I'm challenging this edit by User:The dog2 which pulled out the introductory passage explaining what is CBP and how arriving passengers are funneled to see them.

The edit summary for that revert was as follows: "Please take it to the talk page. 'Immigration' is standard across the world. And being funneled into an inspection area is standard across the world when you are arriving on an international flight."

Well, the part introducing CBP is necessary to explain which agency one is dealing with at that stage because the United States has two separate agencies that deal with visitors: the Bureau of Consular Affairs of the U.S. Department of State and Customs and Border Protection of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. "Immigration" is too vague because it can refer to three different things depending upon context: the two definitions explained at length in Wiktionary plus the agency responsible for that process.

CBP is a clear and unambiguous reference to the agency that handles arriving visitors. In formal written English, it is customary to introduce acronyms at the first reference. The deletion has resulted in a poorly written article that is difficult to follow because it suddenly refers to CBP without explaining what that is.

Anyone who is an experienced international traveler would not write: "And being funneled into an inspection area is standard across the world when you are arriving on an international flight". Actually, most international hub airports outside of the United States and Canada do not force arriving international passengers to go through immigration and customs inspection. The United States and Canada are the outliers on this issue. I recommend getting out of the house and flying across some continents. I've vacationed on six. Twice.

Any objections before I revert that improper revert? Coolcaesar (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I object. All the information a traveler needs is in the reverted version. The one thing I agree with you on is that if we decide to use the abbreviation CBP, we should spell it out in parentheses the first time.

It's also a bit funny that you are trying to tell The dog2, a Singaporean, to "get out of the house and fly across some continents." He could have hardly traveled further to get to this one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I object for the same reasons as Ikan Kekek. And lol about "I recommend getting out of the house and flying across some continents. I've vacationed on six. Twice." – someone clearly didn't read The dog2's userpage. --SHB (t | c | m) 23:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't object to spelling out what CBP stands for in full. But there is no country I have been to where you can arrive on an international flight without going through immigration and customs. Most countries in fact also make you go through immigration when you leave; the U.S., UK and Canada are the outliers with regard to this. The dog2 (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

There are many countries where you don't go through customs if you are transferring between international flights. This mainly should go in the airport articles, but is worth briefly mentioning here, as readers may assume that they don't pass through customs if they are getting straight on to a flight to Mexico etc. AlasdairW (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

We should always spell out non-obvious acronyms. I wouldn't know what CBP is, although I don't go to the US very often. CoolCaesar, please live up to your name. Insulting other editors is not cool, and it is not welcome in Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree with User:AlasdairW in regard to what transit passengers have to be subjected to. That should be mentioned. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

We already do cover the fact that passengers transiting between international flights in the U.S. have to pass through immigration in the "By plane" section, but perhaps it could be better highlighted to make it more obvious. But being funneled into a sterile corridor towards immigration when you get off an international flight is hardly unique to the U.S. That's standard practice for international arrivals in most countries of the world. The dog2 (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think another point which favors the original, shorter draft is the length of this article. It's already long and we shouldn't add further information unless it's necessary.

If this information applies all over the world, perhaps it could be part of a travel topic? Although I've traveled internationally, I've never traveled to a country where I'm not a citizen, so I think there is an audience for which a description of immigration at airports is valuable. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 03:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Well, I would say "most countries" only if you mean "very small countries". It is not standard practice in most large ones. Apart from the United States and Canada, that's standard practice only at airports that operate as spokes, not hubs, meaning that arriving passengers are terminating their journeys there. So yes, I've seen that in Aruba, Curacao, and the Bahamas, where all arriving passengers go straight to immigration.

Statistically speaking, most people don't live in small countries. They live in big ones (or in the case of the Schengen Area, a lot of small and midsize countries trying to act like a big country).

Most countries hosting hub airports in Europe, Asia, Central America, South America and Oceania allow arriving international passengers to exit from aircraft directly into the sterile area of the terminal.

In the United States and Canada, there is no choice. Everyone is funneled straight to immigration, even if it's only for a layover before their next flight out of the country.

DHS used to have a Transit Without Visa program which still required a full immigration inspection, and an International-to-International Transit program in which passengers were held in transit lounges. Both programs were suspended in 2003. American Airlines now supports direct ITI transit for baggage but transit passengers still must go through U.S. immigration.

A writer always keeps the needs of their audience in mind. If you regularly followed traveler forums on Tripadvisor, Reddit, or other travel sites, you would notice that for over twenty years, this issue has been driving people crazy who are trying to fly between Europe and Central America. Many of the cheapest routes often involve at least one stop in the United States or Canada. They take sterile transit for granted everywhere else. They are very frustrated with the United States and Canada for not allowing sterile transit and for forcing all arriving passengers directly into immigration inspection.

If they can't qualify to enter, or they feel that qualifying would be too difficult or too expensive, then they have to pay more money to fly through Copa Airlines's Hub of the Americas at Tocumen International Airport in Panama City, which does allow for sterile transit.

