Talk:Tourism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2



I'd like to see more info on the downside of a local government promoting a tourist economy over several decades. Things like mass migration, tax increases, deforestation, sprawl, economic incentive abuse, etc.

==Contribution== goby Acknowledgement: the majority of this article as at Feb 25, 2002 was contributed by Dr. Andrew Rossiter of the Université de Besançon - France.

Basic topics, Wikitravel

What are our priorities for writing in this area? To help develop a list of the most basic topics about tourism, please see tourism basic topics. Those writing the tourism articles may be interested in --Jiang

First Tourist

Was King George III really the first tourist? Just because he took trips to Weymouth when in poor health? Surely somebody must have done the same before the 18th century. Unless somebody can provide some sort of proof of this "widely acknowledged" fact, I'm going to erase it. Peregrine981 23:13, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

George may not have been the first tourist, but is responsible for the rise in popularity of tourism. --Steinsky 02:04, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps we could include an explanation of why George III's trips to Weymouth led to a rise in popularity for tourism. Does this apply only to the British or is it a more wide spread European phenomenon? --Peregrine981 19:26, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

missing word

Shouldn't we add the word recreational into the first sentence: "to include recreational any travel outside of one's normal working or living area, from daytrips to overseas holidays" otherwise it reads so as to include business travel, which I do not think is ever included in tourism? --BozMo|talk 14:43, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC) Actually, business tourism has been identifed as a niche market deserving of further development by the Australian Government who regularly collect statistics on the growth of the sector. 01:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Articles relating to Tourism

Does anyone know of a place where I might find international stats on tourism? I'm particularly hoping to find out how much the international market is worth, and which countries contribute the most, if such information is available (my Googling and wiki searching had been for naught). JKnight 23:30, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC) Yes - if you want to pay for it! Organisations such as IPK International or Global Insight can provide the data. 20:55, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


"Most people confuse Tourism with Travel."

The article should not start like that. --Joy [shallot] 03:23, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's still not satisfactory, and I'm sure it was better before. Has some deletion vandalism slipped through the net? I would propose this introduction:
"Tourism can be defined as travel for recreation."
Any better ideas? --Steinsky 12:56, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes.... Tourism can be defined as travel for leisure or business. In today's world, business tourism is the most profitable source of tourism revenue, as business tourists spend considerably more per head than leisure tourists. Business tourism is defined as travel for business purposes - congresses, trade fairs, conventions or just meetings in a distant location. Andrew Rossiter - original contributor of this article. I reckon that Business tourism is NOT just defined as travel for business purposes - congresses, trade fairs, conventions or just meetings in a distant location. If the person just does the business stuff while there then the person has done zero recreation and I don't think that would then be business tourism. More typically a business person making a trip to an exciting new location will try and fit in a dinner out - or a quick visit to a local attraction during the boring afternoon session - or a swim between meetings. Its only if the business person fits in the recrational activities that they are participating in business tourism. The point is that these people decided to make the trip for over 50% business reasons - but do add in some tourist and recreational experiences to the overall trip. A common example is people who add on a weeks holiday after a conference - the flight to the place was triggered by the business need - but the person also ends up being a tourist. If they don't do anything but the business stuff - then it shouldn't be counted as business tourism. Another example perhaps is the partners programs for many conferences - the main delegates go to sessions - while partners have a program of tourist experiences prepared for them. Conference organisers know that if the wifes are happy - they will get more delegates. 22:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't seem to get its name, but what do you call the group of people who sell information about tour destination. See this article, if i sound like an idiot [1]

Opening paragraphs

The term tourism is sometimes used pejoratively, implying a shallow interest in the societies and natural wonders that the tourist visits. As such it is used as a pejorative term about heterosexuals who visit gay bars to "watch the natives" and "experience the culture" without integrating themselves into it (unlike a Dyke Tyke), or bisexuals, typically already in a heterosexual relationship, who frequent gay bars for the purpose of procuring one-off gay sex (both terms are used almost exclusively by the gay community). Does this seem a little esoteric (especially for the top of the page), or is it just me? --Quercus 20:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further updates needed

I noticed nothing in here on The War on Tourism or Osama bin Travelocity.

Hi, what about dark tourism?

Hi, I'm curious-- why is there no mention of dark tourism? thanks!

Effect of globalization

What effect does globalization have on tourism industry? I think that for answering this question we need the year from which we may say that globalization started. Kindly update me if anyone has any ideas about the topic. I doing some search on the same and will post my views as soon as i get through. bingo

---------- -- 15:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)--hrishikesh

Butler's tourism life cycle model

shouldn't this model be placed inside this article as well?

Tourism Guide/ Guide Book/ Travel Guide

This article does nothing for the industry of travel guide/guide book, and to subsume the series into 'consumer guides' is misleading. There is a need for a separate article on the subject, as this tourism article does not even give the industry a sufficient coverage.vcxlor 11:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Origin of sun-and-beach tourism

Why did sun-and-beach holidays become popular in the first place? Has anyone got any links or citations? GCarty 12:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The Definitions

I have added some definitions relating to Tourism. It'll make things a little clear.Merishi 07:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Chapter 3 (History)

I find this chapter a bit British-centered. What about other countries?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Overly British

The main countries mentioned by an overly large extent are England and France, which seems overly biased

I agree; much more is needed, for example, on the rise of German tourism after WWII...the Germans are currently the world's most prevalent tourists. Cjs2111 00:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of tourism?

I suggest the possibility of a Criticism of Tourism section. Tourists are widely considered to be boorish and ill mannered, or to otherwise behave in opposition to local customs and values, and tourism is frequently the subject of mixed emotions by locals for a variety of reasons. --Xyzzyplugh 11:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC) I agree. The addition of a section perhaps devoted to the ethics of tourism, in terms of social and envrionmental ramifications would produce a more complete article. Keeping NPOV would be more challenging, yet still possible.

Football tourism in South Africa

Breaching on the subject of the 2010 Football World Cup, will South Africa be ready? It is speculated that the major infracture changes needed will cause the most hiccups. How will South Africa cope with the added influx of football tourists over such a short period of time. 11:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC) RenoBuild —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renobuild (talkcontribs)

Please do not add in-line advertising links. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. → friedfish 12:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Tourism Industry notes in Wikiversity

Hello everyone, I managed to get the school where I work to test out Wikiversity and load some of their resources. Here are their handouts stripped from their MSWord format and loaded as text into a Wikiversity page called Tourism Industry. After doing it, I realised that it would probably be better suited as a wikibook.. I searched "tourism industry" in wikipedia and it redirected to this page? I guess that's fare enough, but I'd like to see some of the content we have loaded into Wikiversity, be covered in this wikipedia article. What do others think? --Leighblackall 01:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Please create more "Wildlife of ....." articles for all countries.

.... and kindly contribute to these new articles when you get time, and request others too. See Wildlife of India for reference. Thanks Atulsnischal 18:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Invitation for Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas of India & Conservation

If you are interested in Environment, Wildlife, Conservation and Nature etc. please join in to contribute, even starting off with making new stub class articles will be a great contribution. Sincerely Atulsnischal 16:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

We need senior administrators or people who are long in Wikipedia to help us with the templates and for other further helps. Details can be seen in its talk page. IT's urgent. We want this wkiproject to be added to the exsisting WP:IND banner. Amartyabag TALK2ME 05:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

oh yeah 3000miles

Problem with ranking

Here is a link with the CORRECT rankings: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem with the "Trevi Fountain, Rome, Italy picture"

Instead of being a picture of tourists at the Trevi Fountain, as the caption claims, this is a rather racy picture of a wall painting of the Mexican actrice Gloria Trevi advertising the scandal apparently associated with her - in spanish. Does anyone have a picture of the Fountain with tourists that they can put up to fix this problem? NadiaLala 09:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have replace the picture of the Mexican actrice Gloria Trevi with the old image that was there before. For some reason I had to reupload the image. The image of the lady was a reupload of the original fountain image that I have restored. Have another look at the article. --Ad@m.J.W.C. 06:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Lack of global representation

Two images on Peru, and one each on Chile, Argentina, Brazil and Costa Rica. Seems like the South Americans have taken over this article. Can't believe the article has no image on China and India! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC). prout !

Winter Tourism

I would like to suggest that this section of Winter Tourism be removed, as it has nothing to do with Tourism or winter sports in general:

Organized sport was well established in Britain before it reached other countries. The vocabulary of sport bears witness to this: rugby, football, and boxing all originated in Britain, and even tennis, originally a French sport, was formalized and codified by the British, who hosted the first national championship in the nineteenth century, at Wimbledon.

