Talk:Visa (document)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

what is the full form of VISA

Contents

[edit] East Africa Visa

"East African Single Tourist Visa may be ready for November 2006", pretty outdated. any news regarding this?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.207.167.215 (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] External Link advertising?

It appears that the link to myrussianfiance.com is in essence advertising, as it does not contribute signifigant useful knowledge. I would suggest that this link be removed. --Heh3d 6 July 2005 23:17 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Shouldn't this article be moved to Visa, and Visa be moved to Visa (disambiguation)?

The Visa credit card is a fairly major use of the name too... Jpatokal 04:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Kuwait does issue tourist visas, to citizens of certain countries, on arrival at Kuwait International Airport. Benblaney

[edit] Which Visas can you work with?

Is it only when you have a tourist visa that you are forbidden to work? Can you work with an immigrant's visa? Through what Visas are you allowed to own property and/or live in property in the foreign country?

Thanks, Sogni

That depends on the country, obviously, as different countries have different visa laws. In the US, anyone can own property, but to live and work in the US one needs to have both a visa that permits work (A,E,F,G,H,I,J,L,O,P,Q,R or any resident visa) AND a work permit. In Colombia, you can live indefinitely with a "pensioner's visa" if you have non-work income of $1500USD/mo or more. The most common work visas in the US are the E, H, and L. Hwonder talk contribs 02:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Visa prolongation

Agree we need a section but is needs to be better written then that suggested. Text below for when I have time to look at this.

[edit] Prolonging of tourist visa

Visa Run example
Visa Run example

Among long staying tourists (de facto expatriates) do a Visa Run just before the visa expires. Reasons for Visa Runs include no issuing of other visa types to this persons or no possibility for a prolonged visa. A Visa Run is simply done by departing the country (mostly by bus) and return after a very short time (hours or days) to the same country to get another two or three months visa as a tourist. This is common especially in Southeast Asia (Thailand-Malaysia-Thailand being famous for that).

Spartaz 00:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Visa-free entry stamps

Visas for Laos, Thailand, and Sri Lanka
Visas for Laos, Thailand, and Sri Lanka

Aren't those stamps in the photos from Thailand and Sri Lanka just entry stamps for visa-free travel and not actual visas? FlyerBoy

Yes, I have removed them to the talk page in case anyone can do anything with the image or cares to upload sonme better examples of visas as stamps. --Spartaz 20:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
...where's the article concerning entry stamps for visa-free travel? - I think, this pic should be implemented again but with another caption, OK Scriberius 01:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I have removed some country specific external links becausw I think the links on this article should cover more then one country.--Spartaz 07:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been very pleased with the site I have added to the external links section, http://www.visahq.com is a reliable source for information on visas and US passports. I have used their site to plan a few of my trips and haven't been disappointed yet. --Kbondar 18:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kbondar. The problem with that link is that a) its a commerical site so linking it could appear advertising and b) It doesn't really add much to the other links that are both comprehensive and much less commercial. I have reverted you but I'd be happy to discuss further. --Spartaz 19:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation, however after reviewing one of the links that is already posted in the article, I found the [removed blacklisted spam site] very disorganized and poorly built. Quoting directly from the site: "Pretty much all countries require a visa, except nationals from Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Democratic Republic Sahraoui, Seychelles, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia and Yemen." Unclear language and poor use of grammar, its just not a site I would trust to tell me whether I will lose $5,000+ in tickets when I get stuck on a border of a country without a visa or not. Also, quoting the External Link policy of Wikipedia, under Links to avoid: "Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising." seeing how there is google ads and other ads on that site makes it fall in that category. It is unfortunate that http://www.visahq.com is removed, also both sites that are attached to the article are lacking specific visa requirements for each different citizen, while there is a commercial aspect to the site the general information I have described, even the application forms are free and accessible to the general public which meets the criteria of "Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?" also stated by the External Link policy of Wikipedia. Thank you, and I am trully sorry that you have made your decision as such. --Kbondar 19:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
A quick trawl through visaHQ suggests that a lot of the visa information is US specific - the entry on the UK for example just says that US citizens don't need a UK visa. True but somewhat excluding for the citizens of a hundred odd other countries that do require a UK visa. The layout is clearly designed to entice visitors to use the company to get a visa and as such a wikipedia entry will be free advertising for them. Project visa is reasonably well laid out - countries are grouped by region and you get a map to click on that has relatively comprehensive information (though, like all things, its a bit incomplete). There are far too many google ads for my taste but they are not company specific and the site will not be benefiting from free wikipedia advertising. Just so you know, its not my decision. We make decisions based on consensus and no doubt other editots who have this article watchlisted will drive by and offer their 0.02 of whatever their local currency of choice is. --Spartaz 20:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with Spartaz the visahq.com is a commercial site. I am also inclined to agree with Kbondar that [removed blacklisted spam site] is not a great site. The remaining link seems sufficient, and remember, articles are just fine with no external links, so if there's something I'm missing about the remaining one, feel free to delete it too! -- Mwanner | Talk 20:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Cents eh? Anyway, I removed [removed blacklisted spam site] as well per suggestion. Spartaz 00:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one irked by a link to a site which is somewhat incomplete with information is removed but a link with information purely for United States citizens remains? I have to say visahq is almost useless for non-americans. Perhaps Wikipedia should be purely for Americans? Where do I get my green card to use wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.116.141 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC).

What are you talking about? VisaHQ.com is the ONLY complete source for ALL nations around the world. Just open your eyes and select ANY nation from drop-down menu. Cheers...

