Talk:Tourism in Israel/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Suggestion for the lead

Hi, the lead currently says:

The West Bank and East Jerusalem captured from Jordan in 1967, and the Golan Heights captured from Syria, are also popular travel destinations under Israeli control.

I suggest we change this to say

The occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem and Golan Heights are also popular travel destinations currently under Israeli control.

The reason being that the territories are not "captured" but occupied. The status of West Jerusalem perhaps doesn't require separate treatment in this tourism article, or the territories between the partition plan borders and the Green Line. Comments? --Dailycare (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

But they were captured/conquered/taken/won even if the intl community considers them occupied. And doesn't "under Israeli control" spell it out clear enough or is more needed? Cptnono (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, more is needed. By simply saying "captured" there is an implication that the territory is now Israeli, all the more so because we say the title is "in Israel". By saying "occupied" we make it clear that these territories are not in Israel". nableezy - 14:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and there is the policy issue that as most sources use "occupied", that is our choice too. --Dailycare (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I support Dailycares proposal "The occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem and Golan Heights are also popular travel destinations currently under Israeli control." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Dutch watchdog criticizes Israeli tourism website for blurring borders

This news story can be used to expand the article with valuable information: [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Picture of Syria in this article

This picture contains a mountain and hills in Syria: [2]. It should be removed or this text added: "with Syria in the background" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Why? Disregard. It doesn't matter why although you should think about it. Wheat has nothing to do with tourism while another image of the preserve does. So I am swapping them and there is no reason to have any dispute at all now. Hooray.Cptnono (talk) 01:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Dutch criticise Israeli tourist maps for not delineating the West Bank & East Jerusalem

Here is a source of a similar case as the British one, where Israeli tourist ads were criticised for implying that the West Bank and East Jerusalem would be Israeli. --Dailycare (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

So? --Shuki (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep, we do that too File:Israel_outline_shomron.png Sean.hoyland - talk 05:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

And your point is now? That the map should have little barbed wire icons? --Shuki (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I would enjoy little barbed wire icons, maybe a few olive trees etc, that could look quite nice, yes. Basically, it should look much more like File:Genoese map Indian Ocean.jpg or File:Moskenstraumen.jpg. My point was simply that we participate in the use of visual material that misrepresents and obscures boundaries thereby spreading misinformation and facilitating the continuation of the woeful ignorance of humanity. That violates two of the five fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates right there. That and the fact that we don't follow Wikipedia:Map#Standard_conventions. Since I can't be bothered to invest the time required to fix it myself, feel free to ignore me. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You guys are off topic. Take it to that file's talk page unless someone is proposing we add a map to this article.Cptnono (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that much of the article content itself is off topic I think we can live with a bit of off-topic banter on the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh snap! If we want to reopen that discussion, "Tourism industry of Israel" or "Tourism in Israel and the Palestinian Territories"(as many travel based sources do) are still my preferred solutions to addressing the "off topic" concerns. By the way, the fact that Israel is using these maps and there is concern shows that those areas are related to the topic.Cptnono (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no doubt that these things are related just like the geology of Oregon is related to the geology of Washington state by reliable sources and in a very tangible way despite the state borders, hence the Geology of the Pacific Northwest article rather than individual articles (unlike other states). I suppose some things cross borders and are better handled in a regional way. This topic is probably one of them but the title just needs to match the content and the Golan Heights are no more in Israel than Seattle is in Oregon despite both Washington state and Oregon being part of the US. Unfortunately people like to treat the Golans Heights as part of Israel for reasons that have nothing to do with this project. If I had my way, that would be a one of the questions on a questionaire that editors had to complete before they could edit in this topic area. "Are the Golan Heights in Israel ?" => "Yes" => Automatic indefinite topic ban, reason "not here to build an encyclopedia." Sean.hoyland - talk 03:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

But the Golan Heights functions as art of Israel despite the legal issues. "Tourism in Israel, the Golan Heights, and the Palestinian Territories" just isn't used by industry sources and it borders on POV since it disregards a tough question that is impossible to summarize in the title. That is why I also support "Tourism industry of Israel" since that issue can be addressed in the body wihtout applying a ruling on the status of the Golan Heights in the title.Cptnono (talk) 03:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I cannot believe how (well maybe I shouldnt save this part). THIS IS NOT A TRAVEL GUIDE. THIS IS AN ENCYCLOPEDIA ARTICLE. Repeatedly harping on how travel guides name a certain topic is by far one of the stupidest arguments for a name of an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 03:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

ARGH CAPS! I'm happy with the current title too and it looks like there was not consensus to change. Just mentioning the issue since Sean brought up "off topic". So fine, I won;t "harp" any more and be content wit how it is over making any changes. ARGH MORE CAPS!Cptnono (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

And the source is related so if anyone wants to propose how to fit it in that would be cool too.Cptnono (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Saying "Tourism in the Pacific Northwest" says nothing about the political and legal status of the named spatial objects that comprise the Pacific Northwest. Saying "Tourism in Oregon and Washington State" says nothing about the political and legal status of those named spatial objects, it just uses their names. Similarly saying something like "Tourism in Israel, the Golan Heights and the Palestinian Territories" says nothing about the political and legal status of those named spatial objects, it just uses their names to form a set of named spatial objects. The names describe spatial objects that have formal definitions in reliable sources. The names are meaningful. We can't misuse the names of those formally defined spatial objects to corrupt, obscure, misrepresent or change the formal definitions of those objects no matter how many Arabic books about tourism might say that Jerusalem is in Palestine, the Golan Heights are in Syria etc etc. There is no tough question. There isn't even a question. There's no ruling or POV either. We do this kind of combining and separating of spatial/temporal sets of information to suit our educational objectives as a matter of convenience all the time without any reference to how sources combine information into sets. Just look at the articles in Template:Gaza War e.g. Rocket and mortar attacks on southern Israel = a made up set, List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2001 through 2007 = a made up set, List of rocket and mortar attacks in Israel in 2008 = a made up set, Media and the Gaza War = a made up set, International reaction to the Gaza War = a made up set, they are all made up spatial/temporal sets to group things in a convenient way. I could go on. The only possible reason to object to treating Israel, the Golan Heights and the Palestinian Territories as distinct named spatial objects is to obscure the fact that they are distinct meaningfully named spatial objects representing formally defined things. There isn't a policy based reason or need to do that. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The World Almanac handles it much like the tourism based books that Nableezy is against for whatever reason. Palestinian Territories are a subsection of the Israel country profile. The Golan Heights is not listed in a separate section there nor is it under Syria. The Golan Heights is controlled and administered by Israel. So it might very well be illegal but it is the way it is. That is why I primarily support "Tourism industry of Israel" over anything else. That makes no claim and does not allude to give support to one side of the dispute or the other. Adding "Israel, the Golan Heights, and the Palestinian Territories" disregards the pseudo-annexation, Israel's claim, and reality on the ground (as guilty as Israel might be for disregarding international law). It is simple fix and simply changing "in" to "industry of" will prevent further issues since tourism in the Golan Heights is so directly tied to Israel that it is not separated in this sense. People fly into Israel's airports to go there, Israel administrators parks there, the wine industry is based on Israeli economics, the day trips are planned from Israeli cities, and so on and so on. Of course, we can just keep it as is. I agree that "Tourism in Israel" introduces some POV. I think listing the Golan Heights in the title introduces even more so it doesn't hurt my feelings keeping it as is. But if people really want to consider fixing the title without requiring that one side's view is given too much weight then that would be fantastic.Cptnono (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

National parks

The national parks "in Israel" section includes places in the occupied territories, the text implies them being "in Israel". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Figure out a way to reword it then. I know that you and another editor really care about this occupied label but this isn't a political article. If the parks are administered by Israel they belong in an article related to Israel's tourism industry. Funny how the disputed borders are such a hot point for you while you disregard reality.Cptnono (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't care about an occupied label, I care about accuracy, if it isn't a political article then places in Syria and the West Bank shouldn't be presented as "in Israel", that is political and a violation of npov. Its the fact that I care about reality that I care about this issue, if I disregarded reality I wouldn't care about that places in Syria and the West Bank are presented as "in Israel". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you've failed to convince anyone about you caring about accuracy on WP and more about taking a pound of flesh on Israeli articles. If you did care about accuracy, then your edit contributions would be full of improving, rather than sporadic touching of, the many neglected Syrian articles, or more importantly, creating new Syrian articles, perhaps an article about National parks in Syria? --Shuki (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

New layout?

