Talk:Visa requirements for Chinese citizens

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Taiwan[edit]

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)[reply]


Cuba[edit]

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)[reply]

I think both should be reported here. There should be a note saying an unverified letter issued by the London mission says Cuba is visa free for Chinese. As for Wikipedia not providing unverified information, this is not black and white. Verification is on a continuum, and here the verification is good enough to report both. TIMATIC is not infallible, by Chinese friend needed no visa to visit Caymans despite TIMATIC saying a visa was required, and that's because the Caymans' diplomatic mission said it wasn't required for cruise ship passengers. So I don't agree with rejecting what a diplomatic mission says in favour of TIMATIC. Anyone actually going to Cuba should try and check with the airline or otherwise verify.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
E-mails simply can't be used as a source on Wikipedia as they are not published, Wikipedia requires sources to be verifiable and there is no way you can verify an e-mail. However I did contact the Cuban consulate and I have posted the screenshot of the reply confirming the visa requirement is in place, but only to calm down the other user that was using some random scan from 3 years ago as somehow portraying the 2014 visa policy of Cuba - [1]. However I repeat neither can be used as a source because they fail at the first step - inability to verify unpublished references. Therefore, as Cuba doesn't publish its visa policy on any of the official websites we rely on what the Cuban Government provides to IATA (which seems to be correct, not saying that it is infallible but in this case there don't seem to be any issues). As for the Cayman Islands, most countries have the same visa policy regardless of the mode of transport (thus making IATA information sufficient), however some, especially Caribbean nations, have certain waivers in place - for cruise ship passengers and for holders of US/Canada/Schengen visas. The Cayman Immigration cites this cruise ship exemption [2] however it seems to be valid just for 1 day.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TIMATIC is not always correct. For example, there's a mutual visa waiver agreement between Chinese and San Mario but it's not shown in TIMATIC. If you think the scanning of the letter from Cuba consulate is not acceptable, there is news says cuba provides a visa on arrival for Chinese citizens and tourist card acts like a visa on arrival on an seperated paper. (Some information is in Chinese, Google translation may help. :-) So I don't think there is a "Vandalism".--Whisper of the heart 00:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's as correct as the data provided by the national Governments is. For an example China provides information diligently, San Marino doesn't. Not to mention that the San Marino visa policy is irrelevant as it cannot be reached without first accessing Schengen Area and the fact that there is no immigration control between San Marino and Italy. As for Cuba, you shamelessly still insist on some scan from 2011 made by who knows whom even though in comment right above yours it is clearly refuted. Yes it is vandalism to make edits that completely disregard what you are asked for by other editors and to blindly insist on your ideas as facts without providing any sources in form of links. It is also vandalism to call another editor crazy or to edit a map with edit summary after being asked for a source with "It just operates like this.". I won't even comment on some huanqiu.com and its article from 2012 somehow being a relevant source on a visa policy of a country across the globe.--Twofortnights (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless the special position of San Mario, it is the fact that there are visa waiver agreement beteen China and San Mario Governments, so the TIMATIC seems make a mistake. I still don't think I am making vandalism because I do everything according to the soucres in Wikipedia (regardless Chinese or English one) but you think I am telling lies. I think this is a kind of vandalism as well. In addition, an article written in 2012 is acceptable if no further article can be founded.--Whisper of the heart 01:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it doesn't, Timatic only gives information for arriving on an airplane, and if you arrive on an airplane to San Marino you will need a visa as you will land on Rimini airport which is in Italy. You are doing everything according to sources? Hahahah the source here says for Cuba - "Visa required. Visa required passengers traveling as tourists must obtain a Tourist (visa) Card (Tarjeta de Turista) prior to arrival at: a. Cuban Embassies or Consulates; b. travel agencies or authorized airlines." - please do point out where in this text it says that visa is not required or that it is obtained on arrival. Let's disect it, "Visa required." - that means only one thing, Visa is required, not very ambiguous. Now, let's see the visa issuance, it says the visitors who require a visa (or tourist card but it definitely says visa on the card as well), "must obtain (it) prior to arrival". Let's see "prior to arrival" which would be the exact antonym of "on arrival". So how does one read "prior to arrival" as "on arrival"? That is impossible. Of course you don't address any of these specific issues, you don't go into details, you just revert and say "sources are on Wikipedia". Well here we are on Wikipedia, so where are those sources? The only source there is doesn't back up your claims, it backs up my edits not yours. So it is vandalism, you know the source says one thing, but you still insist on adding the opposite to the map file while trying to lie on Commons how the source is on Wikipedia. Yes, the source is on Wikipedia, but not for your claims.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that in your mind source=Timatic, this is a really incorrect awareness. There are examples show that that database is not always right and only valid for airlines. About Cuba, I have shown other source which says visa free or visa on arrive here and the "visa on arrival" is later. So it should be accepted. Information from governments is more exact than those from IATA.--Whisper of the heart 21:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't put words into my mouth. Plus it doesn't make any sense, I am asking you to override Timatic, so how could I be asking for it as a source? Also IATA takes information from the Governments not out of their bottom. And no your source of some random Chinese magazine from 2012 can't be taken as holding more credibility in order to override a more serious systematic source. I have in my mind a reasonable published verifiable preferably official source that states otherwise. Can you provide it?--Twofortnights (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of information in news comes from governments as well. Although IATA is a considerable source, it's not the only source useable here. This kind of source is enough for articles. IATA's database don't have priority to other sources, it is wrong to think that data base as the most important source. --Whisper of the heart 03:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is more relevant than huanqiu.com that is for sure. Can't you just call the Cuban consulate and convince yourself once and for all?--Twofortnights (talk) 09:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this kind of original research is not acceptable for Wikipedia.--Whisper of the heart 19:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Citing random policies that you don't adhere to? OK, nice to see you found them, now try reading them. I suggest reading Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources thoroughly before making another comment here.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