IATA maintains a database from any country, to any country. Unfortunately, it is subscription only. Delta and Continental both make the information freely available on their websites here and here. I think that's about as good as we're going to get to still get the information and to keep it low on spam/commercial. Yes, both of these sites are commercial in nature, but they're not selling visa services. I've added only Continental's to the article because it offers more information and is easier to use. Hwonder talk contribs 07:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


Does this link: http://www.metu.edu.tr/~e116443/visa.htm belong in the External Links section of the article? Its veracity aside, it seems to be more than a little biased...24.115.197.155 22:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No - its been removed a million times already. I'll take it down. It also requires TK language support to access so its defn a no no. Spartaz Humbug! 22:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That same link keeps popping back up time and time again...can't you keep whoever it is off this page?

Only by protecting the page and that would prevent other anon editors contributing. I'll just keep an eye on it and remove it as I see it. Spartaz Humbug! 09:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Travel requirements" external link is primarily about entry requirements according to the linked webpage. Is there a link that has information beyond entry requirements? --Jagz 23:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The website [removed blacklisted spam site] contains a certain amount of information about visa requirements and types. Some of its entry requirements data is not very good, but its the best I can find. The link seems to have been removed during some spam war/links. I will re-add it to external links. If you have a better link please discuss it here. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanebb (talk • contribs) 18:13, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I have also changed the link to the "travel requirements" to a non https site. Https gives me trouble from some locations I travel to. It is exactly the same information just a different site. Shanebb 18:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

this text from the article:

"Entering a country without a valid visa or visa exemption may result in detention and removal (deportation or exclusion) from the country. Undertaking activities that are not authorized by the status of entry (for example, working while possessing a non-worker tourist status) can result in the individual being deemed removable, in common speech an illegal alien. Such violation is not a violation of a visa, however despite the common misuse of the phrase, but a violation of status hence the term "out of status.""

Is this correct? what is it based on?

It's semantically correct hair-splitting. You can't violate a piece of paper, you can only violate the conditions of your stay granted on entry. Jpatokal 13:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semiprotected

Article semi-protected for a week to counter persistent linkspam by anon-ip. Spartaz Humbug! 13:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ProjectVisa Link

Sorry to bring this up again but why exactly are we including this link? I have been reverting it as linkspam for months and this isn't just because the visa information is hopelessly inaccurate and incomplete. The Delta link is up-to-date, comprehensive and accurate because its the same information as in TIM and TIMATIC - which is used by the airline industry as their reference on visa regulations. I'm loath to include an incomplete and inaccurate resource against this. If its Embassy information, I'm sure we should be able to find another link but I'd like to understand exactly what it is we are asking from the link before I look into this. Cheers Spartaz Humbug! 18:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that this policy be followed Wikipedia:External links. --Jagz 18:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Your answer is delphic to the point of making no sense to me. Would you mind amplifying your comment a bit? EL is a guideline not a policy. I'm well aware that the bar for external links is lower then for reliable sources but I'm concerned that this resource is inaccurate. So please help me (and our readers) by helping me understand why we have the link. It may be possible to find one that does the same but doesn't have the same problems. Its also a link farm with no apparent editorial policy and this seems counter to EL links to be avoided 2 & 10.
Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
Links to search engine and aggregated results pages.
Your own edits suggest the link is disparaged. Sorry if I sound tetchy but I'm trying to understand why we have the link and your response wasn't helpful. Spartaz Humbug! 19:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I was adding the Project Visa link into the article for awhile but have not in quite some time. I don't care if the link is there or not. Recently, when I have seen the link in the article, I was adding a quote from the disclaimer on their website but since then, the website has modified the wording of their disclaimer, possibly as a result of my doing this. I have added information about the disclaimers of both external links to the article and suggest that they remain in the article. We don't want anyone to get bad travel "information and now they'll know not to trust the information 100%. --Jagz 20:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I remove it again. I randomly checked Iceland, Russian Federation and India against the travel information manual for September issued by IATA and they were incorrect. The resource already present is satisfactory and accurate. This link is not in accordance with EL links to be avoided 2 because its inaccurate and adding a disclaimer does not obviate the fact that the link is to a site with inaccurate information. Spartaz Humbug! 20:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
EL links to be avoided states, "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material". You have not provided any information that Project Visa used factually inaccurate material, just that some of the requirements have changed and the material has not been updated recently. Do you have examples that information on that website was always factually inaccurate? You also compared the Project Visa information to IATA and not the information from the source, meaning the embassy or consulate. --Jagz 13:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OK.

You need the projectvisa link because the IATA link only has airport requirements. Crossing using a land border has different requirements. Take a look at Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar and Egypt as an example. Secondly the IATA information is not kept up to date the airlines err on the side of caution. Perhaps you should remove the IATA link because its information is bad? the IATA is the representative of the airlines which make it part of multi-billion dollar industry. So go figure. Only 90 percent of airlines are members of the IATA, and a LOT less bother with TIMATIC. I agree that the projectvisa site has some bad information but it is thebest I can find. I have tried updating information on wikipedia and I get "please cite source". Yeah OK, my source was the border guard. Does that count? of course not.

the projectvisa site looks factually acurate to me, it links to the official source when it exists. I can't find a better source for land border crossings or a a site which oultines all the pathetic nonsense you have to deal with at borders with guards who suddenly demands $100 and sticks a gun in your face.

neither site does a complete job,and I don't think anyone ever will. I will change the links. What is this nonsense about a disclaimer? Perhaps wikipedie needs a disclaimer? I read it on the internet it must be true.

