Talk:Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report

Work in progress

This a new article, it will be improved in the next days. Please be patient and any colaboration will be welcome.Mariordo (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the article with the figures from the Travel & Tourism Competiveness Report 2011. We might want to put the figures into one table to allow for easy comparision of the results of the past four reports. Any help much appreciated. Lufkens (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Top 20 Rankings

There are two columns here, each listed 1 to 10. The RH column should of course be 11 to 20. Not much good at this kind of thing. Can someone else fix it? - Ipigott (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Done [1]. Regards, ascidian | talk-to-me 16:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Report Cover

Anybody knows how to replace the 2008 cover with the new 2011 cover? http://www.flickr.com/photos/worldeconomicforum/5447082057/ (licensed cc-by-sa) Thanks Lufkens (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I do know, based on the flicker license it is just to uploaded at the WikiCommons. I can do it, just give a couple of days (or go ahead and do it yourself),--Mariordo (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Argentina deliberately ommited

Argentina is the country in Latin America that boast the highest number of foreign arrivals. However, Argentina is not placed in any of the lists. Regardless of this fake rank, Argentina has the most impressive waterfalls in the world (Iguazu), the lakes district in Patagonia, the 11 highest peaks in the Americas (being the Aconcagua the highest peak outside the Himalaya), the Perito Moreno glacier and many other attractions. If Mexico is placed first, it's just because it's in the border with the USA and so it attracts low budget american tourists. Nothing interesting to see in Mexico but sunny beaches.

2023 Reporting - Rationality

The 2023 table included in this page makes significantly little sense. The No. 1 ranking of the U.S. is entirely at odds with the published risk factors. A 0.1% risk of suffering an unintentional (or intentional) shooting is not inconsequential and something that most international visitors in possession of their faculties would be swayed by. In relative terms, this is a stand-out by a factor of many times, not just an arithmetic difference. Add that to the similarly significant incidence of mental illness in the U.S. - again something of a stand-out - and that well supported by the notably unhinged behaviour of many American public figures, how can one possibly argue for the tourist attraction of the U.S? Is there no (health) warning, to take this table with an ample few grains of salt? Does Wikipedia have such a practice. 50.117.229.150 (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)