There are sources after each record in Wikipedia articles and they are usable and "for Public Affair" is a special endorsement. This is obvious so I don't need further source for this. Finally, although I did nothing wrong but you tell that I am lying. I think this action is appropriate to be considered as "crazy".--Whisper of the heart 19:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you are lying, I can only repeat myself, the source provided here for Cuba says "Visa required" and you edit the map to show Cuba as no visa required in advance and say in edit summary "source is in Wikipedia". Do you see the problem?--Twofortnights (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That is incorrect, I never said Timatic should be considered final let alone absolutely final, I only say you have to refute it with a source equally good and up to date. If you think a 2014 official data can be refuted with a Chinese magazine article from 2012 then do say so, otherwise I am not sure what is your point. You have to break it somewhere. I think that the common sense says that the Government of Cuba knows better than some Chinese portal and that also a source from 2014 is more relevant than a source from 2012. Also confirmed (not for the purposes of an article reference) by the Embassy of Cuba. So why beat the dead horse? What are the chances that huanqiu.com knows more about the Cuban visa policy than the Cuban Government? Very slim. What are the chances huanqiu.com picked up wrong information from Wikipedia? Quite big. As for ""Visa required" is simply your opinion as to what the sources say." - could you please at least bother to click and check what the sources say before you make a comment? I don't feel very interested in getting involved in a discussion where the other party didn't invest more than a second of their time to prepare their reply which is purported to be a factual comment. In case you didn't understand my point, the "Visa required" is in no way my opinion what the source says as you suggested but what the source says black and white.--Twofortnights (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's your opinion that the sources are "black and white". And you arrive at that conclusion by effectively saying TIMATIC is definitive and cannot be supplemented. I gave you an example, in the case of the Caymans, where it was not. Whatever you want to call TIMATIC, bottom line is that you are edit warring as if TIMATIC and the Cuban government are one and the same. That just isn't so.--Brian Dell (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to twist my words? :) You specifically said " "Visa required" is simply your opinion as to what the sources say." Now opinion - a belief, judgment, or way of thinking about something : what someone thinks about a particular thing. Does this - http://imgur.com/kawkden - look like an opinion to you that can be interpreted in a different way?--Twofortnights (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As for the second part, thank you for neatly ignoring the Cuban consulate as not being part of the Cuban government. Also Timatic as already explained takes information from national governments on airline arrivals. Whether Cuba has a different policy for cruise ship arrivals, it's a valid questions, but not the one anyone is raising here. --Twofortnights (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cuban Visa policy for Chinese is also known by Chinese government. So as one of the official media, Huanqiu can naturally knows these information from Chinese government. As a result, the reliability of this kind of source is obviously not lower than those from Cuban government. This is why I think it is usable. I have shown you cases that IATA database making mistakes (regardless why it happens), sources directly from governments should be able to fix this problem.--Whisper of the heart 00:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huanqiu is a tabloid. It's got very little actual connection to the Government except for the fact there is no freedom of media in that country. But it doesn't mean they check every information with the Government and the Communist Party. They only care about their image, not about some visa policy. So yes the articles on Chinese never elected officials are surely read several times over before publishing because there is total censorship in China but it's got nothing to do with some silly article on the side from 2012 about travelling to Cuba. Also another possibility is that the Cuban visa policy was different in 2012 as it definitely was different in 2011. I wonder why you are so afraid to call the Cuban embassy? Is it expensive?--Twofortnights (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talk about freedom with you. What you should know is that this media can get information from the governement so its report is reliable. That's all. You shouldn't use political topic to avoid the main discussion here.