Mcdanimr 22:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)mcdanimr

Yes, it certainly seemed to give off "POV vibes" and was somewhat irrelevant, too, as you said, so I went ahead and removed the paragraph. There has been sufficient time (4 months at the time of this writing) to present rationale and alternative formulations but evidently nobody came to defend this section, so off it went. --jibun≈παντα ρει≈ (keskustele!) 03:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Hospitality Industry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The result was no merger. -- Luke! 10:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Currently there is little content on the hospitality industry article. Since hospitality and tourism are synonymous, I recommend merging the two. Luke! 00:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Hospitality appears to be a distinct part of the industry. I can visit a restaurant in my hometown without being a tourist. The page was useful for me, doublechecking this usage of the word 'hopitality' for a proofreading job I was commissioned with. This page needs time to grow. 10 April 2007 21:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC) I think hospitality industry should be stand alone as an overall topic. Hospitality industry is not only covering topics like tourism but also food, wine, bars, restaurants, smoking etc etc. I also think this topic needs to grow. The hospitality sector is much broader than just the tourism industry. It includes many professions included in both private and public industry, it includes full-service restaurants, hotels, institutional establishments etc. I will be attempting to work on the article for Hospitality Industry soon, but I highly disagree with the merge.Christopher Tanner, CCC 17:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)tanner-christopher

I also highly disagree with the merge. DXRAW 08:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Hospitality Industry includes professionals from various corporate skeletons of Fortune 500 companies. It is evolving. Don't merge! There is a lot of tourism aspects that are (fortunately) not industrialized, but manufactured. Moreover, think of platforms like or They are definitely part of tourism but not part of the (professional) hospitality industry. Don't merge.

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

See also list or world tourism navigation box

Instead of having a long see also list should there be a navagation box instead, it could include tourism links for all the major citys and whatever is in the see also list of this article as well. you could add it to all the other articles about tourism and have the whole subject networked.

similar to this

and this

Mindys12345 09:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

See also

Should the see also list be removed or reduced now that there is template with all of those links and more, any thing thats not in the template could be added. Mindys12345स्वागतम्! এই সভ্যজন অসমৰॐ शान्ति ! शान्ति !! शान्ति !!!


I don't mean to be a typical, complaining American, but it seems like most of this article relates to Britain, and nowhere is there a reference to any American tourism. It'd be stupid to say there's no international tourism to America, so shouldn't there be some mention? -- 13:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Okay, I hadn't noticed the two pics, but still. The only text mention is a small, two sentences.-- 13:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Add it if you think it is lacking. (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Tourism of Doom

The New York Times has coined a new term: Tourism of Doom ie. Doom tourism. Touring natural sites that are under threat from global warming etc.. -- (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The graph is inconsistent with the list

The graph near the bottom of the page is inconsistent with the list near the top. On the list France is receiving the most international tourist per year, in the graph it's the US. Obviously only one is correct, I don't care which one, but i think one or the other should be corrected. Unfortunately I don't have a clue which one is correct. Knijert (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the list is talking about amount of tourist per year and the graph about tourism receipt per year. Still strikes me as odd that tourist spend so much more in the US than in France or Spain...Knijert (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
That probably has something to do with the euro/dollar parity. Basar Kizildere (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Many tourists, and not only from the Third World, do lots of shopping in the U.S., which is not necessarily the case in Europe, where prices are higher for electronics, clothes, etc. With a weak dollar against many currencies, there is an additional incentive to do shopping in the U.S.. Another factor is that tourism in Europe include many tourists from EU countries, who do not do as much shopping in their neighboring countries. Mariordo (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Tourism Statistics

The first two tables use the convention of a '.' holding a decimal place, but the third uses the ',' . Would it not look better to be consistent? I would favor the period, as it is more commonly used in the wiki. BobertWABC (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Gutting of the Article

Can someone please explain why large parts of the article, largely relating to the historical development of the industry, have been removed? If there is no adequate eplanation forthcoming, I will take steps to revert to the original text, though without eliminating subsequent contributions. --Train guard (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

because they contained no citation whatsoever, appeared to be a copy and paste, and represented a totally Britishcentric view of tourism. violated WP:CITE , WP:COPY and WP:UNDUE Michellecrisp (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete other people's work like this! It is rather bad manners to delete material without giving notice beforehand. There are many sections of wikipedia that do not contain citations. If it bothers you, you should really flag it up and then see what response you get. That's what others do. Why do you think that they were 'copy and paste'? Can you prove this? I rather think that you cannot, since I placed some of the deleted material there myself, and I certainly obey the wikipedia rules. If you think that the article is too 'Britishcentric', the answer is to add other material, or appeal to others to add material. You really ought not to delete existing material for this reason alone. --Train guard (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Completely support Train guard position, it was not only rude but against Wiki policy to do such unconsulted delete, especially in a page with so many contributing editors. In favor of undoing right away and just put the [citation needed] tag where necessary. Then, Michellecrisp can open a discussion here to propose and justify if something has to go. Mariordo (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I had tagged some of these items a while back and there had been no change from other editors. Quite simply, whilst other editors can find references the main onus is on the person adding new information to provide citation. In addition, if there was an article on History of British Tourism, it would be a far more appropriate place to put that text than here. there is WP:BOLD and I quote Jimbo Wales below Michellecrisp (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales wrote: In general, I find the fact tagging to be overdone in Wikipedia. A better option is to nuke the unsourced material. Sometimes fact is warranted, I don't mean that it is always a bad idea. But it is overdone. I very often see completely preposterous claims tagged with [citation needed], usually because an editor is being excessively cautious. Be bold. :)

Firstly, the section from which you deleted most of the content is still untagged! Other (tagged) sections have not had (as far as I can ascertain) major content deletes! Consequently, I find your action rather bizarre. Secondly, I have no idea why you should think that it is appropriate to delete content because you think that it belongs in another (non-existent) article. If you think this is the case, why don't you propose its removal to a new, hived off, article, linked to this? As to the other editor that you quote, I can only say that it is not ethical to 'nuke' anything without ascertaining the reaction (if any) of the other editors. I would never dream of making a text alteration(as opposed to a simple addition or typo) without either proposing a draft (if it is major) or an explanation (if it is minor) in the discussion/talk page. --Train guard (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The other editor is indeed the creator of Wikipedia! Jimbo Wales. Ethical? this is not a moral decision. Whilst you might not have not agreed with my edits it is not unethical and in fact consistent with WP:CITE and WP:UNDUE. I'll happy create a new article with some of the deleted text, History of British tourism . it will require a lot of citation that was considerably lacking or non existent. But for the moment, the Tourism article should concentrate on global trends not individual countries, this is my point on WP:UNDUE. there is no way this article could contain history of tourism of many different countries. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Not the "onlie begettor" methinks! I suggest that the ethics of the matter are quite clear...or perhaps 'etiquette' might be more acceptable. You do not unilaterally delete anything without due notice or explanation, and certainly not a large portion of an article on which a number of people have worked on with good faith. I would indeed question whether your action is in keeping with the guidlines that you cite. Where, for example, is your evidence that any of this was 'cut and paste'? You now say that you would have been willing to create a new article on British Tourism. Why not canvass this view before you went ahead with your deletions? You may have a strong case for arguing that it should be a general article about tourism, but how you can talk about global trends without reference to some historical developments in Britain and elsewhere is a mystery. I would be perfectly happy to go along with a 'streamlined article' with references to more detailed sections as separate national or topical articles, but it would be nice if this was 'flagged up' first. Can I propose to everyone that we do this? That we have (in the first instance) two separate articles linked to this main one, one called 'History of Tourism' and the other 'British Tourism'? And that we restore the original material, tagged if necessary, and thus encourage people to add to it? What do other people think? --Train guard (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal. In the end, the material that will be left here should be just a summary. Mariordo (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Grey Nomads

Why does grey nomads redirect here when there is no mention of the concept in the entire article?

Grey nomads article has now been deleted. Michellecrisp (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for posting pictures

As one editor pointed out last year, this article is not a vacation photo album. So please refrain from posting your favorites pictures, as all the time the article's layout is messed up with pictures of places not even mentioned in the article, or not so notable in the international tourism industry, or claiming to be the "the largest..", "the most...", etc. without a WP:RS. I just did some preliminary cleaning to improve the layout, but I proposed we open a discussion to establish here some criteria among contributing editors to define which pictures. A first criteria could be:

  • To keep only those pictures of notable places, attractions or destinations that are mentioned in the article regarding international tourism, with preference with related with any of the top 10 or top 50 countries, cities or attractions, and properly sourced (RS) in the text or caption.

