Talk:Visa requirements for South Korean citizens: Difference between revisions

Line 123: Line 123:

::::::::I made new adjustment, do you want to see that [[User:Somos2025|Somos2025]] ([[User talk:Somos2025|talk]]) 04:47, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

:::::::::Ok, I will accept the revised format for now. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-43565-8|~2026-43565-8]] ([[User talk:~2026-43565-8|talk]]) 05:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

:::::::::I have a request on the map. North Korea is colored yellow, so I’d like to change its color to “#999999.” Yellow represents a positive direction, so it needs to be dark. [[Special:Contributions/~2026-43565-8|~2026-43565-8]] ([[User talk:~2026-43565-8|talk]]) 05:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

What is the reasoning of mentioning G8? It seems redundant and doesn’t seem notable. It is like saying country x, y, z have visa free to Visegrád Group, or country x,y,z has visa free to Mercosur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:140:8000:D84F:F031:F80E:9FA7:30B9 (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Visa requirements for South Korean 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BushelCandle +Twofortnights, the problem with the Israeli stamps us that them seem to target specific type of countries: East Asian/West Pacific [China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea (South), Philippines, San Marino, and Thailand], major historically-Catholic countries [Andorra, Brazil, France, Hungary, Mexico, Monaco, Poland, Portugal, and Spain], and some random set of countries [Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Norway, and Serbia]. It explicitly excludes most Anglophone countries except Australia and New Zealand, African countries, Carribean countries, and certain large countries such as India, Italy, and Russia. There seem to be an intrinsic reason why the editor is intent on forewarning people from these countries. That and the statement reamins unsourced which may equate to vandalism. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Northern Moonlight. I noticed that you’ve added a verification tag requesting citations for basic facts like “visas are administrative entry restrictions” or “visas are issued at diplomatic missions or online.” While it’s important to ensure content is well-sourced, in these cases, the information falls under what we refer to as common knowledge, and tagging it for citations may not be necessary.

This is outlined in Wikipedia:You don’t need to cite that the sky is blue and it explains that widely understood facts—those that would not typically be challenged—do not require citations. For example, demanding a citation to prove that visas are administrative tools used to control entry into a country is equivalent to asking for a citation to confirm that the sky is blue. These are well-known and established facts that don’t usually need verification.

The aim of the verifiability policy is to ensure material that might be controversial or unfamiliar is backed up by reliable sources, but it also encourages us to use common sense. Over-tagging articles for citations on basic facts can clutter the text and detract from the readability and quality of the article. In cases like these, it’s often more productive to focus on areas of the article that may include novel, disputed, or less commonly known information that truly needs sourcing.

Additionally, I’d like to caution against tag bombing (WP:TAGBOMB), which is the unjustified addition of numerous tags to articles or applying a single tag to multiple pages without sufficient reason. Tag bombing can be a form of disruptive editing and, if continued after being asked to stop, could lead to consequences. While adding tags can sometimes reflect a genuine need for clarification, they shouldn’t be used excessively or to push a particular point of view. Tag bombing can also violate the policy against disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT). When editors use excessive tagging to prove a point, such as objecting to a particular policy interpretation or trying to enforce consistency in an unreasonable or extreme way, they disrupt the editing process. This tactic doesn’t improve the encyclopedia; instead, it undermines collaborative efforts. For example, applying citation tags to obvious facts (like visas being administrative entry restrictions) could be seen as an attempt to force other editors into an unnecessary dispute or to challenge Wikipedia’s citation standards. Disruptive editing to make a point is problematic because it diverts attention from productive editing. If you disagree with how a policy or guideline is being interpreted or enforced, it’s important to address the issue constructively—by discussing it on the relevant talk page or through dispute resolution channels—rather than trying to highlight perceived flaws by enforcing rules in an exaggerated or antagonistic manner. Trying to provoke a change in policy by engaging in disruptive behaviors can lead to blocks or bans, as it goes against the principle of consensus and collaborative editing. If you feel that there’s a misunderstanding of policy or a need for change, the best approach is to engage in discussion on the article or policy talk page. Tagging articles excessively or inconsistently to make a point is not constructive and could lead to administrative action against your account. Wikipedia encourages editors to work together to resolve issues, rather than using disruptive tactics to emphasize a point.

