Talk:Dark tourism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dianazh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Interesting article

- it's not an expression I've heard of before, but there must be a lot more that can be said on the subject. Places that I would suggest could be dark tourism are Robben Island in South Africa, StalinWorld in Lithuania, many cold war era sites in Berlin, so-called terror tourism of the Peace lines of Belfast.

I would suggest that recent history, holds a greater 'dark' thrall than older history. Madame Tussauds, for example, was displaying death masks of guillotined victims of the French Revolution at the beginning of the 19th century when I would imagine that they were more shocking to Londoners than they are now becuase of the it-could-happen-here fear. --JBellis 17:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Snuff Tourism? Morbid Tourism?

I don't see why this expression merits an entry. People visit historical - and the mentioned - sites for many reaons, often outside the notion of 'dark'. It's an entirely POV statement.--TresRoque 01:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports on POV statements. -- Stbalbach 15:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm studying a degree in Tourism and our lecturers call it Dark or Black tourism, so I'm going to go ahead and add it in. 212.219.220.125 (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi TresRoque, while i sympathize with your above notion, I think the evidence put together here by now has proven you wrong, 7 years later. would be interesting to see what you think today, after you've had a chance to read the stuff that anthropologists, economists, psychologists etc have written about it. new chapters sometimes do need to be written...--Wuerzele (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sentence

I have removed the following sentence: "The best-known destination for dark tourism is the German extermination camp at Auschwitz in Poland." Whilst I do agree with it myself, it is a totally subjective and unverifiable statement that has no place in an encyclopedia. If anyone has a creditable source for this statement feel free to reinsert it, but I somehow doubt that anyone has ever done a study into how well known dark tourism sites are! Unnachamois (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

agree with you, no evidence, suspect it was a cut and past job from a book...--Wuerzele (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Sharing my agreement with this decision to remove the statement "best-known destination for dark tourism is the German extermination camp at Auschwitz in Poland." While this description offers context and important reference regarding the field, the comparison generalizes dark tourism and the possibilities of different locations. --As1n8h (talk) 05:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Other viewpoints

I've just started the translation of the article to ja wikipedia. In the course of doing so, I feel this section needs more elaboration. Unfortunately I do not have extensive knowledge to add and edit. IMO the section name could be renamed "Critisism" --NightingaleJ (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi NightingaleJ, translating into Japanese, what a laudable effort; I am surprised you think it is worth translating, , that theer would be enough interest. Is there an equivalent term in Japanese? Is there dark tourism to Fukushima now for example?

I came to the site and felt it didnt have enough references, so built it up a bit. I looked how I could organize the scholarly work that had been done in "dark tourism" and came up with the subsection names. I chose the term "other viewpoints" because they are basically just that, other view points. This is more neutral than criticism, which is loaded. To narrow down criticism only to exploitation would be unwise, so I will cut that. I will not change it back to other viewpoints until I hear from you - what do you think?--Wuerzele (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

190.231.120.14, and 190.229.173.132, I noticed that you changed the section Psychology, Philosophy and Anthropology on three occasions by inserting Maximiliano Korstanje prominently at the beginning of the section: First 190.231.120.14 on April 6 here and here and then 190.229.173.132 on April 17, the day after I had removed Korstanje's name here, and on April 20 here, and here

There is no Wikipedia page on Maximiliano Korstanje, and there wont be one in the forseeable future, given lack of notability, so the wikilink is unjustified. Second, when I edited in March and wrote most of whats on the page today, I carefully examined the cited references. I am of the opinion, that the 2 referenced publications of Korstanje are mediocre at best. The first one is so poor, that it is borderline to even include it. Detailed reasons are in the text.

Why would 2 unregistered Wikipedia users want to give Korstanje that prominence? Please let readers of the page know. The fact that you insist on merely this edit, makes me suspect that the same person is behind both IP addresses, and that it may be Maximiliano Korstanje. That would pose a COI, which should be declared. I see self-promotion, by giving undue emphasis, which violates WP:SELFCITE and WP:SELFPROMOTE.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Since the name pushing for M. Korstanje now by a third IP address 190.2.54.42 continued on April 24 [1] I will delete the name in the phrase.--Wuerzele (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Wuerzele, I stumbled upon a Japanese travel book today that was essentially "dark tourism". Fukushima's plants were in there, as were many mentioned in the article (Auschwitz, Cambodian genocide sites, Alcatraz... The one that struck me the most was the inclusion of Detroit as a dark destination. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Another round of Korstanje citespamming, this time from 152.168.57.106 across lots of articles. - MrOllie (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dark tourism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150225173644/http://www.chernobylpripyat.com/ to http://www.chernobylpripyat.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Titanic

I think the Titanic is another example of dark tourism that should be included. 120.158.131.86 (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)