Talk:Common scams Voyage Tips and guide

See also: Talk:Common scams/Archive

Contents

I've contributed a fair bit to this article including its current structure, and I think it makes sense for Wikivoyage to have some coverage of travel-related ripoffs and scams. However, I am wondering about the scope of this article. A great deal of it is devoted to coercive crime of the drugging (see above), forced removal, many-on-one threats of violence kind of level. While terrible things do happen to travellers who are trusting, unlucky and/or greedy, I am wondering how much space we want to devote to them. It might be that my own experience is biasing me, but I suspect we're describing an awful lot of very rare events in an article called "Common scams" and since we're (per site style) not using citations are quite likely describing a few things heard from friends of friends of friends who once read a newspaper article about travel-related crime in SE Asia. Is there a need and a good way to rewrite it as common scams, rather than "every scary story anyone's heard about travel"? (WT-en) Hypatia 06:53, 26 December 2008 (EST)

Agreed. I've removed the Drugging sections, it's hardly a "scam" any more than violent mugging is. (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:46, 10 January 2009 (EST)

For the same reason, the following should also be removed I think: Pickpockets, Red light bag snatch, and (possibly) Credit card skimming. These things, while very unfortunate and unpleasant, are hardly scams as such. Especially the first two.(WT-en) Dantilley 03:56, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

Perhaps the article should be moved to crime and scams to reflect the subject matter, or split? K7L (talk) 18:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

This was subsequently split, see crime and theft.

If you are willing to take the health and legal risks of hiring a prostitute, go to a "massage shop", "sauna" or whatever the local euphemism is. These establishments are significantly safer than the street workers. -- except in a minority of areas where such institutions which are legal and effectively regulated, this seems highly dubious advice - surely being on the potential scammer's home territory with the potential for compatriots to bar your exit is even more of a potential threat to the safety of the sex-tourist and his wallet.

This is pretty dubious also: However, an ambitious traveler can actually work this scam in their favor, as in certain countries where meters are required (e.g. China) the passenger cannot be forced to pay for an "informal" (that is, unmetered) taxi ride. A tourist is therefore free to walk away after the ride without paying anything at all: once you step out of his vehicle the driver will have no proof of transaction to show the police. This tactic is not recommended for use by the weak of heart. (WT-en) Dantilley 03:58, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

I think the first one is reasonable advice; someone with an address you could summon cops to is generally more cautious than a random street whore that you could not find again if you tried. It does not claim this is entirely safe, just "safer than the street workers".

The second one strikes me as crazy. Pashley (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

What needs to be done to make this article a Guide? It's an important topic, and I would like to feature it on the front page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

At a minimum, it needs a banner.

I'd say, though, that it needs a complete rewrite/re-organisation before it is ready to feature. For one thing, touting and commission deserve their own section, even though they are not strictly a scam. Taxis also need their own section, including the advice (good for most of Asia at least) to always use the taxi line at airports, train stations, etc., never the eager guys who approach you inside the terminal. Pashley (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Does some of what is there violate Wikivoyage:No advice from Captain Obvious? Pashley (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll have to look again to see if anything is really obvious, but I would think this kind of article should include warnings about scams that are obvious to seasoned travelers. Ignoring taxi touts is equally good advice at Kennedy Airport in New York, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Strictly speaking it's not a requirement for Guide status, but this article probably has the lowest photo to text ratio of all our articles and therefore looks as aesthetically exciting as a train schedule. The problem is to find appropriate photos, as we absolutely wouldn't want to imply that e.g. some random people in a photo in the front of the Forbidden City are carrying out the Chinese Art school scam... ϒpsilon (talk) 19:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I like train schedules. Though I prefer them to be at least a little bit colorful, so the point is well taken. The advice for taxi-touts is equally valid for the main station of Prague. Maybe we should link to this here article every time we mention taxi-touts? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Good idea. One scam is seldom confined to just one city or country or even continent. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Photos are difficult. I wouldn't worry too much about them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

[indent reset] Photos added, and the article no longer looks like a wall of text. ϒpsilon (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Upgraded. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Many scams under "Helpful locals" aren't about "helpful" locals at all (at least not to the victim), or attempt to make you the helpful one from the very start: art school, just been robbed, and Begging for medicine to sick family members.

