Talk:Iran Voyage Tips and guide

This article was the Collaboration of the month for August 2009.

An anonymous user removed the following text calling in 'nonsense':

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Iran is a publicly segregated society. Many facilities such as transport and mosques are segregated and extended social interaction between men and women who are not related or married is eyed with suspicion.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Is this nonsense? My understanding was that although Iran was more progressive than (for example) Saudi Arabia for women's rights, I understood that segregation of the sexes was still practiced in mosques and public transport (among other places).

Could this otherwise be written in a more accurate way? Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've never been to Iran, but surely, it's not nonsense that mosques are segregated, is it? Aren't mosques segregated by sex everywhere in the world? If there's a place where they aren't, it's a major exception. Even in pretty liberal Muslim countries like Malaysia, men and women pray in different sections of mosques, much as is the case for Orthodox Jews in synagogues. If anything, what I'd criticize about the deleted passage is that it's probably superfluous to mention sex segregation in mosques. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Very true. I’m also thinking the statement would have been more accurate in the 1980’s than today. Pinging Saqib since I think he may have regional knowledge of this. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Actually sex segregation is not enforced by Islam nor it is a requirement but yes, Islam discourages too much mix-up of both genders especially when alone thats why women are usually advised to pray at home rather than going to mosques but those who wish to attend mosques, it has been said that they should have a separate place for praying inside the mosque nevertheless if the country where the mosque is, as modern and liberal as is Turkey. But the interesting fact is that the both the Grand Mosques in Mecca and Medina are not segregated at all and both genders can worship together as well perform Umrah and Hajj together. Pakistan at whole is considered a conservative country from a Western point of view, but women and men attend school, universities together and even a male doctor is allowed to treat a female patient and attend public demonstration together. But when it comes to public transport such as buses, women and men have a separate sitting area. Why? Its not because its segregated but actually to avoid harassment or molesting. Majority of the women here not wear veils as women do in Arab countries, Iran and Afghanistan. Andrew, Gender segregation is practiced differently in different country even in Middle East. --Saqib (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Saqib, sorry I wasn't trying to suggest that Iran had the same practices as Pakistan, I just thought that since we don't appear to have a regular Persian contributor that perhaps you might know more about Iran than most other people here.

(e.g. I don't live in France, but it is in my region so I know about it to an extent)

Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ops. Sorry for de-railing. "Iran is a publicly segregated society. Many facilities such as transport and mosques are segregated and extended social interaction between men and women who are not related or married is eyed with suspicion." is definitely not non-sense so should be put back in the article. You might meet Iranian people outside Iran and you'll found them very modern and open minded so you'll think the situation is same inside Iran as well however the ground realities inside the country is totally different. It means Iran is very gender segregated country but by law. --Saqib (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Saqib, Ikan Kekek: Sex segregation in a country like Iran is more complicated than this. You may suppose that it's not a matter of religion any more and not limited to mosques and other holy places. Maybe you have heard a lot about hijab and that women are asked to wear a veil, but you may have not heard anything about that men are not allowed to get close to women nor touching them in Iran. In other words, sex segregation with no attention to Islamic rules is performed against men in modern days. Men are not allowed to enter women-only places such as women parks, female clothes store, beauty salons nor they are allowed to sit near a woman in a bus, minibus or (in a near past) taxi or any other public transport vehicle (even airplane) for the sake of so called women safety. The reason that the anonymous user removed the text on "sex segregation" is that many locals don't like to say a word about this. In a severe mode of sex segregation, the concept has been practiced as a part of architecture of causal houses (i.e in homes different walls separate where men and women live/stay) and books published for children (some special for boys and some special for girls in schools allover the country). --Doostdar (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

None of this surprises me. By all means, add (or restore) any text that would help someone planning on visiting Iran know what to expect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Since anything dating back to 2011 is now archived, it's untrue that this talk page is in any way based on anything that was on WT in 2011. I don't know how to delete the link below, but I think we're factually completely justified in getting rid of it here, if someone who knows how wants to take care of it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Done. Pashley (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I know off topic, but do you think we would get a page ranking benefit from this activity? Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

"Other destinations" is specifically supposed to exclude towns, so I've moved this listings here, in case they are useful in any other place on this site:

• kashan, The etymology of the city name comes from Kasian, the original inhabitants of the city, whose remains are found at Tapeh Sialk dating back 9,000 years; later this changed to Kashian, hence the town name. Between the 12th and the 14th centuries Kashan was an important centre for the production of high quality pottery and tiles. In modern Persian, the word for a tile (kashi) comes from the name of the town.

