Talk:Travel in developing countries

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search
See also: Talk:Travel in developing countries/archive

Bribe advice[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't our current policy regarding bribes - as it is an illegal activity - to not to? Doesn't the recently added section on police kinda contradict that? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

At first glance at Wikivoyage:Illegal activities policy, I would think so, but further down:
Where police or public corruption mean that the written law of the land differs substantially from the practise of law enforcement. For example, it might be useful to point out any particular phrases or signs that a traveller can use to figure out whether an official is asking for a bribe, together with information about whether the bribe is necessary or a scam.
"Necessity" seems to suggest that sometimes it's unavoidable, even though it might be illegal. I think that's sometimes accurate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
While we don't want to encourage corruption, it's also an unfortunate fact that in many developing countries, there's absolutely nothing else you can do but hand over a bribe. I even know of instances where police will stop you even if you have done nothing wrong and ask for bribes. For many of us in the developed would, it would be unthinkable to offer a bribe to a police officer but unfortunately, if you travel around developing countries, even the top echelons of the police could be corrupt and in cahoots with big criminal gangs, so reporting the incident might in fact get you into more trouble than if you just pay the bribe. I understand that from a moral perspective, this is wrong, but it's an unfortunate fact of life. The dog2 (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

"Developing country" is a problematic concept. According to the IMF, they include countries such as Poland, Uruguay and United Arab Emirates, where the advice in the article hardly applies. A name such as Travel in low-income countries would be more appropriate, or possibly travel in low-income regions, as the article might be more relevant in places such as Siberia or Southeast China, than St Petersburg or Shanghai. / Yvwv (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

While I agree with the thrust of your comments (I disagree with Poland being any sort of "developing country", but that's neither here nor there), we have to be careful not to fall into the "euphemism treadmill" where we exchange the terms in a daily manner because nothing about the thing we describe really ever changes. I like neither "Third World" (which is above all inaccurate given that the "Second World" is gone) nor "developing countries", but "low income country" is cumbersome and in many ways simply inaccurate. Nicaragua may be poorer than some places (including, incidentally El Salvador), yet its security situation is notably better than it is in its northern neighbors. "Remote" (which would fit with your Siberia comments) or "off the beaten path" might also be considered, but they really don't fit for someone who is from Siberia and otbp is overused as it is (in a sense it is the beaten path language-wise). And some of the advice in this guide while particularly useful for places like India or Zimbabwe is nonetheless not wrong for places in the USA or Europe. So in short, I don't really have a good idea where to put this, though I do agree that the current name is problematic. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe to Travel in poor countries? @Hobbitschuster @Yvwv, opinion? Turbo8000 (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe this connotation is absent in English, but I think there is some negative connotation to the word "poor". And some developing countries are not - on the face of it - poor. I read somewhere that rents in Luanda are among the highest in the world and Equatorial Guinea is also quite rich. The unfortunate thing appears to be the distribution of said wealth. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The connotation exists in English, so I think "poor" can be ruled out.
I do not think the difference between "developing" and "low-income" is important; they characterize roughly the same group of countries, and neither term is exact. Pashley (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
The term "developing country" is a euphemism. What of a country which is poor, miserable, corrupt, overpopulated and staying there (or getting worse)? For instance, if Haiti were in worse shape now than it was before the earthquake a few years ago, how exactly would it be "developing"? It's an "impoverished nation", certainly (as it's faring worse than other countries in the Western Hemisphere) but it's not developing - it's just staying poor. K7L (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
on that I have to disagree. If we don't use an intermediate category for places like Mexico or China, most of the world are developing countries. And while sad examples like Haiti undoubtedly exist, the statement "developing countries are not developing" is widely inaccurate. Just take Nicaragua as an example. The country has quite consistently posted higher than average growth rates, its TFR (children per family) has fallen from above 5 in the 1950s to two point something and even such things as travel time from Managua to San Carlos has been cut from ten hours to six by bus in just the last five, ten years. True the country is suffering from endemic corruption, election results lack credibility and political violence is seen as legitimate by parts of the population, but you can't say there is no economic development. And stuff like the literacy rate are also rising. And Nicaragua is still the second poorest country in the Americas, has no railway of any kind, lacks a thought out system of public transportation in its capital of over a million, but surely saying it will stay that way forever is simply not true. Not by a long shot. Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Travel in poor countries and travel in poor regions are good alternate names; shorter than the current name, and more descriptive. /Yvwv (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
'Developing country' is a term that was designed to be positive way to describe poorer countries. Why change? 'low income' is frankly condescending. Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
"Developing" is also a widely understood term. I'd vote to keep it, too. If it absolutely must be changed, "Less developed countries" could be used, but that begs the question of "less than what"? Taken literally, almost every country is developing, but I don't think many people will actually be confused. Is anyone who's participated in this discussion truly confused by what "developing country" means? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

To guide?[edit]

How could this article be...developed... so that it could be upgraded to guide status and maybe even nominated for FTT? --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Well one of the low threshold things to do is looking at the "copied content" percentage and bringing it down as far as possible. And of course also checking those things that may have become outdated. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
So I just had a look at Copyscape and it gave me over 50% of "copied" content (though the number is even higher for "that other site" because they haven't had those edits "diluting" the old content). I think there are still some (rather) low hanging fruit in the bottom of the article, particularly the Packing section, the mental preparation section and the visa section. Not all of them are particularly well written, though they are not the worst prose on here either. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Nice work, although I don't think it is necessary to entirely rewrite articles that are featured. I was more wondering if there are important things missing from the article. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)