I recently added a section Common_scams#Dating_site_scams because during a recent trip to the Philippines most of the ones mentioned were tried on me, and the only one that wasn't (video chat) is mentioned on several other web sites.

However it is arguably out-of-scope and/or a violation of our Wikivoyage:Sex tourism policy, so it seems prudent to ask for other opinions here. Pashley (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The policy expressly permits warnings to travellers about crime which may be perpetrated against them. K7L (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

There's a book of these, "Travel Advisory: How to Avoid Thefts, Cons, and Street Scams While Travelling" – December 24, 2003 by Bambi Vincent/Bob Arno, ISBN 978-1566251983 and its website http://bobarno.com/thiefhunters/barcelona-scams/ looks to be a huge list of common scams and modus operandi for pickpockets and theft; odds are there are a few there we missed? K7L (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Several months ago, there was quite a bit of media attention in Serbia to a case where a USA citizen was stopped by a traffic police and had to pay a fine. The whole incident resulted in a series of statements by the Ministry of Internal Affairs that it is indeed legal in Serbia to pay in some cases 50% of the fine in cash directly to the police officer or to choose to pay 100% of the fine later at a post office or a bank. Since this goes against the advice given in the Common Scams article, I have edited the article by adding "almost" in front of anywhere and adding a small note about situation in Serbia. In the long run, it would be a good idea to reword the article in order to make it a bit clearer that there are exceptions to the rule.46.12.234.179 10:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Someone started a section at Common_scams#Connection_scams. I have already expanded it considerably and will do more, but it occurs to me to wonder if I'm going into too much detail for this article, perhaps even for a travel guide.

Should some of this be moved to Telephone service for travel or Internet access? Or links added in those articles? Pashley (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

A lovely song on the topic. I'm not sure if a link can go in the article. Pashley (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

We have a section on Common_scams#Dating_scams, but a Slashdot article links to some we don't cover:

"catfishing"

Arguably not a scam, but people are paying impersonators to represent them on dating sites

Should we add these? Pashley (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Common_scams#Dating_scams currently has a photo that claims to be an "Example of a passport used by romance scammers".

Does that violate policy at Commons? Pashley (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Apparently it doesn't, otherwise they'd probably deleted it already. It's used on Wikipedia and Wikibooks too, so many people have seen it and noone seems to have raised any objections. Also, the source linked to from Commons, the U.S. State of Department, refers to the picture as "Example D: Types of fake passport used by romance scammers to convince victims of their travel intentions" and has published it as such. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The photo is obviously fake as it's non-compliant with the ISBN 9780061099816 requirements for passport photos (and, post-9/11, those requirements have only gotten worse, requiring what is euphemistically called a "neutral expression") but there is a risk that "scam photos" will be images of random/uninvolved real people which have been stolen by scammers and used as their own. Do we know whose picture is being used here? K7L (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Unless the original source is lying, this fake passport has nevertheless been used for attempting to cheat someone. So at least the scammers have thought they'll be able to cheat the victim with a photo and passport like this. The Wikipedia article where the photo is used explicitly points out that the photo obviously is not a passport photo.

Actually, the photo description should say that if you're presented with documents looking like this, you should get alarmed.

The U.S. State of Department or may not be able to tell who the person in the photo is. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The article says:

If someone steals your handset, even if it's locked, they can pull the SIM and place it into any unlocked handset to gain control of your mobile number;

Isn't the SIM locked when it loses power, so that you have to enter your PIN to gain access to it on the other phone. This is separate from the handset being locked. If it is common not to have the SIM card require the PIN when turning on your phone, that is what we should warn about.

It continues:

alternately, they impersonate you to your mobile carrier for long enough to have their employee move your number to another phone. Your handset goes dead (as if you'd cancelled your subscription) and they now have your number for use to impersonate you and request "lost password" access to all of your other accounts.

