Talk:Visa requirements for Lebanese citizens

Communication and collegial editor behaviour

Earliest record of the idiom deriving from a German proverb, das Kind mit dem Bade ausschütten equivalent to the English saying of don't throw the baby out with the bathwater' (Appeal to Fools by Thomas Murner, 1512)

I have been disappointed that even after I urged editor Norvik to use edit summaries, for the third time today he has undone other editors' actions—either in whole or in a substantial part without giving any clue as to why he negates other editors' efforts.

This terse exchange of views indicates to me that Norvik understands English well enough to understand my own edit summary of "Undid revision 849233824 by Norvikk (talk) since it had no edit summary explaining extensive revisions to other editor's work, ignored WP:IMGDD and duplicated an entire fingerprinting section without explanation"

Despite that edit summary, within the hour he started a whole series of damaging edits that

1. yet again flouted ignored WP:IMGDD by specifying strange image dimensions
2. restored a bad internal link to an old, incomplete and obsolete [[Visa (document)#Visa restrictions|Henley Passport Index]] page by removing the better link to our very recently, thoroughly revised and updated Henley & Partners Passport Index article
3. removed and mutilated citations and removed sourced material without any hint of an explanation
4. changed the updated syntax of {{#section-x::Non-visa travel restrictions|bad}} back to the inferior {{#section-h::Non-visa travel restrictions|List of common non-visa travel restrictions}} (thus removing the text "Many countries have entry restrictions on foreigners that go beyond the common requirement of having a valid visa or visa exemption. Such restrictions may be health related or impose additional documentation requirements on certain classes of people for diplomatic or political purposes." again without any hint of an explanation
5. yet again re-inserted the very same duplicated section heading of Fingerprints with only partial information and citations compared to the more complete transcluded section headed Fingerprints

Baby vs. Bathwater Annotated

Because Norvik is a very active and well-informed editor in regard to visa requirements, I do sincerely wish that he would begin to use edit summaries and selectively and painstakingly edit and improve the work of other editors and stop precipitately reaching for the revert button (consequently and carelessly 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater').

Consequently I would really welcome constructive suggestions as to how this aggravating behaviour can be dealt with... --BushelCandle (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I really don't like idiots. But I'll give you my time.

Tell me about the Romanian e-visa.

Tell me about the double information about fingerprinted. In the table and in the section Fingerprinting.

Tell me about double information about total stay period in the table.

I'm cleaning up this article, but you're vandalizing it.

My contribution to the development of visa articles is huge. Who are you to fucking lecture me? --Norvikk (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

May I answer your last question first and comment on the rest of your response at a later time?

I hope I'm just the same as yourself; someone that is here to make a better and more useful encyclopedia. Because neither I nor many other editors here are telepathic, where someone of greater knowledge, ability and intelligence like yourself is concerned, we need clues (perhaps in the edit summary) as to why (on the face of it) you are choosing to flout our manual of style or removing adequately sourced material.

If you have a specific problem with information about Romanian e-visas, then please just edit the specific part of our article about Romania. DON'T keep doing wholesale reverts of the entire page and throwing (previous editor's) babies out with the bathwater, please! --BushelCandle (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

(later) I hope I'm not immune to education; if you really think I'm vandalizing your great work, then give me a clue as to how, where and when and I'll gladly mend my ways.

Please also remember that, when I edit a page, I am building on others' work and not necessarily approving or ratifying that particular previous^{(inserted 13:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC))} version.

I intend to number the problems you introduced with your edit-warring in my original complaint above - please favour me with your specific beefs and we can make progress in improving the article together... --BushelCandle (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Over time this article will be clean and true. Visa article for Romanian citizens was under oppression of nonsense many years, but justice has triumphed. Article for Lebanese citizens will shine. The good always overcomes the evil. --Norvikk (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I have finished with editing this article this year. Now it is your responsibility. One of the users loves to edit this article. You're gonna face a lot of stubbornness. Good luck. --Norvikk (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I hope you guys come to a mutually agreed solution, but I would only like to state that this article is one of the worst in the VR series and that it indeed requires a thorough cleanup. Good luck to everyone.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Twofortnights. I recognise that yourself and Norvik have worked tirelessly to improve our Visa requirements for ... citizens articles and I hope that communications will be more comprehensive and civil in future to avoid treading on each others' toes ... (sometimes it can be difficult to avoid spats without the clues that are present in face to face conversations). In that regard, it behoves all of us to communicate with others and present rationales when questioned by others. An editor on this (or any other) article should be able to collaborate with other editors and defend their editing when asked to do so. They should be willing to abide by consensus together with our MoS and guidelines when they are relevant. --BushelCandle (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

To add emphasis to my plea for collegiate behaviour and civil communication, I note that after this edit, Norvikk has now been indefinitely blocked from editing the English Wikipedia and, consequently, I shall not now be responding to the remainder of his posts. --BushelCandle (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Most recent Henley Passport Index edition

User:JoeSakr1980, especially: The reason that I chose "As of 22 May 2018" is that at the right hand bottom corner of the pdf file at https://www.henleypassportindex.com/assets/PI2018_INFOGRAPHS_GLOBAL_180518.pdf it says (in difficult to read, light grey font): "The information provided here is based on the 2018 Henley Passport Index ranking, as of 22 May 2018".

Perhaps they're clairvoyant, because the file name ending indicates to many people that it dates from 4 days earlier on 18 May 2018... --BushelCandle (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Date formats and variety of English

As far as I know, Lebanon has no history of English speaking conquerors and the current official languages are Arabic and French. After going through nearly 1000 revisions, I have yet to find the "tie-breaker" mandated by MOS:RETAIN.