People read Wikivoyage articles specifically to learn about these kinds of things that can massively disrupt their travel plans. It means the difference between booking cheaper nonrefundable flights and then simply walking to the next flight, versus having to book more expensive refundable flights (in case a visa doesn't come through in time) and spending months trying to get a transit visa as a prerequisite to commencing the journey. We have an article on Avoiding travel through the United States for this very reason. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also, I just realized. I did challenge this edit above and I had completely forgotten that I had initiated that earlier conversation. I was too busy earlier today to first refresh my memory on the entire talk page. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Did you read my comment? I said that part about having to pass through immigration for international transit is always written under "By plane". And I've changed flights in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, the UK and other countries. You still have to disembark the plane into the sterile corridor to immigration. Somewhere along the way, there will a security checkpoint for transit passengers to head to departure hall so they don't need to pass through immigration, but you still have to disembark into the sterile arrivals corridor. The dog2 (talk) 03:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just remembered to follow up on this. Again, you have not traveled widely enough. International airports in Brazil, Germany, and Panama do not require any security inspection for international-to-international transfers and do not force all new arrivals into sterile arrival corridors.

Also, there is a significant difference between requiring a security inspection of all international-to-international connecting passengers and requiring full immigration and customs inspection. The first is usually a mere inconvenience because anything that shouldn't be in an aircraft cabin was filtered out at the departure airport (or the passenger was arrested at that airport and never got on the first flight). The second is more intrusive and drastic in terms of the consequences if anything goes wrong. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

To my surprise we do not seem to have anything on sterile transit, other than a mention at Avoiding_travel_through_the_United_States#Understand; one reason to avoid the US is that they do not allow it. I think we should have something at Sterile transit, either a travel topic article or a redirect to a section of Flying.

I have flown Asia-Canada many times, often changing planes in Seoul-Incheon where international transit passengers do not go through customs or immigration, though they & carry-on luggage do go through a security check. This is enormously more convenient than changing somewhere like Chicago where I once stood in line for nearly two hours before seeing a border control officer. Pashley (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please write up something about sterile transit and mention which countries and other areas do and don't have it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above mentions BCP but not ICE or TSA. Does the article mention those? Should it? Pashley (talk)

The USA article of our travel guide, which is already very long, is not the place to teach people how to behave in every possible circumstance. Miss Manners (w:Judith Martin) has been writing newspaper columns on this subject since 1978 and has published 17 books on correct etiquette in the USA. Wikivoyage should not try to compete with her. If editors think we need to teach readers how to handle every possible circumstance, start a branch article. My experience with Americans is that they are not as easy to offend as this section suggests. Ground Zero (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree that some sections can be cut:

• "Americans tend to be inquisitive. Foreigners can expect to be asked about their home country, their vocation, and so on." I would disagree; compared to other cultures, I would say Americans have a stronger "mind your own business" attitude regarding curiosity toward others.
• "Americans often identify with the countries of their ancestry, even if several generations of ancestors were born in the US. This self-labeling is understood and considered correct in the American context." I'm not sure this matters to a visitor/traveler.
• "Punctuality is valued: being five minutes late for a meeting is not usually a problem, but if you will be any later, try to call or text beforehand." I would say this is reasonably true in the East, but I'm not sure it is all over the U.S. so I don't know that we should include it here.
• "Americans often draw a strong distinction between their work and personal life. It is generally inappropriate to inquire about someone's personal life in a professional context." Also quite obvious.
• "Calling someone by their last name is more formal, and with rare exceptions is always done with "Mr./Mrs./Ms./Miss", or with a professional title with the last name (e.g., "Doctor", "Professor" or "Officer"). Such professional titles can also be used alone without a name. If you don't know someone's name, use "sir/ma'am". If you're still not certain, it's safer to be polite and use last names. Many people will soon respond with "Please, call me [first name]". Or, you can ask someone how they would like to be addressed." Everything except the first sentence of that bullet point just seems extraneous to me.

I think the other information is helpful to the traveler. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Some comments:

• The level of curiosity varies across people. I don't think it is important to try to generalise here, unless people in the US really stand out compared to most of the world – but we do warn about people asking personal questions in some country articles.
• I think that a 19th-century immigrant telling you they are Irish/whatever may be confusing for people from elsewhere. Here in Finland, I wouldn't know such distant ancestry for most of my acquaintances, and somebody saying that they are Irish would suggest they themself immigrated (unless qualified in some way).
• Punctuality may be important to mention for visitors from countries with a different culture. Be there on the minute if you can, but is it odd to send an SMS if you will be only half a minute late?
• The distinction between work and personal life isn't at all obvious. In Iran, you have to get acquainted before you can do business, which includes knowing about family (or so I've understood).
• There is a problem with the bullet on addressing people, which isn't so much about unnecessary information, but unclear advice. If somebody says "Hi, I'm Joe", then obviously I can call him by first name, but if somebody says "may I introduce you to doctor John Doe", then I would use "doctor Doe". If somebody says "this is John Doe", then I wouldn't be sure and would default to Mr. Doe, letting him ask me to use his first name. Is that a good strategy? It isn't obvious from the bullet – telling what people usually do isn't very helpful, as I don't know whether my situation is the usual one. I would not remove the sir/ma'am thing – to me saying so feels odd (especially towards young or informal-looking people), so I really have to be told about it. And what about my children (if I as an adult usually can use first names)?

