Talk:Tourism in Israel

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 Mount of Olives does the same: stating "3000 years", based on a source [1] that just says so without historical reference.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)

Controversy

I know that it is hard to not focus on a political issue hen you feel it is important, SupremeDeliciousness. A single sentence controversy section is not the best way to address it. It kind of spits in the face of the manual of style and decent encyclopedic writing to highlight the issue on a page that is inherent;y not about politics. It also just isn't that important to the topic. So I have one question for you: Would your recent revert pass at GAC or FAC? If not it needs to go. It is BS.Cptnono (talk) 07:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I have now expanded the section so it now has two sentences instead of the previous one. Your tag should be removed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, you can also expand the controversy section so it's no longer single-sentence. For example, the tourism Israel organizes in the West Bank is controversial and could work here. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Such sections are froned upon. It should be removed altogether since it is such an insignificant aspect of the subject.Cptnono (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It is sourced information from a reliable source specifically discussing the subject. I realize that you would like to censor this information but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely yes.Cptnono (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources decide whether it's significant or not. --Dailycare (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Sensationalism and turning pages into POV laden garbage are different than using sources. There is a reason controversy sections are frowned upon. How about you pull up 1000 sources talking about tourism in Israel and find me a significant number that detail one country on another continent having an issue with a single advertisement. You can use whatever wikijargon you want to make it seem acceptable but both common sense and the spirit of the policies and guidelines got you beat.Cptnono (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall hearing that controversy sections would be frowned upon, why would they? I believe rather that in case sources describe a significant controversy and it was excluded from an article, that would be frowned upon for infringing WEIGHT and NPOV. I believe that in this case, it would make sense however to move the controversy section so that it will catch all controversial aspects relating to Israel's tourism, not just the Jerusalem issue. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I guess you learn something new everyday then, huh? Contraversey sections have historically been frowned upon across the project. Here is an essay with some info: WP:CRITS. Note the wording in the template, tying a sentence into the main section may not be as UNDUE ("Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views." is an exact quote from policy) and POV.Cptnono (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thats an essay, which means your entire argument is invalid. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Please reread the argument before being dismissive. I clearly pointed out that it as an essay. I also clearly pointed out that there is precedence. I also than clearly pointed out that there is a policy. Stop beating around the bush and engage other editors in discussion.

As I think about it more, I don't believe SupremeDeliciousness has actually looked at my revert (he clearly can;t be bothered to read the talk page comment. I thought it would be nice to think of an alternative. I thought that maybe a line could be introduced to the prose below (and hopefully not use a bare reference because I actually care about the project) but then I realized that, oh snap, there is already a line about the land being disputed. I can't add to it without breaking UNDUE. I don't think anyone could. This "section" (a couple lines and bare refs) is simply piling it on. It is shameful.Cptnono (talk) 05:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

You brought up "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views.". What does this has to do with the fact that the Advertising Standards Authority in the United Kingdom has banned Israeli tourism ads twice? This is not an "opposing view" its a fact that no one can deny including Israel. So your "argument" is not an argument. I haven't seen any policy based arguments to justify its removal, and neither has dailycare. You have no consensus to remove the section. The information can me moved to a different area if you want, but since its about Jerusalem, I believe it already is in a good place, do you have any suggestions where to move it? I have also expanded the section so its no longer a 1 single sentence which you were complaining about. You should remove the tag you added as the section does not compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject in any way, in fact it does the opposite, by giving the readers information about problematic issues related to "Tourism in Israel". Something they should be reading about in an encyclopedia. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cptnono, as noted that is an essay which is overruled by policies. However, even considering the content of the essay, firstly, it does say that for controversial issues controversy sections may be OK (I did a quick search and found significant coverage for these ad bans), and secondly it says that where controversy sections aren't used, the material that would go in them should just be used in the regular text. As a third point, the essay does say right at the top that some essays are in fact minority viewpoints. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I hate "Criticism" and "Controversy" sections as it's often a vehicle for someone who doesn't like the subject of the article to whinge about it. But the added material is neither inaccurate in itself nor entirely non-notable, just inserted in a contextless manner that disrupts the flow of the article and potentially compromises it's NPOV. I've rewritten it into a single paragraph near the East Jerusalem list that explains the situation better.

I will point out that the ASA did not "ban" anything, despite what the sources say, as it has no authority to do so. The ASA is a non-statutory private company, and compliance with its rulings are in theory purely voluntary (though in practice, most advertisers and advertising vehicles do abide by its rulings). The Advertising Standards Authority (United Kingdom) article explains everything. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why you guys are focusing on the essay (I clearly pointed ot that there was a long standing "frowning upon" and not a rule. You guys now how to read and this isn't middle school debate class, FFS. This is Wikipedia so when you start talking about policies and guidelines in conjunction with long-standing common practice I will be happy to engage. I did mention policy. Address it already.

It looks like someone removed it. I feel that they did so to better the project. Here is the text in case you want to readd it in a more neutral fashion. I can only hope (an assumption is long gone) that a neutral voice is what you are looking for.

In 2010 a tourism ad was banned by the Advertising Standards Authority in the United Kingdom after it implied areas in East Jerusalem were in Israel.

Again in 2015, another Israeli tourism ad was banned in the United Kingdom after it claimed that the Old city of Jerusalem was part of Israel.http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4633267,00.html

And fix your damn bare urls.Cptnono (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not POV to say that East Jerusalem is occupied, and therefore not a part of Israel, and it is not better just saying it has "unfinalized status", AnotherNewAccount. As I said at WP:AE, your preference to use "control" instead of "occupied" is not more neutral, it is instead based on the Israeli view.

In addition, the wording used here is not clear with what the issue is, namely that "the advert implied East Jerusalem, which has been occupied since 1967, was part of the state of Israel". The current wording in this Wikipedia article:

The unfinalized status of East Jerusalem has caused issues when attempting to market Jerusalem to international tourists. In 2009, 2010, and again in 2015, the UK Advertising Standards Authority ruled against a series of Ministry of Tourism advertising campaigns that displayed images and information about tourist sites located in East Jerusalem. In each case, the authority ruled that the status of East Jerusalem was the "subject of much international dispute," and thus the advertisements as presented were "likely to mislead."[12][13]

Here are the full sentence of what is quoted at BBC:

"We understood, however, that the status of the occupied territory of the West Bank was the subject of much international dispute, and because we considered that the ad implied that the part of East Jerusalem featured in the image was part of the state of Israel, we concluded that the ad was likely to mislead."

So the issue, that the area is not seen as a part of Israel, is not explained. Instead readers are just told that the issue is "unfinalized" and "disputed". --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree, AnotherNewAccounts changes are not good, they are not following the sources. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

The wording is still too long for its importance. It is much better just being out of its own section although it is kind of a hack job since a header could easily go there. I would merge both paragraphs about the status (yes, there are still two!) into one, reduce the information of the second one. The info in the first could almost use another line or two, though. Also, the term "finalized" seems crystalballish. It might be just the way it is for awhile so maybe just say "status".Cptnono (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I have rewritten the text to better follow the sources and also removed "finalized". Good working together Cptnono :) --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That was not an improvement in any way. Can you explain why the previous edit and suggestions were disregarded? Cptnono (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It was an improvement but why do you not try to improve it yourself instead of reverting to the wording that is unacceptable? You say "we are getting closer to the goal" but do not want to improve it yourself. The current wording is portraying the issue in another way than the reality, namely that the Advertising Standards Authority ruled that implied that East Jerusalem was in Israel and therefore was "likely to mislead". --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

A different approach

This argument suggests to me that there is a place in Wikipedia for an article on Tourism and the Middle East Conflict. Here are some tidbits that might go in such an article:

• Because of the Gaza conflict, tourism in the West Bank tanked in 2014. I know this not from reliable sources, but from friends who own a hotel in Bethlehem, who told me that, aside from Israeli Arab tourists and one group of Nigerians, the hotel was empty during the Christmas season. I'm sure this can be confirmed by statistics.
• Israeli tour organizations run day trips to the West Bank, but as a rule do not book hotels there - tour groups always bunk in Israel.
• There has been a lot of political pressure on institutions like the US State Department and Lonely Planet to upgrade the security ratings of places like Bethlehem (where tourists have never been attacked or harassed).
• There are a few (not many) sources, including this Telegraph article and a few books, on tourism in areas of conflict.

I have grown increasingly lazy in my old age, but perhaps some of you young firebrands would be interested in taking up the torch and writing this interesting article. The article would also be a natural place for the ASA bit, which, while interesting in itself, is both irrelevant to this piece of fluffery and buried in a way that makes it completely inconsequential. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

"Tourism and the Middle East Conflict" is a fantastic idea and there is obviously a need for such an article sine eyes might want to go that way (I doubt GNG will be an issue). It should not limit content in his article, though. Cptnono (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)