Talk:Backpacking (travel)/Archive 1

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

cleanup request

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)[reply]

adding cleanup tag ∴ here…♠ 08:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Backpacking is indeed a style of travel characterized by budget travel, among other things, and often tends towards the exotic.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.231.81.67 (talk • contribs) 07:30, April 25, 2007 (UTC)

ipod

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)[reply]

Implying that the manufacturer of the iPod is a monopoly, and furthermore, referring to the mention of a product, like the iPod, as "nasty," says more about the bias of Daemonicus than that of the original poster. Trying to edit reality to fit the ideals or ideology of a certain user is not what Wikipedia is about.

anonymous

removing commercial booking links

Removing many external links per WP:EL ∴ here…♠ 08:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

Since the page Backpacking isn't really disambiguating anything, this article needs to be moved there.--Esprit15d 15:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Looks like a keep status quo to me. Tedernst 07:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - What status quo? Move it! Move it! LuiKhuntek 07:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the move tag and taken this page off of Wikipedia:Requested moves due to a lack of consensus to complete this move. If this changes, feel free to re-add it. —Cleared as filed. 18:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The page is still showing the tag. My vote is a strong oppose both activities may share the name and a particular item of gear that is all. they must be kept separate.

removed. ∴ here…♠ 16:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed passage from 61.68.198.73

For an interesting anthropological study of backpacking see Klaus Westerhausen's[1] "Beyond the Beach - An Ethnography of Modern Travellers in Asia"[2]. Published by White Lotus [3], Bangkok

Looked kind of sketchy, never heard of this guy. --Christopherlin 09:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some more tags, anyone?

Currently this article has three tags: {{NPOV}}, {{cleanup-date|November 2005}}, and {{Not verified}}. 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. <K F> 10:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

go for it! ∴ here…♠ 20:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Major Cleanup

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)[reply]

Just FYI, I realize that there are still many generalizations in this article, but I wanted to illustrate backpacker culture fully. I hope most of the NPOV wording is gone. I'd love everyone's comments, suggestions (and eventual edits) on this rewrite. --circuitloss 21:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things we need

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)[reply]

Unencyclopedic stuff

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

what exactly is the source/citation for this?

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)[reply]

Americans and Backpacking

I added the parts about Americans and our lesser backpacking culture relative to other Western countries. My statements about American travel habits are from living in the United States my entire life, my own travel experiences (Europe and Australia), and all of the other Americans I have known throughout my life.

As for my own personal experience, in hostels, I rarely encountered Americans (although in Europe you do encounter some US college students). For instance, in Australia, there was not an American in sight at the hostels where I stayed. But at the nice hotels, they were like American colonies. And the same usually goes for Europe as well.

I know from personal experience that Americans avoid backpacking because it does not provide our normal level of material comfort. For instance, whenever I've asked Americans why they do not stay at hostels, they always think they are not clean enough and do not provide enough privacy. In addition, I was shocked to see travellers scraping by on little money by eating Ramen noodles for two meals a day for weeks at a time.

As for anti-Americanism among backpackers, these statements are directly from my and my friends' backpacking experiences. It is extremely annoying and has caused many American travellers I have met to avoid the backpackers, including myself. And the broken record false American passport statistic...you can't even try to refute what they're saying because they're usually completely irrational in their logic. It's textbook anti-Americanism (similar to racism or anti-semitism), which is why I included a link to the excellent and fair entry on Anti-Americanism.

I've included this on Wikipedia because I think it's very important for backpackers to know why they do not see many American backpackers. Maybe I'm being selfish because I want to reduce the frequency of being told the urban legend US passport statistic. --Phil 3/24/06

I think I didn't quite get what you were trying to say; I apologize for reverting it so hastily. Do you think this wording might make it clearer to folks:

Moreover, many young American travellers try to avoid backpackers and hostels, because Americans who do stay in hostels are frequently on the receiving end of anti-Americanism (see Criticism section below).

Yansa 05:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. On the discussion page for your IP address, I took back the notification and left an apology. Yansa 05:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a few more sentences from the americans are generally snobs section. Please find some citations about American's aversion to backpacking or leave them out. ∴ here…♠ 15:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added the section on Americans demanding a higher standard of living while travelling than backpacking usually provides. Many things in this article are not cited so please don't arbitrarily pick my point, which is very important, to demand a citation for. I am American, I've talked with many American travellers and this is the consensus. --Phil

Americans and Anti-Americanism have nothing to do with "backpacking!" Let's not drag this article into an easily avoided swamp of contrversy and NPOV quicksand. The criticism section should be about criticisms of backpacking as a form of travel not a debate over whether young Europeans are anti-American. This is the same as the irrelevant passages on sex, do not confuse the demographics of a culture with the beliefs of a culture! Please add criticisms of backpacking in general, as a philosophy, not vaguely worded and unverifiable speculations about the politics of certain demographic groups. --circuitloss 02:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the kind of addition we don't need: "it is not atypical for an American backpacker to be angrily confronted at least once a week by a fellow backpacker who usually has never been to the US yelling at them about how a supposedly small proportion of Americans that have passports" It is totally irrelevant to the core topic. Claims that anything happens "once a week" or involves "yelling" or that a demographic group has "never been to the US" are unencyclopedic and NPOV hyperbole without even the pretense of being neutral to the subject. (Or on topic for that matter.)--circuitloss 02:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Americans and Anti-Americanism has EVERYTHING to do with "backpacking!" I'm an American (and Democratic party activist), I know many other Americans who have backpacked, and almost everybody has been harassed. I had tons of conversations with people this weekend about the topic.

This is not a criticism of young Europeans, this is a criticism of backpacking. My and other Americans' backpacking experience is of being harassed for being American...be it by young Europeans, Canadians, or whatever. Are you even American? Probably not. --Phil

Phil, I really understand what you're trying to say, and I DO agree with you about the underlying details, but I don't think that the topic of whether Americans are harassed or not is appropriate to this article. It should be a sub-section in the Anti-American article about Anti-americanism and travel. BTW, I am an American, and I've spent more than 16 weeks backpacking in Western and Eastern Europe, Thailand and Japan, and I've never experienced anything like what you've described. However, this is totally besides the point, because personal experiences (mine and yours) do not qualify as a "source" under wikipedia policy. Please see WikiPolicy:No original research. And even beyond THAT, even if you could find research to back up your claims, you'd have to convince the majority of us that Anti-Americanism is somehow a fundamental part of backpacker culture or philosophy. Now you've decided to reinforce your claims by quoting yourself in the current revision of the article! Please read Wikipedia policy and guidelines to bring yourself up to speed on what is and is not admissible. Start with the internal link I posted above, and lets have a discussion about whether this is appropriate or not. Also try Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, especially "Wikipedia is not a soapbox." Phil, I'm not coming down hard on you to single you out or even to claim that what you say is wrong, but only because I can easily see this article descending into a revert war between Americans who feel harassed (like yourself) and Canadians and Europeans who think the article is biased against them. We shouldn't have to go there. --circuitloss 23:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am american, and I have travelled. I also worked a summer at a hostel in seattle. Unfortunately, your take on American's attitutes toward backpacking are not echoed by other editors watching this article. That much of this article is unsourced is not a valid argument for inclusion of your personal opinion. Cite your sources and try your hand on a different section or article. ∴ here…♠ 01:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like my (and many others') opinion is different from the hippie Americans editing this article. Sure, there are no uncited opinions in this article (sarcasm strong). Just look at this one about backpacking in the United States:

The corporate dominance and prevalence of more expensive and impersonal motel chains, which mostly cater to private motorists, has been attributed towards the lack of backpacker hostels in the USA.

Are the evil corporations taking over the US? Instead of quoting yourself, you've just said has been attributed. By who? This reminds me of watching Fox News, where they say "Some people say..." (See the movie Outfoxed). I think the editors of this article are biased.

Let's try economics. If there was a strong demand, then there would be many hostels. Corporations are designed to maximize the value to shareholder. How? By obtaining profits. If there was significant demand, then these profit-seeking corporations would be all over the then lucrative hostel business.

However, there isn't demand in the US for hostels. Why? Because hostels do not provide the standard of living to which Americans are accustomed, considering we have the highest material standard of living in the world (Standard of living in the United States). Oh, that's an opinion, but talking about the corporations are scheming to keep out hostels isn't.

What a joke! This article is full of crap that is not cited. Cites are arbitrarily demanded for those statements which the hippie Americans editing this do not agree with. I've showed a lot of people the comment here from an editor about not ever experiencing anti-Americanism while backpacking. We've all laughed so hard because it's such a regular part of the backpacking experience, unless I guess if you have dreads and where pachuli (sp?). Then you probably get to be an editor on this article.--Phil 3/29/2006

I rewrote the section in question to read:

This has given the United States a reputation for being relatively 'unfriendly' towards backpacking culture. The prevalence of motel chains, catering primarily to private motorists, may contribute to the relatively small number of backpacker hostels in the USA.

Again, the fact that this article could use serious work does not justify making worse. It is obvious you care about the topic -- why not register an account so you can more easily use the site and try your hand at a few more changes which aren't in conflict with other editors. I recommend WP:TRI as a starting point on wikipedia policy. You can sign your posts automagically by using ~~~~ (4 tildes) ∴ here…♠ 01:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American's and Backpacking version 2.0

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Here´s some discussion, stop being such America-bashing chumps and realize that almost exclusively American inventions (such as flight) make backpacking possible to begin with! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.29.206.223 (talk • contribs) 21:20, May 12, 2006.

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)[reply]

Awwwwww, "Mr ad hominem" doesn´t like my tone. Well if you´ve got an issue, help yourself to a tissue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.233.73.10 (talk • contribs) 14:03, May 14, 2006

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Antipodeocentrism and Irrevelant

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Backpacking in Scandinavia

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)[reply]

Americans redux

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)[reply]

Jabin, thanks for your edits. You've helped to clean up the section some. I still think that the "Americans and Backpacking" section should be totally cut. I don't see how its relevant to backpacking as a travel philosophy. It should be discussed in an article on "Americans and Travel" or something similar. For the record, we've had two kinds of POV debates on this article. One saying that Americans don't backpack, and the other claiming that all backpackers are anti-American. As far as I'm concerned, no specific nationality should be mentioned at all. This article is about a philosophy of travel, not the demographics of travel. --circuitloss 00:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Americans and Backpacking has been moved to Backpacking (United States). Let's keep the discussion of demographics and politics in a separate article. I think this will increase the usability of the parent article for readers. Thanks. I did this for a number of reasons:

There is a large amount of information in the section on Americans and Backpacking. I feel that it is POV to have such a section dominate an article on backpacking.
The already existing article Backpacking (United States) was almost content-free.
This cleaner "summary-style" is used on other Wiki articles that become content-heavy in one paticular section.
I feel that forking the articles makes for a cleaner, more readable layout.

And that's that, I'm being BOLD! --circuitloss 15:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

golf claps all around. ∴ here…♠ 20:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a European backpacker myself (been on the road for 2+ years), and it's always been my understanding that the one major reason there's so few backpackers from the USA is that unlike the governments of nearly all European countries, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and several countries in south-east Asia, the American government has not signed any of the reciprocal working holiday visa treaties that form the basis for such a large part of the backpacking experience (afaik there's only a very limited number of similar visas available for Americans through organizations like BUNAC and IEP; and these have a lengthy application process, while getting a 'regular' WHV is a process of literally minutes). Europeans do a 'round the world trip - and halfway through they spend a significant amount of time in Australia or New Zealand working and replenishing their funds. Likewise, backpackers from those two countries work in Europe. Canada _has_ the same reciprocal treaties, and so there's many more Canadians doing the same than there are Americans. Given the contested nature of this section, and the fact that I don't have any references for the lack of treaty-signing, I'll refrain from editing, but perhaps someone who can dig up some verification can do so for me. 80.60.87.115 02:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there an Americans and Backpacking section at all? It makes the article look more like a space for airing pet theories and personal gripes, and also has little to do with the topic. If anything should be said about the reasons for the prevalence or otherwise of backpacking from country to country, then surely (better cited) examination of why it is so prevalent in Australia and New Zealand would be more relevant?--LemmonJelly 11:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Other things to complain about than just the American stuff

Just pick something!

Tagged for NPOV, unreferenced

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)[reply]

race of backpackers

I deleted this from the "advantages" section "......and are Caucasian (except for the prolific Japanese backpacker tradition)."

I can tell you backpacking (around asia at least) that there are backpackers of many races although they do tend to be nationals of western countries and developed asian countries.

Wording Problems

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)[reply]

Still lacking

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)[reply]

I agree. The article needs an overhaul. -Will Beback · † · 19:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]