Talk:Visa policy of mainland China

An info for the redlink in the article....

http://www.bjgaj.gov.cn/eng/ --222.67.215.14 (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth San Marino?

Apparently all residents of this tiny enclave in Italy get 90 days visa free stay in PRC. This waiver had been in effect since 1985. The question: why? This article needs to answer things like this to be complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.165.49 (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

What are 'visa nationals'?

Can we avoid the use of the unclear term 'visa nationals'. I suppose it means ROC passport holders, but I'm not sure and this term is unhelpful. Onanoff (talk) 08:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

roc passports are useless. taiwan residents use their id cards (shenfenzen) to apply for travel permit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C89797897987 (talk • contribs)

Airport Transit

The sections covering International Airport Transit should be merged. There seems to be "All international airports - 24hr rule" and "Some airports 72 hour rule", but they are still just transits. Also 72 hour rule seem to apply to the same countries regardless of the airport. This strikes me as an opportunity to merge it all into "Transit section" with some exceptions. Objections? --Truther2012 (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

 Erledigt--Truther2012 (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Bahamas Map

Bahamas just entered the no-visa club for China. Can someone update the map? Thanks! --Truther2012 (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Not up to date

China passed a new Law and Regulations, therefore much of the article is outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.215.234 (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy disputed

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 remove information otherwise found here in the map legend and in the article content on ordinary passports with endorsement. An attempt to upload an alternative file failed as he quickly went to vandalize it as well and also destroy its purpose by making it the exact same copy of the other file.--Twofortnights (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

So there is a dispute about the map. What, exactly, is in dispute? Over at the Commons the two of you reverted each other more than two dozen times, each, in less than 2 hours on June 26. And there were many reverts before that. From what I can tell, it's a content dispute, not vandalism. Spell it out so it can be resolved instead of edit warring. I will tell you right now, however, that a passport issued by a country other than China "endorsed for public affairs" is relatively rare and most certainly is NOT an "ordinary" passport, even if Chinese regulations class it as "ordinary". We should not mislead readers into thinking they don't need a visa when they do. It is effectively a category of official passport and ought to be indicated on the image for official passports.--Brian Dell (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Well if you'd bother to look into the matter instead of asking rhetorical questions you would find out what is the dispute all about. And you are also very timely responding to an incident from June 26 on October 18. It very much was vandalism because you need to look at the bigger picture, which does seem to be a problem. When you see that someone has a history of adding false information then they can't be trusted.

As for the second part thank you for taking that out of your bottom, however your personal views that contradict facts cannot be entered into encyclopedia. The fact that those passports are rare doesn't mean they don't exist. And it's not how China classifies them, it is how the issuing country classifies them which is type P passport, which is an international code for ordinary passports. Some holders of P passports may receive an endorsement inside the passport that makes this passport "endorsed for public affairs" but nothing on the data page of the machine readable code is altered, it remains a P passport.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"for public affairs"

Related to the previous ("Accuracy Disputed") thread, I note that according to the state-controlled People's Daily, only the PRC, North Korea, and Vietnam issue passports "for public affairs". That's repeated here. And that was more than 12 years ago. It isn't just rare for citizens seeking to enter China to have this sort of passport, except for Vietnamese and North Koreans, it's impossible. Chinese embassies define "for public affairs" passports as another tier of official passport, as in China they are issued by the same entity (Foreign Affairs) that issues diplomatic and service passports and are NOT issued by the same entity that issues passports to private citizens in China. This category should accordingly be moved out of the "ordinary" section, and only Vietnam and North Korea should have their flags indicated, as it should be sufficient to note the other countries in text clarifying that they do not currently issue that sort of passport.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Those are passports endorsed for public affairs when it comes to other countries, usually in form of a stamp in a normal passport. So please try looking past the Chinese state media and their random articles from who knows when while looking for information. The whole point is that those countries don't issue separate public affairs passports but specifically issue normal passports that can receive an endorsement "for public affairs" and that is why the information is in the section on normal and not official passports. What you are suggesting is that China has a visa-free policy for holders of imaginary passports which is obviously nonsense.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Ecuador

Ecuador now is able to get into China for 30 days without visa — Preceding unsigned comment added by C89797897987 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Public affairs passports

• Armenian ordinary passport -> File:Armena pasporto, armenian passport, pasaporte armenio..jpg
  
• Armenian ordinary passport subsequently endorsed (sticker, stamp, note etc.) for public affairs travel to China -> File:Armena pasporto, armenian passport, pasaporte armenio..jpg

• Chinese ordinary passport -> File:People's Republic of China Biometric passport.jpg
  
• Chinese ordinary passport issued for public affairs -> File:PRC passport (for Public Affairs).png

Please tell me you notice the difference.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Apparently not so let me explain. In all countries other than China endorsement for public affairs doesn't change the passport type. It's not a passport type. Except in China. Only in China it's a different passport type. In all other countries it's a sticker, stamp or some kind of a note in an ordinary passport more akin to a visa. The difference is this endorsement is placed by a home country. But the passport type remains P so it can only be combined with other P passports and not PS and PD passports.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 edit warring

Let's call the 14:45, 5 April 2015‎ version the last stable version because it is the result of an edit by an uninvolved user.

Please, before changing the disputed content, please work it out here and get consensus first. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The arguement is about if ordinary passport with "for public affair" should be listed in the same section with other kind of passport such as diplomatic passport or service passport. I believe this action is necessary because with this endorsement, the traveler is having a trip for official missions, so the purpose is similar to those diplomatic, service or official passport holders. As a result, I think ordinary passport with the endorsement can be classified along with diplomatic or service passport etc.--Whisper of the heart 23:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Whisper of the heart. I am pleased that you are discussing things here rather than warring. I, of course, will not enter the dispute itself. I am sure Twofortnights will arrive here shortly to work with you to find agreement. All the best to both of you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I am glad for the first time we can have a discussion. Thank you Anna for your part, I am not sure what you've done but I didn't expect the positive outcome.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

As for the matter at hand, the reason why I believe Whisper of the heart is making these edits is because he is Chinese and automatically presumes other countries do things the same way as China does. So when it comes to China they actually issue a "passport for public affairs" as a completely separate document - File:PRC passport (for Public Affairs).png. However even this document has a P code - [1]. So only the cover is different but it is still a normal or ordinary passport. Other passports have other codes PD for diplomatic passport, PS for special passports, PO for official passports, PG and PC for 1951 convention travel document, PP for alien passport, PT for temporary passport etc. One thing that doesn't exist, even in China regardless of the different booklet cover, is a separate passport type "for public affairs". It is just a regular ordinary passport of P type like any other that was endorsed. The main difference between China and other countries is that China endorses passports at the time of issuance and not anyone can get these endorsed passports but only those working in state structures, while in other countries this endorsement is issued in a form of a stamp or a sticker on one of the visa pages by the authorities of the issuing state. So it's similar to a visa, but unlike usual visas that are issued by the destination country here China accepts for that to be done by the issuing countries that it has an agreement with. For this article the relevant question is where to place passports, in the section with normal/ordinary P type passports or with diplomatic, official, service and special passports of PD/PS type. Given that passports endorsed for public affairs are P passports I say that they should be grouped like they are now, within the ordinary passports but separately. It is a unique visa policy but the endorsement simply doesn't change the type of these passports so grouping them with diplomatic or service passports doesn't make much sense. It's debatable where would we put Chinese passports for public affairs in a corresponding article, for example "Visa policy of Venezuela", but this article doesn't deal with grouping Chinese passports used for travel abroad, but with foreign passports used for travel to China and things here are clear.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Ordinary passports table

It was part of the wholesale reverting and was just restored by a newcomer in this edit. Do all agree that it should be there? If not, it should be removed unless agreement is reached that it should be there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The arguement is about public endorsement thing, the table for pure ordinary passport isn't a part of this arguement, so the table would be better to be remained.--Whisper of the heart 00:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the table should stay, it's not disputed in any way. But as far I can see it is in the current article.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Splendid. Nice to see you two agreeing. :) And yes, it should be there. The newcomer added it back. All the best. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I would only suggest sorting the countries by alphabet and not the date of enforcement. China announced that they want to sign as many such agreements as possible so it could become difficult to navigate. Also it's the usual way and I don't think the date is the most important column.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Nowadays the number of agreement is not too many to sort by date, so this way would be fine, when more agreements are coming and make the table too complex, we may change that at that time.--Whisper of the heart 21:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Could you give some arguments? Saying an opposite thing for the sake of it isn't helpful. I can tell you that virtually all other articles on visa policy are alphabetic. There is no written MoS but consistency is important. What argument is stronger than this?--Twofortnights (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

How about a compromise? Under the subheading "Ordinary passports", it could read: "...blah blah sorted by date..." or alphasort and make it read "...sortable table showing...". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Well we could definitely use a sortable table.--Twofortnights (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. It is now sortable. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hainan source

The current reference for Hainan is a dead link. But on that .gov.cn website there is a new page on the matter - Hainan Visa Free and Visa on Arrival Policy. The only problem is, they copy-pasted information from this Wikipedia article. I think we can't use it as per WP:CIRCULAR. Any thoughts?--Twofortnights (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

What I find is people from coutries which have diplomatic or official trade relationship can get a visa on arrival when trvelling to Hainan, not only those counties.[2]--Whisper of the heart 21:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

That is a completely different policy, those are pre-arranged visa pick ups that exist on several airports.

Holders of normal passports can obtain a prearranged visa on arrival at Chongqing (CKG), Guangzhou (CAN), Guilin (KWL), Haikou (HAK), Kunming (KMG), Qingdao (TAO), Sanya (SYX), Shenzhen (SZX), Weihai (WEH), Xi An (XIY) and Yantai (YNT), provided: - holding confirmation from the Immigration authorities that visa will be issued on arrival; and - passport contains at least one blank visa page for the sticker-type visa; and - a sponsor (approved by Chinese authorities) meets passenger on arrival. Note: A representative of the arriving carrier must be informed before arrival of the flight. Fee: varies between CNY 160.- and CNY 606.-. An additional CNY 50.- will be required for a photograph. Extension is possible. (SEE NOTE 2558) (SEE NOTE 2568) (SEE NOTE 46798) NOTE 2558: Facility not applicable to: - nationals of Afghanistan, France, Iran, Iraq, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Turkey and the USA; - stateless persons and refugees. NOTE 2568: Holders of British passports are required to hold a letter of invitation by the Chinese authorities and one passport photo. NOTE 46798: not applicable to holders of Chinese Taipei (on the cover: Republic of China Taiwan) passports.

This is however only about the countries that China considers countries with established diplomatic or official trade relations for the purposes of investment, trade, economic and technological interactions, visiting friends and family, or vacation.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

That is a statement from the Hainan government, I just follow that. The policy you post looks more like visa on arrival for emergency thich is not only for Hainan Province.--Whisper of the heart 22:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Why did you remove the part about Hainan 15 day visa on arrival for specific countries for independent tourists?--Twofortnights (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't remove that, I just changed it because according to the citation, the government allow almost all citizens throughout the world to get a visa on arrival, not only those countries.--Whisper of the heart 01:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you please find an English language source saying that anyone can get a visa on arrival in Hainan as a regular procedure?--Twofortnights (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I will try to find that. But Chinese source should be valid in the article. --Whisper of the heart 05:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I live in Haikou, and have done so for years. I never knew about this visa on arrival thing. I will check for good sources too. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If you need a long-term stay, of course you cannot use visa on arrival.+_+|| --Whisper of the heart 05:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that was suggested really. Thanks for asking around Anna. It rather sounds like that article is not too precise because even before it said China gives visa on arrival to countries with established relations but I think they mean well established relations in these fields, not just any country out there. I also doubt it because China runs a tight visa regime that they would allow the whole world to come without a visa, while that might make sense financially with for example Sweden that is almost risk-free I doubt they let in all African states with simple airport visa. We'll see.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you are right, this policy is not so well-know and some people work in airlines or even in immigration department don't know that. But according to these articles, this policy actually exists, so we need to record that. --Whisper of the heart 07:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

This article appears to be out of date....

I have issues with the accuracy of the "Visa application procedures" section. The article states that in the US the visa application "cannot be done by mail." I obtained both my Chinese visas (2012, 2015) by mail.

The article also states that "For tourist (L) visas a copy of both sides of the inviting person's Chinese ID card or passport is needed." My visa application included an invitation letter and an itenerary, but there was no requirement for the inviting persons Chinese ID card or passport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:7E80:7600:E05C:BA9E:C327:63C6 (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Continued discussion about ordinary passport with "for public affair" endorsement

Last discussion was disturbed, this is a reply to Twofortnights (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC).

I clearly know ordinary passport and passport for public affair are two different things. Also, It's meaningless to discuss passport code because Chinese passport for public affairs is actually designed for official-purpose usage. In addition, Chinese ordinary passport has a code PO [3] and passport for public affairs has a code PP [4] (machine readable code), do you think they are the same visa type and follow the international convention very well? So you cannot easily say "passport for public affair", a kind of passport which most of other countries don't have, is an ordinary passport. In fact it is a travel document more similar to Diplomatic and Service passport. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Visa_policy_of_China&action=edit§ion=15 So here is the question, when making mutual agreements, how do foreign goverments deal with passport for public affairs? As a result, some of the governments make a "for public affair" stamp on ordinary passports in order to correspond to Chinese passport for public affairs. According to immigration officers in Beijing [5], this stamp is not a visa, ordinary passports with this kind of stamp will upgrade to passport for public affairs (也就是说，同样一本普通护照，如果护照上加注“因公”字样印章，即升级为因公普通类护照). Some unlucky travellers think this stamp is a visa (just like you, dear Twofortnights), so they try to enter China under visa waiver agreements with their expired passport with stamps and their new, blank passport, they are finally denied to enter.

Now, you may understand Chinese government's attitude towards this stamp, they completely think foreign ordinary passport with "for public affairs" endorsements as a kind of official-purpose travel document which equals to Chinese passport for public affairs. This article is called "Visa policy of China", so it's necessary to use Chinese government's immigration system to make lists, explanations and classification. It's not a wise way to make ordinary passports with "for public affair" endorsement/stamp isolated from other official-purpose travel documents. --Whisper of the heart 11:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you understand this article is about the Visa policy of China and not the visa policy of other countries towards Chinese citizens? Therefore the whole point you are trying to make on how Chinese passports are used is useless.

Other countries are allowed to and they practically all don't do things the same way China does. Therefore they don't have separate passports for public affairs but ordinary passports of regular P type that are issued in regular manner and were at some point were simply endorsed in form of a sticker or a stamp "for public affairs" or "for business in China" on one of the pages. It's a sui generis arrangement that can't be compared to anything else and it's not even done the same way by China and contracting parties. As for the passport type it is absolutely determined by the issuing country and not by Chinese immigration officers in Beijing. Other than that I can only copy-paste previous arguments that were left unaddressed and not disturbed.

As a conciliatory proposal for a compromise, we may add a note that says Chinese Government sees these endorsements as official or whatever their view is.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand this article is called "Visa policy of China", so those policies are made by Chinese governement and it's necessary to use Chinese immigration system to classify passport types and other things but not those so called "international convention", it doesn't matter how other countries classify their passports, but now Chinese goverment consider those ordinary passports with endorsement as an official-purpose passport and those without endorsement as an ordinary passport. So it's a right way to sort ordinary passports with endorsements with other offical-purpose travel document. Once again, this is "Visa policy of China", so you need to use Chinese government's system (not other countries' system) to sort information. Adding appropriate notes is fine.--Whisper of the heart 21:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not, China cannot classify passports of other countries, only the issuing authority can do that. So no, we cannot classify what is clearly an ordinary passport, with what are clearly non-ordinary passports, because the only determination of this lies with an issuing authority, and all of those countries do not issue separate "public affairs passports". Those are passports absolutely the same as any other in all countries - except in China, which is the reason for your confusion. But I have proposed a compromise solution, a little note that would explain how Chinese Government sees things, but it would be preferable to first find an official source in English language because the content of that page on the link you've provided when translated through Google doesn't say much, at least much meaningful.--Twofortnights (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes it can, Chinese government absolutely can deside its own visa policy and classify foreign passport on its own way. In Chinese govenment's standard, ordinary passport with endorsements are not ordinary passport, it's a kind of official-purpose passport more "official" than blank ordinary passport and more "private" than service passport. It doesn't matter how other govenernments treat these passport, but in Chinese government's immigration system, ordinary passport with endorsement is considered as a different passport type from blank ordinary passport. This article talks about Chinese visa policy, so it is the best way to use Chinese government's policy to make classification, how other governments treat these passports can be put in notes. In addition, the Chinese governement's official language is Chinese, so many documenets and new reports are published in Chinese, if there's an English version, I will put them here, but language discrimination cannot be accepted here. --Whisper of the heart 05:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Chinese Government does decide its own visa policy however it has no authority to classify foreign passports as they can only be classified by the issuing authority. The only thing that determines the passport type is the passport type, it's very simple, it's printed on the first page. Chinese Government can consider things in any way it wants to but passports are classified as they officially are. As you can see here, some countries that have this arrangement with China - Bosnia, Georgien, Kirgisistan, Mazedonien, Moldawien, Serbien, Turkmenistan - there is no such thing as "passport for public affairs" issued by those countries, therefore suggesting that they do issue such passports like China does (which is the reason why you are confused because you think other countries issue passports the same way) would be original research. However if you find an English language official source that explains a different Chinese Government view I am fine with adding a note to the article. What we can't do is pretend these countries issue public affairs passports and group them with diplomatic and official passports when they don't do that. And there is no language discrimination, but I can't confirm that what you are saying is actually in that link you've provided.--Twofortnights (talk) 08:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how foreign governments classify their passports because this page is called "Visa policy of China", not visa policy of foreign countries. So in this page we don't need to consider how other countries deal with their passports, we just need to describe how Chinese government treat forenign passports. Now Chinese government consider foreign passports with endorsements as a official-purpose visa type different from blank ordinary passports and in this page we need to record like that as well. I don't mean that we need to write those countris are issuing "passport for public affairs", but ordinary passport with endorsements should be classified together with diplomatic, service and official passport because it is use for offical visit as well. Finally, because Chinese government actually publish so many documents in Chinese, if you really cannot confirm their meaning, we can put those links in Wikipedia:Village pump or somewhere else to find some third-party wikipedians to make confirmations for us, is this solution acceptable for you? --Whisper of the heart 01:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes as you've said this article is called Visa policy of China, so this is the classification of Chinese visas, not of foreign passports. We can't make things up, in order to write the same stuff as the Chinese Government says. We are on this side of the Great Firewall and we won't compromise the integrity of an encyclopedia in order not to annoy the Government by daring to write something differently. Chinese Government has no authority to classify foreign passports differently to the issuing country. If a country A says "this is a diplomatic passport" then it is a diplomatic passport even if China calls it an "alien document for refugees" because they can't make that determination, and especially we can't care about it if they are obviously wrong. It is very easy to check on that link what are the passport types issued by these countries, and they are all ordinary, they are not "for public affairs" as China does it. I understand why you are confused entirely, but that doesn't mean we are going to enter lies into this article. That's not the easiest way to overcome your lack of acceptance that other countries don't issue passports "for public affairs" the same way China does. Chinese "for public affairs" passports are valid for all countries. Endorsements in ordinary passports of other countries are issued "for China" or separately for any other country if there is such an agreement.

