Talk:Tourism in Israel/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

re: this removal of WP:V compliant material by Pantherskin on the basis of WP:UNDUE. Is undue a valid reason given its coverage in RS and the response from the Jerusalem Mayor ?

There's more where they came from. Seems pretty notable to me. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sean, why do expect policies such as NPOV to matter on this page, or for that matter most pages dealing with Israel and the territory it occupies? You should know by now that policies dont matter here, that if a few users dislike any mention of something they feel portrays a certain state in what they feel is a negative light it will not be allowed in the article. The removal of the material discussed in the section above, the bs changes by Jiujitsuguy, and this should be expected. It is "undue" to say that EJ is considered occupied territory, it is "truth" that EJ is in Israel. Didnt you figure that out yet? nableezy - 03:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, my main concern as a fundamentalist atheist is to ensure that this article doesn't become a vehicle for the religionization of tourism and the promotion of Abrahamic religions. You see, religionization is just like politicization. I don't like it so it's not going to happen and I shall be removing all mention of religious things. I admit that this may be slightly inconsistent with policy but my limbic system tells me it's the right thing to do. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Sickest man. nableezy - 05:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Stop being sad because people don't like your editing Nableezy.
Agreed it should be in. Watch the weight and there should be no worries.Cptnono (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not sad, stop saying stupid things. I really do not care if anybody "likes" my editing, and I am caring less and less if these articles are propaganda pieces or encyclopedia articles. From the above section it is clear that no amount of information about the occupation will be allowed in the article, no matter how explicit the connection to tourism or the quality of the sources. Adding the NPOV tag is about the only thing I can do on this article. nableezy - 05:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This advert ban has been mentioned in several reliable sources and should be re added to the article. It was presented in the article as an advert ban in the UK by the UK Advertising Standards Authority. Pantherskins removal of it claiming "UNDUE" is inaccurate, sine that WP policy has nothing to do with this situation. Pantherskin is misunderstanding that WP policy. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Not one person has given a reason for the removal, so I have restored this material. nableezy - 15:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

There is clear consensus in this section to include the information on the UK ban. Jiujitsuguy claims that there is no consensus is demonstrably false. nableezy - 15:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I also support information. It is directly related to the topic of the article and, since the citizens of the United Kingdom are some of the most frequent tourists, the information is highly relevant.--TM 16:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And yet again, another user has removed the information claiming there is no consensus without even having the decency to make an appearance on the talk page. nableezy - 17:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Not. Your talking about the consensus of two people? This is merely another example of the politicization of this article and deliberate messing around of the article. It is not about tourism in Israel. You should place it instead on the Freedom of the Press in the UK page. --Shuki (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The wasnt a press issue, this was a truth in advertising issue. And it explicitly deals with tourism and Israel. nableezy - 18:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Brit advertising policies have nothing to do with sites that people would like to see when they visit Israel. Your repeated insertions of these and other politically charged materials have nothing at all to do with the betterment of this article and everything to do with another clear attempt to to insert politics into an otherwise non-political issue.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
That is wholly untrue. The political twisting being done here is by you and others seeking to pretend that EJ, the Golan, and the WB are in Israel. I brought a number of sources that explicitly discuss tourism in the occupied territories and you have removed them all. Your attempt to portray these places as being in Israel is both factually incorrect and a gross violation of NPOV. nableezy - 18:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, all of life has a political element. Secondly, this article isn't about what "people would like to see when they visit Israel". This is an encyclopedia. For that, I suggest you look elsewhere. Plainly, multiple independent sources have reported something related to the topic. It is not a "pro-Israel" or "anti-Israel" tactic.--TM 18:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Clearly beyond the scope of this article which is tourism in Israel, and not about minor controversies discussed discussed for a few days in a newspapers. This is an encyclopedia and not a trash bin for anything that is written in newspaper. If someone can actually demonstrate that the inclusion of minor newspaper controversies barely relevant to the topic of the article is compliant with our policies please? Pantherskin (talk) 09:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
So if the scope of this article is "tourism in Israel" as you say, why are there regions in the Palestinian territories and in Syria in this article? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Because they are de-facto in Israel and not anywhere else. Pantherskin (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Your personal view is not in accordance with reality and npov. These regions are by the entire world considered in Syria and the Palestinian territories and are in no way considered part of Israel. Therefor the scope of "tourism in Israel" are exactly that, in Israel, and not in regions outside of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Pantherskin, perhaps you could explain what the demonstration you requested would involve ? Sean.hoyland - talk 10:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
A demonstration that it was more than a minor incident. Merely being verifiable is not enough to include something in an article (in particular in an overview article such as this). We could easily fill any article with trivia, but does not make trivia encyclopaedic. An indication that this had a lasting impact, or that it had a significant real-world impact in the context of the article topic etc. Pantherskin (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
That is nonsense. We currently say that tourism in Israel includes areas in East Jerusalem, something that the UK specifically says it does not. And you dont think that is relevant? The policy based reason it is appropriate is that it verifiable, covered in multiple reliable sources, and explicitly related to the topic of this article. You are right that just being in a source does not mean something should be included in an article, but it does mean that you need to provide a policy based reason to exclude it. You not liking that fact that EJ is considered occupied territory outside of Israel and wishing to portray it as in Israel is not an acceptable reason. This is an encyclopedia article about tourism in Israel, it isnt a travel guide or a list of popular spots. This is undeniably within the scope of the article, and the only reason it is not in the article now is that a certain set of users are insisting on censoring super-majority views from this article. nableezy - 15:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for making it clear that you do not intend to be constructive. Instead of accusing other editors of partisan editing and censhorship you could for example provide evidence that this minor controversy had any real impact on Tourism in Israel and has thus a place in this article. Pantherskin (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I am here to make an encyclopedia article compliant with the policies of this website. Would you like to try that? Just saying it is minor does not make it so, this was covered by press around the world. You and a group of editors have repeatedly removed content you dont like in violation of Wikipedia policy. That is clear. ~~
It is clear that you are not willing to provide any evidence that shows that this controversy has any signifance and notability. Instead you are attacking those who argue against inclusion and for an encylopaedic approach compliant with our most basic policies. Really poor and not helpful at all. Pantherskin (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The evidence is the sources. That is all the evidence that is needed. nableezy - 15:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and the sources show that this was an isolated, one-time event of no historical significance and notability. Where are the sources that demonstrate this is a significant event that should be included in this article? Pantherskin (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
When the mainstream media in multiple countries carry independent stories about an event, it is important and notable. In this case, an organ of the British government ruled that an Israeli company couldn't advertise due to their misleading advertisements. I really don't see how that is not notable in the Tourism in Israel discussion. If they did it for Sri Lanka, Russia or Sierra Leone, it would be just as important and notable. As noted in the article, the citizens of the UK are some of the most frequent visitors to Israel.--TM 10:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Feel free to re-request for other titles - it's possible that some of the alternates suggested below may find support if requested individually. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Tourism in Israel → Tourism in Israel and the Palestinian territories — |Relisted billinghurst sDrewth 12:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC) | Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Change name to reflect common usage in sources as well as to avoid constant arguments over the inclusion of Israeli occupied areas. Also fits previous example of Islam in Israel and the Palestinian territories.TM 07:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Support As discussed above, many in the industry treat it that way and some go as far as using that actual title.[1][2][3] It would also help clear up some of the confusion and should be less contentious.Cptnono (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Palestinian Territories refers to Area A and B agreed upon by the two sides in the Oslo Accords. The rest of the area is not Palestinian territories. --Shuki (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I support a move to Israel and the occupied territories, as many of the areas in the article are about Golan. If the article is not moved, then the areas not in Israel as the Palestinian territories and Golan must be removed from this article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