I thinkyou guys are comparing apples to oranges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.175.43.210 (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding a bad site is worse than adding no site. The bottom line on this site is that its widely inaccurate in many places, you can add Chad and Central African Republic to the not correct entries about and I can't be bothered to look any further. Yes I was referring to TIM to check this but the individual country entries are maintained by the relevant immigration service - for example the UK entry is written by UK Immigration. It is therefore comprehensive and does (for example in some non UK transit sections) deal with persons travelling by land. If the individual immigration authorities are sending TIM incomplete information, you won't find a reliable external source anyway. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and we don't need this link - especially as it isn't inaccordance with the guideline. Its gone again. Please seek consensus (which includes reference to policy) before readding it. Spartaz Humbug! 09:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Project Visa should be included in the External links along with a link to the website's disclaimer like I had it a few days ago.[removed blacklisted spam site] People can decide for themselves whether to trust the information on the site. I think there should be more than one link. Let's stop policing the links. --Jagz 13:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that? I started this discussion genuinely seeking to understand what it was that this link added over the other link and no-one has really addressed this satisfactorily. You said yourself that WP:EL applied. Well, I looked at that as requested, and this link clearly fails #2 of links to be avoided. We wouldn't put up a link to a bio that contained information that we knew to be wrong so why the attachment to this link? Please, I do want to understand why you are so keen to include it and so far, all I can really work out is that someone thinks TIM doesn't cover land borders (well I covered that partially), that people should be presented incorrect information but can make their own mind up about it (well that doesn't wash). Spartaz Humbug! 15:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Is some of the information on Project Visa out of date or is was it false from the beginning? I can see how their information might get outdated since it appears that they only have volunteers maintaining the website and there are a lot of countries. I also see where they have updated information recently so it appears that they are maintaining the website. I also see that for each country they have included the date that they last updated that country's information. If someone sees that they have not updated a country's information in a long time, they will know to be especially wary of the information presented. I think Project Visa may include useful information not available on the Delta site. There are a lot of articles in Wikipedia that have outdated information but I don't think we should keep people from reading those articles; that would be a form of censorship. --Jagz 17:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think comments like "Adding a bad site is worse than adding no site" is a bit like saying "Adding a bad page to Wikipedia is worse than having no page". If "Wikipedia is not a travel guide and we don't need this link" then perhaps both sites should be deleted? I agree projectvisa could be better but it is the best that I can find and is a useful site for what I need it for. And Spartaz, if you have found data that you know to be incorrect you should cite your source, other than TIMATIC. Looks as though one of the sites is wrong with their information on Somalia, which is it? I don't trust either of them. Also Spartaz while the UK section of timatic is most likely correct and comprehensive perhaps you could check the 200 or so other countries? I personally have been denied boarding an aircraft as the timatic data has been incorrect, being stranded for a week in a shithole of place while begging timatic to update its data is not a pleasurable experience.

If I can prove that some information on timatic is wrong, should I then remove the timatic link. I can do this no problem. I have to agree with Jagz, a disclaimer of some sort needs to be added as some people are a little to trusting of wikipedia (and the internet). Shanebb 15:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

And Spartaz: I'm sorry I am not a huge wikipedia editor so I don't really know how to follow the rules and I freely admit I don't know them, but I am willing to learn. You said; "Well, I looked at that as requested, and this link clearly fails #2 of links to be avoided." this refers to this? yes?; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources I don't really see which section of this you might be referring to. Please would you be so kind as to educate me in what exactly I should be reading here? Thanks for any help or pointers on where to start. I would really like to try and help wikipedia but I feel as though a lot of editors tend to leave rather ridiculous comments in the edit tags which mean nothing and leave me (and I imagine countless others) at an end. I thought the point of wikipedia was to collaborate so we can all move forward together. Shanebb 16:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is what you want Wp:el#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. This is an external link not a source. I'll comment on the rest later when I have time to look through it properly (I have real life tonight). Spartaz Humbug! 16:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh and I'm referring to TIM not TIMATIC and since its a) produced by IATA, b) used universally by the airline industry & immigration authorities as a guide to immigration regulations and c) in many cases maintained by the relevant immigration authority, it is a reliable source to check the veracity of project visa. You won't find a better place to look this up. Spartaz Humbug! 16:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Very good Spartaz, thank you. "in many cases maintained by the relevant immigration authority, it is a reliable source to check the veracity of project visa." I doubt that the immigration authorities contribute as much as you may be led to believe.

The immigration authorities use TIM as as a guide to their own regulations? I think you should read what you type. I will stay polite.

And saying that it is the place to check projectvisa is like when I phone an embassy for information and they tell me to refer to the guidebook for the country, the very guidebook I wrote. If I write the wrong information in my guidebook does it mean that it's correct? I don't think so. Shanebb 16:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

From looking through all the rules and regulations about wikipedia I have managed to find the following; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_be_considered in case number 4: Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. I think projectvisa contains information from knowledgeable sources. Does someone wish to say that information from people who have traveled to a place firsthand are not knowledgeable? Or a site which cites its sources as the official immigrations sites (where possible) is not reliable?

From looking through the wikipedia guidelines (sorry I'm a bit of a noob at this) it would appear that quite a few wikipedia articles refer to projectvisa in respect to visa/entry information. It seems somewhat ironic that on one hand a site can be considered as a reliable site for some articles yet when it comes to an external link it is considered unreliable. While in links to be avoided http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:el#Links_normally_to_be_avoided I fail to find anything under which projectvisa would be relevant that would make it worthy of being avoided.