As for a separate classification, that's already done - they are listed separately under the header Ordinary passports (endorsed "for public affairs") and what you are proposing is mixing them up again, this time with diplomatic passports. But you are also suggesting we should list them separately. Well as I've said, they are listed separately, so if you wish to find an English language source confirming your translation of that link, please do that, and we can add a note saying "Chinese Government considers these passports as bearing the same rights as official passports". Other than that, the article is fine, there is no need to classify ordinary passports with diplomatic passports as it would make no sense. Diplomatic and official passport holders have diplomatic immunity and can use separate lanes at border crossings where the security scans are not carried out in full. This is simply not true for ordinary passports endorsed for public affairs trip to China. But if your source confirms Chinese Government really and actually gives the same status to ordinary passports for public affairs holders as to official or even diplomatic passport holders, please do tell us and we can write a note on that.--Twofortnights (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's no doubt that this article is called "Visa policy of China", how Chinese government dealing with foreign passports is also a part of these policies, we don't make anything up, we are just collecting information. However, if you think using Chinese government's source means on the side of the Great Firewall, this is a completely wrong idea because visa or immigration policy is internal affair for every country and no one else can "make" policies for them, so here you can add a note say something like "other governments treat these passports as ordinary passport" or something else, but you need to keep the whole system same as the official one, otherwise it seems that you are misleading people and making up information. Visa and immigration policy is a complex system and if you explain those information accoring to your own idea, it will be meaningless. In addition, it looks like you want to be a political animal and disscuss something about Chinese politics here, but unfortunately, it seems that you are not good at this field at all, so please focus on visa policies instead of politics.

• Listing seperately means to mark ordinary passports with endorsements independently but put them in the same category with diplomatic, offical and service passport. Because this is a unique kind of passport but they have similar function as that three kinds of passports.
• It doesn't matter which lane diplomatic and offical passport holders stand in, but the purpose of them to travel is to do some official affair. Holders of ordinary with the endorsement have similar purpose as well, so it's reasonable to put them together. It is true that some people hold their official-purpose passport to do some private trips, but these passports are originally designed for public trips, the action of those people don't affect this property of those passports.--Whisper of the heart 05:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

That is all wrong. China cannot classify foreign passports. The issuing authority does. And even if China is able to somehow classify them against the issuing authority, you still haven't provided a source that backs up your claim, especially regarding giving ordinary passport holders diplomatic immunity for example, that would be truly interesting to see. Until you provide such a source I think this discussion is a pointless hearsay.

Again, they are not "unique kind of passport" anywhere else except in China. How many times do I have to repeat this? So far I have accepted that you are confused, but now I am not sure what your intentions are. You've been told enough times already that other countries don't issue passports the same way China does. It's time for you to realize this. Merging them with diplomatic passports would be some kind of original research. Ordinary passports do not carry the same status in terms of immunity so you can't list them together. Ordinary passports - the name itself says where they ought to be grouped, with ordinary passports or with diplomatic passports.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not wrong, governments can classify foreign passports in their own visa or immigration policies, they can even refuse some passports if they want. I have provided source which contains Chinese goverment policies and you can verify it anyway you want but it seems that you don't want to recognize it, it's not a good attitude. Also, offical policy shows that people with a diplomatic visa or diplomatic passport (countries with visa exemption agreements) have diplomatic immunity in China [6]Aritcle 22 (2), this means those service/offical passport holders don't necessarily have diplomatic immunity, but they are still listed along with diplomatic passport holders here, so why not add ordinary passport with endorsement, which are also designed for public affairs, with them as well? It is true that most country don't have "passport for public affair", but Chinese government treat blank ordinary passport and ordinary passport with the endorsement differently in its visa and immigration policy and some foreign governements support this policy by putting stamps on their ordinary passports, this is not original research, we just record what the policy actually is. In addition, ordinary passports with the endorsement and blank ordinary passport are considered as two different kinds of passport, it doesn't matter how many times you say they are the same thing, but in fact they are different. --Whisper of the heart 19:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry but no they can't. Passports are classified at the time of issuance and China has no say in this process. When the passport is printed it is printed within one of the IATA recognized subgroups P, PD, PS etc. China cannot say "P passports are now PD passports". I mean they can, but nobody else would be bound by such nonsense. Therefore we have no obligation to report on Chinese Government internal views that are outside of scope of their area of action. China physically cannot affect the type of foreign passports, except by altering the foreign passport by changing the inscription in the passport and on the cover with a pencil which would be illegal. I know from before that you like to take this attitude "I gave you everything already" but you should know by now that such comments won't fly. So you either provide what you are asked to provide or you don't, but claiming how you did when you haven't is childish and pointless. I've already explained, China has the right to classify Chinese visas, but it has no right to classify foreign issued passports - and so far I am not convinced they even do that, it's only your claim so far. Anyway, passports endorsed for public affairs are currently listed separately from both other ordinary passports and diplomatic passports which is I think a good compromise. But if you can provide the link that shows how Chinese Government has a different view we can add the note. In [7] there is nothing suggesting that China treats ordinary passport holders endorsed for public affairs in China as diplomats.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it can, Chinese government can make their own classification and explanation in their visa policies no matter how other governments and IATA do. In order to truly record every single piece of information, it is the wisest way to use Chinese government's view because they are the maker of those policies, rebuilding another system to explan these information with a so called "internation" standard will make everything more confused. Obviously, Chinese government cannot represent any other govenements to explain their passports, but they can make their own policy and classify those passports by themselves, what we are doing is to record and conclude their policies, we don't need to think too much about foreign governments, this article is not about their policies. In addition, currently I don't think I need to provide something more becase existed materials can proive my word. Once more, Chinese governments (also any other governments) can make their own classification for foreign passports in their visa/immigration policy. And I have given you the source which shows Chinese government has a different attitude between black ordinary passport and passport with the endorsement [8], if you think I make some trick to you, you can find other editors to explain these things. --Whisper of the heart 09:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

"Chinese government can make their own classification and explanation in their visa policies no matter how other governments and IATA do." - I agree 100%. However we are not talking about the visa policies here but about passports. And China cannot change the passport types of already issued foreign passports. It's a very simple issue, what letter is the passport issued under, what is printed inside the passport and on its cover - China cannot affect that. The only thing it can do is to have an officer use his pencil and alter the passport data which would be illegal and the notion of some officer doing that is so absurd that it's not worth discussing.

"And I have given you the source which shows Chinese government has a different attitude between black ordinary passport and passport with the endorsement" - and that's exactly the problem. You are referring to classification of Chinese passports by the Chinese Government which is entirely irrelevant for this article.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I am glad to find that we are on the half way to get consensus. But passport classification is included in the wholesale visa policy of any country, so absolutely they can put those passports in different categories according to their laws, we need to record this difference. Chinese goverenment think passports with the endorsement is a kind of official-use passport which is different from those private-use blank oridinary passport, so we need to put this piece information in the article. However, just like you said, those governements cannot change category letters in the passport (passport category created by countries who issue the passport), so we will never write something like "Turkey passport for public affairs". Finally, according to these judgements, it would be appropriate to put ordinary passport with the endorsement in the same category with diplomatic and service passport, however, we need to keep its original name "oridinary passport with the endorsement" and avoid writing "passport for public affair" in that place. In addition, Chinese goverenment's way to classify passport is relevant for this article because just like what I said at first, this is a part of every country's wholesale visa system, it's not a good idea to change it seperately.--Whisper of the heart 07:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Passport classification but not as per someone's imagination or as per rules for local passports but according to passport types as they were issued. So if there is an ordinary, service and diplomatic passport out there in some country China can neither call them diplomatic, diplomatic and diplomatic passports nor can it say "oh but we don't issue passports like that so we will list those as normal, official and VIP". The only thing they can do is say - our visa policy for that ordinary passport is this, for that service passport is this and for that diplomatic passport is this. They have no right to rename foreign passports. And apparently the source you gave doesn't even attempt to do that. The only problem is you think that we can apply rules for Chinese passports to rules for foreign passports which is factually wrong. I understand there might be some confusion - how come China does things this way and other countries that way - and that's OK but I think I've explained it to you in detail the differences between passport issuing process in China and other countries so you should now understand why we can't apply the same rules for both. "Chinese goverenment think passports with the endorsement is a kind of official-use passport which is different from those private-use blank oridinary passport, so we need to put this piece information in the article" - I agree, but not in this article, but in Chinese passport because that's what they are referring to. On the other hand I am afraid we can't list ordinary passports with diplomatic passports here, not only that it would be the case of original research, it would also be factually wrong.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, making up information is a violation of Wikipedia policy. But I think nobody here is doing imagination, what I am doing here is organizing all information according to official documents. Your example is perfect, if one day Chinese government refuse to follow the international convention and call foreign "diplomatic", "service" and "ordinary" passports something stupid like "VIP", "official" and "normal", we have to follow them, they have the rights to call whatever they want in their policies. But using remakes is necessary to explain what they originally are and reduce reader's confusion. We are recording visa policy of China, so we have the duty to keep it real and complete (including using their way to name passports). This article is about Chinese visa policy, not how other countries issue their passports, so using Chinese government's file to make category is the most appropriate way. Finally, once more, I never mean that we should write something like "Turkish passport for public affair" here and Chinese governement never say like that, they call it "with for public affair endorsement" but they think it's equall to a Chinese passport for public affairs and in mutual agreements with other governments, they actually put foreign ordinary passports with the endorsement at the same level as Chinese passport for public affairs.

So now you know in Chiese visa policy, foreign ordinary passports with the endorsements are different from those blank one and it is more close to official-purpose passport like diplomatic and service one, as a result, the right way to make list is to put foreign passport with the endorsement in the same category with diplomatic and service passport.--Whisper of the heart 05:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I've explained why they don't have that right, if it's a violation of conventions as you say then it's not their right. It's no ones right to commit violations, let alone for others to respect that blindly. In this case I've already explained that we can add a note saying "Chinese Government considers these passports as bearing the same rights as official passports" under the section for ordinary passports endorsed for public affairs. But even to add that we need a proof that the Chinese Government indeed does this because it seems your source refers to passports of China which are not the subject of this article. This is the article about Chinese visas, not about Chinese classification of foreign passports anyway. And even if it was now you are saying that China does not treat these passports as diplomatic but equal to their ordinary passports for public affairs which makes your request to group them with diplomatic passports even stranger. So, please provide a valid source and we can add an explanatory note to show that the Chinese Government treats passports differently to their actual type given by the issuing authority. But with the latest information it seems that they don't treat them like diplomatic passports after all.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think I need to have some further explanation to you. It doesn't matter if they violate some "conventions" because visa and immigration policy is domestic law for governments, so we need to record informaton according to their law system, not those so called conventions. However, you don't need to "blindly" respect those domestic policies, we can add some notes which contain the rule of international conventions to bring readers more details. In short, put Chinese policy in the main article and international convention in the note (this may be opposite from yours). In addition, although this article is called "visa" policy, in order to enforce these policies, it is essential for governments to make classifications to those foreign passports and this should be considered as a part of those policies, so of course it is related to this article. I have shown you the source which comes from the Chinese government in this disscusion list a couple of days before, if you have further doubt about that, you can ask anyone you want for explanation, but you shouldn't ignore it. Finally, official-purpose travel documents contains lots of paperwork and they all have different meanings. Although ordinary passport with the stamp and diplomatic passport look so different, both of them are official-purpose travel documents.--Whisper of the heart 07:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Again I agree with you, "visa and immigration policy is domestic law for governments" - that is 100% true and that is why China can classify visas independently. However, passport issuance is the matter of domestic law as well. And the respect for it lies in international conventions, not "so called conventions". Therefore foreign countries have no say in it. They can only recognise foreign issued documents or not but they cannot reclassify them. And it's clear China doesn't do it anyway. I have asked you to provide a source that would at least purport that China is attempting to reclassifying foreign passports and you haven't done so. There is only link provided by you, and it seems to be about passports for public affairs (of China) and their place in the Chinese legal system. No word about making foreign endorsed passports and diplomatic passports equal as you claim. Until you can provide such a source we can't even add a note let alone something more. It is of course OK if you can't provide a source for that, but then we are having a lengthy discussion about something that doesn't even exist. So to sum it up, at it is right now, the main issue is that there is no proof that there is a Chinese policy on making foreign issued ordinary endorsed passports and diplomatic passports. If there is one please provide it so that we can add an explanatory note that would say "Chinese Government considers ordinary endorsed passports as bearing the same rights as diplomatic passports".--Twofortnights (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It's true that people out of a country prefer international standard when the domestic immigration system of a country become different from the international one. However, in this article, we are introducing the "domestic" system, as a result, it is necessary to use the domestic one although it looks so different from the convention. Of course you can say this kind of way that Chinese government classify foreign passports is not recogonized by other countries, but it don't affect that Chinese govenment are performing this policy, so it's inappropriate to ignore it. Using "international" standard makes the article looks strange and make readers more difficult to understand. The source I provided before says the Chinese immigration department will "upgrade" foreign ordinary passport with the endorsement and treat them as the same category of a Chinese passport for public affairs (in the source, they say the ordinary passport with the endorsement become passport for public affairs, you can ask anyone else for tranlation if you have doubt), it doese't mean that those passports are equal to diplomatic or service passport, passport for public affair is a official-use passport lower than service / official passport, you shouldn't misunderstand this point. --Whisper of the heart 18:51, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I never said there should be no mention of it. I clearly stated that if it is true that China has an official reclassification of foreign passports policy then we should make a note about it. But so far it is not clear if this is the case without a valid reference that says this policy extends to foreign passports too. Additionally, the point remains that only the issuing authority determines the passport type so we can't group ordinary passports with diplomatic passports. On the other hand a good compromise is to separate ordinary and ordinary passports endorsed for public affairs. It's what the common sense tells us when you have ordinary, ordinary endorsed and diplomatic passports that the ordinary endorsed should be grouped with the first or separately (as it is right now) and not with the latter one.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a valid note shows that Chinese authorities announce foreign passports the endorsement as a official-use passport and I have put the link here several times, you should not ignore it. In addition, this artical is all about CHINESE visa policy, not introducing how foreign governments issuing or categorizing their passports, so it would be better using the immigration laws made by Chinese governement to introduce everything, if you put this kind of passport seperately, readers who don't know the background will never know what this category represents. Finally, ordinary passport with this "for public affair" stamp is not an ordinary any more and it is a little bit similar to service passport (but still lower than service passport) and that so called "common sense" doesn't work here, that's why we should put this passport along with service and diplomatic passport in a same category. --Whisper of the heart 05:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree entirely on your point that this article is about Chinese visa policy, but I wouldn't stress the word Chinese but the word VISA. Meaning China has authority to classify Chinese visas, however when it comes to foreign issued passports, it has no authority to reclassify them. Also there is no proof beyond talk here that China is even attempting to do that. Also I am not ignoring anything but the source you provided seems to be about Chinese passports. That is where China indeed has the authority. However classification of foreign ordinary passports as diplomatic, that is something I find harder to believe. But even if China does this, it's still something we should put into a note. As for the problem how unfamiliar readers will not be sure which category such passports belong to - well it's because this is sui generis, you can't really classify such passports in any group, that is why it would be the best to list them separately, meaning not with the rest of the ordinary passports but also not with the diplomatic passports. If there is a proof China sees these passports as diplomatic, I think we should note this in the article.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The key word is "Policy", obviously, the policy maker here is the Chinese government, in the policy, they can classify everything including foreign passports because those policies build a whole system and it is not wise to make them seperate here. I have provided related source about what you want here, it is a valid reference no matter how you ignore it. In addition, noboday say ordinary passport with the stamp become a "diplomatic" passport, this is your daydreaming, actually it is between service and ordinary passport, if you even don't know this, you should learn more before editing. Putting notes is necessary here but it is also necessary to list this passport along with the diplomatic and service one because the ordinary passport with the stamp is a official-purpose travel document (don't ask me for source, I have provided a lot of times, don't be blind). Again, ordinary passport with "for public affairs" stamp is neither diplomatic nor service passport, but it's a official-purpose travel document, this make it more similar to diplomatic and service passport and different from blank ordinary passport, this is why we need to put it along with those two kinds of passports. --Whisper of the heart 06:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Key word cannot be policy because it doesn't explain what policy. China can only have a visa policy, it can't have a passport classification policy. Or it may but it wouldn't have any actual effect on passports issued by foreign authority. So no China cannot classify everything with worldwide effect. Not to mention it could be seen as a legal violation by other states. And finally we have an issue that it's not proven China is even attempting to reclassify foreign passports. So far it's only something mention on this talk page. In reality there is no sign of China attempting to declare ordinary passports with endorsement issued by foreign governments as diplomatic passports. That doesn't mean China cannot classify its own passports, but there is a different article on that and it has no bearing on foreign passports. You say how some reference is ignored but the only link you have provided is about Chinese passport classification, and that's not relevant. You can post a link for everything, Chinese recipes for example, but that wouldn't prove China is attempting to reclassify foreign passports even though it would be a perfectly valid source on how to make perfect noodles. So one solution is if there is a valid source to prove how China is attempting to reclassify foreign issued passports to make a note about that, however we don't have to follow anything that the Chinese Government does if it doesn't make sense. But let's not jump ahead of time, we first need to determine whether China is indeed doing this or not, and like I've said I am not ignoring your link, it's just that it's not relevant here.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Every government can have their own passport classification policy and it work along with the visa policy, so we should record what it is. Of course this kind of policy is not recognized worldwide, but this article is "visa policy of China", that means we should introduce the whole system including the passport types identified by Chinese government. In addition, the so called "problem" you said is not exist because Chinese governement doesn't attempt to declear ordinary passport with the stamp as diplomatic passport, it is a kind of passport different from blank ordinary passport which is for official travellers. So the reference I provided is enough to provide that Chinese governement put foreign ordinary passports with the stamp in the same catrgory as a Chinese passport for public affaris which is a official-purpose passport more similar to service passport but not ordinary passport, it's relevant for the article. --Whisper of the heart 09:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that every Government have their own passport classification, but only for their own passports. There is no legal possibility for them to reclassify foreign passports. If China is attempting to do this, and we haven't seen any evidence that it is, then it's of course worth noting. But we can't list ordinary endorsed passports with diplomatic passports as that wouldn't make any sense. This article is called Visa policy of China, and the key word here is Visa, it deals with Chinese visas not with Chinese view on foreign passports. Nonetheless, we don't list endorsed ordinary passports with other ordinary passports either. We list them separately as this is a sui generis case and this is the best solution. As for applying the same classification of Chinese passports, I see that the confusion persists. Once again other countries don't issue separate passports for public affairs like China does, so the fact that you found a source that says China treats own passports for public affairs as official-like cannot be simply applied to foreign passports.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

2008 suspension

Why is the suspension for Singapore during 2008 Beijing Olympics so relevant to be placed in the main table? EU countries regularly suspend certain points of Schengen Agreement during such events yet we don't note it, let alone historically.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Chinese didn't give official explanation about this suspension although this action has a obbious purpose (security for the olympic game) and most media think so. The visa waiver agreement between CN and SG don't include blank ordinary passport. The waiver policy for Singapore blank ordinary passport holders is a unilateral policy. --Whisper of the heart 23:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

OK but why is it relevant in 2015?--Twofortnights (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a piece of history record, nothing to do with 2015.--Whisper of the heart 07:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is it in the article on such a prominent spot?--Twofortnights (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Mongolei

According to Timatic and IATA, China's policy for Mongolia is: "Visa required, except for Nationals of Mongolia with a normal series "E" passport." https://www.timaticweb.com/cgi-bin/tim_website_client.cgi?SpecData=1&VISA=&page=visa&NA=MN&AR=00&PASSTYPES=PASS&DE=CN&user=KLMB2C&subuser=KLMB2C

Now, an "E" passport is the type of passport issued to normal citizens. Does this mean that Mongolian citizens don't need visas for China? (In reality, I have never needed a visa for China, but anecdotal evidence is hardly a source) --chinneeb-talk 13:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

What other normal passport series exist in Mongolia?--Twofortnights (talk) 19:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

None, there are just 3 types: Normal, Diplomatic, and Official, and no subtypes. --chinneeb-talk 18:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, can you elaborate more on the type E passport? I thought the type E is the Mongolian equivalent of the Chinese Passport for Public Affairs. The only reference I can find is the Mongolian consulate in Hailar which calls the PPA "official E passport" [9] (in fact, the PPA is a type of service passport and China does not issue official passports). C-GAUN (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Clarification on the "guide"

To Twofornights, the article, and its information, are for reference only and are not guides. The visa documentation overview was taken from the Regulations and does not contain specific instructions on the application of visas so I do not understand your claim as it is not even close to a guide under WP:NOTAGUIDE. Your edit was, to put it mildly, unhelpful and, as always, why do you always have to take on Chinese-language editors? Weak, dude, super weak.C-GAUN (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all I am going to ask you to stop with racist attacks, this is not the first time you come up with this card as some kind of argument. For your information I have no idea if you are Chinese or not and second of all I do not have any problem with Chinese, if I did I would ignore this article and let it rot, but instead I fight for its perfection. But even if I did it would still not allow you to violate Wikipedia rules.

You have inserted new information to the article and I contest it so the onus is on you to prove that it doesn't violate the rules. Here you briefly say how it does not contain specific instructions on the application of visas. The content you've added describes how an applicant needs to supply a passport, filled-out visa application form V.2013, a one colored photo taken in the last 6 months and a proof of legal residence. I find this to be as specific as possible. If you can explain why you don't see it that way then fine (would love to hear what would be more specific than this in your view), but please don't go and simply reinstate the content, pushing won't help.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, the information are taken from the Regulations, which states the requirement on the LOI and round-trip tickets. The proof of legal residence are not explicitly stated but were taken out of the required document section. That section also states the separate requirements for the work, permanent residence and student visas which I intentionally left out and are very detailed which you can read and compare to my edit. If you have a problem with the passport and form part (yes, I admit it doesn't take a genius to figure it out) you are welcome to take it out and explain it to the talk page but you simply took out the whole section which shows how little regard you have with others' hard work to improve this page as taking stuff out without moderation is not perfecting an article.

By the way, I made the remark simply because I felt you are intentionally picking Chinese-language editors to start fights and I was pointing it out by addressing the problem. I never said I was Chinese (the 130 million ethnic minorities in China all read and write Chinese characters and so do the 100 million ethnic-Chinese outside China) or you had a problem with Chinese people (to be honest, I really don't care whether you do or not), so this really has nothing to do with racism and I seriously don't know why you are the one who's been crying foul. Anyway, now that it's all clear, I am relieved to know that you're not. Since you did not object to the LOI in the posts above, I am going to leave the part in and remove the rest as a gesture of goodwill here. C-GAUN (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Two issues with the article

- The visa validity agreement table should have a column to denote the duration of stay as this is a more relevant factor regarding the visa obtained.

- Who the heck thinks a passport "for public affairs" is a normal passport? IT IS NOT. I, myself travelled in China many times and I'm even married with a Chinese but heck to think i can ever get a "public affairs" passport and be exempt to travel in China without a visa. The "public affairs" is a GOVERNMENT PASSPORT people and this should be denoted on the "Special agreements map", not the "standard map" where most people seem the get guidance on which country can go to China without a visa, and at present these are VERY FEW. 217.138.48.74 (talk) 10:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the first point: duration of stay is not included in sources from Chinese government, and per Wikipedia guidelines, all information on this article needs to be properly sourced. It's common knowledge that US and Canadian citizens' 10-year L visas are good for 60 days of stay per entry, the UK 90 days, but little is known about other nationalities. If the table includes these information it would be misleading as lots of spaces would be missing, plus it may be removed at any time because it's unverified.

Second point: this article is about the visa policy of China and mainly caters to non-Chinese citizens, and in many European countries, this "public affairs" passport is sometimes just normal passport with a special government stamp which makes them accessible to frequent business travelers. Its's highly irrelevant to discuss the types of Chinese passports on THIS page because holders of Chinese passports, regardless of type, are not subject to their own government's immigration control. C-GAUN (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Updated picture of a Chinese visa

As some recent travellers might know, the visa structure was updated but a picture of it is yet to be uploaded and approved by the general consensus. Can we have a civilised discussion regarding this matter and let certain users like User:Twofortnights that something like this is necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexceltare2 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

As explained, the image that you are trying to add has been heavily photoshopped with fictional text added over the file claiming that it is genuine.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Renaming this Wiki to 'Visa Policy of Mainland China'

This is to distinguish Mainland China from Hong Kong/Macau (which have different visa schemes) and the Republic of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OSSYULYYZ (talk • contribs) 23:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Support: As the greater China is usually divided into three territories for immigration purposes (excluding Taiwan), it makes more sense if Visa policy of China is renamed to Visa policy of mainland China to be more clear, as "Visa Policy of China" may include Hong Kong and Macau, but it does not. And so "Visa policy of mainland China" will clearly distinguish it from "Visa policy of Hong Kong" and "Visa policy of Macau". S 0524 (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there an article on COVID restrictions on entering China?

Félix An (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Vietnam

Hi JaventheAlderick, Could you include a reference that proves Vietnamese citizens holding passports with AB stamps are allowed in visa-free? I cannot find any information on this AB stamp on the internet. All I read was Vietnamese citizens that are travelling to China for public affairs purposes can enter China visa-free... If an AB stamp is equivalent to a public affairs endorsement, I cannot find references in any language that says all Vietnamese citizens are eligible for an AB stamp. If no references can address these two issues, I believe Vietnam should be removed from the list. Temptation115 (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Temptation115 See my reply on my talk page. JaventheAldericky (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Now that the Vietnam issue has been clarified, I think a visa policy map update would be beneficial to prevent other readers from making the same mistake of thinking Vietnam and Mongolia nationals require a "public affairs endorsement" to enter visa-free... JaventheAldericky (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

i searched for the AB stamp, it seems that the AB stamp is a kind of visa exemption form for general passport holders.

However, there is no basis for Vietnamese visa waivers to China with AB stamps.

Timatic alone lacks evidence.

Data from the Chinese or Vietnamese governments are required.

So far.. As @Techie3 said, the AB stamp appears to be awarded to holders of 'Public Affairs' passports, as described on the Vietnamese embassy for Malaysia or Vietnamese embassy for Poland websites. Lades2222 (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Lades2222: As mentioned in the discussion on my talk page, @Techie3: and I came to a compromise to list Vietnam in italics in the "Visa exemption for ordinary passports" subsection because the availability of AB stamps to Vietnamese passport holders is unclear. There is an official domestic Vietnamese government website (linked here) that shows that Vietnamese citizens only need to pay a fee to obtain the AB stamp (there are no additional restrictions listed on who is eligible to obtain the AB stamp, it only says "ordinary passport holders travelling abroad"). Techie3 also found that the Vietnamese embassy in Malaysia only issues AB stamps for "holders of ordinary passport holders on official duty only". The two different Vietnamese government sources imply that AB stamps are generally available to Vietnamese inside Vietnam (for a fee), but at the same time are not generally issued to most Vietnamese outside of Vietnam.

Separately, the Timatic database lists the AB stamp as being distinct from "public affairs" passports issued to nationals of other foreign countries - a Vietnamese "public affairs" passport is not listed as being eligible for visa-free travel to China, and I'm unable to find a current source that suggests otherwise; neither the Vietnamese domestic government website nor the Vietnamese embassy in Malaysia website mention anything about "public affairs" passports either. JaventheAldericky (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The phrase being translated to support this is "Tem AB là một loại giấy miễn thị thực cho người mang hộ chiếu phổ thông đi công tác nước ngoài." Google's translatation is "AB stamp is a kind of visa-free paper for ordinary passport holders traveling abroad", but I think Google is missing some words which changes the meaning. Techie3 (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)