text:
Talk:LGBT travel

I have eliminated Oklahoma City from the list as it is not a major destination for the GBLT travler.

Template
I'm thinking about creating a "homophobia" MediaWiki template for simultaneous inclusion in several articles that are listed as unsafe destinations on this page. The wording could be something like this:

" is considered an unsafe or unfriendly destination for GLBT travellers. See the Gay and lesbian travel page for details."

It could contain graphic elements in the future but for the time being only the text would be ok. Does that sound fine? -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 09:23, 1 December 2006 (EST)

 * Could you change "is considered" to "is"? Then I'm OK with it. --(WT-en) Evan 09:50, 1 December 2006 (EST)

 * I'm not OK with it -- any info on why destination X is unsafe belongs in the page of X, not a separate page. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:57, 1 December 2006 (EST)
 * Why is this needed over the stay safe section? -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 14:51, 1 December 2006 (EST)

 * Andrew, sorry but I'm not sure I fully understand your question. Anyway, if you're questioning the existence of the "Dangerous destinations" section of this article, I wouldn't say it is needed over the stay safe section. I think it's a good source for contributors who would like to later develop the stay safe sections of the nearly 100 countries listed there - I doubt anybody would want to write them at once - and having the countries listed here is better than relying on external links and sources over which we have no control. As for the template itself, I've thought it over and now agree with Jpatokal - the details should be in the destination articles and in this case templates are not a good choice for inclusion of detailed information for each particular place. -- (WT-en) Ricardo (Rmx) 17:25, 1 December 2006 (EST)
 * I was referring to the template, not this article. I can see why this article would be useful, but I was wondering why a template should have been used, however, since you're in agreement with Jani it doesn't really matter.  -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 17:30, 1 December 2006 (EST)

Homophobic edits
Recently there has been a rash of attacks from certain users who keep changing "gay" to "perverted" and so on. Is there a mechanism in Wikivoyage that locks and/or bans users from editing a page?--(WT-en) Bud001 04:14, 20 November 2007 (EST)

 * Yes, admins can protect pages, we've got an eye on this one :)  – (WT-en) cacahuate   talk 05:05, 23 November 2007 (EST)

 * I think this has gone on long enough. Shall we protect the page? (WT-en) PerryPlanet 17:52, 28 November 2007 (EST)

 * I just protected it, but was not sure how to set duration so ended up with protection duration of forever. That neds to be turned off in a day or two. (WT-en) Pashley 18:04, 28 November 2007 (EST)

 * Agree with short term protection. Also glad to see someone else found the "Expiry" field to be vague. I had to ask Bill. (WT-en) OldPine 18:58, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 * Just specify the protection as "1 day." It isn't "certain users," it is one user who jumps from open proxy to open proxy.  A systematic fix is being proposed (one which btw may counter some other trolls and vandals), but it'll take some time, so for right now, all anyone can do is counsel patience and do reverts as needed. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 19:10, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 * Where is that proposal being discussed? (WT-en) Pashley 19:39, 28 November 2007 (EST)
 * It's at Project:Community policies, I believe. --(WT-en) OldPine 20:00, 28 November 2007 (EST)

 * I just changed the protection to allow no anon users for 10 days. Seemed the best way since our vandal comes in from anon proxies. If another admin wants to alter that, I've no strong objection; this was just my guess at a good limit. (WT-en) Pashley 04:34, 30 November 2007 (EST)

Shocking
What on earth is going on here!??!? This is so messed up it should be deleted or at least protected. 80.202.101.28 06:01, 23 November 2007 (EST)
 * The troll-fu is weak in this one. -- (WT-en) Colin 16:40, 23 November 2007 (EST)

Vote for deletion
An anonymous user suggested this article be deleted. It wasn't. See Project:Votes_for_deletion/November_2007 for the discussion.

I have removed the claim that Glasgow is host to Scotland's largest gay population as it is a nonsense to suggest data exists which could verify that. Edinburgh might just as easily have a claim to that title, but equally as this cannot be proven the comment has been removed.

GLBT laws and "the map"
So, I am translating this into the swedish language version of Wikivoyage and come to the phrase "...The map on the right shows the legal status of homosexuality in countries around the world...". But - where's the map?? (WT-en) Riggwelter 18:14, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

 * I don't know, but I think there was a licensing problem with the one on Wikipedia. That or it just wasn't updated enough to include. I'd remove that phrase, but perhaps a perusal of the GLBT laws images on Wikipedia would be better. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 15:26, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Russia
Is there a reason why Russia isn't somewhere in the article? 70.31.29.80 11:50, 8 August 2009 (EDT)
 * I've added Russia to LGBT travel based on . K7L (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Turkey
Do you think Turkey should be placed in the Middle East instead of Europe? The racial make-up of Turks is more Middle Eastern than European, so those who are interested in Middle Eastern gay life would be interested in Turkey, especially since most of the Middle East is so against homosexuality. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 03:54, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

 * I'd say virtually all gay nightlife takes place in European Turkey. Certainly the one listed location falls firmly in Europe. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:54, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

 * I meant that the Turkish people are Middle Eastern so those interested in meeting homosexual Middle Easterners would probably be more interested (or have a more particular interest) in Turkey than those interested in the European gay scene who would probably look to Amsterdam or somewhere in Western Europe. Since gay travel of this sort is often about finding men/women of a particular race or physical make-up, it would probably be more helpful to list Turkey as a Middle Eastern listing. Otherwise, aside from Israel, the message is that gay travel to places where there are many Middle Eastern people (the Middle East) is dangerous, illegal, and basically not possible. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 22:14, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

 * I tend to think gay nightlife in Istanbul, even on Istiklar, is still pretty ballsy... --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:20, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

 * Hmm... But not so ballsy when the other options are Iran or Saudi Arabia? Things are certainly rough for the homosexual with an interest in Middle Easterners, but as one of the only viable options, Turkey should be there. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 22:24, 14 August 2010 (EDT)

GLBT? LGBTQ?
How come the title is LGBTQ but the article uses GLBT? Don't we need to make it a little more consistent? (WT-en) Texugo 03:11, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

 * And what does Q stand for? I presume it's for queer (?), but isn't that already covered by G? If anything, right title should be LGBTT, standing for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, and transvestite, but I wouldn't mind a return to former title of Gay and lesbian travel (which I think was much better than whole this capital letters stuff). In fact, move was performed by a fairly new user, without a discussion as far as I can see. – (WT-en) Vidimian 03:45, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

 * The 'Q' is a fairly recent addition that most people (including GLBT members themselves) don't really understand or find necessary. The change of L(esbian) first over G(ay) is a "progressive" feminist move. I also think that "Gay and Lesbian Travel" sounds better. New users shouldn't be moving a page like this without discussion. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 13:34, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

 * The Q is "queer or questioning," while the T is "transgender," which is a more catch-all term. This is definitely an Americanism (I think). I don't care too strongly either way about the naming, although I know that some will find "gay and lesbian" a bit more narrow than they would like. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:06, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

 * I think the only people who would be offended would be those who like to pretend to be offended by everything (probably a straight person with no affiliations to any part of the GLBTQRSTUVWXYZ community). From a traveler's perspective, you are either going on a gay-themed trip or to a (Gay) Pride Parade or you are not. Even if a bisexual or transexual gathering were placed on the page, that doesn't make it offensive. The difference between gay travel and just travel is the homosexual experience. Just doing a search, a lot of sites just say "Gay travel", but "gay and lesbian travel" looks better than jumbling letters. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 17:22, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

 * One more vote for plain English instead of acronym jumbles. (WT-en) Jpatokal 19:06, 15 August 2010 (EDT)

 * I'll voice support for simplicity—"Gay travel." --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:23, 15 August 2010 (EDT)
 * I could support either the former title or Peter's suggestion. (WT-en) Texugo 22:59, 19 August 2010 (EDT)

Can one of the admins please make the change to either "Gay travel" or "Gay and lesbian travel", as it seems there is a clear consensus above to use words over acronyms? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 00:27, 8 November 2010 (EST)

 * It's already done, but FYI, any user who has been registered for at least one month can move the article (no admin needed). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:47, 9 November 2010 (EST)

I thought if the page that you wanted to move it to was already created (as a redirect to the unwanted title), it had to be deleted by an admin before being able to move it? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 03:19, 11 November 2010 (EST)

 * Whoops, indeed! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:03, 13 November 2010 (EST)

Revisited
I see this is an old discussion, but the article is still inconsistent about mixing "LGBT" and "GLBT" (and other more obscure acronyms).

A quick search of WV shows:
 * "gay": 554 results
 * "lesbian": 234 results
 * "lesbian" -"gay": 10 results (meaning almost all pages with "lesbian" also have "gay")
 * "LGBT": 123 results
 * "GLBT": 38 results
 * "LGB" or "GLB": none (excluding results for Long Beach Airport, whose code is LGB)

But, Wikipedia is quite consistent in using LGBT as a catch-all acronym, and it's widely understood on the rest of the Internet as well. I'm in favor of editing this and any other pages to use "LGBT" as the standard acronym. For destination pages, I think it's fine for them to use either (if a bar is a gay bar, call it a gay bar and not a LGBT bar, which might be more inclusive than the bar actually is), although maybe we can set up a pride flag template to be used in listings that includes the text "LGBT" to aid search engines? user:Bigpeteb 16:20, 24 July 2013

 * If something is being marketed just to one of the subgroups (for instance, a bathhouse which admits no women or a leather bar aimed specifically at "bears and otters") then list it as that specific subgroup. Adding groups to acronyms just for the sake of political correctness is not helpful unless the destination actually has something to offer each of those groups. The "gay community" is prone to adding these labels indiscriminately; adding T to a peer-counselling "gayline" which has no actual transsexual/transgender info available or to a sports club who hasn't put any thought into where a transperson is to change into swimwear or gym clothes looks politically correct but is quite useless. K7L (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Links in "LGBT laws" section
Per xl, they should probably be deleted, but as they are helpful to travelers, I'd be inclined to overlook the variance with policy. What do you all think? Should we keep the ILGA link and eliminate the Wikipedia link? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

 * The policy was intended to keep links to travel resellers out of destination city and region pages by linking only to a venue's own "official" site. I don't think that applying that same policy blindly to legal information makes sense. It would often be possible to link to official primary legislative sources for laws, but that has some limitations - they're usually written in legalese, the text of the law itself doesn't tell how it's being enforced, there are usually regulations that are published separately from the legislation and often a court ruling will establish a precedent which completely changes the legal situation in one jurisdiction. For instance, a law might still nominally be on the books but be completely unenforceable if a Supreme Court ruling found the legislation unconstitutional. K7L (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sex tourism policy
Some of the discussion on the talk page for that article impinges on LCBT concerns, especially Wikivoyage_talk:Sex_tourism_policy and the following section but several other places as well. Pashley (talk)

A lesbian mecca?
The use of Mecca as a metaphor in this article looks bizarre, in that it invokes an implicit comparison to a destination (Saudi Arabia) which is not a bastion of equal rights and freedoms for gay women. Does this look bizarre to anyone else? K7L (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Egypt
Our article on Egypt and LGBT travel claim that homosexuality in Egypt is a crime; http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/05/egyptian-director-hany-fawzy-fears-film-homosexuality-gay-love-family-secrets confirms the police harassment but claims "Homosexuality is not illegal in Egypt but those arrested are sometimes charged with offending public decency – or on spurious drugs charges." Which is correct? K7L (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

 * According to LGBT rights in Egypt, currently it's not specifically outlawed... but as your quote and other sources say, you're likely to be charged with indecency, so it's de jure illegal. --Bigpeteb (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

LGBT collaboration as part of Wiki Loves Pride 2014?
Greetings! I was wondering about the possibility of having a Wikivoyage collaboration related to LGBT travel, as part of en:Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2014. This would be for the month (or part of the month) of June, when pride celebrations often take place. Thoughts? Or, is there another avenue in which this discussion should take place? I'd be more than happy to update the Wiki Loves Pride page with details about the Wikivoyage project, if one comes to fruition. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for your consideration. --Another Believer (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

 * See also LGBT Expedition & its talk page. Pashley (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Another Believer (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Tone
I just skipped through this article. I'd have to say for a supposedly Guide-level article, it strikes me as pretty weak, and a large part of that is because some of the listings in the "Queer friendly destinations" section seem overly touty to me. I'm too tired to find examples right now, but please look through it and see if you find any instances, especially where specific clubs or bars are mentioned, that go beyond helpful recommendation to promotional language.

I also noticed that the Copenhagen listing is telling people to go to another site for information. That's contrary to the point of this site, isn't it?

Another problem I'm seeing crops up, for example (and this is not the only time), in the listing for Marseille, which starts out seeming to talk up the city and then has contradictory remarks at the end, obviously from someone who read the earlier content and wanted to correct it but didn't do so in the most elegant way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this really a Guide article? -and- FTT for May/June 2017?
I was perusing in search of possible FTT nominees when I came upon this article, which I think could make a nice feature for May or June 2017 (Pride Month in most places is June). Now I have a much harder time judging the article status of travel topics than I do for destination articles, and Travel topic status is worded pretty ambiguously (as I suppose it has to be), but I have to question whether this article is truly Guide-level. It looks to me like a stronger than average Usable for sure, but not quite Guide. Again, though, I'm not what you would call an expert on travel issues for the LGBT community, so I'm not at complete liberty to say whether this article "covers most aspects of the topic with no obvious omissions".

I'd love to hear other editors' opinions before I nominate the article officially, and if the consensus agrees with me that it isn't quite up to snuff yet, I'd also like some ideas about what might be added. In my view, this article is well on its way, with the main problem being an inconsistent level of detail in the listings in the "Queer-friendly destinations" section - most of the U.S. and Canadian and some of the European destinations boast pretty robust descriptions; others have only one sentence or none at all. Also, the information in "Dangerous destinations" needs to be converted to fully fleshed-out prose, the listings in the "Queer events and activities" section should be put in some kind of order - alphabetical, geographical, chronological, whatever - and we need to make a firm decision about which acronym we're going to use, GLBT or LGBT (my vote is on the more widely-used latter one). Is that all, or is there anything else anyone can think of?

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

 * I'm seeing now that Ikan raised some similar concerns to mine last year. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

 * While there's a lot of information here, the article is a rather listy. But as the article is about destinations around the world that are interesting and safe for LGBT travelers, maybe we cannot avoid having lists of destinations. Nevertheless many of the places (e.g. look at LGBT travel) do not have any descriptions and this needs to be resolved before the article is nominated. Moreover, the article needs more photos.
 * Also, given that virtually all of our (guide and near-usable) travel topics that are bound to a specific place (itineraries and the like) are from Europe and North America and can only be featured during the warmer half of the year, we should not use up these rare summer months. Instead we should feature universal articles LGBT on some other time of the year. For instance Sydney's and Sao Paulo's Prides and the Carnival in Rio (all taking place during the early year) can be good times. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

 * This is not an easy article to keep up-to-date, due to its global scope. In some cases, there has been news coverage of the situation deteriorating in Turkey or Russia as the governments in those countries veer more dictatorial over time - and I've tried to update bits of this article piecemeal to indicate that gay pride events have been forcibly shut down, much like I've tried to update the list of countries allowing marriages as they make the news. That said, "Ireland plans to legalise gay marriage in 2015"? That looks to be in need of an update, much like the "Xtra!" gay newspapers in Toronto/Vancouver/Ottawa need to be updated to indicate the print editions look to have vanished a year ago, leaving just a website. And then there's the whole "bathroom bill" fad in the US in 2016, which replaced last election's silly season attempts to amend US state constitutions to restrict marriage. Most of the information here likely wouldn't merit a news headline if something had changed - laws are easily quantified, subtle discrimination less so.
 * I'd therefore expect this page to be a mix of some good information and some outdated or useless observations. If this were an article about one city? If we want to know whether everything's up to date in Kansas City, just ask someone who lives in Kansas City to double-check the page. If we want to know whether everything's up to date in LGBT travel, not so simple. A Project:LGBT Expedition was proposed years ago but left dormant as we don't have the people to implement this. We need some way to verify whether the content of this page is all accurate and current before considering it as an FTT. K7L (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

 * In fear of sounding like a broken record on that issue, but almost half (47%) of this article has not been edited since the fork. Given the concerns about this article not being up to date any more, I would say this clearly precludes featuring in the current state. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Finland
I suppose Finland has one of the "touty" descriptions mentioned above. And I am not sure the description gives the right impression. Sure, Tom of Finland is celebrated all over the place, our former president Halonen was chairman of an LGBT rights association and I am not a bit surprised that tourist offices maintain LGTB information. But I'd certainly not even join hands with a same sex partner in a dark alley in front of a gang in leather jackets.

So, official Finland and much of the population have a very supportive or at least relaxed attitude towards LGBT expressions, but I would still be careful in situations where violence for other reasons could be conceivable (mostly alone in the night, meeting frustrated drunk people). I am not an expert on this, but unless somebody with night life experience over here tells me I am just back in the dark days, I'd like to have some warning included.

I suppose the same worries are relevant for much of Europe. The rise of anti-refugee groups does no good to lessen my worries, as I associate them with general intolerance.

I am also not sure Touko Laaksonen or Tove Jansson are good example of tolerance: as child I supposed Jansson and Pietilä were just good friends, and Jansson taking her partner as avec to the Independence Ball 1992 was close to a scandal. They are however good examples of the current acceptance. Things have changed a lot in 30 years; it is just lately that homosexuality has gained general acceptance.

--LPfi (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

 * I agree - it is too detailed and not really focussed on the LGBT destination aspect. Go ahead and edit. Ground Zero (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

 * The problem is that I do not know the LGBT scene, so have a hard time judging what is correct and important (and I am confused about the intentions with the section), but I'll make a try. Somebody could try to salvage whatever I deleted needlessly. --LPfi (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Trim list of parades/festivals
Currently there are 18 bullet items in the Do section for pride parades or festivals. This is double the recommended 7±2. What criteria can we use to trim this down so it doesn't look like an undifferentiated list of the favorite parades of whichever editors contributed to the article? --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

 * We could make them lists by continent. Few would decide to go to Australia instead of South America because of a parade at the time of one's holidays. Then we have lists with about 1–7 points, which is anything but too many.

 * I find it a greater problem that the list of countries listed under "If you're not seeking out specifically queer events and activities, but want a hassle-free holiday, consider these destinations" for many countries lists LGBT events and venues, instead of giving practical advice for a hassle-free holiday. I suppose some measures are needed also in some countries without such discussion.

 * --LPfi (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

 * This looks like a rather difficult list to keep up-to-date in any case. Changes to laws or actual violence might make the newspapers, but maintaining information like names of individual bars (which appear in some of the city descriptions)? They come and go frequently; it's difficult enough to keep our main destination guides current. The question of which city is more or less "tolerant" is also subjective. K7L (talk) 02:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The list of parades and festivals doesn't include bars.
 * The parades and festivals listed are major attractions for many travellers because they are well-established and occur every year. The events listed are not one-off things, but major annual events that in almost every case take place at the same time every year. There are many people who travel in order to attend pride festivals, or time their visits to countries in order to take in the festival while they are there. Listing by continent would be a reasonable way of sorting them. Ground Zero (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Terminology
Do we need such a long section on terminology? Why don't we explain what we mean by the term we use, "LGBT", and leave it at that? Is this the place to discuss other terms that are not used in the article? Wikipedia has a more comprehensive article that we could ever have. I propose replacing the current section by this:
 * In this article, "LGBT" is used as an all-inclusive term, and it should be read to include other groups not explicitly included: "Q" for "queer" and "questioning", "I" for "intersex", "A" for "asexual" and "ally", "2S" for "two-spirited", etc. "Gay" is often understood to refer to homosexual men, but it is sometimes used as an umbrella term, such as in "gay pride parades" or "gay culture", to include all parts of the LGBT community.

I think that says enough about the terminology used in the article. Ground Zero (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Sure, that sounds like a good change to make. The main concern I have, which was first raised many years ago in above, is figuring out a consistent terminology for WV to use. --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that in the intervening period, LGBT has become the commonly used term. Ground Zero (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Queer friendly destinations
There are many listings here that seem to offer not much more than a bar and tolerance of LGBT people. Moncton and Saint John, New Brunswick are fine places, and each has a bar, and you're not tplikely to be bashed, but they aren't destinations for LGBT travellers. I travelled through eastern Quebec and the Martinez with my husband, and never experienced hostility or aggression, but we weren't looking for LGBT destinations, which is what this list should be about. Any objection to me starting to cull? Ground Zero (talk) 10:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed a few, including some cities that were listed without any explanation of why they are queer friendly destinations. Ground Zero (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Toilets and sex/gender
I am confused about transgender people allowed to "use public toilets of their choice [only] after undergoing sexual reassignment surgery", or "of their biological sex" because changing legal gender is impossible where they come from.

There are probably few toilets where you are required to show an ID or documents on completed surgery, so the legal sex should be irrelevant. Can you be sued afterwards when it turns out you are transgender? It is also unclear what one's biological sex is regarded to be after sexual reassignment surgery (I suppose it changes regardless of chromosomes and legal issues), or in the cases of anatomically non-binary persons.

So I suppose the problem is rather about entering a toilet when your appearance as dressed suggests you are of the other sex. There is of course an additional problem if you have to do your things without a private booth. The latter problem seems to be much greater (read: more common) at shared dressing rooms and shared showers. There you may have an additional problem if you enter as patron of a hotel or similar, where you have booked a room stating name and/or gender, which may differ from where you feel comfortable.

(As one non-binary person told: asking friends what sex (s)he should play today, they might reply "uhum, you are wearing a dress, so use the toilets for females".)

This is certainly very real, confusing and frustrating for transgender people. I hope we can come up with some good advice for most of these problems.

--LPfi (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

 * I might be speaking out of my depth here, but why is it Wikivoyage's place to advise anyone on how to deal with issues such as which toilet to use? This is marginal to travel at best. Surely there are more targetted websites, charities, government bodies (etc) out there that deal with the issues you raise in a far more comprehensive, sensitive and helpful way than we can ever do. I would also imagine that transgender and non-binary people have their own strategies such that any advice we can offer them would be perceived as obvious at best, and patronising or insulting at worse if it becomes clear that Wikivoyage editors don't have a grasp / direct experience of the issues and don't know what they're talking about.
 * So again, perhaps I am failing to understand the issues in question, but I feel our role should be simply to inform transgender and non-binary travellers of local laws and norms, and more importantly to spell out any laws and customs that pose an inherent threat to said travellers' safety, liberty and comfort during their trip.

 * However, if we do have people on our editing team with experience of the issues at hand, they would be best placed to lead this discussion and to decide what level of advice is required. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

 * I suppose you are right. It is not sure, however, that the people involved have strategies that work worldwide, or networks that allow them to get that advice. The areas where the advice is needed the most are probably not the ones with information readily available. So if we are able to provide useful advice, we should. Anyway, I find the Public toilets section confusing, and if the content is useful, it should be stated in a less confusing way. --LPfi (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

 * Just to provide some examples, in California and New York, I can use a toilet of my choice simply by declaring my gender to be such. For instance, even if I am dressed like a man, behave like a man and am biologically male but choose to identify as a woman, I can legally use the ladies' toilet. On the other hand, in Singapore, that would be illegal unless I undergo sex change surgery. The dog2 (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

 * I suppose that means I could use the ladies' room in California when I want to, without declaring anything other than by the act of entering there (am I right?). I suppose I could do that in Finland also, just getting confused or angry gazes (or just being ignored). Explaining I am a woman although I do not look like one could perhaps score some goodwill, perhaps not. I suppose there is a bigger risk in Singapore for me to get reported, and then I'd need the documentation, but am I expected to show those documents on entering? For the papers, I suppose a passport with "sex" given as woman would suffice, or do I really have to carry the surgery reports (in a language locally understood)? --LPfi (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

 * In either Singapore or the U.S., I don't think immigration is concerned with whether or not you are transgender, so long as you don't break any laws. But what I know is that in Singapore, you need to undergo sex change surgery in order to change your legal gender. The dog2 (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

 * If using the wrong toilet in Singapore could potentially get you arrested, that and other information of this nature is definitely worth including, if you both are reasonably confident of its accuracy. We don't want to get anyone into trouble if we provide dodgy info. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

 * People will probably cut you some slack in Singapore if you are at least dressed like a woman and behaving like a woman, but if you appear to be a "normal" male but decide to declare that you identify as a woman and use the ladies' toilet, you could potentially be arrested for that. They might be more strict if you are using a communal shower though. The dog2 (talk) 08:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Gay saunas
The Sauna article directs here for "gay saunas". Should the term be explained here or the reference be removed from there? --LPfi (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

 * I think the reference from Sauna is good. I can't think of a better page to link to; it's not really sex tourism, and it is somewhat unique to LGBT. So I guess we should figure out a way to incorporate a mention of gay saunas/bathhouses into this article. --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Brunei boycott
Celebrities Boycott Sultan of Brunei’s Hotels as Anti-Gay Law Goes Into Effect Pashley (talk) 06:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Turkey queer-friendly?
Turkey was removed from the list of queer-friendly destinations as it doesn't seem to be one anymore, but the removal was reverted.

I agree that the information is valuable, but is this the right place? I see that the next section, of "somewhat safe" destinations, is about places where anti-gay laws are not enforced. Turkey doesn't seem to match there either.

Would it be time to rework the lists, merging them to one, where queer friendliness would be clearly marked (colour coded?), but not affecting the order? The present arrangement works for friendly destinations, as long as those are few, but works less well when not only friendly and hassle-free destinations are mentioned and the list grows long.

--LPfi (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 * Sorry, another blunder due to mobile editing. Didn't see that the info was under that particular heading.

 * A colour-coded list of countries might be handy, but what about individual cities: are those still needed? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Religion and LGBT
A passage was added about Islam and Christianity frowning "strongly" upon homosexuality. I am not sure that that is correct. The quotes from the Bible are about promiscuity as much as homosexuality (so they say nothing about faithful same-sex relations) and over here many priests, even some bishops, support same-sex marriages. So is it the religions themselves or some mainstream or common interpretation that is anti-gay? I did not find any good wording to express that nuance. --LPfi (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If you take it literally and ignore commentaries from the last couple of millennia or so, the Bible also supports polygyny, slavery and kings having as many concubines as they like. It's more accurate to say that many fundamentalist Christians and other Christians, Muslims and Jews frown on homosexuality while others do not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure we need this passage at all, because really, "frowning upon" gay folks is cultural, not religious, as shown by the usually divergent attitudes toward homosexuality vs. adultery and premarital sex. Of course I recognize that there are countries like Saudi Arabia where all three are punishable by death, but those are quite exceptional. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * At least in Singapore, the main reason why the government has not legalised male homosexuality is due to pressure from the Muslim and Christian communities (though to the government's credit, they're not enforcing the law). Every time the LGBT community holds a rally for LGBT rights, you'll find the Muslim and Christian religious leaders coming out to oppose them. From my readings, the reason why the level of homophobia in Uganda is so extreme among the general population is because of influence form American Evangelical pastors. And in Nigeria, while the Muslims and Christians fight over many things, the one thing they were united on was the passing of stricter laws against homosexuality. In Russia, my understanding is that the resurgence of homophobia is due to the growing influence of the Russian Orthodox Church, though they're still nowhere near homophobic as the American Evangelicals. And as previously mentioned, there are Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran that execute people for homosexuality.

 * So while it's true that not every Muslim and Christian is homophobic to the point of wanting to commit a genocide of gays, I think it is safe to say that homophobic attitudes in many parts of the world trace their origins to Islam or Christianity. The dog2 (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

 * But there are quite a few Christian denominations that are fine with homosexuality. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

 * OK, that's a development I'm hearing of for the first time here. I know of Christian and Muslim individuals who are accepting of gays and lesbians, and have homosexual friends, and I know that some churches allow gays and lesbians to join the congregation in the hope that God will eventually turn them straight, but I was under the impression that both Islam and Christianity consider homosexuality to be a sin that must be condemned. This is my first time hearing of entire denominations that are accepting of homosexuality. If you really know more about it, than go ahead and make the adjustment. The dog2 (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

 * You've been in the U.S. how long? And this is the first time you're hearing about this? Have you heard that there are gay and lesbian Episcopal bishops? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

 * The dog2 has a tendency to add content based on overgeneralizations, media exaggerations, or inaccurate stereotypes. I pointed out the problem some time ago, and I'm disappointed to see it continuing. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, this is my first time hearing of gay and lesbian Episcopal bishops. I know of churches that accept LGBT people into their congregations, but not of gay bishops. In fact, all my practising Christian friends disapprove of homosexuality to one degree or another, while those who are completely fine with it are mostly just nominal Christians who hardly go to church, if at all. The dog2 (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

 * Do some investigation. There's a Dutch Reformed church around the corner called Middle Collegiate Church that celebrates gay and trans people and its congregation is mostly gay. Many denominations in the U.S. are pro-gay. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The United Church of Canada (a Methodist/Presbyterian church that is the largest Protestant church in the country) as been allowing its ministers to perform same-sex marriages since 2003. The Anglican Church of Canada (Episcopal) is the second largest Protestant church. It allows its provinces to set policies permitting the performance of same-sex marriages. These are not "holy unions" -- they are marriages. These denominations are fine with homosexuality. Ground Zero (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * For heaven's sakes, the Roman Catholic Church is not even among the most LGBT-tolerant denominations, yet there's one in my town that flies the rainbow flag and frequently has messages on the sign out front along the lines of "God loves everyone, no exceptions" and the like. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And now there was a campaign in Germany, with many catholic congregations having services where LGBT couples were blessed, partly to put pressure on the Vatican, who does not accept the act. –LPfi (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

There are lots of debates around homosexuality in various faiths/denominations and whether churches/God condones homosexuality or whether modern Christians are being led astray by societal acceptance of sins (which also includes adultery, premarital sex, gluttony, etc.) and ideas of "moral relativity" and not adopting any strong convictions about anything so as to avoid offending someone. However, I think this is all mostly off-topic. The sentence in question doesn't seem to be adding anything that isn't already stated in other places that are more country-specific and therefore more helpful. Even if it's true that increasing Islamic populations coincide with a decrease in acceptance or tolerance of homosexuality, I'm not sure that point needs to be stated. Maybe in specific city articles in the UK, France, or wherever where people might have false images of there being no issue city or nationwide when in fact certain areas have become dangerous to openly display homosexuality, it would be worth mentioning, but just as a general comment, it's not particularly insightful or helpful.ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

China
I'd like to solicit your opinion since you have lived in China before. Based on some of my more recent readings, there are gay dramas that have become popular in China in the past few years, particularly among young women, so from your experience, how heavy was the government censorship of homosexual-themed content? If gay dramas can become popular in China, it might indicate that censorship of such content has become less strict. The dog2 (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 * My vague impression is that on this issue censorship has become less strict, but I don't know for sure. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Behaviour where LGBT is taboo
Travelling during Ramadan says: "homosexuality is taboo or illegal in many Muslim areas; see LGBT travel for details". I cannot find any detail here. I suppose it should be. This does not concern only Ramadan or Muslim countries, but any country where same-sex relations – or public physical intimacy in general – are taboo or illegal (in Dubai it says "A simple kiss in a public place, [...] could land you a month or more in prison." I suppose that counts double or worse for same-sex relations). –LPfi (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

 * What I think is needed is some advice on how to cope with such issues. LGBT people living in areas where only straits are accepted probably know how to, but we have lots of people who haven't needed to experience such attitudes, in areas where LGBT nowadays is accepted. –LPfi (talk) 11:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

 * If something is illegal, I'm not sure we should be trying to advise travelers on how to get around the law. Similarly, if it's not technically illegal but could put the traveler in serious danger if caught then I also think it's reckless for us to encourage travelers to take that risk. I think it's outside of our scope to find underground gay scenes or to play gay matchmaker in places where our article describes as "hunting homosexuals as criminals". Even if we had local intel, making it so public could get both travelers and locals in serious trouble. GLBT people who live in countries where they take acceptance for granted and where "gay-bashing" is an old movie trope should be encouraged to take these laws/social norms MORE seriously when traveling not less seriously, because they're already inclined to think those laws are silly. There are destinations where the best advice is just to avoid if you want to be out. Otherwise, most trips are not so long that a person cannot simply refrain from romantic acts/gestures/comments until they return home. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

 * I think I agree with you. Similarly, our illegal activities policy dictates to us not to tell people how to get marijuana in places where it's illegal and could land you in jail or worse. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Yes, but what I though about was travelling with one's spouse, in a place where showing affection can be dangerous. One wouldn't be looking for gay bars, just trying to expeience the country safely. I think we shouldn't just say that as you are LGBT and the country doesn't accept that, keep away, other than for the extreme countries, were the risks are like in war zones. We don't have to be explicit about how to safely break the law, but we can warn about how not to do it. I would have a hard time not showing affection to my dear one at a single party, one cannot be expected to do a week of holiday that way – but one can probably leave some of it to private places, and be a bit careful also there. –LPfi (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

 * There is some ambiguity on this, unfortunately. In Singapore, for instance, homosexuality is still a taboo among a significant sector of the population, and male homosexuality is still technically illegal (though female homosexuality is legal). However, it's been decades since anybody has actually been arrested for being gay, and the authorities also close one eye with regard to gay bars and allow them to operate quite openly. In fact, the government debated repealing the law in 2007, when they repealed the laws criminalising oral and anal sex, but decided against doing so because of strong opposition from the Christian and Muslim communities. And if a gay couple in Singapore decides to engage in PDA, so long as it doesn't cross the line into obscenity (eg. having sex in a public place), the most you are likely to get is people pointing and whispering at you. Actual violent attacks are extremely unlikely, and the government does take violent crimes very seriously, and they have categorically said that violence is not acceptable no matter what the reason. So this is one of those cases where even though there are some legal issues, I wouldn't go so far as to discourage gay couples from visiting Singapore as tourists, since you can still have a good time, and your chances of being arrested for your sexual orientation are extremely remote given that the law is not being enforced. The dog2 (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 * There are also gray areas involving drugs, such as in the Netherlands, where last I checked, pot was technically illegal but its usage is tolerated inside dedicated coffeehouses. All of those kinds of things can be covered. Traveling as a queer individual where being gay is illegal is not necessarily deadly, because being gay isn't something that can be seen like the color of someone's skin, so the real issue is whether and where particular kinds of behavior can be dangerous, and I think our role as a travel guide is to warn travelers that x, y and z could land you in jail and a, b, and c could get you killed, not that if you nevertheless want to do a, b, c, x, y and z in Country D, you should do it such-and-such a way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 * I agree with Ikan Kekek. We can and should describe ambiguous situations and how to navigate when things on the ground contradict the laws (while always still stating the actual laws and punishments), but we cannot describe ways to break laws. I get that it feels "unfair" that gay people have less options (if they want to be "out" on their travels) but it's reality. Asking travelers to ignore or challenge reality feels like encouraging activism and martyrdom on our behalf. It's very hard for people who are not locals to navigate such situations abroad. Even in the instance described above of not being able to get through a single party without showing affection, if doing so has serious or deadly ramifications, the best advice is don't go to that party/country. If you or a gay traveler is willing to risk their life for a love tap, that's your/their choice, but we should not be advising people to challenge local laws. It's against our policy and goals and just feels a bit selfish when the consequences of our advise failing the traveler is so high for the traveler and zero for us. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 * I guess the way this is covered in the Singapore article is fine. It does state that male homosexuality technically carries a penalty of two years' imprisonment, but that law is not enforced. Of course, gay couples need to weigh the risks and decide for themselves whether or not to visit, but if you ask me, I'd still say it's a safe destination for gay visitors overall. The dog2 (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 * I think I agree, but most of our articles give little advice (and yes, my best option would be to stay out of that party, and if I cannot avoid it, I think I could manage, after a short private conversation with my partner on how to cope). In many countries, where "showing affection would provoke stares and whispering" (which I sometimes might choose to prefer to risk beyond making my partner unhappy), just stating that would be OK, but can you book a room for the two of you or would that mean you'll be rejected from the hotel altogether? Is holding hands and smiling to one another OK, while kissing is a faux pas? Gays have fewer options, but the main thing I think, is how to avoid "being 'out'" when travelling together. Straits have the same problem when some of those they have to engage with (at a party, in the workplace, whatever) don't know about and shouldn't yet discern their relation (just divorced, love across classes, age difference, whatever). –LPfi (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 * It seems like you want to establish where the line is between behaviour that will draw unwanted attention and suspicion, and behaviour that will just fade into the background from the perspective of locals. That's not necessarily the same as the line between legal and illegal, as the Singapore example illustrates; the reality there is more tolerant than the law is on paper. That seems a fair goal, because if travellers know where the line is, they can always stay on the safe side of it. But this will surely vary so much from country to country (and probably within countries too) that it would be best tackled on each country article, either by local residents or by travellers with enough personal experience to write with authority. With that said, I'm not sure how much general information we can write in this article that will apply to all/many legally or culturally homophobic countries.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 * I know it is difficult. I just see it frustrating when country articles lack that detail, and especially if articles, like that quoted in the first post (I now removed the wording), refer to here, without this article saying anything.

 * I suppose we do have a few editors who are LGBT and well-travelled, or at least have such friends. There ought to be some advice, at least on the level of Travel basics, that would apply in many places, and to more places if you are more careful than you'd need to be there.

 * –LPfi (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Not necessarily the line, but most importantly things you wouldn't think of but still could get you into trouble, and tricks to cope. For an extreme one, which might actually have been useful for one person over here: decide whether to pose as man or woman during your voyage, and bring clothes and accessories suiting that role. One that might be useful for more people, although quite obvious: avoid markers with which you normally signal being gay. –LPfi (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

"Travel as a non-binary indvidual"
I wanted to add this as a request for an article but wasn;t sure under which category to put it.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

 * We have similar topic articles such as Travel as a vegetarian. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be a travel topic. You could potentially start it as a subsection of LGBT travel, and if it produces lots of content, spin in off into its own article.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

 * I was considering putting in a request for the article, rather than writing it directly as I didn't feel qualified to write it, especially given that I don't know very much about the situation outside the UK. The topic would also need to consider that you have masculine leaning non-binary individuals as well as the feminine leaning non-binary indviduals ( for whom some of the advice in Tips_for_women_travellers would be duplicated.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

 * Why don't you make a request on Talk:LGBT travel? I don't know much about the topic, but unless someone was inspired to write a reasonably detailed article off the bat, I'd think it would initially be better as a subsection of that article, rather than as a stub. Or perhaps you know enough to write a short paragraph on 'LGBT tourism', then maybe others will add their ideas? If neither of those is a good idea, put it under Requested_articles.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is also something that could usefully be added to country articles. It isn't just an issue that affects non-binary individuals - visitors might be surprised at who they meet in single sex spaces. AlasdairW (talk) 12:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Requests can be posted at Requested articles. If the relevant material is not sufficient for a standalone article, it can be included with other articles; LGBT travel seems suitable. /Yvwv (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Add to LGBT travel, it's in the scope of that article. Sincerely--Alalch E. (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Not sufficient advice for transgender travelers?
I made an edit regarding some parts of the LGBT laws section, which IMO had substantial issues; But I think more broadly, this article could potentially use both more specific advice regarding safety for transgender and GNC people, and also perhaps more general travel advice/suggestions for specifically transgender and nonbinary travelers? Opening a discussion topic about it to try to get others thoughts and suggestions. 2605:A601:AE89:D500:E401:4540:931B:F693 00:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please add any information you believe will be useful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:LGBT travel


text:
Talk:Gaza Strip

For future reference the Project:CIA World Factbook 2002 import can be found at Talk:Gaza Strip/CIA World Factbook 2002 import.

So, this page used to say, "Part of the future state of Palestine". Maj and I were discussing this over dinner, and we decided that when we finish setting up wikitimetravel.org, we'll of course have guides to destinations that exist only in the future. It would only be fair to time travelers to give them a heads-up on future events.

However, in wikivoyage.org, we should probably concentrate on the present, for up-to-date information, and the past, for historical context. Predictions as to the future state of the world can probably find their place on other sites. -- (WT-en) Evan 12:41, 10 Nov 2003 (PST)

Strip vs City vs nothing
I've taken the liberty of merging "Gaza Strip" (country template) and "Gaza" (missing but would be a city template) into one Singapore-style city state, as the two are pretty much synonymous and none of the other settlements are of any significance. In the unlikely event that the article starts to grow wildly, we can always hive off Khan Yunis etc into their own district pages.

Incidentally, I wonder if I'm the only Wikivoyager who has actually been to Gaza...? (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:52, 26 Jul 2004 (EDT)

 * Not sure if I agree with this. At least I think we should could it "Gaza Strip", not Gaza, as that is the name of the city and thus quite confusing (as it apparently refers to the whole strip). On the other end, now the article is just filled with security issues. I think if we separate the city and the strip, then the Gaza Strip could warn users, while Gaza City could actually contain useful listings while on the ground. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 17:29, 13 January 2010 (EST)

Terrorists or militants?
Someone changed a word in the warning box from "terrorist" to "militant" and someone else reverted it claiming the "euphemism" did not serve travellers. I've changed it back; it's not a euphemism, just a more neutral term. I object to the loaded term "terrorist" on much the same grounds I'd object to calling them "freedom fighters"; certainly they can be seen that way, but it is a political judgment that need not be made here. (WT-en) Pashley 03:08, 15 December 2007 (EST)

I agree that wiki resources need to adapt with as much objectivity as possible, however one must weigh that against the safety implications of said political judgement. Specifically, many people for whom English is a second language represent the possibility an extremely serious and hazardous misinterpretation. Direct translations from English to many other languages (mainly European languages) would adapt 'militant' as 'activist', implying a more peaceful nature (such as one would imagine protestors in most Anglophone countries). This most unequivocally not the case of those in Gaza. 'Terrorist' may be a politically subjective and loaded term, but at the very least, everyone can agree that it implies a level of violence more representative of the true condition in Gaza. -- (WT-en) Amizzo 14:36, 28 February 2008 (EST)

 * The sentence in question has "... militants may be firing rockets at Israel." I do not believe mis-interpreting that as referring to peaceful protest is at all likely. (WT-en) Pashley 04:23, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Militants would mean the rockets are targetted at military installations, which the Qassam rockets are not. They are very clearly targetted at civilian installations and intended to provoke fear. So, it would be terrorists. Any attack on civilians designed to provoke fear is terrorism, no matter who does it (ETA, IRA, PLO, HMS, etc...) Should we say in Belfast that it is possible to be attacked in a bombing by Irish militants? (WT-en) Gaza 17:34, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

 * Project:Be fair is the guiding principle in this case. Since there is a strong argument to be made for both stronger or weaker terms, the more neutral term is preferred. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 17:59, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

 * Oh I am new here so I did not understand that. --(WT-en) Gaza 17:54, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

Move
To be politically correct, the city is "Gaza" (commonly called "Gaza City" to differentiate it from the region), but the region is "Gaza Strip" (in reference to the main city). I have move the article from "Gaza" to "Gaza Strip" to correct this. (WT-en) AHeneen 21:43, 31 December 2008 (EST)

 * I think the two should be merged again -- the whole place is tiny, and there's nothing like an actual sleepable destination outside the city. (WT-en) Jpatokal 03:53, 5 January 2009 (EST)
 * I'm inclined to agree, especially since the current city article is a useless stub. (WT-en) Pashley 04:32, 5 January 2009 (EST)

 * A merge sounds reasonable to me, provided we don't lose in the process this gem from the Gaza (city) article: "fish call luxos why gaza beach is sandy beach so the fish just pass by so its the best i ever eat in gaza"  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:36, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Although there are separate cities, I think most tourists will remain in Gaza City. So until we have more info, it should stay one article. (WT-en) Gaza 17:58, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

Apparent contradiction
So can you get in and out from Egypt or not? (WT-en) Arpitt 13:20, 9 January 2009 (EST)

 * There is a checkpoint at Rafah, but the Palestinian side of it is 100% controlled by the Israelis and closed subject to their whims. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:20, 9 January 2009 (EST)

 * [Homer voice] Damn Israelis [/Homer voice] seriously though, given the current situation, I think we should just wait to see what happens until someone figures out a peace agreement/cease fire, I'm following the daily reports of the (in Scandinavia) very famous Norwegian doctors working in Gaza, and the general situation is changing by the minute, no point in trying to keep up. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 01:12, 10 January 2009 (EST)

 * Yes and no. There is one crossing on the Egyptian border controlled by an EU mission, which is open to the UN all the time but has on-and-off opening and closings for everyone else (at Israel's whim). The border is also home to many smuggling tunnels (over 90 destroyed by IDF since 2004), which allow most Gazans to travel almost freely (but illegally) between Gaza & Egypt to See Rafah Border Crossing on Wikipedia.
 * About that Norwegian doctor, I saw a report about his hospital on NBC Nightly News last week, but yesterday a big controversy arose about him and the "freelance photographer" he works with. Without making a case for either side, here is what happened: CNN showed a video which recorded the death of a Palestinian boy at that hospital, that Norwegian doctor and another Palestinian "doctor" trying to treat him. Many people commented that what they were doing to him was incorrect or would have little or no effect. CNN withdrew the video from their website, but left the article about the story. Today they replaced the article's URL with a new article defending the video. Many people online noted the "freelance photographer" and that doctor have been trying to produce documentaries before and accused the video of being fake and only Palestinian propaganda. Here are links, I will let you decide:
 * Arguments it is fake & video removed,
 * Allegation of the Doctor's connection with the journalist.,
 * CNN counter-argues that the video is not fake
 * (WT-en) AHeneen 16:50, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Israel does not control the Ramah crossing anymore. It is 100% Egypt, who generally keeps it closed, even to humanitarian supplies. (WT-en) Gaza 17:58, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

Palestinian flags etc.
If you visit the flag shop or buy other Palestinian souvenirs, is Israeli customs (or the military at the border) likely to give you a hard time? I imagine they do not like PLO flags, Hamas emblems, etc, much. (WT-en) Pashley 07:40, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
 * No, they are used at protests all the time with no issues. The customs people know why a visitor is there already. (WT-en) Gaza

Warning header
Have added a warning about the use of white phosphorous against civilian targets by Israel. Seems unfair to only talk of the threat of Palestinian militia in the area, without mentioning the risk of Israeli military action that usually involves firing heavy artillery and rockets into densely populated civilian areas. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 58.175.44.229 (talk • contribs)

 * When Isreal decides to shell the Gaza strip again, this is relevant info, until then it's not, whereas the existing info is constant. Our goal here is not to be neutral, since the content is travel information not a wikipedia article about the conflict. The goal is to be sober and pragmatic and describe the situation as it is for english speakers "travelling" in the Gaza strip. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 04:30, 4 November 2009 (EST)

 * Israel has shelled it frequently enough that it could happen while any traveler is over there, don't you think? It isn't much good to someone who reads it and goes there, only for an Israeli invasion force to start using illegal weapons like white phosphorous on the civilian population (and the UN).  There should at least be mention of the possibility of being killed by indiscriminate Israeli ordnance. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 58.175.44.229 (talk • contribs)

 * I edited it, adding mention of the Israeli military as one of the dangers. To me, that's just being realistic. (WT-en) Pashley 07:14, 4 November 2009 (EST)

 * Project:Be fair is the guideline to follow here, specifically "stick to the bare minimum of facts necessary, presented as neutrally as possible, while keeping a firm focus on the traveller's interests" (bold added). White phosphorus was used only during an open war in Gaza, and during that time there was a warning on this article indicating that the area was completely unsafe.  At present it is not relevant to travelers what weapons were used during that war, and adding warnings about such weapons will only to stir up political passions, something which we specifically do NOT want to be focusing on. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 10:43, 4 November 2009 (EST)

 * Sorry Ryan, I don't see your point at all. We can limit the use of description of the actual (illegal) weapons used by the Israeli's against Palestinian civilians (and the UN), but there should be a mention of risk of abrupt (without warning) military action taken by Israeli's against civilian targets in the area.  Put it this way, if the article was about the Bronx, Belfast, Glasgow, New Orleans etc. we can't be expected to have "up to the day" warnings about particular areas or threats - we can't know if a particular threat is going to apply every day, but when its frequent enough we should be giving a general warning.  Its simply a matter of a general warning that not only does a traveler need to worry about militia kidnappings and murder, but also foreign military threats which can occur at any time and without warning (and using weapons that are highly illegal and designed to massacre civilians).  It is entirely reasonable to suggest that even nuclear weapons could be used by Israel against Gaza, with little warning, based on past history. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 58.175.44.229 (talk • contribs)

 * First, if you can seriously make the comment "it is entirely reasonable to suggest that even nuclear weapons could be used by Israel against Gaza" then I don't think you should be editing this article. This statement has absolutely nothing to do with travel and is far from "reasonable".

 * Second, your edits have been questioned by numerous editors, so at this point you will need to achieve some consensus on this talk page before making further edits. Wikivoyage policy is that when individuals disagree that discussion should take place on the talk page and further changes should not be made until agreement is reached.  In this case myself and others are having trouble seeing how your edits aren't going to provoke future edit wars as individuals on both sides try to add/remove what they see as biased information.  In the mean time my view, and the view of others who have commented and monitored your edits, is that these changes neither improve the article nor provide use to travelers, and the Project:Be fair policy is clear that in that case the edits are inappropriate. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 09:53, 5 November 2009 (EST)

I've added the warning back in. I've also added a comment regarding Israel's continued blockade of the area, which severely limits medical supplies to the region and is strangling the area economically - in light of keeping the information as current as possible, you could consider the ongoing blockade as a part of the 2008 conflict. Much like the Russian occupation of East Germany, for example. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 58.175.44.229 (talk • contribs)

 * NO! you are quite clearly focused on political issues here, which I kindly ask you to direct at wikipedia. Wikivoyage has received a fair amount of respect in the blogosphere for our no-nonsense approach to these issues, and I very much want to keep it that way - and from what I know about my follow wikivoyagers, they feel very much the same way. If you want to help the Palestinian cause, I'd suggest you join the work of one of the many charities, instead of using Wikivoyage to wage a propaganda war, which is utterly pointless if you ask me - we should be the last place anyone would want to look for information regarding the conflict, if we've done our job right. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 06:07, 5 November 2009 (EST)

 * I agree with Sertman - Wikivoyage is not the place to make political points. Our time is much better spent focusing on what is needed to make good travel guides, and the anonymous user making these edits hasn't made a valid argument why this is a better travel article when it contains additional focus on Israel's controversial past and current actions in Gaza. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 09:53, 5 November 2009 (EST)

I think the anonymous user (me) makes mroe sense.

1. Israeli military action is a threat that can strike Gaza without warning. Fact.

2. You can't get in to Gaza at the moment because Israel is blockading everything bar limited medical supplies. Fact.

Both points made this a better travel article because they provide up to date current information about the security of the place. If you WERE able to get in, its important to know that Israel's blockade has severely restricted supplies - making the place more dangerous than usual. But of course, if anyone mentions anything remotely critical of Israel, it is bound to be edited and the poster accused of racism. If you don't understand how providing up to date medical, security and accessability information can help a traveller, you need to leave this website and never come back. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 202.76.167.125 (talk • contribs)

 * We probably have one of the most detailed accounts on the web on how to get into Gaza. Furthermore the guide already tells would-be visitors that "if you're not either a fully accredited journalist or an aid/human rights worker, you're unlikely to get permission to enter Gaza from Israel." that "The Gaza Strip is occasionally subject to Israeli military operations (which include aerial bombardment as well as ground incursions)" and thanks to Pashley rewrite if your information that "At present, Israel is blockading the area following the 2008 "war" and only limited medical supplies are allowed in. I hate the apartheid like policies of the Israeli's (probably) as little you as you do, but I insist on us keeping our cool and staying keep away from political points, and your current actions amounts to little more than trolling in my view. If you have working specialist knowledge of Gaza, I suggest you put it to good use, and add content to the See, Do, Eat, Drink and Sleep sections instead. Or if you can provide first hand information on how the blockade is affecting e.g. electricity supply and the food situation, that information is welcome too, if you can put it your heart to write it a neutral way - e.g. "due to the Israeli blockade, electricity supply is unstable, and there is occasional blackouts on a daily/weekly/monthly basis, mainly during the morning/noon/afternoon/evening/night". --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 18:57, 5 November 2009 (EST)

- Thanks Stefan, I see your point (after all of that). Appreciate your and Ryan's willingness to at least discuss the issue rather than stamping it out with no dialogue. In hindsight I was too quick to edit. Cheers

I think there should be warnings about Israeli military actions, Hamas-Fatah and other group clashes, militants, and terrorists. All four are distinct threats. Or we could just say that the region is prone to violence that can quickly spiral out of control. I do not think anyone can really say that there is little warning. For the last war, the two sides were exchanging words for weeks before much violence broke out. (WT-en) Gaza 17:58, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

Current situation
Someone has listed that Israel has withdrawn from the area in Jan 2009. This isn't correct, as Israel continue to blockade the Strip since the 2008 war - which has impoverished the area further and reduced access to medicine. In the interests of accuracy this should be mentioned. I tried to edit this to reflect the current situation, but it has reverted back I think? Anyone who is capable of running a quick google search of 'Israeli blockade 2008-09' can see that Gaza is absolutely being blockaded and all entry to and from Israel is completely impossible at present (I don't think I need to explain why this is relevant information) —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 202.76.167.125 (talk • contribs)

 * The guide already makes it very very obvious there is a blockade, did you even read the guide before you started complaining about our perceived bias? otherwise go back, and read the entire Get In section! Israel has to the best of my knowledge withdrawn it's troops outside the walls, so stop all this non-sense please. I'm inclined not to comment any further, and revert any politically motivated edits on sight. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 21:20, 5 November 2009 (EST)

- Its hardly politically motivated to mention that Israel has NOT withdrawn (when the articel has stated they have). the fact is, they are blockading Gaza, this involves troops in Gaza, manning the borders. If you are happy with a factually incorrect article that is fine. But youa re jumping at shadows thinking I am trying to update this for political reasons. Unfortunately, sometimes the facts are political in nature. I am changing it back, until you can give me a reason not to (outside of your stealthy reversions without any argumentative basis). —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) 202.76.167.125 (talk • contribs)

 * As stated above, please make no further edits to this article until you have achieved consensus to do so, otherwise those changes will likely be reverted. Note that your previous statement contains several contradictions - the fact that Israel is now manning the borders implies that they have withdrawn from Gaza to the borders with Israel - so either you are trolling or misinterpreting the facts. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 22:44, 5 November 2009 (EST)

Israel is not in Gaza. They just control some of the borders. Wherever there is a border, two countries will control it. This is nothing criminal. It is not our place to decide how humane the Israeli actions are. We can only report what a visitor will experience.

"Politics" warning box
I've removed the politics warning box since that disclaimer applies to a LOT of places and I'm not sure we want to start adding editorial comments to the articles themselves - in the past we've handled this sort of issue using HTML comments that aren't visible in the article until it is edited. In the mean time I think it's sufficient to simply watch articles such as this one that are magnets for politically motivated edits and edit them per Project:Be fair. That obviously leads to a lot of reverts of very persistent individuals, but it seems like a better solution than cluttering articles with warnings that will likely be ignored anyhow. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 18:20, 5 November 2009 (EST)

To be shot at??
What does this sentence mean (in bold), taken from the Get In-section: "This can be a bit nervous, depending on the general situation in the area at the moment, and this is the most likely place for you to be shot at."

Who is gonna shoot at people as they enter Gaza and WHY? 85.149.228.178

 * Either side could suspect you, but clearly people get in somehow safely as many dignitaries have visited over the years, including even this year. (WT-en) Gaza 17:58, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

 * I would postulate that the IDF may shoot you if they think you're going to blow up the Erez border (although it's well protected). Hamas may shoot you if they think you're an IDF soldier. Realistically if you stay on the path (which you don't have a choice, given it's a sealed cage). The biggest threat is from missiles (either Hamas or IDF ones) landing in the area. If you managed to stray from the path into the fields, I wouldn't be surprised if there are mines, and anyone travelling within half a km of the border (probably more now) aside from on the approved path is likely to be shot by the IDF. Caveat: I haven't been to gaza since "Protective Edge" began, but friends have, and aside from Erez closing at random times there isn't much of a change. 202.128.205.110 00:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Do section?
I am trying to make the Do section but it does not work. This part is lacking in the article. --(WT-en) Gaza 18:00, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

 * I do not see the problem. There is a "Do" section; I assume it is editable. What problem do you have? (WT-en) Pashley 19:10, 29 July 2010 (EDT)

Warning needs to be updated
Given the "unprecedented" war to come, the warning box should be updated to reflect that. @User:ThunderingTyphoons! @User:Ikan Kekek @SHB2000 anyone. 2601:47:100:AC40:70EA:65B3:A46:A07B 12:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

 * It's not just Israel or the other parts of the Palestinian territories. 76.99.92.104 12:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a travel guide that anyone can edit – please plunge forward. SHB2000  (talk | contribs | meta) 21:24, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Does no one else see how biased this warning is?
Title. 94.204.161.137 03:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Gaza Strip


text:
Talk:Gaza City

''This page is for discussing the corresponding article or guide. For more about using talk pages check out Project:Using talk pages.''

Merge
I think this should remain a separate article. Gaza proper has a population of 400,000 while the Gaza strip has nearly 1.4 million people. As the merge has been on the page for over a year and there has been no comments regarding the merger, even from the person who put it there, I will remove the merge suggestion. (WT-en) AHeneen 21:31, 31 December 2008 (EST)

title: Talk:Gaza City


text:
Talk:Gaziantep

Relevant?
More mosaics at Zeugma. Pashley (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

 * And more. Pashley (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Zeugma probably merits more than the passing mention currently found at a 'See' listing, as I remember reading there is still stuff to see on site (although most of the findings have been relocated to the Zeugma Museum in Gaziantep since the dam went up and drowned a significant part of the site). But having never been there, I don't know what exactly is there to see or how to go there, if for example you don't have a car. Vidimian (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gaziantep


text:
Talk:Gävle

Hello! We'll be visiting Gavle soon from Muskegon, Michigan, US soon July 18-21. Any advice for first time visitors? Thanks!, L&L

title: Talk:Gävle


text:
Talk:Göreme

''This page is for discussing the corresponding article or guide. For more about using talk pages check out Project:Using talk pages.''

"Vicious dogs?" Really?
I ran into a lot of strays in Turkey, including Göreme, but none that I'd call "vicious." Nobody there seemed to regard the local dogs as concerning, and searching the Internet (including the usual reputable travel health information sites) to support the idea that Göreme has a vicious dog problem. I've seen the exact same blurb that's on our page copied in a few other places, but nothing to support it. Unless anyone sees a good reason not to, I propose to replace the section on dogs with something a little bit less sensational.

(WT-en) Eric 16:01, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

 * For something like this, you don't need a talk page - just Plunge Forward and change it as you see fit. Despite the incredible amount of information, this place is far from densely populated, so this would probably go unnoticed for months, If i weren't checking up on you as a new user here. Talk pages are really for disputes (eg. if you erase this paragraph, and someone disagrees with you - and go here to comment instead of starting an edit war) or major changes in articles. (WT-en) Sertmann 16:10, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

 * Thanks, done. (WT-en) Eric 16:44, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Love Valley Cappadocia.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Love Valley Cappadocia.jpg

title: Talk:Göreme


text:
Talk:Göttingen

HTML
Hi, I've been removing the html from this page and replacing it with Wiki markup. Please also take a look at Project:Manual of style to see how we like to format travel guides. Thanks for your contributions! This page is really coming along and well on it's way to being a guide or even a Star! (WT-en) Majnoona 14:56, 25 Jan 2006 (EST)

Quotes
Why is the reference to murdered Jews in quotes? Quotes seem to imply that what occurred was something other than murder. The Holocaust Memorial in Berlin refers to the murdered Jews of Europe (no quotes).

 * Please feel free to plunge forward and fix it! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 16:28, 4 February 2010 (EST)

Gottingen in the news
| Cannabis plants spring up all over German town after campaigners plant thousands of seeds.

Will that become a tourist attraction? Will the response from the cops need a note in "stay safe"? Pashley (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Import de:Südniedersachsen?
When I removed Göttingen from Weser Uplands I saw, that the city has the IsPartof|Weser Uplands too. That's wrong, Göttingen is part of the regions Leine Uplands, Leine Valley and South Lower Saxony. If a importeur would import Südniedersachsen, I will translate it by and by, and it could be classified correctly. --Tine (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 * I would suggest before making pages orphans that we start a discussion on the talk page of Lower Saxony on reorganising the regions. With the current sub-regions definition on this site Göttingen, Bad Gandersheim and Einbeck are in Weser Uplands. Be careful trying to mirror the structure on the German site. The towns in Harz also needs some discussion as this region really goes over two states. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 * I read the discussion, bu I can't find a definition for Göttingen being part of the Weser uplands. I understand, that the definition of South Lower Saxony here on en:wv is another then the traditional understanding of South Lower Saxony. That's practical in this case, but Bad Gandersheim, Göttingen and Einbeck are definitely no part of the Weser Uplands. But it is no problem for me, if someone revert my modifications in Göttingen and Weser Uplands. --Tine (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 * I first didn't read carefully, sorry - I saw the map showing Göttingen as part of Weser uplands on Lower Saxony now. I'm sorry starting this discussion without having all details - I withdraw my suggestion due to missing ressources to discuss all regions of Lower Saxony. --Tine (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

 * I think you are correct to question the current definitions but just need define what the new ones are first. --Traveler100 (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Cemetery tourists
Can Göttingen be considered as a notable city for tombstone tourists? The old Stadtfriedhof is a historic cemetery with graves of important scholars including no less than eight Nobel Prize winners. Albanifriedhof is most famous as the final resting place of Carl Friedrich Gauss.

—The preceding comment was added by 83.149.199.196 (talk • contribs)

 * Welcome! I "signed" for you because on talk pages, it's customary to type 4 tildes (~) in a row at the end of each post.

 * To answer your question, yes, I think you've amply established that the old cemetery should be a "See" listing. Please add a listing for it. I'd encourage you to use the "See" template; you can put an empty "See" template in the article by hitting the temple icon to the right of the word "Listings" on your edit screen. Or just put up the information however you like and either you or someone else can format it into a templated listing later. Thanks a lot! Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

 * I felt like starting things. C. F. Gauss was a thick-brained MF; I admire him and his work a lot. It's a real pleasure to write this listing. Ibaman (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Suspect typo
from Correct typos in one click progromatic->programatic? (replace) context: Burning of books in 1933, anti-Jewish progromatic progromatic acts on 10.11.1938 (among other

title: Talk:Göttingen


text:
Talk:Gdańsk

There are different spellings used throughout the article (both Gdansk and Gdańsk). Which should be used? (WT-en) Jamboo 05:44, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Gdańsk, but many people don't know how to create the ń character. We need to add special characters to our edittools --(WT-en) Nick 06:20, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Problem solved. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 07:20, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

German ties of Gdańsk?
Expression "The German population was expelled and replaced by Poles as the city came under Polish rule and changed its name to Gdańsk. However, the impact of its former German ties is still evident." - suggests, that Gdańsk was formerly a german city, overtaken by Polish people... Gdańsk was a part of Kingdom of Poland since 1242, previously it was owned by Pomeranians (old Slavic - not German - culture). Aftrerwards it was many times conquered by either Teutonic Knights, Prussians or Germans, especially after 1871. It had a complicated history and multicultural bakground, also with great inpact from Jews and Dutch (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gda%C5%84sk ). But thinking that it was a German city - is by far not correct. but before the coming of the slavs to that region it was inhabitated by germanic tribes and some of them remained there after the barbarian migrations, and those who remained there were either expelled or absorved by the invadiding slavs in the sixth century

Restaurants
The recent additions to the 'Splurge' restaurants were done by me. I didn't mean to edit anonymously. (I'm visiting Gdansk for Wikimania 2010.) (WT-en) Ijon 19:40, 9 July 2010 (EDT)

European Solidarity Centre
I moved the following listing here from the main page, since I think the "European Solidarity Centre" has taken over its function. Can someone confirm that this is the case and the listing below is now closed? 18 December 2015 (UTC)

What is needed for Guide level?
This article has a lot. Many venues should have coordinates and Wikidata links. What else is needed for promotion to Guide level? /Yvwv (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gdańsk


text:
Talk:Gelderland

Lopik is not in Gelderland, but in the West of Utrecht. I deleted it from this page. —The preceding comment was added by 195.169.204.90 (talk • contribs) 11 July 2006

Do we really need subregions?
I believe less than 9 destinations even have articles, and many of them are quite scant - I find this unnecessary complication for the readers to have to go through so many levels to reach any useful information. PrinceGloria (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. Subdivisions should be made when the need arises (more specifically; when the article starts holding too much information). That's not the case yet. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If we were to remove the subregions, are you recommending to delete the pages for those subregions? If not, what's the recommended way to link to their pages from here? Doubleplusjeff (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't delete such pages, as they are legitimate destinations, but we redirect them to a more appropriate article. In that case, all should be redirected to Gelderland. PrinceGloria (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just merged content from the 3 scant regions (not incuding Veluwe) into Gelderland and replaced them with redirects. Doubleplusjeff (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Veluwe was actually also redundant, a hybrid of mostly Apeldoorn and Hoge Veluwe National Park, so I have moved whatever content was original to other articles.
 * PS. When moving destinations, please remember to update the "isPartOf" template at the end. We also need to sort out categories - Category:Achterhoek, Category:Rivierenland, Category:Stadsregio Arnhem Nijmegen and Category:Veluwe can now be deleted. Perhaps User:Ikan Kekek can help? PrinceGloria (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably not, in this case, for lack of time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

 * User:Wauteurz, User:Traveler100, please do not create subregions again, we've just agreed to do away with them. The situation has not changed, we still have a limited number of destination guides within Gelderland, there is no need to make it more complicated for the traveller to navigate the province by adding more levels. PrinceGloria (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

 * User:PrinceGloria, I am currently working on translating the Dutch Wikivoyage to add additional information on the English version. If I've understood the discussion above, then they can be re-added once most cities and towns within the subregions are added? -- Wauteurz (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

 * In theory, yes. In practice, we need much more than translating the Dutch Wikipedia. Most regions there don't hold water. Some guides have already been added quite forcibly - even for genuinely interesting destinations they offer preciously few reasons to visit them. I would focus on growing guides to current destinations and the select few most important ones gradually, focusing on quality. As a frequent visitor to the Netherlands, I do not think we need regions below provincial level perhaps except for Noord- and Zuid- Holland. Most other provinces in reality have 7-9 actually interesting destinations and adding the latter is a matter of splendid local patriotism but not really much help to travellers - and this comes from a person who loves NL to bits enough to visit places like Zoetermeer. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Bible Belt delicacies for the elderly?
I find the Eat section to be quite cryptic. First, why is Gelderland called the Bible Belt and what's that have to do with the food? Second, what are examples of local delicacies, why would only the elderly eat them, and why are they not recommended to tourists? Lacking clarification, it might be better to delete this sentence. Doubleplusjeff (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * On the "bible belt" thing: Certain parts of the Netherlands are more religious than the rest (and the public perception of the permissive and lieral country) so this area is often called "bible belt" in analogy to the US area (mostly in the South and interior of the country) which exhibits a similar dynamic. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and removed the unsubstantiated and cryptic food comment, and moved the Bible Belt note to Understand. Doubleplusjeff (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Banner switch?
The current banner is too grey for my liking, so I've gone out and made a replacement. Should the current banner be replaced or left alone? -- Wauteurz (talk) 19:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gelderland


text:
Talk:Gelnhausen

Translation
Per the conversation on automatc translation, here is a handy link to the Babelfish of the German version -- the DotM for that site in Jan, so there is a ton of good info...

 * Gelnhausen

And the Systran version:
 * Glnhausen

Note: do not edit the babelfished site by mistake!

Buy
Could somebody please tell me why Gelnhausen would be known for cheapo heroin? I'm going to delete this.

title: Talk:Gelnhausen