This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

New contributor User:WheelGun has been adding a good deal of gun related information to this article as well as other US articles.

Just as a check to ensure that remain a travel guide and not a compendium of facts, how much of this is truly relevant to the traveler? An American traveler may find this of use since gun laws in New York are different from (say) Tennessee, but for the international traveler the specifics are often irrelevant. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be relevant to know where an openly carried gun is called "Tuesday" and where it definitely and decidedly means trouble. Either misapprehension can be dangerous... What we should avoid is weighing in on either side of the debate and providing too much detail in articles like USA or South. Most of those things seem to be based on state laws and thus best addressed in state articles where travel relevant... Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Travelling with firearms" is probably a travel topic worth starting since a sentence or two in each state article is more than enough info for the vast majority of travelers, but for those who do travel with weapons it is important to provide sufficient detail to make appropriate plans. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already exists at Recreational shooting#United States of America? 2001:5C0:1000:A:0:0:0:9B 00:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like Ryan's suggestion. I would say issues around carrying a handgun for personal protection are not well covered under 'recreational shooting'. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was pleasantly surprised that the section does actually seem to be written for the traveler from a neutral standpoint. I would say that the information is potentially helpful, but it isn't completely focused as a "Stay safe" topic, which should specifically address an issue or non-issue that people may think is an issue related to safety. This article mixes in hunting/sport advice with danger advise. Is it true that renouncing your citizenship means you cannot carry a gun for any reason in the US? I learned something there I never knew. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support Ryan's suggestion, too. And I imagine User:WheelGun would probably be happy to contribute his great knowledge to the topic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do need to decide if we need to pare down the info in existing articles, though. We don't have a policy similar to w:WP:Undue weight, but I am a little concerned about the level of detail being placed. Powers ^(talk) 00:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the solution is to have all the details that could be relevant to any traveler in the Travelling with firearms topic and then having brief summaries in articles where that's relevant, with a pointer to the topic article as appropriate, rather as we've done with airport articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WheelGun says: My knowledge of firearms was just an entry point into this venture, I certainly do not plan to write a compendium of firearms legal advice (unless you want me to...) I have elaborated on many topics since then. Be advised that upstate NY is a crossroads of many cultures, very far right politically, and Ultra left wing NYC is two hours away. Upstaters trying to make a living on hardscrabble land and down-staters who think this is their big backyard. Just trying to mitigate culture clashes that happen all the time, and enable everyone to get along better. (No resentment here - I am originally from Brooklyn) Yes it is a safety issue - the NY state police will throw you in jail for crossing from PA or VT with a handgun. Happens way too often around here. Take a look at what I have done with CATSKILLS, NEW YORK over the past day. —The preceding comment was added by WheelGun (talk • contribs)

We wouldn't be giving legal advice, just practical advice similar to the advice you've been giving. I think that a topic on travelling with firearms would be useful to some of our readers. Have a look at some of our other travel topic articles and see what you think. On your other points, everything you're saying is really welcome and useful information for any traveller who's at all interested in what the place they're visiting is like, beyond the trees, farms, bears, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We currently have a recreational shooting article which is mostly about hunting with a bit of range target practice. Perhaps that article should be split to put the Elmer Fudd stuff in hunting (so that, like fishing, it's a standalone topic) and the rest in travelling with firearms? K7L (talk) 04:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upstate NY is not "very far right politically". Upstaters may be somewhat fiscally conservative, but hardly "far right", and they are socially moderate. Many oppose draconian gun regulations but support moderate ones, and support for abortion and gay marriage is fairly split. If you think upstate is "far right", try visiting the deep South or the Great Plains sometime. Powers ^(talk) 15:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enough... read what I have written. It's been blended in to general topics. Has anyone seen what I have done to the Catskills section recently or are we just going back and forth? Ikan Kekek thank you for the support. LtPowers, are you prior service? —The preceding comment was added by User:WheelGun (talk • contribs)

"prior service"? Powers ^(talk) 18:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:The dog2 just added the following text:

The constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of speech, meaning that a person cannot be prosecuted for any form of verbal abuse, racially-motivated or not (but can be for racially-motivated violence). While attitudes towards racism differ widely from region to region, the prevailing culture of political correctness means that it is rare for individuals to express racist opinions in public. The US is, at least publicly, a racially tolerant nation. Many states have laws against racial discrimination in the job market or university admissions.

There are a series of problems with it:

First, it's absolutely false that people can under no circumstances be prosecuted for any form of verbal abuse. Harassment is illegal. Being called a racial epithet once is not a crime, but someone who yelled one all night outside your door could be guilty of various crimes, including disorderly conduct. Chances are, the police, if called, might just tell the person to knock it off, but let's take another case: Suppose you have a manager at work who is constantly calling you racial epithets. You might have the basis for a civil rights lawsuit, based on your being in a hostile work environment. Now, do we really want to explain all that on Wikivoyage? No. But I think we need to simplify things by stating that racist speech per se is legally protected in the U.S. as part of the Constitutional right to freedom of speech.

Second, at this time, with Donald Trump leading in the Republican Presidential primaries, it absolutely is not rare for Americans to express racist opinions in public.

Thirdly, racial discrimination on the job market or college admissions is Constitutionally prohibited nationwide as a result of the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, it did take quite a bit of time to enforce that decision in the various states, especially down south, but it is quite misleading to point to state laws and ignore the fact that racial discrimination is illegal nationwide. That doesn't mean it doesn't still happen, and some recent Supreme Court decisions have weakened civil rights enforcement in important ways, but Brown v. Board of Ed is long since settled law.

I think it's a good idea to deal with racism in this article (please note the 4th sentence of "Stay safe/Police", which does so briefly and with content that can be easily proven if challenged), but in a "Stay safe" section, the important points would address first of all potential threats to a person's life and liberty (e.g., unwarranted police stopping and frisking of non-white people, police brutality, attacks by armed or unarmed racists, inequities in the justice system) and secondly, to their equal treatment (e.g., the tendency for store personnel to follow black customers around on the presumption that they must be shoplifters). We need to do this briefly and keep it relevant and not unduly alarmist. As for the rest, it's best to deal with background information in "Understand", briefly but accurately. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that the US constitutional guarantee on "freedom of speech" means that you can say whatever you like without facing any consequences, but if my impression of how far it goes is wrong, feel free to change it. I am not a legal expert so I do not know the details of the laws.

As for the part of expressing racist opinions, I get you point about Donald Trump, and I don't deny that it does happen. But as far as I can see, Donald Trump is among the minority who will actually publicly voice their racist opinions. There definitely is a strong culture of political correctness in the US, so I will say that the majority of people wouldn't actually dare to voice out racist opinions. I'm not saying that you don't have a lot of racist people, but at the same time, the culture of political correctness means that whatever racist opinions people may have is usually bottled up inside and not publicly expressed. My take on why Trump is so popular is that all these racist comments he is making are what people truly feel, but due to the prevailing culture of political correctness do not dare to articulate in public. So when someone like Trump comes along, and with the presidential primaries being a secret ballot, people would vote for him since he dares to say things they would never dare to, and in theory people would never find out how you voted due to the secrecy of the ballot.

And for your third point, go ahead and change it if I was wrong, I know that at least in the places I've lived, there are laws against racial discrimination in the job market and college admissions, but I'm not sure if those are federal or state laws. But I do think we should at least briefly point out that such laws do exist. The dog2 (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A majority of people don't have to openly express racist sentiments in order for it not to be "rare for individuals to express racist opinions in public". And it's not just now. The open expression of racist sentiments increased during the 2008 campaign, with the encouragement of Sarah Palin, and has continued throughout the Obama Administration, as supporters of white supremacy stewed while a black president was in office. You seem to be focusing only on the politicians, not their supporters; you seem to be under a misimpression that their supporters are just quiet consumers and are less pointedly racist than the politicians they're supporting, whereas the reverse is often true: They're more, and more violently racist. I don't think "a majority of people avoid racist remarks" is that useful a statement. On laws against racial discrimination: Sure there are state laws, but the main point is that it's illegal under the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was finally interpreted correctly again by the Supreme Court starting in 1954, with a number of important pieces of U.S. legislation passed both during the post-Civil War Reconstruction era and again starting in the 1960s, reinforced by several other landmark Supreme Court decisions and aggressive enforcement during the Eisenhower, Johnson and Nixon Administrations, among others (though not the Reagan Administration).

I'm not sure you really dealt with the gist of my argument, though:

but in a "Stay safe" section, the important points would address first of all potential threats to a person's life and liberty... and secondly, to their equal treatment. We need to do this briefly and keep it relevant and not unduly alarmist. As for the rest, it's best to deal with background information in "Understand", briefly but accurately.

We don't want to bloat this article unnecessarily, we need to keep it focused on the reader who may travel to and within the U.S. and situations they may encounter, and we should particularly avoid misleading generalizations and downright incorrect statements. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that we should not sensationalise issues, and we should keep the section concise, accurate and relevant for travellers. I probably got some details wrong since I did not study the U.S. legal system in detail, and I have also not been to every single part of the U.S., so go ahead and correct those whatever mistakes I made.

I don't know what you think, but I do think there are several points that definitely should be mentioned in this section though. Please let me know what you think of my points, and go ahead and re-write the section to make it more suitable for the article. A local like you would probably be more familiar with stuff than a foreigner like me.

• The U.S. constitution guarantees freedom of speech, so it is not illegal to make racist comments. We probably do not need to elaborate further, but this does mean that if someone walks past you and makes a racist remark towards you, there is nothing you can do since it is his/her right to freedom of speech under the U.S. constitution.
• There are laws against racial discrimination in employment or university admissions. I would say this is relevant since many travellers to the U.S. are here to work or study.
• I don't know about what it's like in the rural South, but as a non-white person myself, I have never experienced any open aggression from random guys in the street on the basis of my race. So while racism definitely does exist, I think it is important to note that as a traveller, at least in the more liberal and multicultural parts of the U.S., your chances of being targeted for racial abuse from random people while walking down the street is very slim. There may well be regional differences, and I won't be surprised if open racism is more common in the South than in the big touristy cities like New York, Chicago or San Francisco, so if that is true, then I think it does warrant a mention. I don't think we need to go into details about American racial politics since it goes way beyond the scope of a travel guide.
• As for more subtle forms of racism like police brutality and the like, I haven't been in the U.S. long enough to know first hand how serious the problem is. Personally, I have never been stopped and frisked by police, and neither have I been arrested before. But if that is likely to be an issue for travellers, please go ahead and add it in, since I wouldn't know what to write.

The dog2 (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I already added what I thought was necessary and important about dealing with cops in the "Police" subsection. I agree that random acts of aggression by civilians against people merely based on their color are quite uncommon in the U.S. Yes, it should be stated that discrimination in employment, college admissions and treatment at public accommodations is illegal and can be punished if the victim wants to sue. But parenthetically, I would say to you, if you are not familiar with Brown v. Board of Education, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, there are basic things about U.S. history you don't know or understand, and it's not the case that only "legal experts" are familiar with the basic facts about these things. Brown v. Board of Ed absolutely could be mentioned in "Understand", as could Plessy v. Ferguson (which you also don't need to be a "legal expert" to know about), but let's remember that we're trying to avoid bloat and keep this article as travel-focused as possible. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) I still think it's interesting that we have so much talk about race, anti-Islamic sentiments, etc in the US but why does no one care about these issues in Europe where they seem even worse in most cases? I get that we have a lot of Americans and US-travelers, so there are more people looking at and thinking about this article, but as I said way above when this section was first created, we're really treating the US as "special" when it's neither special nor is it likely the worst case. I appreciate The dog2 for chiming in as a non-white. It's nice to talk WITH people instead of talking ABOUT a group and trying to formulate their everyday experiences from a few high-profile news articles. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am white as white can be and I have to agree on the "US is probably not the worst place in this regard" point. When my girlfriend (who is not white) visited me in Dresden, she experienced an instance of insults based on the color of her skin. And just recently a woman at the supermarket shouted at some people who are presumably of foreign ancestry something along the lines of "Can't you behave in a foreign country". I am of course no expert on this, but I fear some parts of Europe have huge problems with racists and racism. But as a white person I observe, let alone experience probably only a small fraction of what actually happens. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I must say that having lived in Australia before, you definitely get a lot more racial jokes in Australia than in the US. I don't want to misrepresent Australians so I will point out here that in general, stereotypes are not as offensive to Australians as they are to Americans, so some of it may be misconstrued as racism by Americans when Australians see them as nothing more than jokes. And of course, as I previously mentioned, there is a strong culture of political correctness at least in the more liberal parts of the US, while that culture is not as strong in Australia. But in any case, there was once when someone actually drove by and shouted racist slurs at me in Melbourne, while such things have yet to happen to me in the US. Of course that is an isolated incident, and the vast majority of Australians I have met are racially tolerant, as are the vast majority of Americans I have met. Anyway, I will re-write the section and incorporate some of the points brought up here. Please feel free to edit so we can have something that relevant for travellers. The dog2 (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, everyone. I'll look forward to seeing what you come up with. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit unsure about "The U.S. constitution prohibits racial discrimination in range of public spheres such as employment, university admissions and receiving services from retail businesses." A federal constitution confers, defines or constrains powers or responsibilities allocated to various branches or levels of government - it doesn't govern individual retail businesses directly. w:Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States ruling that the "U.S. Congress could use the power granted to it by the Constitution's Commerce Clause to force private businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964." is not the same as the Constitution requiring directly that the motel act in some particular manner. The motel is a retail business, but is not a government and its role is therefore not defined by the federal constitution. K7L (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and edit it if you feel that it is not accurate. But what I am pretty sure of is that it is illegal for shops and restaurants to refuse service to me based on my race, so there definitely is some legislation regarding that. The dog2 (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is, notably including the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But K7L, isn't your argument the one Barry Goldwater advanced in 1964, which was decisively rejected in that election? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. I said that the federal Constitution "doesn't govern individual retail businesses directly" but that, based on a Supreme Court ruling, the "U.S. Congress could use the power granted to it by the Constitution's Commerce Clause to force private businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

The w:Barry Goldwater presidential campaign, 1964#Changing dynamics took a very different position on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as "Goldwater supported civil rights to varying degrees, but opposed this bill, reasoning that it undermined the sovereignty of the states to govern themselves."

The Constitution does give Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, but the actual law requiring the innkeeper not discriminate is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and not the Constitution itself. K7L (talk) 12:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. I think the current text of "Stay safe/Racism" is good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important for us to post some excerpts of this with a link, but I anticipate that it may be controversial and would like to broach the topic here first. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

exercise extreme caution .. in their interactions with the police. Do not be confrontational and cooperate. and Do not get involved in political or other demonstrations I think is good advice for most countries. Not to downplay this important topic that needs to be addressed but need to put it in proportion compared to number of people shot by non police in the USA and maybe mention the increase in deaths by cars in the US in the last couple of years. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bahamians are mostly black, so it's important to understand the advisory in that context; as mentioned in the "Stay safe/Police" section: "It is particularly important for you to appear calm and cooperative if you are a non-white person, as people of color are much more likely to be subjected to police harassment and violence in the United States than white people." I am not aware of the increase in death by car that you refer to. Perhaps you'd like to tackle this? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current Stay Safe / Police section states the main points quite well (keep calm, no sudden movements, more so for non blacks). What I feel is missing are comments on the heavily segregated communities. I feel very safe as the only white person on the streets of a city in India or China but in some suburbs of Los Angeles and Detroit I have been very unconformable (although not as much as some areas of Paris or some English cities) and in one incident in a suburb of St. Louis I was physically threatened because I was the only non black on the street. --Traveler100 (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry that happened to you! However, I think we should be careful not to overgeneralize about things like that. I taught at Bronx Community College in the 90s when it was not in a gentrifying neighborhood at all but a black Hispanic ghetto, and while students of mine from the neighborhood said it could be rough at night, I never felt threatened as the only white guy on the train a lot of the time, nor while walking to and from the college or in the college (with the exception of one unbalanced student that I had to look out for, but he never did anything). In 1997, while I was teaching there, I took a trip to Chicago for a conference in the summertime. I planned to meet a friend in Oak Park and was asked how I was getting there. "I'll take the L, of course!", I said. Several white people recommended I not take the L, but when I pressed them on whether it was unsafe, none would say it was; all they said was that I'd probably be the only white person on the train and might feel uncomfortable. I was the only white person on the train, had a friendly conversation with other passengers and enjoyed the experience. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just made this reversion.

My remark on the word "Yankee" in my edit summary:

As a New York Yankees fan, I disagree that there's anything necessarily derogatory about the term "Yankee", whether used to mean "American" abroad, "Northerner" in the South, or "New Englander" elsewhere.

And then I ran out of room, so I'm addressing "n-word" here.

My feeling about "n-word" is that I'd rather we not specify what that word is, but that this addresses things sufficiently:

If you have to reference race, Black or African-American, Asian, Latino or Hispanic, Native American or American Indian, and White or Caucasian are acceptable terms.

The likelihood is much greater that if you actually know what the euphemism "n-word" stands for, you know that that word is offensive and shouldn't be used unless perhaps you are African-American yourself — in which case, no-one needs to tell you anything. And otherwise, you've already been told what the acceptable terms are, so we aren't going to tell you what the offensive ones are.

Does anyone disagree? If so, how would you suggest phrasing these things? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. While the geographical variations in the meaning of "Yankee" were once accurate, I don't think anyone uses them that way locally anymore. And even if they did, the inappropriateness of using the word is highly dependent on context and tone. And I agree that anyone who knows what "the n-word" is would probably never use it. Powers ^(talk) 22:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any reason for us to list any slurs, whether in their full length form or abbreviated. Either in this article or anywhere else. I am not an expert on the term Yankee, but I thought it is only ever really used as an insult in Latin America, the South and when referencing Baseball. On the other hand, I would not know of many uses of the term Yankee outside of anti-imperialist tirades of the likes of Chavez or Castro or Southerners discussing the Civil War. But I don't really follow Baseball. At any rate, I think the current discussion of terms for racial/ethnic groups is appropriate, there is a little use for us to list slurs here as there would be to list them in any other article. The only thing that might merit discussion is if there are terms that are commonly used in other countries but are offensive in the US. The only such term I would know of is "Colo(u)red" which some Germans seem to think is more appropriate than "black" and which has a specific meaning in South Africa but is a certain degree of offensive in the US if I am informed correctly. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Colored" was the standard word for African-Americans 100 years ago, which is why the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is so named. The word, like "Negro" — which was still current in the 60s, as you can hear in speeches by Dr. King — is now totally outdated and except perhaps if spoken by a very old person, it would offend. But this seems like such an unusual thing to deal with, so I wouldn't include it in the article. "People of color" is used in the U.S. today, but that term refers to a much broader spectrum of non-whites, often all of them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree regarding both topics. There's no need to bring up the n-word, because if you know what word is meant, you should know that it's offensive. "Yankee" can be used as a slur, but can also be used neutrally or as a friendly jab; I don't see any reason it needs to be specifically mentioned. --Bigpeteb (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that neither of these are worth mentioning. As a sidenote, if a word does need to be mentioned, we need to use the word. Saying "Don't use the 'n' word" would not be helpful and presumes everyone knows what that means which is not true at all. I'm not going to write it out here because the discussion is over and there is no purpose, but if that way of writing occurs in other articles, the word should be written out. It looks very childish to to say "the n word"/"c word"/"b" word,etc. We're adults, and if we want our guides to be understood, we must say what we mean. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but I don't know if it's necessarily true that we're all adults. Powers ^(talk) 16:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. We've had children contribute to this guide. But I totally agree with you, ChubbyWimbus. If it's necessary to say what words not to use, they need to be specified. It's just that in this case, the words _to_ use have been specified, so I think there's no need to mention any of the numerous offensive ones. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time to split out shopping in the United States? The "buy" section seems to be becoming a "kitchen sink" into which to toss everything from incompatible electrical systems and mobile telephones to estate sales, thrift shops, garage sales. Isn't this page intended to be a very general overview of an entire country from the perspective of the voyager, with the detail pushed to pages further down the hierarchy? K7L (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is perhaps a bit too much detail here, but I don't see anything that is regionally specific; it pretty much all applies nation-wide. Powers ^(talk) 23:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really feel we should have a consensus first, before we slap big red warning boxes on high profile articles when the need is surely up for discussion. I get that the situation in the US is tense right now, and it's only to be expected that non-western governments (especially the ones with a complex relationship with e.g. the US) will be the first to issue warnings, but a Turkish warning to avoid demonstrations and follow the news when travelling to the US is, imho, reason for a mention in the Stay safe section rather than a warning box on top of the article, just like we do for other countries where there is an advise to be extra vigilant due to current political or other developments. Also keep in mind that in this particular case the original poster has an agenda and is trying to make a point; see Talk:Chechnya. Let's hear some opinions before reinstating any of those sudden and debatable boxes. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be a cautionbox in "Stay safe", but I think it's pretty reasonable and belongs in the article. Trump campaigned as an out-and-out, repeatedly ranting racist, religious bigot and misogynist, and has been rewarded by almost half the voting public in the U.S., across many states, with a victory. That, combined with current and potential problems relating to the angry opposition to his victory, which was attained with a minority of the popular vote amid some successful attempts to block some eligible voters (notably including some elderly black voters in states like North Carolina) from being able to vote, can easily be predicted to worsen things, and the reports I've read suggest that things have already gotten worse, especially among children, who are following Trump and his adult supporters by beating up fellow students who are Hispanics, disabled people, etc., citing his promises to deport Mexicans, build a wall, etc. Muslims have had problems in the U.S. ever since 2001, and these will obviously get worse, now that a candidate who promised at certain points in his campaign to bar all Muslims from entry has been elected. If I were a Turk, I would definitely think twice about traveling here now, and I certainly would think three times about spending time living here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, a mention in the stay safe section seems fair. Unfortunately, rather than join the discussion here, on Talk:Chechnya or on his talkpage, this user is choosing to start an edit war over red warning boxes on top of a list of US articles, India and United Kingdom. I've explained to him that he really should engage in the discussion, but his mind seems set. I don't want to seem too prejudiced, so I'm hoping others will join in before undoing all the warning boxes a second time. Also pinging User:K7L and User: Ypsilon, who have been involved before. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The red {{warningbox}} is for non-obvious dangers to life and limb. Aleppo is under siege, Mosul is a war zone, that sort of stuff. I've already placed a {{cautionbox}} about the currency situation in India#Buy - this is causing problems for the voyager but not directly endangering lives. We'd also routinely mention things like the recent New Zealand quake if they affect travel.

I've been making changes to article body text where the situation has been deteriorating because of the election... Americans in Cuba has an infobox stating that US-Cuba relations are a moving target and I've had to reword that to indicate they're about to take a turn for the worse. No, I did not cite Turkey as a source, w:WP:RS style. There are other, more trustworthy sources about the current situation - if only because it's a bad time to be a journalist in Turkey right now for reasons which have little to do with the US election result.

If something affects travel directly (and not in some brief, transitory manner like "a turnip truck overturned in the right lane of Route 66 is blocking traffic...") then mention it inline. At this point, the big red box is overkill. K7L (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, though, is there anything in that travel advisory that doesn't seem totally reasonable to you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unreasonable, but wouldn't you say it's rather obvious advice considering the generally known situation? There's nothing very specific in that particular Turkish advice. That doesn't make it invalid in any way, but K7L makes a valid point in saying that -unfortunately- Turkish press and governmental statements are not among the most trustworthy at the moment, and probably not the best place to find up to date information on the situation, which would be a good reason to include the link. I think the main thing (in all these cases) is just to get the core of the threat and advice across, so travellers can make informed decisions. I do feel that in general, unless there is specific information that is hard to link otherwise, we should try to focus on English language sources where we can. Google translate works somewhat okay for French and maybe Turkish, but not so great for e.g. Arabic. JuliasTravels (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is your main point that we should generally link only to English-language governmental warnings? That makes some sense, but it's also problematic in that many readers, though reading this English-language source, may be from countries whose governments don't put out English-language warnings, and we shouldn't assume that their specific security concerns will be dealt with in the travel advisories of governments that use English as an official language. I do see the exception guideline you're offering, though: "unless there is specific information that is hard to link otherwise". Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my point was that we should only include non-English links when they have some kind of added value, like information not available in English. I also don't think it's a great idea to start linking every English language advice available[1], when they all say the same thing. We're not trying to give readers links to their specific governments, but just to a few relevant, readable statements - as an encouragement to find updated info themselves. The warning boxes should be as compact as possible. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. So in this case, do we link any source, and if so, which one? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the situation is still quite volatile and covered daily in all kinds of media across the world, I think we can do very well without any specific link. But that's just me :) JuliasTravels (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it depends on the complexity of the situation; something like the India#Buy 500/1000-rupee currency demonetisation might need a link to more detail than we can fit into a brief {{cautionbox}}, as might the longstanding war on Da'esh, but does "widely-reported civil protests in the wake of the 2016 election" get the idea across just as easily without the mention that "the nation's own state radio" has extensive coverage or the mention that a foreign régime said something? Choosing Turkey seems odd as there are plenty of available sources closer to the situation which appear reliable; the "a seemingly-peaceful protest often can rapidly turn ugly" advice is so common on government external affairs sites as to be venturing into WV:NCO territory. There's also the not-so-minor detail that the voyager is still at far greater risk of being killed by common criminals than by election protesters at the moment. K7L (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, should we turn discussing warning box to the caution box in "Stay safe" part, as it has done for India  ? Ismail Khatai (talk) 10:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC+3)