I can fully understand Spartaz's concern but the belief that we all travel across borders by airlines which are IATA airlines comes across as being somewhat elitist. I fully believe and expect wikipedia to be as open as much as possible and in the case of visa information I would really love to see a full and complete site which can be linked to which provides me with the information I need. If useful information is available I would like to see it and expect wikipedia to assist all people with all information. Enough of my rambling, http://youtube.com/watch?v=bIV4KLCmJ98 this explains how I see some wikipedia editors. Shanebb 18:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Shanebb, I'm not sure if what you write accurately expresses what you meant because I'm reading it and seeing a suggestion that I was not telling the truth. I'm offended.
I suggest that you consider that other editors may actually know what they are talking about before you accuse them of lying. I know that immigration officals use TIM because I am one and I use it (3 times today for the record). I know that in many cases immigration authorities maintain their entries in TIM because the editor of TIM (a very nice man who lives in Holland by the way) regularly writes to them to clarify them and because I actually know the person from UK Immigration who maintains the entry for the UK.
There probably is a risk that TIMATIC is airline centric (its a cut down version of TIM for the airline industry after all) and that some information may be out of date but, as TIM is reissued every month to keep it current, I'd say that the risk is significantly less then that posed by linking to a site that we know for a fact is incorrect in 5 of the first 15 entries that I checked against TIM. We have a clear policy of not linking to external sites that contain misleading information and adding a link with a disclaimer that effectively says actually the contents of this site may actually be total bollocks is not only lame but embarressingly unencyclopedic.
This is a project to build an on-line encyclopedia not a travel guide and we do not need to add a link that we cannot trust to be correct. I'm sure there is very good and useful information from that site but its original research in many cases, wrong in others, and alternative links (like the actual government sites) exist for the information that may be correct. It has 23 links from wikipedia and only two or three of them are from actual articles rather then the associated talk pages. Its being used on this article as a source but as it clearly isn't a reliable source I'm going to find a better one and replace it. Aside from that, its quite correct that we do get rid of bad articles (see CAT:CSD and WP:AFD if you don't believe me) rather then tolerate defective, rubbish or inaccurate articles on our servers.
That's not to say that you do not have some valid points so I'm going to sleep on this and revisit this in the morning when I'm less tired and less grouchy. I couldn't however leave uncorrected the suggestion that I had not been truthful in my posts from earlier this evening. Spartaz Humbug! 20:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is an article about resolving disputes Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and this one is about informal mediation Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. --Jagz 21:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Shanebb, I don't get the Knights of Ni link - is there a point to it? If you don't understand some of the comments here or think they aren't useful in moving us towards a better article it would be more helpful if you could be specific. Otherwise someone might think you were just being generally insulting about editors who don't agree with you.
On the projectvisa link - I understand a desire to have a site that covers all points of entry, and if there is a reliable site that does that, linking to it instead of the delta link would be good. However, knowledgeable sources does not generally extend to first hand accounts and opinions by non-experts, especially when fact checking is lacking. So it doesn't clearly fall within the section you linked pointed to above. If the projectvisa site being considered a reliable source for visa requirements on other pages that would seem to be something that needs considering on those pages, not a reason for including it in the external links section here. In general no information is better than unreliable information and I tend to think given Spartaz's fact checking and the lack of provenance for the data on the projectvisa link that we shouldn't be including it. -- SiobhanHansa 23:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see much if anything to separate Projectvisa from a vast slew of sites claiming to maintain visa information, and thus don't think it's appropriate to link to. However, objecting to "first hand accounts and opinions by non-experts, especially when fact checking is lacking" in principle is not sensible either — that's a pretty good description of much of Wikipedia (or any other wiki site). Jpatokal 02:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It may be common on Wikipedia, but it's not generally in keeping with our policies or guidelines. Although we're a wiki we're also an encyclopedia. WP:NPOV is a non-negotiable core policy, and it states that we should represent the significant views of experts and concerned parties that are published in reliable sources. And in most cases non-fact checked first hand accounts and opinions are not reliable sources of factual information. -- SiobhanHansa 12:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Jpatokal you state, "I don't see much if anything to separate Projectvisa from a vast slew of sites claiming to maintain visa information" please would you be so kind as to show one site which claims to maintain visa information? I can find visaforu.com which seems to have no information but links of some sort mainly to travel websites. and visahq.com which seems to have an agenda of selling visas. If you check its data for Nepal its states you need a visa, but of course fails to state that one can be had on entry.

Please just one site which maintains visa information in the vast slew.

Spartaz's fact checking doesn't seem to go beyond timatic or a source which appears to be hidden behind a curtain from the rest of us. So to check the validity is near impossible.

