Talk:Visa requirements for Irish citizens/Archive 1

Archive 1

brazil visa

this should be "up to 90 days - extendable for further 90 days" as with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_requirements_for_British_citizens see source: http://cglondres.itamaraty.gov.br/en-us/tourist_visa.xml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.242.214 (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Full reciprocity

Surely saying that Australia and Brunei don't allow full reciprocity is a bit of a stretch. They allow 90 days while we allow 89 to 92 days depending on the months involved. I'd also suggest colouring amber those states which allow visa free access but for shorter periods that Ireland allows for their citizens. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 15:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Russia

am i wrong or is Russia missing from the list? neither europe nor asia, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.22.75.87 (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

India

An odd one to leave off the list. They issue for 90 days and longer if you are on business. 2011 it costs €50, and €100 if you have to have it in 24 hours.86.42.200.4 (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about reciprocity so someone else can put it on the list.86.42.200.4 (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

From what you say it appears Irish citizens need a visa if they want to visit India. This list is only for countries which allow access without a visa. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 17:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Standard Indian tourist visa is valid for up to six months visit but starts the day the visa goes into the passport. I've received Indian visas in Dublin and Tehran (Irish passport.) -- Blorg (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Australia should not be colored grey on the map!

Hello Wikipedians,

Please change Australia to some color other than grey (which according to the map key, means (only) Visa required (before arrival)). Since Australia apparently grants essentially visa-free entry (only the electronic/ online 'pre-authorization' is required) to Irish pp holders for a 90-day stay, it would seem the most appropriate color is the Green, like virtually all the Americas are colored.

ww in Taipei 203.73.50.226 (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The map was wrong but the article text is correct. I've removed the map. Had it been in SVG it would be easier to change. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 16:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 October 2013

can you change the vietnam requirements for irish citizens, they do in fact need a visa. it must be gotten beforehand if arriving by land or can be gotten on arrival if arriving by air, subject to an online pre-approval. cost varies from 50-80$US

89.16.91.174 (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source saying so? If so, post here what the source is, and in the "edit semi-protected" template above, change "answered=yes" back to "answered=no". JamesBWatson (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Done, but the Vietnamese embassy seem to deny that online or arrival visas have any validity. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 19:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Difference between UK and Irish visa requirements

A brief comparison of the maps seems to indicate that (ignoring the complications of Hong Kong nationals and the difference between British citizens and British nationals) the only major difference between the two is that Australia allows a 90 day online advance visa but British citizens get it free and Irish citizens must pay - that Australia would be the main difference seems odd to me. Is this true?

No EU country has to pay, they are all covered by eVisitor which is free and EU-specific. -- Blorg (talk) 10:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.193.168 (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Syria and Vietnam are wrong

Syria grants visas on arrival to certain countries in which it does not have an embassy. This includes Ireland, and I've got one there before. Vietnam on the other hand requires Irish citizens to have a visa, there is a list of European countries that don't need one but Ireland IS NOT on that list, and I have personal experience of being refused at the border. Laos is $35, not $30. Blorg (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Just go ahead and change anything you thing is wrong. We don't have to discuss it here first. Please find reliable sources though, you own experience is insufficient. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 16:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Blorg is correct. In fact the reference given for Syria requiring a visa in advance correctly states that Syria grants visa on arrival to countries where there is no resident Syrian diplomatic representation. 197.162.105.180 (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Syria changed the law entirely in January. Everyone now requires a visa in advance. The fact that they haven't notified IATA does not surprise me given the fact that there is a war going on in that country and that the visa policy notification is probably not a priority.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Twofortnights, actually if you look at the article in al-Watan, linked from the article in Alarabiya that you linked to, it is still possible to get a visa at the border if you are a national of a country where there is no Syrian diplomatic representation: "وتمنح سمات الدخول أو المرور لرعايا الدول الأجنبية التي ليس للجمهورية العربية السورية تمثيل دبلوماسي فيها من المراكز مباشرة بعد استيفاء الرسم."

The main difference seems to be that now Arabs need a visa. Of course, who knows how it works in practice. Best, 197.162.105.180 (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Considering you can read Arabic could you please investigate further? For an example what happened to visa on arrival for ex Soviet citizens and citizens of Iran and Malaysia (where Syria mostly has missions). This was the visa policy before the law was changed - File:Visa policy of Syria.png. Maybe you can find the text of the law itself.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll try and have a look when I get a chance, sure. 197.162.20.103 (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Non-visa requirements

What possible sense can be have to include in a page about visa requirements for Irish citizens, copious details about non-visa requirements? All the more so given that these requirements are generic without any specific relevance to Irish citizens. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 18:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. You may wish to discuss this on the template as it is included in all visa requirements articles including this one. As it's the same for all articles there should be a consensus to either keep it or remove it. I personally find the information relevant and also there was a lot of effort done by some editors to make the info uniform and relevant for all nationalities. You see it as generic without specific relevance, but the idea was to made easily editable content in one place that could be used in all articles.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

South Africa??

Where is this on the list? Mike Galvin (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

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

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Eirepas.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Article/Henley Unreliable

The Henley Passport Index is presently unreliable as a source. The de-facto authority on passport values (passportindex.org) lists an Ireland passport as presently more 'valuable' than a British one, citing clear evidence (this is just one example of many). I believe Ireland. comes out ahead by 165 to 164. Unlike Henley, passportindex publish, clear, detailed evidence, on a country by country basis.

It also has a facility where the just the DIFFERENCES between two passports can be looked at, and this facility clearly shows which countries one passport can enter, but the other can not. Much clearer, much more accurate.

As things stand, I believe the Ireland Passport would rank second, or possibly third, globally. The only country I could see with a higher value was Singapore.

But this article is completely incorrect. Mike Galvin (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

We understand you are trying to promote passportindex.org as a "de-facto authority on passport values", however that's far from true. Namely, passport index has a very skewed methodology, taking into account UN HDI rank etc. which has nothing to do with passport ranking. In addition there is a very dubious ranking of UAE passport by this entity. On the other hand Henley uses IATA data for its ranking and IATA takes their data from national governments. While it's also not perfect, it's the best we have right now as it comes from official data.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I am in no way involved with passportindex.org, nor am I trying to "promote" it. Nor am I certain what you mean by a "skewed methodology". The values assigned are based on hard, verifiable, clearly stated and up-to-the-minute evidence, sourced from embassies worldwide. For the cynical amongst us, there is a facility which allows the user to compare the visa requirement differences between two passports precisely, which makes the data even clearer. With this facility, again, the relevant details are clearly stated. Henley offers nothing like this, merely "a list" of fairly dubious provenance with no supporting data. I wonder why you would choose Henley as a more reliable source. Their organisation is primarily concerned with relocating businessess and businesspeople globally, and they tout for business in that sector alone. For a long time, they were regarded as an "authority" on passport values, but only because they were the only company bothered to do this. Better companies have exposed them, somewhat. I repeat that Henley data is eliable. Make your point again with supporting evidence. Mike Galvin (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I have explicitly explained what I consider to be a "skewed methodology". Do I need to repeat? No problem. Human Development Index that is among other things used for ranking countries by Arton Capital in its methodology has nothing to do with visa policies and requirements whatsoever. In addition it ranks UAE passport as the most powerful which is ridiculous and based on fake data (fast track eVisa for Australia, eVisa for Burundi not listed for any other country and not mentioned by any other source, DR Congo VoA which is not implemented yet, Ivory Coast VoA not mentioned by any other source, Niger VoA which in reality applies only to diplomatic passports, Sierra Leone VoA only signed but not yet implemented etc.etc.)--Twofortnights (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

UAE does indeed have the world's most powerful passport since last year. Perhaps you missed The Independent (UK) article on this. It received coverage in several other reputable newspapers also. There is nothing to suggest that Arton cross-references HDI information with hard passport data. There may, as you suggest, be one or two anomalies in their product, but these are small. Again, the data supporting their rankings is explicit and specific. Henley provides nothing, other than "a list" - no thanks. Here's my list. The Gambia has the world's #1 passport. Why? Because I made a list. See the problem? I've checked you out and understand you feel proprietorial about all this, but aside from a bogus and unsupported accusation that Arton compromises its own data, I don't think you've made a case for Henley. And you're extremely fucking rude. Mike Galvin (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

No I didn't miss anything, the article in Independent says "According to Passport Index" and not according to independent research. They just cited what Arton Capital gave in a press release. So no, that does not verify the passport index, in case you were wondering. It just reports on the extremely flawed findings of passport index.

As for "There is nothing to suggest that Arton cross-references HDI information with hard passport data." - Arton Capital themselves state that United Nations Development Programme Human Development Index 2015 is used as one of the ways to determine the ranking so I don't get your point unless you didn't do your research? They also don't cite their sources but claim it's based on "proprietary research". Nothing explicit or specific there. Finally the ranking is based on an unexplained ratio of visa-free vs. visa on arrival score.

Saying that my claim that passport index data is wrong is "unsupported" after I gave at least five solid examples is bizarre.

Finally, I won't tolerate personal attacks, so watch your language.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Interesting that Independent journalists would use Passport Index as a credible source, or would seek to publicise findings that you deem bogus. Are THEY part of the conspiracy as well? Finally - and I don't mean this as a "personal attack", but are you special needs? The Passport Index format could scarcely be clearer. It lists each passport, the present status of which is referenced against each destination country, thus eliciting an empirical result that is not subject to interpretation, deeper analysis or your mood swings. What part of this do you not understand? If they're using HDI data (in 2015?) they're concealing the fact rather well, since the site focuses ruthlessly on admission status/visa requirements - and nothing else. There are NO references to HDI, at least not in the direct sense you imply, beyond HDI having an obvious effect on the value of a nation's passport. As for your "five solid examples", my experience of the Emirates is that they likely have unique arrangements in place that you may not be privy to, or indeed even understand (Gazillions in oil money tends to have that effect), but that Arton are aware of. Or did you REALLY think the whole thing was a joke on the public. I say again; Henley is redundant. And I happen to know they're currently in the process of amending several of their rankings based on passport index research and findings. Mike Galvin (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

As for your continued personal attacks, you have been warned. As for the rest, it's all in the methodology of passport index, you just need to open it and read it before claiming that I imply HDI is used when it's explicitly listed in the methodology. As for secret deals that Emirates have, I will remind you of WP:V.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

What goes on a talk-page doesn't need to be "verified", Dumbass. It's peripheral conversation, not core to article. I got the information from a friend who works in a division of Henley (unrelated to passport rankings, though aware of what goes on there). They'll shortly amend certain information, and then it will be "verifiable". Won't it. Mike Galvin (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Unless anyone has information to the contrary, I believe that "United Nations Development Programme Human Development Index 2015 (UNDP HDI) is used as a tie breaker" only in the ranking order (and, as far as I can see, has not currently been needed been used as a tie-breaker between Denmark, Sweden, Italy and Singapore) rather than, for example, a more arbitrary alphabetical ordering. The explanation for this (eminently reasonable?) stance is that "The UNDP HDI is a significant measure on (sic - they presumably mean "of") the country’s perception abroad."

And, on another page of the website's blog: "Where there is a perfect tie, as in other places in the ranking, Passport Index has ranked the countries based on the United Nations Development Programme Human Development Index, using it as a tiebreaker. The index is a measure of average achievement in human development, such as living a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and have a decent standard of living"

On a more personal note, I do find the passportindex.org website to be informative and intriguing. Members of my immediate family typically each have entitlement to three or more different passports from different continents (totally more than a dozen different countries) and it's amusing to see the most flexible pairings [so far a handbag with an Irish and Singaporean passport (with air-crew ID card) seems to offer the least bureaucratic obstacles to travel since the GCC contre temps with Qatar...] --BushelCandle (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, it's not a primary source for ranking but it is used and I think it has no place whatsoever. Anyhow, more significant issues persist, the index is rather sloppy, they don't differentiate between signed and ratified treaties just to begin with. Henley index is based on IATA data which is also far from spotless, but the main difference is that IATA data is openly accessible which is in line with WP:V while passport index uses murky "proprietary sources".--Twofortnights (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I would interpret "proprietary sources" to mean extreme hard work and diligent research from a broad range of relevant sources to assign rankings. If given a choice between that and sloppy, incomplete IATA data as barometer, I would likely side with the former. I don't see anything "murky" about proprietary research. Why would there be a need for "murkiness", which by its very tone, implies corruption? Where is the incentive? Or are you suggesting that Arton has a list of 'favourite countries'. On goes the conspiracy theory. Mike Galvin (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Henley/IATA data

It appears that IATA, on whose data Henley principally relies have a presence in 117 countries, with a presumptive level of expertise in visa requirements for those places. Since there are currently 195 countries in existence, this may be somewhat problematic. Mike Galvin (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It may be even worse than you fear, Mike.

Some states (eg China with different visa regimes for Hong Kong and Macau and the UK with different visa regimes for various overseas territories such as Pitcairn, etc) differ considerably in the visa requirements for their various territories and, of course, IATA is principally concerned with departures and arrivals by air (as opposed to by land and sea)... --BushelCandle (talk) 03:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there an entity present in 195 countries?--Twofortnights (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

If by "entity" you really mean "single entity we could consult for visa/entry regimes", then I would very much doubt it. I take your presumed point, 28days, that there is probably no better single source for this sort of info than IATA... --BushelCandle (talk) 07:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

You haven't by any chance deleted the Arton Capital reference I made a day ago?

If so, why? Hanoi Road (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC

I recently cited the Arton Capital ranking for the Irish passport, which for some reason has been arbitrarily deleted by Anonymous.

Not sure why Henley should have a monopoly here, since Arton is just as highly regarded. :::Sock puppetry? ::: Ought Arton be mentioned? Hanoi Road (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

First of all it wasn't removed anonymously. Second of all you made an edit without citing any references. Third of all, the Arton Capital ranking was discussed several times over and it was established that the ranking is not based only on visa requirements but on other indexes such as the Human Development Index, as explained in their methodology. This rather odd methodology should be noted as is the case with WTO ranking, for example in Visa requirements for Danish citizens.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I can source it if you wish, but Arton has its own Wiki page, and this is easily Googled. I'm not sure which discussion you're referring to, other than a rather cyclical exchange which didn't really establish anything other than entrenched positions. Since Arton is a major player, can their ranking be mentioned with reference to the HDI issue as part of the methodology? Surely that solves the issue. BTW, the Henley have updated their rankings, so the present info is outdated. Hanoi Road (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect information regarding Maldives in 'Territories and disputed areas' section

The article states 'Maldives — With the exception of the capital Malé, tourists are generally prohibited from visiting non-resort islands without the express permission of the Government of Maldives.[278]'

In 2009, the law was changed to permit tourism on local islands. No special government permission is required and there is no prohibition from visiting a local island. https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20150526-a-maldives-you-can-actually-afford, https://www.responsibletravel.com/holidays/maldives/travel-guide/keeping-things-local-on-the-maldives

185.5.48.130 (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Made update

It's been 12 months since the Irish passport was updated regarding visas... Currently in joint 5th place with 188. Please amend. 176.61.76.228 (talk) 10:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)