I have read through the discussion, and frankly it doesn't seem sensible to advise against travel to the USA just because of a Trump victory. The UK is not advising this. Appreciate these are unusual times with a high degree of uncertainty, some volatility, but we haven't reached the threshold of 'dangerous' yet. I would travel tomorrow. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Turkish Foreign Ministry isn't advising against travel to the U.S., either, but it does give some advice about ways for its citizens to increase their safety while they're here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see proposed formulation of caution box:

Ismail Khatai (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC+3)

I think the text I used for what was a warningbox is clearer in explaining what the protests are in relation to. I can't insist on using the Turkish Foreign Ministry as a source if a majority here doesn't want to, but I think the gist of the content should appear in "Stay safe", because it's really accurate to say that things are tense now, and the U.S. - and especially religious and ethnic/racial minorities, transgendered people, disabled people and women - face(s) an uncertain future under a Trump Administration and Republican control over both Houses of Congress and very soon, the Supreme Court. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will put banner on stay safe block, then ( in the way as it is described in warning box ). But the way it is worded looks slightly exaggerated, as it is in real ( as i feel ). Suggest to use more soft wording. This is very ticklish issue. Ismail Khatai (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC+3)

There's no consensus here for a banner. I wasn't suggesting you plunge forward without waiting for a consensus. I predict that the cautionbox will be reverted by someone soon. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I don't even think we need a banner (but I have no strong feelings about it), and a link to the Turkish website seems unnecessary and in this particular case even biased. It has been said by others before; we start with inline text usually, unless there is something new, for which travellers are specifically vulnerable and of which travellers might not be aware (like the India money thing). The list of cities is also somewhat random, as there have been demonstrations in all kinds of places and for both sides; most of which were not violent. Yes, there has been an increase in reports of hate crimes and racism, in both direction). That is terrible and deserves mentioning. However, it's not like there never were any hate crimes or unrests before, and we've handled the increased police violence and accompanying protests last years with restraint too. For comparison; the UK saw a 40% rise in racial and religious abuse after the recent referendum, but that spike was gone after a few months. I get that people are frustrated and scared over the current situation in the US; I sure would be. But as a travel guide, we can't get ahead of the facts and warn for what might become a problem. Let's go about this as we would with any other country, monitor the situation and adapt the text as we go along. Obviously, things will change if the violence becomes more concrete or widespread. Compare it to the Turkey article. All western governments have been warning to exercise caution and avoid political demonstrations in Turkey for a long time. The same is true for dozens of other countries in the world. We don't use caution boxes to warn Jewish travellers from Muslim attacks in Parisian suburbs (which is also a real problem); but we do include an inline warning. So let's propose a wording for the USA, please go ahead an improve. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome of the recent Presidential elections have left the United States politically divided, and demonstrations are taking place in many major cities. In some cases, these demonstrations have turned violent. News media have also reported an increase in attacks and harassments (both verbal and physical) based on race, religion or sexual orientation over the past year and especially since the election. The situation remains volatile and travellers are advised to stay away from demonstrations, be vigilant and consult up to date information before and during their trip."

The Turkey warnings appear to be politically motivated, as a response to US warnings with which Erdogan disagrees. [2]. I'd hesitate to say "stay away from demonstrations" as this would also discourage legitimate, peaceful protest which the 1st Amendment should be protecting. Everything after that is WV:NCO. Governments are infamous for giving this sort of advice, but it's not very helpful.

"The 2016 Presidential election outcome has left the United States deeply divided politically, with widespread demonstrations in many major cities. While most protests are peaceful, a few have turned violent. Media have reported incidents of harassment (both verbal and physical) and attacks based on race, religion or sexual orientation."

Hopefully that avoids mentioning "nasty woman", "basket of deplorables" or any of the other charming epithets directly? K7L (talk) 14:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some prose to the effect of what K7L suggests in the "Stay safe" section seems fine. The warning box template explicitly states that it is for "non-obvious dangers to life and limb" and that it should be used sparingly, and I think most people would agree that "avoid political protests" is obvious, and that the dangers to minorities, while clearly escalated at the current time, do not rise to the level of "non-obvious dangers to life and limb" in a country where racially motivated violence has existed since its founding. A cautionbox also seems overblown to me, but I tend to generally be wary of adding warnings to articles based mainly on the current week's news coverage, so I'll defer to others on whether prose or a cautionbox is best. -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I find the warning downright confusing. On one hand you are warning against potential violence in demonstrations (from those who are not happy with the election) and on the other you are warning against hate crime, incidents of which are generally instigated by those favorable to the election outcome. Without any context I would assume that you are suggesting I would be subject to attacks on my race/religious beliefs/sexual orientation during these demonstrations.

Apart from a running commentary on the current situation, I still don't really get what advise we are trying to communicate to the traveler with this. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I daresay, the most likely danger of violence in demonstrations would be from the police, or possibly from pro-Trump individuals or groups, not from demonstrators opposed to bigotry and racism. I think the word is basically that this is an increased period of tension, and that particularly if you are recognizably non-white or non-Christian, you should be alert to this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American SJWs that are protesting "racism" and "bigotry" are a rather violent and intolerant bunch (and also rather racist and bigoted if you spend any amount of time listening to them); much moreso than a "Trump voter" which is not a cohesive group with a single motive despite attempts to mark them as such. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, I'm sure that pesky First Amendment will go away soon enough (most likely under a flurry of abusive litigation) as soon as people like Donald Trump and Peter Thiel are anywhere near the levers of power. Speak truth to power in their dystopic nation, get sued. K7L (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The SJWs are already against the First Amendment, so if you're right, he would be appeasing the Regressive liberals. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not think throwing around loaded terms (particularly those usually employed by people of a certain political bent) like "SJW" or "regressive" is all that helpful. For the most part we have managed to keep politics out of WV and I hope we can keep it that way. Way too many wikis have gone down in flames over silly political disputes. That being said if and when politics have consequences for travel, we should mention that and only that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I also don't think it's helpful to invoke fear-mongering with talk of First Amendment dissipation. And the idea that the protestors are riteous and non-violent has been proven false. A political narrative was being pushed there, which is why I responded and why I responded with the words used by those who oppose them. We need to focus on the present and edit later if there is a prolonged trend or the media claims about concentration camps becomes reality. I think what is written currently is close to as much as we can fairly say. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with your last sentence and will choose to ignore the rest. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Racism section

Would it be prudent to add a comment under the "racism" subheading that racist incidents have increased in past weeks as a result of the poitical situation? Dmartin969 (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a bit odd to mention the 1960s civil rights movement and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, then act as if nothing had happened at all (good or bad) between then and the painfully divisive 2016 presidential race. That's a huge gap in which a lot has happened - the anti-Muslim backlash after the 11 Sept 2001 attacks, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the election of a black President in 2008, the Ferguson MO racial disturbances in 2014 and the whole "driving while black" phenomenon and bizarre "asset forfeiture" laws by which police assume anyone carrying large amounts of cash obtained it by crime, making it fair game for police departments to pocket for themselves. 2016 is a setback, but it's just one milestone of many. We should try not to emphasise the current week's news headlines at the expense of all else as race relations stateside are an awkward topic with a long and complex history. K7L (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Perhaps all of that should be mentioned? The risk is to make the article too long and encyclopedic, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The risk is that this overlap other existing sections, like #History or #Police. The current "#Racism" text even overlaps and repeats itself, claiming that "it is in general rare to face open aggression" and then repeating this to claim that "incidents are rarely physical in nature":

The constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of speech, meaning that making racist comments in and of itself is not illegal, and racist remarks can sometimes be heard at high profile political rallies. That being said, most Americans are, at least publicly, tolerant of other races, and it is in general rare to face open aggression from random people as a result of one's race. Compared to many European and Asian countries, the U.S. is, at least publicly, a racially tolerant country. The U.S. constitution, as well as landmark legislation such as the civil rights acts of the 1960's prohibit racial discrimination in a range of public spheres such as employment, university admissions and receiving services from retail businesses. AS a result of recent changes in the political climate there has been an increase in racist incidents, particularly those targeted at people of Middle Eastern and Latino descent. The incidents are rarely physical in nature.

I'm not sure how to reword this. The 2016 election fits poorly with the rest.

The "police" section of the article should be expanded to mention this sort of thing (a point raised more than a year ago at #Recent cases of police violence / abuse) but fixing the "racism" section could be awkward as there have been many discussions on this page and still no easy answer. K7L (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "tensions", because it is mostly tension rather than "incidents" which is confusing since we also say they're non-violent. I'm not sure about the police thing. Why exactly does the traveler need to know about the police confiscating the belongings of citizens? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that should be obvious... tourists carry money. If people carrying substantial amounts of cash are at risk of being robbed both by criminals and (on some Trumped-up excuse that the cash must be drug money) by police, that's something the voyager would want to know. If there's any racial profiling (ie: persons of colour more likely to be stopped by police in certain areas) that only aggravates the problem - as the traveller is alien - but any non-obvious danger to voyagers carrying cash during their travels needs to be disclosed. K7L (talk) 12:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article you cited talked about citizens not foreign nationals. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign nationals would be just as much at risk as anyone else. K7L (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's obvious, and forfeiture should be mentioned. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would just caution that as a travel guide we don't have to mention every single aspect of racism and police conduct in the United States. Forfeiture does unfairly target lower income ethnic minorities as well as immigrants, but is it really something that the vast majority of travelers are going to notice? Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:51, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The non-obvious dangers are normally the ones we warn about... this qualifies. K7L (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forfeiture could affect any driver, so even though members of minority groups are disproportionately arrested and prosecuted for drug crimes, and therefore also subject to arbitrary forfeiture for merely being charged, even without basis, and eventually acquitted, coverage of forfeiture belongs in the "Police" section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are an awful lot of potential 'non obvious dangers' in any country, and I thought we should highlight the ones that are likely to impact a traveler. I'll leave it to your better judgement whether this genuinely should be of particular concern for travelers to the US Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some figures might be helpful, but do you think being struck with the rotan in Malaysia and Singapore is more common than forfeiture in the U.S.? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Rotan in Malaysia is widely used for immigration offenses which does impact travelers, albeit those from poorer countries in the region. An American (for example) is unlikely to get caned, although it has happened on rare occasions. The question is just whether if I travel (for example) from France to the USA with $6,000 in my backpack, how likely is it going to be that a police officer will search and confiscate it. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not that likely, I would say, but it could happen to you randomly, whereas I believe you are unlikely to be caned without actually committing an offense. I had forgotten that Malaysia instituted rotan strikes for undocumented or overstaying workers, but I think the point is made. I wouldn't go on and on about forfeiture, but it's worth spending a sentence or so on it. And having thousands of dollars in cash on your person is dangerous, anyway, in terms of theft or loss. But the forfeiture of a car is a really serious matter, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit by User:Hobbitschuster: I agree it's fair, but I'm not sure why it's something a traveler needs to know. Foreign travelers to the U.S. aren't likely to have opportunity to display confederate flags. Powers ^(talk) 19:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever reason, Confederate flags sometimes appear in the context of European soccer without any indication that those displaying them have any particular opinion on that whole 1861-1865. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Washington post has an article on this phenomenon. According to the article the confederate flag is used in Europe for reasons as diverse as a simple token of 'rebellion' against the larger nation state (i.e. Naples against Italy) to a proxy and fig-leaf justification for racist views. I'm not convinced that it is that widespread, but definitely exists. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think many people from outside the US may be aware that this symbol exists (though even inside the US few people know that the Confederacy used several national flags, but never that precise one), but not aware of all its connotations. Especially given that older movies that glorify the symbol may still be prevalent in some countries (in Nicaragua for instance Walker Texas Ranger is still on TV regularly - not that I would know of any association between that series and the Confederate flag) Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up in the UK watching the 'Dukes of Hazard' , so the flag was familiar to me. Only much later the real meaning of it, and yes probably advisable not to carry such a flag around.

That said, one criticism I have of this article is that it is getting less of a travel guide and more of a collection of facts about the country. The flag issue is technically a fact, but is it a relevant one? Is an Italian football fan busy packing his collection of confederate flags for his US holiday going to read the section and say "Thank you Wikivoyage!! I had no idea!!"? Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, certainly, our coverage on the United States (particularly this very article) has to fight with the problem you describe a lot and we have to strike some balance. Are there other parts of this article where you fear we have made this mistake? And how about having a more in-depth discussion on this issue in the article on the South in particular? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I try not to involve to much in United States, if only to avoid the 'too many cooks' scenario (also I haven't actually been there for a few years). Specific areas to cut down on would be holidays, which is mixed with important national holidays and less travel relevant cultural ones. Immigration into the US is insanely long a detailed, and could probably benefit from having a dedicated travel article to itself. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure all of the holidays listed are relevant to travelers for one reason or another, although some of them may depend on a traveler visiting an area where a particular culture predominates. Powers ^(talk) 19:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In such cases, that could be an argument for mentioning those holidays in region articles and not necessarily this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Confederate flag seems irrelevant. It has no meaning to the traveler. Even within the US, the meaning gets blurred, but more importantly, regardless of the flyers intent, what exactly can we say about a person with a Confederate flag? Nothing. What reason are we even talking about it? As everyone pointed out, it's not even about Americans with the flag; it's about travelers displaying it. I could see it being given mention in the American South regional article (maybe not in the same way), but I don't see any value in it here. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my view there is too much detail in this article which really reduces its usefulness as a travel guide greatly. This edit on respect is frankly overkill. Also "Generally, Americans prefer a firm handshake, which is perceived as being confident" - are there cultures who prefer limp or overly strong handshakes? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the talk page archives for this article you'll see that trimming the article, particularly the Respect section, has been a cyclical effort - it fills up with mundane detail, it gets trimmed back down to the basics, and the cycle repeats. If it's time for another trimming then please plunge forward and pull out any obvious bits. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I completely forgot that I had raised this in 2015. I'm happy to try some trimming, and hopefully no-one feels too protective of this particular article. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trim away. My only rationale for trying to bulk out the Respect section is that, as an American myself, I'm trying to not be imperialist and assume that the whole world is automatically familiar with American cultural norms. But here on the Internet, maybe it really is unnecessary.

And yes, other cultures do have varying preferences on how firm/weak a handshake should be. Just read w:Handshake. --Bigpeteb (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While that is true, I would say that Americans will not be offended when a foreigner gives them a slightly weaker or stronger handshake than average. In most country articles, we need to find a balance between including the information that is necessary and avoiding an article that is off-putting because of sheer size of fact-heavyness. With that in mind, I'm also inclined to delete such details, in this case. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not offended, but a limp handshake is definitely a bad way to start a business meeting, especially if you are a man shaking a man's hand. I don't think it's crucial to mention, but if we want to serve the business-traveling community, we could consider whether to keep it in the article or delete it to save space. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy articles exist on rules of conduct when involved in business meetings in the US (and many other large economies). From my own experience, I would say that the handshake thing is one of the smallest cultural differences most foreigners will face when conducting business in the US, and of little consequence to other travellers. Considering also the wide variety of backgrounds (and accompanying rules of conduct in home countries) of business travellers reading our article, I don't think we should try to include such facts unless they are also of real value to a wider range of travellers. That's just my general feeling though; I have no strong objections to including specific details if others want to. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is some social science around international handshakes, but fairly nuanced and to the point above there are very few cultures (if any) which engage in limp handshakes as a matter of course. Working for international consultancies there is a whole list proper business etiquette that would easily fill an article such as Business travel in the United States. Another point is that business travel varies greatly between American cities (visiting an office in Seattle and Texas do have different requirements) Andrewssi2 (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Business travel in the United States could be a good idea if there are people who are experienced with it and want to tackle that. My "business travel" has mostly been limited to the times when I used to audition for orchestras, so it was at a much lower level of luxury than that of business executives on expense accounts. But if that article is started, the remarks about handshakes should be moved there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be specific to the United States, or perhaps just Business travel with a sub-section for the US? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Given that business travel already exists and is not subdivided by country or region, maybe we would like to have articles like business travel in Europe, business travel in Arab countries and so on. I think if we can say something about Japan and/or China (whose culture, including business culture is very different from the West) we should also make an article on that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So Business Travel in North America ? (assuming Mexico is not too different to US and Canada?) Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the question above: I don't have a strong opinion about whether Business travel should simply be subdivided into separate sections, but I would simply observe that that article feels to me like it's more or less long enough already as an overview, so it may be more user-friendly to create separate regional articles that include advice more or less specific to those regions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be wise just now. Frankly, when you actually read more closely, that article needs a proper cleanup, since it's packed with obvious and non-tavel specific information. I really fail to see the use of that whole (long) understand section listing professions that may or may not require travel. If someone who has to travel for work decides to search for information here, I don't see how they'd benefit from a very obvious list of others who might also have to travel for work (or not, completely depending on their actual jobs). The list of options to get around is equally obvious and also completely depends on the destination and on your company's travel policies. There's a distinct lack of actually useful information like rules of conduct, things to check in your company's travel policy and how to find good information for different destinations. I'd suggest, if anyone really wants to dive into this, to first trim the existing article and then include the information we were talking about. If it ever becomes so bulky that a division is needed, we should do it then rather than start several outline articles again. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would trust your judgment on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look at the 'Map of the United States' image and I noticed that San Antonio was placed further north close to Austin. As someone who loves geography and locating different cities, I am quite confident that the editor who made this map placed San Antonio in the wrong spot. This is very misleading to tourists who look at this map and assume San Antonio is closer in distance to Austin. De88 (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the earliest recorded version of the map ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/b/b1/20121122140707%21Map-USA-Regions02.png ), you'll see that Austin was originally placed in the correct location, where San Antonio is now. User:Peterfitzgerald was told in 2009 that I-10 was incorrectly routed through Austin (it actually goes through San Antonio, which wasn't on the map). So Peter attempted to fix it, moving Austin from its correct location and replacing it with San Antonio, instead of moving I-10 to its proper location and simply adding San Antonio. The fix will be somewhat involved, but I'll see what I can do. Powers ^(talk) 21:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Just for the record, found some earlier versions of the map at http://wikitravel.org/shared/File:Map-USA-Regions01.svg -- you'll see that the map didn't originally include highways, but when User:Cacahuate added them I-10 was routed through Austin accidentally.) Powers ^(talk) 21:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have repaired the map and made a few other tweaks. Powers ^(talk) 23:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that "forums" is correct English, but it just sounds awful to me. Is there something else we might write there instead? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Public places" would be fine, I think. However, your other option is to tolerate this expression, which is standard and rather an idiom in the U.S. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Places" is awkward idiomatically when we're talking about civic discussion. "Forum" is explicitly the word for places -- even virtual places -- where discourse occurs. Powers ^(talk) 20:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbitschuster Is it perhaps that although the German word is exactly the same : 'Das Forum', it sounds a bit old and stuffy? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is because I had latin in school or because German really knows no regular plural the way English and Spanish do, but "forums" just sounds wrong. There is nothing wrong with the word "forum", but this plural just looks not right to me. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the previous wording 'fora' was technically correct for latin experts, but 'forums' is pretty much the accepted plural in everyday English. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added the following caution box to 'Get In' :

Politics aside, and regardless of how you feel about the person who made this order, please feel free to update with factually correct information. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is very fluid, and may be dependent on court orders, executive action, and a wide variety of other factors. I suspect it will be difficult to keep this updated. Edge3 (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Experience shows that we have a rather good track record of keeping stuff updated as long as it is in the news. Once the situation dies down, we are not necessarily as good at those updates. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This destination is edited frequently enough that I can't see this being an issue. It's the out-of-the-way places that are hard to keep up to date, for instance: "NOTE: Vanuatu sustained extensive damage due to Cyclone Pam on March 14, 2015. While the island of Espiritu Santo was unscathed and most Port Vila venues have reopened, destruction on many outer islands was severe and reconstruction efforts continue. (Jan 2016)". Do we know if they've rebuilt? K7L (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the Schengen Template still alludes to the Paris attacks for instance. Though this danger is probably lower here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's important enough to mention, even though it's in flux. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest keeping it simple, given that official advice is confusing and even conflicting. Also a daily commentary isn't actually required. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. And I would also say, let's not get into the politics. Let's just state what the current situation is, no more, no less. The main problem is that there are many conflicting reports about green card holders, with some saying that they are not affecting, others saying that the ban affects them too, and some also saying that green card holders must report to a US consulate to be vetted further and may be let in on a case by case basis. The dog2 (talk) 05:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are also badly conflicting reports about the status of UK dual citizens and Canadian residents - it looks like the US government is trying to downplay this to the UK Foreign Office and the Canadian immigration minister, among others. I'd state the current situation if I knew what it was. K7L (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the current situation is that people who had legal status to enter or live in the U.S. but had been detained pursuant to Trump's executive order have been released in full from some airports and not from others. The main advice for travelers with any kind of citizenship in the 7 countries mentioned in the executive order should be to postpone travel for now, or if they already have tickets, to make alternate plans in case they are barred from embarking on a plane to the U.S. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday that 'moving forward', the ban 'doesn't affect' green card holders, but he would not clarify." and "After an outcry, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly issued a blanket waiver later on Sunday, allowing green card holders to enter the United States."[3]

Dual citizenship is also a confused mess... UK, maybe, Canada, maybe, Australia maybe not? For that matter, what happens to people who have a "Tehran" birthplace listed in a Western passport they acquired before renouncing Iranian citizenship? Are they still the enemy, much like Ted Cruz is still under a cloud of suspicion of being Calgarian despite his best efforts to renounce and betray Canada, or are they simply citizens of their new country?

I'd update the warningbox, but I don't know what I'm doing... and neither does Herr Drumpf. Too bad. The flip-flop on green cards needs to be addressed, as it directly affects travel. K7L (talk) 15:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this point in time we should advise green card holders not to leave the U.S. It may take a few weeks for unambiguous and consistent rules to be announced. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the standard advice from universities and corporations to their students and employees at the moment. It's worth mentioning, though I don't know how many permanent residents are reading a travel guide to their own country. Powers ^(talk) 00:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And they also have the same advice from people on work or student visas. As of now, if you are from one of those countries, you won't be deported if you're already here legally, but you cannot come back once you leave. The dog2 (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Visa Waiver section as it stands now - particularly the box at the top - is not accurate any more. It now seems to indicate that mere presence in or travel to Iran or Somalia makes the person in question ineligible not just for Visa Waiver but for applying for a regular visa as well. I am not sure that is correct. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - an Australian (for example) wanting to travel to the U.S. having previously visited Iran would no longer be eligible for the visa waiver, but would still be able to apply a regular visa, possibly with additional scrutiny. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another (related?) issue

In our Iran coverage there is a throwaway line on Visa Waiver being denied to anybody who has been to Iran, regardless of citizenship, though it is apparently possible to get a "regular" visa (which is a pain in the lower backside even for people who'd qualify for Visa Waiver otherwise). Is Iran the only such country? And which countries are on the list? Has that list changed? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

non-Americans who have previously traveled to Iran (and some other countries) are not eligible for the visa-waiver program. They can however apply for a 'regular visa' with the usual documentation and potential interview process that is involved. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I know. What I don't know (and what should be mentioned in this article) is what "and some other countries" means? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So according to this website, the following restrictions are in place as of this writing:

"Under the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, travelers in the following categories are no longer eligible to travel or be admitted to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP):

• Nationals of VWP countries who have traveled to or been present in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited exceptions for travel for diplomatic or military purposes in the service of a VWP country).
• Nationals of VWP countries who are also nationals of Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria." Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it was inevitable that someone would add information about Trump to the article, but I believe it's misplaced. While current events are always notable, it is impossible to accurately judge the weight to give them in the context of the nation's history. Until we have something actually historic to say about Trump's presidency, I don't think a paragraph about how controversial he is is warranted or desirable. Powers ^(talk) 02:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be said that the specific changes to immigration rules has had a significant impact over the past week, and it merits some context. Agreed that Trump shouldn't be discussed in historical terms at this point in time. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However tempting it is to add a "trust Donald Trump as far as you can throw him" as a fair comment, it likely would violate Wikivoyage:No advice from Captain Obvious. The "Muslim ban" and "wall around Mexico" campaign platforms are worth a mention as they affect travel from those countries, but describing his antics in vague terms as "controversial" and likely to provoke "condemnation from more liberal sectors of the population" is merely stating the obvious. K7L (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take it out if you feel it's inappropriate, but I just added it in since many of the things he's been doing are unprecedented to say the least, the executive order on immigration being one such example, as well as how he's taken to Twitter to criticise foreign leaders. But on my part, since we will inevitably have both Trump opponents and supporters who use Wikivoyage, I've tried to write it in as neutral a tone as possible so we don't start preaching our personal points of view to other travellers. Of course, I understand that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation is still considered to be disaster by white supremacists, neo-Nazis and so on, and it's impossible to be completely neutral. But regardless, my take is that if we agree to keep the statement, we should avoid taking sides on this political divide, and should try to simply state the facts and leave the reader to decide which political stance he/she wishes to take. The dog2 (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unprecedented or "unpresidented"? K7L (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can just hope for all our sake that Trump ends up being less remarkable than Chester A Arthur or Grover Cleveland. But I fear he might be one of those we remember, for better or worse. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The advantages to travellers has not be stated. Having been on a plane this week to USA, on a flight usually full of middle east travellers, there was plenty of space to stretch out. --Traveler100 (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Humor aside, I think my original statement stands. In the history section, there's no neutral way to include Trump without resorting to either meaningless/obvious platitudes about "controversy" or descriptions of current events as they happen (neither of which help the traveler). If events occur that require a traveler's attention, we can and should put them in other sections. They'll be historical later. Powers ^(talk) 00:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing to ignore Trump completely until he leaves office? That's like ignoring the elephant in the room - "What elephant?" Just as Duterte is covered in the article about the Philippines, Trump has to be covered as a current unpredictable source of instability. That affects travelers, as we've already seen in a big way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What value is added by having commentary on That Awful Man/The Great Leader? Anyone on the planet with the resources to travel to the US -- and 94% of those who don't -- are aware of what he is doing and probably have an opinion about it. Our readers won't learn anything new, but we'll end up spending a lot of energy trying to get the wording "just right" and fending off soapboxing by opponents and supporters. Let's stick to what a travel guide does best: provide information about the entry and visa requirements and changes that have been announced to them. Ground Zero (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is relevant to wikivoyage is the degree of unpredictability that travel to the US now entails as a direct result of this presidency. When a former Nowegian Prime Minister is detained for having visited Iran a few years earlier then it has to be said objectively that the Trump administration is causing uncertainty for travelers. Obviously we don't need to discuss our personal feelings about this, just state this cause and impact. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I added the part on Trump is partly because there is a mention of Duterte in the Philippines article, and of Brexit in the UK article. I agree that the current state of affairs make it very unpredictable on when visa rules can change, and that is of concern to a traveller. And for a foreigner living in the US like me, there is that uncertainty on when Trump can just bar me from entering the country with the stroke of a pen if I should need to leave the country for whatever reason, so many institutions are telling their foreign students or employees to avoid leaving the US for now. A good thing for me is that Singapore is not on the list, but all it takes is a stroke of the pen from Trump and Singapore may well be the next country to be banned. It may or may not happen, but what is an objective fact is the uncertainty that Trump's actions have caused, especially given that since assuming office he has indeed broken many long-standing diplomatic and political conventions that previous presidents, both Democratic and Republican have largely followed. But as I said, we must be careful to avoid preaching one political stance over the other. I have my own feelings and opinions on the issue, as does everyone here, but for as long as I have known, Wikivoyage does not take sides on a political dispute. Especially given how polarising this issue is, I'd say let's keep the tone neutral, and stick merely to the facts that affect travellers. The dog2 (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So as an extension of my previous posts, I think it is OK to mention the executive order against the 7 Muslim majority countries as something that is controversial and could potentially inconvenience travellers, but we should be careful to avoid preaching about whether or not the travel ban is appropriate. Let the facts speak for themselves, and leave readers to form their own opinions on the issue. The dog2 (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have notices about the visa restrictions in the "Get in" section, so we don't need to address the issue in the history section. I think needs should cut down the full paragraph that covers the history of the last two months to one line: replace

Widespread public anger over the perceived loss of jobs to China and Mexico led to the election of the populist, but controversial, Donald Trump as president in 2016, leading to widespread protests in liberal-leaning major cities across the US, not least because his opponent, Hillary Clinton, actually received almost three million more votes nationwide. Since assuming office, Trump has proceeded to implement many of his most controversial policies, breaking with many well established political and diplomatic conventions in the process, thus cementing his popularity among his core support base of white working class voters, but leading to widespread protests and condemnation from more liberal sectors of the population.

By:

Donald Trump took office as president of the U.S. in January 2017, and began implementing policies that are markedly different from those of his predecessor, Barack Obama. These include changes that may affect entry into the country for some people -- see the notices in the "Get in" section below.

Ground Zero (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague. "Markedly different" how exactly, and with what impact on travel?

In 2016, Donald Trump ran for office on a divisive platform which proposed a multi-billion-dollar Mexico border wall and a ban on Muslim travel to the US. His protectionist stance against Mexican and Chinese manufacturers drew populist support in the struggling rust belt. While the long-term impact on travel is unclear, particularly with respect to China and Cuba, a Jan 2017 executive order barring travel from seven predominately-Muslim countries has caused widespread disruption. The issue is currently before the courts -- see the notices in the "Get in" section below.

or, more succinctly:

{{warningbox|Voyagers are advised to avoid all non-essential travel in the wake of the Bowling Green Massacre. (2/2017)}} K7L (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think something like the first example would be fine, but I'd also say it's tempting to jump to somewhat exaggerated conclusions about what Trump's impact - to travellers, to American citizens, to citizens of other countries - will be in the end, and let's resist that temptation when formulating these warnings. If I were a betting man, I'd say posterity will likely prove the American left's worst fears about the fate of their country in Trump's hands to be at least partly unfounded. If the rollout of the immigration ban is an accurate bellwether, I think there's a pretty wide gulf between what Trump would like to do and what he is actually capable of (or will be allowed to get away with - even by his own party, which, let's not forget, doesn't trust him either). I think a good rule of thumb to follow is Trump's words matter, but the follow-through (or lack thereof) matters far more. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage doesn't need to educate people about Trump - that's not our role. Phraselike ",divisive platform" are just going to lead to ongoing squabbles about the correct wording (e.g., did 1.5 million people really die at Bowling Green?) The less said the better. The Mexico wall is not an issue for WV readers - were not here to provide advice to illegal migrants or refugees. Maybe there should be a separate "Wikirefugee" or "Wikimigration". Ground Zero (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the wall won't stop the vast majority of illegal migration (perfectly legal migrants who just overstay their visa or do stuff not allowed under the terms of their visa, whether by accident or on purpose), there may be tougher "enforcement" components to the wall as well. Also, the "Mexico is paying for it" bit may cause some reciprocity fees to rise for US citizens who travel to other places. But those things need only be covered once they arise. On another note, we are not exactly politically neutral (which is a ludicrous proposition in that case anyway) when it comes to classifying North Korea and the likes as dictatorships. Those countries themselves would insist they are shiny happy people's democratic people's Republics of the people. But I hope we won't have to make assessments like that for the US any time soon or ever. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say though that currently, it is the unpredictability of the situation that is the most cause for concern for travellers. Just imagine you are studying at a prestigious university in the US, and Trump suddenly decides to sign an executive order banning all international students, so you're going to get deported in spite of having all the proper paperwork and visas sorted out to be in the country legally. I hope that doesn't happen, but I think the point is that currently, the situation is in a state of flux. I think that regardless of your political persuasion, we can all agree that Trump has broken many long established conventions. I know this particular one is not relevant to travel but in general, presidents do not go on Twitter to criticise foreign leaders. Previous presidents would go through the proper diplomatic channels, and make use of official press releases to issue carefully worded statements to the public. The way Trump has criticised the Mexican president and Australian prime minister using Twitter is certainly unprecedented in this respect. The dog2 (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this any better? K7L (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In 2016 elections, Donald Trump drew populist support from the struggling rust belt by adopting a protectionist stance against Mexican and Chinese manufacturers; his platform included a multi-billion-dollar Mexico border wall and a ban on Muslim travel to the US. While the long-term travel impact of his policies remains unclear, a Jan 2017 executive order barring travel from seven predominately-Muslim countries has caused disruption. See the notices in the "Get in" section.

Or simpler:

In 2016, Donald Trump was elected president of the U.S. While the long-term travel impact of his policies remains unclear, a Jan 2017 executive order barring travel from seven predominatntly-Muslim countries has caused disruption and uncertainty. See the notices in the "Get in" section.

The political synopsis simply isn't needed as everyone able to travel is aware of his election and the issues around it. Ground Zero (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either one works for me, but for the record, it's predominantly-Muslim. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If he was elected on a platform of making it more difficult for Hispanics, Muslims or any other identifiable group to visit the US, that targets travel directly. It's very much within our mandate to disclose this. K7L (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd go with the first one. It is indeed true that he proposed a ban on Muslims entering the US during his election campaign, and that could be a concern to foreign Muslims who wish to visit the US. But yes, I think it's succinct enough, and it does serve the purpose of giving a brief overview of the political situation without preaching any particular political stance. The dog2 (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And when he does make further changes, we absolutely should explain them. This is a high-profile article that we can be sure will be updated within hours of any change being made. His protectionist stance against Mexican and Chinese manufacturers if of interest to manufacturers, of course, but they are not our target readership. The border wall is not an issue for travellers, but any additional border control measures he puts in place would be an issue we should cover if/when he does. Ground Zero (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This text is in United States of America#History, for whatever reason. It makes no sense for it to be in that section if the historic context (as to what is happening and why) is stripped. K7L (talk) 20:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, K7L. A minimal amount of background is appropriate, and the main issue is that he is not an ordinary American politician, and his unpredictability means that prospective travelers to the U.S. need to pay close attention to what's happening that might affect them. But if we're using geographic designations, I'd use the following phrasing: "In the 2016 general elections, Donald Trump drew populist support from the struggling but populous rust belt as well as Republican base regions such as the South and Great Plains..." There's no reason whatsoever to be exhaustive, but we can educate readers a little. However, if people feel like this is redundant, I approve of the slightly longer text above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very surprised if, in a paragraph, we can tell WV readers something about the Trump presidency they don't already know, and I will be extremely surprised if we can write something that people on both sides will agree is neutral or balanced. What is there now is neither, but it is rambling and contentious and should be replaced quickly. Ground Zero (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is simply in the wrong section? This is in #History, an overview which points to a string of timeline articles. That overview gives the 1960's Civil Rights movement a paragraph, the Vietnam War nothing more than a brief mention in passing, says nothing at all about the legacies of most of the leaders - ranging from Nixon/Watergate to Obama. Only three presidents (Washington, Lincoln, FDR) and one other public figure (MLK) are mentioned by name at all. If we were to mention Russia breaking into DNC records to steal 2016's election for Trump, we'd also have to mention the 1972 Watergate break-ins as more of the same. The rust belt and decline of America's heavy industry is a part of US history which deserves a place in the timeline, as is the race to the Moon. Trump, while a disaster, will have to earn his place. Maybe his presidency will be as historic as Nixon's, but he has to earn that.

The concern expressed by the original poster on this thread was "While current events are always notable, it is impossible to accurately judge the weight to give them in the context of the nation's history. Until we have something actually historic to say about Trump's presidency, I don't think a paragraph about how controversial he is is warranted or desirable."

That concern appears valid. While we do have to cover any "Muslim ban" or "Mexico wall" platforms which have caused or are likely to cause impediments to travel, this doesn't belong in the #History section. Is there a place for this elsewhere in the article? K7L (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mexico wall is not an impediment to the travel covered by WV. If there are restrictions imposed on crossing the Mexican border legally, they would relevant to our travel coverage. WV should not attempt to be a guide for illegal migration. We just won't do a good job of that. Ground Zero (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're dealing with a régime which is cancelling valid visas while the traveller is in flight. Do you realistically expect a tightened Mexican border isn't going to come with more restrictions on perfectly legitimate traffic? K7L (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're extrapolating and speculating there. I have not heard anything from the regime about tightening rules on legal migration or tourism from Mexico. If we can find something real on this, we should add it. Ground Zero (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Well "make Mexico pay for it" might end up with higher visa fees and the likes. But of course speculation is idle at this point. While "wait and see" is a really bad approach to the likes of Trump in the real world, it might be a good one for a wiki that is overtly apolitical. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to move this al ong, how about:

In 2016, Donald Trump was elected president of the U.S. at the end of one of the most divisive campaigns in recent memory. The long-term impact on travel of his policies remains unclear: a Jan 2017 executive order barring travel from seven predominantly-Muslim countries has caused disruption and uncertainty. See the notices in the "Get in" section. His campaign proposals suggest that further restrictions on travel can be expected, especially affecting those from predominantly Muslim countries and from Latin America. Ground Zero (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That seems very straightforward, travel-related and objectively accurate. If people don't like having it in "history" because you think history doesn't apply to politicians currently in office (I would strongly disagree), it could be put in "Get in". Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that's fine too. The technical definition of history is anything that has happened in the past, so even if it only happened yesterday, it would also fit under the definition of history. The dog2 (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your definition, for whatever it's worth. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) I don't have a problem with the wording, but that paragraph is really awkward standing at the end of the History Section. Talking about speculated travel restrictions in the one section that actually isn't travel-related. I'm not sure we even need to mention the election at this point in the History section. Aside from "As of January 2017, the current president of the United States is President Trump." there doesn't seem to be anything more to say. It's been just a few weeks. Are we seriously going to update that section to give weekly updates on the US President like we do with zero other countries? That sounds like weak activism to me. We really don't need to be phone-tapping world leaders to write our history sections. It's not that deep. Political activism should be taken elsewhere.

On the relevant section, "Get in", the last sentence is confusing. The purpose of "Avoiding travel in the US" is to reach countries that are not the US. That should be mentioned, because right now it's just shoved in there without explanation. Shouldn't it specifically state that for those who may be from suspended countries who were planning on travel to another nation via the US, see "Avoiding travel in the US"? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't really call it political activism. As far as I can see, we've tried to vet the paragraph to ensure that we are neither promoting nor rejecting Trump's agenda, but simply trying to give a background behind the immigration ban. I think we can all agree that if you are a potential tourist from one of the affected countries, the ban could potentially be disruptive for you. Whether or not the ban is warranted is a separate issue and probably a very divisive debate that I won't get into here, but I don't think even the most fervent Trump supporters will deny that the ban has inconvenienced those from the affected countries. The argument will simply be that the ban is necessary to protect Americans. But anyway, from the way it is written, I don't think we have written about whether we support or reject the ban. As far as I can see, the paragraph simply states how the policies of the current administration could potentially disrupt the plans of potential travellers. The dog2 (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you understood my points. The first paragraph is about the History section. The history section isn't where we talk about travel restrictions. It's not supposed to be "History of travel", it's just history. In looking at other History sections, I'd say we don't do a very good job in "ending" them overall, but ending with the random immigration ban here (regardless of neutrality) or Brazil's World Cup protestors are off the mark, in my opinion. (El Salvador and even Burundi's very short history section ends better than most of our country History sections.) That's why I said we should just let it end with something that essentially just says "The current president is President Trump" or leave that out altogether and just say something about America continuing to be an important and influential nation. History sections should by necessity end with very broad non-specific points, since no country stands still in time and these pinpointed moments as being so defining that we end the nation's history with them just don't read well. The second paragraph is about the travel restrictions and nowhere did I even remotely suggest deleting them or that it was not relevant. All I said was that our link to Avoiding travel in the US is not written well. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur completely with User:ChubbyWimbus. The revised paragraph is much improved from when I initially started this discussion, but it still seems out of place with the tone and scope of the rest of the History section. Powers ^(talk) 01:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @ChubbyWimbus:, I don't think that unilaterally removing all reference to Trump after this long discussion with the edit summary "Try to end it in a fair but open way" is a good approach. Clearly a lot of people think he has to be mentioned for completeness. I'm one of them. I do think it makes sense report the fact of his election in a neutral, simple way, rather than getting into a discussion of why he won the election. I proposed the longer version as a way of compromising with those who felt that context should be provided. Taking the absolutist approach of deleting the paragraph altogether is not going to be seen as "fair" by the many people who do not share your view. Ground Zero (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The history section may indeed be the wrong place to mention Trump's election (though we may argue that the fact that he "won" despite a near 3 000 000 popular vote deficit and the endorsement of pretty much no newspaper of any repute is historical no matter what he does in office), but some place should mention it. Especially since most of our readers will be asking what effect Trump has on their visit or planned visit. Not mentioning Trump would be a bit like not mentioning Hamas in the article on the Gaza Strip. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History might be being made, but the analyse can happen later. Let's stick to being a travel guide and let people know was the present impact to their travel is. If anyone here has views on the Trump presidency then I suspect there may be some other places on the interwebs that would provide an outlet to discuss them. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the statement which was inserted to replace the Trump text, "Still the overall living standards in the US are among the highest in the world and the nation continues to be a leader in global politics and economics." It's safe to say the US is the largest economy, but "a leader in global politics"? Given the last few weeks, "comedy of errors" would be more apt. In any case, this belongs in some other section for now as Trump isn't history yet. K7L (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I strongly believe that Wikivoyage does not use the phrases "gong show", "omnishambles", and "clusterf*ck" nearly enough, doing so here could be, um, contentious. How about we replace that sentence with "In January 2017, Donald Trump was sworn in as President of the United States", and leave it that so we can all get on with building a travel guide? Ground Zero (talk) 00:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add "despite losing the popular vote by a record two million nine hundred thousand something votes" but that would be contentious. I think replacing what is there with this short, crisp statement would be better. If and when Trump declares war on Vanuatu we can of course mention that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True. He only lost by "286·8692 votes, a margin ten times the entire population of Vanuatu". Hopefully all 2,868,692 don't cross into Emerson at once, making Manitoba suddenly our fourth most populous province? K7L (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) This is precisely why what I wrote is better. You guys are showing that you have ulterior motives for your ravenous desire to throw in a line about Trump. If you don't think America is still a world power, you're lying to yourselves. The US is certainly a leader in global politics. When Trump talks (or even Tweets), world leaders actually react (probably more than necessary), and the same was true for Obama, Bush, and on back for decades. That's not the case for the leader of Vanuatu, since the nation was brought up. Many world leaders probably don't even know who heads Vanuatu offhand. To say the US is not a leader in global politics is a fantasy. There is still no other nation (including Europe's "Union") that has more sway and influence in the world. You can hope for that to change and for the destruction of America, death to Americans, and make tired "haha the popular vote" gags, but do it on your personal blogs. It doesn't belong here. Let's end the anti-Trump circle-jerk by dropping mention and moving on to constructive editing. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider the popular vote a joke and neither would most small d democrats. Also criticism of Trump is not exclusive to the "death to America" crowd. The main reason why people are so glued to Trump's Twitter feed is because the US seems to have ceased being predictable and reliable and the utterings of the President are perhaps the closest thing to a domestic or foreign agenda we're going to get. At any rate, Trump is neither a usual President nor a usual politician which was one of the main selling points for his supporters, really. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ChubbyWimbus: I am not clear how my proposal to add "In January 2017, Donald Trump was sworn in as President of the United States" shows ulterior motives or suggests a desire for the destruction of America. Perhaps you could suggest constructive changes to make it more neutral. As far as the line about the US bring a leader, we could argue that, but it is clear that it is contentious and we're better off leaving it out of our travel guide. As you say, it is better to argue that out in a blog. Ground Zero (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hobbitschuster that it's generally accepted across the political spectrum that Trump is not your conventional leader. Whether that is a good or bad thing is up for debate, and definitely does not belong in this guide, but I think that simply stating that he is unconventional is not a biased statement. And well, I think we can all agree that from both an economic and military perspective, the US is still by far the world's most powerful and influential country. I would be careful about calling any country the best though, since that is subjective, and depends on how you define "best" since no country is perfect. I'd actually question whether or not the US really has one of the highest standards of living in the world. Sure it's better than much of Africa, Latin America and Asia, but is it better than say, Scandinavia, Western Europe, or even Canada? From my personal observations, Iceland definitely seems to have a lower poverty rate than the US. And even Singapore's public housing is in much better shape than the Projects in the US. The dog2 (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write that the US was "the best" country in the world here nor in the History section. That kind of emphatic statement is always going to rub someone the wrong way. My words all marked it as part of an unspecified top tier of nations on the three mentioned fronts. Trump was elected in part due to his being perceived as an establishment "outsider", so yes, he is "different" from the born-and-bread politicians however, I don't see any value in trying to add a line about "An eccentric new leader" being elected either. The US is at least on par in most regards with Canada, Scandinavia and Western Europe; certainly enough to hold up the claim that Americans have AMONG the highest standard of living in the world. (Very few people countries and people actually make up your list) "Among" does not mean "the absolute highest" which of course would be a boring and pointless debate. I tried to end it with a description of the US that has been representative for a while and is likely to continue in the foreseeable future. I think it's the better way to go. Just to provide another comparison, the Canada article ends in 1982. No mention of Trudeau or any arguments about whether he's a "lovely-locked leader who cares deeply about all citizens and the concerns of minorities in the hopes of maintaining and strengthening Canada's multicultural society" or "the anti-white, Canada-hating globalist who some claim to be the bastard child of Castro, who fights every day to destroy Canada's culture, values, and freedoms". Nope, he's given no mention and adding him doesn't seem necessary either. Some may argue that is just another example of poor History endings (I'm sure it could be improved), but I think it's still good perspective to show that there is no need to obsess over trying to make every day into something historically noteworthy. I don't mind if others have a crack at editing my line. I'm not safeguarding it. I do think that we should have in mind something broad and non-specific in these History section endings (in all country articles), as I said before (and to leave Trump out for now). ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well Trudeau is not the child (bastard or otherwise) but the child of a very successful (if you measure success as "succeeding in what you set out to do, no matter what it is and no matter whether it is good or bad") if not uncontroversial prime minister in his own right. A fact that crops up remarkably little in both the swooning and the condemning portrayals of him written by non-Canadians. And while I think we don't need to be current for the sake of being current, some events are so immediately obvious as noteworthy that they are "history" even while they're happening. In Germany most of those happen to fall one ninth Novembers of some kind or other. And while the US definitely is "among" the places with the highest standard of living (even if some people in "the bad part of town" will see little of that in their lives), the same is true for most member states of the EU, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and probably a half dozen other states. Heck, you could even make an argument for saying something like that about Panama. I don't think this is particularly worthy of mention, unless we mention it in the context of a remarkable rise over a short period from the poorhouse of (insert geographic region) to one of the places with the highest living standards on earth. The US has been many things and North America was indeed once considered less valuable a possession than Latin America, but the US have never been the poorhouse of the Americas. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why the ending of the "History" section should even mention Herr Drumpf. This could just as easily conclude with an economic or sociological comparison, from a generation ago to today. From the fuel shortages of the 1970s and the intense fears of losing automotive, photo and electronics industries to Japanese rivals - to the rise of automation - to the shift of heavy industry like steelmaking abroad and the replacement of "smokestack industry" with technology companies as the original Cold War ended and the Space Age gave way to the computer age. Hydraulic fracturing to squeeze every last fracking drop of oil out of the ground to reduce America's reliance of imports, ubiquitous inclusion of computers in every aspect of daily life, an economy where the relative stability of the 1950's and 60's (where huge factories run by big business and represented by big labour dominated entire sectors, US Steel or Bethlehem-style) to the current fast-paced environment where nothing is stable, life for many is economically precarious but many clever folk have become millionaires. Contrast the rust belt to Silicon Valley to see which way America has gone to draw a tentative 'conclusion' to its "History" section. K7L (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That could work too. Come to think of it, the history section currently makes no mention of the restructuring of the American economy away from heavy industry towards a more service-based economy. And this is definitely a major reason why much of the Midwest suffers from urban blight, poverty and high crime rates. If the consensus is not to bring up Trump, I'm not going to push it, but mentioning this shift away from heavy industry is indeed a major factor behind Trump's election, as his promises to bring those jobs back have resonated with the workers. But back to the topic, anyone visiting the rust belt can indeed see just how bad it is for those laid off when heavy industry was shifted offshore, and even in places like New York City and Chicago which have somewhat restructured better, you can still see the vestiges of what were once factories, and some neighbourhoods that were once reliant of these factory jobs are now in a really bad state. The dog2 (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It is at this point that I point out a) there has been at least one previous discussion on the history section where length did iirc come up and b) the article post-war United States exists and either deals or should deal with some of the historical trends you rightfully point out. Though it is perhaps written in a more positive tone than some would describe the "rust belt" in. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United States of America#History is intended to be a brief summary of a well-intentioned 240-year experiment in democracy which began in 1776 and ended on November 2016. By design, it's general and brief as the detailed US history is in the series of historical travel topics: Indigenous nations → Pre-Civil War → Civil War → Old West → Industrialization → Post-war. The rust belt, automation and offshoring of heavy industry should get a sentence here but not more than a short paragraph. The rest would fit into the individual articles. K7L (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at Post-war_United_States#Decline_of_American_manufacturing_and_rise_of_the_tech_sector - I am sure the writing can be much improved upon still. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please limit this discussion to talks about this article. Certainly there are many US-related articles that could benefit from further editing, but let's not get distracted. I think the discussion has entered a good place and is nearing the end (and maybe even is beneficial in thinking about how to end History sections for other countries that are not done well at the moment). I think K7L brought up some potentially good topics to frame our last sentences about US History. Care to take a stab at the editing? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the history section is already pretty long and there have been calls in the past to shorten it. Part of the result of those are the aforementioned specialized articles. So having a more in depth treatment of certain aspects there is certainly something that should be looked at before potentially bloating the section here to be too long. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break to make finding entries easier

I have made this arbitrary break to make this section more manageable. Please either respond below this or move this headline a bit further up. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about a permanent break? This thread is just a collection of snide remarks about the American president and a few hurt feelings around American exceptionalism. I guess if it confined to the discussion page then it isn't doing any harm per se, just be aware that this discussion isn't travel relevant at all. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might contain a few snide remarks, but there were actually relevant points raised, among them whether the history section should mention Trump and in which way if so and whether we do the development in the "rust belt" justice with the way the history section is currently written. And I do think the decline of American manufacturing and the cities it happened in has travel relevance. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good place would probably be somewhere in the last paragraph. Perhaps before the 9/11 attacks. The outsourcing of heavy industry to China and other countries really gained traction in the 1990's, so it might be a good place to mention that. Of course, we should also mention the rise of Silicon Valley and the tech industry as a counterbalance to the negative effects. What we have seen, though, is that the population of the US in the rust belt has shrunk, while that of California has boomed. The dog2 (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another government travel warning

I presume this should be added as a {{cautionbox}} instead of a {{warningbox}}, as it doesn't expressly indicate a non-obvious danger to life or limb? K7L (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{cautionbox|Nigeria has advised its citizens against any non-urgent travel to the United States until Washington clarifies its immigration policy, after several incidents in which people with valid visas were denied entry.[4]}}

That sounds right to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we usually use Template:VisaRestriction for immigration-related warnings? Powers ^(talk) 19:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect none of us were familiar with that template. I am not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there is a real chance that Jeff Sessions becomes the new Attorney General and other Trump appointments seem to have similar opinions on the relationship of federal drug laws to state attempts at medical marihuana or other cannabis decriminalization, should we note that the status of the substance being legal under state law while still illegal under federal law has never been resolved and this conflict is likely to come to a head under the Trump regime, likely to the detriment of cannabis consumers of all kinds. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A topic worth following, but I think we should stick to describing the current situation. Normally we start mentioning changes when they actually happen, rather than writing about what will or will not "likely" happen. Especially for an article like this, which is sufficiently popular in terms of edits to keep it up to date. JuliasTravels (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, but as certain media personalities associated with MSNBC would like to say "watch this space" Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This edit asserts that "most hotels" are pet-friendly, but I question whether this is true. Pet-friendly hotels seem rare to me. Powers ^(talk) 01:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I worked in the hotel industry for almost a decade, at a number of different properties. While pet-friendly hotels are not exactly rare, they're certainly in the minority. Moreover, "pet-friendly" in hotel parlance generally means "dog-friendly", and that friendliness generally decreases as the size of the dog increases (the hard upper limit generally ranges between 30 and 50 pounds, though actual enforcement is usually nil given that most hotels don't actually have scales to weigh visiting dogs; service animals are obviously exempt from this rule). I don't think I've ever worked at, stayed at, or heard of any hotel where cats or other non-dog pets are allowed in guest rooms under any circumstances, though there might be a few, I suppose. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I wouldn't bring my cat to one of Trump's hotels. He might try to grab her. K7L (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do hotels commonly advertise their stance on pets? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A search on "pet-friendly hotels" finds many websites dedicated to the topic, as well as pages on major franchisor sites like Best Western, Choice, Marriott, Doubletree. Often, an individual B&B or hotel listing will indicate a pet-friendly establishment. That said, pet-friendly venues are the minority and travelling with pets often awkward. K7L (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will remove the comment then. Powers ^(talk) 17:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I must interject here, as I frequently travel with a cat (really!) and in my own experience have found that all hotels that accept dogs will also accept cats. I wouldn't know about turtles or ferrets though… –StellarD (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following about religion because A) it wasn't travel related as such, and B) it is not possible to make broad declarations that political voting is driven by religious affiliation in the US:

"Differences in religiosity largely correlate with politics, too, so the Northeast, West Coast, Hawaii and Chicago metropolitan area are generally progressive and Democratic; most of the South and heavily Mormon states like Utah, Idaho and Wyoming are very conservative and Republican; and much of the rest of the country (e.g., several Midwestern, Southwestern/Rocky Mountain, and Southern coastal states) is nearly evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans. A trend of the last few decades is one of increasing geographic political polarization. "

I'm sure there is some crossover - evangelicals and pro-lifers are likely to be leaning to Republican candidates, but given the election events of 2016 I think it is fair to say that it is a far more complex situation than that, and probably not one we should be addressing on WV. Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree insofar as over quite a handful of elections the Republicans have steadily won "white evangelical christians" while losing the "everybody else" demographic in presidential elections. So religion is in fact a rather accurate predictor of political affiliation and it has only increased in the US (as opposed to e.g. Germany where the hold of CDU/CSU on Catholics seems to be weakening more and more). Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewssi2, I don't understand your objections. That degree of religiosity is pretty strongly correlated with which party a person votes for is so well-founded and well-established that it's a truism in American politics. And what's relevant about such neutrally-phrased information is simply that it gives the reader a bit of basic understanding of the U.S. I would restore it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Leaving aside the fact that what the excised text says is indeed generally true - anything I say about that would simply be redundant to what Hobbitschuster and Ikan have already pointed out - I think we do the site a disservice when we stick to a strict definition of what is "travel-related" and err too much on the side of leaving out background information. We do so to a greater degree than usual in this article out of sheer necessity - it's already one of the longest articles on the site, and would be many times longer if we didn't strictly limit how in-depth we go - but all the same, it's that background information, much more so than anything that would go in a "See", "Do", "Eat", "Sleep", etc. section, that's the reason why people travel in the first place. Anyone can make the rounds of the tourist sights and robotically snap photos, but without a context to put those things in, a story that they can be part of, what's the point? You want to get to know a place. And, whether we like it or not, the conjunction between and interplay of religion and politics is pretty well inescapable for anyone who spends any significant amount of time in the USA, especially these days. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

<returned text in face of overwhelming disagreement> I don't disagree with the sentiments expressed in the responses (although I wasn't trying to remove 'background information' but rather avoid too much explanation that becomes confusing), but the text as written does suggest a symmetry between religious belief and voting record. Religion is an influential factor but if it were that simple then elections would be eminently predictable (and 2016 was by any measure unpredictable) . Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The result was unpredictable, but the voting patterns not so much, as whites and especially whites without college degrees gravitated toward the Republicans. But there are big differences between how whites vote on the East and West Coast and in other parts of the country, and a lot of that is correlated with frequency of attendance at church.

If the correlation of everything had to be 100% for it to be OK to mention on this site, we could make no remarks about the people of any nation, culture, religion, ethnic group. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well we might want to argue the wording, but I think bot h aspects - the connection between religion and voting behavior and the increasing geographic polarization are remarkable, especially since they have not historically occurred in the US, but have been rather striking in certain European countries in the past, where they are now often less visible today. Just take the Ruhr area and its "natural governing party" SPD or the Catholic Christian Democrat connection (ahem *gay SPD Landrat in the Bavarian Forest*) that used to be quite prevalent but are increasingly becoming tenuous at best. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the connection is remarkable (literally meaning to be worth remarking upon) whilst not giving the impression that religion is the be all and end all of voting affiliation. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this edit, the interested parties are pointed to pages 35ff of this PDF detailing the data in question in pretty exhaustive form for 2015 (newer data doesn't yet exist here), so that any debate as may arise can be had on the basis of facts not feelings or having a hunch. Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the stats in that article, San Francisco seems an arbitrary cutoff point to me..Houston looks much more fitting, given it drops from roughly 10x to roughly 7x Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but what is the question / point being made? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question ads SFO as a main international gateway, bringing the total to six (instead of the previous five). However, the numbers in the PDF I linked don't really support including SFO while limiting the number to six (nor is there any policy that does). SFO had (in the year of reference) 10,755,078 international passengers while the place immediately below it in the ranking, IAH, had 10,177,441 the place below IAH however, DFW, had 7,580,093 which is a much more significant drop. Thus I suggest making the cut at the three million jump, not the few thousand jump. Hence the stuff in comment tags. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how it stands for people from Europe but from East Asia, the main entry points to the U.S. are most certainly LAX, SFO and JFK. Of course I know that many other American cities have flights to East Asia, but in terms of frequency and number of Asian cities served, these are without a doubt the main ones. And speaking of which, I wonder if it's worth mentioning that NRT and LHR are good hubs for flights to the US for those coming from East Asia and Europe respectively. The dog2 (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because of its subject, this article probably attracts a lot of editors who want to help out by adding a little bit here and a little bit there to elaborate on a particular topic or add a perspective unique to their region or state. The downside of this is that the article can become unwieldy and go into more detail than the typical traveller would want, e.g. the fairly lengthy explanation of how gift cards words. I would expect that most travellers are familiar with the concept, so probably only a cursory description would be needed. There are also cases where the same point is made in more than one place (full-service/fibe-dinibg restaurants). I've taken a few runs at this to trim it down, and encourage others to keep an eye out for well-intentioned excesses. Ground Zero (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since April 19, the article has grown by about 4,000 bytes, mostly by people adding a few extra words here and there, elaborations, or a regional example or exception. I've cut some more out -- about 1,500 bytes, but we really have to remember that this article should not attempt to be a compendium of everything you need to know about travelling in America. Because that is something few people who be interested in reading. Ground Zero (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with your position, and would actually prefer people didn't add superfluous information given the size of this article. Unfortunately this article attracts the majority of edits, so that will always be a very difficult view to enforce. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The last edit that I revert was adding an example of vocabulary differences right before the link to "see English language varieties", in other words, starting to duplicate that article. There is one editor in particular who seems to enjoy adding little bits and pieces to this article regularly. If anyone disagrees with my trying to keep this article from becoming a juggernaut, please speak up. Otherwise, I will continue to revert unnecessary padding of this article. Andrew, I appreciate the efforts that you and @K7L: have made to cull the cruft that accumulates here. Ground Zero (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is in "Respect":

In this regard, never associate anyone with any particular type of food or other traditions based on their race. For instance, asking a Korean-American about Korean food, a Chinese-American about Chinese food, a Mexican-American about Mexican food, an African-American about fried chicken or anything that is typically connected to someone's ethnic background is considered to be stereotyping and hence, very offensive to Americans.

I want to push back on this a little. Sure, asking an African-American to recommend a fried chicken place if you don't personally know the individual you're asking likes fried chicken (such as if s/he spontaneously brings up fried chicken in a conversation) can cause offense, because African-Americans being caricatured for eating fried chicken, watermelon and so forth is a trope. But if I know someone is Cantonese, I seriously doubt I'd offend them by asking whether there's any Cantonese restaurant they like. I'm Jewish, and I don't feel the least bit offended when people ask me for recommendations of good Jewish delicatessens in New York. I'm always happy to answer that question. So I think all this stuff really depends on context: Don't walk up to Mexican strangers and ask for a recommendation of a taqueria, but if you are having a conversation with someone you meet at a party and say you love Mexican food and wonder if they like anyplace in particular, would that necessarily be offensive? I think this bullet goes overboard and should be dialed back. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does sound overly sensitive. I think in the original edit comments they said that an Australian-Asian wouldn't be offended but an American-Asian would. I guess in Australia (thanks to a racist immigration system until the 1950's) , most Asians are 1st, 2nd or third generation and have close connections to their ancestral country, whereas as in America you can easially encounter an Asian whose family goes back to the nineteenth century and would be generally bemused by a question about authentic Cantonese restaurants. In any case I think this falls in the bucket of "things to seriously not get concerned about" and remove it. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could indeed, but most Cantonese-Americans I know do at least have places their family likes to go for banquets on special occasions, or they know about such places. I guess I know of one Korean-American who gets annoyed about questions about Korean restaurants since she seldom eats Korean food and then only home cooking, but she's also a difficult person in other respects, so I don't know if that really tells us much. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably more a general fact of life that if you ask someone a question based on their apparent ethnic origin then you will run a risk of offending them. Does it have to be travel advice? I'd say not... Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there probably should be some mention of this. I'm not sure what the right way to phrase this will be but I do think the US is unusually sensitive in this respect. I do recognise that not everybody gets offended by this, but at least based on my experiences, general American culture regards this as stereotyping and it is generally taboo to ask people about any type of food that is typically associated with their ethnic background. For instance, many Chinese-Americans I have met find it very annoying when other people ask them about where to find good fried rice. Of course, I do know that is also depends on what ethnicity as well, as most Italian-Americans I have met have no issue about being asked about where to find good pasta and pizza.

As for the issue with African-Americans and fried chicken, I think this absolutely has to be mentioned. While this may be a Captain Obvious for Americans, many foreigners aren't even aware that this association even exists, and I only learnt about it after spending several months in the US, and this is something that absolutely could cause serious offence. So let's say for instance, I'm a tourist making an enquiry with an African-American receptionist at my hotel. I could have just unintentionally offended the person out of ignorance, as I wouldn't have been aware that this stereotype even exists, and my intentions would have been as innocent as wanting to eat some fried chicken since the US, since the US is known internationally for fried chicken. As a foreigner, I would like to point out that for many of us, fried chicken is considered to be general American cuisine, and not necessarily connected with any particular ethnic group. So I would say yes, this is most definitely something travellers need to be made aware of. The dog2 (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to rephrase this when I first saw it, and utterly failed. The spirit of it is "Don't make assumptions about a person based on their race or skin color." Maybe some explanation could then be added, to say that because the U.S. has a long and ongoing history of immigration, you can't tell by looking at someone whether they are culturally American or fresh off the boat. But that doesn't make up for the fact that the main point being made is universally applicable, and should be Captain Obvious (even though it sadly probably isn't for a large number of people). In no culture is it safe to make assumptions based on a person's skin color, even in a homogeneous country like Japan. And asking a black person about fried chicken is about on par with asking a French person about snails, or asking a Scottish person about haggis.

That's not to say you can't ask about fried chicken! If you're asking the hotel concierge where to find some good fried chicken, and the concierge happens to be black, I wouldn't expect there to be a problem. Presumably, you chose them because it's their job to answer questions like that, not because of their skin color.

I have a hard time seeing how this is not advice from Captain Obvious. Maybe some people need to adjust their world view in order to realize "Gee, if I asked a French or Scottish person a question like that back home, it would be offensive, so it's probably offensive here to ask a black person a similar question." But how is that specific to the U.S., and not a general travel problem of sometimes not seeing other cultures equivalently to your own? --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fried chicken thing is different on a couple of levels. First of all, Haggis and Snails are actual traditional foods of the areas in question. Fried chicken is not exactly "African American cuisine" (and yes, such a thing exists or has historically existed). As a matter of fact, if asked who "typically eats fried chicken" I'd either say Ketuckians or people from Central America (basically all non US fast food chains there are fried chicken). And while I consider the Lederhosen and whatnot stereotypes about Germans (which really only apply to Bavaria and only Altbaiern at that) annoying, I consider them a lot less offensive than caricatures of African Americans that have no discernible basis in any observable reality. I think it might also be wise to inform readers of some stereotypes they mightn't have heard of to avoid offense. Even major German newspapers get elementary things about African Americans wrong, as seen in a left wing (!) paper putting "Onkel Barack's Hütte" (Uncle Barack's Hut; hut also being slang for house in German) as a headline with the White House upon his election Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can only speak for myself but personally, I would not be the least offended if a visitor to Singapore asks me where to have good chicken rice, kaya toast, laksa or any of the dishes typically associated with Singapore, or even if they ask me for recommendations for good Chinese restaurants. But I guess this issue is more minor and if everyone desires for it to be removed, so be it.

I must say, though, from a foreigner's perspective, that the fried chicken thing is most certainly not obvious to foreigners. I, for one, have grown up associating fried chicken with generic American cuisine (perhaps due to the influence of American fast-food chains like KFC and Popeye's), and not specifically African-American cuisine. If someone is not aware that such caricatures even exist, it is easy to see how they could easily offend an African-American without having the slightest clue why that person was offended. Therefore, I think that travellers should at least be made aware of this issue, so no unintentional offence is caused. The dog2 (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect The dog2 , I believe that your observations on race in the US is very much on the overly sensitive side. Wikivoyage is a guide to travel, not a guide to avoid low-level offending people in every possible scenario. Yes, we need to respect people and customs when we travel to other countries, but recommending that I don't ask where I might find a good Korean restaurant in Atlanta is seriously not good travel advice. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you can't ask anyone at all. My impression is that in the situation you mentioned, it's OK to ask someone who is obviously a non-Asian, but if you ask a Korean-American, that person may see it as stereotyping and get offended unless the two of you are very close friends. The dog2 (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can ask an African American about Korean restaurants, but not an Asian-American? Sorry, but your observation and recommendation is just utterly wrong. Again, we are not in the business of avoiding offense at all costs, but providing real travel advice. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dog, don't you agree that this is highly context-dependent? If you ask Chinese-Americans for favorite places for fried rice, you demonstrate that you don't know anything about Chinese food beyond the most superficial, but if I'm speaking with a Cantonese-American and say that I eat Chinese food more than any other kind when I eat out and really love high-quality Cantonese banquet food, and does s/he know anyplace s/he'd recommend, that's not stereotyping, it's a legitimate question that absolutely can have a "no" answer if s/he doesn't know such a place. It seems to me that you've associated with Americans on the extreme end of the "P.C." continuum. Even (especially?) in liberal cities like New York, we just don't have such a thin skin. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it may well be the case that some of the Americans I have associated with are exceptionally sensitive even by American standards. Given that you grew up in America, go ahead and change it what you feel is more accurate. But I still stand by my point that I think the fried chicken issue should be mentioned in some form. Although my point may seem counterintuitive given the dominance of American popular culture throughout the world, this is one of the issues that a foreigner who has never lived in the US may very well not be familiar with. In any case, Hollywood doesn't show us the complete picture of what actual American society is like, so it really is not inconceivable that some aspects of American culture may not be well-known to foreigners. The dog2 (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fried chicken and watermelon, and neither would be obvious to a foreigner, whereas the offensiveness of asking a Chinese- or Korean-American whether they eat dog - a bigoted question that's hardly unknown in this country - should be obvious. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[unindent] Well, here's my edit. Unfortunately, it made the section longer. I think I'm going to subtract the least essential parts and stay with the fried chicken and watermelon only, but if anyone thinks it's really important to add the rest back, you have my blessing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excision here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that looks fine. I'll trim it a little further since there's one sentence that I think is probably not necessary since it's already covered in the rest of your edit. If there's anything to add in, maybe Chinese-Americans and fried rice would be a point to add (though I must say that fried rice is most certainly not only Chinese, and I personally do enjoy Thai crab fried rice and Korean kimchi fried rice), but that's nowhere near as offensive as the trope about African-Americans and fried chicken, so I'm fine if it stays out. The dog2 (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as I said, the really offensive slur is that Chinese or other East Asian people all eat dog and cat. But we just can't put everything in this article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, if there's one thing I've never heard about New Yorkers as a group, it's them having thin skin. And I have heard quite some negative things about them (in addition to all the positive stuff) Hobbitschuster (talk) 06:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatcha lookin' at?! :-P Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"There are Native American reservations scattered throughout the country."

I understand the desire not to offend, but as far as official terminology is concerned, the United States has "Indian reservations", not "Native American reservations". The former term is how Department of the Interior refers to them collectively, and the official names of the individual reservations generally follow the formula of "(name of tribe) Indian Reservation", "(name of tribe) Reservation", or "(name of tribe) Nation", with none including "Native American" in their name. It also perhaps bears mentioning that Wikipedia has refused repeated page move requests of w:Indian reservation to w:Native American reservation.

Additionally, it's not even clear whether the term "Indian reservation" is generally considered offensive among the demographic group in question. Surveys consistently fail to show any clear preference of what term they feel should be used to refer to them; generally, "Native American" and "American Indian" poll in a statistical dead heat of 35-45% each, with the balance preferring the unqualified "Indian" or other lesser-known terms such as "Amerindian" and "Aboriginal American". I think the muddled picture painted by those statistics bolsters the argument that we ought to stick with the official terminology in this article, especially since we already touch on preferred terminology in the bullet point directly above.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Change the wording accordingly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No disagreement from me. Though there is one term for the ethnic group(s) in question that should never be used in polite company. And that's currently trademarked as a Football team name. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

uncyclopedia:Birmingham Niggers minor-league baseball? K7L (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think 'redundant map' is code word for 'dynamic map'. I believe Dynamic Maps have very much proven themselves on this site, and I would suggest it is time to replace our US map with one. I appreciate that this is heresy to some, but the Static Map can still be the backup option as per the example here.

What more needs to happen to adopt the dynamic map on this article? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:44, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem with the static map? Wikivoyage practice to date has been to use static maps at the region level and higher. I don't see the problem. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Ikan Kekek, especially because maps for articles as high on the breadcrumb hierarchy as this one need to show the color-coded regions breakdown, which is currently impossible to do with a dynamic map. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that isn't true anymore. Please see this map for North India that demonstrates regions can be color coded very effectively on a Dynamic Map --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's redundant in that it provides no information at all beyond what's already on the static map. It's nice that we can have color-coded regions but I certainly don't think it's preferable to use numbered markers over clear on-map labels. That North India map is especially silly, as it labels cities outside the region more clearly than those inside! Powers ^(talk) 20:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what Powers said, the entire point of dynamic maps is to provide a more user-friendly alternative to static maps. It's not at all clear to me how to edit the region borders of such a dynamic map - and if it's anything like the mapmask function used to delineate borders on e.g. Buffalo/Allentown and the Delaware District, there's nothing user-friendly about it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Simply put the static map for this area has extremely limited number of labels. You can't really zoom in to find anything if you wanted to on a static map. For dynamic map labels in this particular region - one has to zoom in (whether or not the dynamic map has shading) in order to see them as most of them are extremely small in the first place. I lightened the shading a bit on the article page. The markers are there simply to highlight the cities and other destinations as mentioned in the region article. Easy enough to get rid of them and the shading by unchecking the groups when viewing the dynamic map.
• The point is that dynamic maps do in fact provide a more user-friendly alternative to static maps for the viewer and not for the one who has to create and maintain them. I totally agree that getting there is the biggest problem to overcome. We all appear to be floating with our own life preservers in a big undefined ocean. I believe that to create or edit the boundaries one would get involved with OpenStreetMap. Another possible future option that might come into play is retrieving/editing the data in Commons. Yet another is to define the boundaries (all the lat/long) positions and actually put them into GeoJSON format directly, in a table, a template or some other means.
• It is probably preferable to use templates to make things happen with dynamic maps; however, they do not fulfill some needs and that alone may warrant the direct use of the Kartographer extension. Because of our user transparency goals, we wouldn't expect a casual editor to know how to use Kartographer anymore than using ParserFunctions, magic words, write Modules or templates and now-a-days wiki format coding and html etc.
• I suppose I started this all when I did a test on the Himalayan North page. Perhaps the answer is to use both the static map and dynamic map together in region articles in particular. -- Matroc (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewssi2, technically, it's not easy to transfer what was done at Himalayan North to the U.S. map. If I understand the process correctly, the templates are calling a predefined boundary from Wikidata (which gets it from OpenStreetMap, assuming the links between Wikidata and OSM are set for the page). This can work well for regions that have official administrative boundaries, but for our nebulous regions -- like many of the top-level US ones -- there is no pre-defined boundary in OSM so it's not as simple as plugging in the Wikidata property. It's possible to trace boundaries and colour-code them (I did it recently here), but it involves a lot of tedious tracing that doesn't look good zoomed in and clutters the page with reams of numbers unless you move the coordinates off the page. It's still very much a work in progress.

I agree with Matroc that perhaps the answer is to use both static and dynamic maps. Dynamic maps give the user more freedom to explore and can easily be made clickable to enhance usability; a well drawn static map can highlight the essentials for the traveller at one glance and are more easily available offline. I'm not sure why we need to say it's an either/or proposition.

And, for what it's worth, I think the dynamic map at Himilayan North is an upgrade over the static map, so we'd be better to keep it. The US region map, however, has more info that isn't easily drawn out in a dynamic map, so I don't think it's a good candidate to be replaced by a dynamic map. -Shaundd (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I load the Himalayan North page, the map shows labels for cities outside the region and only icons for the cities inside the region. This makes no sense. I don't understand how this is an upgrade. I have to click on an icon to see what it is, or look over at the article. But that's weird since it's clearly possible to have written labels directly on the map. Powers ^(talk) 01:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)