Talk:Tourism in Israel/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

History of tourism

This article by Rebecca L. Stein, Assistant Professor in the Departments of Cultural Anthropology and Women’s Studies, Duke University may be of interest. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Lead: Most Popular Attraction

At the moment the lead gives Masada as the most popular paid tourist attraction in Israel. Is there a rationale for this format, as the fact doesn't appear in the main body. What we do get in the main body is a subsection dedicated to most visited sites, which gives two different locations (presumably unpaid). Should these go in the lead as well, or does Masada need a mention in the subsection, or both? BothHandsBlack (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Source material

• Beaches, ruins, resorts: the politics of tourism in the Arab world, by Waleed Hazbun.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesdovi (talk • contribs) 16:51, 7 December 2010‎ (UTC)

Occupy East Jerusalem

There seems to be an edit war going on over the inclusion of the word "occupied" before East Jerusalem. But the very next paragraph is an explanation of the '67 conquest that uses the word "occupation." Is it necessary to put "occupied" before any mention of part of the Territories. I don't think it is. It says "largest city of Israel if the area and population of East Jerusalem are included." This if-statement implies that it is a special part of Jerusalem, a part apart. Its also linked to the article to further aid a reader in understanding.Usernames are Useless (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

No it is not necessary for the word occupied to precede any mention of the occupied territories. What is needed though is when first introducing the territory, in an article on what is in Israel, to explain why someone wouldn't include the area and population of an area not in Israel in its size. nableezy - 06:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

And it does. Usernames are Useless (talk) 08:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This is why a change of the title is needed here. All of the places discussed belong in one article. It is overly politicized since some want to remind you that there is a difference in how it is and what it could/should/might/never be. Change the name of the article while retaining the scope and everyone wins. You can even have a paragraph discussing the travesty that is the loss of land to a mightier (for better or worse) power that took it. Cptnono (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

occupied EJ

The word is necessary because the sentence doesnt make much sense without it. A reader would rightly question why somebody wouldnt include the area and population of East Jerusalem in Jerusalem. Other than that, I wasnt aware that edit-warring a change was now an accepted mode of behavior. nableezy - 19:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Age of cemetry

In this revert editor Csi.southpark re-introduced a source for his edit that the cemetery is "3000 years" old. The source only mentions "3,000 years" (twice), but does not base that. Mount of Olives does the same: stating "3000 years", based on a source [1] that just says so without historical reference. The most serious source is through First Temple, that stood ~1000 – 500 BCE. The cemetry is linked to this era through biblical texts only. Then it takes another OR step to conclude that it was right from the beginning of that era (1000 BCE), to get to the number of 3000. First a bible is not a RS. Second the presumption to use the start of the era is OR. There is no RS for the 3000 year claim. The earliest historical (not biblical) fact is with the nearby Tomb of Absalom, dating it in 1st century BCE (Tomb of Absalom#Modern scholarship). That would make the burial area ~2000 years old. I propose to add this (with historical sources) to the text. -DePiep (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

DePiep This really isn't something you need to fight over. The Monolith of Silwan is dated to the 9th-7th century BC and that is a part of the cemetery. In fact the village of Silwan is built on part of the cemetery, with some houses even being built from the tombs. The cemetery is usually understood to be approximately 3000 years old the date of 2000 years was probably written by accident. Most places, even other Wikipedia articles, list the cemetery as being 3000 years old. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock-cut_tombs_in_ancient_Israel for more information and sources. Csi.southpark (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Why are you opening with telling me what to do or not to do? Of course, it is up to you to add your sources. "is generally considered" does not count. -DePiep (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Monolith of Silwan is not on Olive Mountain. So what could that prove? And other wiki itself is not a source, simply. Link to a RS here please. -DePiep (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

DePiep it's sort of at the base of the mountain, but anyway it is considered to be a part of the cemetery complex. Here is a source from the wiki article I linked too. http://www.academia.edu/3148025/The_Necropolis_from_the_Time_of_the_Kingdom_of_Judah_at_Silwan_Jerusalem Will this do? And I'm not trying to tell you what to do but don't you think that it's sort of ridiculous that we are having a long discussion about one number? Just because the article is about Israel. If this was an article about Croatia then nobody would be arguing, especially not a generally understood fact like the age of this cemetery. Csi.southpark (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

re just a number? If you think the number is unimportant, you can leave the discussion. I say that if we write a number, we must source it with RS.

re Monolith of Silwan. I have added that source to the page (Ussishkin 1970). I also added the coordinates (sourced too). Now about geography: the Monolith is not on the Mount of Olives. It is on a Eastern slope of the Temple Mountain. They are on opposing sides of the Kidron Valley (that runs, roughly, North-South). Horizontally, the Monolith and the edge of the cemetery (at the lowest point of the MoO slope, i.e. the very edge and end of the MoO) is over 260m. The Monolith is not part of the MoO. It is on another slope, another mountain. Also, there are no serious sources that do claim otherwise. Then, since it is not on the MoO, it is not part of that cemetery. So its historical facts do not say anything about the MoO cemetery.

re other wikipages: wiki is not a RS for wiki. If there are good sources on other wiki pages, for the "3000 years" claim, please point to them. I did not find one. -DePiep (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If you take a look at Google Street view on a street called Derech HaOfel you can see the monolith and it does look like its on the mountain of olives. But that is besides the point no one says that the cemetery is only 2000 years old, pretty much everyone calls it 3000 years old. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like there are a lot of good sources for the cemetaries age, but whatever sources there are do say its 3000 years old. Csi.southpark (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to Google street view: https://maps.google.com/?ll=31.776027,35.237757&spn=0.009832,0.013239&t=m&z=17&layer=c&cbll=31.776231,35.237829&panoid=fvzJrfgAXm3l5t3Lpb0_Ww&cbp=12,145.12,,0,-2.03 Csi.southpark (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

This website talks a lot about the cemetery but you probably won't like it as a source. http://www.mountofolives.co.il/eng/ Csi.southpark (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The Monolith page now has coordinates, from a source even. It is not on the slope of the Mount of Olives. End of relevance. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like there are a lot of good sources for the cemetaries age -- that is my point. No source, no fact. The other sources that parrot "3000 years" are not RS. -DePiep (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you look at the street view? Anyway some say that Silwan(and the Monolith) is on the southern slope of the Mount of Olives, some say the Mount of Olives is made of four hills, and some even have a different name for the hill that Silwan is on. But even if it's on a hill called something else next to the Mount of Olives, it's still part of the cemetery complex (look at the website of the people who run it, there is a map http://www.mountofolives.co.il/eng/). As an example of a similar circumstance, off the top of my head, have you ever been too a ski resort? Well a ski resort can be made up of multiple hills/mountains and still be called by one name(Aspen Mountain ski resort, it's called Aspen Mountain but is made up of two different mountains). Csi.southpark (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I have added a scientific source for the claim that the cemetery dates from the beginning of the first temple period. Ravpapa (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you added Ussishkin 1970. That is the same source I added in the Monolith of Solwan article, as I wrote above (with a link so readable). But again: the Monotlith is not on the mountain of olives, and so is not a part of that cemetery. The Monolith page has coordinates too, so you can look at the map. It is on the opposite slope, not the MoO slope. -DePiep (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

At first I didn't understand what you were arguing about, but now I think I do. You contend that, because the rock-cut tombs in Silwan are on the western slope of the Kidron, rather than the eastern slope, they are a separate burial site from the current Jewish cemetery. While this seems a bit bogus to me, I have changed the bullet of the section to be "Mount of Olives and Kidron Valley". In any case this is more accurate, as other sites mentioned in the paragraph (pool of Shiloah, City of David) are also not on the Mount of Olives.

If, as your original post in this thread suggests, you are arguing about the age of the Bronze-age tombs (possibly from the 9th to 7th centuries rather than the 10th), we could change the sentence to read "2800-year old" rather than "3000-year old". This seems a bit picky, especially since there is still some debate about the age of the oldest tombs.

Finally, you could be claiming (though you haven't done so explicitly) that the identification of the Bronze-age tombs with the current Jewish cemetery is specious, because there was a 1500-year period when no Jews were buried in the area (at least as far as we know). Because the two sites are separated in space by about 500 meters, and separated in time by 1500 years, you could, perhaps, be justified in saying they were two different things. It seems a quibble to me.

I left the discuss tag on the sentence. If you are satisfied you can remove it. Ravpapa (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Your edit (now reinstalled after my revert) was NOT a conclusion of this talk. You edited while this talk is running. You have concluded on your conclusion and put that in the article. That is POV pushing. I suggest you undo your article edit, and wait (participate in discussion, not adding opinion statements) for this talk to conclude. To be clear, I disagree with yuour edit. -DePiep (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

What is your current objection and what, exactly, is the POV I am pushing? Ravpapa (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Editing the article into your own "conclusion" bypassing the ongoing talk (just stating your opinion does not count as talking) is POV-pushing. I suggest you reverse your edits, which were crossing 1RR anyway. Before I will not dive into the content of your point, to keep the talking single-thread and sane here. -DePiep (talk) 09:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I fear my understanding of POV pushing and of 1RR is quite different from yours. I believe, from the discussion above, that my edit addresses all the complaints about the passage that you have raised. If I am mistaken, please set me straight. Ravpapa (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

False statement

In the "Most visited sites" section, it says: "In 2009, the two most visited sites in Israel were the Western Wall and the grave of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai." But the Western Wall is not located in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it backed by RS? We can probably find at least 100. How about you try to rework the line with RS related to tourism. Surely there ca be some comprimise that doesn;t include removal or a paragraph of footnotes.Cptnono (talk) 06:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)