I restore links for both sites as they are both useful to a point.Shanebb 12:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Shanebb - you really don't have a consensus on this page to restore the projectvisa link. -- SiobhanHansa 12:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Shanebb - Timatic stands out from the rest because even if it were inaccurate (which has never happened to me, and I fly a lot), airlines that use it (which is almost all) will not let you on the plane if Timatic says your documents aren't in order. If you Google "visa (country)", I get eg. visahq.com, passportsandvisas.com, traveldocs.com, visaheadquarters.com, willtogo.com, visaworld.co.uk, etc. Why lists yours and not these? Sure, they have agendas, but that's not a disqualifying factor in itself, and so do you -- selling banner ads. Jpatokal 13:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Who's site? what? The difference with the sites you have listed is they sell visa services rather than present information. None of them seem to present what I would call useful information. The ones with useful information tend to only have information for US and/or UK citizens. Jpatokal you state, "I don't see much if anything to separate Projectvisa from a vast slew of sites claiming to maintain visa information" Please could you elaborate on this? and yes I have been denied boarding on a few occasions as the Timatic data has been incorrect. At least Timatic now has its data on the internet so I can check in advance and not get caught at the airport. And yes it looks like projectvisa has banner ads, is that the problem here? or is the problem that the world has to follow timatic which represents the needs the developed countries of the world and ignores the undeveloped ones? Just because one source suits your needs?

Timatic suits my needs for the most part but is not helpful for the rest. Perhaps someone has a better link or a solution of where I can get my data? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanebb (talk • contribs) 13:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually TIM isn't veiled - its a publication its ISSN is 01689665. Not every reliable source is available on the internet - indeed most are not. Are you doubting my veracity again? You seem very keen to assume bad faith on the part of other editors. Spartaz Humbug! 14:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] arbitary section break

Spartaz, I am not try to pick a fight. I doubted TIM once as I knew nothing of its existence. However it would seem a little daft if immigration authorities check their own regulations from an external source. I do not know how your workplace operates and I will not pretend I do.

As far as I am concerned TIM is a veiled publication which seems not to be available at the Australian National Library and I imagine not many other libraries. Perhaps wikipedia could direct users to purchase TIM? (I think not). It is a trade publication which very few people have access to. I do not have access to it can find no realistic way to gain access apart from paying some (I imagine) huge amount of dollars to a publisher.

I think we are in agreement that; 1. Timatic contains some errors yet is a very useful source for airport entries. 2. projectvisa contains quite a few more errors but contains information not available or relevant to timatic.

I think you agreed that the link projectvisa should be included as long as the link said the data might be a load of rubbish?

I propose the links read like this;

external links

You are advised to contact the relevant authorities (your local embassy) for visa requirements prior to travel. Timatic/Delta - contains visa and health information relevant for air travel to most airports. Is used by the majority of airlines to ensure entry requirements. Projectvisa - contains visa regulations from sources which may not be verified. Contains information on land border crossings.

Please feel free to suggest something different.

Lets not get stuck on TIM. Indeed not every source on the internet is reliable but we should at least point out those which are available and are of use. If TIM was available a little more freely I think we could quite happily link to that and move on. Shanebb 14:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No, there isn't a consensus to list projectvisa as an external link. Both policy and comments from other editors support this. I think we can all agree that Jagz has done the right thing linking directly to the IATA site and I thank him for finding this. I'm more than willing to e-mail you any part of TIM that you would like. Do you want to email me with your e-mail address? I can even send you an old copy if you are willing to pay postage. And, I'm sorry to belabour the point now that we are discussing this calmly, TIM is no different to academic journals that may not be available without private subscriptions or access to university journals but these are clearly acceptable sources. All I have used it for is checking the accuracy of projectvisa so this is a red herring anyway. Spartaz Humbug! 20:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's information on the IATA link that we're now using.[1] --Jagz 17:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of visa

This article seems to have the whole definition of the word visa wrong from the outset. I have edited the meaning at the beginning of the page but I really don't know the best way to go about this for the entire article. Please be so kind as to outline what I have done wrong in the edit here in the discussion before hitting the revert button. Constructive criticism is most welcome. And yes my speling gramarr is not the best so please fix as you see fit. Shanebb 16:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

grammar? Not as bad as my spelling, that's for sure! I'll look at this properly for you tomorrow but my first glance was that you may be confusing a physical visa with a residence permit or leave to remain. Its not probably not factually correct to say that permission to remain in a country is a visa. It may be contained in a visa (for example UK visas now contain leave to enter and schengen visas determine the length of your stay) but the traditional concept of a visa is as a document that certain persons require before they can enter a particular country that is usually issued by foreign missions abroad. American visas for example give you the right to seek entry to the USA but whether or not you are admitted is the competance of the immigration inspector and if you are a resident (ie have a green card) you do not need a visa at all. I'd like you to cite a source for the changes you have made because what you have done so far looks suspiciously like original research to me. Cheers. Spartaz Humbug! 20:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
*cough* source? Its traditional to provide sources for changes when requested. Please do so, otherwise I will feel free to revert some of your changes. Spartaz Humbug! 14:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I probably stuffed up some things. Just to clarify, getting permission to enter from a border guard (ie a stamp in the passport) is a visa. A visa on arrival is an entrance tax, you pay for entry/visa. A granting of a visa is decided by an immigration official with a rubber stamp.

Sorry I don't know where I should be linking to for this sort of information as it doesn't really seem to exist on the internet. I am agreeing with you here, I'm just not sure how I should be citing references for definitions/procedures which seem to be commonly known to at least the two of us (and many others). Shanebb 15:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No you are wrong. A stamp at the border is permission to enter the country (in the UK its called leave to enter in the states its a visa waiver. Its not a visa. That's a piece of paper or stamp put in the passport generally by a Embassy or consulate although some countries issue visas on arrival (i.e. Turkey). . The reason you can't find a source for this is that you are quoting a common misconception that is often seen, for example, from people from the old commonwealth countries.
Legally an immigration officers stamp is not a visa. Its a stamp that has varying meanings depending on the country. In terms of how far you need to provide sources, the rule of thumb should be if you are changing the entire meaning of an article you need a source first. Otherwise, if an editor disagrees with what you have written you need to provide sources at that point. Its good practise to generally be able to provide sources for your edits but not to the point of pettyness. For example, I obviously know a lot about visa processes and procedures through my job but I can't write about it even though I know its correct because I know the sources for this are either annecdotal or not in the public domain.
I'm shortly going to review your edits and revert some bits - hopefully not all. You are welcome to restore anything that you can find a source for and we can further discuss any problems on the talk page. Spartaz Humbug! 19:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow Spartaz it seems to me that in your immigration officer mind you have take anything I say or write with contempt without giving any consideration as to what it is you may be editing or what the details are.