Move your number to another phone? To my understanding the number is connected to the SIM, not to the handset. How do they impersonate me if I still have my phone and SIM or they cannot unlock my SIM? And if they can, why would they need to move the number anywhere else?

--LPfi (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

This must vary by country. My SIM card here in China doesn't have a PIN, and I can transfer it to a different phone with no trouble. But I agree the passage you've quoted is confusing—if the person stole your handset, then surely you won't notice or care that your handset went dead. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I suppose we should add some advice to this section. The article on car rental already advices you to note "scratches and dents", but if the vehicle is full of them, I doubt your having added one would entitle the shop to any repair costs. Is there really any reason to record all of them? Obviously you should note in the papers that there are scratches, and if you find something more serious that should be noted too.

There is of course a real problem in that the company can charge your credit card and that you do not have the time to start a prolonged process to get the disagreament solved (and perhaps not to get impartial witnesses). I suppose the card company in many cases would believe you, but perhaps not universally. What should you do, when renting, returning, and after getting home?

--LPfi (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Is this something that happens that often?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49787563 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Not often, I suppose, but it may be standard procedure when the package operator did not pay and goes bankrupt when you are still there. I have heard about a similar case with another company. --LPfi (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Should there be a comment here about that or in a different article?

Me suggested line would have been a long the lines of "Genuine government officials will not need your bank details at a first contact." in an appropriate section, but wanted to ask first given that there are jurisdictions where an instant payment for a fine may be the actual procedure,

Also here in the UK, there was concern expressed, that scammers might impersonate "contact tracers" over the phone, with a view to obtaining 'sensitive personal data' or bank information, which could then be used to scam those contacted, such as for example "asking for bank details to set up payment for a testing kit". Not sure if this is a potential scam that should be mentioned here or under the advice in the Covid article. ShakespeareFan00 (talk)

I cannot understand why genuine officials would ask for bank details at any point. If you get fined, it would be you who would offer to pay on the spot, in cash, or ask for details to pay later – but those details should be stated on the bill.

In the section on fake cops the article says: "It is quite easy to impersonate a police officer. [...] Though a real officer knows the difference, a naive civilian (let alone a foreign visitor) does not." I think that is what it boils down to.

You could ask them to show their ID, and if that request is uncommon they might not have a fake one. But how would they then react? Go away? Hardly. You have to offer an alternative. In some of our articles I think I read about asking to be taken to the police station, but entering their car might be risky. Perhaps calling the police would be possible, asking for advice on what to do.

--LPfi (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

How are telephone scams of particular relevance to travellers? I think they are a general problem, but not one that should be addressed in a travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Only if there are some specifically targeting travellers. The other question, about how to recognise a genuine police officer is certainly relevant. --LPfi (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

The article now says, in Fake cops: "If you are in doubt, you have the right to request for another officer to come to the scene." Is this true universally? I have never heard about such a right here in Finland (the next patrol can be 100 km away, and may be busy), and I doubt it is general practice in countries where people have reason to be afraid of the police. --LPfi (talk) 08:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's pretty laughable. In a country where the authorities are corrupt, your "rights" are worthless. If it's true in so-and-so-country, we should specify where.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Calling the police emergency number should be possible in countries where the police is reliable. Or are there problems with that – other than the fake cops trying to stop you? --LPfi (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

In that section of the article, it says, "In many cases you have few options besides paying and grumbling, but the mere threat of reporting the situation to authorities might do wonders in some cases."

Might? I would hope it's true if I'm in that situation. Shouldn't we verify whether or not that's a smart thing to do before suggesting it? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hard to verify, when it might be smart in some regions and not in others. But just speculating, without knowing it works anywhere, is not good. I hope we are not doing that. --LPfi (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

In Common scams#Accommodation recommendations Flightnavigator advised to use Uber instead of taxis. Is this really good advice? Are e-hailed taxis more trustworthy than ordinary taxis? Over here taxis are usually very professional, while Uber drivers ... I don't know. Nowadays they have the same licence requirements, but I suppose they more often drive part time and have less experience (moving in and out from Uber is probably easier). And we usually avoid brand names unless for some reason talking about the brand.