I’d encourage you to review the policies in question to better understand when citations are necessary and when they’re not. If you have any questions or want to discuss this further, feel free to reach out!–Twofortnights (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the tag I added, this isn’t even remotely about what a visa is. It’s about whether it’s administrative vs legal. I cannot find any reliable sources that call it the former except replicas of Wikipedia articles. It doesn’t seem you have read the policy you cited at all—TAGBOMB is the addition of numerous tags, which in the English language means “more than one”. I’d like you to acknowledge this point and withdraw this statement. Northern Moonlight 02:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No because this is an article in the entire series, and you’ve already announced the intent to edit all of the articles in the series. Thus, it’s reasonable to assume, you didn’t want the visa to be defined just for the South Korean citizens. If we presume the tag should be added then it should be added to all articles in the series. But the discussion on what a visa is does not belong here, it’s nothing specific for the South Korean citizens. There is an IOM definition of a visa which is “An endorsement by the competent authorities of a State in a passport or a certificate of identity of a non‐national who wishes to enter, leave, or transit through the territory of the State that indicates that the authority, at the time of issuance, considers the holder to fall within a category of non‐nationals who can enter, leave or transit the State under the State’s laws. A visa establishes the criteria of admission into, transit through or exit from a State.“. The EU visa regulation says that the visa is “an authorisation issued by a Member State“. However this discussion should take place on Travel visa—Twofortnights (talk) 12:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be an edit dispute here. Originally, map was only indicating which countries are under a travel ban by the South Korean government, without actually showing the visa requirements for South Korean citizens. My view is that this alone is not sufficient or entirely appropriate as travel to those countries is not completely banned. Even for countries that are officially under a South Korean travel ban, South Korean passport holders can still travel there with special permission, and in some cases there are already tens of thousands of South Korean nationals residing there (for example, more than 10,000 in Iraq). In such cases, practical entry requirements such as whether the country is visa-free, e-visa, visa on arrival, or requires visa are still highly relevant information. Simply stating that a country is “travel-banned by South Korea” without any visa information can be misleading.
To resolve this, I can slightly modify the map so that it shows both whether the country is under a South Korean travel ban, and the visa requirement for South Korean passport holders in cases where travel is permitted with authorization. Somos2025 (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I don’t think it’s appropriate to edit this map. This page is intended for the general public (or wiki users), not a privileged few. While you’re correct in saying that visa requirements for banned countries are important, if the map doesn’t currently display banned countries, many users may mistakenly assume they can travel to those countries. It’s far more important to inform users of current entry restrictions than to check whether a visa waiver is available. Furthermore, if necessary, it would be helpful to explain “Visa-free, VOA, e-Visa” in the “Visa Requirements” section below the map. Users generally check the table more frequently. Thank you. ~2026-43565-8 (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, in order to reach a compromise, I have created a new map that displays both visa status and travel-ban status using striped patterns, so that both pieces of information are shown simultaneously. For some reason, there has been an error and it is not visible in the document, but you can view and review it at the following link. I am still working on revising the error.[1]Somos2025 (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I hope the map doesn’t change. It’s recommended that you edit the “Visa requirements” section to confirm visa eligibility. ~2026-43565-8 (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain why? The new version of map that is showed in the link [1] displays both information simultaneously. Please check it. Somos2025 (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You’re now completely removing the “Entry Prohibited” section. This could confuse many users. Please, just leave it as it was. ~2026-43565-8 (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are not even reading my comment. Could you please read my comment? [2] << and check this map please. I have never deleted the entry prohibited section. It is literally shows the travel banned status in the “Notes” section. You are the one woh told me to write that in the table, so it is impossible for me to understand. Somos2025 (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notes (excluding departure fees) : Travel has been banned since July 2007 after the South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan.

This is what is written write next to the visa waiver status. What do you expect me to do? I am trying to reach a compromise so it displays both the visa waiver status and travel ban status, but for some reason you are refusing to talk. It is evident that you are not even intending to read my comment at all, doesn’t explain me why you are keep reverting it, and you clearly haven’t even checked the URL of the map. Somos2025 (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the markings on your new map are too confusing for people to read. The entry status of many civilians is important, so they should be unified in black (and the sections should be the same). Your actions are bordering on destruction. Please stop this and leave things as they were. ~2026-43565-8 (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it confusing, and then how should we display the visa waiver information? The title of this document is “Visa requirements for South Korean citizens”, so visa waiver status should be prioritized, and it is not appropriate to not display it at all.

If there are ways to display both of them, we should intend to display both of them at the same time, not just delete them just because they are “too confusing”. Again, the visa section is to show the visa waiver status, not if the government bans it.

Additionally, in that case, how should thousands of people who visit travel-banned countries like Iraq with permission know if Iraq requires a visa? If it is only written as “TRAVEL BANNED” how should they even know? This section is not about the travel ban. If you want to write that, you can do so in other documents, but again, the title of this document and the subject are “Visa requirements for South Korean citizens,” and they are completely unrelated to whether the government punishes those who go to Iraq.Somos2025 (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your sentiment to some extent, but the emphasis here is more on “current entry status” than simply “visa status.” For the sake of the majority of users… That’s why I assume another user reverted your map yesterday. If so, I’ll add an explanation for “visa status” in the section. ~2026-43565-8 (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why, for example, in Visa requirements for United States citizens, travel ban is marked as black is because the local governments actively ban the entry of the United States citizens. However, it is different in this case. Local governments do not block the entry at all, so South Korean citizens are free to enter. All kind of documents like this focus on what the local governments do, not what the government of the passport holder does. If permission is acquired, it is possible to enter legally, and even if permission is not acquired, it is possible to enter without any problem. Whether it becomes a crime or not is what happens after entering. Somos2025 (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t matter who did what. What matters is that the entry ban exists, and removing it will confuse users who see it. You seem to want the underlying visa status, but I think it’s better to inform users of the current status. For the “majority” of users… And I added the original visa status to the section. ~2026-43565-8 (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Removing it will not confuse users who see it. In fact, it would better inform them about the visa status, especially if they are travelling to Iraq or any other travel-banned countries for business purposes. The general public wouldn’t be confused, since the map legend informs that in the map, and in the tables, the “notes” section right next to the visa requirement section informs that. In the current version, it will confuse users, as if the general entry to the country were completely banned by the local governments. Somos2025 (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For now, let’s leave it as is and let’s each think about it a bit more. This so-called “truce in the debate.” 🙂 Well… frankly, I don’t think the large number of diagonals on the map is visually appealing. And if “Travel banned” is as uncomfortable as you say, I’ll find another word to replace it. ~2026-43565-8 (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please read before you keep reverting it back. Please read every sentence I have written here, and open every link I have attached, because they are important. As you have written, “Entry conditions have been corrected to suit the current situation,” you might have thought that the entry itself is banned. For example, if we look at Visa requirements for United States citizens, countries such as Chad, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger are marked as excluded because their governments do not issue visas to U.S. citizens at all and refuse entry at the migration. In such cases, it is accurate to describe this as “admission suspended” under the visa requirements section, because entry is impossible.

However, that’s not the case here.

The fact is entry ban does not exist at all. There is no entry ban imposed by the destination countries themselves. Regardless of whether a South Korean citizen has acquired permission from the South Korean government, local authorities in countries such as Ukraine, Afghanistan, or any country continue to issue visas and allow entry according to their own immigration rules.[3][4] From the perspective of the destination country, visa issuance and entry are determined solely by their domestic laws, not by the regulations of the government that punishes its citizens and violates human rights of freedom of movement and of residence just because some countries are “dangerous” while they are not even enemies. For example, would police officers in California report Korean citizens to the Korean government for marijuana possession, just because marijuana is illegal for Korean citizens? No. They don’t care, especially when the government isn’t specifically asking them to do so. They likely wouldn’t care even if the government asked them. Same logic here.

Yes, South Korean government can technically impose penalties for unauthorized travel to certain countries, but this enforcement is a domestic legal matter and does not affect visa issuance or entry at the migration. In fact, this is completely ineffective, as the government does not/cannot monitor it[5], as there is no way to do it, unless they hack its citizens’ phones to monitor their location 24/7 just to see if they visited Iraq. Importantly, this has no bearing on whether a visa is issued or whether entry is permitted by the destination country. Any “travel banned” countries still issue visas to Korean citizens, no matter whether they have permission from the South Korean government or not.

Therefore, labeling these countries as “travel banned” under the visa requirement section is inaccurate and misleading. Travel bans arbitrarily imposed by South Korea and visa issuance by foreign governments are two separate and unrelated concepts. Any “travel banned” countries still issue visas to South Korean citizens, no matter whether they have permission from the South Korean government or not, and entry is allowed.

The “current entry status” and “visa status” are the same in this context. Entry is permitted, and visas are issued with no problems. Concerns about domestic penalties imposed after return to South Korea are completely irrelevant to determining visa requirements or entry status. At the moment the South Koreans enter the destination country, the only thing that matters is whether those countries issue a visa or not.

So “leaving just as it is” confuses readers, as it implies that entry itself is restricted, which is not the case. My revised map does address this with striped markings and map legends. In the tables, it clearly distinguishes visa status from South Korea’s travel-ban policy through separate visual indicators, with explanatory notes provided alongside. We could possibly color the note section black, so it is more visually appealing. However, it remains completely incorrect to conflate travel bans with visa issuance, as they describe fundamentally different legal situations. If you need me to add more diagonals for visual adjustments, sure, I can do that.

And I apologize if my previous wording came across as overly emotional or confrontational. Somos2025 (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t skip it. I told you not to change the map for the time being. I said we should call a ceasefire. But you ignored my opinion and changed everything. And I revised the content based on your feedback. I hope you’ll consider this compromise. ~2026-43565-8 (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did skip it. Did you even read the long comment I just wrote above there?

I’ll ask you a one question: “Entry conditions have been corrected to suit the current situation.”.

Do you think entry itself is banned in those countries? No. Does visa waiver have anything to do with entry conditions of the immigration? Absolutely not. If you think it is yes, you clearly are ignoring everything I am saying. Please read the long comment I wrote. I took 25 minutes to write that 659-word comment, and spending 10 minutes to check it thoroughly and writing a thoughtful answer for the same effort is not a big deal. Also please be aware that you ignored my opinion as well, and that I also have revised the map based on your feedback. Every time you revert it back, you don’t read the “talk” section, even though I have told you more than six times to do so, you simply don’t. You are trying to dispute it in the edit summary, which doesn’t help anything at all.Somos2025 (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, but your post is so long that it’s difficult to accept everything you’ve said. As I’ve said many times, please don’t change the map. And it’s definitely a “travel ban.” The Korean government has expressed it that way. I hope you’ll look at the situation from a broader perspective, rather than focusing solely on visa requirements. ~2026-43565-8 (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, you are clearly not respecting me at all. You are not reading. Does “visa requirement” have other meanings than what I have said? Somos2025 (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Now you don’t give me any logical arguments to explain why writing visa status in visa requirement is wrong. Unless ‘visa’ in visa status and visa requirement are word with multiple meanings, it should remain the same. Even though I have already responded, you are just refusing to read anything and stopped thinking. If you can’t accept everything I’ve said, then you need to address what they are. You are putting less than 1/10 of the effort I have put in the 659 words comment and yet saying me I am disrespecting, for some reason. The fact that nobody has changed it for a long time doesn’t mean it is right. I have issued a dispute resolution here at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Visa_requirements_for_South_Korean_citizensSomos2025 (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, but you’re disrespecting us. You started it all. You seem to be focusing on specific aspects without considering the overall situation. You’ve presented several opinions and counterarguments, but they’re not convincing. f the debate persists,, I suggest leaving the map and content as is. ~2026-43565-8 (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I requested a dispute resolution here at [6].

I have read through everything you said, suggested a resolution, brought evidences, yet you simply ignored them without any arguments or logics, instead, you are just repeating “they aren’t convincing.” So? You are not convincing to me as well. So you should explain why each primary sources of “evidences”, or “fact” on the link are wrong, instead of saying “they’re not convincing to me”.

We are focusing on the specific aspects because the definition of terminology Visa does not change depending on the overall situation. I am repeating this multiple times: The fact that ineffective “travel ban(??)”, which almost never has been carried out, exists doesn’t mean Iraq doesn’t issue visas or Iraq bans Koreans from travelling. I have put a lot of effort on argument, so you should put some effort as well, instead of refusing to budge, no logic, no argument. Somos2025 (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What did you do wrong? –> You changed everything without considering the overall situation. –> So, I added the part that reflected your opinion through discussion. –> But you even deleted that part.

You keep emphasizing “visa requirements,” but I’ve repeatedly emphasized that the “current situation” is also very important.

You mentioned effectiveness, but it’s better to ask the Korean government about that.

This page is important not only for its basic information on visa requirements, but also for its ability to inform Koreans about whether or not they can travel.

If you edit it to imply that Koreans are allowed entry to countries with travel bans simply because they are issued a visa, you are encouraging Koreans to commit illegal acts.

In other words, focusing solely on principles is a stereotype. ~2026-43565-8 (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for actually making a logical argument, and actually reading what I wrote, instead of simply ignoring it.

—-

I have also made a compromise to use striped lines in the map to show both information –> But you even deleted that part.

—-

You mentioned effectiveness, but it’s better to ask the Korean government about that.

Okay. I agree.

—-

You keep emphasizing “visa requirements,” but I’ve repeatedly emphasized that the “current situation” is also very important. This page is important not only for its basic information on visa requirements, but also for its ability to inform Koreans about whether or not they can travel.

While it is certainly important to inform South Korean citizens about whether travel is permitted, the primary topic of this page is visa requirements, as indicated by the document title (Visa requirements for South Korean citizens), the section name (Visa requirements), and the map file name (Visa requirements for South Korean Nationals). For that reason, the page primarily focuses on presenting visa-related information, not travel-ban information.

Completely removing visa information from the map and replacing it with travel-ban status on a place that is explicitly dedicated to visa requirements risks undermining the main purpose of the document. If the intention is instead to prioritize whether South Korean citizens are legally allowed to travel without special permission, then the terminology and structure should reflect that focus, for example by using a label such as “government-imposed legal travel restrictions” rather than “visa requirements.”

—-

If you edit it to imply that Koreans are allowed entry to countries with travel bans simply because they are issued a visa, you are encouraging Koreans to commit illegal acts

No, this is an overexaggeration, and it is impossible. Why would they do that while it literally shows that travel is banned? For the maps, stripes and legend shows that travel is banned.

—-

In other words, I get that you also want to inform the legality of travel as well as the visa requirements, and I agree on that, but the priority should be on the visa requirements. You can’t just delete visa information while literally the title is Visa requirements for South Korean citizens. Once it provides the visa requirements, then we could also provide travel ban information at the same time. Somos2025 (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I edited the section to read “Visa Required / Current Travel Banned.” This reflects your feedback and I think it will be more understandable to users. ~2026-43565-8 (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I agree on that. Somos2025 (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I had already revised these compromises a few hours ago, but you kept deleting them. That’s why I kept pointing them out. I’m glad you finally discovered the compromises I revised. ~2026-43565-8 (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry on that part. Somos2025 (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a little change just for “Afghanistan” as of right now, you might want to check it Somos2025 (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan – I get your point, but I think the table lines will get longer and it will be more visually confusing. ~2026-43565-8 (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by table lines getting longer? Somos2025 (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I made new adjustment, do you want to see that Somos2025 (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will accept the revised format for now. ~2026-43565-8 (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have a request on the map. North Korea is colored yellow, so I’d like to change its color to “#999999.” Yellow represents a positive direction, so it needs to be dark. ~2026-43565-8 (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment