Talk:Japan Voyage Tips and guide

A list of the status of each of the prefectural capitals.

ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Should there be warning or caution boxes up for Japan because of the typhoon, or should we wait until the damage has been assessed? JRHorse (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Those travelling now might appreciate a warningbox being there already. –LPfi (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, done. Will see how things shape out over the next couple of days. JRHorse (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

The warning is warranted because not being able to buy smart cards is really weird, quite inconvenient, and easily worked around if you know about it in advance. Plus this is a temporary state of affairs that will go away once Sony or whoever gets their shit together.

AFAIK it is not possible to buy regular Suica/Pasmo anymore, even at the airport. The 28-day expiry of the tourist cards, which are still available, is mentioned and highlighted.

The Android apps are useless on non-Japanese phones without osaifu-keitai, because they can't be used as cards. For Apple phones, Apple Wallet works fine, there's little added value to installing the dedicated app.

The rest of my edits was for duplicated or excessively verbose content, people can draw their own conclusions about (eg) whether they should use cash or credit to buy a card. Jpatokal (talk) 07:28, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I put the expiry of the tourist cards into the caution box, because this is actually something to be very cautious about. A situation that is the current status-quo is hardly anything you can be cautious about, you just have to accept it. Also, I barely believe it will be temporary, especially if someone at the card companies does the maths on how much money tourists let expire with these tourist cards. But I am happily looking forward of you convincing me of the contrary in let's say 2-3 years. Everything else is speculation and WV is not a place to spread company propaganda ... who know what is the real reason for the decision. As I said before, these cards (tourist and non-tourist) use the same technology, it doesn't make sense that "chips" are the real reason for this change. Furthermore, why would any new technology come with such a short expiry date, suddenly the new RFID chips go explode after a few months? That seems all BS to me. But please provide me with an independent source that explains all this technology change properly.

Furthermore, it is not true that smart cards are overly accepted by Japanese, maybe in Tokyo, but in other regions the situation is much different as it was explained to me. Hence, I adjusted the wording of the importance of the card in Japanese society.

I furthermore adjusted some wording and the cash option with Suica.

For the rest, I agree with you.

Cheers Ceever (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just wondering how wikivoyage is handling w:2024 Sea of Japan earthquake / WD:2024 Ishikawa earthquake / Commons: 2024 Noto Earthquake, which are all synonyms for the same event, I think. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

There seem to be warningboxes at Wajima and Noto Peninsula. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:38, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

This article is continuing to grow as small amounts of text are added -- a little here, a little there. Please consider putting your text in branch or topic articles instead, or looking for less important text to remove if you have something that you think really should be added here. Remove out of date text is also a good way of improving the article.

Continually adding text to an article that is already one of the longest in Wikivoyage makes it more difficult for readers to find the information they most need. A compendium of "everything there is to know about Japan" is not going to be read by many people. Ground Zero (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

As soon as I complete another laborious sweep to try to make this article more usable, the incessant tinkering begins again: just a few extra words here, another important point to add there, and the article goes back to growing inexorably. Sigh. Ground Zero (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

It looks to me like the "By train" section is unnecessarily long, considering that there's a dedicated Rail travel in Japan article. It could probably be cut off after the 3rd paragraph. Similarly, "Spectator sports" seems unnecessarily long. We could shorten it to: "A, B, C, X, Y and Z are popular sports in Japan. To read more about the unique experience of watching them here, read Spectator sports in Japan." The "Music" section is also unnecessarily long and could be truncated in a similar way to the "Spectator sports" section, while making sure the information that's currently there is included in Arts in Japan#Music. Ditto for "Performing arts" (oddly named, as if music is not a performing art!) and "Japanese cultural arts". And ditto "Hot springs and public baths". Onsens are so important in Japan that that fact should be stated, but it shouldn't take more than one paragraph, with all the details relegated to Public baths in Japan. "Shopping" could easily be cut down, for the same reasons. It could be possible to cut down "Eat" and "Drink", too. At a cursory look, cutting down other sections significantly might require additional dedicated articles. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

This article is starting to go a bit overboard with the use of kanji. It's generally agreed that they're useful for place names, foods/drinks, and other things where the traveler may need to recognize them, but I'm really struggling to think of even a wild hypothetical where somebody would need to know that the Azuchi-Momoyama Period is 安土桃山時代. Jpatokal (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think that Jpatokal's approach is sensible. Ground Zero (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

+3. //shb (t | c | m) 11:28, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, looking at it, words like "commoner", "burakumin", and "self-disembowelment" are rather unnecesary, and that's just under the "Culture" heading in the Understand section. We should really only consider translating words that will help travelers get somewhere or locate something and even then not everything needs to be here. Some words might be more appropriate to translate in the more specialized travel topics rather than here in the general Japan article. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

But I will say that if the Japanese word is reasonably commonly used in English-language publications, we should include the Japanese term in the article as well. The dog2 (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

If you mean that literally, I don't think it makes sense. Is there an important reason why the Kanji for Shinto, Zen, typhoon or tsunami, for example, is needed in this article? This is a travel guide, not a scholarly article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

For certain terms, both the English translation and a direct transliteration from Japanese are common in English publications. In such cases, both terms should be mentioned. The dog2 (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why? Wikivoyage uses the most common English spelling of everything. Romaji was not widely used either time I visited Japan. It's been a while, but I imagine that's still true, and the fact that it's not mentioned at all in Japan#Talk suggests that it is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Because some English speakers might be more familiar with the translated form, and some might be more familiar with the transliterated form. The dog2 (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean like judo with or without a line on the U? Give an example where the differences could plausibly confuse anyone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Like imperial court noble and kuge would be an example. And when describing Japanese castles, the terms donjon and tenshū may both be used in English publications to refer to the same thing. The dog2 (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Terms for castles are relevant, but why would a traveler need to know the Japanese word for an imperial court noble? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

If they're visiting historical sites then it could be relevant. Certain privileges were mostly restricted to the samurai and the imperial court nobles in feudal Japan, such as having tiled roofs, though rich merchants could get an exception from the local daimyo. The dog2 (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

That kind of detail sounds relevant to the article on Japanese castles only. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree, seems like a niche case where it's relevant. //shb (t | c | m) 08:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't like this, because what we're saying is "we could provide you with this information, but we won't." Instead, can we direct them to a site that covers these things well? Yes, it would be an exception to Wikivoyage:External links, but if we agree upon it, we're good. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

If the rules are complicated, we might want to refer to an external source, but a list of taboo gifts doesn't sound like something we couldn't easily incorporate, here or in Omiyage. The advice is in the plural, but does that mean that the traveller is expected to research several lists to get a satisfying one, or that there are specific lists for specific contexts, varying too much for us to summarise them? –LPfi (talk) 08:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

The bullet in question also says:

You, as a guest, may find yourself inundated with gifts and dinners. Foreign guests are, of course, outside of this sometimes burdensome system of give-and-take (kashi-kari), but it would be a nice gesture to offer a gift"

I find that odd. Why is it self-evident that you aren't required to participate in the kashi-kari? Is this really saying that you could just accept the gifts, smiling and thanking, without giving anything yourself? I don't believe that would be seen as acceptable manners, even for a foreigner, except perhaps as a blunder excused for ignorance, but marking you as arrogant or as a fool if repeated. I understand that you might not need to understand or partake in the finer points, but if that's the intended meaning of the statement, it needs to be worded differently.

–LPfi (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Omiyage says: "this […] is essentially mandatory, even for foreign visitors". I am now tweaking the bullet. –LPfi (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

As written the advice is so vague as to be useless: "gifts are mandatory in some contexts, but we won't tell you which ones! And some gifts are bad, but we won't tell you which ones!" I'll take a stab at rewriting this. Jpatokal (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Great! Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you – but I am a bit confused about the edit. I understand that the rules for funerals and marriages may be too complicated to explain here, and for those, consulting a local would be natural. However, for gifts to business partners and especially to a host (a newfound local friend), finding a local or searching the internet seems overly difficult.

For business partners, is the advice given sufficient? Are the same kinds of gifts appropriate if you are invited to somebody's home (if so, we should perhaps make it clearer)? Shouldn't we warn that different own clever ideas (such as flowers and knives, now not mentioned) need to be checked or avoided?

–LPfi (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Basically any gift that is appropriate in the West is appropriate in Japan. Yes, some things like knives and clocks should be avoided, but who on earth gives either a souvenir anyway?

But I've split the home gift stuff into its own bullet for clarity. Jpatokal (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. It looks good now. –LPfi (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Speaking of clocks, when I was in the military, some of the senior officers and warrant officers at my unit were sent to Malaysia for a retreat with their Malaysian counterparts. And I remember one of the gifts they brought back from Malaysia was a clock. Usually it's taboo to give a clock as a gift to Chinese people, but they didn't make a fuss and accepted it because they understood that Malays may not know of this taboo, and the hosts did not mean any ill will. And with regard to knives, you never know; a visitor from Switzerland might bring a Swiss Army knife as a gift since that is something Switzerland is really known for. The dog2 (talk) 01:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't think this is necessarily Captain Obvious. In Singapore, you can most certainly livestream while walking through Geylang or Desker Road, and nobody will assault you. If they do, you can expect the police to take action, especially if you have footage of the assault. The dog2 (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

It is very, very specific advice for something that very, very few travellers will ever do, in an article that is very, very long. Japan is the third-longest country article, and one that is probe to endless additions of little bits of text, here and there, just some extra words, that make it less usable for the vast majority of readers who would know better than to film in a red light district. Ground Zero (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Putting the text in Tokyo/Shinjuku, as you have done, makes more sense, I think. Ground Zero (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I know Wikivoyage tries to stay out of politics, but I think it's only fair to warn our readers that Japan's largest hotel chain (APA) is run by a far-right extremist who puts his own unhinged propaganda (Nanking Massacre didn't happen, the US forced Japan into WW2, etc) in the hotel rooms. Asamboi (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't know that we need this. This might make sense on the Korean or Chinese versions of WV, but in the anglosphere, I think this comes off more as trivia or a "quirk" of the hotel, maybe even a reason to go so that they can see the "crazy book"... ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

If the largest hotel chain in Germany was run by an unapologetic neo-Nazi who put books claiming the Holocaust didn't happen in the rooms, would this be be just a "quirk"? Asamboi (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

For Japanese and Chinese, probably. This article is among those that is constantly being bloated with things people think everyone "must know" about Japan. I'm just not convinced that warning people about a book they can't read in a drawer they won't open is that important. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

It sounds that important. And I don't think only Japanese and Chinese people would care. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

The warning is less about the book and more about the fact that by staying at APA, you're financially contributing to far-right extremism. Asamboi (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

(indent) I strongly oppose the aforementioned reasoning for this addition as it's antithetical to our goal of NOT politicizing every listing. We absolutely should not be searching for and posting the politics of the owners of restaurants, hotels, attractions, shops, etc. that "we" don't like. We are not supposed to be an activist site nor should targeting businesses for destruction become a goal of ours. If those are the grounds on which this is being implemented, we are opening ourselves up for political debates on every kind of listing if activist users should take interest. The only grounds on which this should even be remotely considered is that the books are being placed directly in the hotel rooms. If the owner wrote controversial books but they were not in the hotels, it was known somehow that he donated to X organization, he said something back in 2013, etc. we should not concern ourselves with such matters.

Is this proposal being made to promote political activism and the targeting of businesses whose owners or employees have politics we don't like as suggested above or is it being made because the hotel is hoping to sway those who stay by using the hotels to promote their politics? If it's really not about the books and just about personal dislike of the business owner then the blurb should be removed immediately. It's a really bad precedent. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

You may be right, but in that case, it's good that the point was at least broached on this talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's not just the Chinese. Denying the atrocities committed under Japanese occupation is also very offensive to Koreans and Southeast Asians. These are things that my grandparents lived through. Pretty much the only place where Japanese colonial rule is seen positively is Taiwan. The dog2 (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Travel does not exist in an ethical vacuum and there's plenty of precedent on WV for advising travellers about ethical concerns. Panajachel tells visitors to boycott hotels that don't participate in a local recycling initiative, Myanmar#Shopping offers advice on how to avoid spending at military-owned businesses, Bizerte suggests boycotting the local zoo over how they treat animals, we even have an entire article on Responsible travel.

I also find it bizarre that you're characterizing this as a "personal dislike" or being about "something back in 2013". The guy is notorious in Japan for his antics which have been consistent since at least 2008, WP has a summary: w:Toshio Motoya#Political involvement.

Of course this would all be irrelevant if he was some random dude yelling on a street corner, but he owns and operates Japan's largest hotel chain and uses the hotel as a platform! Asamboi (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I support mentioning it. Many people travel with ethics in mind nowadays and this is certainly something many travellers will find insightful. Otherwise Asamboi has said everything else that needs to be mentioned. //shb (t | c | m) 22:18, 5 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Also, I have to say we don't only cater to Anglophone travellers on this site. enwikivoyage at least compared to other Wikivoyage editions is read by plenty of non-English speakers (perhaps it might have something to do with the fact that both zh and jawikivoyage are incredibly barebones) and there is no reason why we shouldn't cater to them as well. //shb (t | c | m) 04:37, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Asamboi, I originally thought it was about the books being placed in the hotels and although I don't think it's an issue that our readership and the readers we should be targeting (which are English-speakers. If we "catered" to Japanese, we would write in an entirely different way. We don't and there's nothing wrong with admitting that) is inclined to care enough about to warrant a warning box, I acknowledge that such a thing is worth discussing. But if it's NOT about the books then you're suggesting any hotel, restaurant, etc. whose owner we can prove has a political opinion that might be disagreeable should be smeared on our site. It is promoting the use of Wikivoyage to smear businesses whose owners you personally don't like. You are the one who said it's not about the book, which means it's personal; you are targeting the business based on the owner and his personal views.

The cited examples are not the same as what is being proposed here. In the case of Myanmar, it is the military not any person, but also the wording is "If you wish to avoid spending money at military-owned..." It is a soft option and the businesses belong to the military, not to a guy who wrote a book about how good the military is. The Bizerte page that you cited states that people who CARE about that issue may want to boycott the zoo. While I'd personally have chosen "avoid" over "boycott", it is a warning about the poor conditions of the zoo (assuming the conditions are as bad as described). The information in the Panajachel article is fine however I've edited it to get rid of the demand that travelers boycott and replaced it with what the list is for and how choosing places on the list is seen to help (again, assuming what was written is correct). Any article that demands travelers boycott should be reworded or deleted.

To those who support Asamboi's idea of allowing targeted activism against business owners for "ethical" reasons: Are you sure? For example, most people would probably agree that genocide is an ethical issue. Should we welcome Palestine supporters to add warnings to all restaurant/hotel/etc listings whose owners have ties to Israel, have supported or spoken well of Israel, have donated to charities related to Israel, or are known Zionists to "warn" travelers that they are "supporting genocide" by patronizing those businesses, on the grounds that "many people travel with ethics in mind"? Is proper consideration being given to this beyond this man?

As I stated, this proposal only works if the reason behind it is specifically because the propaganda books are being placed IN THE HOTEL ROOMS. It worries me that people are continuing to argue that there is justification in going after the owner for reasons outside of that. It's more than a slippery slope. I ask that we please limit the reasoning to the fact that the revisionist/propaganda books are being placed in the hotels. If there is support to keep it on THOSE GROUNDS ONLY then I'd be okay with looking at the wording (which is too emotional at the moment). ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is not the slippery slope you're making it out to be. We've dealt successfully with ethical considerations for years and I'm not proposing any changes in policy.

For reference, the wording is currently as follows:

With nearly 1,000 hotels around Japan, APA is Japan's largest business hotel chain. Unfortunately, founder Toshio Motoya is notorious for his far-right links, and his propaganda tomes on topics like the Nanking Massacre and comfort women are prominently placed in their hotel rooms. Many travelers choose to steer clear.

That doesn't seem terribly emotional or out of line with WV:TONE to me, but I'm open to suggestions. We can't entirely disassociate the books and the hotel owner though, because he's the one writing them! Asamboi (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

What I describe is based on your wording, and I don't want careless wording to set a bad precedent. What I'm asking is that you drop the idea that the purpose of including this is to target a business owner. The purpose of inclusion should be that the propaganda books are being purposefully placed into hotel rooms with the hope of influencing guests. I'm not saying that the owner shouldn't be mentioned. Indeed, he must be mentioned in order for it to make sense. Mentioning him because he put the books in the hotel is not the same as mentioning him because we want to personally shame him for his beliefs. Do you understand the difference?

The reason for mentioning the owner is ONLY because he is requiring his books to be placed in the hotel. If the hotels were normal but the owner said controversial things or was found out to have controversial personal beliefs, it would not warrant a warning box. Do you agree? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand where you're getting this "personally shame him for his beliefs" thing from, particularly since he's the one actively broadcasting his beliefs to the world.

The warning basically amounts to "hey, this is a thing you may not have been aware of and many people aren't cool with it, but it's your decision". This kind of thing crops up pretty frequently (tiger temples, elephant treks, hill tribe photography, giving money to child beggars etc) and IMHO this is in the same ballpark. Asamboi (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've been clear that it's your own wording above that has caused concern. If the concern is unwarranted, then just agree that: "The reason for mentioning the owner is ONLY because he is requiring his books to be placed in the hotel. If the hotels were normal but the owner said controversial things or was found out to have controversial personal beliefs, it would not warrant a warning box. Do you agree?" If yes, then we can look at the wording. If no, then this proposal is problematic. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it is that easy. If a person is widely known for controversial views and intimately connected to a business, I think it is OK to mention it. If a traveller is likely to think "I'd never have gone there if I knew!", then it is odd for us to withheld that knowledge. –LPfi (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Once again, if you're unhappy with the wording, propose better wording. Asamboi (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Now you're just being rude. Yes, it's not written well, but you know that my concern and what I asked about (that you are avoiding answering) was not about the writing.

LPfi: People have issues with most owners of major businesses and corporations, as well as their investors. I don't think we should be encouraging writers to find and insert all of these into our articles. Helping activists take down businesses isn't one of our goals nor should it be. The Palestine example I gave above has way more energy behind it in the anglosphere than Nanjing conspiracies. Should we call out known Zionists because "travelers today care about ethics"? Write descriptions like, "This Zionist-owned bakery..."? There is almost certainly more people who would say "I'd never have gone there if I knew!" about a supporter of Israel than a Nanjing conspiracy theorist, so by that metric, we should definitely be encouraging all Zionists and those with Israeli ties to be identified directly in the articles. If it's not about the book, then what kind of hierarchy is being established where Nanjing conspiracy theorists get warning boxes but "genocide supporters" are cool? It's a slippery slope, and I don't believe the claims that any significant portion of our readers are likely to care enough about Nanjing conspiracies to take action or even remember the hotel. It will be trivia for the majority of readers.

The BOOK needs to be the issue here. If he didn't have a book directly associated with and in the rooms of the hotels then we really wouldn't need to talk about placing a warning that the CEO/founder has conspiracy theories about Nanjing any more than we "need" to have warning boxes about every other CEO or business owner. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I said it isn't easy. It is a sad fact that there are so many problems, caused by deliberate ignorance or worse, that, as you say, people have issues with most owners of major businesses and corporations, as well as their investors – for good reason. I don't know how to manage this problem well at Wikivoyage, which is one reason I haven't commented earlier, although I have been following the discussion.

But things not being easy is not a reason to turn a blind eye. I don't know where on a slippery slope this hotel chain may lie, but I think that we should tell about concerns, such as those poor conditions in a zoo, tourism that puts ecosystems at risk, tourism that helps finance a dictatorship and all the other trouble. I don't see much difference between the military of Myanmar and a person that is sufficiently influential.

Now, the issue is how to tell about those concerns in a way that doesn't convert Wikivoyage to an activist site. We shouldn't restrict the discussion to pages like Ethical travel, but keep mentions in e.g. Understand sections short and non-alarmist. For small businesses there is hardly any reason to mention their owner's opinions – they aren't widely known (one of my criteria above) or influential enough. For a country's largest hotel chain, we can afford a sentence or two, which should keep to our tone (be fair).

–LPfi (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ We don't need to tell readers what to think. We can provide them with just the facts and let them decide for themselves. (Additions in plain text.) [After posting this, I read up on Toshio Motoya, and learned about his views on Jewish people, which I think are worth mentioning.]

With nearly 1,000 hotels around Japan, APA is Japan's largest business hotel chain. Unfortunately, founder Toshio Motoya is known notorious for his far-right links, and his view that "Jewish people control American information, finance, and laws". His controversial books his propaganda tomes on topics like the Nanking Massacre and comfort women are prominently placed in their hotel rooms. Many travelers choose to steer clear.

Ground Zero (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

ChubbyWimbus is right that there are a lot of people who would post "such-and-such is a business that supports genocide" just because it's Jewish-owned, so we do have to be careful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I came to this discussion feeling that we should avoid politics, as I usually do, but after reading about this guy, and knowing that he uses his hotels to spread his message, I think this crosses a line that justifies a notation. removing the line I added about his views on Jewish control would limit the note to the books that hotel guests will encounter. Ground Zero (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

You understand the problem, though. Some people will want to boycott hotels owned by Jews, Muslims, people who support gay rights or other liberal/civil libertarian causes, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)Reply