Using public transport makes a lot of sense in many places, but where public transport is less useful, taxis have been the main option. In Arriving in a new city#Get around we suggest using the accommodation business to find transport. Should we say something about where the different options make sense, and when you should be afraid of taxi scams?

–LPfi (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes in my experience E-hailing is much better than ordinary taxis. They take the fastest way, you don't get overcharged, you pick the right destination on a map and in case something goes wrong you can contact the customer service and give a bad rating.

Avoiding ordinary taxis in general sounds right for me. In many countries you don't speak the same language. In developing countries you are at risk of being ripped off. In developed countries they are expensive even without ripping you off.

I mentioned Uber because it's available in a lot of countries. In Brazil of course 99 is good as well. In SEA Grab is nice. Flightnavigator (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Counterpoint: There was a horrific incident in Singapore of a driver for, I think it was Uber falling asleep at the wheel because drivers, setting their own hours, are working way too much in order to try to support their families, and the victim in the accident had a hell of a time trying to get any compensation, whereas compensation probably wouldn't have been as difficult to obtain from a traditional-style taxi company. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

The original wording was more about avoiding taxis to get to a hotel as they like to steer tourists elsewhere and try to get a "cut" from a hotel they are in cahoots with. As for the general safety of road travel... In general the private motor vehicle is the most dangerous form of transport, but having a professional driver who (depending on jurisdiction) must undergo rigorous testing and monitoring to get and keep their license can mitigate the risk somewhat - same as choosing commercial airlines over general aviation Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: Do you use a solitary case as an argument?

"whereas compensation probably wouldn't have been as difficult to obtain from a traditional-style taxi company." probably? In most countries that taxi company does not even speak your language. Most travellers depart from that country after some days. So getting that compensation is supposed to be easier?!?

@Hobbitschuster Ok I can agree on "The best is to avoid ordinary taxis" Flightnavigator (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

In Egypt I found taxis to be frustrating and suspect. Careem, the local Uber, was amazing. But I don't think we know enough to be able to make a sweeping statement that is valid in all 200 countries. The question of whether taxis or ehailing apps are better will vary from country to country, and may vary between cities. Ground Zero (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'd err on the side of not using such a sweeping statement as "avoid taxis" (ordinary or otherwise), especially not to pimp rideshare apps, which have their own controversies. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

They speak English in Singapore. The single example I gave was just one of many examples. Right here in the U.S., it's been harder for people raped by ride-hailing companies to sue the companies than to sue traditional taxi companies in the same situation. The problem is that ridehailing companies try to pretend they don't have employees and all the drivers who work for them are independent contractors. That's very problematic in many ways. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have been avoiding taxis for the last 5 years. There is 0% of being overcharged in an Uber. I've almost been overcharged in a taxi before but not in a developing country but in Cairns, Australia. Taxi ranks are also sometimes hard to find and someone again took my taxi (waited 20 mins, then a stranger takes it) again in Cairns. SHB2000 (talk) 07:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC) ~Reply

There are always reasons to make different decisions in different circumstances. I try to avoid all types of taxis as much as possible, but when I take them, it depends on a combination of price and convenience. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Mostly I just choose to go in my own car; or in extreme cases hire one. SHB2000 (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm on the other side here. In Canada, I refuse to use Uber & the like because they have a long history of mistreating drivers & unlike taxis they are not legally required to carry liability insurance that covers passengers in the event of an accident. The incident Ikan mentions is far from the only one of its type & others I have read of were in Canada or the US.

Overseas, most of my travel experience is in Asia. I'd strongly advise anyone at an Asian airport or train station to reject the taxi touts & go to the designated taxi pickup area instead. I'd be inclined to class ride-hailing apps with the touts, but am not completely certain.

If I needed a taxi & wasn't at a station, I'd either flag one down on the street (nothing that's not marked as a taxi & preferably nothing without a meter!) or do whatever local friends advised, which might be Uber or something like it in some places. I have no problem with WV advising a ride-hailing app (or even providing a listing & link) in some country or city articles.

I object strongly to advising them in a global article. Pashley (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Pashley's last two sentences completely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Makes sense. We should probably add a mention on scams and link to here in country guides for countries where such scams are common (check those you know). In Sweden#By taxi we have a paragraph, an image and a long caption on the local taxi concerns. We probably have a lot of country articles where the authors rely on that "common sense" includes recognising the local risks and avoiding bad drivers, which may be overoptimistic. –LPfi (talk) 10:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I avoid taxis in most places (Nicaragua which is governed by "if you order socialism off of wish.com" being the main exception as cabs are ridiculously cheap there and virtually the only option in places like Managua) because they are usually an expensive and inferior option compared to public transit or using a bike. Of course in countries that are even stronger in the grips of the motorcar lobby than Germany already is, there often is no public transit worthy of that name and bicyclists are treated in a way incompatible with human dignity. Whether in such places one wishes to contribute to the shady business practices of "don't ask for permission, bribe politicians so you don't have to beg forgiveness afterwards" and their "independent contractor" scam is of course a different issue altogether. But I see no good reason to make a sweeping statement one way or the other about taxis in an article like this - we should, however, point to scams like "accommodation gets a cut" and "pirate taxi" as they are rather common around the globe. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm an inexperienced Wikivoyage editor, although I have experience editing on Wikipedia. I would like to edit the "Lodging scams" section, but a bot considers my most recent proposed edit to be "blanking" and so I can't submit it. I've instead posted it to User:White 720/Proposed edit to Lodging scams. This edit removes a lot of flowery prose from the section and deletes some paragraphs about "scams" that are really just instances of bad behavior by businesses or by guests. Thanks for your consideration. White 720 (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

You're probably getting that error message because you are not yet an auto-confirmed user here. I'd like to see what some other people think, but my feeling is that you should be able to substitute what's on your user page onto this page, with the one exception that we normally do not cite secondary sources, except in edit summaries and on talk pages, although exceptions are possible if there is a consensus for them on talk pages like this one. Thanks for working on this! Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I tried to submit these edits, and I was given the following error. Note that the text at the very end is not a link, and there is no article called Article/Wikivoyage blanking by unregistered/new user or Wikivoyage blanking by unregistered/new user.

Warning: This action has been automatically identified as harmful. Unconstructive actions will be quickly reverted, and egregious or repeated unconstructive editing will result in your account or IP address being blocked. If you believe this action to be constructive, you may submit it again to confirm it. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: Article/Wikivoyage blanking by unregistered/new user White 720 (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Like I said, you're getting that error message because you are not yet an autoconfirmed user. I believe Wikipedia has the same filter. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Wikivoyage:Autoconfirmed users for reference. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 04:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Copying the same text in, section by section, helped me edit the article without triggering this error. Thanks! White 720 (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

OK, fine. I am sorry you got hit. Large changes like yours are often about replacing text with some jumble; the filters aren't clever enough to tell constructive edits from unconstructive ones, so they have to guess. For the record, the threshold on this filter (#36) is not "autopatrolled" but a custom definition. –LPfi (talk) 08:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

This isn't even good blanket advice for children (what if you have to ask a stranger for help in an emergency or tell someone who you and your parents are if you get separated in a crowd?), but in the case of adults, how do you meet anyone without talking to a stranger? I think we need a more nuanced message, such as "be cautious when talking to strangers." Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I made the decision that it is more important for my children to dare to ask for help than that they avoid creepy strangers. The situation may be different in some countries, but when travelling I think that in the rare situation where they get separated from their parents, happening to meet somebody they should avoid, among all those who would help a lost child, is really improbable. One can of course tell them whom to approach themselves, and the sooner they do that, the lesser the risk that the evil ones get their chance.

For adults, the situation is different, as there will be no parent protecting you, so you are left to your own devices all the time. Still, what travel is it where you don't talk to strangers?

Here, I think the phrase is there only to connect to something the reader might recognise. As it is misleading, it is best removed, but we should think about the "You never know who someone truly is or what their intentions are ..." part. It more or less boils down to not being too naïve, not to go the route of Candide. I think the rest of the article, including the lead, makes the point of not all strangers having good intentions clear enough.

–LPfi (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'll make the edit. Thank you for your input. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

The section on arranged marriages is problematic. I don't think it is a scam, and it is not something that happens on your usual travels, but rather something to look out for at home, if your situation is such that it might happen. Checking up your fiancé after having realised what the journey is about and finding you don't want to marry him doesn't make it easy to avoid the marriage. You didn't want to marry him in the first place, and your parents probably did a good job at finding somebody decent, so the problem is to convince your parents that you can have a good life – perhaps one your parents can be proud of – without them arranging you to get married, and to break the engagement without causing too much trouble. The only advice we give here is to keep your passport etc. (which your parents would have taken at latest at the border) call your embassy (which helps only if you are a foreign citizen) or the police (which may or may not be helpful), and the link to British advice.

The issue is important and as it is related to travel we might want to offer some advice. I think it should be on a separate page, making it easier to find, and linked from relevant pages. Perhaps we don't have any experts, so most advice should probably just be linked.

–LPfi (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Arranged marriage is definitely not a scam any more than dating is; both situations can be exploited by scammers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Also the way it is written is problematic:

Bear in mind that a lot of families in the aforementioned countries consider it morally acceptable to disrespect and degrade their children.

The person to be warned is a member of that family (are there any other scenarios?). We tell them that their parents may consider it acceptable to disrespect and degrade them. If we want to point that out, then talk to them, not to some random reader (families from there → your family). But whom are we to educate them on their parents? For them, it isn't about being disrespected, but about a horrible situation, which may be equally horrible for their loving parents and siblings.

I start to wonder whether the person who wrote the advice (I didn't check who it was) really knows the situation, or out of an outsider perspective also otherwise. I am rewriting some of the section, but I think it should get totally rewritten.

–LPfi (talk) 08:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

The "Early eviction" section claims that some hotels will evict guests for bogus reasons, keeping their money. The section advises paying for one night at a time as a countermeasure to this strategy. This seems highly suspicious. If a guest pays for one night at a time, the hotel could legally end the stay by refusing to book another night, leaving the traveler without a bed for the night. In addition, border guards usually want to see proof of a reservation for the duration of a traveler's stay; a night-by-night reservation would look bad. I'm going to delete this section as it doesn't seem to be providing valuable advice. White 720 (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

https://www.cnn.com/travel/outrageous-charges-targeting-tourists-in-italy —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, unfortunately in Italy one may run into all sorts interesting extra fees like unofficial tourist taxes and surprising table rents at restaurants. --Ypsilon (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Not only Italy. I ran into something similar in Shanghai. Pashley (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@The dog2: Here a demand of bribes was added as a scam. I don't think it is. If you cannot avoid paying, the border officials aren't trying to fool you, they are demanding the tip they need to get a decent income (or robbing you, if you want to see it that way).

Such more or less unavoidable bribes are an issue separate from scams and should be treated as such, in relevant other articles. If you cannot avoid paying, you shouldn't feel scammed by doing so, and if you can avoid it, we should give advice on how.

It is a scam only if you can say "look, this is what a visa costs for my nationality, here you are and have a good day" and get through.

–LPfi (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, what they're doing is technically illegal, but you have no choice but to pay because they have the power to deny you entry. When it comes to Thailand for instance, I've only been asked for bribes when crossing the land border with Malaysia. Whenever I've flown in and out I've never been asked to pay anything. The dog2 (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think calling the necessary bribe a scam is misleading. What use is this entry with no advice on how to handle the request? I am afraid this page is a long list of stories (where is our page on frustrating experiences? I didn't find it) with little useful advice. It should be cut down and rewritten. –LPfi (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Removed it. It was in a subsection of '"Helpful" locals'. The issue is handled in Border crossing#Fees. –LPfi (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply