Talk:Visa requirements for Israeli citizens

Can someone update this page?

Israelis citizens will be able to enter Saudi Arabia following the new peace deals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.130.156.100 (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Nice infographic

Great idea to use four different shades of green on the "visa requirements" map. 5.95.209.181 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

why isn't "Egypt" in the list of African countries while you can clearly see it highlighted in the map ?

21:02 16/5/10 - by jozef48 ( as guest this time. ) I heard that a new agreement between Israel and Ukrain of free visa was made. I don't know when it starts... Good luck nice article!:) ;) Really helped me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.109.87 (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

(1) What about Kosovo? Israel did not recognize them as an independent state, but what about getting in visa-free with an Israeli passport? When under UN administration, that place was open to all, but now that they are (unilaterally) independent, they are apparently enforcing some visa policy of their own. (2) The agreement with Ukraine has been signed, but it will still take some time between it gets into effect. Just as the agreement with Russia: there has been a huge amount of time between the moment they "decided to sign" and the moment Israeli citizens could effectively travel to Russia visa-free, with even a lot of uncertainty in the first months, some Russian customs officers sticking to the old idea that only people from Belarus, etc., would not need a visa to enter Russia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.85.46 (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi I am a US citizen with several Israeli stamps in my passport and was looking at this Wiki article so I know where it would be difficult for me to travel to and I noticed that you had listed Qatar as one country that will not allow entry to passport holders with Israeli stamps and thought I should share that I entered Qatar through Doha airport August, 2010 and the Qatari immigration lady let me in the country without a glitch and she must have noticed the Israeli stamp in my passport since she gave me the Qatari stamp next to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.52.139.252 (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Qatar?

The map shows Qatar as a country that doesn't accept Israeli documents but I know for a fact (because I asked Qatar immigration directly) that they do accept Israeli passports (if a visa is issued) and do not restrict the entry of those with Israeli stamps. Perhaps we need a more accurate map? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Belize - Visa free

Belize does not require a visa from Israeli passport holders anymore. The map should be updated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.20.48 (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2011

Re: Myanmar

Visa on arrival, what does it mean? It means visa is issued on arrival. If visa is issued then it means visa is required. You can't describe the situation as "Visa required with exceptions" because then it would say Visa not required for 28 days, if arriving at Yangon from Siem Reap, Guangzhou or Phnom Penh on MAI. but it doesn't, it says Visa on arrival for 28 days, if arriving at Yangon from Siem Reap, Guangzhou or Phnom Penh on MAI.. Therefore visa is always required, however if arriving at Yangon from Siem Reap, Guangzhou or Phnom Penh on MAI, Israeli citizens do not have to obtain it in advance in the Myanmar consulate, but they can obtain it on the airport in Yangon.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

"Visa required with exceptions" - it is not means Visa not required for 28 days! Exceptions - it's means exception to the usual situation! Usually a visa required! But in some cases - Visa available on arrival for 28 days, if.....! Inside the column "Note" - written explanation of these exceptions!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.81.17 (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That is exactly my point, but it seems you are lost in translation a bit here, your English doesn't seem very good so you don't seem to understand that saying "Visa required with exceptions" means that in some situations visa is not required which is not the case. To put it in simple words - Situation 1: Visa is required Situation 2: Visa is required - where is the exception? Also Visa available on arrival still means visa is required!--Twofortnights (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Programming variables issue

I don't really understand the issue but there seems to be one because there is some edit warring going on. So please discuss the matter instead of undoing edits back and forth.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The issue is normal editors haven't a clue about template programming. Chunk5Darth took a template, copied the code and pasted it into an article. YOU DON'T DO THAT. No article has template programming variables. There are plenty of ways to add colour without the unnecessary and redundant template code. There are already template to add any colour. {{{style|}}} is a variable that does nothing. The noinclude don't need to be there. Do it right. Bgwhite (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

If you're the coding expert, perhaps you'd like to remember the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia and do a bit more than just SHOUTING? (You have still not supplied a clearly defined policy that supports your statement.) By all means, WP:FIXIT, the rest of us simpletons will be grateful, as will the readers. Chunk5Darth (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion to add colour is just to use something like...

<span style="colour:<!-- A colour of your choosing -->">Text</span>

But otherwise you could just use {{colour|A colour}}.. and also @Chunk5Darth: see WP:IGNOREALLRULES policy's are not set in stone. Its up to you to be competent Lor^Chat 01:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Chunk5Darth, you don't even know what the copied code does is proof enough that programming should not be in articles. An average editor must be able to edit a page and 99.9% of editors do not know template programming. As I already said in the edit summary, there are already templates that do any colour. Some obvious ones are {{color}} and {{background color}}. Bgwhite (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

So it's back to square one, Bgwhite: you claim that 99.9% of editors do not know template programming, but somehow expect us all to "do it right". If the article looks right, it means the job is done, thus the "how" bears little to no significance anymore. You shouldn't have reverted the outcome, you should have fixed the parameters instead, just like I already told you. Lor, I advise you to tone it down with the name calling (especially considering the less-than-competent level of grammar demonstrated in your latest response). Chunk5Darth (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

A side question - is there a way to make the text and background of different color? Because it doesn't really work this way.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Twofortnights, look at {{no}}, {{yes}} and {{partial}}, the three colour templates already used in the article. The doc page gives examples of templates with different colours. Help:Table gives examples for colours in tables. Be aware of accessibility issues relating to color. No bright red or green background with black text. Colour blind won't be able to see the text. Bgwhite (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "look at templates", Bgwhite? When I did that, you began that revert frenzy because I didn't "do it right". I assume Twofortnights has no more technical knowledge, and you expect them to simply look at the same template and know how to apply the code in a manner that won't use redundant parameters? I'm really confused at this point. Chunk5Darth (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

How do we proceed from here? Will there be a logical conclusion to this? Chunk5Darth (talk) 22:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I think a RFC needs to be made out of this @Bgwhite: @Chunk5darth: Lor^Chat 00:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I've already given the answer. I've showed two ways to add color correctly. I didn't say "look at templates". Twofortnights did take the info given and has been adding color. The two ways are the same way EVERY OTHER Wikipedia page with color uses. Lor, there is nothing more to do because Chunk already refuses to act on given advice, but only acts in anger. An RFC will do nothing more than say to read the given pages. Bgwhite (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not anger, Bgwhite, but frustration. You would rather the article look less accessible than your precious code be unfit by your programming standards. I also suggested that you WP:FIXIT, but you refused to act on it, preferring to preach instead. None of this would have happened if you would act like the tech savvy editor that you are by doing it yourself. Chunk5Darth (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Protected

I've fully protected the article due to the recent edit warring. Work it out on the talk page and follow WIkipedia:Dispute resolution processes. Dreadstar ☥ 21:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The initial edit on 17 May was intended to differentiate visually between "Visa required" and "Admission refused", which up until then had both rendered as black text on a light red background (color:#FF9999). This was achieved by use of the template {{no}} and there are a selection of templates that can colour a table cell's background shown on the documentation page Template:No.

I would recommend that a colour be agreed for the cells marked "Admission refused", e.g.

Visa required

Admission refused

or perhaps

Visa required

Admission refused

as that would match the "Admission refused" with the legend on the map above (although a ref would be near invisible). In any event, if the editors here can reach agreement on what colour scheme they want, within the bounds of MOS:COLOR, I'm sure either they or I can implement that scheme. Just ping me if needed. --RexxS (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

RexxS, this isn't about colour scheme. As long as it meets accessibility guidelines, I don't care about the color. This is about implementing the color. It should not be done with template programming as this is an article and not a template. This is about doing the color the same way as every other article on Wikipedia does color. Bgwhite (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

...which has absolutely no impact on the article quality, which brings us right back to why this is disruptive on Bgwhite's end. This has been a complete waste of time for no good reason whatsoever. Chunk5Darth (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@RexxS:, please help me with what I've been trying to achieve here. This is the closest I managed to get so far:

Visa required

Admission refused

Chunk5Darth (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I read up on the argument before commenting. But what I'd like to point out is that the article is presently fully-protected; the way to move forward is draw a line under the disagreements and concentrate on what needs to be done to improve the article. The article would be improved, in my humble opinion, if there were a visual distinction between cells containing "Admission refused" and cells containing "Visa required". Could we just agree to use template {{no}} for "Visa required" and then agree text/background colours for the cells containing "Admission refused"? If necessary, we have the template {{Font color}} which can set both colours. The moment we have an agreement, we can ask Dreadstar to remove protection as there would no longer be a need for it. Can we do what's best for the article, please?

Additional: @Chunk5Darth: The change you suggest (using {{background color}}) is a step in the right direction. The problem with {{background color|red|Admission refused}} is that it produces this sort of result:   Admission refused   which is hard to read for many viewers (myself included). There's a tool at Colour Contrast Check that shows how well colour combinations comply with accessibilty guidelines. It shows that red (#FF0000) and black (#000000) have insufficient brightness and colour differences. Please feel free, though, to suggest other possibilities - you can check them out yourself with the tool, of course, to ensure accessibility. How about   Admission refused   which can be produced by {{background color|#AAAAFF|Admission refused}}? --RexxS (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@RexxS: I still think that we're wasting time because nothing prevents us from using a template code in an article, other than Bgwhite's own personal preferences, which are not nearly enough reason to start an edit war that resulted in a full protection and a whole bunch of editors engaging in a time consuming discussion. As for the color, red is the most attention-drawing color and is frequently used in similar situations for that reason, and that is why I thought it would be most appropriate for "Admission refused". Would a bold font help in your opinion (Admission refused)? Chunk5Darth (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss improvements to the article here, but I have no intention of discussing other editors - hope that helps.

Now, I understand your reason for suggesting a red background, but saturated background colours generally cause difficulties for many types of vision problems and I would discourage consideration of them for use in our articles. The bold font does not improve readability of black-on-red for me and would violate MOS:BOLD. As I see it, we are already using shades of green, cyan, yellow and red for "Visa not required"/"Electronic Travel Authorization"/"Visa on arrival"/"Visa required". I would suggest then that one of blue, magenta, black, grey or white be selected for the background of "Admission refused" and, if needed, we use Snook's Colour Contrast Check tool to pick a shade to ensure WCAG 2.0 compatibility. What do you think? --RexxS (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I like this one,

Admission refused

just my 2c --Twofortnights (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

White on black it is then. Can the "siege" be lifted now? Chunk5Darth (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that given Bgwhite's indication above that he would be content with any colour scheme as long as it was properly implemented, I think that there is solid consensus for:

Visa required

Admission refused

In the light of that, I'm more than happy to ask Dreadstar to end the full protection early as there now seems no prospect of an editwar. Thanks to all who contributed. --RexxS (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• Good job everyone on finding a consensus, I've lifted the protection from the article. Dreadstar ☥ 23:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Belarus

Although an agreement has been signed, a visa is still needed. This article does not discuss future plans, it lists the current state of affairs regarding Israeli passport holders. Information that is not directly pertinent to that does not belong in this article. Chunk5Darth (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

So why are you removing content that clearly says "Visa-free agreement signed, not yet ratified."? Because what you wrote above would be valid only if the article said "Visa-free regime is in place". But the article correctly explains that the visa-free agreement is not yet enforced. And there is no WP:CRYSTAL, the article does not talk about some uncertain possibility, it talks about an event certain to take place which is clearly excluded from the WP:CRYSTAL rule. As for the question of whether the article deals with the current state of affairs, well the current state of affairs is that exactly - an unratified visa-free agreement.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Because this content is not yet relevant to the article. The sentence, in that context, is confusing and out of place. Not to invoke WP:OSE, but are there any other entries with seemingly conflicting information? Chunk5Darth (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry can you address any of the issues I've raised? Just the fact you don't like this information in the article is not enough. I've clearly explained that it is information about an event certain to take place (already took place partially as explained in clear language), it is absolutely relevant to the article, it is verifiable. So if you don't have any actual and real objections please add it back to the article.--Twofortnights (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

As I have already explained... the article does not discuss events that are about to take place. It only discusses the current state of affairs. Therefore, the only relevant information is whether Israeli citizens currently do or do not need a Visa to travel to Belarus, not what will be soon. Is this clear enough? Because it is definitely not the first time I have explained this, yet you are still pretending I haven't. Just like your template on my talk page. Chunk5Darth (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

And I have already explained that the signing of the visa-free agreement already took place. Also you are falling into a logical fallacy again, as I've explained the current state of affairs is that the visa-free agreement is signed and awaiting ratification. What's unclear about that? On top of that the whole idea what this article deals with is your personal view. I can just as well say that this article deals with both, events that took place and that will take place. Now what? Do you have any objective proof for your statements what this article is about?--Twofortnights (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Prove your statement by demonstrating multiple examples, in that table, that would support your "view" of the article. Once the visa policy actually changes, the info can be added. Chunk5Darth (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the only pending visa-free agreement so I obviously can't give you other examples in the table. Anyway as we've established that the signing of the agreement took place, that it is the current state of affairs and that it is information relevant to this article I hope there is nothing left that impedes readding this information to the article.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing, except for everything I wrote here several times. On the account of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I am politely urging you to drop this, and wait until the visa situation changes so that "Visa required" can be replaced with "Visa not required". If it's anything else, verified or not, it does not belong in this table. Chunk5Darth (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Compromise offer: This information would serve a valid purpose if introduced in a footnote, thus not confusing the reader, while giving the full and accurate description of the situation at the same time. Is that something we can agree upon, Twofortnights? Chunk5Darth (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like to hear first how, in what regard, can "Visa-free agreement was signed and is awaiting ratification" can confuse a reader? What wrong conclusion can reader make out of it? And second yes, I agree with placing it, but there is no reason to go to footnotes when there is a notes section. Keep in mind that this article deals with "Visa requirements for Israeli citizens" not "Visa-free for Israeli citizens" so no, we don't have to wait until it is ratified and effective to include it in the article.--Twofortnights (talk) 09:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's "Visa requirements for Israeli citizens", not "Future visa requirements for Israeli citizens". I don't think you get the meaning of an encyclopedia entry that hosts a table with "yes or no" entries (as opposed to multiple choice), which is why adding anything else to that table is confusing and out of place (as explained multiple times already). The notes section serves a different purpose altogether - which is to elaborate on any unusual conditions that are pertinent to a current status. The footnote was a good faith offer on my end, because while the information definitely does not belong in the table, we could add a note elsewhere that will tell the readers of any future amendments that are certain to take place. Please stop making this discussion more tedious than it already is. Chunk5Darth (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you get the meaning of the "Notes" which you confuse with a completely different column which is a yes/no part of the article. This article has a wider scope, hence two columns. It's not a simple yes/no business. And no you still haven't explained why is it confusing, you can't just repeat your prepared story that has nothing to do with questions raised, you have to answer my questions if this is a discussion. I am asking you yet another time, where in the article it says that it deals only with the current situation and why is the obviously current situation of "Visa agreement signed and awaiting ratification" not current? If it wasn't current it couldn't be expressed in present tense. As for "too long didn't read", I am sorry if this is tiresome to you then you are free to leave the discussion, I am not obliged to entertain you.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I will sum it up briskly and efficiently: this is obviously too controversial for reinsertion without a broader consensus. You are welcome to seek it or drop it. I've been nothing but civil and good-faithed, but enough is enough. Chunk5Darth (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If you think civil and good-faithed is to ignore every single question raised then yes, that's what you were, some others would call it brazen belittling and ignoring of the interlocutor though. Considering you are the one seeking to change the article content, you can try to find consensus for this removal. I would first suggest however that you try and present some arguments and lose the attitude.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I addressed all your questions, and you're the one who changed the article. I have reverted to the pre-dispute version, and the burden of proof is on the editor seeking to add content. Please do not readd the disputed content unless there is a consensus to do so. Chunk5Darth (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Stop linking to random policies that do not apply to this case (you have linked to half a dozen already). WP:BURDEN applies to verifiability - All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.. The content you are trying to remove is well referenced with verifiable reliable sources.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

As you can see my comment was the last and you had nothing else to add Chunk5Darth so please stop vandalizing this article by removing perfectly fine content on bogus pretenses.--Twofortnights (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Just because it's verifiable, doesn't mean it belongs - and you know it very well. There is zero support for inclusion of this content, I offered a middle ground and you flat out refused. You have not sought a third opinion at all, and then you "waited it out" like it was a game changer or something. Having the last word is not the same as being right, and you know that too. Please stop this game and start acting in a cooperative manner. Chunk5Darth (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you please stop with your personal subjective views of what belongs and what doesn't? No one is interested trust me. Is there any rule that prohibits the inclusion of that content? There isn't. So why do you keep removing it? The "I don't like it argument" is bogus. It's not about the last word but if everything you've written here was debunked then there is nothing left to discuss unless you add something to the discussion. I've been super cooperative by allowing you to substantiate your claims which you haven't done yet. So is there any objective reason not to add this information, any hard rule that prohibits it? Or is it only that Chunk5Darth personally thinks it shouldn't be included?--Twofortnights (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

In case you haven't gotten it by now, there is nothing personal here - aside from your repeated (albeit finely insinuated) attacks. The disputed content is out of place, for all reasons that I repeatedly mentioned above. The rule of thumb, as I also repeatedly mentioned above, is when there is a dispute between at least two editors about the addition of content, the editor wishing to add the content must seek support in form of informed consensus (not just heads popping in saying "I agree"). Please do so or stop wasting everyone's time. Of course, we could also utilize the olive branch I extended a while ago, and add the content as a note. However, readding the content in spite of the dispute is disruptive. Chunk5Darth (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

And yet here you are again with the same thing over and over again. OK let me reply to you in your manner and see where it goes.

The content you have disputed is not out of place, for all reasons that I repeatedly mentioned above. The rule of thumb, as I also repeatedly mentioned above, is when there is a dispute between at least two editors about the removal of content, the editor wishing to remove the content must seek support in form of informed consensus (not just heads popping in saying "I agree"). Please do so or stop wasting everyone's time.

So what now?--Twofortnights (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Continued edit warring here is unwise and will lead to blocks for both of you. I suggest seeking a WP:3O or other steps in WP:DR. Dreadstar ☥ 20:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You could have been so right, if you would not have been so wrong: the onus is still on the editor wishing to add disputed content, not the other way around. I am still open to the idea of making a note or requesting 3O. Chunk5Darth (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Clarification: It's not like the content was there for a while and was suddenly removed on a whim. It was added, then removed with a valid reason. Sadly, even after being blocked, you are trying your best to get back out here and continue this senseless reinsertion of content that is still irrelevant to your desired placement... Chunk5Darth (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing changed. No further arguments have been made to support the addition of a future event. No 3O/RFC requests have been made. Yet, the addition is quietly creeping its way back into the article. WP:POINT, anyone? Chunk5Darth (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing changed?! Is that your response to my edit that says "o this is new news, the deal has been ratified in both Israel and Belarus; now you have no argument to claim this is not an actual event, it is, it's taking place and you have no Wikipedia policy to cite in order to remove this information" and after I added two references to the page that say that both countries just ratified this a few hours ago - Israeli parliament ratifies visa-free agreement with Belarus and House of Representatives ratifies visa abolition agreement with Israel So saying "nothing changed" is that a poor attempt to troll this page? Please stop blanking information.--Twofortnights (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

For the cheap seats: the table deals with the current state of events, therefore future events belong in a note at best. This has still not been refuted, and remains a good reason for the controversial status of your addition. Apart from waiting for long periods of time to resume your edit wars, I see no effort on your end to reach a consensus. This begins to border WP:NOTHERE. Chunk5Darth (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Why would you expect the news to be refuted when they are real news? Wikipedia wouldn't exist if we would wait for everything that's true to be refuted. Seriously, can you cite any reasons why you are blanking content with valid reference other than to vandalize this page? This can't be a content dispute anymore, before you claimed this is uncertain, now it's very certain, there is absolutely nothing controversial about it (otherwise you would point out and not make empty claims of controversy) but you keep removing it, so I expect you will remove it even after it comes into effect because you would be waiting for it to be "refuted". Also the claim how nothing changed when we have this news from today that changed everything is either ignorance or trolling. This has to stop, you must stop ruining this page for no reason.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You must stop the personal attacks, and probably revise the meaning of the words "current" and "future", as those are still pertinent to the situation. All this back and forth and still no effort to find a consensus. Chunk5Darth (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

If you have any argument to explain the blanking please do so.--Twofortnights (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Already did so, many times, but you keep pretending it never happened. Chunk5Darth (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Will you be the one to stop pretending that this is the same dispute as before?--Twofortnights (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Unless it's April 2015 already, the "current" vs. "future" issue remains the same. I'll be glad to repeat it for as long as needed. Chunk5Darth (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that this article for example must be deleted - 41st G7 summit ? Wikipedia rules clearly state that a future event can be included if "planning or preparation for the event is already in progress" and undoubtedly ratification by parliaments is just that.--Twofortnights (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I will repeat this as well: it can be in the article, just not in the table that deals with current events. I proposed a footnote and you flat out rejected the proposal, which happened more than once. Chunk5Darth (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

There is a whole column in the article called notes and it acts as a substitute for footnotes section for readability reasons. That is where I am trying to add this information. Adding footnotes to notes, that's a serious style issue. Also something that is ongoing is very much a current event. Not that it says anywhere that the notes column deals with current events, a question you ignore on purpose as it's been asked enough times already and remains unanswered.--Twofortnights (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I already answered that: the entire table deals with current events, and the notes section deals with side notes pertinent to current events. Your style concern, however, is utterly unfounded. Chunk5Darth (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You repeating a statement is not an explanation. I understand you think that is the case but what I am asking for is a proof that it is indeed the case. And that's all before we even start the debate what is a current event. But as a first thing you should explain where does it say that the notes in this article deal with current events only. When you explain that, I'll ask you more questions.

The same goes for "Your style concern, however, is utterly unfounded." - that's a statement, not an explanation of where have you ever seen footnotes to notes.--Twofortnights (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• There is not a single instance in that table that is not directly pertinent to that country's current visa situation. That is a fact.
• You still have not explained why a footnote is ever a style issue, considering that they are designed to appear anywhere, as they are an integral part of any place on Wikipedia. Chunk5Darth (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Out of how many agreements in ratification process? Did it ever cross your mind that this is the reason why, because Belarus is the only country with a pending ratification atm?

I've tried adding a footnote to a note in MS Word and it doesn't work so I presume that's not a correct thing to do.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The wiki software is very different from Microsoft Office. Footnotes look just like refs.<ref>1</ref> The difference is, they are expanded in the "Notes" section (of the article, not the table), which comes right before the "References" section. You can read all about it here. Chunk5Darth (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I know what notes are and how they are used, but we already have notes section, as an integral part of the table to help the readability. Having a notes section and then notes to the notes section, how is that good style?--Twofortnights (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Because apart from being called "Notes", those two have nothing in common. The footnote takes you to the footer part of the article to expand on the note in the table. It's good style because we don't break table consistency, while at the same time introducing the information to the reader in a non-invasive manner. Chunk5Darth (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes and what text would this footnote expand to? "Something is about to change, click to find out more."? I mean it's a pretty simple sentence "Visa-free agreement has been ratified and is expected to come into force in April 2015" so how would you make it shorter in order to expand it by a footnote?--Twofortnights (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

We are officially in the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT zone. You are obviously only interested in winning the argument, not benefiting an encyclopedia. Go ahead and accuse me of bad faith if you wish. We're back to this now: if you want to keep rejecting my compromise offer, the only way out of this is a 3O/RFC request. Readding without consensus is out of the question. I'm bowing out until something new appears. Chunk5Darth (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• I will, however, answer the specific question: the format is "visa needed<ref>Visa-free agreement has been ratified and is expected to come into force in April 2015</ref>". Chunk5Darth (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You just can't keep it without some random personal attacks but OK that's your choice. As for the note, is there a way for it to say [Note 1] instead of [1] because it could get confused with references?--Twofortnights (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me while I go scream at a wall... OK, now it's much better. "1" is for illustration purposes only. What I wrote in this thread is not the actual footnote, but just an example. Have you read the guideline I linked to? It should explain undoubtedly how the footnote will look, and how it cannot be confused for a ref. Chunk5Darth (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Footnote for Belarus

Here is my proposal for the footnote. In the "Notes" section of the table, the entry for Belarus currently reads:

Visas are issued on arrival at the Minsk International Airport
if the support documents were submitted not later than 3 business days before expected date of arrival.<ref>[http://www.mfa.gov.by/en/visa/airport/]</ref>

With the new information, it should look like this (formatted properly this time):

Visas are issued on arrival at the Minsk International Airport
if the support documents were submitted not later than 3 business days before expected date of arrival.

Finally, a section will be added above the "References" section of the article, called "Note", in the following manner:

==Note==

I hope this leaves no room for ambiguity. Please let me know if this is satisfactory. Chunk5Darth (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The note should be next to {{no|Visa required}} and not next to the Airport visa as it doesn't expand on that.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Country	Visa requirement	Notes (excluding departure fees and ongoing visa-free agreement ratifications)
Belarus	Visa required	Visas are issued on arrival at the Minsk International Airport if the support documents were submitted not later than 3 business days before expected date of arrival.

==Note==

Fine with me. Dreadstar, the dispute appears to have been resolved. Chunk5Darth (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! Good job, both of you! Dreadstar ☥ 15:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Bahrain and Qatar

I'm surprised to see these listed as visa required. All other GCC nations definitely refuse Israeli passports, all GCC nations are part of the Arab League Boycott Against Israel. Only Egypt and Jordan signed treaties enabling Israelis to travel there. On wiki and the internet, Bahrain and Qatar are stated as not recognising the state of Israel.

Is this an error in the IATA/KLM info? Thoughts? @Twofortnights: @Pishcal:

as for Bahrain - a peace treaty has been signed.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Visa requirements for Israeli citizens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701072212/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFAHeb/MFAArchive/2004/horaot%2Bdin%2Bisraeli0304.htm to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFAHeb/MFAArchive/2004/horaot%2Bdin%2Bisraeli0304.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Visa requirements for Israeli citizens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140813070633/http://www.myanmarevisa.gov.mm/ to http://www.myanmarevisa.gov.mm/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150521034116/http://www.smf.st/virtualvisa/ to http://www.smf.st/virtualvisa/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202222421/http://www.gov.gg/doirequireanentryclearance to http://www.gov.gg/doirequireanentryclearance

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem shown on map as part of Israel?

The West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem are almost universally recognised as occupied territory (ie no country other than Israel recognises it as part of Israel). The map shows these areas as part of Israel. This should be edited by someone. As well as because of international recognition, the Golan Heights are shown as part of Syria (because of international recognition) even though it is occupied by Israel. For consistency we should follow the same procedure with the other occupied territories.

Malaysia

Malaysia is coloured on the map as Admission Refused, but the table in the article has it as _Visa Required_. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.188.127.166 (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Update

I cant help but notice that on the map Afghanistan is black but on the table it says Visa Needed. Idan (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The map doesn't reflect the info in the table

Just from a cursory check, Angola, Bahrain, Barbados, Benin and Tajikistan are colored incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:ED0:5F4C:2800:4586:88F4:4FEB:C44D (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The table is very outdated.

Please change it to reflect the present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impossiblegend (talk • contribs) 18:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia no longer bans Israeli passports in fact it just announced they can come with special Saudi visas Nlivataye (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2022

Mark Morocco on the map as E-visa for Israelis, as you wrote at the list if the countries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:14F:17A:B793:0:0:20C1:5639 (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Passport Aliyah to be ended soon

New repatriants are now to live one year in the land before receiving their first darkon valid for 1 yr.

(At this point, getting a laissez-passer first is more useful) 128.0.94.142 (talk) 06:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

VWP

that someone will create an updated map for the VWP enforcement;) עמית לונן (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Central African Republic

Reference:

https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/reports/examption_visa-israeli-heb/en/English_CONSULAR_DOCUMENTS_ISR_Visa_Abroad_Eng-25-06-24.pdf

Israeli citizens require visa to visit the Central African Republic.

Stop changing it without proper reference from the ministry of foreign affairs of Israel or Central African Republic. Amit1998IL (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Should not Cuba be painted light blue instead of light green?

The linked source says Cuba provides eVisas online, not visas on arrival, so on the map it should be light blue. Reciprocist (talk) 11:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)