• Na’in Na'in or Naeen or Naein is a small and quiet town at the edge of a desert near Isfahan, scenic and known for superb carpets.

Dizin is treated as a ski resort, not a town, so it's probably OK to keep in the list. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Do you think too that this banner would would better than the existing one? ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I do prefer the new one, providing that it isn't used in any other article on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm concerned by the new one. If you look at the original it seems that the colors have been significantly amplified. I would reject this banner on the basis of TTCF , which is that the traveler is not served well by an image that is not an accurate representation of what they would see when they visit.

By the way, the original might actually make a fine banner, just not doctored to look like Disneyland in this way. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I see. Yeah, if the colors are doctored, I would reject it, too, and besides, the original photo of the mosque actually looks better. I much prefer the subtler color contrast. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek:؛ ok .thank adn agree whit you. شاملو (talk) 10:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

and are you agree this pic :

I initially got the impression that those are the true colors of that mosque from other photos of that mosque that exist on Wikicommons (which I understand now that were altered "to look like Disneyland" after I looked more carefully at additional photos of that mosque). شاملو, your suggested alternative banner was not rotated to be straightened - the floor at the left side of the banner is higher than the floor on the right side of the banner.)

Either way, I fixed the colors in the alternative suggested banner:

• 
  Suggested alternative banner with fixed colors.

ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Are you sure you uploaded the true-color version? These colors don't look fixed to me, unless I'm missing something. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek:؛ please chek this pictures this is not old pictures this pic crop of orginal pictures .ok?

The color looks more orange than the original, unless I'm somehow getting confused. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek:؛ no... this color is true . not orange .please chang baner .thank my dear شاملو (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek:؛ Well, what results did? شاملو (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Let's see what other people think. Please be patient; it's no disaster if it takes a day or two more to establish a consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek:؛ So we change the image and the feedback we have accepted? شاملو (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ikan Kekek and Andrewssi2 - most likely I was misunderstood once again (this happens once in a while unfortunately as I am not a native English speaker). Either way, I will try to explain myself more clearly this time around - initially I made the mistake of changing the colors when I attempted to change the colors because I thought the colors where off when I saw this photo on Wikicommons and this photo on Wikicommons. After realizing that both those photos I relied upon did not have the true colors, I created a newer version of that same banner, in which I did not change the colors, and instead of uploading the newer banner to a different file location on Wikicommons I uploaded it as a new version of the old banner file. For this reason, if either one of you still haven't see the newer version I created you most likely haven't reloaded your browser's cache - please reload that picture in your browser or go to the file on Wikicommons and see for yourself that the new version of that file is different. ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm thoroughly confused, but providing that the new proposed banner actually has accurate color, I'm fine with it. However, before the banner is changed, شاملو and ויקיג'אנקי, let's please await more input, from Andrewssi2 at least. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek:؛I'll give you one day soon proved wrong picture and then we change it. And you will agree. I'll give you one day soon proved wrong picture and then we change it. And you will agree.

I'm not opposed to changing the pagebanner. I just need for you to stop edit warring and wait for a consensus!! Consensus is the Wiki way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

ויקיג'אנקי , I don't understand what was the issue with the colors from the discussion above, but ultimately it doesn't matter as long as we accurately show the destination to the traveler.

I do have one issue with your new banner in that it is actually smaller than the existing banner which (as per the separate discussion thread) will not look good in the future. I therefore humbly propose my banner, derived from the original image proposed. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Let's go with your banner, then. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

And what about Wikidata? The present image is put there as Wikivoayge banner. --FredTC (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

FredTC , although we can use the image referenced in Wikidata, there is absolutely no rule or policy that says we must use it. In fact for high profile articles such as country level it is probably better to retain control on English WV. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek, FredTC , Andrewssi2 :؛ I am interested in all countries as a joint work of scholars in this series provided that all countries have to agree the new banner.

