Talk:Tourism in Turkey

Removed paragraph

I've removed the following paragraph because it has no references:

"High quality of medical services and skilled physicians, low relative cost and the optimal geographic location between Europe and the Middle East, combined with the tourism attractions, also makes Turkey an emerging medical destination." --Svetovid 11:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts for expansion

There should be sections listing the World Heritage Sites, natural parks, and other important sites. Q·L·1968 ☿ 14:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

 Don't turkey need medical assistants to just like us to I guess?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C50F:C410:39DA:FB93:90AE:E4E6 (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC) 

Due weight for safety

I am very concerned about the "travel safety" section here, as there seems to be undue weight given to concerns to Turkey is not safe. These concerns are perfectly valid, but so are sources that state that classify Turkey as safe. I have removed a sentence from the lead as it was a huge misrepresentation of the source as I stated in my edit summary: the "advise against non-essential travel" is only for some parts of Turkey even for the UK and saying "[...] recommending that all non-essential travel to Turkey be avoided." is just outright wrong.

With regards to the rest of the section: "Militants operating within Turkey have a long history of bombing touristic sights and hotels." This sentence appears to be supported by three sources. The first by Brenner mentions a series of bombings in 2005. This is a decade ago and makes no mention of a long history. I can find no reference to the "long history" in the second source either. The third source refers to a campaign by the PKK in the 1990s - again no mention of a "long history" (see WP:SYNTH, it's a different thing to have previous attacks and an entirely different thing for us to present this as a long history). I am thus making a change in this to reflect the nature of the sources. --GGT (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I am also concerned that the emphasis given to current events in the lead and the travel section could be a bit of recentism. --GGT (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Number of tourists

There is no evidence for the number of tourists declining. Even if that were the case, it surely does not hold any weight when reported by a newspaper with an anti-administration agenda like the Hurriyet Daily News. Human like you (talk) 10:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It is well known that the number of tourists is declining. Hurriyet Daily News is pro-Turkish and more reliable than most other Turkish sources (one of the few newspapers not controlled and not shut down by the government). 2003:77:4F1F:D925:28A8:F946:AC16:C8AA (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

You are obviously not well informed and only follow certain news outlets. By the way, why don't you register an account? Human like you (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Could you provide any evidence at all why we should not trust the source or numbers? --Ronz (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The user mentioned it, "a newspaper with an anti-administration agenda". 4world2read (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)