"occupied territories" is a little much. And as explained, the intl community's thoughts on it do not reflect reality The Golan Heights are part of Israel in all function. Most tourism books don't mention it in the title more than likely for that reason. If the title was modified to Israel, Golan Heights, and Palestinian territories I would be OK with it since it is politicization but not an over the top in your face and screaming disclaimer that does not reflect the actual nature of the area. It is still more of a concession to editors here that isn't seen in the sources but when dealing with such bickering it might be the only way to go.Cptnono (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Follow up to SDs addition: Information on the disputed areas doesn't need to be removed if this article is not renamed since many travel guides are simply titled "Israel" and still discuss the disputed areas. Retitling would clarify it though. Clarifying in the prose (not as repeated drawn out and off topic disclaimers) would be just as useful as well.Cptnono (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
In reality, it is not part of Israel. In reality, it is Syrian land under Israeli occupation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I would be fine with renaming the article "Tourism in Israel, the Golan Heights and Palestinian territories" as well.--TM 06:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Still not accurate. This article will not deal with Gaza. Tourism in Israel, the Golan Heights and West Bank is the only compromise. But what will the scope then be? Will Tourism in the Palestinian territories be merged with it? Peculiar how so many editors spend time on these Israeli articles but never bother to create even stubs for the Arab articles. --Shuki (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose name change as this would create a whole new set of problems and yet another drawn out headache.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
So what? Most people don't think about the long term here, just to push their short-term points. Or maybe, au contraire, I think changing the name of the article would be a great jumping board towards establishing the one-state solution here on WP. --Shuki (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support this includes Bethlehem and Hebron, areas which it explicitly states that Israel does not normally allow its own citizens to visit. If we retain the current title we would have to delete these sections. PatGallacher (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the Tomb of the Patriarchs is under Israeli control and a portion of Hevron is under Israeli control. Israelis are permitted to enter those areas of Hevron still under Israeli jurisdiction. As for Bethlehem, you are correct. Israelis are forbidden to enter this city and so accordingly, I would support removal of this city from the article.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
It being "under Israeli control" does not mean it is within Israel. Hebron, the whole of it, is considered occupied Palestinian territory. The issue here is that people are trying to include things outside of Israel as being "in Israel". nableezy - 21:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Who ultimately retains control of Hevron will be decided by the respective parties to the conflict. Until that happens, it will remain under Israel's sovereign jurisdiction and accordingly as a matter of practicality, should be included as tourism in Israel. There is no political component here despite your best efforts to inject it into the article--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. Israel doesnt even claim that any part of Hebron is in Israel. Israel's High Court has repeatedly said that the West Bank is held under belligerent occupation. Can you provide any quality sources that claim that any part of Hebron is in Israel? nableezy - 21:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you please provide me one hyperlinked source from the High Court that references Israel's administration of the disputed territories as a "belligerent occupation."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
No, mostly because "disputed territories" is a meaningless phrase. But I can provide several about some of the occupied territories, in particular the West Bank:
nableezy - 23:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Can we have one discussion about Israel and Palestine which does not turn into an argument over the status? Take this argument elsewhere. Do you or do you not support renaming this article?--TM 07:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Personally, I don't think the precise legal status should determine the name of this article, nor do I think we should go by the "facts on the ground", because that is clearly up to interpretation. We should use "Tourism in Israel and the Palestinian territories" as the title because it is the common name for this area, as demonstrated by the tourist guides above. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support on WP:COMMONNAME basis. It includes East Jerusalem, which is generally thought of as "Palestinian" territory. Faceless Enemy (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think this title change helps. The article is very clear when it is referring to areas outside of Israel's borders; it does not attempt to claim that East Jerusalem, Golan Heights, or Bethlehem are in Israel, but including them makes sense. A better alternative would be to begin Tourism in the Palestinian territories, and link to that article from this one instead of trying to tack tourism in the Palestinian territories to this article. Fences&Windows 17:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I would support a move to Tourism in Israel and the occupied territories or Tourism in Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories. The Golan is neither in Israel nor is in the Palestinian territories. The article that we have that covers the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 is Israeli-occupied territories. If we are to include those territories that remain under Israeli occupation we should explicitly say so in the title of the article. nableezy - 20:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I've started the article on Tourism in the Palestinian territories now. Hopefully pople will find it more interest to work on expanding this stub and populating the category than arguing about this name. Why not just accept that any article on tourism in Israel is going to touch on tourism to the occupied territories, rather than using ideology to force a change to a terrible title? Fences&Windows 20:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I would support a move to the terrible names mentioned above because the title would be more accurate, but so long as it is made clear that the Golan and the West Bank (including EJ) are occupied Syrian and Palestinian territory I dont really mind that name. I oppose this proposal because the Golan is not in Israel nor is it Palestinian territory and if we are actually going to list what the article covers in the title we should be accurate. But I dont think I am using ideology to force anything. You wrote above that The article is very clear when it is referring to areas outside of Israel's borders. It is now, but there have been a number of edits that either sought to obfuscate those facts or completely remove them. nableezy - 21:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure I understand why a new article was created. Some of the info in it is actually really good but it should probably just be merged over.Cptnono (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Why? nableezy - 21:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I've already explained why. Other people have as well. Cptnono (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Uhh, nobody has explained why there should not be an article Tourism in the Palestinian territories, but thats fine. Not really the topic of the rm. nableezy - 22:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
"I'm not sure I understand why a new article was created." Because the Palestinian territories should be treated in their own right and not subsumed into articles on Israel. It's a separate notable topic. Or are you going to propose merging all articles about the Palestinian territories into their Israel counterparts? Fences&Windows 19:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Since there seems to be no consensus on the name change, lets merge the West Bank info on this page into the news Palestinian territories article.--TM 20:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
70% of the West Bank is zone C and fully controlled by Israel. The industry is reliant on and intertwined with Israel. The sources when it comes to travel make it clear. It might be different in other topics but travel seems like a no brainer to me.Cptnono (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
And I had actually just expanded info on the Bethlehem area before realizing there were responses here. I think I made it clear that it is occupied so that should meet Nableezy's request. I actually used a source from the new article. Several editors have agreed that the sources treat them the same on this topic so going away from the sources would epitomize what is wrong with the broader I-P topic area on Wikipedia.Cptnono (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I already did despite your claims otherwise. Feel free to say otherwise and I'll just respond the same. I'm not repeating reasoning because you don't get it.Cptnono (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support move to Tourism in Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories. They are dealt as one in a lot of guidebooks. Further treating the two as one will hopefully reduce the degree of edit-warring by leaving it open where places such as Eat Jerusalemand Mount Hermon are.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC) BTW, shouldn't this discussion be closing?--Peter cohen (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I too support move to Tourism in Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories. This is factually accurate; it covers places within the Green Line, in East Jerusalem, in all parts of the West Bank, i Gaza and in the Golan Heights. It is not a POV move; people can support this regardless of whether or not they consider East Jerusalem and Golan to be part of Israel, since in they are both indubitably part of "Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories". If the move is rejected, then I will support proposals to delete all reference to places beyond the Israeli borders prior to June 1967. RolandR (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per Shuki.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose Considering the arguments in favor and against, I find these against to be far more convincing. --Gilisa (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per the arguments above. I have a different proposal, which I will present lower in this talk page. Marokwitz (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Shuki and Jiujitsuguy. Palestinian territories distinct and will only create more of a headache and WP:BATTLEGROUND environment. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple proposals above, and a lack of clarity over the final proposal. Relisted seeing if consensus may be reached. billinghurst sDrewth 12:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal for the scope of this article

My proposal for resolving the dispute on this article is as follows: There is already a different article on tourism in the Palestinian territories. In my opinion the present article should focus on territories which are currently under the de-facto control of Israel (West Bank Areas B / C including Jordan Valley, East Jerusalem, and Judean Desert, the Golan Heights), and the second one should focus on areas which are under the full control of the PA (West Bank Area A including Jenin, Nablus, Tubas, and Tulkarm, Salfit, Jericho, Bethlehem and the Gaza Strip). The lead of each of the two articles should have a short explanation about the scope of the article, and a reference to the other article, along with a very short description of the disputed nature of these areas along with a link to a more detailed article about the I/P dispute. The rest of the article should avoid repeating the above statement in the lead, to prevent giving undue weight to politics. Marokwitz (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I oppose any attempt to portray areas outside of Israel as being in Israel, and your proposal would do exactly that. If you wish to include the areas occupied by Israel it should be made clear that territory is occupied by Israel. Ignoring the issue and just pretending these places are all the same is just as political as clarifying the issue, perhaps even more so because it ignores super-majority views and emphasizes extreme minority ones. nableezy - 06:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say that, my proposal was to explain the dispute clearly in the lead. Marokwitz (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Your proposal in full removes information about the Palestinian territories from the article on the Palestinian territories and places them in an article titled "Tourism in Israel". And you recently removed an explanation of the nature these territories on the basis that the lead should not introduce new information but rather summarize the content of the article (which didnt stop you from then removing that content from the body as well). Im confused by these seemingly conflicting positions. Should the lead have information that is not in the body of the article or not? And how would you "explain the dispute clearly"? And would you remove information on how the occupation has affected tourism? nableezy - 06:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The lead should explain the dispute briefly, not go into detailed analysis and add facts not present elsewhere in the article. I don't have any problem with having contextual information in the body too as long as it doesn't delve into details which are out of scope for this article and compromise due weight. Marokwitz (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
There are three clearly defined areas here: the Palestinian territories, which includes the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem; Israel including their borders from 1948-1967 and the Golan Heights. Including any of these areas as "in" the other is not acceptable. If we aren't going to merge the Palestinian territories and Israel articles (which I still think is the best option) than it has to be made abundantly clear that while economically interrelated, they are not in fact the same.--TM 07:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you feel that it is possible to explain a dispute of this nature both briefly and clearly? nableezy - 07:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure. Once we agree on the principle, we can work on wording that everyone can agree on. And I disagree there are three clearly defined areas, due to the Oslo agreements and Gaza-Jericho agreement, the status of East Jerusalem is at present totally different than Jericho and Gaza. A tourist coming to East Jerusalem is presently governed by Israel Tourism Ministry and not the Palestinian one. They are also subject to Israeli laws, passport control, and security forces. Marokwitz (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
"Status" is ambiguous. Oslo did not change that Jericho, Gaza, and EJ are occupied Palestinian territory, it only set up a framework to resolve their final status. It did not change their current status. And the areas are clearly defined, there is Israel, the Golan (occupied Syrian territory), and the West Bank, including EJ (occupied Palestinian territory). That is how these places are defined in the overwhelming majority of sources. Yes, EJ is currently controlled by Israel, but the control that Israel exercises is called "occupation". I can cite a thousand sources that make this simple statement of fact. Being subject to Israeli law does not make territory in Israel, all it means is that Israel violated article 64 of the 4th Geneva Convention in changing the legal system in occupied territory. That does not make the territory no longer occupied. I oppose any attempt to further push this extreme minority view that these territories are anything other than occupied Palestinian and Syrian territory. nableezy - 15:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes Nableezy, we know your views on the subject. However, as a practical matter, Israeli law applies in these areas and the tourists who visit these areas are subject to Israeli laws and governance. This is a very simple concept that you seem unable to grasp. Truly puzzling.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Nuh-uh, you mean people visiting occupied territory are subject to the laws of the occupying power? What an incredible surprise! I am truly shocked, shocked I say! The very simple concept is that it being controlled by Israel does not mean it is in Israel. You understand yet? Or do I need to type slower? nableezy - 16:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
This was supposed to be a simple apolitical article dealing with tourism in Israel. The other issues that you raise (displaced Jordanians, the legal status of Judea/Samaria and the Golan) are subjects that are beyond the scope of this article. However, not only do you repeatedly insert these ancillary items, your objective is to push a political agenda and overwhelm the article with it, thus diluting the main purpose of the article and turning it into yet another battleground.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
If it was supposed to be a simple apolitical article dealing with tourism in Israel then we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. The scope of the article would simply be tourism in Israel. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting choice of words, "displaced Jordanians", "Judea/Samaria". Very enlightening. nableezy - 17:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
You are correct. The term "displaced Jordanians" is too narrow in scope. The spike in economic activity, brought about by a resurgent Jewish population caused Arabs from other countries including Egyptians, Sudanese, Syrians, Iraqis and a sprinkle of Saudis to migrate to Israel in search of work and economic opprtunity. So the term "displaced Arabs" might be more appropriate as it is broader in scope. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. As for "Judea/Samaria," that term is commonly used in Israel just like Al Jazeera refers to it as "occupied territory." Again, my apologies for not utilizing phraseology pre-approved by you--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Enough of the bs. WP:NPOV requires that all majority views and significant minority views published by reliable sources be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. Wikipedia is not a travel guide, it is an encyclopedia. The material that is found in high quality sources, such as the ones you have consistently removed, that is explicitly related to the topic of this article has to be in the article. To censor out that material because you or anybody else does not like or agree with it is not acceptable. Edit-warring is not the only sin on Wikipedia, and a number of editors here have repeatedly refused to abide by NPOV and RS. There has yet to be a policy based reason to censor out material discussing tourism as it relates to the occupation, and repeatedly removing high quality sources and the material those sources cite is not acceptable behavior. You cannot remove material that is sourced to reliable sources simply because you do not like it. Wikipedia has content rules, the most important being WP:NPOV. That a number of you think that NPOV means whatever Israel says go is nice, but completely meaningless. NPOV requires that all significant viewpoints be included in the article. It is that simple, the only question is whether or not this article will be taken over by a clique of editors adamant on portraying Israel as a shining beacon for all humanity that has not, scratch that, can not do anything wrong or if it will follow the policies of this website. nableezy - 21:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes Nab, you’re above the fray devoid of any hint of bias and I’d also like to sell you the Golden Gate Bridge. Addressing that "clique of editors" comment, you've got some cheese to say that when you and your boyz have hijacked dozens of articles on the I-A topic area. So get off your high horse and at least be honest. Don't take us for fools.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
My "boyz"? Do you think we are "n tha hood" or something? I dont take you for anything other than POV pushing far-right "editor" that you are. nableezy - 23:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Move to "Tourism in Israel and Israeli-occupied territories"? --Dailycare (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Marokwitz's proposal. Oppose Nableezy's struggle to politicize and reduce the quality of this article. Editor mysteriously practically does not bother to improve anything, even the Tourism in the Palestinian article. Marokwitz proposes a reasonable compromise, Nableezy simple cannot. --Shuki (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not compromise on NPOV. To quote that policy: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. (my emphasis) nableezy - 21:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The rename proposal is one that is likely to reduce the scope for edit-warring substantially. A suggestion to include places that are not in Israel, on the other hand, is liable to increase the amount of edit-warring. BTW, it should be noted that the rename was proposed by an editor I do not remember encountering in the IP battleground area before and the first endorsement came from CptNoNo who is generally on the Pro-Israel side of the edit war. --Peter cohen (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Marokwitz's Proposal. He's done an excellent job in significantly enhancing and expanding the content of this article in an unbiased manner. Oppose Nableezy's attempt to politicize this article and turn it into yet another I-A battleground--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Marokwitz's proposal. Which is an admirable effort to non-POV forward movement. Oppose Nab's counter-proposal, which, though certainly well-intentioned, may lack some in that regard.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Proposals that conflate the RS based notions of 'Israel' and 'occupied by Israel' politicize the article. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • oppose as stated As long as this article includes sites that are in the occupied territories, the best solution is to rename the article Tourism in Israel and the Occupied Territories. This is a version of Dailycare's proposal (I don't really object to her wording). If anyone considers renaming it this way "political" I can only suppose that that means that topics relating to the Israel-Palestinian conflict are necessarily political. But at least this title is not partisan, it doesn't suggest anything about what the outcome of the conflict will or should be. The point is, articles should have titles that describe their contents. If a good chunk of the contents of this article describes sites in the Occupied Territories, we need a title that tells people that. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
    If you support the rename, do you want to make that clear in the still-open move discussion above?--Peter cohen (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Marokwitz's proposal and Oppose Nab's counter-proposal. There's really no need to create yet another battleground article from the article that supposed to be fun to read.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Marokwitz's proposal; Oppose Nableezy's political-agenda proposal.--Hmbr (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

To all of you echoing the incredibly inane "oppose nableezy's counter proposal", I have not made a counter proposal. Try keeping up. nableezy - 19:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It is just in case you will ☺ --Mbz1 (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Support 'use of comedy in the I-P conflict' award for Mbz1 for this comment. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Seconded. RomaC TALK 01:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Marokwitz's proposal per Nableezy's (!!!) not to the point arguments. I think it would be better for Nableezy to cool off from dealing with Israeli related topics. The arguments she made to promote her proposal are way too far from WP:NPOV.--Gilisa (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
He, and do you know what NPOV means? And the issue here is that this goes beyond "Israeli related topics", this article discusses Palestinian and Syrian territory held under occupation by Israel. My arguments are both to the point and, shockingly, backed by high quality sources. Kindly refrain from making such blatant mischaracterizations of what I have written. And I have not made a "proposal", I really dont understand what you all are voting on. nableezy - 20:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The so-called politicization of the article precedes Nableezy's response to it. The push for inclusion of the areas in question as parts of Israel seems another attempt to legitimize the occupation. RomaC TALK 01:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
If people would stop reading too much into it than something might actually get done here. Not everything is about the occupation issue although the topic area gets it stuffed in with exceptional weight on every single article. Has anyone even attemptd to write a proper lead for Golan Heights? There is more than the I-P conflict going on in Israel and the rest of the region. Cptnono (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Your comments above and elsewhere in this discussion suggest you think other editors just don't get it, which is condescending and a bit of a pain in the neck. RomaC TALK 10:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - this proposal explains does not hide the fact that there is a real-world dispute, without turning this article about tourism in Israel in an article about this dispute. Pantherskin (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Slrubenstein summed up the entire issue for me by saying "The point is, articles should have titles that describe their contents." This is, of course, an entirely obvious and key point. The scope of an article called 'Tourism in Israel' is tourism in Israel. It's really that simple. What's the problem ? Information about tourism in the Golan belongs in an article whose scope includes tourism in the Golan. Information about tourism in the Palestinian Territories belongs in an article whose scope includes the Palestinian Territories. We can make the scope whatever we like, combine things, separate things but the title(s) must describe the scope/contents of the article accurately. The hydrocarbon potential of offshore Western Sahara isn't 'in Morocco' in any way, shape or form, a point of considerable inconvenience, the Kuwaiti oil and gas fields were not 'in Iraq' while they occupied it and the tourism resources of places outside of Israel are not 'in Israel'. These things are obvious. The fact that we even have to discuss this is a tribute to the insanity of this place. It should be an easy issue to deal with. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
No, the point is the borders with Syria and the Palestinian territories are still in dispute and subject to final status agreements, however the areas under full Israeli control are de-facto "in Israel" for all purposes related to tourism. A tourist coming to East Jerusalem is presently governed by Israel Tourism Ministry and not the Palestinian one. They are also subject to Israeli laws, passport control, and security forces. Tourism Golan heights is not "Tourism in Syria" for any practical purpose. The solution is to explain the dispute and move on with the topic of this article which is not politics. Marokwitz (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I need to ammend my vote. I cannot sasy I oppose Marokwitz's proposal, because i agree with every element of it. I just do not think it is sufficient to resolve the dispute. I am not proposing an alternative, but rather an ammendment to her proposal. I propose everything Marokwitz proposes, plus adding to the title "and the Occupied Territories." I am using this term not to refer to the Gaza strip or the PA territories; I agree with Marokwitz's proposal that they have their own articles. But the fact remains that much tourism that begins in Israel is targetted at sites in territories still occupied by Israel. A de facto versus de jure distinction is not appropriate when there is an ongoing political conflict over what is considered a "fact" (e.g. is East Jerusalmen part of Israel or not).
Some people above have challenged comments similar to the one I am making as "politicizing" the article. I honestly do not know what they mean. If we want to use a term like "de facto," then we have to agree that it is a fact that the borders of Israel and any future Palestinian state are being contested and decided politically. It is not possible to "politicize" the article, when much of the contents is already political. It seems to me that basic Wikipedian standards, and NPOV, require us to change the title to "Tourism in Israel and the Occupied Territories" (or if you wish we can delete the "the.") I think the burden is on anyone who opposes my ammendment to explain how their opposition is more compliant with NPOV than mine, or how their title is more accurate than mine. Look, if Israel went ahead and annexed the Occupied territories today, then we would have a hell of a problem because from the Israeli POV they are not occupied but from the Palestinian POV they are and you cannot say all of this in a title. But even Israel acknowledges that some of the territory is "occupied." I do not understand why Marokwitz would object to this ammendment. She writes, "A tourist coming to East Jerusalem is presently governed by Israel Tourism Ministry and not the Palestinian one. They are also subject to Israeli laws, passport control, and security forces" which supports the point I am making - none of this would be true were Israel not occupying the territory; that the tourist is subject to Israeli law and force is proof that this territory is - "de facto" - occupied by Israel. We need an accurate title. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Your title is too inclusive and therefore will not correctly describe the article. My proposal was that this article should NOT cover tourism in places such the Gaza strip or Jericho, since they are not controlled by Israel, not subject to Israeli security, not under the supervision of the Israeli tourism minister, yet they are still considered by the UN to be "Occupied Territories", so if we used your title, then we would have to cover them here too (effectively creating a content fork - there is already a different article about tourism in the Palestinian Territories). In addition, since which areas are "Occupied" is disputed, this will result in endless edit wars. "Areas under Israeli Control" is a less disputed term, since what is under Israeli control is not disputed, the dispute is about legality of the control. Marokwitz (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Again, let's start with the article contents and work out the title from that. Looking at contents, it is you who are proposing a content fork, by suggesting that tourism in areas controled by Palestinians have their own articles. "Content" fork refers to the contents and you are proposing the fork. And look, I am not objecting to your proposed content fork. I expressly support it. But what is your criteria for forking? Areas which Israel has direct control over, versus areas where it does not. Fine. That means that your content fork leaves in this article occupied territories. The UN is not the sole authority here, and we are not obliged to use their terminology strictly. As editors we need to consult a range of sources and then use common sense. What does it mean to "occupy" a territory? It does not just mean open to settlement, it also means placing it under the legal, political, and military forces of an occupying power. Your content fork seems to me to be based on a distinction between territory in which Israel is the occupying power and territory in which it is not the occupying power ... how else am I to make sense of your fork?
I think the source of your confusion is that the words I have been using can be construed as a common noun or as a proper noun. Perhaps as a proper noun, "The Occupied Territories," the term is applied to the Gaza Strip and areas under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority. This is using "The Occupied territories" as a name for a certain area, whether it is occupied or not. After all, a girl can be given the name grace, and she will be called that as a woman even if she grows up to be singularly lacking in this virtue (or blessing). I am using occupied territories as a common noun, or strictly speaking, a nominal phrase in which the noun "territories" is modified by the adjective "occupied." En Englich, it is easy to distinguish between common and proper nouns. Proper nouns are capitalized, and generally require a definite article.
So here is my solution to your concern: call the article Tourism in Israel and occupied territories. As long as the definite article is not used, and we use lower case letters, we are not referring to all of the land designated by the UN as "The Occupied Territories." We can also make this clear through a hatnote. The only other alternative I see is to propose a new content fork, one that makes occupied territories that actually are currently occupied by Israel a separate article. personally, I prefer your content fork. But if we go with your content fork, we need a title that accurately depicts the fork. I was wrong to include the definite article in my original proposal, and i appreciate your pointing this out. Removing the definite article, using lower case letters, and having a dab hatnote, will spare readers any possible confusion. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Offical sites such as [4] lump travel to Israel and the occupied territories together. An important fact relevant to your argument is that Isarael controls the borders of the OPTs.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
That is a good point. So this is one of your reasons for opposing Markowitz's proposal? It sounds like you are saying you oppose a content fork because of the importance of border control to international tourism. That is a good argument.
I want to remind people who are participating in this poll that they have to address the various issues that have been raised, especially in terms of policy. Decisions at Wikipedia are not made by votes; polls are a simple way to find out where the fault lines are among editors. But editorial decisions are always ultimately based on proposals that are supported by sound, policy-based arguments. One "vote" that has a compelling argument informed by policy outways any number of opposing votes that are simply expressing an opinion. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a Palestinian Ministry of Tourism and anything they administer should be in a separate article. Whether or not any tourism to the Palestinian territories should be in a different article is a separate question. But if we are to say that this article should cover tourism in areas under Israeli occupation the scope of the article should be made clear. I agree with Slrubenstein on this point. The problem this entire time has been that users have insisted on both claiming that this article is simply about tourism in Israel and that it covers territory outside of Israel (and Markowitz, it being controlled by Israel does not make it de facto or any other de in Israel. Occupied territory is by definition outside of the state of the occupying power and it is by definition controlled by the occupying power). There are a number of ways to accomplish this. The article can be titled Tourism in Israel, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank or Tourisim in Israel and the occupied territories or Tourism in Israel, the Golan Heights, and the Palestinian territories. I myself am partial to Tourism in Israel and the occupied territories because the article that we have dealing with the occupied territories is Israeli-occupied territories. We should not need to have this fight on countless pages because certain people don't like the word "occupied". That is standard terminology across the world when discussing these territories. The dislike of that term by a few users is meaningless. But regardless of the name used, it must be made clear that these territories are recognized by literally almost the entire world as occupied Syrian or Palestinian territory. nableezy - 15:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me pretty simple: does this article contain contents about tourism in Israel and Israeli -occupied territories? If the answer is "yes," then the title should say Tourism in Israel and occupied territories or Tourism in Israel and Israeli-occupied territories. Or Tourism in Israel, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank. I can understand different editors having a preference for one of these titles over the other two. But I cannot understand why anyone would object to all three possible titles. I would love to know why, although you could save time and tell me only if you think you have policy backing you up, or if you think none of my suggestions comply with policy. When there is a protracted conflict, in my experience the livable solution os to follow what policy says, to whatever extent one can. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I can explain it to you. The objections come from three different, though related, perspectives. The first being that all these places are rightfully in Israel and that is the end of the story. This is an extreme minority viewpoint that even the state of Israel does not claim. The second being that these places aren't really occupied. The Israeli government has made that claim with respect to the Palestinian territories, notably in their submission to the ICJ in the Wall case (which unanimously rejected that claim as without backing in international law) though the the High Court consistently refers to Israel's control over the West Bank as "belligerent occupation", but I am not aware of them actually disputing that the Golan is occupied Syrian territory (and before people bring up the Golan Heights Law they should read about it, Israel did not "annex" the Golan), so they object to the term "occupied". The last of these reasons is that this article is supposedly apolitical. This reason is specious as claiming occupied territory as being in Israel is obviously "political". The argument goes that saying something about the occupation is "politicizing" the article but not saying anything about it somehow is not. None of these reasons have any backing in any of the policies of this website. To any of the editors who have opposed my imaginary proposal, please do correct me if I have either misrepresented a position or not adequately explained one. nableezy - 18:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
If you want "occupied" to be precede every mention of "Palestinian territory" on Wikipedia we will need venue with a larger scope than this. Occupation is disputed. It is not by just a guy or two. It is a big issue that many people weigh in on. It might be in the minority but it is not in the minority enough to be fringe and should not be treated as such. I do support a nae change but the continued pushing of "occupied" just screws it all up. Most industry specific sources do not use it in their titles.Cptnono (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I dont really care what travel guides use, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on, hopefully, scholarly sources and they do use it in their titles. And if you did not notice I gave a possible name for the article that specifically does not use the word "occupied". Stop arguing for the sake of arguing and actually attempt to address the points made. nableezy - 20:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Cptono, did you come here just to flame? We are trying to resolve a conflict, and I do not see anything remotely constructive about your remark. After some discussion with Markowitz, Peter Cohen, and nableezy, I proposed three different titles for this article. That is all. Just a different title. Nowhere did I say I want ""occupied" to be precede every mention of "Palestinian territory" on Wikipedia." I asked why there would be any opposition to any of the three titles and Nableezy suggested a few. Nowhere did she say she wants "I helped launch Jane Lavery's career like this. She spoke here while writing up and went on to become a global authority on Mexican women's writing and is in post at Southampton."
Am I missing something? You are posting right after Nableezy's response to my comment. Are you claiming either of us just wrote that we "I helped launch Jane Lavery's career like this. She spoke here while writing up and went on to become a global authority on Mexican women's writing and is in post at Southampton?" I do not believe so. In fact, I defy you to show me where I said it. I defy you to show me where Nableezy said it in his 18:43, 15 July comment.
You may disagree with nableezy but he expressed a reasonable view in a reasonable way and I am certain that you can make your point, and make it more effectively by ditching the false accusations.
This is important because there has been a conflict here reported to AN/I and for this article to improve people need to cool down. But Cptnono, you seem only want to escalate a conflict where there is none. If you have nothing constructive to add to what nableezy said, then don't say it. If you want to respond to my proposal, fine, but read what I wrote before you respond to it, and I expect you to respond in good faith. If you disagree with what I wrote fine but explain to me how my proposals are inconsistent with WP policy or best practice. If you support a name change that does not use the word "occupied" could you remind us what your proposal is, exactly, and what you think its virtues are? That would move the proposal forward. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
He. nableezy - 20:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
No it wasn't just to flame. Editors are trying to insert "occupied" in every article and that needs to be addressed in a larger venue more suited to something for the whole of the project. If you read my posts above I have been very supportive of a name change (with a proposal: Tourism in Israel and the Palestinian territories) just not something that many have a concern neutrality wise. So maybe you need cool down if you are making such pointed statements.Cptnono (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
My original proposal for renaming the article (see above and the support Cptnono gave it) was Tourism in Israel and the Palestinian territories. I would also support Tourism in Israel, the Palestinian territories and Golan Heights. It is simply unrealistic to have separate articles for something like this. I based my initial suggestion on Islam in Israel and the Palestinian territories, which has been at that name for several years with no problems. Perhaps it will also become another battleground for revisionist history now that I've mentioned?--TM 20:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
@Cptnono: If "Editors are trying to insert "occupied" in every article and that needs to be addressed in a larger venue more suited to something for the whole of the project," and I have no reason to doubt you, then you already know that it should be discussed in another venue and not here. I continue to believe that your bringing this up can only derail progress in resolving the conflict here, and have to wonder why you bring it up when you know it is appropriate for another venue.
@Cptnono and TM, I would not object to a title Tourism in Israel and the Palestinian territories or Tourism in Israel, the Palestinian territories and Golan Heights. If Markowitz, nableezy, and Peter Cohen could agree on either one of these, does that mean we can change the title and close this section of the talk page? Cptnono and TM, does this mean you oppose Markowitz's proposed content fork? I am just trying to narrow down the issues people may be divided on, and make them finite and manageable. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
If this article includes the Golan Heights then I strongly object to "in Israel and the Palestinian territories". That would be even worse than the current title which can be argued is vague enough to include the Golan (I wouldn't make that argument), but if we actually differentiate in the title between Israel and the territory it occupies then we also have to include the Golan in the title. The Golan is neither in Israel or in the Palestinian territories which is the impression I would get if I were an uninformed reader who saw it included in an article about Israel and the Palestinian territories. nableezy - 20:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Any name change without clear consensus would be a problem.Cptnono (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
As mentioned above, WP:CONSENSUS is determined by the strength of argument and the compliance with policy, not the number of "me toos" a "side" has. nableezy - 21:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Related sources do not make the distinction and it is annexed.Cptnono (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I have provided several sources that do make the distinction. And you have no idea what you are talking about, the Golan was not annexed and the Israeli government has specifically said that. The Golan law applied Israeli civil law to the Golan, it did not annex the territory. And even if the law did attempt to annex the territory, which it did not, that law was ruled "null and void" by the UNSC. Making these blanket statements of fact without any backing when you can be so easily proven wrong is not wise. nableezy - 20:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes they do: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/14/israeli-tourism-ad-asa http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8620389.stm http://books.google.com/books?id=hch_mgg3-SgC&pg=PA186&dq=%22and+the+occupied+Golan+Heights%22&hl=en&ei=RHk_TMjsN8neOLrA9IUH&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBg#v=snippet&q=overlooking%20israel%20and%20the%20occupied%20golan&f=false --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Many don't (see 00:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)) Israel, Golan Heights, and the Palestinian territories is not the worst idea but it still looks like Wikipedia being different than most related sources due to partisan garbage.Cptnono (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I really do not consider this a constructive comment. Not only is it purely critical, without making any positive suggestion ... I find the criticisms really meaningless in the context of wikipedia. Will a Wikipedia article end up looking different from most related sources? i am not sure what this means, but if you mean from other books or articles on tourism in Israel, well, I should hope so. What on earth would be the point of turning out something that looked the same? People can already get "the same" from, well, from those other sources. Look, maybe if this were a business we would feel compelled to look like every other encyclopedia article on the topic, as we compete for the same market share. This is why the 6:00 news on the major netowkrs looks the same; why CNN CNBC and even FOX news drift to become more like one another; why Time and Newsweek often have the same covers. And why commercial encyclopedias all compete to look just like one another. But Wikipedia is different. Wikipedia is not a commercial venture and is not competing with anyone. And our means by which articles are written is radically different from the way other encyclopedias and tour books are written. Unlike EB or a Fodor's book, in which the editors-in-chief have complete control over what point of veiw will be represented, WP is the encyclopedia anyone can edit at any time. This means that points of view not found in other encyclopedias or books on israel or tourism can find their way into this article. that is the whole point. Of course the result will look different from other sources. This is what we want to achieve. Cptnono's other criticism is that these views are partisan. Well, of course they are. Wikipedia starts out with the assumption that on many topics there are multiple views, often contradictory, and that editors will often have strong views. This can be a good thing if it helps ensure that views not found in other sources are represented here. And yes, it can be a source of conflict. But that is why we have our NPOV policy. NPOV is premised on the fact that most editors have diverging views and it (along with V and NOR) is meant to provide a framework for people with opposing views to work together. What is dangerous in Cptnono's comment is the insinuation that she is not partisan. Bull. When it comes to the contents and title of this article we are faced with a set of choices. Some of us are open to two or three alternatives, some of us only to one. But each of us has forwarded a position, even Cptnono who likes one title and doesn't like others. We will neer resolve this disc=pute if one person believes she is neutral or above the fray and everyone else is ruining it. The wisdome of Wikipedia is the realization that all of us probably think that. NPOV tells us to acknowledge this, that each of us thinks we are being objective and right, which means none of us is objective and right.
This has a simple consequence: each of us needs to refer to WP:NPOV and WP:V in arguing for the proposal we favor, and in arguing against the proposals we oppose. These policies provide the framework by which people alert to different views on the matter can write an article that acknowledges all views in proportion.
Accusing people I do not agree with of "partisan garbage" is inflamatory and unconstructive, and really ignorant of the fact that WP seeks out editors who are partisan, WP depends on editors who bring different points of view. Other encyclopedias may work by denying the validity of multiple points of view, and if this is how you feel go seek a job with one of those other encyclopedias. But WP does not deny this, it embracies it, on the condition that people use NPOV as a framework for working together. If editors do this, the results will look different from what you find in other encyclopedias and thank goodness for that, we need at least one encyclopedia to be different from the pack. To criticize editors who are working together in this way ... in other words, who are doing just what wikipedia editors are supposed to be doing ... is simply disruptive. It serves no purpose but to derail progress in resolving a content dispute. Who would want to do such a thing? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, your proposal still makes very little sense to me. If we go this way, we would have to rename virtually all the articles related to Israel (to the obvious delight of some POV editors), such as Demographics of Israel, Politics of Israel, History of Israel as well as the Israel article itself, all of which discuss also areas controlled by Israel which are de-facto in Israeli controlled but are disputed territory pending final status negotiations. The article lead should clarify the scope of the article. Marokwitz (talk) 12:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Demographics of Israel restricts its scope to the Green Line borders of Israel, and does not deal with the Demographics of Palestine. Politics of Israel discusses the politics of Israel in relation to the occupied territories, but does not deal with Palestinian politics, which is covered in separate articles. This article is about tourism in Israel, and should only cover places in Israel. RolandR (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Not true, that article does include Golan Heights, East Jerualem and Israeli settlers in the West Bank. And my proposal was to EXCLUDE all areas under Palestinian control from this article. I don't think places such as Jericho belong in an article about Tourism in Israel. It belongs in an article about Tourism in the Palestinian Authority. Marokwitz (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Markitoz suggestion, as it is against npov, what Israel occupies is not part of Israel, de facto it is not part of Israel. I support either "Tourism in Israel and the occupied territories", or "Tourism in Israel, the Palestinian territories and Golan Heights" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose the cyber partitioning of the West Bank. Support "Tourism in Israel and the occupied territories", or "Tourism in Israel, the Palestinian territories and Golan Heights".--TM 05:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support renaming to Tourism in Israel and the occupied territories, as the only title which factually covers sites within the Green Line, in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights. If the title remains Tourism in Israel, then all reference to places beyond Israel's pre-June 1967 borders should be removed. If the title is changed to Tourism in Israel and the Palestinian territories, then sites in Golan should be omitted. The argument above, that people visit Hebron from Israel so the current title ids sufficient, is misfounded. People also visit Petra from Israel; but it would obviously be absurd to include Petra within the scope of this article. It should be equally absurd to include Hebron, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and any other place not actually in Israel, unless we change the title of the article. RolandR (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Support renaming to Tourism in Israel and the occupied territories, per User:Peter cohen and User:RolandR.
    My own added argument. Never mind about the political conflict. Think about it the economical and practical aspects. Check out the kind of questions people ask at the Lonely Planet Thorntree: [5],[6]. If you want to travel to the occupied territories you have to apply to an Israeli embassy or consulate for visas and permits. The shekel is the currency everywhere. Most foreign tourists in the occupied territories also visit Israel, if only in transit. The Israeli authorities has in practice the last word over policies affecting tourism as for example who can go where and when.
    Now imagine that everything was fine and dandy and all Israelians and Palestinians were living in peace and harmony in two fully sovereign mutually recognising each other and by the whole wide world community and a pony and chocolate cake for everybody; there could still be a single article, just like wikipedia has articles for several countries like Tourism in the Baltics and Tourism in the Caribbean walk victor falk talk 14:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose the edits done by Markowitz and Support the renaming to Tourism in Israel and the occupied territories because the territories are not part of Israel, though under Israel's occupation they may be. 166.216.128.152 (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can't believe this is still going on. And I am surprised so many are supporting "occupied" (although not enough for consensus from my view). When Lonely Planet, Formmer's, and Fodor's call it "Israel and the occupied territories" instead of "Israel and the Palestinian territories" I will feel different about the POV issues. Until then scores of staffs in the industry have already grappled with the issue and came to a perfectly reasonable conclusion.Cptnono (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
See Israel and the Occupied Territories: The Rough GuideRolandR (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The reason why "Israel and the Palestinian territories" is not acceptable is because the Golan is not in Israel or the Palestinian territories. If this article includes tourism to the Golan that name is inaccurate and unacceptable. nableezy - 02:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, occupied is just a standard term used all over the place by all sorts of highly respectable sources to describe what we are trying to describe based on the current contents of the article. The notion that it's POV or somehow inappropriate is a case of begging the question. 'occupied', 'purple', 'furry', 'Palestinian' etc, doesn't matter what it is, it's just an identifier for a set of things. We just need to use the identifiers that the majority/plurality of sources use to describe what will be the contents of this article and "the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment" to quote policy. I don't have a preference for how we describe the things that aren't in Israel because I think the identifier(s) are picked by the sources not me and these issues have already been resolved for the articles about these places. We can use those. I think the 'only use tourism related sources' argument is a bit of a red herring personally because the Travel industry handles information in a way that makes sense within the context of their market so they just make things up e.g. treating "Gambia and Senegal" as a destination (although if we did then at least perhaps Tourism in Burma would be called Tourism in Myanmar, a country that actually exists, as per Lonely Planet). The key point is to make sure that the article reflects the contents as many have said. Also, as Nableezy says, if the Golan Heights are to be included then 'in Israel' is not an option. We have no choice but to either move the info elsewhere or put Golan Heights in the title or use 'occupied territories'. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
As I was trying to say (not so eloquently above) is that Israel, Golan Heights, and the Palestinian territories would be my second choice if it were up to me. Since the Golan is in Israel according to many sources and in the minds of many people, I don't think "occupied" is needed to address it. However, it is the next best option to get the POV thing straightened out and it is a minor stray from the relevant sources without being worded in a contentious manner.Cptnono (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Would you like to stack the supposed "many sources" that say the Golan is in Israel compared to the ones that say it is not? And quality counts. nableezy - 02:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I have already listed the related sources. This is an article about tourism and "occupied" is needed in the title as much as "hot" is. Special mention of the Golan isn't for reasons I have already explained in more than one talk section on this page but since I have already made it clear that it would be my second choice (albeit not preferred) then you might want to go argue with someone else or spend the time reading the already provided reasoning if you are that interested. Cptnono (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
So, just to make sure I understand your argument, you are saying because travel guides dont treat the two separately we should not? Uhh, Wikitravel is thataway, this is an encyclopedia. I gave related sources published by academic presses that do differentiate between the Golan and Israel. nableezy - 02:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
You often use newspapers so I don't understand your sudden envacuation with different types of sources. You have certainly presented some scholarly material but it is unfortunately biased. The good thing about these travel books is that they have staffs that put forth the effort to not be political in a hot topic area and ones like Lonely Planet have history sections that rival anything you have provided. Have you read them? So since this is Wikipedia and not Wikitravel, I will again remind you that articles need to be written in a neuteral manner and several of the sources you consider superiorhave writing that is far from acceptable and should not be mirrored. I am also more concerned about the title and way the disclaimers are provided and not the mention of contentious material at all. There is a huge difference. It is a general tone issue that is repeatedly being ignored.Cptnono (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a hierarchy of sources, from the lowest quality but still "reliable" to the highest quality. Quoting WP:RS: Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. "Neutral" on Wikipedia does not mean what you apparently think. Quoting WP:NPOV: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Do you really think that the material in such sources is not a "significant view"? Should it not be represented? nableezy - 03:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Have I ever said the view should not be represented? No. And scholarly sources are fine and dandy but the ones you provided are not as good as others. And mirroring POV language is also a concern. So no, those particular sources are not higher than the ones by professionals. Others might be.Cptnono (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
That is absolutely not true. There is nothing in WP:RS that would support the claim that a travel guide is a better source than a peer reviewed journal article published by Cambridge University Press. And your definition of bias does not concern me. You seem to think that it is biased to say that the Golan is occupied territory (ie the super-majority view among quality sources, as well as the view of the UN and nearly every state on the planet) but that it is not biased to say that the Golan is in Israel. I am sorry, but that is a ludicrous thing to say. nableezy - 05:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I have never said that we should not make a mention of the Golan's disputed status. I have said that we do not need multiple disclaimers or a qualifier added to the title. Don;t argue just to argue (since you don't seem to understand my point) and don't say sorry when you are not (as it is highly doubtful that you are).Cptnono (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

POVSPLIT

User:Fences_and_windows (contribs) (talk) created on July 2 "Tourism in the Palestinian territories"[7]. While I have no doubt that it was an earnest attempt to contribute towards a solution of the problem, it is the very definiton of a WP:POVSPLIT violation:

In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion.

Emphasis added. walk victor falk talk 17:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The content in that article was not taken from the content in this article. That content did not exist anywhere on Wikipedia and is not at all related to the topic of this article. nableezy - 17:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The content is related, but I think a compromuise, not POVSPLIT. Some people war, some try to suggest alternatives. --Shuki (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not a POVSPLIT. It clearly contains information which not of the business of the current article, for example, tourism in the Gasa Strip, and the Palestinian tourism ministry. And it was created by an administrator which clearly knows the policy. Marokwitz (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I originally questioned this myself. However, it looks like it has stayed under control and has focused on aspects that may or may not be appropriate in this article. Still runs the risk of turning into a POV fork but last time I saw (admittedly haven't looked for a week) it wasn't too bad. I am a little concerned about screams of not duplicating info when it belongs in both articles and POV over there but that should be easy enough to watch out for.Cptnono (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a content split, not a POV split. POV splits are about the subject of the sentence, and content splits are about the objects, and this is clearly about the object, not the subject (grammatically). The question is, does this Content Fork have consensus? I have no strong view. Markowitz suggested a different kind of content split (occupied territories directly governed by Israel versus those not directly governed by Israelis) and Peter Cohen had a pretty intelligent objection to that which applies to this content split too. Nevertheless, this is as good a content split as any and if it is one all the people involved in the dispute can live with, I'd say it is the way forward.

To prevent a POV split, we need to ensure that all significant points of view are included in each article. For example, a great deal of tourism in Israel and the OT is to arcehological sites. Nadia Abu El Haj wrote a very important book on the use of archeological knowlege to support the nationalist project in Israel: Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society. None of you should be surprised that this book stirred up a great deal of controversy and sometimes one thinks as many people hate this book as hate Darwin's On the Origins of Species. But I can tell you among her peers (archeologists and sociologists of science) the book si very well-considered. Although subject to criticism (as any work of science is), it is certainly considered a significant view by her peers. I have not read the book, but I have read many reviews and I am pretty sure there is some material in the book relevant to tourism. So I would expect this book to be sited in one or both articles. As i said i do not have it but perhaps someone working on this article (and thus, someone with more interest in tourism in Israel and Palestine than I) could take it out of a library and look up "tourism" in the table of countents and index. I am kind of shocked to find no references to any articles published in Annals of Tourism Studies. That is the most prestigious journal on the topic in the English language and I am sure theyhave published some articles on Israel/Palestine - if you are looking for good NPOV material, from reliable sources, here is your source. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that article was created in good faith. I started it because of a lack of content on the topic: my POV was seeing a gap in our coverage and wanting to fill it; I also populated Category:Tourism in the Palestinian territories, which was barely used. There's still a lot missing on the topic, both in that article and elsewhere, I only scratched the surface of the sources. What should be done about how to cover Israeli tourism in the occupied territories is a tricky matter (settlements aren't "Israel", but they're also clearly not Palestinian controlled), but that shouldn't stop us writing an article about tourism in the Palestinian-controlled West Bank and Gaza. Who knows, a merged article on Tourism in Israel and the Palestinian territories might be better, but the move proposal didn't pass. Fences&Windows 23:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I saw the blue link and got all excited! Redirect though. I still believe the article wasn't needed but it has turned out OK so throwing around that it was bad faith isn't needed. And there really are some aspects that relate to both but might fit in better in one and not the other. Not sure but it trying it out wasn't in itself bad form or anything.Cptnono (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This may be of interest

Palestinian Tourism in Transition: Hope, Aspiration, or Reality? from The Journal of Tourism and Peace Research. The 'History of Tourism in Palestine' section has some potentially useful info pertinent to both Tourism in Israel and Tourism in the Palestinian territories. There are also a lot of references listed. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy

The factual accuracy of this article is compromised by a number of users insisting on claiming East Jerusalem as Israeli territory and whitewashing any material about the occupation as it relates to tourism from the article. nableezy - 20:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone else agree with Nableezy's assessment? The tags should be removed if not. If Nableezy or anyone else has any specific lines they think need to be addressed then those should be mentioned.Cptnono (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I have "specific lines [that] need to be addressed" and I have mentioned them several times. I have also put into the article several lines sourced to what would be the best sources on the page, peer reviewed journals and books published by university presses, that have been removed without cause a number of times. Until the dispute is resolved the tag stays. nableezy - 20:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
How do people edit these articles and still continue to edit Wikipedia? The amount of hostility displayed here towards fellow editors is ridiculous. There are far too many editors editing for their cause. Why is it so difficult to accept that, though the Israeli government would wish it to be so, East Jerusalem is not officially and totally "Israeli"? Maybe it will be someday, but not today. Just because one country occupies another (Western Sahara, Somalia, Iraq etc) does not make it part of the occupier's country. This is not the Israeli Wikipedia. The accuracy of this article still has not been addressed since I started this discussion two months ago.--TM 05:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
On June 14 you said that you wanted it to be "Tourism in Israel and the Palestinian territories". I totally agree with that but there was no consensus. And Nableezy, the best option would be to rework it and present it again if your ideas were rejected by multiple editors. I would love to find a way to address it where everyone is happy but multiple disclaimers is not a good option.Cptnono (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not talking about "disclaimers" I am talking about the repeated removal of material sourced to the journal article published by Cambridge University Press, the book published by University of Minnesota Press and the material on the advert ban in the UK. All of that material belongs in the article but has been consistently removed in contravention of various Wikipedia policies. nableezy - 06:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
That suggestion makes very little sense. By the UN, East Jerusalem is still recognized as part of Jordan. And the Golan Heights are recognized as a region in Syria. Should we rename this article to "Tourism in Israel, Syria, Jordan and the Palestinian territories"? Marokwitz (talk) 06:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
That is simply not true, the UN never recognized any part of the West Bank as part of Jordan. nableezy - 14:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Didn't think about it that way, Marokwitz. I actually chuckled a bit. As good of a point as that may be, many sources still have titles like "Israel and the Palestinian Territories". That conversation appears to be long dead with no new name gaining significant support, though.
To Nablezy, you might have better luck if you presented a new draft with some altered wording that keeps a eye out on weight and POV. "NO! ARGH! TEMPLATE STAYS!" won't get you far.Cptnono (talk) 07:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
If a valid reason for why the material was removed I might do that. But the only reason has been nationalistic tendencies to protect the image of a given state which, needless to say, is not a valid reason. So I dont feel too inclined to rework material that was already perfectly acceptable. nableezy - 14:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
"Tourism in Israel, the West Bank and the Golan Heights" would be more accurate than "Tourism in Israel" wouldn't it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
This article doesn't really cover the West Bank, unless what you are proposing to add Palestinian controlled localities in Area A such as Jericho, Ramallah and Nablus to this article (which I think would be wrong, we already have a "Tourism in the Palestinian territories" article for that). In my view the current title is fine. For example see Human Rights in Israel which covers all areas under Israeli control, while making proper distinction between Israel proper and the territories where it is currently considered by the UN to be occupier. Marokwitz (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
PS If my view is accepted we should remove Bethlehem from the article since it is not controlled by Israel. If Sean hoyland's proposal is accepted then we should keep it, and add the other Palestinian controlled cities to this article, and delete the article "Tourism in the Palestinian territories". 08:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Your idea would stray from how many travel based sources cover Bethlehem and the industry over there as a whole. I have warmed slightly to a title similar to what Sean has mentioned that someone else brought up (Israel, Golan Heights, and Palestinian territories) but this is a far second pick for me.Cptnono (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I would support there being a single article covering "Tourism in Israel, the West Bank and the Golan Heights" about tourism in those physical locations (or the entire Palestinian Territories rather than just the West Bank). But even if that didn't happen I would still suggest that "Tourism in Israel, the West Bank and the Golan Heights" is a more accurate title than "Tourism in Israel". "Tourism in Israel and the Golan Heights" is a more accurate title than the current title. "Tourism in Israel, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights" is a more accurate title than the current title. "Tourism in Israel, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights" is a more accurate title than the current title. It's about the word "in". It means something important and defining in any context. "Human Rights in Israel" needs to be renamed for the same reasons in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Would "Tourism industry of Israel" work or is that too weird?Cptnono (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
It still conveys a sense of ownership to me and over complicates things by not simply saying what the existing article is about. If an article is partly about tourism in the Golan Heights for example why not just say that in the title ? Seems easier, more accurate and avoids the politics/ownership issues. "Tourism industry of Israel" is a perfectly valid article I guess but I would expect that to cover the entire industry, describe the major companies etc and it would have global scope. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The article should cover the entire industry even if it doesn't. Unfortunately, it is back to the same problem. The Golan is in the possession of Israel and functions as such even if the intl community doesn't like it. By presenting it as separate, the same political issue is presented. Most neutral specialist sources don't make the distinction in their titles. I do understand the concern "BUT IT ISN'T, DAMMIT!". I just don't see a way to address the Golan (even by not) in the title without presenting some sort of POV. It is clear that the Golan belongs in the article. Some mention of the dispute is also appropriate in the body. The title will be a problem for a significant amount of editors regardless of which direction we go. Cptnono (talk) 10:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
And you think by saying "in Israel" we are not "presenting some sort of POV"? Interesting. nableezy - 14:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
By presenting it as a separate entity in the title, the political issue isn't presented at all. What is presented is the name of a geographical region that corresponds to a section in the article that serves to inform the reader that the article contains information about that geographical region. I don't think it is clear that the Golan belongs in this article. There are arguments for inclusion, exclusion or an entirely separate article to correspond with the main Golan Heights article but if it is to be included in this article, the title should at least tell readers that the region is included here. It is not at all obvious that you would find information about tourism in the Golan Heights in an article called Tourism in Israel. Have a look at how Tourism in the United Kingdom (a single sovereign state) is handled for interest/another approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Also note for interest that the Golan Heights gets its own page in wikitravel. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I am entirely fine with splitting the Golan Heights into a new article. Tourism in the Golan Heights can be a fine article AND we can avoid this headache. Like I said two months ago when no one cared about this article, let us either split the occupied parts claimed in this article off or rename it.--TM 14:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Marokowitz. Bethlehem and Jericho (or Ramallah for instance, like other Palestinian controlled cities in Area A) are not integral parts of Israeli Tourism. I agree that a short passage to West bank tourism is necessary, due to the fact that Israel administrates the entrances, but it is completely unnecessary to portray all the Bethlehem sites in this page - they are already described in the Tourism in the Palestinian territories article. Hmbr (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
When the sources stop equating those spots with Israeli tourism then I will agree. Until then, it is disputed land (which we can say) that Israel handles tourism wise. Travel guides equate it with Israel's tourism industry without question.. People are not flying into AMM to go there. Are busses leaving Amman for tours? Show me more sources that say it is not equated with Israel's tourism industry. Sure another article was created to handle the disputed territory but those spots still all get coverage in the sources describing Tourism in Israel. Maybe we can change the title of this article still. I am not against it if it is reasonable. Regardless, those spots need to be in any article that discusses Israel and tourism as they are too integrated to not discuss in an article discussing the industry over there.Cptnono (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tourism_in_Israel/Archive_2&oldid=1137262791"