I'd also say Andrewssi2's version is the better crop at this moment; it misses the tip of the domed roof, but this last one seems to be somewhat blurry. شاملو, please, we do not set ultimatums of "one day" here :-) If a discussion like this evolves, it's common courtesy to allow several days for people to give their opinions. Not everyone visits the website every day - especially now in the western holiday season. Therefore, please wait at least a few days. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

And again you changed it to a version of your own. I've now protected the page to prevent further edit warring. شاملو, please understand no-one is against changing the banner. However, you will need to be patient and allow for a proper discussion to take place. If a consensus is reached, we will change it. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

شاملو, The choice of banner can be different (or the same) for each article between different language versions of WV. It is up to the community on each Wikivoyage site. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

So, to conclude; I see several people supporting the new banner, in the version Andrewssi2 made. Any other comments on this, or shall we change it to that one? JuliasTravels (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm too modest to support mine :) Well, actually I like both the existing banner and the newly proposed one. Both would compel me to visit Iran. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I also support Andrewssi's crop, I like it better because the image is devided into more regular horizontal thirds. In any case this banner is more appealing than the original one. Thanks for the effort :) Danapit (talk) 12:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, put Andrew's one in. Pashley (talk) 12:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Very well, it's done. Thanks شاملو for suggesting the new image, and thanks to Andrewssi2 for providing the crop. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please edit "get around => by Metro => Mashhad => the line runs Vakil Abad to Ghadir. " The Hashemi Nejad International airport Station is not active. 0Danial0 (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, 0Danial0. I've edited the section as you asked. JuliasTravels (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello.

I'm writing anonymously because I don't want Wikivoyage community to know of the degrading experience I had in Iran.

First of all, it's important to note that I'm gay - I'm totally proud of it and not ashamed one bit.

A few months ago, I went on a trip in Iran with my boyfriend.

When I innocently gave my boyfriend a little kiss, we were suddenly arrested by policemen.

They said we mustn't show our perversion in the public, and people like us are punishable by death.

We explained we are just tourists, and we knew nothing about this law.

After we experienced that shocking harassment, of course we stopped our trip.

And why am I telling you all of this? Because I find it very important to clearly warn homosexual/lesbian couples of visiting this primitive country.

Thus, I've added a clear notice at the top of the guide.

PLEASE DO NOT UNDO MY EDIT. Thanks in advance.

--63.141.217.81 18:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Aren't there relatively few homosexuals that are as ignorant of the conditions obtaining in Iran and other Muslim countries as you? BushelCandle (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think you're wrong. Both me and my boyfriend knew that Muslim countries don't like homosexuals, but we had no idea that in the 21st century there are countries where homosexuals are executed just because of their sexual orientation. --63.141.217.81 18:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

You must live in America to be so ignorant. Didn't you do any research at all before you traveled ? I'd better warn you not to try and convert anybody to Christianity too while you're in the Islamic Republic of Iran or visit Jeddah or Homs for your next vacation stop. BushelCandle (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please be civil.

I would agree that treatment of homosexuals in countries like Iran is well-publicized, and Iran is not alone in its treatment of homosexuals, but given the severity of the country's punishments a warning in the "Stay safe" section is definitely warranted. I've removed the warning at the top of the article since "Stay safe" is really the right place for it, and top-level warnings in country articles are usually reserved for wars or massive natural disasters. Also, if the current warning could be reformatted to use Template:Warningbox that would be consistent with warnings in other articles. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps I'm ignorant, but I'm sure there are lots of people like me. I swear I didn't know anything about the anti-gay laws in Iran. Again, before I went on the trip in Iran, I assumed Iran are homophobes. However, I had no idea that I might be killed for kissing my boyfriend.

Please return the warning to the top of the page - it's very important. Wikivoyage is for tourists, and 10% of the tourists are homosexuals or lesbians. All of them should know the treatment of homosexuals before visiting Iran, and most of the people who read the guide wouldn't notice the brief section regarding gay and lesbian travel. --63.141.217.81 18:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's not me you need to convince. I wasn't the one who removed your warning. If it's really true that there are people that manage to get a visa to Iran without ever realizing that it's an Islamic country and official and unofficial penalties for homosexuality and blasphemy are not exactly lightweight, then warnings are necessary at the top of very many of our articles. BushelCandle (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Given that homosexuality is illegal in many countries around the world, and given that all manner of activities that are normal (or, at worst, minor infractions) in one country can have serious repercussions in other countries, I'll leave it to others to weigh in on whether we want to change our practice and start putting these types of warnings at the tops of articles. Perhaps we need a "Travel 101" article that can be linked prominently to provide advice like "gain at least a basic understanding of the customs and laws of a country before you visit". -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Travel_basics#Pick_your_destination ϒpsilon (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

People should definitely be warned before visiting Iran. Of course I knew Iran is an Islamic state, but I'm sure that most of the homosexuals who want to go on a trip in Iran are not aware of the law says you should be killed just because of who you are.