--Whisper of the heart 19:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you shouldn't use lies on Commons. Plus I didn't say anything wrong, I was just responding to your claim about Huanqiu. Just because all media is under tight control of the Government in China, doesn't mean their information is accurate, they consult with the Government, or better say they are instructed what to write by the Communist Party clerks on political situation, but the Cuban visa policy is certainly not their area of expertise. On top of that I have no idea what Huanqiu said as it is in Chinese. Considering we have a valid reliable source in English from 2014 there is 0 point in using Chinese tabloid article from 2012.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you should show your craziness and say other people are lying here, although this media is not "big" enough as you think, but it's effective in Wikipedia, so it is usable here. I don't think it's a good idea for you to do freedom and democracy propaganda here.--Whisper of the heart 20:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've already proven that you are lying with you claim on Commons that the reference on Wikipedia says something that it doesn't, so your personal insults have little effect. I am not spreading any propaganda, I am saying that any tabloid, especially yellow press of the Communist Party, is not to be trusted easily. And when it's a few years old article it's really to be used as a source for a current matter only if there is no other source. But when you have IATA and Cuban embassy saying one thing in 2014, and the Communist party of China yellow press tabloid saying something else in 2012, which do you think takes precedence?--Twofortnights (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Cuban embassy saying..." Where? Where does the "Cuban embassy" say? Where does the "Cuban embassy" say anything that contradicts Huanqiu or the London consulate letter? You are offside consensus here.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can only repeat myself - I don't feel very interested in getting involved in a discussion where the other party didn't invest more than a second of their time to prepare their reply which is purported to be a factual comment. A link to what you are asking for is above your comment in the very same discussion.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prove? What did you prove? What you have done was just trying to "prove" that other's sources are not reliable although they fit the standards of Wikipedia and the only reliable source is the IATA database. I don't think this kind of "provement" can be accpeted. In addition, you have said that scanning of letters is not reliable, but why your screenshot is reliable?--Whisper of the heart 01:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is reliable as a Wikipedia source, it was used only because you insisted on it. I have proven everything, you just keep talking, look at the amount of text above, but you give little useful comments, it's just a huge heap of your opinion, and little external verifiable references.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you are talking about that email from "Laura", Laura apparently works at "Taquilla" which means ticketing agent. The "Cuban embassy" is directly booking travel are they? Canadians are, in fact, required to fill out a "Tarjeta del Turista" before arrival in Cuba as well. But this is functionally equivalent to the blue customs form one has to fill out to enter the U.S. TIMATIC, in my opinion, reflects these nominal regulations when functionally it is visa on arrival.--Brian Dell (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The e-mail was received from Taquilla [at] uk.embacuba.cu as a reply to an e-mail sent to the Cuban consulate in London - http://www.cubadiplomatica.cu/reinounido/EN/Mission/ConsularSectioninUnitedKingdom.aspx . You are more than free to contact them yourself (but for some reason I doubt you will, beating the dead horse seems to be more fun for you, you know you are wrong but you still insist on it, contacting the consulate would mean the end of this joyous ride for you so don't do it). As for the US customs form, does it actually say VISA on this customs form?--Twofortnights (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have two images here, both signed by a "Laura", and the one you refer to looks less genuine than the other one. That's the bottom line here. I've contacted this consulate to ask them to comment on the 2011 document. As I noted before, Canadians also need this card called a "visa" but for practical purposes Canadians need not worry about arranging it and it could well be the same for Chinese.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom line is you are so ignorant to what other people write that it took several thousand characters to make you start realizing that Cuba has changed something between 2011 and 2014. Of course you are still obnoxious and saying "we've got competing sources here whether you like it or not" which shows you are fighting with yourself because I am certainly not fighting with you to get any of these "whether you like it or not" one-liners directed at me. And you haven't replied (because you obviously don't read 90% of what I write but you cocksurely comment on everything from the high know-it-all standpoint) are the US custom forms called VISA?