Date format is a bit easier. It took more than 4 years before the first edit to a non-stub version used a particular date format (see: MOS:DATERET) and I have identified this one on 27 June 2014 by User:Twofortnights as the relevant edit. That edit used the format of dd-Mm-yyyy (in the first new citation). --BushelCandle (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

(Later) I believe I've now found the tie-breaking edit for MOS:RETAIN
This edit by User:NawafDandachi on 9 January 2015, introducing the phrase "Access Permit is required for travelling inside the zone, except Civil Use Areas", establishes non-US English as the first flavour.

Consequently, and within the next few days, I intend to add the appropriate templates of
{{Use dmy dates|date=December 2024}} and
{{Use Commonwealth English|date=December 2024}} {{EngvarB|date=December 2024}}
to the top of this article unless someone can give cogent reasons not to...--BushelCandle (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

(Later still) Mmmmm, it seems I was wrong to think there was no "no history of English speaking conquerors". It seems that for a couple of months in June and July 1944, British Commonwealth forces did indeed occupy Beirut and other parts of the Lebanon - not that this affects my opinion above that US English has no claim to be the consistent variety used in this article... --BushelCandle (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

References and notes

References

Notes

Overlinking

It would be nice to get this article to "Good article" status.

One problem I've identified is that it currently grossly violates our Manual of Style section entitled Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#What generally should not be linked.

That section currently begins by stating: "An overlinked article contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify links likely to aid the reader's understanding significantly. A 2015 study of log data found that "in the English Wikipedia, of all the 800,000 links added ... in February 2015, the majority (66%) were not clicked even a single time in March 2015, and among the rest, most links were clicked only very rarely", and that "simply adding more links does not increase the overall number of clicks taken from a page. Instead, links compete with each other for user attention." "

A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from. Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are not usually linked:

• Everyday words understood by most readers in context.
• The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar – unless there is a contextually important reason to link and this generally includes major examples of geographic features such as countries (eg United States, Japan, Brazil, etc).

It goes on to state: "The function of links is to clarify, not emphasize; do not create links in order to draw attention to certain words or ideas, or as a mark of respect."

It is because of these criteria that I recently made this edit (that was then substantially reverted by User:JoeSakr1980). --BushelCandle (talk) 13:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

(LATER): It's very disappointing that rather than comment here, where everybody can weigh in, an editor has instead chosen to restore the gross overlinking in this article and include in their edit summary "I respect your stance on removing the interlinking ... so I undo-ed your edits..."

Please understand that this not just flouting my stance but that of the consensus at the English Wikipedia expressed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#What generally should not be linked. That is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. However, unless a cogent rationale is expounded, this article is NOT one of those exceptions. If you think that this portion of our MoS is wrong, then you are welcome to start a Request for Comment (RFC) [Good luck with that!] but until and unless you get the MoS changed editors are in danger of being reported for disruptive editing if they keep restoring scores of repetitive internal links and filling our article with a sea of blue.

The Manual of Style (MoS or MOS) is the style manual for all Wikipedia articles. The MoS documents Wikipedia's house style, to help editors write articles with consistent and precise language, layout, and formatting, making Wikipedia easier and more intuitive for our readers.

Make links only where they are relevant and helpful in the context: Excessive use of hyperlinks can be distracting and may slow the reader down. Redundant links (like the one in Visa not required for passengers who are admitted to the United States on a visa and are returning to the United States after a visit) clutter the page and make future maintenance harder. High-value links that are worth pursuing should stand out clearly. --BushelCandle (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

References and notes

References

Notes

Updates on the map

On the map Armenia's colour is visa-free, while as of now it is visa on arrival/eVisa.

Romania, Moldova and Colombia are listed as eVisa, but the links from the websites of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of respective countries state, that Lebanese citizens are required to obtain a visa beforehand at embassies/consulates (should be grey). [1] [2] [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.43.141.100 (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Fixed the table.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for all your tireless and useful work on this and many other visa-related articles, Twofortnights! --BushelCandle (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome.--Twofortnights (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

My pleasure! But what about the map? Is it going to stay outdated?

Colombia, Moldova and Romania

Those countries do not have an option of electronic visa for Lebanese citizens. Perhaps the visa application is in electronic form but visa sticker is printed into the passport at embassies or consulates of those 3 countries. Map is correct but the table is still false. Please, someone should change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.136.73.175 (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.--Twofortnights (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Visa requirements to Egypt

The visa requirement info for Lebanese to go to Egypt is not very accurate. The exemptions do not apply for passengers residing in other countries than Lebanon. I am going to Egypt and I had to go apply for a visa, and they have mentioned at the consulate that these exemptions don’t apply on Lebanese passport holders living in the UAE. Treehouseee (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Wrong map Jordan

On the map, Jordan is grey, although Jordan grants visa free access to Lebanese citizens. 109.233.20.2 (talk) 09:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Iraq as well 213.175.191.102 (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

map still not updated regarding Jordan. 178.135.11.92 (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Syria and Thailand

Syria should be green on the map as it is visa free for Lebanese citizens, and Thailand just updated its visa policy to include Lebanon on the e Visa list. 213.175.191.102 (talk) 11:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

We need solid data showing that entry into Syria is exempt. For example, data from the Syrian government..

There is currently no accurate data on visa policy of Syria. We need to do some more research on this. Lades2222 (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Indonesia e-Visa

Indonesia updated its visa policy to include Lebanon on the e-Visa website. The map should be updated. 178.135.16.62 (talk) 09:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)