Please post any other criteria or make suggestions to improve the above. --Mariordo (talk) 06:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Most visited cities

I don't think the "most visited cities" section is entirely relevant for this article because: 1) the statistics came from 2006; at the very least we should've been using 2007 data by now given there is already a year in-between. 2) the study is done by an organization called Euromonitor, and unless the statistics came directly from UNWTO, I don't think it should've been given that much significance. The "most visited attractions" section falls under the same category.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I disagree, because: 1) UNWTO published the 2007 data just 3 weeks ago in the June Barometer (the ref provided), that is why I did update all UNWTO statistics until this weekend. Therefore, 2006 is not as old as it looks. 2) Most UNWTO data is not available for free in the public domain, you have to buy the reports with detailed and more disaggregate info, and these reports are expensive (check UNWTO web site). 3) As it happens in many industries where large databases are not freely available in the public domain, there are specialized firms doing data mining and analysis to provide intelligence info and forecasts, Euromonitor is one of those firms providing intelligence services (check their website to confirm). So we are lucky they provided the info on most visited cities for free, available in public domain. Besides, such lists are not as old as you assumed, given that it was published in October 2007 and the 2007 data from UNWTO was published just a few weeks ago. Any of such intelligence analysis regarding international tourists without a doubt is totally or partially based on UNWTO data, since all goverments participating send their data to WTO, it is the primary source in the industry. 4) The case of the Forbes ranking is different, because they are considering domestic tourists too, which WTO does not report, and the website clearly states it is they own research and estimates. 5) However I think Forbes is a WP:RS, as well as Euromonitor, and if you skim through the article you will notice that most of the info is not sourced at all, and by the rigorous criteria you are suggesting to apply most of the article will have to go. The statistics section is properly reference from RS, so I do not see enough justification to delete this tables from the article. Let's wait for other opinions.--Mariordo (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated the Euromonitor's chart for the most visited cities in the year 2007. Although I think official UNWTO statistics are preferred. This Euromonitor chart is in my opinion kind of speculative and it seems it isn't widely reported in mainstream media, unlike UNWTO's World Tourism rankings.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Photo dispatching

The best way of setting a photo criteria is to consider the major historical sites that are registered to UNESCO. Pictures of newly constructed building with commercial functions have to be excluded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kourosh ziabari (talkcontribs) 07:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

First, my deletion of the pics was not vandalism, nor I do not have any biased against Persian culture. The edit clearly explained the reasons for such action. Second, as I explain to you in my user talk page, if you check the history of this Talk Page you will see this page has had a problem of excess of pictures. As another editor put it, lots of people publish their vacation pictures there. After that, the criteria has been to included pictures (or at least to try) directly related with the content (check the info in the captions, some even have a reference to back up the claim in the text). Also, probably you notice that those two pictures opened a huge blank hole in the text, this is due to the fact that there are already too many pictures. Please note that the article already has a pic illustrating an Iranian site. So far, most of the pictures surviving are related to info presented on the summary tables regarding most visited countries, attractions or sites. None of those two pics are listed in any of such rankings.
  • Now, regarding criteria I disagree that UNESCO heritage sites is a good criteria for selecting the pictures. Those pics can be posted in the heritage article. I think pics in this article should reflect actual demand by tourism, so I proposed again the following criteria:
  • To keep only those pictures of notable places, attractions or destinations that are mentioned in the article regarding international tourism, with preference with related with any of the top 10 or top 50 countries, cities or attractions, and properly sourced (RS) in the text or caption when claiming being the first, the most... of anything.
Please post any other criteria or make suggestions to define such criteria.--Mariordo (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The "Most visited attractions" are a total joke

How the National Mall or Times Square could be considered "attractions"? They are just crowded places. Attractions should be measurable, i.e. a place with tikets, access restriction and such. -- (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS to support your claim? Then the Monumental Axis in Brasilia, Brazil, is not an attraction because they decided not to charge to contemplate at Oscar Niemayer's buildings? --Mariordo (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I fully agree with the poster of the October 5th. Not only it's meaningless to consider a street or a square as the equivalent of any kind of building or natural sites, but more importantly the list only consider a selected amount of visited squares or streets, and not necessarily the most visited worldwide. Just a few examples : there are 12 million people visiting Notre-Dame in Paris, I'm very sceptic about the idea that the Champs-Elysées are less visited than this cathedral. We could say the same about Saint Peter's Square in Rome or La Rambla in Barcelona. Metropolitan (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Gambling Tourism

Gambling Tourism redirects here, but the article speaks nothing of it. Drakon09 (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


Hello. I think this webpage should be updated because I've found many links that confirm that Canada gets 35 million annual tourists every year. Thank you Have a great day —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Are these referring to international tourism or just domestic ones. The UNWTO publishes the official World Tourism rankings regarding tourist statistics.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It refers to International Tourism. I think it would be more accurate for all tourism data to be obtained by national governments rather than the United Nations. It would also be more accurate to just give 2008 or the latest year in which statistics have been obtained rather than the last two years. More professional that way. But that's me. It will also pave way to show tourism numbers from other countries. Thanks! Have a great day —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The definition of UNWTO is standardize and used by all countries, allowing comparisons. National stats includes tourists that are not considered such by UNWTO, as they sometimes included other kind of tourists. For example, Americans crossing the border in Niagara Falls and not staying overnight in Canada are not counted as international tourist by UNWTO. Neither are cruise passenger spending the day in Costa Rica or Bahamas. Mexico has millions of Americans crossing the border to Tijuana and not staying overnight. So, national statistics must be avoided as we are not sure if they are compatible with UNWTO.Mariordo (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, sorry to be annoying, but I read the entirety of the report mentioned in the sources, and nowhere is Lebanon mentioned as the top country for interntaional arrival. I am confused as to where exactly the numbers in that first table come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

About the cities and the attractions rankings

About the cities ranking, Euromonitor doesn’t seem very reliable. A lot of informations are curious. E.g.:

  • Hong Kong which had 8,1 M tourists in 2006, received 12M in 2007, ie an augmentation of 33% in one year... In addition, why Euromonitor indicates an augmentation of only 8.8 % ?
  • Some cities like Kiev doesn’t appear in the complete list (that is, less than 150,000 visitors). Curious, considering that Ukraine is the eighth country the most visited according to UNWTO (23M).
  • Strangely, among the 50 first cities, only Paris shows a huge fall, -10 % in one year! How such a fall could be credible as itself, and how could it be credible knowing that the Paris tourism office announced for that year a record of international frequenting?
  • Within a year, some cities make unexplained breakthroughs like Istanbul (3.99M to 6.45M) or Toronto (4.16M to 6.63M: -3.6% according to Euromonitor (!)) or even NYC (+23% !)

Euromonitor is a private institute, doesn’t explain its methodology, doesn’t say who ordered the study, shows spectacular and unexplained differences from a year to another and seems to show figures mathematically wrong in the growing column... I think this list needs clarifications, at least for the methodology. Otherwise I think it doesn’t have its place on this article. (And the sentence referring to the 30M international visitors of Paris seems disproportionate: the city of Paris itself (intra-muros) declares receiving only 17M foreign visitors by year.) About the attraction rankings, Forbes set up a list which is completely biased. How can they consider nodes of circulation ? How can they compare Time Square with the Taj Mahal ? They say that the National Mall is the second most visited place in the world (25M people / year). That seems strange in a city visited by "only" 1.2M foreign visitors each year (according to the precedent ranking). How to explain that Time Square or Trafalgar Square are represented but not Shibuya in Tokyo, Puerta del Sol in Madrid or the Wenceslas Square in Prague ? Forbes can’t pretend that the 35M people "visiting" Time Square each year are tourists. According to Le Figaro, The Champs-Elysées are crossed by 100M people each year, they are certainly not all tourists ! Even as a rough guide, I don’t think this list is reliable in that state. It gives some interpretations like the sentence we can read: « It is noticeable that 4 out of the top 5 are in the North America continent. » I’m not for the total removal of the list, but at least, we can agree on some places that can’t figure on it (and state this removal in the article). What's your opinion about that ? En-bateau (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the Euromonitor's list of the most visited cities is kind of speculative. Unfortunately, the UNWTO World Tourism rankings doesn't have most visited cities. I removed the Euromonitor's list before, but an editor informed that it is reliable source, and I agree that it seems to be a reasonably well-published source, and I have updated the 2007 statistics. But I agree that the list doesn't do well in terms of explaining its methodology.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 02:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply! I'd like Mariordo anwers to my argumentation. These lists are very suspicious (Euromonitor) or clearly biased (Forbes ranking). In that case, we can’t pretend they are reliable sources. It would be hypocritical. En-bateau (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
According to a Portuguese Tourism agency , Portugal received 11,8 million tourists in 2005, of which 40% visited Lisbon (approx. 4,3 million) this is by far a lot higher than the figures published by Euromonitor. In another wikipedia article entitled tourism in Portugal there is a claim that Lisbon receives 7 million tourists a year (with reference). This should be checked and standardised.

(reference for Tourism Agency : )-- (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, what is that Forbes ranking about? Times square? How on earth do you measure the number of visitors to a traffic junction? What about JFK, I'm sure that's quite a lot of "visitors" too. (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

  • I suggest the removal of the attraction list or its modification like I done (with only lucrative attractions).En-bateau (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
In regards to this revision: [2], the main problem is that it is original research, (see WP:NOR) and the word "lucrative" shouldn't be added either, since it's not used in Forbes' list. I do agree with removing the "It is noticeable..." comment, since it's also OR. (I'll do that now) So I would keep the Forbes list in the article for now, unless there is a better list out there that we're not yet aware of. I would like to see the whole Forbes' list included though, instead of just selected ones after the first ten. Remembering that it's a list of "visitor attractions", there are obviously a lot of theme parks represented on it, and for where or how they got their statistics, wouldn't that be addressed somewhere in their article? So if there is another published list out there of mosted visited places, etc., that is freely accessible, then could someone let us know, so we could decide if we should replace Forbes' list? Otherwise, it may be the only thing out there, right now, and the Tourism article should continue to have a section about the most visited attractions/places. Thanks --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The Forbes' list is getting old and there are a lot of revisions being made to it that are outside of the article's statistics. I vote for deleting it and replacing with Nat'l. Geographics' new list in the Oct. 2009 issue about best places to visit. I'll be glad to update the article. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Despite the reasonable doubts, I agree with Funandtrvl that any modification would be original research, and since Forbes is a reliable source, under Wiki policies the table should stay. Regarding Nat Geog, though a RS, this is a list of "recommended" places, and we must be careful to avoid any Wiki article presenting recommendations. Besides, other recommendations might appear from other RSs, so, are we going to include all recommendations. Considered this is a high traffic site, just imagine the edit wars that might arise. Anyway, either case is not encyclopedic content, so I am strongly against such substitution. -Mariordo (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding my opinion (as requested above) on Euromonitor ranking, clearly it is not such RS as Forbes, but let me do some research on the web before stating my opinion.-Mariordo (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Would you clarify if you think the Forbes' list should stay? After all, it is 2 years old already and there have been several edits recently to the table to randomly update the statistics to more current figures. Obviously, those have been reverted, since they're not from the original Forbes' article. The 2nd problem is that the reference for the Euromonitor table only seems to go to their main page and not to the article where the statistics were located. I have tried searching for a table/article to cite on their site, but there is fee (quite high) to access any information. I don't think the table from Euromonitor should be included in the article either, since we have no working online/free source available for it. In fact, the main article needs a lot of work in fixing all the unsourced information! --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)n
We could remove the Euromonitor listing and replace it with official sources (from municipalities for example). It's difficult to find for some cities. With few research on the Internet we can easily find these informations :
Hong Kong : 17.3M (Including mainland China visitors, 2007) ; Paris : 15.6M (intra-muros, 2006) ; London : 15.2M (2006) ; Singapore : 10.3M (2007) ; New York City : 8.76M (2007) ; Dubai : 6.9M (2007) ; Shangaï : 6.66M (2007) ; Seoul : 6.1M (2005) ; Dublin : 6M (2008) ; Amsterdam : 4.9M (2007) ; Vienna : 4.6M (2008) ; Barcelona : 3.5M (2002)...
The failing : the figures are from different periods (Barcelona figures : !) and different sources (the methodology can vary for each municipality). But at least, if the references are clearly indentified, I think it will be better than the Euromonitor list. About the Forbes' list I think it would be removed. Not because it's old but because, despite its RS status, the methodology seems to me completely illogical. Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I second removing the Forbes list, and I agree the Euromonitor table should be removed and instead, a table should be made for total # of visitors, relying on official CVB statistics, as long as each entry has citations. It seems like the most fair way to present the info. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
2006 and 2007 datas from Euromonitor are mixed. The statistics for Bangkok, Istanbul, Rome, Barcelona, Seoul, Kuala Lumpur are from the 2008 study (2007 datas) which is not available anymore on the Euromonitor website. Is there any chance to recover 2007 datas for Madrid, Mecca and Prague ? En-bateau (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Currently working on retrieving 2008 data from official CVB sites. --Funandtrvl (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Some of the data is for 2006 from Euromonitor, therefore it was not right to reverse the url for all. Please restore to right source until new data is edited. Also the ref fro Euromonitor 2007 data is not a real ref, it goes nowhere. These mistakes should be corrected.-Mariordo (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I know the 2006 Euromonitor data works, but after Madrid's data has been updated, none of the information in this chart is from Euromonitor's 2006 source, and none of information matches with the Euromonitor 2006 source.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I reformatted the most visited cities chart to "top ten", as the chart shouldn't be too long and the other three charts above have always been a top ten list, thus creating a consistency.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

top international tourism destinations - FOR 2008

Why isnt there an update for world tourist arrivals and receipts for the year 2008?

I need the statistics and rankings —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless you are a member of WTO or purchase one of their reports, there is no way to access the statistics for free, until they are posted for public viewing, which is usually after they are about a year old. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The publicly available list is usually available until January, so indeed we will have to wait for the update.-Mariordo (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Updated! The UNWTO Tourism Highlights 2009 Edition presented the data we were waiting for, but please note that for the time being there is not a direct link to the pdf. Please contribute updating the texts accompanying the tables, particularly regarding the effects of the 2008 crisis.-Mariordo (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about travelling? Can you tell your impressions of countries, cities you visited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

HI, I THINK TOURISM IS MORE THAN TRAVEL AROUND THE WORLD , IS TOO , TO BE INVOLVED INTO THE CULTURE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

World Representation

I added Lalibela and Timbuktu to the images just to show the full range of world destinations. These are by no means second-rate destinations in comparison to any of the sites they are with. (actually, they are probably more impressive than many of them) I also added an image for "dark tourism" and finished off image list. Puchiwonga (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

New pictures in gallery

I have recently added some great pictures into gallery in this article, i wish it can explain and describe some great places in the world, although they are only pictures

the pictures i have added are :

File:Santa Cruz de Tenerife (1).jpg, File:Puncak - Bogor - West Java.jpg, File:Uluru sunset1141.jpg, File:Ha long bay.jpg, File:160 Amazing Patagonia.jpg, File:All Gizah Pyramids.jpg.

......good day, thanks--Sweetmistery (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added links to the photo files above and have removed the gallery from this talk page, since it was duplicating what is already on the main page, and because of the WP:NOTREPOSITORY policy. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
yup, may be it was too much pictures in the gallery in this article, thank you for having fixed it,--Sweetmistery (talk) 05:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem, I'm still working on moving some more pics over to their respective "Tourism in ..." articles, which amazingly, some do not have any pictures in their articles! --Funandtrvl (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Too many photos

I have tagged this article with the cleanup template: {{too many photos}}, because photos keep getting added to the article. Because there are over 200 sovereign countries, this article cannot display photos from every single country, nor even more than a smattering of them. In fact, Category:Tourism by country has over 224 sub-categories and Category:Tourism by city has over 51 sub-categories. It is time to develop the articles on each country and important city, and move the photos from this main article to those articles, because many of those country-specific articles, such as Tourism in Germany, are still rated as stubs and need expansion. Any suggestions to which photos should stay and which should be moved? --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Fully supportive of this post - 80% of the photos should be removed - as a minimum. Photos should not be of landmarks. Possibly one or two could show landmarks AND tourism. They should certainly be specifically linked to article prose. --Merbabu (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
PS – I removed the gallery photos (because that was easy!). The plethora of images down the side of the page should also be largely removed. They have nothing to do with the article text. The article discusses Tourism. Its title is not “List of Tourist Icons around the World”. --Merbabu (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for all your help and support. It's an improvement already! --Funandtrvl (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Good job, it was about time to clean up the clutter, the article was looking like a vacation photo album. Let's keep it clean, though eventually we might decide in some objective criteria for pictures to be added (I have already tried unsuccessfully in the past).-Mariordo (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Definition, what does it mean

What does "for leisure, business and other purposes not related to the exercise of an activity remunerated from within the place visited" exactly mean, can you clarify it. English is not my main language. Kasaalan (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't it mean that if you are earning money (working) in the foreign place that you are supposedly visiting, then you're not considered a tourist, but rather an employee or some type of worker? --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
This is to distinguish workers from others such as visitors to a business conference or travelling salesmen. A travelling salesman is a tourist. He is remunerated/paid by an employer in his/her home country. A grape-picker is not a tourist as he/she is remunerated/paid locally. Kwenchin (talk) 09:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Euromonitor list

I thought that we agreed that Euromonitor is not a reliable source (despite their few words about their "new" methodology). Most of the figures aren’t surprising, but still, in the (only?) case of Paris, they counted only the hostel rooms. We just have to roughly compare this study with the UNTWO study: Bangkok is visited by 70% of Thaïland visitors: that’s understandable. London is visited by 50% of UK visitors: that’s understandable too. But, according to Euromonitor, Paris is visited by only 10% of France visitors... Lyon, Normandy, and French Riviera must be very, very crowded. Well, the source of Euromonitor is none other the Office du Tourisme et des Congrès (what a sought "new" methodology… - page 18, ; Hostel rooms for Foreign visitors : 8.375 ; Total : 15.04). On the same document (!), page 3, we can see that the (real) total number of visitors is estimated at 28 million. If we extrapolate, the (real) number of foreign visitors is around 15.6 M, or, at least, between 14 and 17 M., without mentioning Grand Paris leisure or business attractions like Disneyland, Versailles, La Défense, universities, or simply the numerous cheaper hostels around the city limits. The entire Ile-de-France region counts 45M tourists of which 60% are foreign visitors (around 27M). These figures are more coherent with the 80M France foreign visitors of the UNTWO study. Euromonitor is either not rigorous or not totally impartial. This study is widely spread on the Internet and we still don’t know who is ordering it each year. But, since Euromonitor figures come from (selected) official figures, let simply the (appropriate) official figures on this article, which are maybe imperfect but at least original, verifiable and closer to the reality. En-bateau (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me, it's probably better to quote the individual CVBs anyways. Just a side note, I did contact the French CVB with the specific question of how many "foreign visitors" were there to Paris, and of course, they referred me to their publication that lists 28 million and doesn't break it down. Oh well, I tried, but I still think we need to quote "official" numbers instead of estimations, and I really don't know what to do about the French. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I think there's simply no precise official number for Paris. Considering that, an estimation extrapolated from partial numbers is the best way to be closer to the reality. Another solution : give an interval (15-17M for Paris). We can keep the Euromonitor figures when there is absolutely no information, but frankly, on closer examination, when you see Kuala Lumpur visitors duplicate from a year to another or Antalya as visited as Paris... I update the list but I wonder if it's not better to remove completely this source. En-bateau (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the Euromonitor's statisics are a bit speculative. One observation is that the company is based in London, and for the past rankings, London was always ranked number 1. If we are using the Euromonitor source, shouldn't London be ranked number 1 on this article as well?--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Euromonitor comes up with some odd numbers. I think if we can find a source from a respective CVB that concurs with the Euromonitor numbers, then use it, but for London, Euromonitor comes up with 15,033.2, and the official CVB stats list 14.8, so we erred on the side of caution. --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I contacted Euromonitor and had a very precise answer. Indeed, for some cities they consider only hotel arrivals. Actually, there is two main methodologies : CVBs can count all the tourists in the city or they can count only hotel arrivals with partial but very precise data (which allows economic studies monthly and precisely). Euromonitor bases its study on precise statistics. Consequently, the study is faithful to the official data but compares different statistics from different methodologies. For a better clarity, they will mention it on the next edition of the study. En-bateau (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that explains a few things! Thanks for the follow-up! --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Lists of attractions?

I find it somewhat disconcerting that List of tourist attractions worldwide was removed from the article, especially since it wasn't in Tourist attraction until I just put it there and THAT article is only mentioned or linked to in the fine print in the infobox at the bottom of this article. The article doesn't even have "Visitor attractions" or "Tourist activities" as cats, or a way to find a list of the "Tourism in..." articles. I wouldn't expect the casual reader to be able to get from this article to any of the articles containing attractions. Simesa (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I take part of that back - Tourism in present-day nations and states is in See Also. Simesa (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
The section on Attractions in Tourism in the United States was abominable, so I Seealso'd List of tourist attractions in the United States. I've only checked a couple of the other "Tourisms in..." so far. Simesa (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
The Tourism article is the main article for the parent "Tourism" category, and the Visitor attractions and Tourist activities cats are sub-cats of the parent cat Tourism. That's why the Tourism article is in the top-level cats only. In order to keep this article from getting bloated or repeating things that are already in the sub- or descendent articles, this article is in more of an outline format. It's the sub or descendant articles that need to be developed for those specific topics like Tourist attractions, and this article needs to be developed for the specific types of Tourism, don't you think? --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Tourism as human right

The quote contributed to Antonio Tajani is highly contested, and thus requires both sides to be given equal weight for NPOV to be upheld. --BP OMowe 23rd of June, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC) -- (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It is much more than contested. It is an internet meme generated by a misleading headline, see this post, "Governments and Wikipedia" on a public relations blog. I have substantially revised the sections on tourism as a right on this article and on Antonio Tajani to emphasize the misleading headline. It seems to me the problem is that the article in the Sunday Times was not treated as the unreliable source it was revealed to be when the text of the Commissioner's speech was made available to us. Fred Talk 02:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Bangkok statistics

The new figures visibly refer to the airport arrivals (9.67) but the same source give specifically the Bangkok figures (which seems include the different types of accomodation). Thanks to Thepowermancity1022 for this source, we looked for it for a long time. En-bateau (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ensuring STD through CSR: Idealism versus Realism

Md. Abdul Hamid

As climate change gains global attention from events like the summit in Copenhagen held during December of 2009, the need for sustainable tourism is more important than ever (Deale and Barber, 2010). But the query simply arises who will proceed as the role player to make sure sustainable tourism development (STD)? The thinking is till now in infant level so an inclination of ‘pillow-passing’ among its stakeholders is noticed. Corporate bodies have come forward as ‘self-declared’ accountable faction in this endeavor. Now the concern arises, is it myth or really possible to ensure STD through performing corporate social responsibility (CSR)?

In other industries, more or less, CSR has been recognized as a part of business policy. For an unknown reason, in tourism industry, this is not so apparent yet. Fragmented ventures of societal responsibility is observed, the reason might be…tourism is neither a phenomenon nor a simple set of industries. It is a human activity, which encompasses human behavior, use of resources, and interaction with other people, economics, and environments (Eraqi, 2010). The good thing is that the awareness in this issue is increasing among its stakeholders.

It is universal that the motive of business venture is to earn profit. Besides, it’s true that the actions of business impact the local, national, and global community, so businesses have a responsibility to ensure that the impact is positive (Becken, 2007). For this, this is highly desired that the companies will act in such way so that the natural resources can be used generation after generations. In other words, value cration represents for a firm a basilar survivor factor on the long run, contributing to social needs and benefits (Formisano, 2002).

Though most of the business organizations confess about their responsibility toward society, the basic question is: do the managers perceive CSR in the same way? A study on 1000 managers in eight large international firms concluded that the managerial perceptions of societal responsibilities differ in some respects from the mainstream models found in the CSR and business ethics literature (Pedersen, 2010). If they ‘point their guns’ in different targets, how will it be possible to achieve unique goal from this venture?

On the other hand, while the notion of CSR is increasingly evident in the corporate world, among many civil-society advocates and in public policies it is ambiguous and contested on various grounds (Carroll, 1999), just like the concept of ‘sustainable development’ is contested and disputed. Many different approaches have been identified (Redclift, 1997; Hopwood et al., 2005; Redclift, 2005) and the contribution of CSR to sustainable development can be questioned (Moon, 2007).

Conflict between shareholders and management, on CSR issue, is not new at all. From the very beginning, it is being tough to make the shareholders understand that through CSR practices they will earn benefit in the long run. As most investors expect revenue in the short term, it creates problem in the board meetings! Some educators and researchers also ‘add fuel in this flame’. For example, Friedman argues (1970) that the only responsibility of the managers is to increase shareholder value. As only businessmen have given them money to do business so the executives should ensure desired return for them.

The craze (or appeal) of CSR is being deemed gradually also. Many studies have shown that the corporate decision makers calculate their ‘interest’ at first before launching any social welfare program. And so, aware publics are considering so called CSR as nothing but a ‘strategic weapon’ of gaining marketing goals. On the other side, in a report The Economist strongly criticized “acting ‘good’ and advertising it may elicit charges of hypocrisy, leading other companies to decide that CSR might be more trouble than it’s worth”. The logic behind this dispute is once this social responsibility might be a matter of ‘showcase’ and unfair means can be adopted to gain name and fame by the companies.

Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (1993) mention that the sustainable tourism is an economic development model conceived to improve the quality of life for the local community, and to facilitate for the visitor a high-quality experience of the environment, which both the host community as the visitors depends. Moreover the pursuit of sustainability is never-ending. Environmental conditions and patterns of resource use are dynamic and interact in complex ways (Lebel, 2010).

In this process the main parties are companies and customers. The corporations are speaking for ‘social responsibility’ but what about customers? The findings do not show very positive somewhat. Evidence in the UK shows that less than 1% of all outgoing holidays booked in the UK give any real priority to the environment (Mintel, 2005). Boon, Flucker, and Wilson (2008) test the effect of a 10 year program of awareness reising to promote ecological sustainable tourism in south east Australia and conclude that the program had almost no effect over the period. In response, different education programs are proposed.

Finally it can be said, only orporate bodies will not be able to take the charge. Even if they try, it will not bring so mentionable output. And very simply, they will not attempt to make annoyed their king (Consumer is the king: Paul Mazur). So, the hope of achieving STD through CSR is very far from the reality. We have to change ourselves to ensure sustainability of nature as well as tourism industry. At last it can be quoted - The behavior change literature underlines the necessity of examining tourism and people’s willingness to adapt to more sustainable lifestyles (Miller, 2010).

References: Barnea, A. and Rubin, A., (2010) ‘Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders’ Journal of Business Ethics, Springer 2010. Becken, S. (2007) ‘Tourists’ perception of international air travel’s impact on global climate and potential climate change policies’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15 (4), 358-368) Boon, P., Fluker, M., and Wilson, N. (2008). A ten-year study of the effectiveness of an educative programme in ensuring the ecological sustainability of recreational activities in the Brisbane Ranges National Park, South-Eastern Australia. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Vol 16 (6), 681-697. Brammer, S. and Millington, A. (2005) ‘Corporate reputation and philanthropy: An empirical analysis’, Journal of Business Ethics, 61, 29-44. Bramwell, B. and Lane, B. (1993) ‘Sustainable tourism: An evolving global approach’ Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1, 1-5 Carroll, A.B. (1999) ‘Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct’, Business and Society, 38 (3), 268-295. Cheung, D.K.K., Welford, R.J. and Hills, P.R., (2009) ‘CSR and the environment: Business supply chain partnerships in Hong Kong and PRDR, China, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16, 250-263. Deale, C.S. and Barber, N. (2010), ‘Sustainability: What matters to students, educators, and hospitality and tourism professionals’; BEST EN Think Tank X paper. Dobers, P. and Halme, M. (2009) ‘Corporate social responsibility and developing countries (editorial)’, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16, 237-249. Dorbes, P. (2009) ‘Corporate social responsibility: management and methods’ Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16, 185-191. Eraqi, M., I. (2010), Social responsibility as an innovative approach for enhancing competitiveness of tourism business sector in Egypt. Tourism Analysis, 15 (1), 45-55 Fougere, M. and Solitander, N. (2009) ‘Against corporate responsibility: Critical reflections on thinking, practice, content and consequences, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16, 217-227. Friedman, M. (1970) ‘The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits’, New York Times Magazine, 13 September, New York. Hopwood, B., Moller, M. and O’Brien G. (2005) “International codes of conduct and corporate social responsibility: Can transnational corporations regulate themselves?’, Transnational Corporations, 8 (1), 143-180. Lebel. L., et al. (eds), ‘Sustainable production consumption systems: Knowledge, Engagement and Practice’, Springer Science + Business Media B. V. 2010, 1-12. Miller, G., et al, (2010) ‘Public understanding of sustainable tourism’, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 37 (3), 627-645 Mintel (2005). Ethical holidays. London: Mintel-Leisure Intelligence. Pedersen, E.R. (2010) ’Modeling CSR: How managers understand the responsibilities of business towards society’, Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 155-166. Redclift, M. (2005), ‘Sustainable development (1987-2005): An oxymoron comes of age’, Sustainable Development, 13, 212-227. Redclift, M., (1997), ‘Postscript: Sustainable development in the twenty-first century: The beginning of history’, Policies of Sustainable Development: Theory, policy and practice within the European Union, Baker, S., Kousis, M., Richardson D. and Young S. (eds), Routledge: London; 259-268. Schwartz, B. and Tilling, K. (2009) ‘ISO-lating’ corporate social responsibility in the organizational context: A dissenting interpretation of ISO 26000’, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 16, 289-299. Md. Abdul Hamid: Assistant Professor, Dept. of Business Administration, Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Bangladesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Tanzania Winter tourism???

Who the hell put Tanzania on the list of ski holiday destinations??? Funny, but there might be readers who believe it! There are nice ski resorts in Iran and even one Ski slope in Dubai (of all the places!) but surely NONE in Tanzania or Kenya; (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Just do a google search, I found over 6 ski resorts on Mt. Kili. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is 2010's tourism datas?

There is not enough 2010 datas. Please add this tourism datas. Thank you. From Turkey —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Top visited cities in the world....

I had found a reliable source, that is "Euromonitor" which releases the figures of top cities with most number of international visitors all around the world every year. Here is the link of the figures for the year 2009: Euromonitor International’s top city destinations ranking 2009.

We should add the figures according to this source, so that we will be able to get the latest figures from ONE precise and reliable source for all the cities and we will overcome the dispute, whether which city hosted the top number of visitors. Because at present the raking is not according to one source even not for one year, like some figures are of 2010 and other are for 2009. It might be the case that some figures are not accurate and some are accurate. What do you say ???

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see #About the cities and the attractions rankings above. Euromonitor is not a reliable source, because we have found that their numbers don't always match what the Official Tourism Boards & Ministries put out. Unless you can find the figure on an official gov't website, then it needs to be reverted. --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but have any body find the figures of Dubai for the year 2010 ??? and of London for the same year.

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

London is always a little late, so is Dubai. I'll see if the info's out yet. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Nabil rais2008. The only reliables sources are the official sources, and we quote only these in that ranking. For Dubaï, I don't know why, but the 2009 statistics have been deleted from the Tourism Office site, but I checked them by myself few weeks ago. If it is a problem for someone to keep the actual figure, we could quote the 2008 statistics and wait for an update. In addition I will soon update the Singapore stats which include sameday visitors. Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that tourist boards can be reliable sources for tourists to their own countries, they will tend to inflate their own numbers. Also this article does not agree with London which according to that page London is the most visited city in the world. Whatever the decision here these articles should at least agree. QuentinUK (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This link [3] says Dubai hosted 8.3 million guests in 2010. What about this link ? should we update the figures, these figures are released by "Dubai Tourism and Commerce Marketing"

Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

About the Singapore stats modification, even if the number of tourists counted for lenght of stay is not exactly the same (11.1/11.6), we have to count only overnight visitors : 11.124 – 2.480 = 8.64. But to compensate for difference (11.1/11.6) we could extrapolate : 9.03. / I think your notes are usefull. En-bateau (talk) 07:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

My estimation seems right : the UNWTO study for 2010 gives 9.16M visitors. Let's take this source. En-bateau (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Should Turkey be considered a part of Asia rather than of Europe?

The amount of Turkish territory in Europe is ridiculously small as to be considered part of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

We follow the source (WTO) which categorises Turkey in Europe. Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

International tourism expenditures

To give expenditures per capita, that's not a "detail" but the main purpose of this table, just like GDPs in economy. The principle of "per capita" is exactly to divide the total expenditure by the total population, I don't why it is a problem. The total expenditures have no sense if you don't foreground the fact that, it absolutly not reflects the reality of tourism economy in each country. For example, Americans, who are on the top of the table, spend four time less than Australians, who are far behind. That's the main purpose of these statistics. The numbers are proposed on dollars (not in local currencies), even with the parity problem, I think it's quite useful.En-bateau (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


In 'International tourism receipts' some one put on the graph that Hong Kong was in Europe,it's corrected now. Just a post to let you be aware of people with a very,very small understanding of geography might be editing this so keep an eye out for misinformation. ( (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC))

ranking data seems wrong

For Turkey: Antalya is not on the top visited list, but istanbul is there. And there are several sources state that Antalya attracts much more tourists than Istanbul. i.e in this source Antalya ranked 4th while istanbul 9th. Yakamoz51 (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Cities statistics

This article is basing only on official sources, otherwise this kind of statistics are destinated to be always altered by users. We avoid subjectivity and partial datas. In that case, the MasterCard study is based on very partial datas : aerial flows. To compare island cities (mainly accessible by plane) to continental cities (largely served by roads and railroads) is shaky. Moreover this methodology gives some distortions like Yakamoz51 said : Antalya tourists (chiefly Germans) land mainly at Istanbul airport to go then in Antalya, but counted as Istanbul tourists. Official datas based on hotels statistics are much more reliable. Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I just corrected Paris, because, as detailed in pp 18 of the provided source, the total of 15,183,859 is made of 8,119,317 international visitors and 7,064,542 French visitors. By the way, for 2009 the total of foreign visitors was 7,879,868, pretty close to what Euromonitor reported (it is not such a unreliable source afterall). And, I would like to add that statistics are tricky, so it is better to have all data from the same source. Pasting together data, as the city table is now, not only is very close to original research, but there is no guarantee the different sources are measuring/counting tourist as defined by the UNWTO. I believe a single source for the entire city table is more reliable.--Mariordo (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this subject has been already treated above. The main goal of numerous tourist offices is not to count annually a precise number of foreign tourists but to consider each month and very precisely percentage of increase or decrease of the tourist economy : that's why the page 18 provides ONLY hotels rooms. Like you said, it represents in all 15,2 million tourists. Now, if you look on page 3, "FOR ALL ACCOMMODATION TYPES, the total number of visitors to Paris intra-muros is estimated at 28.2 million". The figure in the table is an extrapolation : foreign tourists represent 53.47% of the arrivals in hotels → foreign visitors represent about 15.1 million of the 28.2 million total. Of course, the calculation is a bit speculative, and in fact, it is a little bit underestimate : few years ago, for 27 million tourists, there was approximately 17 million foreign tourists ( Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I really believe here we are at the borderline of original research, the count in page 18 is consistent with WTO definition of an international tourist (see the glossary at the beginning of the French document). Furthermore, as I already said good statistics practice is too have all info from the same source as to guarantee data for all cities is measured in the same (same definition of international visitor). So far, Euromonitor is the only source with such characteristics, and there is no objective reason for not considering it a reliable source. Otherwise, I rather would remove the table that having cherry picked data from several editors from different sources.--01:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Of course the count in page 18 is consistent with WTO definition, that's just a partial figure. The 28.2 million tourists (they translate in English into "visitors") is also consistent with WTO definition and is the full real figure. I agree that the extrapolation may be not perfect but is at least close to the reality, though a little bit underestimated. If you compare with London, it's quite coherent : Paris has 15.1 million foreign tourists on 28.2 in all. London has 14.6 million foreign visitors on a total of 26.2 million.
Euromonitor visibly took, like you, only hotels stats to make their calculations. I wrote to the author of the study who answered me that they are considering the problem, we should have a full response shortly. In any case, if you see the methodology, the main statistics of the study are directly sourced from official CVBs, i.e. our own sources. The CVBs use generally the same methodology (an estimation from accommodation data). We just have to be vigilant and check if they include same-day visitors (which are not tourists) : that's generally the case of American cities or Singapour for example. We never will find an absolutely perfect list, cause all the statistics are captive of the CVBs, which could - why not ? - push their figures up. But they are nonetheless the base of work of all potential external lists including Euromonitor (if we except other very approximative lists from other specific data, like air trafic). That's why it's better to source these : directly verifiable and no unexplained adjustments.
Now, if in the future, Euromonitor gives more precised details about the methodological adjustments (the slight differences (or big in the case of Paris) between their and official statistics), we could use it as a reliable source, it would be even easier for us. But that may would raise another problem : Euromonitor study has almost a year late compared with official statistics.
Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

International stats

En-bateu, I would like to know why you trimmed the international stat tables, which for a long time had at least data for the latest three years (check the article history since 2008). Is it OK with you if I restore at least 2009 and 2010.--Mariordo (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In fact I thought it was more relevant and cleaner to conserve only a column with the percentage of increase or decrease from the precedent year, but unfortunately, a user prefered to remove it (this is the subject of another topic above about International tourism expenditures). I prefer this system of growing column, I think that's more clear and relevant for users, but if you want to preserve the complete data for the latest three years, it's also OK for me. Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I can restore the previous years and format it in such a way to keep the percentage change. Once I am finished with the update in the Spanish and Portuguese articles, I will indeed restore the stats. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Very important definition of tourism on the world

Very important definition:

In 2001 Mr. David Martin Rendón of the Private University of Tacna - Peru, tourism is defined to science "The turismología" as: "Social Science of fact, given by an orderly process that includes different actions motivation, movement and use of space tourism, the plant that supports it, its structure and super structure of the homos turísticus ".

Yours comments pls? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turismologotcq (talkcontribs) 23:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Calling it a "very important definition" will necessitate a reliable source. After it is shown to be a notable definition, someone will have to write it in English of an encyclopedic style. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Just plain Bill, I didn't find any reference of this definition except from a blog. Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree also, I only found the statement in a personal blog, which is not a RS. Because the paragraph is poorly translated, I'm removing it. The UNWTO definition would be the standard. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


Saudi Arabia has been visited by 10.85 million international tourists in 2010 ( : Mecca can't receive 13 million international tourists per year. Your source certainly added domestic tourists. Moreover, we quote only official sources here, not magazines. If you read arab, you may find some information on the official site of the city : Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Got qualifications in travel and tourism

can I edit this and improve it thanks Aylish (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Logical mistake (1 tourist = $1,000?)

There is a logical mistake in this sentence in the second paragraph:

"In 2011, there were over 983 million international tourist arrivals worldwide, representing a growth of 4.6% when compared to US$ 940 billion in 2010."

The number 983 is 4.6% larger than 940. But they're comparing different units. 983 million tourists vs 940 billion dollars. So 1 international tourist equals $1,000?

We could reword that as:

"In 2011, there were over 983,000 thousand international tourist arrivals worldwide, representing a growth of 4.6% when compared to US$ 940 billion in 2010." as say that it has experienced 104574.5% growth. Somebody just manipulating the units to make up that 4.6% number. -- (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The source states a 4.6% growth; but the supporting data for that growth got mangled somewhere along the line. I don't have time to fix it now, but should later today. It's just a matter of using the attached refs to correct the statements. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


Turkey reach in 2011 31.5m visitors. source: (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Most visited cities list

I don't see how it could conceivably be correct that Antalya gets more international visitors than New York. Is this a result of compiling together statistics from different sources that are using different definitions? Beyond that, I also think it's problematic to conflate "international visitors" and "tourists." Overall, I find this list to be wildly unbelievable, and probably a work of original synthesis, which should be removed as original research. john k (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

All the sources are official, there's no original research although a simple indicative table should be more adapted : there's no reason to make a ranking since, actually, methodologies can vary between the cities (but not that much when we know the census base for each city). There's no way to have a more reliable information, these statistics are moreover the base of most of the surveys in that area.
I agree that the figure of Antalya is quite astonishing, but it could be rationalized knowing that Turkey receives 30 million tourists each year and that Antalya is the most visited city of the country ( But we actually have a problem with three cities in terms of transparency : Antalya, Istanbul (same source) and New York : they're all official but don't provide detailed statistics about their visitors or their methodology.
There's another study made by Mastercard ( based on aerial trafic projections which offers other estimations but, like the authors concede themselves, brings distorsions and have important flaws. Notably it doesn't consider road, rail and ship transport which is problematic when we know that most of the foreign tourists comes from a close country and that each city has very different accessibility characteristics. However mention it in another table with an indicative note may not be uninteresting and couuld bring another angle of view ?...
Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, En-bateau, thanks for the response. I think that this does qualify as original research, in the particular form of "original synthesis." Basically, that means we are combining different sources to create new material which doesn't exist in the sources. The original sources give tourist statistics, but because they use different methodologies (and probably because we don't have actual statistics for many cities) giving out a list of the "top 10 cities," or whatever, is creating new information not really present in the original sources. If we want a list of the most visited tourist cities, I think we need a reliable source that actually makes such a list, not our own combination of previously existing data. john k (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I don't agree, it is not original research. Each statistic is sourced right from the official tourist boards, there's no other "deduction" involved. It's the same as listing population numbers in one of the census tables, some figures would be from the 2010 census (if we're talking about the US, for example) and some figures would be from special censuses (for example, 2011) that the cities took up due to extra population growth between censuses. --17:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Yes, the Antalya, Turkey figures are correct, apparently they have a ton of tourists from Russia, etc. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

medical tourism

Medical tourism is not a part of the tourism. In fact even the name of medical tourism is quite disputable. It is merely the globalization of healthcare partly due to the destruction of the national health care sectors in developed countries. I suggest it to be removed from tourism section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khadkhall (talkcontribs) 15:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Most visited cities by international tourist arrivals

The table of most visited cities by international arrivals needs to be homogenised as soon as possible. It is meaningless in its current form. For instance, how can you compare the figure of 9.2 million visitors to Singapore in 2010 (a figure which excludes Malaysian citizens arriving by land) to the figure of 8.1 million visitors to Dubai in 2011 (which only includes hotel guests). The figures should come from a single source (UNWTO ideally) and be across the same year. I suggest using 2010 as the base year as that is the latest available data from UNWTO. Euromonitor International also has data for 2010 here: but I can't vouch for their methodology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarplum11 (talkcontribs) 02:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you concerning the problem. Nevertheless, there's no other reliable data, no study made by UNWTO and Euromonitor uses the same official references without even mention the differences in the methodologies : that's why we have an observation column, to put each statistics into perspective. About the year, there's a difference of one year for only one city, I don't think it's a major problem. Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the most visited cities chart because of the inconsistent data. Due to the various issues raised in the talk page, the ranking needs to go. Unlike the UNWTO World Tourism rankings, where there is one consistent barometer; there are quite a few different rankings on this subject, but the results are too varied. The information from different countries' own bureau are often incomplete, thus are seldom updated, i.e. the data from a year ago are not updated due to lack of accessible material. We can't really compose a ranking with data from different years in the same chart; they are not compatible.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Türkiye or Turkey

Hey turkey shows in europe country but Turkey is euro asia country that is euroasian. why do u show like this? only europe? Turkey have two contenents. plz. do euraasian country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


I think the chapter "etymology" of this article is nearly entirely false : the origin of the word "tour" does not come from aramaic "tur", and I've never heard of a French aristocratic family called "della Tour" (this name is, by the way, a mixture between Italian "della" and French "tour" ; in French, it would have been "de la Tour"). The references given may also be false.-- (talk) 12:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

History: Begin of cruise shipping

In 1891, German businessman Albert Ballin started from Hamburg with first cruise ship Augusta Victoria in Mediterrean Sea. (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Tourism does not include "business tourism"

Shouldn't the definition of topics included at Category:Tourism be expanded to include the concept of business tourism? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Student Critique of this Wikipedia Page

Hello everyone!

My name is Tori Roper, and I am an Indiana University student. As part of the course work for class focusing on 'Living in the Information Age', we all selected a Wikipedia article to analyze. My partner and I chose this article on tourism.

Overall, we were very impressed about the quality of this Wikipedia article. It fulfills all of the goals of an online encyclopedia article; it provides a succinct overview of tourism as a term and then continues to provide a wealth of background information and references related to the topic while following Wikipedia's guidelines. The material seems to be bias-free because the term is presented from a very neutral perspective, and the structure makes the article very easy to read. This article is suitable for readers of many different levels of expertise. Whether it be a young student or a tourism professional, this article has educationally beneficial information for everyone.

Throughout our evaluation, we noticed the long history of the article's editing process. After over a decade of hard work, it is easy to understand why the article has progressed so far since the original first draft which was posted November 14, 2001 :) We offer many congratulations and kudos to all of the editors who have helped bring the article to its current state.

As far as suggestions, it is difficult to offer too many changes or improvements considering the impressive caliber of this article. The only constructive criticism we can offer would be to maybe discuss/mention some of the most popular global tourist attractions. For example, in your article, you tell us that the World Tourism Organization has declared France as the top country for attracting international travelers; therefore, it maybe it would be nice to include a small section about the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre, or any of the other attractions that stimulate tourism in their country. Also, incorporating more pictures throughout the article might cause readers to pay attention to the entire article instead of stopping after the initial summary.

Once again, many congratulations on the article, best of luck with future edits!

Tori Roper Toriroper (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Tourism and Tourist First Used Dates

I am curious why you tell us the years that tourist and tourism are first used, but you don’t tell us who used the words and in what context? You do give information in the credits section, but I think it would add value to the article if you gave more detail at this point. You credit the Online Etymology Dictionary for the 1811 usage of tourism, but you don’t credit the same source for tourist, which gives a date of 1780. Why wouldn’t you use the same source if it is available for both words? You do reference Ralph Griffiths and his book Pennants Tour in Scotland in 1869, but that is in references, not in the article itself. I think the context of these usages would add to the article. Mainerinexile83 (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


Dear Dmol, in my opinion chapter Controversies deserves place in the article [4]. An article without critics is non-neutral, is it not? I think it is common in WP to collect critics under the subtitle Controversies. I excuse the language errors. Do you accept text return with language correction? You do agree with the fact, don’t you, that: Tourism is a significant contributor to the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. This concerns us everybody. Watti Renew (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is not that the article is not neutral, but that adding the section you had was what we refer to as WP:UNDUE. Too much emphasis on a relatively minor subject.
Tourism can mean anything from a night at a local beach to a round the world cruise on the Queen Mary. It is too broad a subject to have section on greenhouse gases, which could perhaps be correctly put in to the articles on airlines and cruise ships. (With neutral tone, of course).
Actually, now that you asked, I do not agree with the statement that "Tourism is a significant contributor to the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere", but whether I do or not is irrelevant.--Dmol (talk) 03:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Rankings of cities

I have removed the rankings of cities by MasterCard. Unlike the World Tourism rankings by the World Tourism Organization, where there is only one well-known barometer, there are quite a few different rankings on cities, and results are all varied and contradictory, such as the MasterCard and the Euromonitor International rankings. The subjectivity and credibility of these cities rankings have been discussed in the past by other contributors, see Talk:Tourism/Archive_1#Most_visited_cities_list and Talk:Tourism/Archive_1#Cities_statistics. I have also removed these charts previously.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

That discussion was about listing them by data from all sorts of different countries' stat agencies, which obviously use different methodologies in their count, substantially denting their credibility. However, MasterCard only uses one methodologies for all countries - By Wikipedia policies, this is more than reliable and you simply cannot remove a source simply because you think it is not "credible". Please do not introduce your judgement on whether they're credible or not. Since you have removed it without consensus, I'm reverting it to the stable version as per Wikipedia policies. Thanks. YJAX (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Economics of tourism

Given the startling figures for how much is spent globally on tourism each year I think we should see if we can add a section on Economics of tourism. RJFJR (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


"Cruising is a niche form of tourism, a feature of which is that it typically touches more than one country but it typically does not touch any country."

What does this even mean? (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This section has been edited out in the main page but the new section "Cruise Shipping" is worse. Travelling for leisure on a cruise ship is not known as shipping. The section discusses the origins of P&O but does not report on the history of the industry and what it has become today. The reference of the Augusta Victoria seems rather random and the picture entitled "Prinzessin Victoria Luise, the first cruise ship of the world, launched in June 1900" makes no sense if P&O commenced in 1844, and what does "of the world" mean? (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Missing definition for a certain pejorative use

I'm missing a certain meaning of the term tourism from here and other online dictionaries as well. It is the meaning when tourism is preceded by a word such as in benefit tourism, catastrophe tourism etc. The definition is something like: Traveling to a place for the purpose of abusing something happening or offered at the destination.

Well, as you can see it's not a perfect definition but you know what I mean and it's definitely a widespread, existing use of the term (especially in journalism and such) so it may be worthwhile to incorporate it somehow in the article.


Stevie — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The section entitled "Adjectival Tourism" covers quite a lot of alternates to the original use of tourism (simply going on holiday), although the description "adjectival" tourism is a bit literal and perhaps "speciality" or "niche" (rather over-used in the page already) might be more suited. Other expressions such as "benefit tourism" use the word but are not implying they are actual forms of tourism, similar to the fashion police not being actual police. (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Tourism confused with travel?

" travel for recreational, leisure, family or business purposes" -- "Recreational" and "leisure" I can see; but "family" or "business"? A traveler on a family visit or a business trip may or may not engage in tourism. This definition seems not to leave any possibility for non-touristic travel. (Taking "business" in the broad sense of livelihood, whether the traveler is a merchant, doctor, researcher, cleric, photographer, whatever.) Kotabatubara (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that if you are travelling on business then you are not a tourist. Travel "for religious purposes" is probably not tourism but travel to visit and explore religious sites and religions would be as this is a key aspect of tourism.

Tourism is an industry reliant on tourists. A tourist would have been one who went on a Tour and thus is travelling for leisure to explore foreign parts. Generally a tourist now is someone who is on holiday, has travelled to a foreign (as in, not where they live) destination to visit for recreation. (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Emergence of leisure travel

This section is mainly discussing Thomas Cook who brought package tours to the masses. It begins with a poor piece of politicising about only the wealthy being able to go on holidays abroad. To call them the "economic oligarchy" is not a fair or polite description. Factory owners, merchants, aristocracy, landed gentry and the wealthy in general were the only people who were able to afford the cost and the time off to travel.

To recount the history of affordable tourism with this sentence is not great: "A pioneer of the travel agency, Thomas Cook's idea to offer excursions came to him while waiting for the stagecoach on the London Road at Kibworth."

The Leisure Travel hyperlink below the title is circular and takes one back to the same page.[Special:Contributions/|]] (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Modern day tourism

(Heading is in non-matching font) This entry, as it is titled, is the most significant part of the Wiki and all it states is:

"Many leisure-oriented tourists travel to seaside resorts at their nearest coast or further apart. Coastal areas in the tropics are popular both in the summer and winter."

I don't think this is an entry of any validity on it's own, perhaps it is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)