--Twofortnights (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is that your contention? That the 2011 doc is obsolete? Then why didn't you say that before? I highly doubt that there has been a policy change, in fact. The world has generally been easing visa restrictions as China has developed economically. Rather, you are getting all worked up over semantics. "Are the US custom forms called VISA?" It doesn't matter. That's the point you don't seem to get. It doesn't matter because what matters is whether you can just get on a plane and go or whether your passport has to go to a consulate first. You seem to think that the most important thing is what is written on the form. Readers are simply not interested in that.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You highly doubt it? World is generally easing restrictions? Who cares what you personally think or about general assumptions, it's pretty obvious the document from 2011 states something else to the one from 2014 (which is backed up by Timatic). Sorry but your doubts need to backed up by some verifiable external source in order to be relevant. If you find them, then OK, but this way it feels like you are just trying to push your opinion into the article.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"You seem to think that the most important thing is what is written on the form. Readers are simply not interested in that." - please take a look at the Wikipedia:No original research - This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The original research here is your contention that there's been an "obvious" change in policy. That's YOUR interpretation. My "doubts" do not need to be backed up. Your absolute, scoffing certainty about what the situation happens to be is what needs to be backed up. I have said from the beginning we should lay out for the reader the fact there the sources are not clear here, but you refuse, making ASSUMPTIONS like there's been a change of policy to justify presenting a black and white case to the reader when in fact it's entirely possible that whether you need a "Tourist Card" to enter and whether you need to go to a Cuban consulate in advance are two separate questions. And let's not pretend that if most airlines will arrange for the "visa" and you just fill out the form on the plane that that is not effectively a visa-on-arrival regime.--Brian Dell (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the original research is your contention that we should subjectively describe various situations based on what our gut tells us, if something is a visa or not. That is not how things work. If a source says "Visa is required" and the document actually says VISA on it, and it is confirmed by the consular representation of that country then there is no space for you to say "meh, I don't really think so, to me this feels not very much like a visa". I mean you can but it's not valid to be included in Wikipedia. And yes you are right, it's probably the simplest visa to obtain in the world, because Cuba is a country relying on tourism, but that's an analysis we can go through over coffee, it doesn't change the fact it's still considered and called a visa by the Cuban government. As for my interpretations and assumptions, yeah when one document says visa is not required and the other document says visa is required, there really needs to be plenty of thinking and making a lot of assumptions to come to a conclusion that something is different between the two.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Who insists on that? It says Tourist card required.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However, there is source says it works as a visa on arrival on seperate paper, so there is nothing wrong that Cuba is considered as a visa on arrival country. Also, ESTA of the USA is not suitable for those people who take a private jet or ferry to the USA and for other people, they have to apply before their travel, but why we put a special mark on that?--Whisper of the heart 22:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it specifically says "in advance". Synonym for "in advance" is - before. So if it is before it can't be on arrival at the same time. Chinese citizens are not elligible for ESTA so I don't know why you bring that up.--Twofortnights (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean e-visa like ESTA and Sri Lanka evisa also require traveller (not only Chinese citizen) to apply in advance, why they are recognized but Cuba Tourist Card doesn't be recognized.--Whisper of the heart 00:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sri Lanka ETA is not obligatory in advance, one can obtain visa at the port of entry (on arrival), but this is not recommended due to lengthy delays.--Twofortnights (talk) 09:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update needed (2015)[edit]

Currently visa-free in 74 countries according to Arton Capital (1,2). --50.153.149.70 (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every statistics are different, it doesn't mean the data in this page is completely wrong or out-of-date. --Whisper of the heart 06:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arton Capital did not publish any methodology. Given that Henley bases their information on IATA information, and IATA bases their information on what national governments tell them, it's definitely more trustful. There are always some errors in IATA database of course but no research should bring results that are more than 1-2% different and in this case the difference is much bigger especially for the first 10 countries. Another issue is that Arton Capital was never mentioned by main stream media before while Henley index was mentioned for 10 years. Arton website looks more like interesting trivia which is not necessarily correct. In conclusion I don't see any objective reason to use it.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passport for Public Affairs[edit]

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:

  • Ordinary passports shall be issued by the entry-exit control department of the Ministry of Public Security or by the entry-exit control departments of the public security organs under the people’s governments at or above the county level authorized by the Ministry of Public Security, or the embassies or consulates of the People’s Republic of China, or other missions overseas authorized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
  • Diplomatic passports shall be issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
  • Service passports shall be issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or the embassies or consulates of the People’s Republic of China, or other missions overseas authorized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or the departments for foreign affairs under the people’s governments of provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities directly under the Central Government and cities divided into districts authorized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


> 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)[reply]

Visa required for Morocco?[edit]

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[reply]

No it's not. It's relatively recent news that the mentioned consulate hasn't included on their website yet. Here it is [3].--Twofortnights (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli stamps[edit]

@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)[reply]

Unless someone writes to the contrary, I take it that the transcluded information from our Non-visa travel restrictions article that is included here (and in many dozens of other articles) is acceptably worded/placed ? --BushelCandle (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Visa requirement map[edit]

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)[reply]

Yes, the only reason why this is not included in maps of other countries is the fact that it is only China that has such a system.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 with state-owned enterprises and institutions 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.JerichoHog (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true. There is a similar system for non-orindary passports of, for example, EU countries, Russia, India, etc. Yet, the visa requirement maps for citizens of those countries reflect ONLY what is needed from holders of ordinary passports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigox (talk • contribs) 21:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would kindly ask you to provide us with a source which explains public affairs passports in use in EU countries, Russia, India, etc. Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admission refused[edit]

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)[reply]

Date reference without a year[edit]

"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)[reply]

About India's tourism visa ban, and about the "highly likely tourism ban" catagory in the map[edit]

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)[reply]

Visa-free countries[edit]

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

 Thailand  Tunisia  Zambia

And this is expected to increase. 59.5.168.44 (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino and Andorra[edit]

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)[reply]

San Marino has signed a mutual visa exemption agreement with China, while Andorra has not signed an agreement with China and has not granted visa-free treatment to Chinese passports. ArvinTing (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland. Update needed.[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Visa_requirements_for_Chinese_citizens&oldid=1210870566"