D:4709:FD00:A425:4195:93CB:AA41 (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC) @Pishcal:

OK can I have a compromise solution offered? The note stays until the Executive order is valid (the order was not cancelled by the court only stayed) meaning April 27. If nothing changes by then or on April 27 we change the note to the pre-January 27 state. How does this sound?--Twofortnights (talk) 10:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Order was invalid from Feb 16th as Trump team abandoned it, fresh order is issued next week. So the note should've stayed deleted since Thurs. I've said this 5-6 times, why persist the contrary. 2A02:C7D:4709:FD00:A425:4195:93CB:AA41 (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC) @Pishcal: @Twofortnights:

OK well that was my attempt to find a compromise. Apparently you are not interested. Your view is also in the minority. So the note stays.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Was it? You say the notes should stay whilst the order is valid, I'm saying it ceased to be valid on Feb 16th when it was abandoned by the Trump team. You've yet to justify why that's incorrect. The prior court stays are irrelevant to that. Engaging in a clique to defy logic/facts is your prerogative. I did say to leave it be days ago, it's a minor issue not worth lengthy, protracted, circular conflict. 2A02:C7D:4709:FD00:A425:4195:93CB:AA41 (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC) @Twofortnights: @Pishcal:

You said "the content is relevant if in full, including Feb 16th which nullified the order" - I'm okay with that. Like I said previously, I would be in full support of moving the information from the table into some new section, perhaps "History" or "International Actions" or something, and would have no problem with adding in the current state of the executive order. I'm also going to ignore your comments about Wikipedia as an encyclopedia because I feel that continuing that discussion is fruitless. Thoughts on the suggestion? Pishcal (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Your suggestion is fine, doesn't pretend the order is alive via incomplete info, and doesn't clutter up the table. But it's possible next week's order may amount to little, thus ending the issue. 2A02:C7D:4709:FD00:A425:4195:93CB:AA41 (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC) @Pishcal:

I'm not sure what you mean by "ending the issue" - the history will still be there regardless of what happens later, but I'm glad we've come to an agreement. Pishcal (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

It would end edits/debate on the order(s). No I didn't agree to permanent info on a short-lived, scrapped order by 1 nation. That's beyond the scope of a visa page, else one could write at length about decades of policies affecting Iran from many nations. I'd prefer to just leave it be. @Pishcal:

Content discussion regarding Singapore/eVisas

Please be aware of a discussion affecting this article at [1]. -- ferret (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Tanzania Visa on Arrival

When there is no reference for Visa required for Iranian, and also the only reference shows Iran is not in the list of countries need a visa in advance. Wiki works based on a reference so we sholde follow the rule — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babakesma (talk • contribs) 12:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Tanzania has quietly been changing its VoA rules - [2]. Information is still not found on official pages but Timatic has been updated and Iranian citizens can no longer receive visa on arrival.--Twofortnights (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Visa free

Mauritius is open for Iranian (14 days) 194.50.13.53 (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

map is wrong

Admission is refused in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CB:DBCE:D500:F961:ACCB:14F1:881D (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

That's conditional. Not absolute. Aminabzz (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Ascension

Ascension island isn't showed in the map (admission refused). Aminabzz (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2023 (UTC)