![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Taiwan should be categorized as partially recognized state like in other visa requirement threads. It should not be put together with Hong Kong and Macao, which were SARs of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unchangingtask ( talk • contribs) 13:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Accuracy is disputed regarding the image file that is persistently vandalized on Commons without any admin responding and stopping it. A user is trying to add wrong information on Cuba and possibly other countries. He simply claims "links are on Wikipedia" with references on Wikipedia giving the exact opposite information to that he is uploading to the map file.-- Twofortnights ( talk) 02:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I must also note that the user Whisper of the heart continues vandalizing image files by claims such as "It's in wikipedia alreaday, no link is needed here." (regarding sources), "According to Wikipedia" (oh really, didn't know Wikipedia is in charge of visa policies around the world), "It just operates like this." (oh now I am convinced), "You are too crazy to edit." (the power of arguments), "It's in wikipedia alreaday, no link is needed here." (lies), "Don't need to do so." (plea to provide a source) etc.-- Twofortnights ( talk) 20:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Twofortnights, you are refusing to entertain sources other than your preferred source and when you do that you have to provide a rationale that is based on policy. I see no reason why TIMATIC should be considered absolutely final. The other sources should be acknowledged. "Visa required" is simply your opinion as to what the sources say. I believe the sources are not so clear and that's because sources that policy considers potentially reliable suggest otherwise.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 22:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
It's as plain as day that there was a policy change, is it? Have the Cubans also changed policy to restrict Canadians, given the following facts?
1) a unit of the Canadian government has instructed its staff "For more information when planning your trip to Cuba, you may wish to visit the Cuban Embassy and the Cuba Tourist Board of Canada websites."
2) on the Cuba Tourist Board of Canada website, it ONLY refers to a "visa" once, and in a context that distinguishes it from the "Tourist Card":
"Entry requirements: Every tourist should have a valid passport issued on his or her name and a tourist card (the tourist card is available with the airline at the airport).... If you are planning to work, do business or study in Cuba you need a visa; please contact Consulate General of Cuba."
3) TIMATIC says "Visa Required" for Canadians
Since TIMATIC is current, and a Canadian government department believes the Cuba Tourist Board of Canada is authoritative with respect to its information and this source clearly indicates that a "visa" is only needed "if you are planning to work, do business or study", then according to you, it's "obvious" that the GoCuba.ca website info is obsolete, there has been a policy change, and anyone who "doubts" that should be mocked with heavy sarcasm, right?
I won't ask you to do "plenty of thinking" here, you certainly seem to think all my comments are just drive-by, but I will ask you to consider whether it wouldn't be an interesting coincidence if there's been a relatively recent policy change for the Chinese AND for the Canadians. If one alternatively says that yet again the sources simply conflict, that'd also be an interesting coincidence, no?
It is not original research to suggest that both GoCuba.ca and TIMATIC are correct here except GoCuba.ca is using "visa" in a common sense, practical context and TIMATIC an entirely officious context. It's called reconciling the sources without positing something unseen and unverified like a policy change. The Cuba Tourist Board of Canada is evidently aware that the Tourist Card has "VISADO" written on it since an image of said Tourist Card is provided
elsewhere on the website. That doesn't mean they can't call it what it functionally is, a "Tourist Card" in an environment that makes it more like Visa on arrival or like Australia's Electronic Travel Authority than "Visa required" as it is used for the other countries in this article.
I have never said Wikipedia should not acknowledge what TIMATIC says here. I rather said we should be giving more information. I would not object to "Tourist Card" required provided it were also noted that this is generally provided by tour operators or airlines, since readers come to this page wanting to know whether they need to do anything prior to arriving at their departure airport. In the case of a privately organized flight, sure, one cannot just jump on one's private jet and land in Cuba, one has to do something in advance like buy a Tourist Card at an airport. But the overwhelming majority of readers would be arriving on commercial carriers, whether air or sea, and I fail to understand why you so stubbornly refuse to advise these readers that a visa is not required in their passports as a caveat or additional note to "Visa required" if you insist on the "visa required" language.--
Brian Dell (
talk) 20:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Currently visa-free in 74 countries according to Arton Capital ( 1, 2). -- 50.153.149.70 ( talk) 02:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Evidences that PPA are NOT ordinary passports:
http://cs.mfa.gov.cn/zggmcg/hz/hzjj_660445/t1200748.shtml
The section describing the PPA states "其中公务护照又分为公务、公务普通两个类别", which translates to "the service passports are divided into two types: the Service Passport and the PPA".
Second evidence: Article 4 of the Passport Law:
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/ywzn/lsyw/vpna/faq/t710009.htm
Read the biodata page of PPA again: it was issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which means it's NOT considered as an Ordinary passport.
Please do not credit this to me as an ordinary research: the wordings are as plain as day.
C-GAUN ( talk) 21:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Article 9 of the Passport Law:
The issuing scope of diplomatic passports and service passports, the measures for issue of such passports, their terms of validity and the specific categories of service passports shall be prescribed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
One other thing, it is the CHINESE GOVERNMENT'S position to classify PPA as a Service Passport, not mine. Please follow the regulations set forth by the CHINESE GOVERNMENT, instead with the "Type P" theory. Again please don't credit the decision taken by CHINESE GOVERNMENT to ME. If you have other OFFICIAL statement from the CHINESE GOVERNMENT that the PPE is an ordinary passport, please post it here. Otherwise the discussion is concluded. C-GAUN ( talk) 22:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
> I would like to offer some extra evidence on this matter, to finally settle the argument and stop classifying passport for public affairs as a type of ordinary passports:
Chinese passport for public affairs is not considered an ordinary passport, it is both de facto and de jury a lower tier variation of the service passport. General public with no affiliation to a state-owned enterprise or institution will have no access to this category of passports. There are two sources to back this claim:
1. Passport Law of the People's Republic of China states that there are only three categories of Chinese passport: ordinary passport, diplomatic passport, and official passport; official passport includes service passport and passport for public affairs. The article 6 of this law outlines the requirement for applying an ordinary passport, it goes to show that passport for public affairs is no a type of ordinary passport as it undergoes much more complicated issuance process. As such, passport for public affairs should be regarded as a type of non-ordinary passports. 2. The council of EU's Visa Working Party maintains a list of the border policy of its member states (6100/13 VISA 28 COMIX 70), in which Chinese passport for public affairs is classified as a type 11 document, in the same category of Chinese travel permit, repatriation certificate, and laissez-passer. (ordinary passport is type 1).
An effortless way to cross reference this is to simply have a look at the Chinese language page of this article, which has excluded the passport for public affairs from its map of ordinary passport's visa requirements. Now, this alone shouldn't carry much weight for the claim, besides showing what local editors (who are likely a Chinese passport holder) but taken together with the law of the issuing country AND the policy summary of EU member states' attitude towards this passport, it should be more than sufficient to prove its special status, thus granting us reason to move passport for public affairs to the section of non-ordinary passports.
As for the 'type P' theory, I am really surprised how such a weak claim can be used to argue against the overwhelming evidence. Here, let me give this theory a final blow:
- In the 2021 version of Chinese diplomatic e-passport, the passport has been given the P type classification. If the passport type theory is to be trusted, the diplomatic passport should be categorised as type D passport. This goes to prove that passport type is rather a reference for the issuing agencies, instead of a valid approach to categorise travel documents.
Conclusion? We shouldn't blindly rely on the single source such as coding terms when it comes to a complicated system like the world of travel documents. Thus, unless proven otherwise, this article should stop bringing ordinary and passport for public affairs under the same section. JerichoHog ( talk) 21:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
http://www.consulat.ma/fr/prestation.cfm?gr_id=6&id=53
Following information provided from consulat of Morocco, visa a required for Chinese citizen to travel to Morocco. The current source of information is a page by KLM where the information is less than clear.
In the page I provide, even it's in French, we can see that China "Chine" is not in the list of countries from whom visa are not required.
62.212.118.198 ( talk) 19:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC) ST
@ BushelCandle + Twofortnights, the problem with the Israeli stamps us that them seem to target specific type of countries: East Asian/West Pacific [China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea (South), Philippines, San Marino, and Thailand], major historically-Catholic countries [Andorra, Brazil, France, Hungary, Mexico, Monaco, Poland, Portugal, and Spain], and some random set of countries [Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Norway, and Serbia]. It explicitly excludes most Anglophone countries except Australia and New Zealand, African countries, Carribean countries, and certain large countries such as India, Italy, and Russia. There seem to be an intrinsic reason why the editor is intent on forewarning people from these countries. That and the statement reamins unsourced which may equate to vandalism. Shhhhwwww!! ( talk) 20:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Is it necessary to keep the orange-colored "for passports for public affairs"? The same map for most other countries only show visa requirements for ordinary passports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigox ( talk • contribs) 19:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
This is misleading and inconsistent! People want to know the normal visa regulations. It is clear that travel restrictions are currently in effect all around the world. But don't scare people with black squares. If you do so, do it consistently in every article. China itself currently doesn't allow any foreigners to enter and it's not marked black in the respective articles. -- 2001:16B8:3157:3100:5017:7B6F:D53D:9D4B ( talk) 22:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
"From January 31, all passengers from China are not allowed to enter Equatorial Guinea" - Jan 31 of which year? User670839245 ( talk) 08:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit by User:Lades2222. The fact that Indian tourism visa for Chinese passport holders remain suspended has been confirmed by Chinese media news report on 11-Aug-2023 ( https://m.yicai.com/news/101833273.html), see ref no. 66 in the article. However I don't think establishing a new color in the map to distinguish "highly likely restricted" from "(explicitly announced) restricted" (the color of Taiwan) is necessary. My opinion is -- such two colors may be merged. -- GodCallMeGod ( talk) 16:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Wow, starting from 2021, the number of countries that Chinese citizens can enter without a visa has increased.
Albania
Angola
Benin
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Malaysia
Maldives
Mozambique
Oman
Suriname
And this is expected to increase. 59.5.168.44 ( talk) 21:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Why is Andorra red and San Marino green if they are the same case? 2001:9E8:A40D:6500:F136:56F5:FC39:A3A3 ( talk) 11:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Last week, China announced that Irish citizens no longer require a visa to enter China. This is reciprocal. 86.182.252.22 ( talk) 18:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Taiwan should be categorized as partially recognized state like in other visa requirement threads. It should not be put together with Hong Kong and Macao, which were SARs of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unchangingtask ( talk • contribs) 13:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Accuracy is disputed regarding the image file that is persistently vandalized on Commons without any admin responding and stopping it. A user is trying to add wrong information on Cuba and possibly other countries. He simply claims "links are on Wikipedia" with references on Wikipedia giving the exact opposite information to that he is uploading to the map file.-- Twofortnights ( talk) 02:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
I must also note that the user Whisper of the heart continues vandalizing image files by claims such as "It's in wikipedia alreaday, no link is needed here." (regarding sources), "According to Wikipedia" (oh really, didn't know Wikipedia is in charge of visa policies around the world), "It just operates like this." (oh now I am convinced), "You are too crazy to edit." (the power of arguments), "It's in wikipedia alreaday, no link is needed here." (lies), "Don't need to do so." (plea to provide a source) etc.-- Twofortnights ( talk) 20:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Twofortnights, you are refusing to entertain sources other than your preferred source and when you do that you have to provide a rationale that is based on policy. I see no reason why TIMATIC should be considered absolutely final. The other sources should be acknowledged. "Visa required" is simply your opinion as to what the sources say. I believe the sources are not so clear and that's because sources that policy considers potentially reliable suggest otherwise.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 22:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
It's as plain as day that there was a policy change, is it? Have the Cubans also changed policy to restrict Canadians, given the following facts?
1) a unit of the Canadian government has instructed its staff "For more information when planning your trip to Cuba, you may wish to visit the Cuban Embassy and the Cuba Tourist Board of Canada websites."
2) on the Cuba Tourist Board of Canada website, it ONLY refers to a "visa" once, and in a context that distinguishes it from the "Tourist Card":
"Entry requirements: Every tourist should have a valid passport issued on his or her name and a tourist card (the tourist card is available with the airline at the airport).... If you are planning to work, do business or study in Cuba you need a visa; please contact Consulate General of Cuba."
3) TIMATIC says "Visa Required" for Canadians
Since TIMATIC is current, and a Canadian government department believes the Cuba Tourist Board of Canada is authoritative with respect to its information and this source clearly indicates that a "visa" is only needed "if you are planning to work, do business or study", then according to you, it's "obvious" that the GoCuba.ca website info is obsolete, there has been a policy change, and anyone who "doubts" that should be mocked with heavy sarcasm, right?
I won't ask you to do "plenty of thinking" here, you certainly seem to think all my comments are just drive-by, but I will ask you to consider whether it wouldn't be an interesting coincidence if there's been a relatively recent policy change for the Chinese AND for the Canadians. If one alternatively says that yet again the sources simply conflict, that'd also be an interesting coincidence, no?
It is not original research to suggest that both GoCuba.ca and TIMATIC are correct here except GoCuba.ca is using "visa" in a common sense, practical context and TIMATIC an entirely officious context. It's called reconciling the sources without positing something unseen and unverified like a policy change. The Cuba Tourist Board of Canada is evidently aware that the Tourist Card has "VISADO" written on it since an image of said Tourist Card is provided
elsewhere on the website. That doesn't mean they can't call it what it functionally is, a "Tourist Card" in an environment that makes it more like Visa on arrival or like Australia's Electronic Travel Authority than "Visa required" as it is used for the other countries in this article.
I have never said Wikipedia should not acknowledge what TIMATIC says here. I rather said we should be giving more information. I would not object to "Tourist Card" required provided it were also noted that this is generally provided by tour operators or airlines, since readers come to this page wanting to know whether they need to do anything prior to arriving at their departure airport. In the case of a privately organized flight, sure, one cannot just jump on one's private jet and land in Cuba, one has to do something in advance like buy a Tourist Card at an airport. But the overwhelming majority of readers would be arriving on commercial carriers, whether air or sea, and I fail to understand why you so stubbornly refuse to advise these readers that a visa is not required in their passports as a caveat or additional note to "Visa required" if you insist on the "visa required" language.--
Brian Dell (
talk) 20:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Currently visa-free in 74 countries according to Arton Capital ( 1, 2). -- 50.153.149.70 ( talk) 02:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Evidences that PPA are NOT ordinary passports:
http://cs.mfa.gov.cn/zggmcg/hz/hzjj_660445/t1200748.shtml
The section describing the PPA states "其中公务护照又分为公务、公务普通两个类别", which translates to "the service passports are divided into two types: the Service Passport and the PPA".
Second evidence: Article 4 of the Passport Law:
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/ywzn/lsyw/vpna/faq/t710009.htm
Read the biodata page of PPA again: it was issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which means it's NOT considered as an Ordinary passport.
Please do not credit this to me as an ordinary research: the wordings are as plain as day.
C-GAUN ( talk) 21:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Article 9 of the Passport Law:
The issuing scope of diplomatic passports and service passports, the measures for issue of such passports, their terms of validity and the specific categories of service passports shall be prescribed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
One other thing, it is the CHINESE GOVERNMENT'S position to classify PPA as a Service Passport, not mine. Please follow the regulations set forth by the CHINESE GOVERNMENT, instead with the "Type P" theory. Again please don't credit the decision taken by CHINESE GOVERNMENT to ME. If you have other OFFICIAL statement from the CHINESE GOVERNMENT that the PPE is an ordinary passport, please post it here. Otherwise the discussion is concluded. C-GAUN ( talk) 22:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
> I would like to offer some extra evidence on this matter, to finally settle the argument and stop classifying passport for public affairs as a type of ordinary passports:
Chinese passport for public affairs is not considered an ordinary passport, it is both de facto and de jury a lower tier variation of the service passport. General public with no affiliation to a state-owned enterprise or institution will have no access to this category of passports. There are two sources to back this claim:
1. Passport Law of the People's Republic of China states that there are only three categories of Chinese passport: ordinary passport, diplomatic passport, and official passport; official passport includes service passport and passport for public affairs. The article 6 of this law outlines the requirement for applying an ordinary passport, it goes to show that passport for public affairs is no a type of ordinary passport as it undergoes much more complicated issuance process. As such, passport for public affairs should be regarded as a type of non-ordinary passports. 2. The council of EU's Visa Working Party maintains a list of the border policy of its member states (6100/13 VISA 28 COMIX 70), in which Chinese passport for public affairs is classified as a type 11 document, in the same category of Chinese travel permit, repatriation certificate, and laissez-passer. (ordinary passport is type 1).
An effortless way to cross reference this is to simply have a look at the Chinese language page of this article, which has excluded the passport for public affairs from its map of ordinary passport's visa requirements. Now, this alone shouldn't carry much weight for the claim, besides showing what local editors (who are likely a Chinese passport holder) but taken together with the law of the issuing country AND the policy summary of EU member states' attitude towards this passport, it should be more than sufficient to prove its special status, thus granting us reason to move passport for public affairs to the section of non-ordinary passports.
As for the 'type P' theory, I am really surprised how such a weak claim can be used to argue against the overwhelming evidence. Here, let me give this theory a final blow:
- In the 2021 version of Chinese diplomatic e-passport, the passport has been given the P type classification. If the passport type theory is to be trusted, the diplomatic passport should be categorised as type D passport. This goes to prove that passport type is rather a reference for the issuing agencies, instead of a valid approach to categorise travel documents.
Conclusion? We shouldn't blindly rely on the single source such as coding terms when it comes to a complicated system like the world of travel documents. Thus, unless proven otherwise, this article should stop bringing ordinary and passport for public affairs under the same section. JerichoHog ( talk) 21:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
http://www.consulat.ma/fr/prestation.cfm?gr_id=6&id=53
Following information provided from consulat of Morocco, visa a required for Chinese citizen to travel to Morocco. The current source of information is a page by KLM where the information is less than clear.
In the page I provide, even it's in French, we can see that China "Chine" is not in the list of countries from whom visa are not required.
62.212.118.198 ( talk) 19:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC) ST
@ BushelCandle + Twofortnights, the problem with the Israeli stamps us that them seem to target specific type of countries: East Asian/West Pacific [China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea (South), Philippines, San Marino, and Thailand], major historically-Catholic countries [Andorra, Brazil, France, Hungary, Mexico, Monaco, Poland, Portugal, and Spain], and some random set of countries [Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Norway, and Serbia]. It explicitly excludes most Anglophone countries except Australia and New Zealand, African countries, Carribean countries, and certain large countries such as India, Italy, and Russia. There seem to be an intrinsic reason why the editor is intent on forewarning people from these countries. That and the statement reamins unsourced which may equate to vandalism. Shhhhwwww!! ( talk) 20:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Is it necessary to keep the orange-colored "for passports for public affairs"? The same map for most other countries only show visa requirements for ordinary passports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigox ( talk • contribs) 19:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
This is misleading and inconsistent! People want to know the normal visa regulations. It is clear that travel restrictions are currently in effect all around the world. But don't scare people with black squares. If you do so, do it consistently in every article. China itself currently doesn't allow any foreigners to enter and it's not marked black in the respective articles. -- 2001:16B8:3157:3100:5017:7B6F:D53D:9D4B ( talk) 22:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
"From January 31, all passengers from China are not allowed to enter Equatorial Guinea" - Jan 31 of which year? User670839245 ( talk) 08:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the edit by User:Lades2222. The fact that Indian tourism visa for Chinese passport holders remain suspended has been confirmed by Chinese media news report on 11-Aug-2023 ( https://m.yicai.com/news/101833273.html), see ref no. 66 in the article. However I don't think establishing a new color in the map to distinguish "highly likely restricted" from "(explicitly announced) restricted" (the color of Taiwan) is necessary. My opinion is -- such two colors may be merged. -- GodCallMeGod ( talk) 16:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Wow, starting from 2021, the number of countries that Chinese citizens can enter without a visa has increased.
Albania
Angola
Benin
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Malaysia
Maldives
Mozambique
Oman
Suriname
And this is expected to increase. 59.5.168.44 ( talk) 21:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Why is Andorra red and San Marino green if they are the same case? 2001:9E8:A40D:6500:F136:56F5:FC39:A3A3 ( talk) 11:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Last week, China announced that Irish citizens no longer require a visa to enter China. This is reciprocal. 86.182.252.22 ( talk) 18:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)