Please go and find a dictionary and look up the definition of visa. http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/visa?view=uk

I changed the context of the beginning of the article to reflect this but of course you are an immigration officer so you must no better than any dictionary.

Secondly I did actually quote a website with some information and that was the presence of an Israeli stamp in a passport, I think I even referenced it properly. So you go so far as to leave the information I entered but remove the source which I quoted? And this is even after you tell me I should be citing my sources. What the bloody hell do you want me to do? So can you tell me straight, do I cite my references or do I engage in petty minded edits in order only to piss certain people off?

I really think you need to step back a little and look at exactly what is going on here. You are trying to be the immigration official who knows better than someone who doesn't have your grand knowledge of such things.

Please would you be so kind as to revert the edits to as they where or perhaps outline your continued pettiness as to why you have done the changes.

I am not surprised a lot of people stay well away from editing wikipedia when they faced with a person such as yourself who engages in personal vendettas so as only to prove that they are right in a completely separate area. You are only right because the other person has given up and thinks a whole lot less of you.

Please try to keep neutral in what you are editing and don't let your personal judgment (i.e. who has made the edit) cloud the issue. I would much prefer if we could come to some sort of agreement with this rather than having to resort to mediation or the like. Shanebb 21:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm tired of your constant personal attacks. Stop it now. I only mentioned my profession because you called me a liar in an earlier post. The changes I made are:
  • Reverting the lead to reflect what a visa actually is and how the article has been for years. Still waiting for a source to challenge this. I asked you for this yesterday and you couldn't provide one.
  • Removed personal commentry and unsourced POV statements. Please provide sources for that.
  • Removed unsourced original research
  • Removed an invalid reference to your addition of countries that refuse Israelis and previous visitors to Israel. I left the text, it just needs a better source - projectvisa ain't it.
  • Removed reasons for refusal that the independent monitor criticised in a sample of refusals and actually stated were not valid reasons to refuse someone (not specialised knowledge but I did read the report).
  • Combined the types of visa sections
  • Made a couple of spelling mistakes
  • Removed a factual inaccuracy concerning movement rights for EU nationals.
The onus is on the person who wants to add material to an article to show that the changes are worthwhile and in accordance with policy. We do not permit original research or POV editingand sources are required when requested to verify information added to articles. I asked you twice to provide sources and you have not done so. I waited 24 hours after the first request to allow you time to source your changes and only reverted the article after you said that you couldn't. You respond with threats of mediation, personal attacks and bad faith. This isn't how we do it here. I already indicated that you could readd any material that you could source. If you want your changes find sources otherwise stop complaining. Spartaz Humbug! 21:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

So you remove the source of data I put in but allow the data to remain? I don't think I am going to stop complaining here. Now you will refer to some wikipedia guidelines or whatnot which really don't back you up at all.

I'm sick of this. How do I put an end to it? I don't want to spend the rest of my life arguing with someone who is quite obviously only trying to have an argument.

So you say the information is good enough you just don't like the source? You don't even dispute the fact just the source. WOW!

This going to turn into the debate that the only real source of information is the TIM manual or TIMATIC. And you are an immigration officer and you know a nice man who works at TIMATIC.

Get it into to your head every source has a use. Not every source is fantastic, but sometimes a source is better than no source. I was under the impression wikipedia needed diversity. Why don't we just invite the TIMATIC people to write the visa section for us and we can lock the article and leave it at that? Shanebb 22:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

So are you going to source any of the statements I reverted or are you going to continue to attack me instead. THis is sterile. Provide sources or drop it. Spartaz Humbug! 22:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I won't drop it. What I am complaining about is this; "Removed an invalid reference to your addition of countries that refuse Israelis and previous visitors to Israel. I left the text, it just needs a better source - projectvisa ain't it."

I also think the definition of visa is wrong.

The projectvisa site has been listed on wikipedia since 2004 and suddenly is it no good because we have to use the site you say we use. It fits under sources and links which can be used according to policy/guidelines.

The rest of what you say is most likely justified but it is pointless for me to edit when we keep locking horns. I don't think you will like any of my sources no matter how hard I try. Shanebb 23:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the only editor who disagrees with the link. You are complaining that I didn't remove your text with the source - that's a new one on me. Your source is not reliable - we did that already. I'm not the only one who thinks that. I didn't add the IATA link. I didn't change the IATA link I'm not particularly interested in whether we keep the IATA link. But other editors clearly agree because they (not me) have taken steps to defend it. This is an article about Visa (document) not visa concept so while your point about the dictionary definition of the work may be relevant its not right to have a discussion on semantics in the lead. Better off to have a discussion about what different people mean by the term in a separate section further down the article. I have given you lots of pointers to policy, space to research and add sources without immediately reverting your un-sourced changes that did not meet content guidelines and I haven't reported you or blocked you for your personal attacks on me and constant bad faith. I made it plain that I would not have any problem to your adding any content once you had sourced it. I have discussed everything and have sought outside assistance and opinions to ensure that I have been acting fairly and without being a dick. The problem is that you want to jump in and make a lot of changes without first working out how wikipedia works and what you need to do to have your content survive. You don't seem interested in cooperating with other editors or taking their views into account unless they agree with you. I'm a very easy editor to work with if I'm not insulted and called a liar all the time. You created a problem by constantly attacking me. Once you stop that you will be amazed how easy it is to sort out differences of opinion. Spartaz Humbug! 23:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I find this whole discussion absurd. Like the article now says after Spartaz's edits, a visa is proof that an embassy has vetted you, but the actual permission to enter is only granted at the border. Here's a reference to the IATA site (excellent find, BTW!):
A visa is an entry in a passport or other travel document made by a (consular) official of a government to indicate that the bearer has been granted authority to enter or re-enter the country concerned.
A visa, transit visa or a visa exemption for a country does not guarantee admission to that country. The final decision rests with the competent authorities at the port of entry in the country concerned. [2]
The one thing I don't like about the wording above is that it doesn't make sufficiently clear that the "entry in a passport" is made before immigration (and the entry permit you get at immigration is not a visa), but if we can work that in there, I'd suggest using this as the base of the wording and citing IATA for it. Jpatokal 02:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

So lets get this straight. I cannot use a source which is not in the external links even though it entirely fits in with sources I can use according to the wikipedia guidelines? Can someone other that Spartaz please outline exactly how this works? I am terribly confused. Shanebb 07:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard <------ Spartaz Humbug! 07:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Shanebb:
  • You can't use a source that is not reliable.
  • Unreliable sources are not better than no source - they're worse.
  • Projectvisa is not a reliable source.
  • Whether or not it is in the external links section is irrelevant.
It really isn't hard and it's been said before. You would probably enjoy editing Wikipedia more if you stuck to adding information on subjects that you understand more clearly and where you are familiar with expert information on the subject rather than simply layman works. Also, please stop being so abusive to other editors in the way you're abusing Spartaz. Your behavior isn't helping you or this article. -- SiobhanHansa 15:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

So lets get this straight. The information on a source may be used as reference and even in the article BUT the source itself cannot be named? It would seem the source was reliable enough for the information in question. I don't think I understand any of this citing source stuff at all. It seems to be a reliable source at the whim of someone who has enough points?

I think this has all come down to a personal issue rather than the information itself. Shanebb 16:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear on what you're saying here: The information on a source may be used as reference and even in the article BUT the source itself cannot be named? but I think you mean that you put in some information that you found on the projectvisa site and the projectvisa link was removed but the information stayed on the page - and you think this seems a bit silly. If that's the case I think you have misunderstood the intent of deleting the use of the projectvisa link as a source while leaving up the assertion in the article. This was to allow you (or other editors) time to find a source that does support what was written and is actually reliable. If a good source can not be found then the information is liable to removed at any time if an editor doubts its veracity. You seem to imply you think a source is reliable because it contains the information that's in the article - but that point of a source isn't simply to reflect what the page says, it is to verify that what is in the article reflects the best current understanding(s). Linking to a website simply because it says what the article says is of no use to us from a verifiability perspective. When we say reliable source we mean here is a website that can be relied upon and trusted - and so the information that has been put in the article from it can be relied upon. Otherwise our verifiability policy would mainly help us repeat common and popular misunderstandings, fringe theories or successful marketing - and an encyclopedia shouldn't be doing that. A reference that is appropriate as a reliable source is generally one where experts in a subject would be comfortable suggesting people look to it for the information (within the context within which it is used in the article). Most websites, do not meet this sort of definition. While we do often link to sources that aren't perfect, the projectvisa link has none of the sorts of things we normally look for in a source (reputation among experts, good fact checking, etc). If I have misunderstood what you meant by your question perhaps you could rephrase. -- SiobhanHansa 01:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. Although "This was to allow you (or other editors) time to find a source that does support what was written and is actually reliable." summed it up quite well.

From my looking around at the articles on wikipedia there seems to be a lot of inconsistency with what is used as a source, what to to include and what the articles link to. It can be difficult to determine or understand what is acceptable and what isn't. There also seems to be a lot of pages and words which deal with the processes of wikipedia and its guidelines. In short a lot of the articles on wikipedia could do with a lot of cleaning up.

I also get the feeling the article Visa(document) was created to disambiguate it from the other visa pages. Is an extra article needed to ensure the definition of visa is correct?

definition "visa" http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/visa http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861734308/visa.html I think it is quite important that the definition be established. While the usage of the word has changed in some spheres due to usage in the commerce driven realm I don't think that changes what a visa is.

definition "document" http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/document http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/document.html By definition a stamp on (or in) a passport is a document. By definition a visa is a stamp or any permission to enter. Spartaz stated "This is an article about Visa (document) not visa concept....". I think they are one in the same, the question is what would be the needed to ensure the meaning is correct in relation to this article?