I only wanted to go on a trip in Iran because my friend (of course, he's straight) was there and he really enjoyed. Before I went on the trip, I had read about Iran and its laws. I knew it's a relatively primitive country, but to kill people because they love the same sex? That's inhuman. If I knew they execute homosexuals before I went on the trip, I would never dare to ever visit Iran.

What I'm trying to say is that people should be warned of this death penalty before they go on a trip in Iran. And given that it's a matter of life and death, the warning should be much more prominent than a brief regular section in the middle of the guide.

@Ryan: Sadly, homosexuality is really illegal in many countries. However, most countries prohibit homosexuality are remote countries in Africa or Asia, such as Saudi Arabia and Yemen, where there aren't many tourists. In Iran there are a lot of tourists, which means a significant portion of them are homosexual or lesbian couples, and they should be clearly cautioned when they read about Iran in Wikivoyage.

If you were homosexual, and if you experienced the humiliating incident I experienced in Iran, you would doubtlessly sympathize with me. --63.141.217.81 19:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Technically, it's what you do (rather than who you are or your proclivities) that are illegal in Iran. If you remain chaste and celibate, you will probably only encounter contempt in most Muslim and African countries. Just think about how the law regards pedophiles in the U.S.; as long as they keep their hands and thoughts to themselves (never mind any constitutional amendments to the contrary) the law can't touch them. That legal nicety wouldn't keep them safe in most bars in Texas, though. BushelCandle (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I only gave my boyfriend a little kiss. I don't remember, but maybe we were also holding hands. We did nothing more than that, and yet the law in Iran says we should be executed only because we love each other. I heard of teenagers who were sentenced to death in Iran just because they came out of the closet, that's really heart-wrenching.

Don't you think tourists should be warned before travelling in this country? --63.141.217.81 20:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

No the law in Iran doesn't say that at all. You seem to not be bothering to read what I wrote. You can love each other. But you can not declare that love publicly in Iran. Sending love poems to your boyfriend or holding his hand or pecking his cheek are NOT officially capital offenses in Iran. Buggering him is. But you really can't practice safe homosexual sex in Iran. The judicial process can't be trusted to make these fine legal distinctions in Iran. Technically you shouldn't be shot stateside for telling a cop to fuck off and pushing him off the sidewalk - however it's not something I'd recommend as safe pedestrianism.

Did you really not realize that, with the exception of the U.S. and China, all the top 10 hang-em-high countries are Muslim ?

You've really made me curious now, what was it about Iran that made you visit there ? BushelCandle (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

We have an entire article on LGBT travel, with an extensive list of LGBT travel#Dangerous destinations. There are clear warnings about this and other countries, with Africa and Arabia usually the worst on the planet. Is this what you're looking for? K7L (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's good, but it's definitely not enough. There's homophobia in the entire world, and there are lots of countries that forbid homosexuality. But when it comes to DEATH PENALTY, then it's not fine to not mention it clearly in the beginning of the guide. --63.141.217.81 20:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Actually, you've convinced me.

Although homosexual acts are criminalized in more than 80 countries, there are not that many where you can still be executed for sodomy.

"Brunei Darussalam is due to activate the death penalty for same sex sexual acts in 2016"

Iran: Sharia law means homosexual intercourse between men can be punished by death, and men can be flogged for lesser acts such as kissing. Technically, women may only be flogged but sometimes they've added blasphemy charges so as not to have cranes standing idly by.

Iraq: The penal code's relatively liberal (thank you GWB), but people have still been lynched by militias and sentenced to death by judges citing sharia law.

Mauritania: Technically non-Muslim men and women can have a gay old time here - it's only Muslim men buggering each other that can be stoned to death, according to a 1984 law. Women just face prison.

Nigeria: This is an odd one. Federal law classifies homosexual behavior as a felony punishable only by imprisonment under the old British colonial laws, but several states have adopted sharia law and imposed a death penalty for men.

Qatar: Sharia law in Qatar applies only to Muslims, who can be put to death for extramarital sex, regardless of sexual orientation. Do we score that one as win for gay rights ?

Saudi Arabia: This one surprised me as being more liberal than I expected; technically it's only married man engaging in sodomy or any non-Muslim who commits sodomy with a Muslim who can be stoned to death. All sex outside of marriage is illegal of course.

Somalia: again, they're refreshingly flexible; the penal code stipulates prison, but in some southern regions, Islamic courts have imposed Sharia law and the death penalty. Best bet would be Somaliland then...

Sudan: This one is really liberal since it's only three-strike sodomites that can be put to death; first and second convictions just result in flogging and imprisonment. (South Sudan has changed its laws so that there is Christian tolerance.

Whoops! I overlooked the daesh held areas of Syria or, as you Americans would say, Islamic State. Punishments can get really inventive here... BushelCandle (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

United Arab Emirates: homosexual rape will get you the death sentence so you better get signed consent before you indulge. However, all sexual acts outside of marriage are punishable by the criminal law.

Yemen: married men can be sentenced to death by stoning for homosexual intercourse. BushelCandle (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

You've stated your reasoning clearly, and I guess we all understand this issue is one you feel strongly about. While no-one disputes the seriousness of the situation, a warning like this belongs in the Stay safe section on Wikivoyage. Unfortunately, several countries use very severe penalties for activities that would gain a few years of jail time or are considered normal in other parts of the world. Yes, death penalties for being gay exist, and not only in Iran. The same is true for blasphemy or (relatively minor) drug offences. Also think of extended jail time and massive flogging for blogging. Both Wikivoyage and Wikipedia have all the relevant information concerning LGBT travel in Iran for anyone who wants to get informed, or even just reads the article. Even for anyone who is not homosexual, it would be very unwise to travel without reading the stay safe section here or in any other travel guide. I'm most sorry for what has happened to you, and your concern is duly noted, but I think you'll need to let go of the warning at the top idea. Best of luck, JuliasTravels (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Should the 'understand' section (or the subsection on religion) not mention that religion is used in Arabia as a pretext to persecute gays and lesbians, ban alcohol, criminalise blasphemy, discriminate against women or whatever else takes place in these countries? K7L (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

(reply to 63.141.217.81) Template:Warningbox is explicitly for the purpose of "non-obvious dangers to life and limb", be it applying the death penalty for homosexuality or something else. We have a warning in the "Stay safe" section of the Yellowstone article warning that people are killed or injured by wild animals on a regular basis, but we don't put a warning on the top of that article. Drug trafficking in Malaysia and Singapore carries the death penalty, and even having a joint in your luggage will get you thrown into jail, but again, the warning is in the "Stay safe" sections of those articles. People are swept over waterfalls and killed in Yosemite almost every year, but the warning is in the appropriate article section and not in a warning at the top of the article.

Just as Lonely Planet doesn't stamp the cover of their Iran guide with a warning about persecution of homosexuals, standard practice on Wikivoyage has been to provide prominent and visible warnings in the appropriate article section rather than making the top of the article a long list of concerns for the traveler. I prefer that approach, but if others agree with you that it should be changed then I have no objection to restoring the warning to the top of the Iran article and moving warnings on other articles to the top section. HOWEVER, without a consensus for change I strongly support the status quo in which warnings are generally included in the relevant article section. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

by the time I looked, the warning was gone from the top of the article. which I think is correct. I added a mention of strict homosexuality laws to the wanring box at the top of "stay safe", which previously only mentioned drug laws. I also toned down what I thought was excessive use of emphasis in the section on gay travel. If someone is reading that section & the warnings apply for them, they won't need screaming red text to see it is important. Pashley (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Although we should assume good faith in all contributions, I can't help but not be convinced by this one. As mentioned by others above, any gay people traveling to Iran are very unlikely to be ignorant of the situation there. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

This article goes into some detail on the previous visa regime for US visitors to Iran. AFAIK, Iran has changed to not issuing any visas to US citizens any more. Am I mistaken on that? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am on a tour in Iran with four Americans. I have not heard any of them say anything about a ban. There is talk about the Turkish ban. Ground Zero (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

hello i think it is better we have some advantage to select city, like unesco world heritage sites or some thing like this. in that list we have some city that are not important to international travel who come to Wikivoyage to have good travel like qom and we don,t have some city like kerman that have 5 sites in unesco list.Sadegh sadegh (talk) 09:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm inclined to agree with adding Kerman. I'm not sure about removing Qom; it does not get many Western tourists, but my understanding is that it is important as a Shi'a pilgrimage site. Could we remove Qazvin or Yazd instead? I do not know the country well enough to be certain. Pashley (talk) 11:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm no expert on Iran, but I've seen pictures from Kerman and also would tend to support including it. I have the same questions about Qom that Pashley has - it's a really important place of Shia pilgrimage and politically important in the Islamic Republic of Iran, as I understand. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've been to Iran, but neither recently nor for very long so I cannot claim to be expert either. I'd say Tehran, Isfahan, Mashad & Tabriz are the top cities that absolutely must be on the list; I'd be very surprised if anyone disagrees about those. The second rank, as I see it, are Shiraz, Kerman & Hamadan, in roughly that order of importance. I'd be ready to argue for those but would not be surprised if others felt differently.

That's seven & policy allows nine, so two more. I like the idea of keeping Yazd because it is the only one we list in that province & I'm told it is an unusual & interesting city. Also Qom per above. That would make Qazvin the one to go, but I could easily be wrong. Pashley (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

i agree with both of you and i said qom just for example, it was better that we dont omit one city and we can listed ten or eleven cities on this list. tehran is capital and isfahan , shiraz ,kerman,yazd and tabriz are five historical city and mashhad and qom are important city for iranians so i supose we omit qazvin or hamedan.and we can add qazvin to Other destinations. Sadegh sadegh (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

"Cities" sections in non-bottom-level regions are limited to 9, and "Other destinations" are for non-city destinations, such as parks, big archeological sites and islands. So which city remaining on the list is least important? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

according to all that we said, i think it is better to omit qazvin.and i think it is better to list like this 1- tehran 2- isfahan 3- shiraz 4- kerman 5- yazd 6- tabriz 7- hamedan 8- mashad and 9- qom. becouse tehran is capital and number 2 to 7 are historical city and 8 and 9 are religen city. Sadegh sadegh (talk) 09:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. So then Qazvin is the one to go. Standard Wikivoyage order is to list the capital city (in this case, Tehran) first and then list everything else in alphabetical order. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've reinserted the listing for Kerman and subtracted the Qazvin listing. I think the 1-liner listing for Kerman could be more striking, though. How would you summarize the attraction of the city? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

thanks for adding kerman i will add some place for kermanSadegh sadegh (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

What should our style guide recommend as the standard notation at Currency? Past practice suggests that rials should be used instead of IR or IRR, neither of which seems to be commonly used in the country. Ground Zero (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Something I found quite confusing is described at Iran#Toman, but I was there decades ago. Is that sill accurate? Pashley (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it is. Somehow saying "55,000 toman" is easier that saying "550,000 rials". "T" is sometimes used to indicate toman. It doesn't simplify things as far as I can tell, but it is used. Ground Zero (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

rial is the Official of iran Currency with IRR but People for the comfort use toman every 10 rial equal 1 toman Sadegh sadegh (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

For what it's worth, there is a Unicode character for the Iranian rial: ﷼. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've toned down the warning about gay and lesbian couples - it was over the top. Gay and lesbian couples who travel understand that they are not in San Francisco or Brighton. I just spent two weeks with my husband on a tour in Iran, and didn't feel in the sort of danger that would warrant a blanket "don't go" warning. Yes, we donned a metaphorical hijab, removed our wedding rings, avoided public displays of affection, and didn't complain about getting a room with two single beds, and we had no issues. Ground Zero (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

You going there and not having a problem is one thing. I personally won't go to Iran until and unless the current regime is removed, but that's just me. However, I do think that we should make it very clear that being homosexual in Iran is not a thing of "oh be careful because people might stare" but "if you're unlucky, the state will kill you". Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

My version did not say "people might stare" anywhere, but (in boldface text) "male homosexuality is punishable by death and sex by lesbians is punishable with lashes", "same-sex intercourse for males can carry a death sentence", and "Public displays of affection between male or female couples... might result in harassment by security forces." I don't think that this version underplayed the seriousness of the situation. Perhaps you should read the article instead of just the talk page before you respond. Ground Zero (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Shiraz In 1frame.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Dar ul-Hifaz - Holy Shrine of Ali al-Riha - Mashhad-Iran.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@ThunderingTyphoons!: Hi, it's strange to put warnings on top of a article which are not considered as a hazard for tourists. These sentences are not true at all. You don't see any terrorism attacks in province "Sistan and Baluchestan", regularly. The province is near Pakistan border and in the past some terrorist attacks have been occurred but it's not a threat to tourists as the province is not a major tourist destination. Apart from, it's not necessary for tourists to pass through this border even for travelling to Pakistan. To be honest, the safety in this part is lesser than other parts of the country but you can not say that the country is not safe! --Doostdar (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Doostdar. It's not me saying those areas are unsafe, it's the travel advisories of six major English-speaking countries' governments, as linked in the warning box. I understand that you have a much better understanding of the safety situation in Iran than I ever will, but all the same, it would be irresponsible to override the advice given by numerous governments based on the word of one person, don't you think?--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Alcohol was mentioned in both Eat and Drink, with somewhat different information on the rules. I merged them in Drink and rewrote slightly. I am however not sure I got it right. It seems there are differences between what is legally allowed, "officially" or in practice tolerated by the government and/or police, and what people do. That means careful wording is needed (and erring on the side of caution). I am not sure I succeeded in getting it right. Please check if you know. --LPfi (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Visitor (Griselda Ramirez) Holds Freshly-Acquired Iranian Currency - Downtown Ardabil - Iranian Azerbaijan - Iran (7421182372).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

We probably need photos of Iranian currency on this page, so does anyone object to uploading this photo locally? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Support.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Done. It might or might not be deleted from Commons, but now we don't have to worry about that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. –LPfi (talk) 06:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sure thing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi: Thanks for these edits; they were definitely an improvement. I'm not sure about having the section in 'Get in', though, as it is primarily a safety issue, and there's nothing in the section about entering the country.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Although, as I understand it from the Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe case, dual citizens are required to enter Iran using their Iranian passport, so maybe there should be a note in 'Get in'. However, the rest of the section would be better under 'Stay safe'.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Do as you want. I left it in Get in because of that issue. The problem with marriages is now also in Stay safe: Women, but as it is kind of hidden away there, I did not remove it.

–LPfi (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Done --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article says (in Internet):

"You can circumvent this by using a VPN or proxy."

However, Internet access#VPN providers says:

" However, in [... Iran] the mere usage of VPN is illegal and can land you in prison, no matter what you use it for.

Is the latter true? If so, we should have that warning in this article too, and not advice travellers to use it. I changed it now. Revert and edit the Internet article if it isn't true. –LPfi (talk) 09:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

When I was in Iran in 2018, our tour guide told us "we all use VPNs". I suppose it is worth mentioning, but excessive warnings do not help travellers if it warns them away from something that everyone does. I think almost everyone on my tour downloaded and used a VPN while we were there, and no-one landed in prison or was be-headed. Ground Zero (talk) 12:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have adjusted this. If there is any report of tourists being jailed for VPN use, we should update it, but let's not give alarmist warnings. Ground Zero (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) I haven't been to Iran, but this bill was proposed earlier this year. I'll let you do the interpretation. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Did the bill pass into law? Ground Zero (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I find the paragraph on sex segregation in Current issues a bit confused. What was the situation before the revolution? Saying "increased" gives the impression there was quite some mandatory sex segregation, while I believe there was a radical shift. The sentence beginning "As a general rule" should be edited to be more clear (what is the role of bachelors here? aren't they included in "opposite sexes"). The rules that affect visitors should probably be left to Respect or Stay safe. –LPfi (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Formerly we said, in Relationships with Iranian nationals, that adultery and sexual contact outside marriage carry the death penalty. The latter part was removed. We still say that relations (I assume we mean sexual relations and formal ties, such as engagement, but we should be clearer) between non-Muslim men and Muslim women are illegal. What about sexual relations between unmarried persons who are both (or neither) Muslim? –LPfi (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree that we should be clearer about interreligious sexual relations. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Earlier today I moved the safety warning to the top of the article. This made sense to me, as tourists being killed is something that people might want to know front and center. Not too long after, not only was the edit reverted but the user who reverted the edits removed bits from the warning label, citing..... themself as a source...... contradicting the 6 major countries that warn against visiting Iran. 64.237.107.38 01:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

None of the 6 major countries have expressed an opinion on whether Wikivoyage should post its warning at the top of the article or in the Stay safe section. That is a decision for the Wikivoyage community to make, through discussion. I don't think that the big warning box should be at the top of the article, but I will respect the consensus of the community.

The information is provided for travellers for their consideration. Wikivoyage should inform travellers of the risks and dangers of travelling to Iran, but the opinion of a few Wikivoyage editors and whether or not anyone should visit the country means nothing. We should not be telling travellers what to do. Ground Zero (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Apologies, I made the same edits without having realized that there was a page discussion ongoing.

I believe that the WarningBox should appear at the top of the article.

I want to first address the comment that .64.237.107.38 made, which is that a single traveler's opinion does not supersede travel advisories from various countries. This has been discussed in Travellers'_pub#Proliferation_of_Warning_boxes and there is hubris in assuming that one's recent travel experiences can replace the work of governments in researching, assessing and validating safety and security information on the ground. I'm not saying this is the case here, but I just want to put that out there. For that reason, I'd also oppose excessively long warning boxes containing prescriptive text and directions about how to travel for country articles where things can vary quite a bit.

In the same lens though, Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first applies. I don't think we should bury WarningBoxes in Stay Safe. As WikiVoyagers, we are more likely than not to be relatively seasoned travelers, and for those that watch the Iran page, I'm sure that many of you are exceptionally seasoned travelers. But as a travel guide, many of our readers are exploring one of many possible destinations. I'm sure there's a broad subset of travelers that want to defy travel advisories, or know they're well-prepared to handle any challenges they encounter, that browse this page out of their morbid curiosity, but there's also travelers that use WikiVoyage that aren't in this sphere. They too deserve access to high quality and valid information that can help inform them about the risks of traveling, and if the significance of that information requires that it be prominently featured, we should be able to feature that information.

When those risks are ever-present and more than just a footnote, such as when governments issue travel advisories against all travel, there is value in telling readers that their government and other governments have published travel advice that is probably more credible than what we have to offer. These advisories can seem trivial to past visitors and I can understand the case for why some might want to bury them in Stay Safe, but these non-obvious risks to life and limb do exist and we should inform travelers about it. It's a big deal when your country can't help you or provide consular assistance, when your travel insurance is voided, when you may suddenly get stranded in your destination because civilian airspace is closed due to an unpredictable security situation, when you cross the border only to realize you're doing something very illegal (that's totally a non-issue at home).

Without telling visitors that they will immediately die upon their arrival in Iran and they should never go here (total hyperbole), there's clearly a compromise that we can tell visitors in a two short sentences that there are travel advisories against travel, and still leave it up to visitors to decide what's best for them, and put this at the forefront of the article. The red box is a harsh eyesore, but I don't think it detracts that much from the article either so long as we don't insist on hyperbolic text blobs. Cyali (talk) 05:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think we should have a brief warning box at the top of the article. At present you would see that you won't get visa free access to the US before you see that you will be executed for being gay, which is not a logical order. AlasdairW (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't know whether the current situation warrants a box at the top, but Get in is before Stay safe, so issues about getting in generally come before safety issues. You just have to click on Stay safe (or scroll down) if you want to read the warnings up front. Warnings at the top are for issues anybody should know before wasting time on contemplating a trip to the country, such as an ongoing war or an Ebola breakout (not for "avoidable" dangers, which the LGBT issues usually are, at least if you travel without your partner). –LPfi (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think anyone in the LGBTQ+ community would

a) Have a high chance of traveling with their partner

b) Like to know if they're not welcome in a country 64.237.107.38 05:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Off course. But they know there are problems in many countries, so they can be expected to check Stay safe and Respect. They are also quite small a group; we don't put warningboxes at the top for dangers to dual citizens or other such special cases. –LPfi (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

User 64.237: no-one is suggesting that the information be removed from the article. Ground Zero (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply