Talk:Tourism in Georgia (country)/Archive 1

User Chipmunkdavis' dispute about UNWTO classification
As editors can see the article has been improved recently and now a reader can somehow understand main trends in Georgian tourism. Trying to improve and enlarge the article further I've added World Tourism Organization classification of Georgia and included its position in the subregion. After my edits appeared and besides some improvements he removed that classification (+ a map) claiming that World Tourism Organization isn't so important organization (why?). Also, he claimed that the classification isn't used in governmental subjects but this excel file of Georgian National Tourism Administration's report clearly shows opposite. I tried to explain to him that his underestimation of UNWTO and its classification was wrong but further discussion made clear that he will not (and does not want to) change his position (even violated WP:3RR). I've reported the issue at WP:AN and etc. but they suggested to discuss it here so now I am waiting for other experienced editors involvement who has more links with tourism (as for me I study tourism) and can help to solve the issue with competence.-- g. balaxaZe   ★  17:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment. UNWTO is an UN agency, so it is clearly relevant. Arguments based on WP:IDONTLIKE-type approach are not acceptable. --KoberTalk 18:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment This is a very poor misrepresentation of what I said. Addressing the questions of content, the edit in question was a strangely worded extrapolation of a primary source that included a table listing stats from all countries, and the information was out of place and without context. There's no evidence that the UNWTO sub-regions have any effect on tourism outside of convenience for summarising statistical analyses. No other source has been provided, and the excel in question is similarly just a datasheet covering the world and divvied up for analysis. The use of this source to for example justify removing a category was WP:OR. As for the map, it told the reader nothing about Tourism in Georgia, unless it was opened by a reader to its full size, in which case it showed two stats which are much more easily visible and better conveyed in text. I fail to see what it was mean to convey about Tourism in Georgia, and how therefore it helps to have it cluttering the lead which already has a relevant picture. There's already a useful map showing Georgia's location, and it additionally shows context for where international tourists come from. If there are secondary sources noting the important effect the UNWTO classification has on Georgian Tourism, then they would help. As for the personal comments, this is not the place to address them. CMD (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That isn't a misrepresentation but a summary of your actions and words. Now please explain why the information was out of place? or without context?. Also, where is it written that something has to have an effect to the article subject? Articles are not about effects... The map is in connection with classification it shows European region's sub-regions and Georgia's location there so is this nothing for readers? Why you think so? (that text on the map isn't untouchable, I think I will remove it at all).
 * p.s. Also, you forgot to say that your main motivation for remove was its classification of Georgia as a European country, since some users here have an agenda to fight against it despite that, in reality, that country has very close relation with the rest of Europe. I am sure if that classification was saying that Georgia is a part of Indian sub-continent you wouldn't touch it. -- g. balaxaZe   ★  11:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC for UNWTO classification
Whether World Tourism Organization's classification of Georgia must be included or removed from the article?-- g. balaxaZe   ★  11:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Talk is about this edit (it can be rewritten as well):
 * Georgia belongs to the UNWTO Europe tourism region, it is a part of Central/Eastern Europe sub-region. As of 2015, in the sub-region Georgia is on the 7th place by international tourist arrivals, sharing 1.8% of the sub-region total arrivals and on the 8th place by international tourism receipts sharing 3.86% of the sub-region total receipts.

Survey

 * Support I support inclusion, UNWTO is the most important organization in Tourism and its reports and classification are widely-used. -- g. balaxaZe   ★  11:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I came from a request at WP:TRAVEL. This proposal is a little hard to understand. I think a support !vote means adding this but proposals should be as simple as possible so that outsiders can understand. Please clarify.
 * The source cited is this 2016 UNWTO publication, and this is a good source from a good organization. However, the information in this source seems strange. It is not usually the place of Wikipedians to argue against reliable sources but I do think that it is strange to name the Russian far east and Mongolia as part of a European tourism block. If someone says they are doing tourism in Europe I would be surprised if they went to Georgia, Mongolia, or the other places which are not in Europe but listed on this map. Can you say more about how it could be useful to readers to say "Georgia belongs to the UNWTO Europe tourism region"? Who except except a travel researcher would understand what that means?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Bluerasberry Mongolia isn't in Europe region, the classification unifies in Europe all post-soviet countries (the USSR became its member in 1975). I am not saying that it will be interesting for everyone, but Wikipedia is not only for masses, it will be useful anyway, it gives a comparison to the neighboring countries (in the sub-region) and information about Georgia's tourism condition. For some people, it will be useful and adding of it will not cause harm.-- g. balaxaZe
 * I was wrong about Mongolia. I looked at the map and do not know my geography, but I see elsewhere in the dataset that it is not included.
 * It does not match the source material, but how would you feel about using 's suggestion of the term "Eurasia" instead of Europe? I still hesitate to call Central Asia Europe but calling it Eurasia seems fine.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * For me it is okay since I am a geographer and I know that by deffinition Kober's suggestion is 100% correct than calling Europe a continent, but that section will lost its meaning or anyway we must leave Georgia's sub-region Central/Eastern Europe for comparison.-- g. balaxaZe   ★  20:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. A tourism-related article in Wikipedia is not for tourists per se. UNWTO is a reliable source and should have its place in the article (Personally, I deem Europe/Asia division arbitrary and even obsolete; the continent's name is Eurasia).--KoberTalk 14:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It appears to be overrepresentation and straying off-topical for effect. Georgia is a member of the UNWTO (not a member of a region) and I think that (plus perhaps the date when it joined) is all that is needed for the lede. There is only one UNWTO and its members do not belong to separate regional branches (the UNWTO's division of the whole world into regions and those in turn into smaller sub-regions is independent of its individual members), so there is no need to mention in the lede where the UNWTO places Georgia in its internal categorizations. A mention of Georgia being in the UNWTO's "Central/Eastern Europe sub-region" of its "Europe" region (categorisations which are unique to the UNWTO) would be made in the context of content dealing with UNWTO statistics, content that should be placed beside other visitor statistics and which is not lede material. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I also think to make separate section for UNWTO, yes it may be not placed in the lede but in UNWTO section with membership date and statistics.-- g. balaxaZe   ★  18:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose This article is about Tourism in Georgia, and the text did not improve information regarding that. The sources in question are tables covering tourism statistics for the world's countries. These are indeed divided up into various groupings, but there's no indication that these divisions affect or reflect tourism in these countries. The source is useful for statistics regarding Georgia, but the source doesn't describe any interesting relations to do with its groupings, and using it for such purposes is WP:OR. How Georgia's tourism industry interacts with those of neighbouring countries is useful information, but we don't have a source for that at the moment. Per Kober, the location seems a pointless red herring. As it stands we have a very useful location map in the article, which helpfully shows the geographic origin of most international tourists. CMD (talk) 09:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fox1942 (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove Gobbledygook does not help the article, and both source and this content lack due WP:WEIGHT of prominence. This just isn't something commonly seen, so lacks the prominence to get a mention.  Markbassett (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Focus - I think the rankings are trivia, WP:UNDUE. Consider just: "Georgia belongs to the UNWTO Europe tourism region. It is a part of Central/Eastern Europe sub-region.[1]" [BTW, this RFC would be much improved if it had a separate Discussion section. The Survey section is degraded by discussion.] Jojalozzo (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

New version
I've made changes, please review it ► User:Giorgi Balakhadze/sandbox 2-- g. balaxaZe   ★  13:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems a very good solution for the lede. For the body of the article text, I don't think the content is particularly enlightening because the data is somewhat meaningless. I still suspect the content is there not so much for the statistics it details, but to mention that Georgia is included in a region titled "Europe" (thus supporting the Georgian Tourism Administration's logo). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, it is already there it is tourism and the world organization, what reasons do we want more? Am I placing that somewhere else? - no. I see it very biased that everywhere when there are Georgia and Europe some want to hide and ignore. How to show that Georgia is good or bad in its category? That classification is made by UNWTO not by me and UNWTO is the most important organization in tourism that is also not my "fault"-- g. balaxaZe   ★  19:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What I mean is the category should be almost entirely unimportant since it is just an internal to UNWTO category. What should be important are the statistics the UNWTO are producing - but I find those statistics as they are presented to be pretty much meaningless, which gives the impression the content exists just as a setup to mention Europe and Georgia together. 7th place by international tourist arrivals, sharing 1.8% of the sub-region total arrivals and on the 8th place by international tourism receipts sharing 3.86% of the sub-region total receipts. 7th place? So what? Who was first to sixth? Do the ones placed first to sixth have any correlation or connection with Georgia beyond having been placed by UNWTO into the same UNWTO classification? Is there any validity behind the comparisons or rankings beyond that classification? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * do you have any better suggestion how to present statistics? please you are welcome.-- g. balaxaZe   ★  07:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see a easy way of making the statistics productive. Have they real significance anyway: I mean "1.8% of the sub-region total arrivals" seems insignificant, especially in the context of some of the other countries in the same sub-region being so different from Georgia in size or location or culture. Might it be better just to miss out the statistics bit, leave the text just as "Georgia has been a member of the World Tourism Organization since 1993 and is in the Central/Eastern Europe sub-region of its Europe region." But this truncated content may not deserve a lede summary. Why do you think having these statistics are important for the article? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. The lead section is now more cohesive. I would also strongly suggest retaining the UNWTO classification in the main text (whatever suspicions it may arise in certain users) as the organization's stats are based on this grouping. As a side note, I would ask you, Giorgi, to add some information—if available—on medical tourism in Georgia as there is an increasing number of patients from Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and North Caucasus treated at medical centers in Tbilisi.--KoberTalk 17:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Same issue. Imagine you had a book on Tourism in Georgia. Would there be a chapter on UNWTO classification? The UNWTO's stats are not by the way based on the groupings, but on national statistics. Further, while I see how joining the UNWTO would be a notable event in the development of tourism, there's no sources I've seen noting this as having a significant enough impact to be mentioned in the lead. CMD (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a book. UN membership does not directly impact any of a country's development parameters, but we still mention it in the lead. Same goes for UNWTO in tourism-related entries. Honestly, being a long-time contributor who has interacted with many of you, guys, I do understand the reason of such vigorous resistance to this seemingly benign and uncontroversial inclusion. Good luck!--KoberTalk 04:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed, each article is much much shorter than a book, and we cannot engage in our own speculation, so we must be even more judicious. We should not be mentioning UN membership in the lead of this article either. CMD (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose - summoned by bot. I'm with CMD - I have no idea why this is a notable thing, especially since so many countries are in the organization.  If someone can show a source that says membership is notable for any reason, I'd probably go to a keep. Also adding to my vote is the fact that the sandbox article's source doesn't say anything about the UNWTO. Without more context this seems to stick out as unnecessary. Timtempleton (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)