Perhaps wikipedia can link itself into oblivion and around in circles but is a new article needed to cover an "entry stamp" when it is by definition a visa/document? Shanebb 04:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, lots of our articles need clean up.
Visa (document) is about the legal concept used by countries to facilitate access for non-citizens. There are other visa articles that are about credit cards or cars that use the word visa, but there's only one on this concept. This is a technical, legal subject; general dictionary definitions tend to be really poor starting points for encyclopedia articles, especially technical subjects, because they deal with general usage of a word, not with concepts. Not all documents that allow entry into a country (or indicate that entry has been granted) are visas. The lack of general understanding of the distinction between visas and other aspects of entering a country is something we need to be dispelling, not repeating. So I agree we need to make it clear to regular readers what the term really means in this article. But it appears you want an article to talk about entry into countries that uses the term visa in a way that is not considered a visa by those countries or by experts, and I don't think that's very encyclopedic. -- SiobhanHansa 12:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for mediation

If the external links keep getting changed back and forth I plan to request mediation. Here is an article about resolving disputes Wikipedia:Resolving disputes and this one is about informal mediation Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. --Jagz 21:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be the only way to solve this issue, perhaps they can look up the definition of visa as well. I don't think this is going to go away but I think we should give Spartaz the chance to give his opinion on both issues before asking for mediation. Shanebb 21:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, since you prefer to throw allegations of bad faith around rather than comply with core policies and source your edits, I have asked the good people of Editor Assistance to have a look at this. Since you are accusing me of misconduct they are more suited then WP:3O which is better at adjudicating pure content disputes. Mediation is a very cumbersome process and to be avoided unless a final resort. Spartaz Humbug! 22:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IATA Link

The IATA link information for Myanmar/Burma states $200 must be changed at the airport on arrival, the data is three or four years out. For the pixies in my head. http://www.asterism.info/info/index.html "Update January 2004 Both FIT and Package visa holders are now not required to exchange US$ into FEC money upon arrival airports in Myanmar. " http://www.travelmyanmar.com/myanmarvisainformation.html "Now things have improved, and neither kind of visa need to exchange any money upon arrival.."

Can a warning be attached to the link or the link be removed please?123.243.218.53 (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Visa definition and suggestions for a re-structuring of the article

Being one of the main authors of the German-language "visa" article ("Visum"), I think that the above discussion about the definition is in no terms absurd, but scratches at the main problem of understanding the concept of visa at all. To put it short, the exact understanding of what a visa is varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, making it difficult not only to internationally negotiate about visa questions, but also to describe what a visa legally implies. To present some examples (all of this is well documented and referenced in the German article):

  • In the United States, a visa is an official remark placed into a passport or other (according to U.S. definition) suitable travel document which allows the bearer to request entry into the U.S. The permit to enter and to stay in the U.S. is granted at the border by the immigration official. Result: If the immigration officer refuses entry, the goal of any legal action against this would be aimed at a court order to allow entry and subsequent stay.
  • In the European Union (in the Schengen states as well as in the U.K. and Ireland), a visa already implies the permit to enter and to stay. However, an entry check has to be performed at the external borders, and the visa (and the permits contained in them) can be withdrawn by immigration officials once the entry criteria are not met. However, the grant of entry would not involve a fresh decision allowing entry or stay, but is rather a factual act. The entry stamp is only a documentation of the mere fact that a person factual entered into the territory concerned.
  • Some jurisdictions, like Japan, know the difference between a visa and a landing permit. The latter, looking very much alike a visa, is granted at the port of entry and contains the permit to reside and stay. However, it is not a visa (Japanese visa can be required to apply for a landing permit, thus, the legal construction is very much alike the U.S. one).
  • In Switzerland (until they will apply the Schengen rules later this year), the current situation is even more tricky: A visa (if required) does not allow entry or stay, but forms a waiver from the obligation of a foreigner to register with the cantonal authority during its period of validity (such authority would, after registration, decide about the foreigner's status after obligatory registration).
  • In some jurisdictions, such as Turkey, a visa is formally required by many nationals (like British) in order to enter, but it is granted quickly at the airport of arrival. There, the grant of a visa at the port of entry is the rule in many cases. However, other nationals, as, e.g., Germans, do not need to pass through this visa on arrival procedure, but still have to pass through immigration control.
  • In the EU, however, visa on arrival may only be granted in very exceptional cases (strong humanitarian or political cases).

It might be helpful to outline the difference between visa and entry stamps. However, entry stamps can also have different meanings. In the EU, it is only a documentation of entry. However, once a third-country national does not have it in his or her passport, it may be presumed that such person overstayed.

Differences also apply with respect to terminology:

  • The U.S. would subsume the term "visa" under the heading "travel document" - quite logically from the point of view of the U.S. legal construction, as the visa is an endorsement of the passport which makes it "eligible" for entry purposes, but does not involve a formal decision about entry or residence rights.
  • In Europe, where a visa is considered a permit to enter and stay, a visa is not considered a travel document, but a permit allowing to stay, rather similiar to a residence permit. It is regarded rather as a form of residence permit granted by embassies abroad (before Schengen, German visa, e.g., even hat the formal printed heading: "Residence permit granted in form of a visa").
  • In Eastern Asia, the term "pass" is common for visa and entry permits. Thus, Singapore calls entry stamps for tourists: "Social visit pass".

In an English language article, the history of visa in particular in the English speaking countries could also be documented (I cannot do this, as I do not have easy access to too many English language historical documents). When did the U.S. and the U.K. introduce visa, and why? How has this changed over time, and why?

I would encourage interested readers to review and enhance the English-language article accordingly and could offer some help, in particular with respect to the legal situation in Europe. However, I do not want to start re-structuring this whole article (which I think would be necessary) without first stating my opinion and strating some discussion about this, which I do herewith. --DanSchultz (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)