–LPfi (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think the others can be cut down, but I would leave the points on punctuality (not super captain obvious for people from some parts of the world) and work/personal life (also not nearly as clear in some parts of the world). LPfi makes a good point with the ancestry bit because I too (that definitely stumps me off too). --SHB (t | c | m) 22:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Okay, genuine question, in Australia do people not see themselves as originating from Poland/UK/other countries of ancestry? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Nah, not really. There are some people who do feel close to their country of ancestry, but almost all of them are 1st- or 2nd-gen migrants (and even then that's becoming rarer). --SHB (t | c | m) 02:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I see. Well, I trust you all to know what should and shouldn't be cut. The one I think should be cut is that first point about curiosity. Beyond that, I can understand yall's points above. (Speaking of which, maybe that word deserves a mention.) --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree the curiosity bit deserves to go. --SHB (t | c | m) 03:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think the American curiosity bit and the "work-life separation" line can both go. Even if it's not intuitive, it's mostly about avoiding too much personal talk at work, which tourists don't need to know. Explaining work culture is outside of scope in an article that already suffers from never-ending bloat. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

To me, I think there should be more information about Native Americans on the respect section. This is since Canada, has more details about indigenous peoples, but the U.S. has not much of it. So, do you like to expand on this section I mentioned earlier, which are the natives of course? 2600:1700:78EA:450:CD8F:D113:9D7D:8117 10:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

We are trying to prevent this article from getting longer and longer. We have an Indigenous cultures of North America article. I suggest that, rather than making this article longer, we should refer people to that article for longer, more detailed explanations of some of the things you might want to cover in this article. But if you still feel strongly that the already long article about the entire country needs more details, please lay out on this talk page what it is that you would like to add, so that we can consider it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ We can probably remove the part on curiosity. This probably varies greatly depending on which group of people you hang out with. I've also seen guides about the U.S. that says that returning American expats should not talk too much about their experience living abroad because Americans are just not interested in what happens outside the borders of the U.S. And regarding work-life separation, one difference I can point out is that in Singapore, it is customary to invite you work colleagues and your boss to your wedding. In America, you don't because work is work and your wedding is your personal life. The dog2 (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think most the stuff about work, other than basic things like expectations of punctuality, could be farmed out to Working in the United States, with a summary like "See Working in the United States for some remarks specific to workplace behavior in the country." Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

By the way, if we do mention punctuality, expectations are very different for appointments (text if you're going to be more than 5 minutes late for an interview or other business meeting, more than 15 minutes late for a doctor's appointment), dinner parties (try to show up on time and text if you'll be more than 15 minutes late), and any other type of party (if you show up less than an hour after the scheduled start, you are early and may be expected to help set things up). Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

:-)

So this requires at least a short explanation. Over here being 15 minutes late for a doctor's appointment, you probably have missed it – you are expected to show up at least 15 minutes early to be ready to enter at the minute. I suppose that for this article, what is there seems enough for appointments, but we should explain that those arriving "early" to parties may be expected to help. If you might embarrass the host by showing up on time (which you could do here if turning up more than a quarter before the advertised time), then we should have a warning. –LPfi (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

You're not likely to miss a doctor's appointment by showing up 15 minutes late, but you may have to wait longer, and it's polite to let them know you're running late. You definitely never want to show up early for a regular (not dinner) party! I ordinarily never show up less than an hour after the starting time. For a dinner party, if you show up early, you might not be let in, and therefore you should call the host if you're running early, but if you are let in, you may be expected to help prepare things. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Different healthcare providers have different approaches. In my area, if you're 15 minutes late for a doctor's appointment, it's cancelled, and if you didn't contact them in advance, you'll probably be billed a missed-appointment fee. I would call in advance if I was going to be even one or two minutes late. In fact, I made such a call recently: when my husband was caught in a traffic jam that came to a dead stop on the highway, he asked me to warn his dentist that he might be late. (He actually arrived on time despite the traffic problems.)

For a job interview, it's important to be on time. I'd plan to arrive early, and I'd call if I was going to be even a few seconds late. You don't want the interviewer to be wondering if you've ghosted them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Where do you live again? Here in New York, it's uncommon for doctor or dentist appointments to start on time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think the reason why it's offensive should be explained. Be that as it may that most Asian tourists know about World War II, people don't instinctively associate the Swastika with the Nazis in many parts of Asia like they do in the West. Growing up, I associated the Swastika with Buddhism rather than Nazism, and I wouldn't have known that displaying it would be offensive to a Westerner. The reason may be obvious to a Westerner, but it is not to someone from an Asian country where Swastikas are regularly used as a religious symbol. The dog2 (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also, I want to point out that in much of Asia, the focus when it comes to World War II is on Japan's occupation of much of East and Southeast Asia. Educated people know about the Nazis in Europe in passing, but it's not something that comes to people's mind very often. The dog2 (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think that this delves way too far into situations that are very unlikely to arise. When I have been to Asia, I have not seen people wearing swastikas on street clothes. I have seen them in temples. I don't believe that an Asian tourists is going to bring a temple with them on their visit to the USA. If any of our American contributors think there is a problem with Asian tourists wearing swastikas around town, then sure let's include the explanation. Otherwise, let's keep it brief. Or create an "Etiquette in the United States" article to address every extremely unlikely occurrence that contributors might think of to warn travellers about.

Sadly, I think it us far more likely to see Americans wearing swastikas in order to offend people, than it is to see Asian tourists doing so unintentionally. Ground Zero (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Asian tourists may carry good luck charms from Buddhist temples that have Swastikas on them. And if you go to a Buddhist temple in Asia, the temple volunteers may sometimes wear shirts that have Swastikas printed on them. We would want to avoid a situation where one of those temple volunteers visits the U.S. as a tourist and offends people by wearing the shirt with a Swastika on it. The dog2 (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

How likely is that to happen? I am asking other editors, because you are clearly wedded to this edit. Ground Zero (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you. The entire situation is hypothetical. It is enough to say it is highly offensive and leave it at that. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Would this cause more offence in America than in a country like France that was occupied by the Germans? In Europe there are warnings on the pages for Germany, Hungary and Austria where displaying a swastika is a criminal offence, but not other countries where people might be offended. I am not sure that we need to mention swastikas. AlasdairW (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

America has lots of Jews so that makes it especially offensive there. Virtually every American Jew has lost family members to the Holocaust. But what I'm saying is that yes, I understand that the association of the Swastika with Nazism is obvious to Western tourists, but to someone visiting from say, India, China or Japan, it's not obvious. The dog2 (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

If we mention the Swastika, we can also mention the reason. Now we do and it fits on one line – shortening that line would do a disservice to the few travellers who need the advice. But would a temple volunteer really pack that shirt when travelling to the USA? Would it be confused with a Nazi symbol, would those good luck charms be? –LPfi (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

So far, my experience is that most Americans are not aware that the Swastika is also used as a religious symbol unless they have spent a lot of time living or travelling in Asia, so any Swastika will automatically be seen as a Nazi symbol. There was a case of Pokemon cards having to be removed from distribution in the U.S. because they had Swastikas on them. There's also a case here of a Chinese retailer having to pull a necklace out of the U.S. market because it had Swastika pendant. The dog2 (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@The dog2 @Ground Zero @LPfi Hello there, can you highly read these articles? There are people of Navajo reclaiming their own swastika symbol. It has nothing to do with antisemitism. Check this out:

https://hyperallergic.com/933272/why-native-artists-are-reclaiming-the-whirling-log/

https://www.artnews.com/art-in-america/aia-reviews/melissa-cody-moma-ps1-garth-greenan-gallery-whirling-logs-1234709054/

These are published in 2024, which is the latest by the way. By this picture you posted about Latvia, no this would never be extremely offensive. If you read these articles, would you like to add details about it to the respect section? Thank you. 2600:1700:78EA:450:CD8F:D113:9D7D:8117 10:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Interesting article, but I think this is a case specifically for Navajo Nation/Arizona – most people visiting the US aren't likely to encounter those symbols for it to be mentioned in the country article. //shb (t | c | m) 11:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Would it be worth having a travel topic on odd cultural misunderstandings?

American English "knock someone up" is to get a lass pregnant. British E, to wake them in the morning.

Swastika in ancient religious symbol for Hindus & Buddhists. Also used by Nazis & therefore offensive.

I'm told the "thumbs up" gesture is quite rude to Persians, equivalent to raising the 2nd finger elsewhere.

No doubt there are more. Pashley (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Good idea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. //shb (t | c | m) 05:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sure, that would be an interesting article. For instance, the hand gesture for the number 9 in China would be interpreted as the verb "to die" in Singapore. The dog2 (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

This article continues to grow and grow and grow. I have made a bunch now small edits to make the text more concise and readable, and to tackle the tendency to include information that isn't particularly relevant to travel. Before anyone complains that I have gone too far, I point out that these edits have removed an amount of text equivalent to that added in just the last six months. Let's try to make this a useful, readable travel article, and not an sprawling dissertation on how to live in America. Ground Zero (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for taking care of that! Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I second Ikan – thanks for making the length of this article slightly more manageable again! //shb (t | c | m) 21:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have removed this text, which may get appropriate for the Wikipedia article on Banking in the United States, but doesn't not belong in a Wikivoyage article that we are trying to keep focused on travel:

The U.S. banking industry is still relatively chaotic in terms of the sheer number of financial institutions, since interstate branching was not fully legalized until 1994. The Big Four banks are Chase, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Citibank, but none of them operate retail branches in Alaska, Hawaii, or the territories (with the sole exception of Wells Fargo, which entered Alaska in 2000).  International banks have made little progress in penetrating the U.S. retail banking market. HSBC and Rabobank both tried and exited, while TD Bank's retail presence is currently concentrated in several eastern states.  

Ground Zero (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. Only the last phrase has any travel relevance, but it’s not needed here. Regardless, banks’ websites provide maps showing locations these days. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I inserted that information because that is the kind of thing that surprises foreigners about the United States and is also the kind of practical information they look for in a travel guide. It wasn't until I had traveled on six continents twice that I did some research and began to understand why so many countries have so few banks—because the United States is the outlier in having way too many banks. U.S. policy for a long time in many states favored "unit banking," where a bank can never get "too big to fail" because it could only operate as a single unit at one location and could not operate branch locations. The point is that international banks haven't had much success breaking into the cluttered U.S. domestic banking market.

For many international travelers, it is irritating that their local banks don't have U.S. branches or ATMs, just as it is irritating for U.S. travelers that their banks are purely domestic and don't have branches or ATMs in all other countries. Even if a traveler has a "fee free" card, that still means having to deal with a foreign bank's strange ATM and then hoping their U.S. bank correctly credits the card for all the fees charged by the foreign bank.

Only a very small number of banks offer the convenience of seamless cross-border access to one's money at branches and ATMs inside and outside of the United States. Unfortunately, TD Bank is convenient only for people who regularly travel between eastern Canada and the Northeastern United States. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is so much that could be said about a coutnry of 300 million people. The challenge for us is to write a travel article that is readable and useful for travellers. This article has a history of expanding and expanding and expanding. The banking market in the U.S. is a very big topic, and because banking is so regionalized, there is so much that can be written. TD Bank, for example, is only the tenth largest bank in the U.S. Banks are not difficult to find in the U.S., so this is not a subject that warrants being highlighted here. Ground Zero (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree with GZ. On the usefulness: I would never expect to find a branch of my bank abroad (they have branches in a few countries, but one can count them on one's fingers). If we suppose most countries have a few banks, having offices/branches around the world would mean a thousand banks in any major city. Would there be a mile of ATMs side by side? Instead I hope my bank has agreements so that my card works with whatever ATMs there are locally, and hope there is some competition or regulation that keeps the fees acceptable. If I stay for longer, I hope there is some local bank where I can open an account and transfer funds to and from my bank back home. Except for the West–Russia conflict and similar peculiarities, I assume international finance is well-developed enough for that. –LPfi (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

In most countries if you get used to using one bank, you can expect to find branches of the same bank in most large cities. This means that you only need to research details of ATM fees etc once, and you can readily regonise the bank in other places. In other countries I have choosen to use particular banks because they have no fees for ATM with my card (and avoided others that do). I think it is worth briefly saying that banks are typically local with only a few branches, but we don't need to go into the details of the lack of international banks. If fees are or aren't regulated that is also worth saying - competition doesn't help much for fees that only apply to travellers. AlasdairW (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

In most large cities in that country! Coolcaesar seems to also assume that one would find a branch of one's domestic bank in more or less any country, which I find utterly unrealistic today, unless you happen to be a customer of some of the really big international ones (which is impractical in most countries). Anyway, you seldom need to have local access to your bank unless you are on a longer stay, which should be handled in Working in the United States (with a link from other articles where it is relevant). –LPfi (talk) 07:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

The third paragraph of Get in (the last one of the lead) now reads:

"New immigration practices were introduced in 2025 that resulted in the questionable detention (jailing) of a few visitors with apparently valid travel documents at a port of entry. If you fear this problem (due to work permits or residing with an American spouse for example), using an airport with pre-flight US Customs clearance airports would be safe. While you could still be denied entry, you cannot be detained because you would not be in the United States."

I'm quite confused. This seems to suggest that visitors to the U.S. can be jailed for arbitrary reasons. I don't see how having a work permit or an American spouse would be any reason to be detained – quite contrary – so who wouldn't need to worry? Ans, if U.S. authorities want to put you in jail, are you safe just because you cleared customs abroad? I think it wouldn't be hard for the U.S. customs (while customs and immigration might be integrated, I think talking about customs here is confusing) to arrange for a patrol meeting you in the U.S. and detaining you there instead.

–LPfi (talk) 07:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, this happening. A Canadian woman was detained for 12 days by ICE in really bad conditions. It is not clear yet how this happened. A French scientist was denied entry apparently for have anti-Trump social media posts on his phone. A British backpacker was detained for 19 days. Having a visa does not guarantee entry as the ICE agent at the border has the final say. Ground Zero (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I there some way to avoid this as a traveller (other than keeping your views secret to the border officials)? Are there specific groups that should try to avoid the U.S. altogether? Is anybody safe? In most of the world, one would think that scientists visiting for a conference would be quite safe, but seemingly there is no guarantee in the U.S. –LPfi (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

The words "questionable" and "arbitrary" seem to be apt. I suspect that it is individual agents who feel empowered to use the discretion they have, but I don't know. Ground Zero (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Huge yikes – I definitely agree this is something that should be mentioned. //shb (t | c | m) 10:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I propose to replace the current text:

New immigration practices were introduced in 2025 that resulted in the questionable detention (jailing) of a few visitors with apparently valid travel documents at a port of entry. If you fear this problem (due to work permits or residing with an American spouse for example), using an airport with pre-flight US Customs clearance airports would be safe. While you could still be denied entry, you cannot be detained because you would not be in the United States

with a caution box:

	Note: Entering the U.S. through the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) or a visa does not guarantee the right to enter the country. U.S. border officials have the final authority to make decisions about whether someone can enter the country. Travelers should be able to provide proof of their return trip home, such as a plane ticket. In 2025, there have been instances of travelers being held for up to 19 days in detention facilities for not complying with entry requirements. The U.S. also no longer recognizes the validity of passports that use an "X" to denote gender for transgender, intersex and nonbinary people.
	(Information last updated 24 Mar 2025)

Ground Zero (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

That looks great – though maybe I'd replace the last sentence with "The U.S. also no longer recognizes the validity of passports that use an "X" to denote gender for transgender, intersex and non-binary people." (just reads better to me but I'm fine either way) //shb (t | c | m) 12:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Done. Ground Zero (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) The above reads fine to me, but just for reference on the mentioned cases: “The French researcher in question was in possession of confidential information on his electronic device from Los Alamos National Laboratory — in violation of a non-disclosure agreement — something he admitted to taking without permission and attempted to conceal" [1]. This is a valid reason to detain and/or deport any foreigner.

The British woman was detained after being refused entry to Washington State then refused reentry into Canada which sparked her detainment for improper visa status (trying to enter the US on a tourist visa with intent to work). [2]. This is a common way people illegally enter the US, so her detainment should not be surprising.

The reason for the Canadian woman's detention seems to still have not been disclosed to the public. It's possible that the woman herself does know why but has decided that politicizing her detainment is her best chance of getting off the hook. We shouldn't take her word for it. Everyone in "innocent" in their own story. 2/3 of these are common sense: Don't try to steal classified information and don't abuse your visa. There is no evidence in these of political persecution, and no evidence of false detainment. Even if the Canadian is found to have been mistakenly or falsely detained, we (should) need more examples and evidence before we jump to warning people that the typical traveler may be detained at random. These cases don't show that. The above proposal doesn't state that, so it's fine, but the discussion itself seems keen on going there, so I think it's worth putting the real detainment reasons here in case these are brought up in the future. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Here are a couple of issues, mostly handled:

• A visa doesn't guarantee any right to enter. That's said in Visa, but it seems being refused is a real rather than a theoretic risk in the case of the U.S. That warrants a cautionbox, although it is a little odd that we don't tell why there is a box in this article and not elsewhere.
• Not complying with entry requirements can lead to detainment. Unless you actually do something unlawful, such as taking a black-market work, that's surprising – and if not having a return ticket (or the like) is a criminal offence, that's also surprising. Handled in the cautionbox.
• The gender issue. In addition to the "X" not being accepted, it seems you need to have your birth sex on your passport (in practice: the same as last time, I assume). This is a big problem for some people; the "birth sex" requirement requires some research and addition to the cautionbox.

There are still open questions:

• Are people detained or refused entry because the border authorities don't like their face, or because the traveller have been critical to Trump? If there actually are such cases (or we believe there might be), then this needs to be stated. But if that's only hearsay that we don't believe, then it shouldn't be repeated here.
• What role do work permits or American spouses play in this? Either they don't and the mention should be removed, or the actual problem should be explained. Is it obvious? Not to me.
• Are you safe (from detainment) if you use a pre-flight control? To me it seems that the authorities could catch you later if they really want to jail you.

–LPfi (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

If the authorities want to prevent you entering the US, then they will deny you entry at the pre-flight control. To catch you later, they would have to send somebody to meet you as you get of the plane, as the flight is handled like a domestic arrival. AlasdairW (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Wouldn't they do that if they want to put me in jail, or extort information that I wouldn't give at the pre-flight control? If they don't want anything like that, but just want to get rid of me, why would they put me in jail in [if] the control is in the U.S. instead of just putting me on the next plane home? Sorry if I sound naggy, but I'm trying to understand what's going on here. –LPfi (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi: I'll explain this since I've flown from Canada to the U.S. before, and also crossed the land border. Usually, you clear arrival immigration at the destination airport after your plane lands, but if you are flying from a major Canadian airport to the U.S., you instead clear U.S. immigration at the departure airport in Canada before boarding the plane, and you arrive in the U.S. as a domestic passenger. This is why Canadian airlines usually arrive at the domestic terminals in U.S. airports. Neither the U.S. nor Canada conduct departure immigration checks. If you're flying, the airline will send the passenger manifest to immigration, and that will be used to record your departure. If you are crossing the border from Canada into the U.S. by land, then U.S. immigration will inform Canadian immigration of your arrival so Canada will know that you have left the country. The dog2 (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes. But that doesn't answer my question. –LPfi (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Obviously they're not going to let you roam free while you wait for your deportation flight. They'll detain you until your flight departs. If you get denied entry by U.S. immigration in Canada, then there's no need to detain you because you just don't get to board your flight. Also, U.S. CBP officers cannot legally arrest you in Canada, so if they catch you with marijuana for instance, they have to call Canadian police to arrest you; they can't do it themselves. The dog2 (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

But for 19 days? The cautionbox says "there have been instances of travelers being held for up to 19 days in detention facilities for not complying with entry requirements". That'd been understandable in the early 19th century, waiting for suitable winds, but today the reason has to be elsewhere. –LPfi (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

This appears to be a special case of a Welsh traveller who was denied entry to both Canada and the US and may not have had the money to immediately buy a flight to the UK. See this BBC news article Tourist detained in US back home in Wales, dad says, and USA Today She did chores for a host family—then ended up in US immigration detention. Part of the issue appears to be that she was given free accommodation in somebody's house in exchange for some household chores, which was viewed as being "work". I expect that she would only have spent one day in detention if she had been able to book a flight home at the high prices of a same day flight. AlasdairW (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

So just do household chores (isn't that common also when staying with friends for more than a few days?), don't tell about it to immigration! It may of course be that this was actual unpaid work, or it may have been documented as such. Anyway, if you have to be accommodated by the authorities because you don't find a cheap flight, then that's not something to be upset about. The accommodation standard may of course be substandard, which might be worth a warning – probably in Visa, as I suppose few countries provide hotel accommodation. –LPfi (talk) 09:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am still puzzled by the "residing with an American spouse" part of the problem. The 19 day detention could be considered a work permit issue, and I think this is much more likely to arise. There might be a potential issue in visiting a spouse who resides in America if you don't have permission to live there, but this is not "residing with an American spouse". AlasdairW (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also, I assume such "work permit issues" are caused by your working without a work permit, not by your having that permit, which the wording in the article suggests. LPfi (talk) 15:43, 27 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

See also Talk:Avoiding_travel_through_the_United_States#Updates_needed?. Pashley (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

We should also probably warn foreigners not to participate in pro-Palestine protests. There's now reports of Trump cancelling the visas of international students who are otherwise in the country legally and deporting them for participating in pro-Palestine protests. The dog2 (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

We say (in the lead of Get in) that

"During the application process, visitors to the U.S. are required to fully document mobile phone numbers, e-mail addresses and on-line identities they've used in the past five years."

This is of course unacceptable and I added it to Avoiding travel through the United States – but is it true? I don't really doubt it, but I wouldn't want to spread such information unless we know it is true. –LPfi (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

The social media section of the ESTA form appears to optional, see [3] and [4]. The actual application process requires a passport upload before you get to that section so I can't confirm this. AlasdairW (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/off-the-beaten-path-american-festivals —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)Reply

That is a nice link to post at. 2600:1700:78EA:450:54F5:A5B:EEC7:7803 06:15, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I undid a revert that was done: [5]

But did you explain on why it was reverted? It was about Tribal Confederacies that played historical roles in shaping the socio-political landscape of the U.S. 2600:1700:78EA:450:54F5:A5B:EEC7:7803 06:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

This is a long article about an entire country. What additional travel-relevant information about Native Americans do visitors to the U.S. want and need to know? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Furthermore, that edit was by Brendan so the probability of information being factually untrue or being a copyright violation of some kind is very probable. //shb (t | c | m) 07:36, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The syntax of the paragraph was confusing and convoluted. This is not Wikivoyage style, but it is Brendan's. Ground Zero (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Soliciting the views of User:Toran107 and others in regard to this edit and edit summary. My objection is that this is a travel guide, not an encyclopedia, and "continental" is a meaningless climate designation for ordinary travelers - I, for example, would expect it to refer to Europe, as "continental" cuisine and the British expression "The Continent" do. No kidding that the U.S. is a large part of a continent, but I don't see the designation as being helpful to very many people. I also never thought that a temperate climate never got cold in the winter or hot in the summer, and I don't think that's anyone's definition of a temperate climate, though I suppose someone will tell me that newfangled designations by climate scientists say otherwise. When I grew up, the primary climate zones we were taught about were tropical, temperate, sub-Arctic/sub-Antarctic and polar, though I was aware that precipitation was a parameter along with temperature, so different desert climates, steppe/prairie and Mediterranean climates also existed, and of course elevation is also relevant (I'm not a climate specialist but have been a geography enthusiast since I was 6 and saw climate maps in atlases). I grew up knowing that New York City had a temperate climate. Now, its climate is less and less temperate as the local expression of global warming gathers pace, but that's a worldwide problem. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree. "Temperate" doesn't mean mild in the context of climates; it means between the tropics and the polar regions. It also doesn't make sense to use "continental" and then contrast it with Alaskan tundra, which is indeed "continental". However, I support the other changes the user made to the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 18:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I do, too, with one small caveat: I think this is too much of a generalization about the South:

The climate of the South also varies, but is solidly humid subtropical.

I'd say it is mainly, rather than solidly humid subtropical. States as far north as Virginia and Kentucky are part of the South and are not subtropical. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Good point, and I'd agree. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:52, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

The seasonal variability is very large across much of the U.S, meaning that "continental" would be better suited to describe such large swings in temperature. In the U.S., the "humid subtropical" zone as defined in the Koppen classifcation system extends very far north, up into Southern New England. (Which, in my opinion, reasonably describes the area, as the winters in the past decade that I've experienced, both snowfall and freezing temperatures are very erratic, and the majority (>50%) of winter precipiation arrives as rain). The "temperate" region is limited to only a few major cities in the far north of the country, though outside of the Pacific Northwest or coastal Maine, have very high seasonal swings.

I have changed some of the terms that may have been quite problematic.

Toran107 (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Do you understand that people unfamiliar with technical climate science terms have a sense of what "temperate" means but don't know what "continental" means? I continue to object to using that term. And I also don't accept that New England is subtropical in any meaningful sense, and in fact, that's been discussed before on these boards and others agreed with me. Florida is subtropical and doesn't have 2-foot snowfalls. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have not and do not plan to add “subtropical” to the year round descriptors for New England, as not all maps extend the subtropical zone that far north. It is only some maps that extend the subtropical zone that far, so I can’t do that. However most maps place much of the sunbelt region within the subtropical zone, so it would be correct to use “subtropical” for the sunbelt region. Toran107 (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sunbelt, yes, but Kentucky is part of the South but not the Sunbelt. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think that since this article is describing in general terms, we can just leave the intro in broad terms. It's in a transitional zone towards the edge of subtropical area where some maps terminate it at the south of the state, and other maps extend the subtropical zone further north. The mid-latitude regions of the country generally have the most disagreement between maps over how far north the subtropical zone extends, so just specifying the south/north divide in the intro is fine.

In the far northern regions, I think "continental temperate", or "temperate with large temperature swings" is fine. The amount of seasonal variation in temperatures in the U.S. is much higher than similar temperate regions in Europe, Japan, or Australia. So travellers from these regions should understand that the seasonal swings is much greater in the U.S.. Only central and eastern Russia and areas immediately south of it have greater seasonality. Hundreds of articles use the term "continental climate" (and a good portion of articles were already using the term prior to my edits), and both the Wikipedia page and Simple English Wikipedia use the terms as well. Toran107 (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

There are a lot of articles that have overly encyclopedic language. That doesn't demonstrate that it's a good practice in a travel guide. I can be at peace with "continental temperate", though I frankly still don't know what "continental" means, and the fact that it's used on Wikipedia is not relevant to this discussion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Ikan Kekek. "Continental" doesn't bring much to mind about the climate while "temperate" does. When I imagine "Continental temperate", my assumption would be LESS seasonal variation than just saying "temperate". ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I added mention of Trump and travel bans here, but was reverted. The rationale was "they go out of date quickly." Trump has 3½ years left in his term so idk if that's exactly quickly. And the governing party's positions on travel bans and xenophobia seem pretty darn relevant to people considering traveling there. Purplebackpack89 00:05, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

1. We do not have a photo of any country's leader in the country's article. Leave that for Wikipedia. This is a travel guide.

2. "Currently and in recent years, the Republican Party has been skeptical of foreigners and immigrants..., while the Democratic Party has been more accepting." -- that's the sort of wording that can lead to endless squabbling on the talk page. As you know, American politics is very polarized now. At Wikivoyage, we focus on travel, not on arguing over politics.

3. "(even going so far as to enact travel bans from several countries)" -- where there are travel bans in places, they are discussed under "#Travel bans and restrictions" with specific reference to whom they apply. Not mentioning the countries means that you are providing political commentary, not travel advice.

4. "The American government is currently led by President Donald Trump, a Republican." -- Wikivoyage does not use in-line links to Wikipedia articles.

5. "is currently" is a longer way of writing "is".

I invite comments from other contributors on whether it was appropriate to rever this edit. Ground Zero (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Sure, add the info, but only as specifics of which countries' citizens are banned from entry and without a photo of Trump or Wikipedia link. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply