Talk:Visa policy of the Philippines

Re-Entry Permits?

Any info on Re-Entry Permits for Immigrants? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Presidentbalut (talk • contribs) 21:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed a cite

In this edit, I've removed a cite because it contradicts another cited source. This is a judgement call on my part -- other editors may interpret WP:IRS and WP:DUE differently as they pertain to this. I removed the cite of this document on the Philippine Consulate General of Los Angeles website because it contradicts this page (still cited) of the Philippines Department of Foreign Affairs website regarding passport holders afforded 14 and 7 day entry periods. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense, however, the information from Timatic which is the up to date IATA database based on information supplied by national governments (and important in sense that no one can board a plane to Philippines if the Timatic suggests they need a visa and they don't have a visa) should be used to check individual countries that were removed. Timatic gives the same information as for those countries that undoubtedly don't require a visa (such as France) - Visa required, except for A max. stay of 30 days for holders of passports issued to nationals of Andorra, Vatican City and Angola. So I will reenter them into the article. You may find the summary of visa regime here.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Resynced the Visa waiver program section with the supporting source cited.

In this edit I WP:BOLDLY resynchronized the list of countries in the Visa waiver program section with this supporting source cited in the article.

The edit made the following changes:

• There are 158 entries in the list in this supporting source cited by the article, so I've changed the number 157 in the article to read 158 There are 158 items in the list in the article after my edit, Brazil and Israel in one subsection and 156 other countries in another subsection..
• I've removed the assertion that the Philippines affords visa free entry to all EU citizens. This is not explicitly supported by the cited supporting source. Prior to my edit, the article wikilinked the Passports of the European Economic Area here, which shows pictures of some passports; I don't know how those passports relate to EU member states. I note that the European Union and Member state of the European Union articles list the same 28 EU member States, however (1) WP articles are not reliable sources and (2) Grouping those 28 member states together would introduce a an inconsistency into this article if/when the EU membership changes (and a WP:DATED problem if the membership list is unqualified here with an {{as of}} disclaimer.
• Comparing the list in the cited supporting source item-by-item, I've made the following changes or have the following comments re individual items listed in the article:
  • added Austria (current EU member listed individually by the supporting source)
  • added Belgium (current EU member listed individually by the supporting source)
  • comment: left Brunei unchanged in the list (it is Brunei Darussalam in the supporting source)
  • added Bulgaria (current EU member listed individually by the supporting source)
  • comment: left Republic of the Congo unchanged (it is Congo in the supporting source)
  • comment: left DR Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo) unchanged
    • I note that the Foreign relations of the Philippines article lists Republic of the Congo as a country with which the Philippines has diplomatic relations, and does not list the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
    • I note that the supporting source lists both Congo and Democratic Republic of the Congo.
    • I note that Republic of the Congo is listed sorted with the Cs and DR Congo is listed sorted with the Ds. Perhaps it would be better to list Congo, showing both flagicons and explaining this in a footnote.
  • added Croatia (current EU member listed individually by the supporting source)
  • added Cyprus (current EU member listed individually by the supporting source)
  • added Czech Republic (current EU member listed individually by the supporting source)
  • added Denmark (current EU member listed individually by the supporting source)
  • added Estonia (current EU member listed individually by the supporting source)
  • added Finland (current EU member listed individually by the supporting source)
  • added France (current EU member listed individually by the supporting source)
  • added Germany (current EU member listed individually by the supporting source)
  • added Greece (current EU member listed individually by the supporting source)
  • comment: left Holy See unchanged (it is listed as Vatican in the supporting source)
  • added Hungary (current EU member listed individually by the supporting source)
  • added Iceland (listed individually by the supporting source)
  • added Ireland (current EU member listed individually by the supporting source)
  • added Italy (current EU member listed individually by the supporting source)
  • comment: left Laos unchanged in the list (it is Lao People’s Democratic Republic in the supporting source)
  • added Latvia (current EU member listed individually by the supporting source)
  • added Liechtenstein (listed individually in the supporting source)
  • added Lithuania (current EU member listed individually by the supporting source)
  • added Luxembourg (current EU member listed individually by the supporting source)
  • added Malta (listed individually by the supporting source)
  • added Netherlands (current EU member listed individually by the supporting source)
  • added Norway (listed individually by the supporting source)
  • added Poland (current EU member listed individually by the supporting source)
  • added Portugal (current EU member listed individually by the supporting source)
  • added Romania (current EU member listed individually by the supporting source)
  • comment: did not add Republic of Korea (listed and sorted as South Korea in the article)
  • added Slovak Republic (current EU member listed individually by the supporting source)
  • added Slovenia (current EU member listed individually by the supporting source)
  • added Somalia (listed individually by the supporting source)
  • added Spain (current EU member listed individually by the supporting source)
  • added Sweden (current EU member listed individually by the supporting source)
  • added Switzerland (listed individually by the supporting source)
  • added United Kingdom (current EU member listed individually by the supporting source)

Please improve as needed. If I've screwed something up, please fix it. Please try not to make unsupported changes in this list of countries. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Well OK it's one way to list them, but they were listed as EU to avoid the unnecessary clutter. There is no correct way here, just two optios, however keep in mind that the EU is not just another organization, there actually is a European Union citizenship and the EU actually signs visa agreements with other countries as such example (sorry for using this accidentally in unrelated edit summary). EEA is a slightly broader term that includes 4 countries that are not politically members of the EU but enjoy the same economic rights as the EU citizens and form the same freedom of movement zone and usually they are granted the same rights in other countries as well.

Number of EU member states is pretty consistent and widely known, so the comment on that does not stand. It's in no way different to the number of US states, it doesn't fluctuate. New member states are admitted, true, but it's just one of many ways the article can get outdated.

As for the number of countries, it is 157 as Somalia was removed, although it is still listed on that link. However take a look at this: Somalia now joins a list of countries including China and Taiwan whose nationals are prohibited from entering the country without government endorsement. "Somali nationals may apply for visas at Philippine embassies or consulates in their countries of origin or residence," the statement said.

If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You and I have a difference of opinion here on presentation re EU citizens. I don't think that WP should assert that the 30 day visa free policy applies to all European Union / EFTA citizens unless there is some verifiable issuance by the Philippine government saying that this is the case specifically relative to citizens of those countries as a group.

I agree that he Timatic information is useful. Looking at that source now, however, I see that information therein appears to differ with the article and with other cited sources in some respects (e.g., re India, Pakistan, Croatia, perhaps others). I think this would be better presented not as a source supporting an assertion about the policy of the Philippine government but, rather, supporting an assertion that Timetic provides data about the Philippines which is used by airlines to determine whether a passenger can be carried. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Well like I've said it's just a different way to present things, but if you have 28 EU member states, and the Philippines grant visa-free access to 28 EU member states, then you don't really need a separate source to say that the Philippines grant visa-free access to all EU citizens, it's all within the range of acceptable synthesis. But anyway, it's only a small technical matter and current presentation is just fine. As for Timatic, it's the duty of the Philippine Government to notify IATA which runs that service of any changes to visa policy. Some countries are diligent and notify even of the smallest changes, some countries couldn't care less. Writing about a source and how is it used in this article wouldn't be acceptable though because it's simply not the subject of the article. What I would do, if Philippines does not regularly update IATA on their policy changes, I would simply remove Timatic as a source from this article.--Twofortnights (talk) 08:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Re EU, I see it as a fragilitiy of possible WP:DATED deterioration of WP article assertion validity if the EU admits or ejects a member. Re Timatic, I don't agree that is the responsibility of a sovereign national government to keep any particular nongovernmental organization or commercial company up to date regarding their policies. I think, contrarily, that it is the responsibility of (or at least in the best interests of) nongovernmental organizations and commercial companies with an interest in the policies of national governments to keep themselves up to date. If WP editors find that Timatic is providing outdated or incorrect information on this particular point re this particular country, it might be reasonable to regard Timatic as an unreliable sources of information on that topic, or it might be a good idea to treat their view as an alternative viewpoint (see WP:DUE). Injecting a WP:OR comment here, I live in the Philippines, and I have heard on the grapevine that some of the info in the Timatic info reflects actual practice in at least some cases. Airlines would be concerned with actual practice here, but reports of such practice in WP articles, especially reports relying on sources in conflict with other sources, ought to be guided by WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes I understood the concern but I am just saying it's not a reason to worry about as it is unlikely any member state will be ejected like it happens in Commonwealth or CIS, the EU membership is different because it is a supranational organization, incomparable to regional organizations. Even if it would happen it would take so long to go through the process that we wouldn't be caught by surprise. As for addition of new member states, that is announced at least two years in advance so we absolutely won't be caught by surprise here either, more likely source of the article being outdated is the change in visa policy rather than the change in EU membership. Anyway it's not a big deal, it's just the matter of clutter, but it's perfectly fine this way as well :) As for Timatic, some countries simply fail to inform IATA of their policy changes diligently, but it's not the problem of Timatic but of those countries. Why? Well Timatic is just a system, it's not even a stand-alone thing, it's a name for the automated system created by IATA (also published on paper). There is the opposite case as well - Malaysia, they inform IATA diligently but on their official pages they list visa policies that name entities such as Upper Volta and Zaire. So we always have to go through multiple sources and then try to write a good article. I agree with what you said about WP:DUE, in some articles it is inevitable to write "According to X, the visa policy is and according to Y the visa policy is and according to Z the visa policy is" although such countries are a minority. Keep in mind that some countries do neither, they don't regularly inform IATA and they don't update their pages so there is no place online to find the valid visa policy information. Those are for an example Iran, Egypt, Syria, Congo. I of course wish it wasn't like this but some countries are simply careless.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we've pretty much beaten this to death discussion-wise. I'm not wedded to any of my changes -- neither the ones we've discussed nor the ones we've not discussed. Improve as needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Visa Policy Map Improvement

Hello, I guess the color of the Philippine Visa Policy map needs to be changed for a better view. Here are some of my suggested colors for the following legends.

• Dark Green - for Brazil and Israel
• Green - for all other visa exempt nationals, except Hong Kong and Macau
• Light Green - for Hong Kong and Macau
• Light Blue - for Taiwan
• The color of the Philippines and visa requiring nationals will remain the same

That's only my suggestion though. Thanks.-- Sephthegentleman (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2017 (UTC)