Talk:Visa requirements for Danish citizens

Sudan
According to the Wikipedia page on Denmark-Sudan relations, Sudanese President Omar al Bashir declared that "No Danes shall ever again be able to set foot in Sudan," or something along those lines, in response to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Does Sudan actually refuse entry to Danes?98.218.229.58 (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Faroe Islands and Greenland
Since The Faroe Islands and Greenland are part of The Danish Realm, and any person born there are danish citizens by birth; it is superfluous to add these two territories to this list. There is freedom of movement within The Danish Realm. Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 20:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

'Free parking'
All past versions of this article are, of course, preserved in this article's edit history.

Nevertheless, this edit worried that material more than two and a half years out of date was being removed from the lede: The World Tourism Organization also published a report on 15 January 2016 ranking the Danish passport 1st in the world (tied with Finland, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Singapore and the United Kingdom) in terms of travel freedom, with the mobility index of 160 (out of 215 with no visa weighted by 1, visa on arrival weighted by 0.7, eVisa by 0.5 and traditional visa weighted by 0).

Obviously outdated material such as this (that is also, quite rightly, not mentioned anywhere else in the article) should not appear in the lede per WP:LEADDD and MOS:LEADREL which suggest and and and and
 * Summarize the most important points of the article but Don't include information that is not covered later
 * The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.
 * The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents.
 * The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes. The lead is the first thing most people will read on arriving at an article. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on...


 * According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. If there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article...

Clearly it is quite misleading (and also confusing when the previous sentence currently indicates that the Danish passport is objectively not the best in the World) to summarise to our readers that the Danish passport might be the best in all the world when that is clearly currently false (and the historical trend is for European passports to be overtaken by Asian passports such as those from Japan and Singapore) and that is why I removed this misleading and outdated (but adequately sourced) text.

Editors should try to resist their natural conservative instincts to never remove outdated, obsolete and misleading material. --BushelCandle (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I really don't like this. Which rule talks about "parking" content on the talk page? Please return sourced content to the article. You have tried to remove it, but it became apparent to you that it was a controversial and contested edit. Therefore until the issue is resolved through talk page discussion the content should be the last stable version as per WP:STABLE. The last stable version is the one with the content added back in 2016. Of course this does not mean that no content can be removed across Wikipedia, but only if the content is in the violation of the rules. What we are having here is a so called content dispute, and it can only be resolved through discussion, not through physically pushing your view using a delete or undo button. So please revert your edits back to the stable version and then we can continue discussing the dispute itself right here. And also once we start a discussion I would kindly ask you to avoid using false narratives, for example defending removal of content from the article entirely by talking about what should be in the article lede as if we were discussing the position of the content within the article and not the complete removal of such content. It's not a welcoming atmosphere for a healthy discussion. Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

References and notes

 * References


 * Notes