Talk:Brazilian passport

Passport Eligibility

Where it states that Brazilian citizenship is a requirement is actually mistaken, there is a foreigner´s passport issued by the Brazilian government, it´s the one with a yellow cover and it´s issued upon fullfilment of certain conditions so I ask that the wrong information is corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.43.7.69 (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Map

Hi, could someone please make a map indicating the countries who have visa-waiver agreements

To whoever made the unsigned comment above: I made it. :-) --UrsoBR (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

VISA FREE

This section tells lies, can someone fix it? Reaper7 (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"Lies"? I believe that is too strong a word, especially since there are people making a serious effort to keep the information in this article up-to-date, as can be seen from its version history. Imprecisions, unreliable and outdated information can occur, of course. For example, there are contradictory official web pages of the Albanian government, some saying that Brazilians can get a visa on arrival, others saying that a previous consular visa is needed. If I were to go to Albania, I would never go without checking it first directly with an Albanian consulate - which, of course, applies to any country, since it is impossible to keep this page 100% up-to-date, as different countries change their rules all the time. Not even Timatic is 100% accurate and I wouldn't trust it as an authoritative source.

Anyway, I believe the "visa-free" sections on national passport articles are meant not as an authoritative reference (which they could never be) for travelers of that nationality, but rather intended to give a general idea of how free to travel citizens of that country are, or how welcome or unwelcome they tend to be abroad.

But you said the section tells lies. Well, lying implies that someone is trying to deceive other people knowingly and on purpose, and this is a serious accusation, especially on Wikipedia. I would ask you to please be more specific and tell us who is lying to whom, and how. --UrsoBR (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Here we go, enjoy: Classification,

Types of lies The various types of lies include the following: Fabrication: A fabrication is a lie told when someone submits a statement as truth, without knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true. Although the statement may be possible or plausible, it is not based on fact. From this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

The map on this page was submitted without 'knowing for certain whether or not it actually is true.' The UK is not Visa Free for Brazilians. Neither is the EU. Both are shown as Visa Free on the map. This is a serious misrepresentation, even for Wiki's standards. Try to deal with this reality and perhaps don't waste your time on dissecting the English language which clearly is not one of your stronger points. Either fix the map, or wait for someone else to - waste your time if you wish working out why it is a misrepresentation, not other's. I am here to improve articles which are wrong or misleading, not to debate who made the mistake and why. Next time, research the word that interested you here lie. See that it has a wide meaning, not strictly defined like you hoped. Then if you still believe someone has been hard done by or wrongly accused, waste our time only then. Or perhaps just try to correct the map or agree it is annotated with 5 sections and annotated incorrectly. Either way, please attempt to work out what is more important. Reaper7 (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, the UK and the Schengen zone are visa-free for Brazilians. The links are given in the article: [1] (UK Border Agency official Web site), [2] and [3] (official documents of the Council of the European Union dealing with entry to the Schengen zone). They are all official, authoritative sources, and therefore could never be called "fabrications," "lies" or "misrepresentations." Of course, Brazilians would indeed need visas for extended stays, work, permanent residence, etc., but so would any foreign national virtually anywhere (except within the EU and a few other country associations), and "visa-free" sections are not intended to cover these kinds of situations.

But that's not the point, and I'm not going to let you walk away from it under the excuse of your "practical" stance and self-proclaimed role as a quality control watchdog. This page has had several contributors who checked and tried to accurately source the visa-free or visa-on-arrival status of each mentioned country or territory. That is, we "know for certain that it is true" as far as the truth or accuracy of that information could be verified - and the map that you vaguely criticised accurately depicts that information. It has been serious volunteer work, and we deserve respect. And we have absolutely no reason or obligation whatsoever to make corrections to the article solely based on your opinion that the article "tells lies" or because you think we must. First give us good, sound reasons - and give them with civility and respect.

If you found our work unsatisfactory, or even "wrong" or "misleading," you should have discussed the issues you believe exist in the article, pointed out what was wrong, made suggestions, talked to us, and together we could make the article better. Like, "sorry, but I believe the information in the 'visa-free' section is [inaccurate/incorrect/badly sourced/whatever]. The information found in [these links/sources] contradicts what is stated there. I think the accuracy could be improved by [doing this and that]. What do you think?" That would be what a conscious, scrupulous contributor would say.

Instead, look what wrote above, and made worse later... How arrogant, how gross, how disrespectful - and especially useless, because you didn't even bother to say what you thought were "lies." Let's forget for a moment how insulting the word "lie" is (even though you know very well how charged that word is - and knew it when you wrote your first remark - and how people don't take it lightly, regardless of your attempts to relativise it with all that semantic gibberish). The fact remains that you gave no real feedback to improve the article. You just said that it "tells lies." Later, you said that you are not here "to debate who made the mistake and why." Great, but if you claim the article is "lying," then you must say why you think so. Otherwise, it's just an empty statement - and a very rude one.

Perhaps we here are not as good contributors as you would expect us to be. Well, sorry for disappointing you, then. But you are not the only one to be disappointed. In order to be a good contributor to Wikipedia, one certainly must do one's best to provide good and accurate content and be committed to its quality. But being a good contributor goes beyond that: it also necessarily includes following some basic policies and principles that Wikipedia explicitly details in dedicated articles, of which you may not be aware. I suggest that you read them carefully: Civility, No personal attacks, Assume good faith. You have violated all these policies at once. Perhaps you think they are a "waste of time" as well. In that case, allow me to strongly disagree. Wikipedia and your fellow contributors deserve better than this kind of attitude.

Now, if you have some constructive advice for us, if you can conduct a civilised dialogue, if you have grounds and sources for needed corrections, and suggestions to offer, we will be delighted to hear you. Otherwise, be a good boy and keep quiet. --UrsoBR (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I cannot believe you are still wrong and displaying confidence with being wrong? I stopped reading (sorry I can see you have written and lot and taken time) when you said Brazilians can come to the UK without a Visa. In fact, Brazilians require Visa to even be a tourist in the UK, this happens on arrival, a section on the map, but not covered for the EU - hugely misleading. If you knew a Brazilian in the UK would know everyone of them has a Visa stamped in their passport on arrival. Hold on, just reading the words above my post? 'Good boy keep quiet?' You better report me now for the lying comment, I will just point them to the article on lies like I did you where there is grey area. Report me now is my advice, because I am reporting you as we speak for this creepy quite boy comment. I am afraid it is in the hands of those above us now, reply if you wish, I will not. If there is an apology on page by tomorrow I will drop my offence at this comment. If not I will leave my Private complaint unedited. Good day. Reaper7 (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you please calm down both? I don't see any good for the article by reporting each other! Accusations, characterizations, threats, sarcasm are not useful at all, and you have both done them all! Now, I am sure UrsoBR is doing a great job to keep the article up-to-date, and I am also sure thatReaper only wanted to point out what he regarded as inaccuracies, without providing however sources, which contradict the ones the article has. As far as the UK is concerned, I do not have a personal experience, but the source the article provides (which indeed comes from the competent authority) seems to indicate that indeed a Brazilian citizen can stay in the UK without visa for up to 6 months (while a UK citizen can stay in Brazil without a visa for 90 day). Reaper, do you have another source you can provide? Is there something I do not understand properly?--Yannismarou (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am a Brasilian citizen, you are allowed a 6 months Visa as a tourist when you come to the Eurepean Union, it is put in your passport. I have had friends who immigration did not believe, so they were denied the Visa. Brasilian are always asked why they come, wheere they stay and if the authorities believe, they give you the Visa as a mark in your passport. Reaper7 is right. 212.188.202.162 (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this also the case for the UK or only for the Shengen area? These are two different things (UK is not in the Shengen zone). We need some clarifications and sources. Unfortunately, personal experiences are not enough for WP:RELIABLE SOURCES and WP:VERIFY. Thanks, however, for the input.--Yannismarou (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As for Reaper7, I will say no more. Anyone who reads the above comments may draw his or her conclusions...

As for the EU "visa," I think my fellow compatriot may be confusing things. Any person of any nationality arriving in a foreign country (except where special transit provisions exist, such as within the Schengen zone) is subject to questioning (which, for Brazilians, in some Schengen countries such as Spain can be indeed very tough, and in the UK often borders on abuse), and admission depends on the discretion of the immigration officer, who may impose stricter limits than usual and even deny entry. And neither a previously issued visa nor the absence of a visa requirement (as the case may be) guarantee that the person will be admitted into the other country in any particular case.

If the visitor is admitted, depending on the visited country's practice (and often again at the officer's discretion), a stamp may be placed on the passport (or sometimes on a separate sheet of paper, or sometimes nowhere at all) stating how long one can stay in that country (or group of countries, in the case of the European travel zones). This is what the unidentified Brazilian was talking about - the final word on that person's admission and permitted stay, as decided by the immigration officer. This is not a "visa" as the word is understood in this section - i.e., a preliminary clearance. Any "visa-free" country will do that on arrival. Although very uncommon and unlikely in practice, it may happen even in Mercosul countries, where we Brazilians do not even need a passport and can enter just with our common ID cards.

Then, of course, there is the grey zone of the "visa-on-arrival" countries: for Brazilians, and according to the article's information, some examples would be the Dominican Republic, Indonesia and Egypt. What is the difference? I suppose we could define that as the existence of additional administrative procedures on arrival similar to those that would be performed in an embassy of consulate for a visa (even if in a simplified, "express" form), and especially conditioning admission to the payment of a visa fee.

I think the Schengen and UK/Ireland travel zones fit neither the criterium for "visa required" (since no consular procedures are made in advance for ordinary visits) nor the "visa-on-arrival" criterium (at least as I defined it above). Just questioning, refusal or admission, stamp, no fee. Where is the visa?

So, we have a matter of definition here - what is a "visa," what do "visa required," "visa-on-arrival" and "visa-free" mean? I believe that if the mentioned EU stamp is a "visa," then no visa-free country exists... --UrsoBR (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Russia visa-free?

http://www.russiatoday.com/Top_News/2008-11-26/Russia_and_Brazil_agree_to_visa-free_travel_.html

Why isn't Russia mentioned as visa-free? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.255.215.11 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Beacuse the traty has yet to be ratified. That will take a few months. When it is, Russia will be added as visa-free. Passportguy (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Cover picture

Can somebody just revert the picture to one of the previous ones? It may be better resolution, but it's still poorly shot, has reflexes and doesn't really portray the color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.181.252.111 (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair use for DPRK forgeries?

Does anyone think we have a fair use case to include images of the counterfeits generated for the North Korean leaders? They appear to be scans from a government organization. Would be neat to include something for Josef Pwag and Ijong Tchoi.

Images: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-kim-passports-exclusive/exclusive-north-korean-leaders-used-brazilian-passports-to-apply-for-western-visas-sources-idUSKCN1GB2AY

PvOberstein (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)