Talk:Backpacking (travel)/Archive 1

message: Is it just me or does this article seem to talk more about backpackers than backpacking?  --Will 17:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

message: Would someone mind marking this article as heavily biased and in need of clean up? Narration is obviously inclined toward making a point and the thing reaks of amatuer hour. Change it before it becomes an example of an horribly bad article!
: It doesn't even seem very accurate. How does it come to the conclusion that all people who travel with a backpack have "slim wallets as well as a passion for the exotic" etc.? Tangerine Cossack 23:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: adding cleanup tag ∴ here…♠ 08:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: cleanup request

message: Singling out iPod is nasty monopoly-supporting commercial language-killing. Maybe that was a bit harsh, but still, a neutral phrase would be better.
: I took the liberty of changing the iPod reference to "digital audio player" Daemonicus 08:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ipod

message: Removing many external links per WP:EL ∴ here…♠ 08:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: removing commercial booking links

message: Since the page Backpacking isn't really disambiguating anything, this article needs to be moved there.--Esprit15d 15:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, as a traveler and hiker, I find there is a significant difference wilderness backpacking and traveling.  If simplification is desired, I believe backpacking (travel) would best be combined with the travel or tourism pages, leaving the wilderness backpacking intact.  M factor 16:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves and fixed rename template spelling.  I think the current setup is better and oppose the move.  How is Backpacking not disambiguating from the three options it provides? ∴ here…♠ 21:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the status quo, that is with the articles Backpacking (wilderness) and Backpacking (travel), and Backpacking being a disambiguation page. The only thing connecting the travel and wilderness articles is the backpack - not much else. Although Backpacking (travel) is what I think of hwen I hear "Backpacking", if M factor is thinking wilderness then we should keep the dab where it is.--Commander Keane 03:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If no one is opposed, I will go ahead and end all this rename business with concensus to keep status quo. ∴ here…♠ 07:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a keep status quo to me. Tedernst 07:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: removed. ∴ here…♠ 16:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: For an interesting anthropological study of backpacking see Klaus Westerhausen's "Beyond the Beach - An Ethnography of Modern Travellers in Asia". Published by White Lotus , Bangkok
Looked kind of sketchy, never heard of this guy. --Christopherlin 09:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed passage from 61.68.198.73

message: Currently this article has three tags: , , and . But try ignoring them for the time being and read the text. That's what I have just done, and I'm asking myself what it is that is so awful about it:
*The text does not contain any spelling mistakes, typos, or grammatical errors.
*It gives a nice overview of the subject. The only POV thing about it may be that it creates the impression that "(a) all backpackers are poor and have a passion for the 'exotic'  (b) people in the US don't backpack because they don't have reciprocal work agreements" (as one commentator put it). Personally, I think a reference to Inter Rail should be included.
*"Not verified"? The article has four internal and six external links.
*Apart from the above, there is no discussion about any shortcomings on this talk page.
I'm going to make a few minor changes. If no one adds any comments here, I'll remove the tags afterwards. <KF> 10:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: go for it!  ∴ here…♠ 20:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I competely disagree. The article is written with biased language, and should be heavily edited. It's not that I don't agree with you, I just think that an encyclopedia article should be more objective. I will change some of the language, particularly at the beginning, to make it a little more objective.TrogdorPolitiks 05:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I took a second look at the article and realized it needs a rewrite. I can't do that very easily; I'm not really an expert on the subject, and I don't know all the information that is in the article.TrogdorPolitiks 05:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some more tags, anyone? 

message: I've begun a major cleanup of this article.  Please use the other backpacking article as an example. I think I've mostly addressed the POV issues.  Please help me out with this. 
:Ok, I've done TONS to cleanup this article.  I could really use some good photos if anyone has them.  Also, the history section could use some more content and sourcing.  --circuitloss 18:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Cleanup

message: Lets bring this up to featured article status.  The only problem I see that we might run into is the lack of real "sources" on this topic.  It's not AFAIK somthing that's been studied much (although it should be).
One thing that could help would be a really good history section.  My knowledge there is pretty sketchy other than what's on the page.  Anyone know how this backpacking developed as a culture?  --circuitloss 00:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things we need 

message: I find the "Backpacker Stereotypes" section and the stuff about "Shoestring King" rather unencyclopedic. I don't think this stuff is particularly characteristic of backpacking, I've never come across any of this and I've travelled extensively all across Asia. As for the "conquering" stuff, this can be said about young people in general, I never got the sense that backpackers in particular take "pride" in scoring.
Needless to say none of this stuff is sourced. This means special care should be taken to make sure we are indeed representing backpacking culture, rather than just some individual's own backpacking experience.--128.139.226.36 13:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree, and I'm uncomfortable with many of the recent additions as well.  Why don't you sign up for an account and make these changes?  --circuitloss 02:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unencyclopedic stuff 

message: Backpackers also tend to be very sexually active individuals as their often twenty-something age, single status, and co-ed friendly atmosphere makes romantic relationships between backpacker-to-backpacker or backpacker-to-local fairly common. For many males in particular, it is a source of pride or accomplishment to have casual relations with at least one person from each country they visit, in addition to "conquering" the many nationalities that reside within the backpacker hostels themselves.
:There is none, and I hate that it is even in here.  Since I'm not the only one I'm going to cut it.  Everyone else, please feel free to disagree with me and revert, but lets have some discussion about it first if you don't mind.  I don't see how the sexual habits of Western 20-somethings are relevant to backpacking, or even to backpacker culture as a subject.  --circuitloss 20:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: what exactly is the source/citation for this?

message: Americans and Backpacking is back! as of the early May 2006 version of this article, but now it has a different slant and bias.  My instinct is to simply cut the whole thing but I'm getting tired of playing revert war with a host of anonymous editors.  I still don't see any reason to single out Americans, either for praise or blame, in ANY context of backpacing culture or philosophy.  The text goes.  --circuitloss 21:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, I'm going to leave it for the moment.  While it's not as egregious as some of our previous attempts to use this article as a political soapbox and I still think it's irrelevant, I'd prefer to not cut a large swath of text without some discussion first.  --circuitloss 21:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: An anonymous ad hominem, that's nice of you.  Considering I AM American, and a patriotic one at that, I don't appreciate your comments.  I'm simply trying to keep this article focused on backpacking instead of a mud-flinging flame war, which is what most of the anonymous editors seem to be trying to do, by making this article into some kind of debate about Americans -- not a discussion of backpacking at all.  Please register an account.  I appreciate your input on this topic, but not your tone or your personal attacks.  --circuitloss 16:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not in the mood to remove it either.  Other than being original research and much to long, it isn't really all that bad in it's current state.  It should be editted down at the least. ∴ here…♠ 14:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added a few comments on backpacking in regards to US vs. Canadian backpacking rate and made it more balanced.  I didn't remove the negativism but spread it out to include both Canadians and Americans.  After all, the hostels of Europe aren't swarming with Canadians either.  In fact the hostels of Canada are swarming with Australians.  The joke in Banff National Park is that young Australian temporary workers are the Mexicans of Canada. In the London, England pub trade as well.  rasblue 00:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I should add that the above is just a nasty "joke" related to a backlash that any group might experience when they overrepresent any group at a travel location.  Be it whatever.  After all, Canadians who swarm Cuba and the Dominican Republic in the winter months do not have the best reputation within the local community.  rasblue 04:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American's and Backpacking version 2.0 

message: This article makes an excessive number of references to Australian and New Zealand backpackers more than warranted (and this is an Aussie here making the complaint).  Even in Asia you may encounter more Danes than Aussies, even though Denmark's population is a quarter of Australia's.  
Furthermore, all the talk about anti-Americanism is overemphasised (if not off topic) and the demographics of American backpackers is a tad pedantic.  There are other more pedestrian reasons why Americans are under-represented on the backpacking path (low unemployment, variety at home) than their alleged unworldliness.  
Above all discuss other more worthwhile issues - what are the major destination countries of backpackers?  what is going on with hostels becoming tour operators?  do backpackers work  illegally?  have backpackers formed relationships and marriages? how many people backpack in their gap year?  what is the age range etc...
KranksyKransky 08:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your first suggestion (about destinations) is already pretty well covered.  Your other suggestions are good and should be developed more.  Also, I will do anything I can to keep anti-Americanism arguments (pro OR con) out of the article entirely.  They're completely off-topic. --circuitloss 12:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antipodeocentrism and Irrevelant 

message: A personal observation of mine while backpacking through Denmark and Sweden was that it was noticeably cheaper than one would expect, far more so than Germany. Especially train and long-distance transportation, I found to be usually 50% cheaper than an equivalent distance in continental Europe. Maybe more people can voice in on this, and we can add something to that particular section.
: I can't speak to cost of train travel per se, but general cost of living expenses were MUCH higher!  Oslo is the single most expensive place I've ever been (a beer in a bar for US$8, I don't think so!)  Tokyo might beat that out for me, but after a couple weeks in Scandinavia I had to go to Eastern Europe for awhile just to save some money!  --circuitloss 02:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backpacking in Scandinavia 

message: Ok, I'm going to try and put this the nicest way possible.  Anecdotal evidence is not allowed on Wikipedia.  Just because you had some experiences in Australia or because you asked around doesn't mean you can add a section that says Americans don't backpack.  All I ask for is some citations or statistics.  What you say might be true, but 1) you don't back them up, and 2) your experiences don't match mine.  How about my evidence that I've met Americans in Costa Rica, India, in 12 countries in Europe, Japan, China, Thailand, Mongolia.  Doesn't that count for something.  Sometimes they even outnumber the Aussies.  But hey, I could be wrong. But then again, so could you.  I'll try not to do too much edits.  But this article is horrible.  about 25% of the article is about Americans and Backpacking.  You've got to be kidding me.  All I ask for is some objectivity.
--jabin1979
::I'm sorry I have to comment on this one more time:
"However, this study/travel lifestyle is not perceived to be 'real' backpacking."
"In a more humorous point of view, others say if Americans traveled anywhere near as close as Australians or Britons do it would be downright impossible to get a hostel bed in many popular areas."
You've got to be kidding me.  This is not encyclopedic. This article needs a major overhaul.  It needs to be written from a NPOV.  Backpackers sometimes erroneously think that they're part of this little club and it's the only way to live, and it really shows in this article.
:Jabin, Some of us have been trying to clean this article up for some time.  No matter how many times I revert or try to clean the American section, someone will add more crap there.  It doesn't mean the situation is hopeless, it just means that we need more editors like you to give us a hand.  Please take a shot at it. Please see some of the previous "discussions" about Americans on this talk page for some background  --circuitloss 14:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You all are great.  It looks much better now.  Even if every American went abroad and spit in the face of every other backpacker, I wouldn't find it relevant for this article.  And with absolutely no citations, I was going crazy.  It's this lack of professionalism and "What I heard.." stories that ruin Wikipedia in so many ways.  Thank you all again, I just need to relax ;). --jabin1979 13:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: golf claps all around.  ∴ here…♠ 20:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It has been removed multiple times.  Looks like it was put back in here.  It had previously been moved to Backpacking (United States), which no longer exists (rightfully so).  I will remove the section entirely.  Feel free to add something back in with sourced material. ∴ here…♠ 14:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you Here, for your good police work.  I wish it would just stay dead, the whole section is just an excuse to spam irrelevant speculation. --circuitloss 04:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Americans redux 

message: This article needs work, especially the criticism section.  Much of that reads like a personal essay from someone opposed to backpacking.  Notable published sources need to be cited for any supposed criticisms.  A Wikipedia editor can't simply write his/her opinion in the third person as "some people think this or that."  69.29.130.202 22:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged for NPOV, unreferenced 

message: This page frequents use of phrases like "the majority of" and "most backpackers", without having references that substantiate these generalizations. While accepted generalizations I suppose are permissable, statements like "a majority of backpackers bring high resolution digital cameras" is not, unless it has a study or some form of expert reference. I'm not confident enough in my own revision abilities to clean this page up, but I feel someone ought to at least simplify it to the point where it can be built up from there. May I also suggest that much of the random bickering on this talk page be blanked? DukeOfSquirrels 23:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording Problems 

message: Perhaps it's time that someone start again on this article? It's a mess. It's too long for a subject that is really only needs two to three paragraphs to describe. Going this much into detail gives us an article that will perpetually be prone to flame and revert wars. Aep 17:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The article needs an overhaul. -Will Beback · † · 19:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still lacking