Talk:Iran Voyage Tips and guide

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

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