Would it be plausible to arrange to info according to the various districts, which would include all the various locations in that particular area? So instead of having one section headed Religious sites, it would be a sub-header appearing under each district? Chesdovi (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Why? Cptnono (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw all those N. Parks and thought it would be better if the were sorted by location. Chesdovi (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Breaking up a tourism article by location does not appear to have any precedent in the higher quality articles focused on countries across the Tourism category. See: Category:B-Class Tourism articles B class isn't that god but it isn't bad. If you think the section has readability issues then consider using summary style while pointing to the main article on those sites. Adjusting the layout will do nothing to address that issue. Cptnono (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem starts when such an article turns into a list of each and every place in the country. The US is just too big and therefore it has all been split off to other pages. If we look at Tourism in Brazil however, we can see a better layout which I propose for this page. Chesdovi (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Good find, Brazil is the style you propose. The others are not and I think using summary style and pointing to a main list (splitting it out) would be a better and more direct fix. Cptnono (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There is also Hong Kong, and possible others; but I wouldn't base it on how other articles are laid out. Remember that tourist guide book also work along the same lines. I will try some fixes as you suggest. It is silly to have a whole list of Park on this page with a navbox aswell. Chesdovi (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I really dropped the ball while looking into it then. I was thinking the same thing about the books a few minutes ago. I see the list as being a bigger problem so we might be going about it the wrong way. But if you want to draft a new layout I might be shown wrong up above.Cptnono (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Too many photos?

This is not a flight agent magazine. Chesdovi (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It is common enough to have the images look like that next to lists within an article (although removing the list should be considered). The lead does not need more than one and they stretch too far down, though. Any thoughts on which ones should go?Cptnono (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

ceasefire line is not border

Ceasefire line is not border. Dan is closer to the Syrian border then the lebanese. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Really probably isn't of major importance for this article. We can rely on sources if you think it is going to be disputed.Cptnono (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Most articles talk about the border between 'Israel' and Gaza. --Shuki (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, look at this CIA map:[3] it shows that Dan is closer to Syria then to Lebanon. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Mount Hermon Ski Resort is not in Israel

Jiujitsuguy, Mount Hermon Ski Resort is not in Israel, its in GH which is internationally recognized as part of Syria occupied by Israel, you are adding misinformation and violating npov by claiming that its in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The article states clearly "The first ski resort in Israeli controlled territory was established in the occupied Golan." What more do you want? Should the Mount Hermon Ski Resort be moved to the article about tourism in Syria? Come on. Stop this nonsense. Marokwitz (talk) 13:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguys edit was: "The first ski resort in Israel was establish in the Golan." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It's enough to state the disputed status of the Golan ONCE in the section about the Golan. That's what NPOV requires. There is absolutely no need to repeat this assertion every time the Golan is mentioned. Marokwitz (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not mentioned one single time in the entire article that its internationally recognized as part of Syria occupied by Israel. The area can not be presented as in Israel anywhere, every time it touches this issue, its status must be clear. Replying to your first comment, the name of this article is "Tourism in Israel", not "Tourism in Israel and the occupied territories", so therefor the subjects topic doesn't include the Mount Hermon Ski Resort as it is not in Israel but in the occupied territories, so as long as it is in this article called "Tourism in Israel", then this is a clear violation of npov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This was already discussed endlessly, and the consensus appeared to be that the scope of this article is tourism in areas controlled by Israel, including disputed areas. Marokwitz (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There wasn't any consensus that the scope includes that. If the name of the article would be moved to "Tourism in Israel and the occupied territories" then it would be in its scope. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe there was almost full consensus that this article should include areas where tourists are under control of Israel. If the article would be moved to "Tourism in Israel and the occupied territories" then tourism in Gaza and tourism in Ramallah would also be in scope, and we don't want that, do we. Marokwitz (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you show me this "almost full consensus" ? The article already contains places in the occupied territories, so to ad Ramallah and Gaza doesn't make a difference because it would still contain the same scope. To keep it as it is now without changing the name to reflect the scope is factually incorrect and pov.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue is the mismatch between the title and the contents. It's a pretty blatant policy violation. Something has to be done to fix it at some point any decade soon even if it means splitting the article up or having a more accurate Tourism in X,Y,Z style title. I think the best way to resolve an issue like this is to use dispute resolution and let an involved admin decide on the policy based consensus after we have all repeated our arguments. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You were involved in the previous discussions, SD. Cptnono (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, thats why I asked him to show me the "almost full consensus", as I was involved in the previous discussions while I didn't see any "almost full consensus". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

De Facto the Golan heights is under Israeli sovereignty, the dispute about the Golan is not to be given undue weight in this article. It's ski resort in Israel, at least in years where there is winter-and there are not many like these during the last decade. --Gilisa (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

And BTW SD, there is UN resolution which call the GH "Syrian territory" if I'm not wrong about it, that's for the "international recognition" you mentioned. As I wrote above, de facto it's in Israel and under its possession. Also, keep in mind that UN resolutions typically don't describe reality as a whole, just specific balance of power at a given time and in certain UN conference. Interestingly, the Golan is under Israeli sovereignty already longer period than it was under Syrian one-even if we don't count the centuries it was part of ancient Israel.--Gilisa (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The ski resort is not in Israel, your claim that it is, is your personal believe. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"Reality" has been one of the things I often assert. Anyone mind if we remove the tags? Unless we are going to engage in a discussion that will actually change the title of the article they are not really needed. And even if one is, the second could go. I get where SD is coming from but there has really been little effort in straitening it out and those tags help no one. Books on the topic don;t have tags when they describe the same aspects we do.Cptnono (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Me to, in "Reality" its not in Israel, so therefor as long as this article "Tourism in Israel " includes areas outside of Israel, in the WB and GH, the tags should stay. If the tags are removed then the article should be moved to "and the occupied territories" to reflect the content. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have nay support for such a move? So far there has been little and those tags have sat there. So unless you have some consensus calling for a change they need to go (or at least one of them, right?). There might be consensus for some change but so far to what is still way in the air. Seems like overpoliticized silliness still but if there is a reasonable argument I am all ears.Cptnono (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What do mean "consensus calling for a change"?, there has been several people in this and the previous discussions objecting to the factual inaccuracy of having places in WB and GH in this "Tourism in Israel" article, the problems are not solved - the tags stays. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Says you. But there still is no resolution while the article is NPOV and factual when looking at its related sources. "Israel and the occupied territories" does not have consensus and we should not be stuck with these tags due to a minority of Wikipedia editors calling for it. Enough is enough. Is there going to be a name change that has consensus? Doubtful. Get it soon since it is time for the tags to go no matter how much you argue against it. Get other editors onboard with a change. It has been done for issues much more contentious. I'll propose a change if needed but I do not think it will meet with some editor's approval. I could be wrong though.Cptnono (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "says you"? Looking at the archive, at least Me, Nableezy, PatGallacher, Ip 84.92.117.93, Faceless Enemy, Peter Cohen, Dailycare, Slrubenstein, RomaC, TM, victor falk, RolandR and Sean.hoyland either support a name change to include occupied territories and/or removal of tourism outside of Israel from this article. So according to many people, this article is not npov and its not factual. The names above also proves that Marokwitz claims above of "almost full consensus" for inclusion of occupied territories is clearly inaccurate. And these people have valid points, consensus is not based on votes but on arguments, there is currently texts about places in what is internationally recognized as Palestinian territories and Syria in this "Tourism in Israel" article. If you want to remove the tags then remove all the text outside of Israel from this "Tourism in Israel" article, so that the name matches the scope. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

SD, I'm not going to argue much about the obvious, Israelis are living in the Golan and not Syrians-and if tourist want to visit the Golan he/she have to pass the Israeli passport control and not the Syrian one-so, that's pretty much reality for me. As for tags, indeed, time for them to go.--Gilisa (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You are not addressing the real issue, we are not talking about that Israeli settlers live there or that you can access the ski resort via Israel, that has nothing to do with the claim that its tourism "in Israel". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not consider the Israelis living in the Golan "settlers" they are natural inhabitants of the Golan, nothing more. The Golan is in Israel, don't mess up the facts with yet another peculiar UN resolution (e.g., North Korea is nuclear state despite all of UN resolutions calling for its demilitarization from nuclear weapons).--Gilisa (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Its of no relevance to the discussion what you consider the settlers. You keep on repeating "The Golan is in Israel".. but you have not brought any policy based argument for you claims. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

<- I object to the removal of the tags. There is an active dispute about the policy compliance of the article. Until the dispute is resolved the tags are meant to stay. The dispute won't be resolved by us talking about reality as we see it. According to countless reliable sources the Golan Heights are not 'in Israel'. There is inconsistency between what we say and what the sources say. It's pretty difficult to think of a more blatant policy violation than saying that an entire region is in a country that it is not actually in according to reliable sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There are sources that place the "Golan Heights in Israel":

• Ancient Egyptian materials and technology, Paul T. Nicholson, Ian Shaw, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
• Chronometric dating in archaeology, Royal Ervin Taylor, Martin Jim Aitken, Birkhäuser, 1997.
• U.S. Air Force Survival Handbook, United States Air Force, Skyhorse Publishing Inc., 2008.

"In" does not have to be used here with its legal ramifications. It can be understood as being located in an area under Israel's control, hence "in Israel". This is similar to Tourism in Northern Ireland. Legally speaking, Northern Ireland is not "in" Ireland, nevertheless places in NI are presented as being "in Ireland" for the purpose of tourism. Numerous handbooks also include the area as part of Israel. [4]. Chesdovi (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You are cherry picking sources, I can show you plenty of worldview sources that contradict this [5], you can not show me any worldview sources that say its "in Israel". We have been over this many times, you constantly bringing up the same discussion is disruptive. Israels occupation does not make it "in Israel", move the article to "Tourism in Israel and the occupied territories" if you want to keep the texts about the occupied territories and follow npov and have a factual article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland? Bad choice. Editors who come to this article shouldn't have to put up with an apparently endless stream of arguments that have nothing to do with policy. It won't resolve the issue. Imagine, the article could simply be renamed to Tourism in Israel and the Golan Heights and it would be instantly more accurate than it is now despite failing to mention the West Bank content. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"Gamla NR is located in the centre of the GH. The reserve contains the highest waterfall in Israel." Multifunctional rural land management: economics and policies, by Floor Brouwer, C. Martijn van der Heide. We can all go cherry picking together in the GH if they grow there, and if there are RS saying the Golan Heights are in Israel, we cannot just ignore them. Chesdovi (talk) 18:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thats another cherry picked unreliable source. Where are the worldview sources? you are cherry picking minority unreliable povs, and want them to have more weight then the view of the entire world.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, SD, I fail to see how any of your arguments is any better than mine or consist a relevant one. All you have is UN resolution, and based on that you want to enter POV into the article itself. Fact is, at least as for the matter of tourism in Israel, that visiting in the Golan is relevant only for those who have their tour Israel-so saying it's not in Israel only stands for your POV, the UN resolution call Israel to bestow the Golan to Syria -it doesn't change the fact that the Golan is in the Israeli side of the border and for this article it doesn't matter if the UN resolution argue that originally the Golan is Syrian territory -because at present it certainly not under Syrian sovereignty and yes, not in Syria. That there is UN resolution belongs to politics and not to article about tourism. Now I know you say my comment is not relevant and etc, but it doesn't matter much, because facts are that the Golan is in Israel and under the Israeli flag.--Gilisa (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

My arguments are based on Wikipedia policy npov, read here:[6] your arguments are based on you personal point of view. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No, your arguments based on your personal interpretation of Wikipedia policies, not on Wikipedia policy per se. I didn't argue at any stage about the UN position regarding the Golan, I disagree however with the undue weight and the use you want to do with it in this article.--Gilisa (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

How is it my personal interpretation? "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Compromise

Another title that can be used for this article is "Tourism managed by Israel" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If a place is occupied by a country, it is viewed as "in" that country, not necessarily belonging to that country. Half of Nicosia is in the Turkish Rep. of Northern Cuprus; not just "in Cyprus". Chesdovi (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, if a place is occupied by a country, it is not viewed as "in that country". See the worldview about the occupied territories, no countries recognizes the OT as part of Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I would still be OK with Tourism in Israel and the Palestinian Territories as many sources do. Sorry if the GH political drama does not get addressed with that title but it really isn't important here.Cptnono (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"Tourism in Israel and the Palestinian Territories" is ok but then the information about GH have o be removed. "occupied territories" would cover it all. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The sources do not do that and "occupied" is a little over political and loaded. GH is part of Israel even if it is illegal. Cptnono (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"Tourism of Israel"? Chesdovi (talk) 11:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm down. Cannot think of any reason good enough to not use that title and it fixes our problem.Cptnono (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Tourism of Israel" has the exact same problems as "Tourism in Israel". The name would still not cover the WB and GH. Do you two object to "Tourism managed by Israel" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Israeli Tourism". Chesdovi (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Its not "Israeli tourism", you accept "Tourism managed by Israel" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A little bulky. Tourism of Israel sounds like a good idea and means the same thing.Cptnono (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"of" is basically the same as "in" so it will not make a difference concerning the tags. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It is ambiguous enough that it is different. Your concern appears to be about the legality of the area and if sites are "in" Israel. "Of" addresses this since we do not show favor to where the sites are located but instead that these sites are part of Israel's tourism industry. "Of" is a fine solution. We have two editors supporting it right now and it is factually accurate that way. Anyone else have concerns with "of" instead of "in"? I think this is a great and easy fix.Cptnono (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The areas are not "of Israel" either, so the factual inaccuracy and non neutrality of the article would still be the same. If you look at the archives you will see that there were many people who supported a move that would include the occupied territories in the name, so there is much stronger support for that then your proposal "of Israel". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The area is "of" and "in" Israel, UN resolution only reflect UN position, not facts for themselves-otherwise the UN wouldn't need to make any resolutions, just to change things as it want them to be.--Gilisa (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Its neither "of" or "in", IC view is not that they "want" it to be in Syria, the IC view is that it is part of Syria occupied by Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. From the very fact that it is in Israel, the UN have to come along and say they do not recognise it as being in Israel. But in Israel it remains. A mere statement or resolution cannot change physical borders. If the area is illegally in Israel, there is no need to have this reflected in the page title, because in reality it is in Israel, that's why there's the whole fuss. If it was not "in" Israel, Syria would not be so mad. Chesdovi (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"From the very fact that it is in Israel".. this is a factually incorrect pov statement and a violation of npov. "the UN have to come along and say they do not recognise it as being in Israel. But in Israel it remains." another factually incorrect statement, UN has never said that they don't "recognize it being in Israel," Its not in Israel, the UN and IC say its part of Syria occupied by Israel. "But in Israel it remains.".. it cant "remain" in Israel because its not in Israel today. In reality its not in Israel, the ceasefire line is not a border. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

SD, personally I don't believe in the UN what so ever, its effect is far more negative than positive IMO (however, you can also find many such user boxes in Wikipedia) and I don't AGF regarding many of its actions-but that's of course not relevant for the matter of the discussion. The POV here is yours because even the UN call the Golan "Syrian territory" it still remains in Israel in every other aspect, meaning: leave aside UN so called resolutions -there are too many examples where reality just don't comply those. Germany, for instance, refuse to acknowledge its international border with Poland because it argue that large German territory was annexed to Poland after WWII -facts are that even if the UN would rule as Germany, as long as these territories are under full Polish sovereignty -it's Polish. That's reality, and thanks God it's stronger than the UN.--Gilisa (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I never said GH is not Syrian territory. You keep on claiming GH is in Israel, but you have not provided any sources for your claims. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

SD, please try to read again what I wrote, you probably missed it, I know well you consider the GH as Syrian territory (I don't what so ever but we don't argue about that) and I know well the UN call to Israel to bestow the Golan-because now the Golan is in Israel. Don't mess up between UN resolution and facts, there are many sources that refer to the facts more than they refer to the poor UN resolution (which deny history and natural justice IMO) -whether the international status of it is "occupied" "captured" and etc, none of these statuses deny the fact that the Golan is right now in Israel. Don't add your own interpretation to the UN resolution.--Gilisa (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Everything you just said is your own personal opinion. You have not shown a source or wikipedia policy to support your claims. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

So a rename to "Tourism of Israel"? It dodges the issue. It looks like a couple editors are perfectly fine with "in" so I would take what you can get, SD. Cptnono (talk) 02:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The current name is fine. I see no reason to rename. There are sufficient disclaimers in the text to avoid any NPOV issue. Marokwitz (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I like "of", I don't mind also discussing keeping "in" and removing the templates. I'm not seeing many recent objections so am thinking the templates might have outlasted their usefulness.Cptnono (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The current name is fine. I see no reason to rename. Tourism in Israel includes the Golan, just like Economy of Northern Cyprus is not called "economy of Cyprus" even though United Nations Security Council Resolution 541 defines the declaration of independence of Northern Cyprus as legally invalid. There are sufficient disclaimers in the text to avoid any NPOV issue. Marokwitz (talk) 07:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well SD has made his position clear. Does anyone else object to removing the templates?Cptnono (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I object. The mismatch between the title and the contents needs to be resolved. I guess this is heading towards dispute resolution through mediation of some kind. The current approach isn't going to resolve the issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

nableezy also objected to remove the tags:[7] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

nableezy is topic banned if I remember right -and if so then you shouldn't even mention her here.--Gilisa (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter anyway. It's not about how many people object. One person is enough if the objection is consistent with policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I feel that argument is not sound enough. As pointed out by another editor, there are sufficient disclaimers in the text. It has also been discussed that legality does not change how it is. But if you both are against removing the tags then of course it doesn't need to happen now. This could easily be a moot argument, though. Would you accept "of" SHL? I know it isn't as political as the other options but it is the only one I see with a realistic chance of gaining some sort of consensus while it also addresses SDs concern of Wikipedia full-on backing the Golan Heights being "in" Israel.Cptnono (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the only way this is going to be resolved is via dispute resolution through mediation. The article is about tourism in Israel, the Golan Heights and the West Bank. The easy and obvious solution is to just say that or something similar to that in the title. Apparently that isn't possible at the moment for reasons that aren't clear. The only options that will be allowed it seems are policitized titles that incorporate these areas into Israel. This isn't going to resolve the mismatch between the title and the contents so I think dispute resolution through mediation is the next step. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution won't do anything. The Golan Heights is in Israel and nothing can be said to convince several editors of that. We ave an easy nondrama fix. It is up to you and SD to allow that fix.06:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution might resolve the dispute. This discussion won't. If you can't see why we don't have 'an easy nondrama fix' or why no one should be trying to convince editors about where the Golan Heights are, that's fine. It doesn't matter. If you don't think dispute resolution will work you don't need to participate in it. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You can of course try but it will more than likely be a waste of time. And I am not trying to convince anyone about where the GH is I am simply acknowledging that SDs view is not shared which puts use of "in" a a tough spot but not enough to remove it in the eyes of several editors. I am actively avoiding the issue in the article with my proposal in response to that. So "of" is not sufficient then?Cptnono (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Tags

Please don't remove the tags at the top of the article as long as places in the Palestinian territories and Syria are in this article about Tourism in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Worldview?

How can it honestly be stated that outcomes of UN resolutions are neutral and usable sources? Does each country delve into the minute of international law before voting on resolutions? They vote for political reasons. If Turkey votes against Israels settlements, it should also vote against ts own in Cyprus?! Nearly a third are muslim and Arab countries which isn't exactly going to provide a neutral stance on issues as these. Worldviews will have to be gleaned from elsewhere. Chesdovi (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Tags

There have been tags on this article for quite some time but no use of talk pages. Can anyone articulate problems, factual or otherwise, they see with this article?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 10:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Name of article is "Tourism in Israel", while it contains tourism in places internationally recognized as Palestinian territories and Syria. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

There has been discussion on this and you know where to find it. I see no reason to repeat arguments. You know the options have already provided for addressing the issue and why no solution might be needed at all. Cptnono (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Its because of those discussions I added the tags, per that the npov violations and inaccuracy's are still in the article. What do you mean by: "no solution might be needed at all" ? How would that take care of the npov violations and inaccuracy's? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You're acting silly. It's Syrian\Palestinian land under Israeli control and the article gives appropriate information when needed, so what about the "factual accuracy" or "neutrality" is disputed? Give an actual argument.217.132.39.81 (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Read the archives. Both SD and I have already given actual arguments. Thanks for playing.Cptnono (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

All right, what arguments do you have that the West Bank is part of Israel? How is it part of Israel, everyone? I think this deserves more explanation than just directing people to look through the archives. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Already been done. See the archives. When you provide a rebutall to comments already repeated over and over again I will expand on them.Cptnono (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Israel National Trail

These sources[8][9][10] place Kibbutz Dan, the northern most point on the trail as being close to the Lebanese border but there's no mention of the Syrian border.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Your links fail to mention that fact, this source mentions it:[11] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a map, and does not mention the trail at all. Ruby Tuesday ALMWR (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It mentions where Dan is located, which is what the discussion and text is about. The text says its northern end is at Dan. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

"Ruby Tuesday ALMWR", if the map is correct about the location of the Dan kibbutz, it is indeed closer to the Syrian border (with Golan Heights) than the Lebanese one. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 22:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverting

I am reverting a new user who is using the revert feature. My reasoning is because the line appears to only be in to point out that Muslims have a harder time getting in. They of course can still get in. And Atheists might, too. It is a poor line for the lead.[12] Cptnono (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Question to all?

Why is West Bank tourism in an article about Tourism in Israel? Too me, it is like putting an section about Tourism in New Zealand in an article about Tourism in Australia? Floccinauci (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see the archived discussions. Since RS lumps them together it makes sense to do it here. I would still prefer to change the title "Tourism in Israel" is disputed due to territorial squabbling but "Tourism of Israel" would fix that concern here.Cptnono (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Golan Tourism

The following statement appears in the "Tourism in Israel" article, under Golan Heights tourism.

"The Golan Heights were captured by Israel from Syrian in the 1967 Six-Day War and are recognized by the international community asSyrian territory held by Israel under military occupation. In an act ruled null and void by the United Nations Security Council, Israel applied civilian law to the territory in 1981."

That edit violates OR/SYNTH because the source doesn't refer to the topic of the subject article, which is tourism in Israel. It also violates NPOV/UNDUE because much of the edit, especially the latter part, is generally not found in articles that deal with tourism in Israel. I'll try to come up with something that is more in line with with Wikipedia's SYNTH and UNDUE policies. I welcome any thoughts or comments on the issue.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The edit is sound for the reasons you articulated, but I'm not sure why you added, "the return of which has remained the chief source of tension between the two countries." That would seem to be just as irrelevant to an article about tourism as the other stuff you took out.—Biosketch (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Golan heights tourism overall is irrelevant to this article, since this is about tourism in Israel. So the same considerations apply as to Jerusalem and the West Bank. We could intro by saying something like "While the international community sees the Golan Heights as Syrian territory under military occupation, Golan Heights tourism has been administered by Israel since 1967" --Dailycare (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Visitors to Israel don't typically choose which sites to go to based on U.N. resolutions, so the claim that Golan Heights tourism is "irrelevant to this article" isn't valid in the least. Something should be done regarding the intro so the Template:Neutrality can finally be removed – but whatever that something is, it shouldn't involve removing sites that're popular tourist destinations for visitors to Israel, otherwise the page'll have little practical significance.—Biosketch (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

They choose if they want to visit sites in Israel, or sites in the occupied territories. Its not only the intro of the article that is the problem, The name of this article is "Tourism in Israel", so until the occupied territories are removed from the article , there is no reason to remove the tag. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we can discuss Jerusalem, the WB and GH in this article, the "irrelevant" bit in my earlier comment was a friendly poke at Jiujitsuguy's comments about relevance of certain items to the article. Having said that, we shouldn't conceal the fact that whereas Israelis arrange trips to these locations, their presence on Israeli soil is in fact hotly contested, so we can intro the GH section with text saying as much. --Dailycare (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

We're not "concealing" all the illegality hoopla just like we're not concealing any other important information found at the wikilinked Golan Heights that is of little relevance to tourism, the subject of the article. Shoving "illegality" into every possible scenario violates NPOV. See also WP:COATRACK.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The occupation is the link that makes Golan Heights tourism relevant to this page (as otherwise it'd be in an article concerning tourism in Syria), which is why I agree with you that it shouldn't be concealed. --Dailycare (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I also believe we can now remove the tag. The article has clear disclaimers about occupation and legality (maybe even too much). Consensus has not been achieved to change the title (although "of" still wouldn't hurt my feelings). Right now we have as close to a balance as we are realistically going to get anytime soon and that is not a bad thing. Unless someone thinks the tag should stay because we give too much prominence to the legal issues, I think it is time to remove it. I do note that SD disagrees but the only thing that would make him happy (splitting off parts of the article even though RS includes it in their sources) appears to not have support. Cptnono (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That is inaccurate, Peter Cohen, , Nambia, Nableezy, Roland R, Faceless enemy all disagree with current name, so there is no consensus that current name is accurate, and there is still text in the article about places not in Israel, so the dispute is not in any way resolved, so there is no reason to remove the tag. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

While there is a mismatch between the title of the article and the scope of the article I think the tag should remain. The current name is inaccurate. It needs addressing somehow, either directly by changing it or indirectly by shifting content around. One day this issue needs to be resolved. Perhaps it should be resolved centrally by answering the question, "Under what circumstances can places outside of the green line be described as being 'in Israel' in Wikipedia's narrative voice ?" Sean.hoyland - talk 03:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

First, the Golan issue remains politically unresolved and the reality is that it will remain Israeli for the long term and this is especially true in light of recent events in Syria. Moreover, per the Ford letter, which has been embraced by subsequent U.S. administrations, the United States has recognized legitimate Israeli territorial rights over the Golan Heights. Furthermore, tourism and travel books such as Insight Guides and Fodor's have always included the Golan as part of tourism in Israel. As a practical matter, it is impossible to access the Israeli Golan from Syrian territory but one wouldn't even know if one crossed from Galilee to the Golan. To eviscerate the Golan from Israel is wrong and somewhat disingenuous.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the Golan (and anywhere over the green line) can be treated as being "in Israel" in a title at least as far as Wikipedia's neutral narrative voice is concerned, so I think there is no denying that there is a serious NPOV issue right there in the title that isn't just going to evaporate. It's disingenuous but more importantly I think it's a straighforward policy violation. I don't know how to resolve it (although my preference would just be to amend the title to match the scope because the scope seems fine) but I do think it is a genuine problem no matter how many tourist books treat the Golan as part of Israel. Tourist books don't have our policies of course. I can see this going 4 ways; nothing much changes or there are incremental improvements (e.g. 'of Israel') or the issue is resolved and consensus is reached through collaboration and according to policy somehow or the worst case scenario, that it degenerates into an AE report/topic ban generating issue. This is exactly the kind of issue that causes trouble in the topic area and functions as an AE report/topic ban generating machine. So, obviously, whatever happens, everyone should be on their best behavior, go slowly, and scrupulously follow policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Right now the article is as good as it is going to get neutrality wise. The only problem is the title now. We can do a few different things. "Tourism industry of Israel", "Israeli tourism", "Tourism of Israel", "Israeli tourist industry" and probably a few more. We can swap the "in" with something else. Unfortunately, I assume the next step from some editors will be to stick in "occupied". Like: "Tourism in Israel and the Occupied Territories". So lets be honest and either remove the tag now or change it to something that keeps the SCOPE without putting undue emphasis on the politics.Cptnono (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I support: "Tourism managed by Israel", Occupied does not have to be in the title. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think occupied needs to be in the title either. I'm not opposed to the material being split out to other articles but I think it's better to keep it all here. I'm sure we can agree a new title and remove the tag. "Tourism industry of Israel" and "Israeli tourist industry" seem good to me but there are many possibilities as you say. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have morphed into a move discussion. "Israeli tourist industry" or "Tourism industry of Israel" both sound fine to me. --Dailycare (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

And so now you advocate singling out Israel for special treatment, Eh? No other country is treated this way on Wikipedia. This repeated singling out of one country for multiple criticisms (overt and surreptitious) is really getting out of hand.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between Israel and areas occupied by Israel that we are obliged to acknowledge somehow. It's not our fault. The article needs to take that into account. If someone were to include information about Western Sahara in Tourism in Morocco the same issue would arise. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

{od}

• Tourism of Israel as per naming convention in Category:Tourism by country --Shuki (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This article isn't about a country. It's about a country and some other territories. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Israel is not like any other country, JJG. The naming convention does not work for this article, Shuki. Other stuff may or may not be broken, Sean. "managed" by is so burdensome it hurts, Supreme Deliciousness. Maybe it has morphed, but we are stuck in a weird position. The article is neutral (which is why the tag should go). It is as neutral as it is going to get (my initial point). If the scope is the argument to keep a tag that only serves to distract the reader: Then lets change the name. But something that is so in your face (managed by/occupied/Israel+every disputed inch of land) is not going to get consensus. We all know it. So start playing ball and get on board with a change that isn't offensive to the other side. Cptnono (talk) 04:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't like "managed by" either. I'm not sure it's accurate either. I guess it's meant to convey the sense that Israel manages certain sites, parks etc but I assume much of the logistics of tourism is managed by third parties, many of which may be in the country of origin of the tourists. "managed by" seems to specific. More generic titles like "Tourism industry of Israel" seem better. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That industry titled article (that none other like it seems to exist on WP) could be a subset article, more economically-oriented, to the main Tourism of Israel article. We are talking about the entry point of the tourist. I think that Taba and Petra can also be included in the article because they are part of Israeli tourism too. Cptnono, Israel is certainly not like any other country, and neither is Cyprus or Pakistan, and I've also brought up Taiwan in the past. There are many other countries in the world with disputed territories so claiming that Israel is unique is merely setting it to some special unique standard. We seem to all be SPAs on I-P articles and assume we are creating WP policy where none already exists. --Shuki (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I prefer "Tourism of Israel" also. It is not too wordy and no reader is going to be confused about what the scope actually is. An editor actually tried to make the argument many months ago that it could be read as tourists from Israel going abroad. The reader is not expected to be that dense, but we have the lead to really solidify the scope just in case.

Other articles do not matter. This conversation is about this article and we shouldn't be pointing to other articles as examples unless they have an exceptionally high grade on the assessment scale (even then it would not matter since the scenarios are so different). Cptnono (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason I don't like "Tourism of X" is that it is ambiguous in the wrong way. It's not that people are dumb, it's that it is genuinely ambiguous and misleading. Tourism of X can mean tourist activities conducted within X to many people, "Tourism of X" = "Tourism in X". That's how I, as a native English speaker, understand it first and foremost. 'of' in the sense of belonging to Israel in a sort of management sense is not how I would read that at all unless someone told me, in which case I would suggest changing it to something like Tourism industry of Israel to eliminate the ambiguity. Just type "tourism of" into google and look at what you get. The objective is to find a title that doesn't suggest that places across the green line belong to Israel or are part of the State of Israel because that is an NPOV violation. I don't think "Tourism of Israel" is the best choice from that perspective. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "Tourism of" is not good, for example nature, lands, streams, mountains etc or historical remains in the occupied territories are in no way "of Israel". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's actually that ambiguity that can be a compromise instead of politicizing as many articles about Israel as possible. Your basically setting up a new convention that will force virtually anything 'in Israel' to be replaced with a new qualification. Your point about googling tourism of and tourism in very poor. in and of are not specific words and virtually interchangeable and given less importance. The difference between 259 million and 253 million pages is meaningless and doesn't prove anything. Frankly, a 'tourism of' title allows us to include the side trips to Jordan and Sinai that many tourist to Israel take advantage of. It will be very clear that a day trip to Petra or Taba is not 'in Israel'. --Shuki (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"genuinely ambiguous" is a good thing. I hope the reader understands that is it "genuinely ambiguous" since it is better then genuinely pointy/POV/disclaimer-screaming-at-you-to-pay-attention-to-politics. I am promoting a change to the title since "in" (something that most people don't even pay attention to unless they are into the politics) is off the table for a handful of editors. "of" fixes the "scope". We could be more wordy and start using terms like "industry" but that opens up an even bigger can of worms. The easiest and most neutral way to handle this conflict is to change one tiny little word. Cptnono (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Shuki, to clarify, my point about googling 'tourism of' wasn't about the number of hits, it was about the individual results which show how that terminology is used to mean tourism of a place, be it a country, a region within a country or a city etc, that kind of thing.
• Cptnono, what is the even bigger can of worms that concerns you about saying something like "Tourism industry of Israel" ? It seems completely clear, apolitical, it can apply to tourism inside and outside of the green line whether that means the Golan Heights or Israeli tourism in Greece for example. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

My assumption is that adding something like "industry" will be more than others will accept (although I made clear up above that it does not hurt my feelings if we use the term). You are looking at two sides: 1 thinks that it is perfectly acceptable to say "in" Israel (because it essentially is in reality if not on paper) while the other really wants to make it clear that the tourism is based from and promoted by a state that some feel is not welcome. So make both sides happy by not having Wikipedia's voice say that it is "in" Israel. Demanding that the article's title jump through hoops of wordiness (that no reader wants to bother to type) to ensure that politics is highlighted is not appropriate. Let the prose do the work and have a boring title.

Basically, I think various suggestions are fine. But I know what is and what is not possible. We can fix the scope (as you asked for specifically) and not give the impression that Wikipedia is taking a side in the conflict (what I hope Supreme Deliciousness is asking for). It looks to me that several editors who favor Israel's side are reluctant to even give you guys that. Be happy that you have someone else pushing for something that addresses your concerns. Cptnono (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

"Tourism industry" can be a sub-article to the general Tourism article. The industry article would handle logistical things like transportation and logding, not geography and sites. --Shuki (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Who is down? "Tourism of Israel" is an easy fix and is better than "Tourism in Israel". Maybe "industry" or other things need to be added but for now can we get the article one step closer to being a little bit more neutral? If enough editors say "let's do it" we can make a quick request for an admin to pull the trigger. We can even do a full-on conversation with "supports" and "opposes" and dozens of comments bickering for even more modification if "industry" needs to be discussed. But changing "in" to "of" is an easy an neutral fix that should not make anyone unhappy. I'm begging the community for one little piece of reconciliation for the benefit of the reader (the most important) and some peace of mind.Cptnono (talk) 06:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

"Tourism of Israel" wouldn't fix anything per my and Seans comments above. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

But it would be better than "in", right? Cptnono (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be the exact same as it is now. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

That is inaccurate. "In" and "of" mean different things. Your compression of the English language is better than mine at times so I have no doubt that you understand the difference. By "same" do you really mean that it still is not what you would prefer? Cptnono (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem would be the same as now, see my comment above [13]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

<-There's no rush. I would rather see something like 4 choices and an RfC with a formal close to settle this. We'll need redirects in place from things like "Tourism in the Golan Heights" etc to take care of the wordiness so that people can actually find things once the name is settled which is probably more important than the actual title. There's only a redirect from "Tourism in Israel and the Palestinian territories" to here at the moment. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

We have all done this before. If we open up an RFC with multiple options it will end in no consensus. That is how it has worked and how it will work. I want to assume good faith in the community (ie: We discuss it and come to a solution that makes everyone kind of happy), but if you think that is how it will work out then I will say that you are overly optimistic. You remember the discussion about adding the explanation on settlements? It was a "consensus" that left just a little under half livid. There is nothing wrong with making baby steps towards more neutrality and some how falling close to it in the process. To scuttle an easy fix hurts the project. Everyone should be happy with this step. There should of course be an attempt to see if improvement is needed. You will not get consensus on more than what I have suggested at this time. Just being honest about how it is.

Or we can edit war over the tag that many editors is seen as unneeded that is only back in since a now blocked editor made a revert.Cptnono (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC will not lead to anything at this discussion, so its a waste of time. Does anyone object to "Tourism managed by Israel" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't object to "Tourism managed by Israel". --Dailycare (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

ObjectCptnono (talk) 09:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose – unless...User:Dailycare, which RSes contributed to your decision to support SD's rename proposal?—Biosketch (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that locating Israeli tourist brocuhres featuring all the locations discussed in the article is easy to find. Examples: 1 2 especially the latter one says that Israel occupies the WB, but tourism there is accessible via Israel. --Dailycare (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:PN, 'managed by Israel' assumes that the government maintains all these sites. --Shuki (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm opposed to "Tourism managed by Israel" too for the reasons I explained above. Is there a reason that isn't based on pyschic prediction and subjective analyses of group behavior that would mean that an RfC isn't the proper method to address this issue ? I think the only RfC that has taken place was based on Tourism in Israel → Tourism in Israel and the Palestinian territories. This one would present 3 or perhaps 4 options (although 3 is probably better), 'Tourism in Israel', 'Tourism of Israel' and another one that includes the words like 'Tourism' and 'Israel' but does not include the words 'Palestinian', '(East) Jerusalem', 'West Bank' or 'Golan Heights'. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, the problem here is the implied logic that follows from the title, such that all places discussed in the article would be contentiously described as 'in Israel'. There seem to be a number of ways to break up this logic: 1) As per Shuki's suggestion, include a section on Israel-based trips to Jordan so that it is clear that not all the locations are to be understood as necessarily being in Israel; 2) Change the title to 'Tourism in and around Israel' (either with or without the inclusion of the Jordan material) - although this may depart from standard phrasing for similar articles I would contend both that lack of standardisation is a far smaller problem than lack of consenus or (potentially implied) inclusion of a contentious point of view and that the phrase is commonly used and understood and, thus, is unlikely to mislead a reader who wants to find the article that deals with tourism in Israel; 3) Group the Golan and West Bank sections together under a sub-heading that distinguishes them from the sections concerned with locations that are unequivocally in Israel; 4) Some combination of these.

On a separate note, the bulleted statement in the Golan section: 'This is the first ski resort in the Israeli annexed Golan.' could be changed to mirror the language used in the intro to the section, so that it reads: 'This is the first Israeli ski resort in the Golan.', thus removing an unnecessary reference to geopolitics. BothHandsBlack (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll give this another day and then, if no one objects, I'll change the article title to 'Tourism in and around Israel' and I'll also make the suggested change to the language use to describe the ski resort.BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I object. Too wordy. Also concerns with POV and ambiguity (just like other suggestions if not even more so). Cptnono (talk) 09:10, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain what the POV issue is? And as far as ambiguity is concerned, that is precisely the point - the title will have to either be ambiguous or it will have to adopt one of the two dispute points of view. I would think ambiguity would be preferable, even if a little wordy, to unambiguous POV. BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

When you title it "around" Israel you disregard certain claims. You also disregard the administrative reality of some of the area which causes more confusion. Ambiguity is probably the only way to go about it (why I think "in" should be removed altogether) but your suggestion goes beyond that.Cptnono (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the problem here. What claims are being disregarded by including 'around'? 'In and around' does imply that some of the places in the article aren't in Israel but it doesn't specify which. That the West Bank, at least, is not in Israel seems fairly uncontroversial (I would think), which then leaves the reader to make up their own mind about the Golan. BothHandsBlack (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Object as well. I was not referring to this article but a possible consequence of POV splitting. --Shuki (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

@BHB think you are actually closer to understanding my concern then you might have thought before you started writing your response. Shuki and I both have objected now and I doubt you will get broad support for the change for a a few different reasons. It is a shame because it shouldn't be that hard to find something better than the current title. I'm just glad I don;t mind the current title as much as others. Cptnono (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry guys, while I understand that you both object, neither of you have given any reasons that I am yet able to grasp (beyond 'too wordy') so you're going to have to be more explicit on what the problem with this title is. Cptnono, sadly I'm not any closer to understanding (sorry :-)) so please just spell out the POV issue for me. If I understand the issues I'll have a better chance of putting together something acceptable. BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot. "In an around Israel" is an imprecise (and quite frankly, silly) title for an article. Southern Lebanon is also "around" Israel. One could argue that even Cyprus is "around" Israel. The problem here stems from the fact that while the Golan is not part of Israel de jure, it is administered by Israel and one has to go through an Israeli border crossing to reach it. It is de facto in Israel, if we use the normal meaning of the word "in" (ie "expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else"). I get that it really bothers some people that this is currently the de facto case, and that they apparently think that changing wikipedia will change reality, but the fact remains that someone who wants to visit the Golan has to cross an (unrecognized) Israeli border first.

I think the article explains the situation with the bit about nobody recognizing the Golan as being part of Israel, and the rest is just nitpicking that won't help a reader understand the topic of this article any better.

Maybe we need a naming convention for this sort of stuff as it comes up quite a bit. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC):::::::::::Perhaps I'm doing something wrong here. I was under the impression that the current article title was already held to be problematic by a number of editors for the reasons given above. I thought that the next stage for us, collectively as editors, was to look for an alternative to the current title that will not be found objectionable. But if new titles are going to be rejected on the grounds that, essentially, they are not the old title then how is it going to be possible to move forward? As to the current suggestion, I would agree that it is somewhat imprecise but that is deliberate. If we have a precise title it will inevitably end up taking one of the two sides in the debate, each of which is contentious. The ambiguity of 'around' can satisfy both sides as it has a double meaning - to travel 'around Israel' is not to travel outside Israel but inside the country but in conjunction with 'in' it can also be read in terms of outside. The reader will make of it what they will without the title providing any conclusions. Since the article does include at least one place that is not 'in' Israel (the West Bank), regardless of anyone's views on the Golan, I really don't see why the title would be particularly silly and nor do I think anyone looking for information on tourism in Cyprus or Lebanon will come to this article by mistake. BothHandsBlack (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think the article as it stands is too problematic. But I thought that, given that some editors do, we are all obliged to try to resolve the difficulty.BothHandsBlack (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you please not split my comments? Now the top part looks unsigned.

Anyway, I seriously doubt you're going to find a title everyone is happy with, which is why I suggested that maybe a naming convention is needed (that's below, in the other part of my comment). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about the splitting, thought it was two different comments for some reason. I've fixed it now. A naming convention would be a good idea but is there any hope of getting broad agreement on that if it can't be achieved for a single title? BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully, a discussion about a naming convention would draw more uninvolved editors than are present at this obscure article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

BHB is now coming to my talk page seeking clarification. I am not clarifying since it has been done. It was a bad proposal and reasoning has been provided. Move on. So what is next for the tag? Well let's remove it since we are obviously never changing the title. Cptnono (talk) 07:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Will you at least indicate where you have provided this clarification? As far as I can see you say you have concerns about POV but each time I have asked what those concerns are you have failed to provide any argument in support of the claim.BothHandsBlack (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Reasoning was provided. WP:IDHT?Cptnono (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No it wasn't. You said 'around' disregards certain claims but have repeatedly failed to say what claims they are or how they are disregarded by the term. If this is what you mean when you say you have given reasons then you are mistaking argument for assertion. BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

<- Let's try to get this back on track. I agree that in and around is too imprecise. I asked whether there a reason that isn't based on pyschic prediction and subjective analyses of group behavior that would mean that an RfC isn't the proper method to address this issue. The only RfC that has taken place was based on Tourism in Israel → Tourism in Israel and the Palestinian territories. This one would present perhaps three or four options, 'Tourism in Israel', 'Tourism of Israel' and another one or two that include the words 'Tourism' and 'Israel' but does not include the words 'Palestinian', '(East) Jerusalem', 'West Bank' or 'Golan Heights'. I think this is the best way to go. No one cares what anyone thinks the outcome would be. Obviously there won't be any consensus to remove the tag until this issue has been resolved and an RfC would be a resolution no matter what the outcome is. So, how about coming to an agreement that a) we have an RfC with a formal close and b) agree what the other one or two proposed titles would be ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. As to b), though, I'm as stumped as everyone else seems to be when it comes to providing a phrase that is both precise but NPOV. Tourism 'via', 'through', 'based in' all seem to miss the essential point of the article and 'Tourism of Israel' doesn't sound like a natural English phrase to me. Looking through the list of prepositions here [14], none work unproblematically, unless we go for something really odd like 'Tourism with Regard to Israel', which would be NPOV but awkward and archaic/overly formal. But perhaps something awkward, or imprecise (wink :-)), is going to be required if there are literally no other options for a 'Tourism x Israel' type phrase. Alternatively, we can move away from such phrases and look again at things like 'The Tourism Industry of Israel' or other similar suggestions. BothHandsBlack (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources using the terms tourist or tourism industry of Israel are quite widespread. See google books for year 2000 onwards. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

As are sources using the phrase "tourism in Israel" [15] (and that's a search for the actual phrase, not words that may or may not combine into the phrase we're looking for). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup, and 'of' gets used for other countries as well. I don't think its ideal but any list of phrases of this sort isn't going to be ideal because there is simply no preposition that is precisely appropriate, as the aim is to find a phrase that avoids a certain point without making others. The only one that is both precise and familiar is 'in' but that is contentious. So what would the list look like? We have 'in' and 'of' but the next least bad option, in my view, is 'in and around' which doesn't seem very popular. Are we realistically going to find anything else that is better using this format or should we include a couple of proposals using different structures? BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes NMMNG, I'm aware of that and there will be many sources that talk about this area as if it is a "Holy Land". I know what I'm doing, hard to believe perhaps. The issue, as I see it, is that an encyclopedia with an NPOV policy can't say that places that are not in Israel are in Israel. NPOV is important. So, we need to find a constructive way to deal with that if we want to keep the article scope the same which I think something we agree on. I genuinely can't understand why anyone would object to a title like tourism industry of Israel by the way. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you are confused regarding the de facto status of these places, and perhaps about what the word "in" means.

Tourism industry of Israel includes such things as travel agents where Israelis make their arrangements to tour abroad. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, I'm not confused about the spatial definition of the State of Israel or what the word "in" means. Yes, Tourism industry of Israel could also include such things as where Israeli tourists go on holiday e.g. Greece etc etc. That is deliberate. That's one of the reasons I think it's a good solution because it allows the article to be expanded into new areas without having a title vs scope mismatch. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that understanding 'in' in terms of enclosure or boundedness is particularly appropriate here. When used with respect to political units 'in' pretty universally refers to areas forming a constiuent part of that unit and not to areas enclosed by that unit. For instance, we don't say that Switzerland is 'in' the EU, despite its location being entirely within the outer boundaries of the EU. BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't say "Switzerland is in the EU" because that would imply it's part of the group that forms the EU. We do say the Vatican is in Rome. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting counter example! But even whether the Golan is geographically in Israel (which is what underpins the way we would talk about the Vatican and Rome) is contentious, since for it to be so already assumes that Israel's borders have the extent that Israel asserts. Which is to say the geographical claim would be entirely dependent on the prior political claim. I think ... BothHandsBlack (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, there's the situation de jure (nobody recognizes Israel's annexation of the Golan or that Israel's borders surround it) and the de facto situation which is that Israel's borders do in fact surround the Golan, and to enter the Golan one must either go through an Israeli border crossing or somehow circumvent the Israeli border fence. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

'Tourism in the Israeli occupied territories' is accurate both de jure and de facto. 81.247.222.10 (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

While you are here, and just to satify my curiosity, would you object to a title something like tourism industry of Israel ? If so, could you explain why ? Obviously you don't have to, you may have better things to do, but I'm just curious. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought I addressed that already? Tourism industry of Israel is not what this article is about. It's about tourism in Israel. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I see. Other than the title of the article, what leads you to believe that the article is only about tourism in Israel ? If the title of an article was 'Article 34571' and it only consisted of the contents of the West Bank tourism section and the Tel Aviv section would you consider Tourism in Israel an accurate replacement title ? What is it in the article or elsewhere that would lead you to believe that both the West Bank and Tel Aviv can be described as being in 'in Israel' in Wikipedia's narrative voice ? I'm not trying to be difficult, I genuinely don't understand. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

While I enjoy a hypothetical as much as the next guy, this article doesn't consist only of the West Bank and Tel Aviv sections, so answering that would be a complete waste of time. The article is set up in such a way that the West Bank and Golan have their own sections, the West Bank section is a summary of the main article about West Bank tourism and the Golan Heights has a clear explanation that it is occupied territory. The fact remains that to visit these places one has to go through an Israeli border. Much like the Vatican appears in Both the Tourism in Italy and the Tourism in Rome articles, despite not being part of the territory of either, this article does not imply any political status on the areas it uses the grammatically correct "in" for. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The Vatican is geographically in Rome. The West Bank and the Golan are only geographically in Israel if one accepts certain political claims about where Israel's borders extend to. Control of borders does not make the statement de facto true because control of borders does not, as far as I'm aware, define the extent of a country (which is inherently a political entity). The other reason the Vatican example doesn't really work is because there is no conflict between the Vatican and Italy about its status and, thus, stating that the Vatican is 'in' Italy, or Rome cannot support any political claim because no one actually claims that the Vatican is politically a constituent part of Italy. Here we have a situation where there is a highly contentious claim floating around in the world that the Golan, at least, and according to some people even the West Bank, are politically 'in' Israel and including them in an article entitled Tourism 'in' Israel can be read as implicitly supporting that claim. Since even the geographical 'withiness' and the control of the borders and administration of the areas which some people think justify the use of 'in' are elements in the political dispute, the use of 'in' cannot be neatly separated from the contentious political issues in the way you imply just because it can reasonably be used in situations where there are no political issues. But, all this aside, given that a considerable number of editors object to the current title, and given that this is a collaborative project, shouldn't all editors, even those who don't have a problem with the current title, be looking for an alternative rather than rejecting alternatives basically because they are not identical to the contentious title? BothHandsBlack (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. Here's something that isn't a hypothetical then that might illustrate why I'm finding the way this 'in Israel' issue is being handled here baffling. About a week ago, a survey was completed for an oil company. It's in the Zag license which is just a spatial object like the West Bank etc etc. Now, where is the Zag license ? It depends on the way you sample sources. If you chose to only sample sources that focus specifically on the seismic acquisition work (or lets call it geophysical tourism) out of all of the sources about this place on the planet, the sources will tell you that it's in Morocco. There's a reason for that, but it doesn't matter what it is, and just like tourism 'in Israel' as we are calling it, the only way into the area is by dealing with the Moroccan authorities. The thing is, that license isn't in Morocco, it's in Western Sahara. There are a multitude of sources that verify that the area, that part of the planet, is in what is called Western Sahara by almost everyone. You have to make a special effort to limit the sources to those that discuss this particular seismic work and exclude pretty much everything else to produce an 'in Morocco' result. Meanwhile, despite that subset of sources saying otherwise, it remains in Western Sahara. I think that is similar to what is happening here. A subset of sources that specifically deal with tourism are being used to justify redefining the geography of part of the planet. It doesn't make sense. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? It doesn't make sense to use sources about tourism in an article about tourism? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking over the previous discussion again, the substantive objections to 'Tourism of Israel' seem pretty minimal esp. as some people seem to have moved somewhat with regard to its acceptability. There seem to be a considerable number of supporters for 'Tourism of Israel' and the only objections in the previous discussion came from Sean and SupremeDeliciousness. If Sean is now more amenable to it, then why not consider it as a formal proposal first, before we try to crowbar the English language into an IP shaped configuration in order to generate some extra options to go alongside it for an RfC? BothHandsBlack (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

'Tourism in the Israeli occupied territories' is accurate both de jure and de facto. 81.247.222.10 (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)