text:
Talk:Austria

Is this a joke?

 * "Austrians as a people generally "don't like" Germany or Germans at least in the competitive sense (???) and are quite sensitive about it. 80 million to the north in Germany and 8 million in Austria has made this an even more lively rivalry. Don't compare Austria negatively to Germany; you will quickly anger the locals as Germans are seen as over rich bad arrogant driving tourists on a bad day."

Is this supposed to be humourous, or perhaps just very badly explained? Otherwise it looks as though we're advising that in order to 'respect' Austrians, you're supposed to either tolerate or support xenophobia. And God forbid if you actually are a German in Austria, it sounds like you'd have an utterly rotten time. I have no idea about how accurate any of this is, but while "don't compare country x negatively to larger neighbour" would be good advice anywhere, the rest reads like it was written by someone with a chip on their shoulder.

Unless anyone who knows Austria can confirm the truth of any of this (in which case, would you be prepared to flesh it out?), I propose reducing this simply to: "Don't compare Austria negatively to Germany; you will quickly anger the locals." Thoughts? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

 * It is not a joke, but is badly explained and should be rewritten. There is indeed some rivalry, usually (but not always) good-natured, between the two countries; a similar analogy might be the historically difficult relationship between Ireland and England. Austrians definitely do not like to be compared to Germans, and there are some significant cultural differences between the two countries. These may not be apparent to a casual visitor on a brief visit, though. (FWIW, I'm half Austrian and have lived there.) –StellarD (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks for pointing this out. I lived in Munich and went to Austria often and that section was just insanely inaccurate. Fixed Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Germans like to make fun of Austria (and the Schluchtenscheißer as they are sometimes derisively called) while Austrians like to complain about the Piefkes being uptight and overly formal. It's probably not all that different from other neighborly rivalries but to those involved it seems the most unique thing in the history of uniqueness. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks, everyone. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent election results
So Austria voted on Sunday and it is all but guaranteed, that the right wing populist FPÖ will form part of the next federal government. During the first and Second Schüssel government (the last time the FPÖ held federal power), there were EU "sanctions" on Austria and (semi-) regular protests. Besides that, there was of course the right wing populist politics of the government. I see it as highly likely that the polarizing, anti-foreigner rhetoric that both Sebastian Kurz (head of the ÖVP, the main conservative party and the strongest party in the new Nationalrat) and the FPÖ engaged in, will continue and as has been seen with Brexit, anti-foreigner rhetoric can translate into violence against people who "look foreign". Should we include some sort of warning or a "notice of caution" in the "Stay Safe" section? Should we - if and when the government is formed - inform people who might wish to not visit Austria for as long as the government is in place? Or is this too much us getting into politics? Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 * I think a warning at this point would be overkill – there is no similar warning for other nearby countries with far-right governments, e.g. Hungary and Poland. –StellarD (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Well for certain there is "stuff" going on in Hungary and Poland. How relevant to travel newspapers being shut down or demonstrations are, I don't know. But iirc there has been an uptick in both antisemitic and xenophobic violence in Hungary ever since Orban got into power and Jobbik gained so many seats in Parliament. In Poland meanwhile, there are sporadic demonstrations against certain acts of the government and if I am not misinformed, the LGBT community (or rather its organized part doing marches and stuff) has bee co-opted or co-opted itself as a major force in the anti-government groupings (not all that much of a surprise, given the catholic-clerical tendencies of the government and the rampant homophobia that usually boils down to). Nonetheless, LGBT-travelers might wish to know of that to take it into account for their travel plans. I think we should at least mention Xenophobia, but I am no Poland or Hungary expert (I haven't even been to Hungary and my visits into Poland were twice as far as my legs could carry me on a day-trip and nothing more). Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 * It's been years since I last visited Hungary and Poland, so I can't really comment on those countries. Regarding xenophobia in Austria, it depends on where exactly you are. In a remote village in Carinthia (the heartland of FPÖ country) you will certainly encounter it, but Vienna will likely be just fine for visitors regardless of ethnicity or orientation. On my most recent visit to Vienna last year I encountered a number women in niqabs in a middle-class neighborhood who didn't get a second-glance from residents – this would have been unthinkable just ten years ago. (Of course, it's probably not a good idea to go walking around in a niqab in every Vienna district, but then you could say that about Berlin, too). If we're going to mention xenophobia in Austria then we should mention it in relevant regions, and apply the same standard to other countries too, notably in the United States, as some visitors are much more likely to encounter problems in rural Kentucky for example than in Los Angeles. –StellarD (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Well Austria now has a (passed by the previous SPÖ/ÖVP government) "anti camouflaging your face law" as it is more or less officially called, but everybody who doesn't live under a rock knows, it's a law to outlaw certain types of Islamic dress. I won't voice an opinion on that law, but it can certainly affect visitors from certain places (heck, one of the first people who had to pay a fine under the new law was some guy in a shark costume advertising for some shop-opening). Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Well if we're going to mention the Austrian law, then we should mention the version in France, too, and any other variations in other European countries, and we should be consistent about it. My point is that Austria is hardly unique in this regard, either socially or politically – perhaps this would be best addressed on the Europe talk page. –StellarD (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

 * I think we do mention some of this stuff on some of those pages, but not with any consistency. I am not sure a one size fits all approach would be right, though. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Politics
Recent edits have excised or bowdlerized quite a bit of the factual stuff regarding politics, particularly the FPÖ and the very real Vienna/rest of the country split (which, btw, the FPÖ also acknowledges). I think we should take this opportunity to have an honest debate on this. And before all else, I do think that foreign visitors, be they Arab, Jewish, ex-Yugoslavian or black might have an interest to know about the FPÖ and their positions regarding antisemitic songs, Burschenschaften, "Tschuschen" (I apologize for using this slur even in quotation) or "Islamisierung". At any rate, I think it is by now well known that I am a notorious (((linksgrünversiffter Gutmensch))) but for the reasons outlined, I think discussing the FPÖ is necessary to give travelers a fair and complete image of Austria. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course anything bearing on safety and whether a visitor's reception may be hostile, even if not putting them in potential physical danger, is important to mention in a travel guide. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The passages I deleted were neither relevant for potential travellers nor were they politically neutral. In many cases they were not even factual. How, for example, are the Greens a "major party" with 3,8% of the vote in the last elections? How is Vienna "notably red" when the "red" party got barely a third of the vote? And how is the fact that you want to portray Vienna as cosmopolitan and the rest of Austria as conservative and xenophobic when this is an obvious partisan supersimplification relevant for travellers? I think Wikivoyage gains if we try to leave our political beliefs out of it (cf. here). Obviously, everything that is relevant for a visitor's safety and reception is important to mention, but presenting a biased view of Austrian politics is not, in my view. Perhaps we can agree on a more neutral wording if you think it needs to be included. Maltatal (talk) 12:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I now rewrote the section, please review and discuss. Maltatal (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Recent election results have no bearing on the fundamental strength of a party and you know that. Nobody would argue NRW is not structurally more "red" than the German average even though its current government does not include the social democrats. Saxony remains structurally conservative even when AfD and CDU have near identical vote shares. And the electoral disaster of the Green Party in the last election is so notable because it is so rare and it was caused in large part by the defection of that Pilz guy. I think we are not even getting into some of the more nasty stuff like the pretty clearly brown history of the FPÖ as well as the transparent lies Austria keeps telling itself about the Anschluss and the seven years after that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If elections have no effect on the "fundamental strengeth" of a party, what does? I understand you are angry about the results of the October election which made you start editing the Austrian politics section a couple of days later to adequately reflect your political views, but let's try to keep it (i) factual [there have e.g. been lots of times when "all uniformed forces" were in the "hands" of the same party because we have not always had coalition governments], (ii) neutral, and (iii) reasonably short because this is an online travel guide after all and not a compendium on Austrian politics as seen from the far left. Maltatal (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Maltatal on this. I don't believe this level of detailed focus on Austrian politics is relevant to a travel guide, and the joke is tired and not funny, either. –StellarD (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

This seems to have flared up again (Travellers' pub) regarding edits culminating in this one. For what it's worth, the information seems fairly irrelevant to me. ARR8 (User talk:ARR8 | Special:Contributions/ARR8) 18:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally, I agree that the content that was removed seems irrelevant. However, I think there's probably other content in the article that falls under the same category. Also, the way I see it, Hitler's actions toward the Jews is a topic best avoided, because it was so terrible. The same is the case, I'm sure, with many of the actions of Stalin and similar dictatorial individuals who ruled around that time. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

While I generally favour avoiding long discussions about politics, I think that deleting the section in question in its entirety results in glossing over Austria's Nazi past, which does a disservice to readers. I think that we can make the point without getting into an old example, and instead focusing on the current situation. Here is a suggestion. Instead of
 * "The widespread denial of Austria's Nazi past came to a head during the "Waldheim affair" of the 1980s where the Nazi past of Austrian President (and UN general secretary) Kurt Waldheim was put under scrutiny, leading social democratic Austrian chancellor Fred Sinowatz to sarcastically declared "Wadlheim was never a member of the SA, only his horse". Austria also had a significantly lower percentage of political exiles return after 1945 and the FPÖ (one of Austria's main political parties) got its start openly pandering to former Nazi Party members."

Let's use:
 * "There has been widespread denial of Austria's Nazi past, and the FPÖ, which has served as the junior coalition partner in the Austrian government since 2017, got its start openly pandering to former Nazi Party members." —The preceding comment was added by Ground Zero (talk • contribs)
 * Strongly oppose any mention of a current political party, even an implicit one. I think the article goes into enough detail on this as it is. ARR8 (User talk:ARR8 | Special:Contributions/ARR8) 22:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Many of our articles mention current political parties (US, UK, Italy, Germany, Canada, Australia...). Ground Zero (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Right. I oppose it in this context, not as an absolute rule (although we would probably be better off without many of those mentions). ARR8 (User talk:ARR8 | Special:Contributions/ARR8) 01:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * SelfieCity, without prejudice to this particular discussion, I couldn't disagree with you more. On that basis, the genocides in Rwanda and Cambodia shouldn't be mentioned in the articles for those countries, either. It's definitely a disservice to travelers to ignore genocides that fundamentally reshaped countries. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The FPÖ getting its start in politics by openly pandering to Nazis is factual. Austria having fewer exiles return after WW2 is also factual. Austria "just so happening" to be the first major "western" (technically non-aligned at the time) country to extend diplomatic recognition to Iran after the major no-no they did with American embassy is also a fact. I think my politics are by now well known. But I think we'd do a disservice to travelers if we were silent about Austria - especially outside of Vienna - being, well, yaknow.... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We would be doing travelers a disservice by counterfactually portraying Austria as the sinister Neonazi haven that you are apparently imagining it to be. Maltatal (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Where did I say that? And please do not leave the level of the factual. I will restore my version as I do not think you have made a substantial contribution to this talk page thus far. You are invited to do so without insinuating motives of any kind. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

 * It is really disappointing to have to protect this page from edit warring. Please let's keep talking in a productive and respectful way, everyone.
 * What substantive effects do the FPÖ, and the (alleged) denial of Austria's Nazi past have on travellers? Why does the traveller need to know about this? This is not rhetorical or provocative; I genuinely don't know. Is it just background information, or is there a respect / safety issue at play? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Things that are absolute non-issues to say in Germany (well, they were until recently) like "the Nazi era was bad. Germany did a lot of bad thing in that time. Too many people followed Hitler, probably a majority" are somehow controversial in Austria. And pretty open racism (e.g. using slurs I may have alluded to above) is much more "accepted" in Austria. When the FPÖ formed part of the government in the late 1990s early 2000s there were weekly demonstrations against that. And I must say there was - for whatever reason - less debate about the need to mention slavery or the American Civil War in articles where such is germane. I do not quite see the need by certain people to whitewash Austrian history. I also do not see why the "default" should be the removal of any mention of Austria's Nazi past and its - let's just say less than stellar - handling of same since 1945. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to leave a comment here re: "factual" information. It is a known phenomenon that people on one side of a political divide may say that their perspectives are "facts" and the opposition's are "propaganda" or "denialism." While this may or may not be true, it can also be seen as partisan point-scoring, especially to someone on the opposite side of the divide. Who gets to say who is right, if anyone? It's not our place; we're a travel guide. We avoid this issue by being fair and leaving it alone, issue or non-issue. If something is remotely controversial, even if one side of the controversy offends our sensibilities, we should imagine how a reader who shares that opinion may feel reading one of our articles, and leave it alone. ARR8 (User talk:ARR8 | Special:Contributions/ARR8) 00:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do we have to pander to people who say "the American Civil War wasn't really about slavery at all"? Do we have to pander to Shoah denialism? Do we have to pander to certain people who used to add in a lot extraneous stuff into articles on Brussels? Look, it is excusable to not know the history of Austria. It is after all, an unimportant country for the most part. What is not excusable is to call into question facts that - to my knowledge - nobody here, not even Maltatal denies. The only thing Maltatal denies is something nobody says, namely that Austria is a "sinister Neonazi haven". Nobody has said that. I have said that the Waldheim affair was a big effing deal. And that the FPÖ got its start pandering to Nazis. Both of those things can be looked up in history books, in wikipedia, wherever you care to look. Of course we can debate which of the various Burschenschaften that various high ranking politicians are members of are "Nazi" or just "right wing" or maybe even "cornflower liberal" (if you don't know what this piece of organic matter means in Austria, read it up) until the cows come home. But I do not think we should shirk from mentioning stuff about Austrian history because somebody insinuates stuff. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The Waldheim affair is worth a mention, I think, as it was a huge international incident. And be fair doesn't mean avoid anything that could possibly upset anyone. Moreover, the fact that some people will deny every inconvenient fact doesn't make it less true. Given current politics in the United States, I don't think that point needs to be elaborated on. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * In many countries, any connection to neonazis would be toxic for a political party,but in Austria, such a party is in government. I think that is important for Jewish, non-white and LGBT travellers. The Waldheim affair, while important in Austria's history, is too complicated to cover briefly, as is evidenced by the not-very-clear passage in question. User:Maltatal, your claim that User:Hobbitschuster is "portraying Austria as the sinister Neonazi haven" is harmful to this discussion. I think you should withdraw the comment and commit to refraining from misrepresenting other editors' positions in the future. Ground Zero (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To be exact, I wrote that User:Hobbitschuster apparently imagines Austria to be a "sinister Neonazi haven". I get this impression from some of his statements like "Things that are absolute non-issues to say in Germany [...] like "the Nazi era was bad. Germany did a lot of bad thing in that time. Too many people followed Hitler, probably a majority" are somehow controversial in Austria. And pretty open racism (e.g. using slurs I may have alluded to above) is much more "accepted" in Austria." and insinuations such as "But I think we'd do a disservice to travelers if we were silent about Austria - especially outside of Vienna - being, well, yaknow.... ". Having lived more than half my life in Austria I find that these views do not reflect reality as I perceive it and I would not want them to make travelers see the country as something it is not. Austria has its share of right-wing and left-wing extremists, but certainly not significantly more or less than any other Western European country. Maltatal (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * How is the Waldheim affair so complicated? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The passage first explains who he was, then what he did, then tells a lame joke, about something that happened over 30 years ago. I think that telling the reader that the FPO is in government now provides more important and timely context to travellers on 2019. Ground Zero (talk) 06:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with your last point, but I don't think the Waldheim story is really that complicated. He covered up a Nazi past and then when it came out, it was a big international story. That's all that needs to be said, and that he was a former U.N. Secretary-General and was then President of Austria. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

No one is trying to whitewash Austrian history here. But we should not wrongly "blackwash" its present either. Was Hitler welcomed with open arms by many Austrians in 1938? Yes. Did many Austrians participate in the holocaust and other atrocities during WWII? Yes. Are these facts largely ignored or disputed in present-day Austria as Hobbitschuster claims? No. As for the Waldheim affair: It is relevant but certainly not relevant enough for a four-paragraph section on Austrian history in an online travel guide. Otherwise we might as well include the Fritzl case which has certainly shaped people's image of Austria more in the last ten years than Kurt Waldheim. Maltatal (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Second proposal
Trying to find a compromise, and avoid some repetition in the old version. How about:

 * "The widespread denial of Austria's Nazi past came to a head during the 1980s when its President Kurt Waldheim (a former UN general secretary) came under scrutiny because of his service as a Nazi intelligence officer. The FPÖ, which became the junior coalition partner in the Austrian government in 2017, got its start openly pandering to former Nazi Party members."

Ground Zero (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Perhaps the transition between the two sentences could be more elegant, but otherwise, it seems fine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

 * What is that even supposed to mean, "the widespread denial ... came to a head"? Seriously, I do not mean to sound petulant. Maltatal (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You should recognize that there is a lot of support for retaining these points. Feel free to suggest other wording. That would be more constructive than simply continuing to oppose. Ground Zero (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. I suggest to rewrite the last two paragraphs of the history section as follows (I also took out the part about German students which has nothing to do with history):

 * "It was not until the end of the war that the mood changed and Austrians tried to distance themselves from Germany. In 1943, the Allies had decided to treat Austria as “Hitler’s first victim” and post-war Austrians happily agreed to see themselves as victims rather than perpetrators. A more honest examination of Austrian complicity in Nazi atrocities only gained momentum slowly, most notably over the course of the “Waldheim affair” in 1986, when Austrian presidential candidate and former UN general secretary Kurt Waldheim was accused of covering up his role in the German Wehrmacht. Nowadays, there is a national consensus that many Austrians welcomed the annexation of their country by Nazi Germany in 1938 and many also played an active role in the holocaust.

 * In 1945, Austria was divided into four zones of occupation like Germany. A treaty signed in 1955 ended the Allied and Soviet occupation, recognized Austria's independence, and forbade future unification with Germany. A constitutional law of that same year declared the country's "perpetual neutrality", a condition for Soviet military withdrawal, and thus saved Austria from Germany's fate of a divided nation with a divided capital. This official neutrality has been called into question since the Soviet Union's collapse of 1991 and Austria's entry into the European Union in 1995. Austria entered the European Monetary Union in 1999, and the Euro replaced the former currency Schilling in 2002."

 * Maltatal (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would dispute that this is needed purely on the basis of being an international incident. Interestingly, none of our Russia, USA, or Cuba articles mention the Cuban missile crisis, an even bigger international incident. Even more interestingly, Wikipedia's Austria encyclopedia article, out of ~135,000 bytes, dedicates just under 25 words to this incident.
 * This blatant politicizing is, to me, indefensible, and totally unlike the comparisons made. What I see is a textbook example of w:WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS that we should not be trying to find compromise on. Every proposal submitted so far devotes more writing, both absolutely and as a relative share of the article, to this minor incident than Wikipedia does. This is unneeded shoehorned information, elevated to relevance by one editor's own worldview and synthesis of history, and tendentious to boot.
 * At the end of the day, TT!'s very prudent question about why this is relevant to a travel guide is unanswered. I'll reiterate: why would this possibly be relevant to a travel guide? ARR8 (User talk:ARR8 | Special:Contributions/ARR8) 11:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

 * GZ answered half of my question with "In many countries, any connection to neonazis would be toxic for a political party,but in Austria, such a party is in government. I think that is important for Jewish, non-white and LGBT travellers." So there is a traveller-relevant case for mentioning the far right, and specifically neo-Nazism, in this article. On the other hand, how that entails the Waldheim affair is relevant to travel and therefore must be mentioned (which, for clarity, was not what GZ argued) is definitely not clear to me. But, like Granger, I don't really want to get too deeply involved with this discussion.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

 * The far-right is already mentioned in the Politics section. And the FPÖ is a right-wing populist party, not a neo-Nazi party. Maltatal (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

 * ARR8, if you think the topic of neo-Nazism, Holocaust denial and racism is sufficiently covered without mentioning Waldheim and others can agree on that, I won't stand in the way of not mentioning him. You're absolutely right that not all important incidents, including important international incidents, are mentioned in "Understand" sections of this site, and many of them don't need to be. I looked for a mention of Watergate in the United States guide and didn't find one, and the Cuban Missile Crisis almost destroyed the world, so maybe it should be mentioned, but apparently, it is not. That said, I think that a very brief mention of the Waldheim affair fits neatly into a discussion of Austria's uncomfortable relationship with its Nazi past, which is still a current issue. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Agree with a short mention of the Waldheim affair as a notable example illustrating Austria's way of coping with the past. Users who want to learn more details about the affair may consult other sources than a travel guide. --RJFF (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Extremists on both sides
Maltatal did a clever slight of hand that we know from the likes of Donald Trump saying there are supposedly extremists in both sides and insinuating they're equally bad. Oh and also other European countries are just as bad. Well when Austrofascism governed Austria, much of Europe was under a dictatorship. Does that excuse austrofascism? Does that make people who opposed it from the left "Extremists"? But please, show me where the equivalent to the cornflower wearing, Burschenschaft Olympia "Hitler had a decent jobs program" (Haider about Hitler) FPÖ is on the left. The KPÖ has what, one reasonably popular city councillor in Graz who instead of demanding communism advocates for lower rents? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Failure to archive due to spam listed link
I just wanted to archive all the stuff that's over half a decade old, but I could save the stuff due to a link which is apparently on the spam list. Can somebody remedy this issue please? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait a second, Hobbitschuster, you're not an admin? Is there some reason for that that I don't know about? If not I'll nominate you, if you're willing. Either way, I'll do the archiving in a moment. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * To my surprise, admins can't override the spam blacklist either. I removed the links and added clarifying notes in the archive. If you do want to be an admin, please ping me—I don't want to watchlist this page because I want to avoid the temptation to get involved in the political debate above. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist for URLs blocked by Wikimedia that are fine on Wikivoyage. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Disagreements regarding Austria
There is some disagreement - as evidenced by the edit history - whether and if so how to mention certain aspects of Austria's current political landscape and twentieth century history. Please opine here or on the talk page so that we can avoid an edit war Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The talk page would be the best forum for this.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with both of you, will check it out. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 21:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Austrian politics
As a political geek, I find the discussion of Austrian politics to be interesting. But is this paragraph too detailed for a travel guide?
 * "A peculiar facet of the "Second Republic", as Austrians call the post-1945 incarnation of the state, is that for a long time important posts in government and civil service were appointed according to "Proporz" (~proportionality). This meant that certain offices were known as the "fiefdom" of either centre-left SPÖ or centre-right ÖVP, and thus (in accordance with the party colours) were known as "red" or "black" respectively. This was aided by almost uninterrupted "Grand Coalitions" between the two parties at the federal level. Some state constitutions explicitly called for the state government to be composed proportionally to all parties in the state parliament. Whatever the faults of this system, it helped prevent the extremely violent and unstable politics Austria had had to endure in the interwar era when "reds" and "blacks" were pitted against each other in open hostility. With the 1999 coalition between the ÖVP and the far-right FPÖ, this consensus-oriented way of making politics has started to crumble, and Austrian politics has since become a lot more like the politics of other European countries. Some "fiefdoms" remain with the formerly "red" railways producing an SPÖ chancellor (who governed 2016-2017), and Vienna still electing "red" mayors like clockwork, whereas the more rural states are firmly "black"."

I kind of think this is too in-depth, but would like other opinions. Ground Zero (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

 * A shortened version of the above would be welcome.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm actually proposing to delete the paragraph. I don't think that it is important for the average traveller to know, and I think that it this level of detail makes the article less useful for most people. Those looking for more in-depth understanding should consult Wikipedia, which requires references to reliable sources. Ground Zero (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't a briefer background to the political scene in Austria useful and interesting? The past explains the present, after all:

 * "Post-1945 Austrian politics were dominated by "grand coalitions" between the "red" centre-left SPÖ and the "black" centre-right ÖVP. This meant that important posts in government and the civil service were shared out according to "Proporz" (~proportionality) among "red" and "black". Whatever the faults of this system, it helped prevent the extremely violent and unstable politics Austria had had to endure in the interwar era when "reds" and "blacks" were pitted against each other in open hostility. With the 1999 coalition between the ÖVP and the far-right FPÖ, this consensus-oriented way of making politics started to crumble, and Austrian politics has since become a lot more like the politics of other European countries."--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn’t aware that the two right of centre parties made a coalition, at least not a permanent one, since FPO recently lost to OVP following a scandal. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 19:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Coalitions in multiparty states are rarely permanent. -- unsigned comment by anon contributor
 * This shorter version is better, but I think it is more detail than is needed for a travel article. I have removed some of the encyclopedic details (number of seats, constitutional provisions for over-ruling votes by the National Council), but I think the politics section is still very long. If there is consensus, however, go ahead. Ground Zero (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know that there is consensus for my proposed wording, but there is consensus that paragraph is too long. I'll insert my wording and if the rest of you want to change the wording and/or argue for the paragraph's removal, that's fine.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

IP

 * In this edit, TT claimed that the IP address adding this information is that of Hobbitschuster. If this fact is true, per sockpuppet rules should we not ask this user to identify whether or not if he is Hobbitschuster, and if he is take action to ensure that a user does not switch to an IP address in an attempt to conceal his/her actual identity on wiki?
 * I do not see evidence this editor is Hobbitschuster, but if that allegation is true, I think we should consider it when deciding whether or not to maintain the paragraph(s). --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 18:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

 * It's allowed to edit anonymously and to have alternative accounts. What's not allowed is to use multiple accounts to pretend to be different people in order to advance an agenda, which is not what's happening here. If this IP is Hobbitschuster, he's not breaking any rules.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have, on occasion, forgotten to log in when editing. I try not to do it, but I don't think there is anything sinister here. Ground Zero (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That explains the situation regarding that editing, thanks. I thought I’d seen recently that editors had been required by admins to use either anonymous or an account, but not both, in discussions regarding some incidents but as I do not know them specifically I wouldn’t disagree with consensus.
 * As for breaking rules, edit warring would presumably be one of those, but when content is being added quickly and informatively, I wouldn’t object to a few statements accidentally being inserted into the text after already being reverted, as long as those incidents are addressed as they have been so far. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 19:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Banner
I've had this banner cropped since 2021-09-22, hoping that I'll eventually find a good article to put this in. And here seems a good one. -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

 * 0 is good, but 1 is better. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

 * I prefer the existing banner, which seems to have far more foreground interest without the ugly cabin and blue septic tank (?). This with the caveat that I'm currently comparing them on mobile, so out of context to how they'd look on the page. If I don't give my desktop opinion within a few days, kindly prompt me to do so.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

 * Desktop confirmation: I still prefer the current one.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether we should use banner 1 in Central Europe then. The banner there doesn't give much of a feel about the place. @Ikan Kekek? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's better than the existing banner for that article, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

 * I prefer the existing one as the buildings "look Austrian". AlasdairW (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Austria


text:
Talk:Bangsamoro

Name
Is this is really the best name for this article? Our naming conventions encourage using the most common English name for a place, and I hope that people have a more convenient way of referring to this region. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 22:14, 6 August 2006 (EDT)

ARMM appears to be the most common English name for the region, as far as I can tell. It is the official term used by the Philippines government for the region, and "armm+philippines" brings up 165,000 hits in Google. (WT-en) Texugo 22:29, 6 August 2006 (EDT)

Regional warningbox
The warningbox on this page, which is duplicated in most sub-pages, is mostly dedicated to describing the formal end of a long-running conflict. Either it needs to be removed if the threat is downgraded, or significantly updated to reflect the current state on the ground and new threats if it's still dangerous; fairly recent travel warnings are still being issued from various sources (the UK Foreign Office, US Department of State, etc.) so it seems that there are still significant hazards. I don't know the situation well enough to edit it usefully, anyone else feeling more confident? -- D. Guillaume (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Bangsamoro


text:
Talk:Auvergne

From the webmaster of Auvergne.gitelink.com No problem leaving this brief introductory text copied from our website, just as long as a link to the site, for further info on the Auvergne, is left in place.
 * Because the site is not the city's official site, we can only leave the link here on the discussion page, but not in the article itself. If that is OK with you, please feel free to leave confirmation here and reinsert the text in the article. As it stands however, I will go ahead and remove the text for the time being. (WT-en) Texugo 05:26, 1 November 2007 (EDT)

title: Talk:Auvergne


text:
Talk:Avalon

Hey, nice start! I love Avalon -- great town. Haven't been there in years, though... --(WT-en) Evan 18:14, 7 Dec 2003 (PST)

Vacation Rentals
I would argue that Avalon is an example of an exception to Wikivoyage's general apartment listings policy. Short-term/transient vacation rentals are so popular as an accommodation for visitors that the City Council adopted an ordinance regulating their use. Rentals are typically for a week or less, and are used as alternatives to hotels or hostels.

I'm new to this project, so I'm not sure the most appropriate format for including information about companies like Catalina Island Vacation Rentals, so help from a veteran of the project would be appreciated.Mcd51 (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. As per the apartments listing policy:

 * Agency listings must include a local address with a phone number that specifies the physical address at the destination for picking up the keys, managing the property and/or resolving rental issues. This address must also be prominently displayed on the agency web site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Avalon


text:
Talk:Avdat

Naming
While the name is written in Hebrew עבדת, with no Vav - it is pronounced "Ovdat". I think the name should be spelled "Ovdat" in English, and not Avdat - which doesn't make sense to me. (WT-en) Shahar 16:41, 24 December 2006 (EST)

 * I'm OK with the change, but it would be nice to make Project:Romanization's section on Hebrew coherent. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:37, 25 December 2006 (EST)

Merge into Sde Boker
This page deals with a minor attraction that could never contain sections such as Sleep, Eat, Buy, etc... . The site is less than 15 minutes drive from Sde Boker, and can be described in 3-4 lines in that page. Tamuz (talk) 09:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Avdat


text:
Talk:Avebury

I hope this first stab at an entry for Avebury satisfies the basic need. Thx. James.
 * Great start James! Tons of really good information in there! Can I make two suggestions that might help? First, if you create a user account (it just takes a sec and no personal info required) then you'll get a propper welcome as well as a user page and the abilty to sign your comments automagicly! Second, regarless if you create an account, take a look at our manual of style to see how we generally format things around here. If neither of these things interests you, don't worry! Someone will come along and format your contributions and we'll still be more than happy to see more from you in the future! Cheers. (WT-en) Majnoona 11:52, 6 April 2006 (EDT)

 * Thanks, I do have a user account, I think I may have submitted the original article when not logged in though (doh!) Thaniks for the revisions, will definitely look at the style guide before writing any more.  Since Avebury is one of my pet interests, I'll mark myself as a docent on this page until someone more qualified comes along.

title: Talk:Avebury


text:
Talk:Aveiro

An anon said --> On this page I would like to see tourist info related to trainfare between Porto and lisboa.

Copyvio
There are something copied from Wikipedia. (See: wikipedia:Aveiro)

I can't correct these copyvios and I don't know which tag should be used;  or. Is there anyone can help this article or anyone can put an appropriate tag on this? Thanks. -- (WT-en) Tatata 20:55, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

 * I took care of the problem by blanking everything that wasn't obviously written by a non-English speaker and starting over with info from the es: article. (WT-en) Texugo 04:23, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Credit where credit is due
Large portions of the current article were translated from the es: article, which currently says the article is based on work by (WT-es) Hwk, Wikivoyage user (WT-es) (me), and anonymous Wikivoyage users, with the most recent edit by (WT-es) Dario. (WT-en) Texugo 04:23, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

See== Get the display in order... ==

In this section, some items are missing the blue numbered map pointers in addition to the alphabetical order being in a bit of a mess. Could someone with editing and map know how, please volunteer to straighten that out? CharlieCares (talk) 15:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * They're missing latitude and longitude, check out my last edits, I started straightening that out. Ibaman (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I noticed the work on the quick external links and the rest. Super improvement already. Looking forward to see it fully developed. Thank you. CharlieCares (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

See...
I think the whole section dealing with 'the harbour' looks out of place where it is and should be moved to the top. CharlieCares (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

 * By all means go ahead. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. On the airfield certification situation, I'll try to enquire about the latest news. CharlieCares (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Attempted reposioning of "The harbour..." narrative to the top of ==See== failed by virtue of automated system override. CharlieCares (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

 * You simply experienced an edit conflict. Try again. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

by air...
The latest news concerning the Aveiro Municipal Airport, leaves one wondering if the certification for civilian use will be settled any time soon. At the time of the Aero Clube dear Aveiro founding (1999/2000), the air base was under the Portuguese Air Force command (No.10 Airborne Battalion). When the reestructuring of the armed forces brought about the redeployment of No.10 Airborne Bat. and closure of the airbase around 2008/9, the local authorities saw the potential in the existing facilities to be converted for civilian use. The necessary negotiations took place and civilian use protocols was agreed upon by all concerned entities, ie; the FAP, Aveiro Municipality and ACA. As a result, the city of Aveiro and ACA was given the use of the runway, aprons and certain hangers and buildings. The city of Aveiro purchased light aircraft, ostensibly for use primarily in forest fire spotting duties and secondly for flight instruction. About eight years ago, the control of the air force base grounds and facilities was handed over to the Portuguese Army. Some time thereafter, the new Army command decided unilaterally to interdict civilian access to the facilities. As a result of such decision, all equipment and aircraft belonging to the ACA and city of Aveiro, were locked up within the premises out of reach from the civilian owners/operators. Attempts to obtain permission to remove civilian aircraft and equipment have been continuously denied... It appears, the owners have resigned themselves to the fact everything will eventually need to be scrapped due to lack of use and maintenance if the situation continues as is. By 2015, the situation still had not been resolved, although periodical talks between interested parties have been held since then, in an attempt to finalize the impasse and resume civilian activity. The "Noticias de Aveiro" (Aveiro News) newspaper, have been following the saga and various articles can be found on their site under; noticiasdeaveiro.pt/pt/26291/exercito-volta-a-impedir-acesso-ao-aero-clube. Personally, I have not been to São Jacinto air base since 2011, therefore, can't make first hand comments about present circumstances. CharlieCares (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Promote to Guide status?
What does it take to promote this article to Guide? /Yvwv (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Aveiro


text:
Talk:Avery Island

Moved from Project:votes for deletion by (WT-en) Evan

 * Avery Island Part of Louisiana --(WT-en) Nzpcmad 04:20, 28 Aug 2004 (EDT)
 * Keep. As Avery Island is a fairly well known tourism destination of Western Louisiana, this is potentially a stub that could be expanded into a moderate sized article. (Outside of New Orleans, we are alas still very weak on Louisiana info at present.) -- (WT-en) Infrogmation 16:10, 28 Aug 2004 (EDT)
 * Does it fit the rule-of-thumb for {wikivoyage:What's an article?]]: do you sleep there? Or is it just a place to visit from somewhere else? Doesn't really matter what Louisiana stuff there is or isn't... (WT-en) Majnoona 15:51, 14 Sep 2004 (EDT)
 * Keep. Has Sleep. -- (WT-en) Mark 07:07, 17 Sep 2004 (EDT)
 * Keep now that it has sleep -- (WT-en) Colin 10:50, 17 Sep 2004 (EDT)

title: Talk:Avery Island


text:
Talk:Avignon

luggage lockers at Gare Avignon TGV
Does anyone know whether there's a luggage lockers at Gare Avignon TGV? RailEurope mentions only lost&found, as does LP. But what about lockers? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 18:07, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

 * Found some 2006-dated info at TA (not sure whether it's ultimately means central station has it or not -- but TGV station definitely doesn't) plus Fodors mentions  something similar, also saying that car rentals at TGV are very used to offering to their customers to keep luggage for several hours after the car is returned. Anyone able to add that to prose of the article? And/or to confirm/deny the absence of lockers at central train station? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 19:25, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

title: Talk:Avignon


text:
Talk:Avilés

This also appears to be a direct copy from http://www.simnet.is/japan/e-e-asturias.htm. It's entirely possible that this is public domain somewhere, but some clarification might be nice. -- (WT-en) Wrh2 18:07, 12 May 2005 (EDT)

title: Talk:Avilés


text:
Talk:Avoca (New York)

390
Hey, was this article created just because it's the terminus of I-390? =) (WT-en) LtPowers 19:58, 18 June 2012 (EDT)

title: Talk:Avoca (New York)


text:
Talk:Avoiding travel through the United States

Avoiding United States Airspace
I understand that the United States actually requires the passenger manifest of all flights through their airspace, and not just for flights that are actually landing in the United States. There have been instances where flying under such circumstances has not been possible owing to a name appearing on a federal watchlist.

Is this a topic that should be covered in this article? Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Definitely. The nightmare would be someone in the position of Maher Arar, who is erroneously on a list of terrorists, and - rather than Arar, himself, who was dragged off when he was in transit at JFK - is on a plane that is forced to make an unscheduled stop in the US and is then dragged off to be tortured somewhere. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes, that would be a pretty bad scenario. Edward Snowden's options are also limited in that apparently an aircraft carrying him could be compelled to land when traveling through US airspace.
 * I'll think of a section to add. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Article title grammar?
It seems the grammar is wrong in the title: "Avoiding a transit of the United States"

Should we rename to "Avoiding a transit in the United States" or "Avoid transiting in the United States" ? Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I don't think the grammar is wrong. Maybe that's a difference in dialects. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Are you really sure? To me it really feels like the preposition is wrong. The use 'of' would suggest that the country of the United States is transiting somewhere...Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

 * I'm not really sure, but it sounds better than "a transit in the US" to me, because that implies to me not that you are going across the US but that you are, say, driving (or taking a bus, or hitchhiking, etc.) from New York to San Francisco. If the title really bothers you, we can look for another expression entirely. How about "Avoiding an overflight of the United States", so that it covers both scheduled and unscheduled stopovers? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Well, it doesn't bother me too much and actually first few times I didn't even notice it. It just seems like an obvious mistake (to me at least).
 * I'm happy to keep the subject as 'transit' since this is the most concerning scenario of the article. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

 * Added some text. Feel free to add/remix Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Maher Arar?
Maher Arar was flying Tunisia-Canada on a Canadian passport. The US detained him at JFK, held him in solitary without a lawyer for days as an Al Qaeda suspect, then deported him to Syria where he says he was tortured.

As I see it, some travellers face a real risk of kidnapping if they transit the US, and the article should include a warning about this. I am not inclined to add it myself because I do not think I could be at all objective. Any volunteers? Pashley (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

 * This was part of the policy of "extraordinary rendition" directly after the 9/11 attacks. (His detention started in 2002).
 * I would say that this policy did not just apply to the United States. American agents did this to many people in many different countries. (Italy actually tried and convicted some CIA agents for this activity inside Italy)
 * You can certainly mention it, although I would say this process now has a good deal more oversight than it used to and any advice should be relevant to travelers today rather than 10 years ago. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't trust any of that "oversight," especially given that with a different president, policies could change. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

 * If we're going to go down this route, please make sure that any warnings are based on advice provided by non-US governments and not merely vague warnings based on a handful of news articles about terrible events that happened years ago. Our articles are at their best when they reflect realities that will be faced by travelers, and (in my opinion) while the treatment of these individuals is a national shame, it isn't something that will be an issue for (at least) 99.9999% of visitors and thus isn't something that should be elevated over more realistic concerns. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I seriously doubt the percentage you've offered, if you're including harassment and not just being kidnapped, sent to a dictatorship and tortured for weeks or months. I agree that if there are good official warnings that those would be best, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

 * What would be an official warning? I'm not aware of any travel advisories issued by other countries to visit the United States.
 * Using the example above, it seems Canada has no official advice on this subject Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

 * (edit conflict) Harassment is (unfortunately) a very legitimate topic to discuss in this article, but risk of extradition and torture is what I was referring to with the 99.9999% number, and is something that would be so exceedingly rare (if even possible anymore) that I think we should only mention if we can back it up with official government warnings. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I disagree. I think it should be mentioned because it didn't happen that long ago and the conditions that existed then to enable it to happen (an unaccountable TSA that's a law unto itself, a secret "no fly" list, and detention of alleged terror suspects by the US outside of the civil legal system) still exist. There should be a way to mention this as an egregious case without seeming to imply that it's the rule.

 * In terms of travel advisories, I'd be interested to see whether India, Pakistan, or other countries with large numbers of Muslims have issued any for the US. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Specific warnings for US aside, Pakistan (and I think India too) do not publish traditional regular travel advisories to their citizens. --Saqib (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That reminds me of what I believe used to be in South African passports during the days of Apartheid (this might be paraphrased or apocryphal): "This passport entitles the bearer to travel to any country at his own risk." Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

 * One thing to watch with "official warnings": they're subject to political interference. If North Korea were operating a Guantánamo Bay-style torture operation, it would get a Canadian warning in a heartbeat; if the US were doing so, it would not, for fear of offending a major trading partner. K7L (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

In/Through vs Of
Shouldn't the title of this article be "Avoiding (a) transit IN/THROUGH the United States"? A transit OF the United States suggests that the United States is the moving entity, does it not? The transiting one is the traveler, which must transit in or through the US, right? Shouldn't one of those be used? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think you're right. The point is to avoid changing planes in the US, so "a transit in" would do it. But perhaps other dialects of English might have a different usage. So does anyone disagree? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure "transit" is the right word. Avoiding travel via the US? Or even "Avoiding US air space", since there are cases like a London-Havana flight that goes near Florida where, I'm told, the US gov't gets passenger lists and their "no fly" restrictions may apply. Pashley (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

 * How about "Avoiding travel through the US"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Sounds right to me. Pashley (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

 * Anyone else? If we can agree on this, we should change the name within 24-48 hours. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Final destination Canada/Mexico
A couple of years ago someone I know went to Mexico (German citizen) for half a year for which he had a visa. Because the flight had a layover in the US of A he had to get a Visa for the USA and Visa Waiver did not apply. I have heard that under some circumstances EVERYBODY who goes through the USA to Canada or Mexico needs a Visa and visa-waiver does not apply. I think this should be mentioned in the article if you got more than hearsay on that one...141.30.210.129 18:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

 * We already have the text "The United States does not allow sterile transit, which means that even if you have an immediate connecting flight, you have to pass through Customs and Immigration. This is time-consuming and tedious (4 hours or more is recommended to be safe)." That should be made clearer, expanded or given more emphasis.
 * e.g. On one flight from Toronto to Hong Kong, we stopped for fuel in Anchorage Alaska and everyone had to get off and go through US immigration formalities. This was unexpected to me, but not problematic. The ticket did not show the stop; customers need to ask. Pashley (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

 * I probably didn't express myself clearly enough: Sometimes you can't do with "normal" Visa-waiver even if you'd apply. I think it is if your final destination is Mexico or Canada and you stay there for more then 90 days, regardless of wether you have a visa for your final destination. Therefore many travllers from Europe, who don't usually have any problem going to the US for short trips thanks to Visa-Waiver would be inclined to avoid a transit of the USA...141.30.210.129 23:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Muslim Warning Still Doesn't Sound Fair/Complete
The wording still doesn't sound accurate, particularly "even a slight suspicion could get you arrested." We throw around "Post 9/11" but although people may FEEL like the event is fresh and modern, it happened nearly 15 years ago. Exactly how much evidence do we have that it is commonplace TODAY for innocent Muslim travelers to be detained or arrested? "even a slight suspicion could get you arrested." is a bold and very intimidating statement to make. As I recall the previous discussion focused a lot on general "I've read sometime between 2001 and today"-type of anecdotes with nearly all of the cases being closer to 2001 than today.

Either way, with 15 years having passed, we need some sort of addendum. If people have evidence that innocent and non-suspect Muslims are being sent off to jail even today, it should be mentioned that it's just as prevalent now. If however we are simply stuck in the past using tired rhetoric, we need to catch up and say that such instances have steadily/slightly/dramatically decreased in recent years. We cannot rely on "Post 9/11" anymore as the end-all. What does it mean TODAY? How does it affect travel TODAY? To that we currently offer no answer. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

 * While I do agree with the overall thrust of the argument, we have to keep in mind, that this issue is ultimately political. Just like "Gitmo" was political desirable under the Bush jr. administration, it wasn't (and still isn't) under the Obama administration. What if in 2016 some candidate becomes president who makes racial profiling the de facto law of the land? What if there is a dramatic reversal of immigration rules, TSA theater and the likes in a more permissive direction? After all, the GOP field alone might indicate both things at once, what with the party seemingly having a xenophobic as well as a libertarian wing. That being said, our current wording should refer to the situation in 2015 and only make occasional references to history and while we will never not be in the post 9/11 (or the post World War II) world, we may not ultimately live in the immediate post 9/11 world... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I tried a rewrite. Comments?
 * My own feeling is that the Understand section is still much too long, has much redundant info, and needs more editing. Pashley (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Perhaps the Understand section is so long to compensate for the shortness of the rest of the article? I don't know. I think your edit reads very well. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

 * Well that prognosis for the 2016 election was an interesting one to read with three years of distance... Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Banner
I'm not sure about the existing banner, since all it does is show a completely normal immigration procedure.

For the benefit of this topic it might be good to show a long line of disgruntled passengers. Unfortunately the best CC picture I could find until now is this, which although works as a banner is just too blurry.

Any other suggestions what the banner could be about? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

 * The banner shows an American passport control (and the article's purpose is to guide people how to avoid ending up there), while the long line could be anywhere in the world.
 * On the other hand, it's (at least as of next year) not particularly easy to transit through Canada either so perhaps the whole scope of the article should be changed as well. ϒpsilon (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I think it's fine as is. I think it's way overthinking things to require this article to have a banner featuring people who are disgusted with America and/or American airports. The picture shows a woman checking a passport. It's true that within seconds of the photo being taken she probably handed it back and the passenger moved along, but given the article title, we can easily IMAGINE the scenario where she sees something she doesn't like that causes an inconvenience for the passenger. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

 * I just thought a picture of a simple passport check doesn't really express the rationale of this article well. I'm planning to travel Sydney -> London at some point, and the reason that I don't consider transiting via the USA is not because of a 1 minute check of my passport.
 * The present banner is OK, just I believe that a representation of the hassle of a US transit would improve this a good deal. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Revived banner discussion
I think that a Statue of Liberty banner is quite jarringly ironic for this topic. The whole point of avoiding travel through the United States is that that country is not living up to the ideals of liberty embodied in the statue. It's too bad the previous banner was deleted, but can we use something more along those lines again? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 * The banner does give a really odd feeling. I agree that the generic US customs photo was much better and closer to the topic than a foreboding Statue of Liberty. Even a generic picture of airplanes would be better and more relevant. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

 * I agree. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

 * Here are four more banners to choose from. What do you think? —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

 * The statue of liberty one ought to be used in United States of America — not on this article! (I guess I prefer it to the current there.) Honestly, though, I'm not really a fan of any of the others. Definitely not Alt #2, which looks completely unrelated to the topic at a first glance. I'm looking for potential images. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 02:14, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

 * What is the agent looking at in #3? I think I favor #4, then #3. #1 seems like an ordinary checkin for a flight, and I'm not that clear on what #2 is. Is the stuff being searched or just pushed through the metal detector? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In #2 the stuff is being (somewhat messily) searched, and in #3 the agent is looking at a passport. But it's true, neither of those are as clear in the crop as they were in the original image. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion seems to have stalled. We don't have consensus for any one banner, but there's agreement that the Statue of Liberty banner isn't appropriate for this article, so I'm plunging forward with alternative 4. Of course we can continue discussing if necessary. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I still prefer #3, but I guess #4 is an improvement for now. Thank you for taking action. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 11:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I kind of like #3 the best, as well, but I guess #4 is something "scarier" to be avoided? Both are better than the current one. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Include Canada?
To my understanding Canada is not much different from the USA when it comes to procedures related to immigration and transit, at least after they've introduced the Electronic Travel Authorization in 2016. Perhaps we should change the scope of the article and the article's name to "Avoiding travel through the USA and Canada"? ϒpsilon (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are right. The US and Canada have taken to many of the same practices and as both don't allow sterile transit, they are virtually identical for e.g. a citizen of a Central American country wishing to go to Europe. And a Canadian visa does not seem to be much easier or cheaper to get than an American one... Let's just hope we won't have to write "avoiding travel through the Schengen area" any time soon... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss this a little more before deciding. Is Canada as likely as the US to just drag someone off to indefinite detention without trial? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * When has this happened the last time in the US? I mean in all honesty, US policy vis a vis terrorism per se is not the main reason why people want to avoid a transit of the US. Imho the main reason is the disallowing of sterile transit, the onerous visa procedures (safe for citizens of a select few countries) and the huge cost even of a visa application (100$ are not unheard of and if the difference in flight prices is less than that, avoiding the US makes financial sense). And a visa application does not mean you are granted a visa. Sadly it seems that in this Canada ceases to positively distinguish itself from the US in these regards. There are quite a few countries, whose citizens can get a visa on arrival for the Schengen area with little trouble and for up to 90 days while going through the US would be onerous beyond measure - just for transiting. Hence imho it serves the traveler to include Canada if in these regards Canada is no different. Of course we could create a new separate article, though... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need a separate article. Nevertheless, this article presents Canada as a (much?) better alternative for transit than the US which doesn't seem to be true any longer. Also, people may have that perception even without having read this article. ϒpsilon (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So given the date is fast approaching when the US and Canada will be pretty much the same in terms of "Do I want to transit there" to citizens of very many countries, how should we deal with that? We currently say Canada is not much better, but maybe we should a) create a separate article on avoiding travel through Canada or b) extend this article to include Canada and only mention a few options that replace Canada with the US or vice versa if there is a conceivable added value in doing so. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

BBC News Article
Why do so many people hate US airports?     --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Guide and FTT?
Here we have another travel topic article that maybe isn't that far from guide status and Main Page eligibility. Obviously we need to check if the flights mentioned in the article are still operated. I have a feeling US border procedures haven't changed that much over the last couple years (as compared to the early 2000s). Can anyone come to think of any obvious omissions? --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well it might be seen as an incredibly "timely" feature in light of recent events... At any rate, we might want to read through the list of reasons why transiting through the US might be undesirable and eliminate the more "War on Terror" related ones as they have now become less relevant and are usually supplanted by much more pressing concerns regarding visas. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the January 25th 2017 executive order banning citizens of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Sudan and Somalia from the US, this is very topical. The "war of terror" and vilification of Muslims isn't over, it's just beginning. What would it take to get this from 'usable' to 'guide'? K7L (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Flights are at least up to date now. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The article now 1. gives multiple reasons for why some voyagers might want to avoid transiting through the US and 2. presents alternative routes for travel to and between points in the Americas. If there's nothing else to say, the article "Effectively covers most aspects of the topic with no obvious omissions." and can probably be considered a guide. Just a few photos to give some color to the article and it can be nominated. Maybe a map and markers is useful, maybe not. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Photos added! ϒpsilon (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ypsilon, this looks ready for promotion and nomination to me. Shall I do the honors or would you rather? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The "Trump slump" in US tourism
One report Pashley (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Devastating drop in tourism to the US? You don't say! What else would anyone expect after the travel restrictions? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Well, let's see when airlines start rerouting their flights around the US... If the travel restrictions get any more ridiculous they might just do it... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Trump Is Pushing Travelers North to Canada, Marriott CEO Says Pashley (talk) 03:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

 * Fewer Tourists Are Coming to the U.S., and Experts Say It's Largely Trump's Fault Pashley (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Direct flights from Europe to Santiago de Chile
London isn't mentioned, although British Airways has direct flights from there to Santiago. Madrid is mentioned, but in 2004 I changed there in both directions, and had to fly Iberia - and very much wished I hadn't done either (Iberia had cramped seating, poor service and the unfriendliest cabin crew I've ever experienced - and I speak fluent Spanish, so that wasn't the the problem). I swore never to visit South America again if this was the only way to go. The flights were unbearably long, but with the Atlantic and the Amazon basin in the way there's little way to avoid that. A layover at, say, Miami would of course be terrific - but for the obstacles the USA puts in the way of transit passengers like me (who wouldn't visit that country even if you paid us to). Travel agents here in Holland advise people to avoid US layovers at all costs. Instead I can catch a high-speed train down to Paris (just an hour and a half from Brussels, with a stop right at Charles de Gaulle airport), then fly Air France direct to Santiago.213.127.210.95 14:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Us not mentioning certain flights is almost certainly due to those flights not having come to our attention. And I have flown Iberia as well as other airlines and Iberia isn't that bad. I personally found Delta worse, but then again, when you fly Delta you have to transit through Atlanta most of the time - hey, free coke in the terminal! For that I get my retina scanned any time ;-). At any rate, this article is important, because while I have a passport with twelve stars, several people I know do not. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

 * I flew London/Paris/Madrid to Bogota a few times (Avianca). Worth noting that these flights do not enter US airspace as well, which is another consideration. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Other reasons?
There are other reasons to avoid US travel, especially for anyone working in computer security: I could give at least a half dozen other examples.
 * Computer scientists boycott US over digital copyright law in 2001, before 9/11
 * IETF moves meeting from USA to Canada to dodge Trump travel ban IETF is the main standards body for the net & this is a recent event.

Are such things worth mentioning in the article? I'm inclined to say no, since more-or-less everyone in the field already knows. However, it seemed worth asking. Pashley (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Interesting lawsuit
NASA Engineer Suing the Government for Searching His Smartphone At an airport, so relevant here. ACLU & EFF supporting the plaintiff. Pashley (talk) 01:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Changes in restrictions
Trump administration announces new restrictions on travel Pashley (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Is this relevant here?
NAACP warns black passengers of flying American Airlines after 'disturbing incidents' To me it looks like a controversy we need not get involved in. What do others think? Pashley (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

 * The NAACP is a very mainstream organization and the country's oldest civil rights organization. I would recommend for everyone to take what they say very seriously. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

 * It doesn't seem relevant here. Black Americans cannot avoid their own country, and there do not appear to be any claims from foreign nationals. Adding "Being black" as a reason to avoid US transit on this basis sounds very sensational. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Well, it might not be relevant, but not because black folks from foreign countries might not have problems, but because this is specific to American Airlines. So if anything, it could be relevant to Flying in the United States, where I'd also want to mention the somewhat harrowing record United has of breaking musical instruments and having passengers assaulted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

 * So there's a strike against United and one against American. Anything against Delta and we can just say "avoid flying if you value your sanity". Airlines get brazen if there's no high speed rail to compete with them. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Point well taken. Airline consolidation (=less competition) is also to blame. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

 * I avoid flying on North American airlines whenever possible. In my experience, Air Canada is tolerable but all the US-based lines suck. The major Asian carriers, especially Cathay Pacific & Singapore, are far better mostly because they have a better staff/passenger ratio. Some European airlines, like KLM, are fine too & there are probably a bunch of good ones I do not know. Pashley (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Social media
All visa applicants will have to disclose social media accounts after new proposal Pashley (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Court ruling restraining search & confiscation of digital devices
Victory in Alasaad for Our Digital Privacy at the Border Pashley (talk) 10:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Another reason?
[https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-64-year-old-put-his-life-savings-in-his-carry-on-us-customs-took-it-without-charging-him-with-a-crime/ar-AAy4kcL?ocid=spartandhp A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on. U.S. Customs took it without charging him with a crime.] Pashley (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

 * That sort of robbery is business as usual. K7L (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Yes & the US is not the only country where it happens. Nor is asset forfeiture the only problem; for example, people have been complaining for decades about predatory traffic cops on popular tourist routes, and towns that profit hugely by pouncing on travellers.

 * But are these things worth mentioning in the article? Pashley (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

 * This article appears to be about (or primarily about) air travel. As such, the pretextual traffic stops which begin with some random unarmed Negro being pulled over for a busted tail lamp, then escalate inexplicably to drug-sniffing dogs showing up or even to the motorist ending up very dead are likely not worth including - at least in this article. That doesn't mean that media aren't full of such reports. The more specific issues regarding asset forfeiture in airports, on the other hand, do directly impact air travel and may be relevant. K7L (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Police officers shouldn't call the shots whether - for example - a bit over the speed limit is an offense. Machines and clearly written rules should. Most machines aren't racist. That said, yes, whatever is related to air travel, immigration and foreigners being treated shabbily should be mentioned here. Regular stuff that happens to locals as well should be mentioned in other articles; does Driving in the United States mention road racism? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Conference cancellation
Largest Sex Worker Conference in the US Is Canceled Amid FOSTA Fears Pashley (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Phone searches
Canadians Will Now Have Their Phones Searched When Crossing The US Border Pashley (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's six-month-old news, and all it means is that Canadians will be treated just like everybody else at the U.S. border. --Robkelk (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Even Americans get intrusive, arguably illegal, searches. US Journalist Detained When Returning to US Pashley (talk)
 * That could be a one-time thing, especially as the blog article is not one of the main news sources in the U.S. Thanks for pointing it out, however. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S.: For those who are reading into my above comment, this was speculation on my part and not intended to be anything more. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 13:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Marijuana
Canadians who smoke marijuana legally, or work or invest in the industry, will be barred from the U.S.: Customs and Border Protection official Pashley (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Some governments issue warnings
Foreign countries are warning their citizens about U.S. travel after mass shootings Pashley (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably worth mentioning in the article as a reason to avoid travelling to the U.S. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This article mainly concerns itself with issues connected to connecting in US airports or traversing US airspace. I think the airside of an airport is one of the less likely places for mass shootings to occur.... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Then what is the purpose of airport security? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 16:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If that's a serious question: Airport security theater in the U.S. since 2001 is about being intrusive and pretending that the theater is what's making people safe. And Schneier is a security expert, so don't dismiss what he says in favor of mainstream media sources that don't know much about security - the real and the fake - and seldom cover the absurdity and gratuitous, stupid abusiveness of U.S. airport security theater. It should be obvious that there are plenty of softer targets that are being used by terrorists in the U.S., nowadays, and furthermore that the most dangerous person with a gun in the U.S. is generally a white man, particularly a bigoted one, and definitely not the ordinary Muslims and people of color who constantly get harassed by U.S. officials at airports and border checkpoints. But Trump cut funding for F.B.I. monitoring of white nationalist terrorists. So I think that answers your question? If not, please read Schneier. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

 * See Security theater and Schneier's blog; search there turns up half a dozen articles. Pashley (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Arguably the US version of airport security is a reason to avoid travel there & the article does mention that. Some sections earlier on the talk page also cover parts of it.
 * However, the question here is whether we should also link to travel advisories and/or give our own warning about the risk of mass shootings. I think not (Captain Obvious?), but am not certain. Pashley (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hobbitschuster, this article is about making connections in airports, where mass shootings seem unlikely. I think few or no international connecting passengers stay airside the whole time—the US makes you go through security again after you land—but even landside I think airports must be low-risk. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There are only 3 countries. Japan has travel warnings for most countries regardless and the other two countries are largely irrelevant, especially for the English language version. I agree that this sort of topic is also not really what this article is meant for. The article title is specifically THROUGH the US, not TO the US. Making it about avoiding travel TO the US would just make it a rather hateful and distasteful anti-(country), in this case anti-United States, article. Maybe that is what some people would like it to be, but we should never have such an article about ANY country in my opinion. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it is fair enough for someone not to want to travel to a specific country, and there could be many legitimate reasons for them not wanting to go there — unrelated to politics. I've had those concerns about this article in the past, but I understand now that there could be genuine reasons why someone would not want to travel through the country. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 13:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course there are reasons people don't want to travel to the US. There's not a single country in the world that doesn't concern some people for some reasons, big or small. But to have an article dedicated to it (or to allow that in this article) is just a bad idea and we all know such an article would NEVER be able to avoid "relating to politics" for both legitimate reasons (political concerns are real concerns) and a lot of propagandizing/trolling (The incendiary and unnecessarily racial "white males" comment above illustrates how quickly things could/would end up going in that direction). It's not even a slippery slope. Choosing any other country to make reasons to avoid traveling to China/Nigeria/Sweden/Brazil/etc would just become a cesspool of political squabbling completely antithetical to our goals and purpose. This article exists because the US is a very prominent transit hub for travelers in spite of a lot of hurdles they may face, so information is being provided on alternative options. It's a very unique and specific article, which is why we don't have an "Avoiding Travel Through" every country article. Maintaining that focus and purpose is important. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, this isn't political squabbling now. People are reasonably stating their opinions, which is fine. If a US article doesn't attract political squabbling, what will? --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 14:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the airside of an international airport is one of the least likely places for a mass shooting to occur, so it should not be in this article, which is specifically aimed at transit passengers. That said, with regard to white nationalist terrorism, I'm willing to consider making a note in the "Stay safe" section of the main USA article as I already stated in the Pub, provided it is not written in a sensationalist way. The dog2 (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the advisories should be covered in the main United States article, not this one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

 * I think you missed the point. User:Hobbitschuster said, "I think the airside of an airport is one of the less likely places for mass shootings to occur...." so I said, "Then what is the purpose of airport security?" as a hypothetical debate question, not a serious one. My earlier comment involving the journalist had no connection to this thread. --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 13:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

 * Airports are probably safer, but it doesn't follow that that's because of security theater, rather than simple awareness people have there that they don't have in most other targets. Terrorists now largely hit other targets where people aren't looking for them. And ChubbyWimbus, you can choose to regard my remark as "incendiary", but it's incontestably true. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't have dared to make that racial remark if they were NOT white though, and if someone had brought up an unflattering but "incontestably true" statistic about any other race at random, I have doubts that you wouldn't be bothered by that. You were answering the question, "What is the purpose of airport security?" There was no real reason for you to get racial at all. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

(outdent) Is there a consensus then that we are maintaining that this article should maintain its current focus as related to air travel and not insert reasons people might avoid traveling TO the US? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

 * For some people this risk is a reason not to travel to the US, but this article is about avoiding travel through the US.
 * I think Ikan & others are correct, "the advisories should be covered in the main United States article, not this one." That is, if they should be mentioned at all, which seems questionable but should be discussed at Talk:United States of America.
 * Do we have enough of a consensus to end this discussion? Pashley (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

 * There is a similar discussion going on in the pub now. It should probably be moved to the take page of the USA article, but I will raise it over there. I think we can end this discussion here. The dog2 (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

 * ChubbyWimbus, if statistics showed that the greatest danger were from foreign Muslims or Muslim non-citizens living in the country, you think I wouldn't mention it. That's interesting, and you might want to reconsider any idea of profiting off your mind-reading skills. But as it's not true, but instead, the greatest danger of terrorism has been deliberately ignored by the Trump Administration (not to say egged on) in a way that would be unthinkable for terrorism being committed by non-whites, you might want to reconsider your logical argumentation skills, too. And with that, yes, I do agree on dropping this discussion here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how one can judge the "logical argumentation skills" of someone on a point they didn't make any arguments regarding. Perhaps we're both lacking in various regards. I didn't bring up or give any opinion regarding any of the government's responses. My arguments were about maintaining the current focus of the article (not expanding) and that your race trivia didn't serve any useful purpose except that you just wanted to say it. At any rate, the consensus here is to maintain the article's scope, which was the purpose of the discussion. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

 * Another warning, from Amnesty International Pashley (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out, from that article, the text, "Avoid places where large numbers of people gather, especially cultural events..." --Comment by Selfie City  ( talk  |  contributions ) 23:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said, this article is specifically aimed at transit passengers. A person is extremely unlikely to encounter a mass shooting while changing flights at an airport. If people want to bring this up, there is an ongoing discussion in the pub (that should probably be moved to Talk:United States of America) that is more appropriate for this. The dog2 (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Article on some restrictions
Canadians banned from U.S.: Dos and don'ts at the border Pashley (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Pre-clearance changes for Canadians
Canadians travelling to or through U.S. should pay close attention to their withering rights Pashley (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am so disgusted with my country. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

More countries added to travel ban
Not for coronavirurs President Trump added Africa’s biggest country, Nigeria, as well as Myanmar, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Sudan and Tanzania, to his restricted travel list. Pashley (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19
Should this article include a warning about the disease, since the US is currently one of the worst places on Earth for that? Or discussion of new entry restrictions & cancelled flights?

I'd say not, but it seemed worth asking for other opinions. Pashley (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 * I would say not worth mentioning here. The warnings at United States of America are enough. If COVID-19 becomes a long-term problem in the US even after the rest of the world has basically recovered, it could be worth a paragraph in "Understand". —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Should the lead COVID box (1 Feb 2021) be removed? The information is general in nature, and more or less echoes the information in, say, the COVID-19 article. JRHorse (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

 * I don't see a discussion that agreed on adding it, and non-essential travel could be OK for people who are vaccinated, so it might be OK to remove the box, and if not now, soon. Let's see what others think and give it a day or two, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, remove it. Not specific to this article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Same with the Avoiding travel through Canada article. 19:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Will remove tomorrow unless there's another thought. JRHorse (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Lead boxes on both this page and Avoiding travel through Canada are removed. JRHorse (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

 * I added Avoiding_travel_through_the_United_States. Comments? Pashley (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Digital security
Homeland Security details new tools for extracting device data at US borders Pashley (talk) 18:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 * EFF Border Search Pocket Guide Pashley (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Booking online
I just noticed that kiwi.com has a menu item that lets you exclude countries in route selection. The US is not in in the default list, but does come up if you click on "all countries" & does work if you select it. Are there other sites that do the same? Should we list them? Pashley (talk) 02:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Awaji Island

Ferries to KIX
According to this the ferry still exists, so I'm reverting the deletion until given proof to the contrary. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:45, 23 Sep 2005 (EDT)

title: Talk:Awaji Island


text:
Talk:A Weekend in Philly

A touty and irregular, rule-breaking article, if I ever saw one... —The preceding comment was added by 187.36.127.92 (talk • contribs)

title: Talk:A Weekend in Philly


text:
Talk:A weekend on Block Island

Why should this be a separate article?
Wouldn't it be better to add this content to the Block Island travel guide? http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Block_Island

If not, why not?

(WT-en) Ikan Kekek 02:14, 8 March 2011 (EST)

 * I would tend to agree - we've gotten five or six of these sorts of articles lately, including Visiting Providence (Rhode Island), which is now tagged for merge to Providence (Rhode Island). I'd suggest that this might be a merge candidate as well. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 11:05, 8 March 2011 (EST)

Work in progress gentlemen. This will in due time be entirely distinct from the Block Island entry. Until then I'd ask that you refrain from any unnecessary micromanagement. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 70.181.42.29 (talk • contribs)

 * First of all, please sign your posts on "Talk" pages. But more importantly, what is the need that this article fills which can't be better filled on the regular Block Island article? Make the argument, instead of complaining that our opinions consist of "micromanagement."

 * (WT-en) Ikan Kekek 02:25, 9 March 2011 (EST)

 * First of all, no thanks. Second of all, it was less a complaint, more an observation.  Third of all, and perhaps most importantly, I mentioned in my first post that this was a work in progress, and thus is going to change.  As it appears that I need to be more specific; I will be updating the central section with the play-by-play itinerary itself.  The itinerary format itself includes, as I am sure you are aware, sections on Understand, Prepare, etc.  Rather than ignore these sections entirely, i figured what the hell, I'll risk a little redundancy.  Anyways, your understanding is appreciated, ciao.  —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 131.128.72.3 (talk • contribs)

 * Signing simply means appending a ~ to your post, which in your case will append a footer identifying your IP address -- which is already in the edit log, so it's merely a courtesy to allow others to more easily follow the conversation. (I've now added similar tags by hand.)  You also dodged the question: what is the need that this article fills which can't be better filled on the regular Block Island article?  We certainly try to welcome new contributors, but Block Island isn't a very long article as-is and would definitely benefit from some prose additions, especially in the Do and See sections... to me (and others above), it seems like the better target for improvements right now. -- (WT-en) D. Guillaime 22:20, 10 March 2011 (EST)

title: Talk:A weekend on Block Island


text:
Talk:Ayorou

It will take a lot longer than 3 hours to get to this town by bus. It is a great place to visit but it is not a day trip. you will need to stay at least one night.

title: Talk:Ayorou


text:
Talk:Ayutthaya

Needs some serious work
This article needs serious help-- Ayutthaya is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and a serious tourist destination for Thailand. Beyond the fact that the article doesn't match our style manual, it is extremely bloated with detailed historical information copied from the Thai tourism authority and also with information that should be sorted and placed in other articles or deleted altogether. I've started chipping away at it, but I'd really appreciate some help. (WT-en) Texugo 03:44, 19 October 2008 (EDT)

 * As per our COTM this month, I'm going to work a lot on Ayutthaya to get most of this mess sorted out. Once I'm done with all the article moving, I'll get to clean up some articles like these. Horrible to see Ayutthaya in a state like this. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 00:44, 3 February 2010 (EST)

 * Started pretty brutal by cutting an enormous amount of listings to Talk:Ayutthaya/Listings. Still, I didn't even do the See page yet, so even more listings will have to be sorted out. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 00:53, 3 February 2010 (EST)

TAT Listings
I am cleaning up Ayutthaya. I'll move TAT listings and other clutter to Talk:Ayutthaya/Listings for future reference. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 10:40, 7 February 2010 (EST)

luggage storage
Is there anywhere secure to store luggage for half a day or so, preferably near Ayutthaya train station? (For example, taking a break enroute when travelling by train between Chiang Mai and Bangkok, where can you leave your luggage while you go cycle the ruins?)

Distributing images more evenly
Right now, most of the photos are bunched up and there is a lot of page space with no images. Anyone who would like to work on distributing photos more evenly throughout the article per Image policy would be doing a good service. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

85 or 76 km?
At the beginning of the article the distance from Bangkok is given as 85 km. Later, at the beginning of the See section, it is given as 76 km. --FredTC (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ayutthaya