Talk:Tourism in Israel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Hebron and Bethlehem

Hebron and Bethlehem aren't in Israel. 88.154.162.106 08:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Free movement

I’ve always wanted to travel to Israel; however, I’ve been repeatedly told (by friends and relatives who have been there, and even by the embassy in Makati) that tourists are not allowed to move and roam around freely, that we have to stick to our tour group or something (which I find extremely boring), or else some agent or what have they will come looking for us. I’ve always been a bit suspicious of those claims, but seeing that I’ve heard the same story from so many people…

Not quite true. Tourists with valid passports and entry visas are allowed to travel around the country by themselves in rental cars, on public transportation, or even on bicycle or foot. Traveling near army and security installations is not recommended like in most countries. I wonder why you have heard reports to the contrary and what were the circumstances. Granted that there are certain countries in which 'visiting' citizens use tourism as a guise for coming to work, and perhaps visiting singles are suspicious, if all the papers are in order, then there shouldn't be a problem. --Shuki 18:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I take it that the original question comes from a Filipino, who usually have huge problems moving around the world. It's a bit of misinterpretation. The situation is the following: while Pinoys don't need a visa to Israel, there are all kinds of inspections on the border with minimal amount of money required, etc. to filter out potential illegal immigrants, or 'TNTs' as you guys call them. Same stuff as in many other countries, but amplified due to security concerns; the border control indeed may send you back if you arouse their suspicion and can't prove you are really a tourist. Tour groups, however, are not scrutinised that much, and that probably explains the rumour about sticking to the tour group. Sadly, being in a tour often serves as a means of illegal entry. However, if you can show your credit card, some cash, hotel reservation, etc. I don't think you'll have a problem. The rules are not stricter than in Schengen countries or Australia. I visited Israel with my wife, whose passport has big shiny letters saying PILIPINAS, and she did not have a problem crossing the border, or moving around the country (sans Tel Aviv traffic!). The only life threatening situation was when our hosts tried to stuff her with a ton of home-made ice cream :-) .

Nowadays, there are lots of Pinoys in Israel, I spotted huge amounts in Haifa and Jerusalem. Most of them are working [OFWs], and there is even a magazine published. There are already all kinds of usual Pinoy establishments popping up - KTVs and local branches of 7th Day Adventists. Galilite (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I live here and odn't have a valid visa, it expire 2 years ago. (I am a long term tourist, I plan to go home.) I move around with no problem. There can be problems if you move into the territories. There's a lot of checkpoints. 88.154.162.106 08:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Caesarea

Caesarea should be added. Shamir1 04:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC) As should Jaffa. --Shamir1 18:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Layout

I poked around wikiproject tourism. Several articles are assessed as B class and actually have the base to become GA if someone tied. I noticed that there is not a common layout. One similarity is the list that we currently have here. Unfortunately, the list of attractions alone do not make an article.

I noticed that some have a "Background" section. That might help this article a whole lot. It can mention the history of the land and discuss the key points found in many travel books.

• Land of several major religions
• Land of diverse cultures
• A good place to summarize the political strife and dispute without getting to complex

Another section seen in some of the other articles is visas, red tape, and getting there. This would be especially good for this article

• One paragraph on intl airports and getting there
• Maybe add climate to be similar to "when to go"
• Another on red tape
  • Impact on having an Israel stamp on the passport
  • Travel restrictions (within the area itself and from Syria pop up)
  • Maybe a mention of less accommodations in certain areas due to the politics

The list of attractions is pretty good right now even though there are no sources.

Just adding these few paragraphs of readable prose will clear up the dispute and actually add information. Any thoughts on how to tackle this r do people just want to keep on arguing about politics?

See: [[Tourism in Brazil], Tourism in Hong Kong, Tourism in Indonesia, Tourism in Kenya, Tourism in Singapore for some ideas.Cptnono (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

combining EJ and Jerusalem

Can one of the two editors that reverted without so much as a hint of a reason in their edit summary explain why you are including things in East Jerusalem within the Jerusalem heading? And why you are separating things in the West Bank? nableezy - 22:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

And also why you reintroduced blatantly bogus text that was corrected in this edit. Could one of the two of the editors that did not provide any valid rationale for blanket reverting 6 edits explain why they are introducing weasel worded nonsense into this article? nableezy - 22:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Also why was it removed that Golan was "Captured from Syria in 1967" ? and why was that moved from the top of that section? And why was "Most in" added before the "The international community" when its the entire world? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As the occupied territories are still in the article, I re added that Golan was captured from Syria in 1967, as it is a very important thing to mention since this article is about "Tourism in Israel" while at the same time includes a region in Syria, so it must be clearly noted so we don't mislead the reader into believing that the region is in Israel. Similar notes are also in the WB and Jerusalem sections. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)My reasoning actually wasn't layout. The concern with extended details is provided up above on this page. We need to figure out if we are going to do the equivalent of asterisks for each mention of a disputed area (as opposed to a background paragraph or other options) and then we need to figure out if taking passages barely (if at all) related to tourism in those sources is appropriate. This is actually a pretty complex issue and so far I think your way of addressing it is incorrect. I don't know what the next step is but agree it is not good enough as is.Cptnono (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You did not answer why you added factual inaccuracies to the article. It was not "recognized in 1990 by the international community" as occupied, that right now is one of the stupider sentences on Wikipedia. You did not explain why you blanket reverted those edits and you did not even attempt to give an alternate "way of addressing it". Please answer my questions or self-revert. You have not given a single valid reason for reverting the edits. nableezy - 23:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't add a thing. I agreed with a revert of your edit. To be honest I almost reverted you a few days ago but wanted to see how it played out. It wasn't sufficient to at least one other editor. So back to the drawing board. Maybe baby steps is the only way this will get done. I recommend using the talk page and dispute resolution as much as possible instead of arguing over certain bits tied up in a broader potentially problematic edit. Cptnono (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

By reverting that edit you blanket reverted a number of things, including reintroducing blatant falsehoods. You have yet to provide a reason for that. If there were specific problems with the edit you could revert those problems. But you have yet to say what the problem was and you have yet to explain why you blanket reverted the rest of the changes. If you cant be bothered to do it right dont do it at all. At the very least fix the factual errors you reintroduced into the text. nableezy - 23:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to sound like a dick but I am not going to comb through what two editors see as a generally problematic edit to keep what you think are the good parts. If you think there are things that are not contentious then feel free to add them. I'm not stopping you. Smaller edits means less broad reversions.Cptnono (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sherlock, I made small edits. I made something like 6 small edits. Shuki reverted all of them. If you had a problem with some you could have reverted those, you instead choose to blanket revert everything. And how am I supposed to know which parts you two have problems with, neither of you has yet to deign to tell us what the actual problems were. nableezy - 00:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at the last revert not the edits before. A little bit of confusion there. So overall, asterisks like descriptions after the disputed locations looks like undue weight and are off topic. We both agree that something needs to be done to address the issue overall but it looks like we disagree on how to do it. So maybe NPOV notice board, an RFC, or some other method of getting additional input might be appropriate. It is an overall tone issue. I am sure we can argue over every single word but that isn't the issue. It is it as a whole. I have explained it in three separate sections on this talk page.Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

How about you start by fixing the blatant error you reintroduced into the text when you reverted. nableezy - 04:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If there is a blatant error I doubt anyone would object to you fixing it. All of your small edits equaled what looks like a problem. If there is something that is obviously incorrect go and fix it. Adding in all of the other stuff was why the other editor reverted you and why I reverted your revert. If something good was in there then: oops, please grab it.Cptnono (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I am quite certain that more than one editor would object, and that you might even show up at the inevitable AE request. But that isnt the point, the point is that you introduced a blatant factual error into the article. You can say it wasnt really you since you just re-reverted, but the fact is that the edit you made included a blatant factual error. Do you plan on making any attempt to fix that blatant factual error from a supposed encyclopedia article? nableezy - 05:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry SD, it was tied up in a contentious revert. Like I said, it wasn't good enough and it still isn't. Please keep in mind that this article is about tourism and not politics.Cptnono (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Cptnono. Stop trying to politicize everything.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono didnt actually say anything, so I dont know what you are agreeing with. What exactly do you object to in the edits reverted? nableezy - 05:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Read the latter part of the comment tourism not politics. That's the part I agree with. These constant fights with you, on seemingly innocuous material, grow tiresome. Perhaps that's your strategy eh?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain the exact issues with any of the edits reverted? It is a simple question that not one person has yet even attempted to answer. To the rest of your comment, dont tempt me to make remarks on the nature of your editing. nableezy - 05:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do. I enjoy constructive criticism.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

And be as uncivil as you like. I've got thick skin--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If you ask me on my talk page I will be glad to oblige. nableezy - 05:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thick skin is nice and all but I have little tolerance for any incivility from Nableezy and usually report it so we should not go that route. The reasoning is provided in the various subsections. I don't need to restate it all just to argue. Nableezy was involved in the discussion so please feel free to reread it.Cptnono (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in those sections addressed why you reverted the part about grouping EJ site together and the West Bank cities together. Nothing in those sections addressed why you reinserted the completely bogus "recognized by the international community in 1990" or removed the other source that addressed any objection, no matter how silly, about the age of the source. Nothing in there addresses nearly any part of the edit you reverted, and you have yet to do so here. Tell me exactly what you think is a problem in those edits. You cant expect me to possess some magical ability to know what to change if you dont say what you think should be changed. nableezy - 05:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I already told you that I doubt anyone would object to you fixing something that is wrong.(04:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)) You said others would.(05:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)) I assumed you were correct about the 1990 bit but if you think it is disputed then you probably shouldn't reinsert it. The grouping is also not the primary concern. It was seeing multiple edits that worked in disputed lines that an editor reverted. You should follow BRD but instead reverted the other editor which is how edit wars start. If you think the grouping should be that way then let it sit here on the talk page for awhile and see if others agree. I personally have no objection based on the principle but I suppose it could be argued that things should be grouped by type and not location as it has been on this article for some time now. We could keep it by type if we had simple paragraph with wikilinks as a disclaimer as I already have said up above. Repeating over and over again that there is a dispute (as your edit did) unnecessarily politicizes the article and might introduce POV. It is a little annoying that it is now broken into yet another talk section since it is all tied together but hey that happens. Now it is being discussed so hopefully others will chime in.Cptnono (talk) 06:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I reverted Shuki because his or her revert was a blanket revert without a single reason as to why the material was reverted. And the BRD only works if people actually discuss what was wrong with the B. And I did not repeat over and over. There are three separate places where we list areas in occupied territory as being in Israel (EJ, WB, Golan). I added a single sentence to those three saying they were "captured" in 1967 and another saying that they "are considered by the international community to be [Palestinian/Syrian] territory held by Israel in a state of military occupation". That is it. Verifiable to countless reliable sources, these simple facts have been modified as to pretend that it is a minority view that these areas are occupied territory. All I want is for territory not in Israel to include the overwhelming majority view that these places are not in Israel. This really should not be this difficult. If yall want to say people that Israelis or tourists going to Israel visit these places, that is fine. What is not fine is to pretend that when they do so they are going to Israel. Your the one that said the travel books "devotes pages" to this issue, yet a total of 6 sentences with references across three entries is apparently unacceptable. If the number of sentences is a problem how about grouping each of the items in the occupied territories together and having a single disclaimer that "the following entries are recognized as being in the Israeli-occupied territories? nableezy - 06:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

In two of the three places that you mention (Golan and E. Jerusalem) Israeli law fully applies and all those who live in those areas enjoy full Israeli citizenship. At least 70% of the Judea & Samaria are under some form of Israeli control and all of the tourist sites mentioned, including the Tomb of Rachel, are under full Israeli control. Tourist books such as Fodor’s, Insight Guides, Off the Beaten Track in Israel (Ori Devir), Our Visit to Israel (Emmanuel Dehan), don’t make any distinction so why make one here? Why must you insist on politicizing every facet of discussion?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Does any of the above refute in any way that the territory was captured in 1967 and is considered to be either Syrian or Palestinian territory held under occupation? Yes, those areas are under Israeli control, the name of that control being "military occupation". And please, you really want to make believe that playing off that EJ, the WB, and the Golan are in Israel is not "politicizing" the article? You want to remove the politics? Remove things that are not in Israel from an article that says "in Israel". Otherwise, deal with including the super-majority view on these places. nableezy - 07:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'm almost OK with Nableezy's idea but can't get over the concern that international recognition does not reflect reality. Putting the Golan Heights under a section with that disclaimer does not seem appropriate in my eyes. It is true that the intl community does not accept it but it functions as Israel. I really do understand that some mention needs to be made somewhere in the article that there is a dispute though. If you wanted to have all of the regions in separate subsections with an introductory paragraph that is not solely based on politics for each one then that could work. I assume that would be a challenge but it is possible. I also am not completely against a line mentioning the intl community calling it an occupation in a main background paragraph similar to what I tried above. I just didn't know how to put it in and don't think it is absolutely necessary.Cptnono (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

There is not a single country on the world that says the Golan is anything other than Syrian territory, excluding Israel. Yes, in violation of article 64 of the 4th GC Israel has placed the Golan under Israeli law. That was ruled "null and void" by the UNSC and results in near yearly condemnations by UNGA with overwhelming vote totals, including nearly all of Israel's allies. There is no dispute on this fundamental fact, that the Golan is Syrian territory under Israeli occupation. Even the usual argument that Israel makes regarding the WB, including EJ, and Gaza, that there was no sovereign in the territory prior to Israel capturing it in 67 so they territory cant be occupied, an argument unanimously rejected by the ICJ and dismissed as wholly without basis by countless sources, including the ICRC, does not apply to the Golan. I have yet to see a single real quality source that actually disputes the Golan is Syrian territory. Wikipedia cannot place a fringe sized minority ahead of what is nearly universally accepted. The article cannot imply that the Golan is in Israel. That is a fringe view without any real acceptance in quality sources. nableezy - 07:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If you're so genuinely concerned about "occupation" why don't you edit articles involving Turkey's occupation of the Hatay Province in Syria or Turkey's illegal occupation of Cyprus. What's this facination (or rather obsession) you have with Israel?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Concerning Hatay, although I personally see it as an occupation of Syria, I or anyone else cant write that in an article because that would be a violation against npov, see:Npov#Due_and_undue_weight as the entire world sees it as Turkish, no one can write in an article that its an occupation and that it isn't Turkish. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not all that interested in Turkey. I am however interested in Palestine, and more generally the Arab world. What is your fascination (or rather obsession) with pretending Palestinian (or Syrian) territory is in Israel? nableezy - 08:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, it's a lost cause, some editors consistent edits are clearly are not improvements, but to introduce negative information on articles relating to Israel as seen in ths RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Israeli settlements --Shuki (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry you think factual information is "negative information" and not an improvement. There is not much I can do about that feeling. Why you bring up the RFC here, where it is of no relation, besides trying to slyly step around WP:CANVASS, is not something I really understand. nableezy - 21:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy is now edit warring even if it isn't 3rr. There is certainly not consensus for the disclaimers he has added. Multiple options have been provided for what a few people see as a contentious edit and simply waiting a few days to reinsert it is not collaborative.Cptnono (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I didnt add any disclaimers in the most recent edits. And not one person has said what is wrong with any of my edits. Just saying "no" does not entitle you to block any edit you dont like, you need to provide actual reasons. nableezy - 21:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The onus is on the editor including new info, not those who oppose. --Shuki (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The only thing new in the last edits was a source that was used to remove the incredibly inane phrasing that somebody claimed that in 1990 the international community considered it occupied. And you have to say what is wrong with the edit, just saying no is not good enough. nableezy - 23:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

in Israel

But you did not make clear that it considered Palestinian territory. Dont worry, Ill do it for you. nableezy - 21:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would I be worried? If you do choose to politicize the article then there is some concern but not exactly worry. See page 302 of the Lonely Planet Guide (previewable in Google Books) if you think the zones or other info needs more play in the article.Cptnono (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

And pretending that EJ, the Golan, or any part of the West Bank is in Israel is not "political". Come off it. nableezy - 23:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't care if they are Israel or not. But if people are staying in hotels and renting cars in Israel to go to national parks run by Israel in land controlled by Israel it makes sense that the sources agree that that it is tourism related to Israel. So renaming it to be inline with the sources is fine by me. Splitting it off disregards how intertwined it is while not reflecting the sources. You need to stop assuming people are saying the land is Israel. That isn't the point and even if it was there are so many arguments not related to tourism that it doesn't need to be addressed here.Cptnono (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Im not pretending, I provided several diffs above where people were either intimating that these places are in Israel or trying to downplay the fact that they are not. And I wonder what would give somebody the idea that this article is about things that are in Israel? Look, its a bird, its a plane, its the name of the article! nableezy - 03:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you were pretending. Look, its a bird, its a plane, its sources! It doesn't matter if the intl community says it is Irael or not for the purpose of this topic.Cptnono (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right, you wrote "assuming". I am not "assuming" that people are saying these places are in Israel, I provided several diffs above where people were either intimating that these places are in Israel or trying to downplay the fact that they are not. And Wikipedia is not a travel guide, it is an encyclopedia. And I provided quality sources, not travel guides, that explicitly make this distinction, making clear that it does matter to this topic that these places are not in Israel. nableezy - 03:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You still fail to understand that "Although East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have been brought directly under Israeli law, by acts that amount to annexation, both of these areas continue to be viewed by the international community as occupied, and their status as regards the applicability of international rules is in most respects identical to that of the West Bank and Gaza." has nothing to do with the tourism industry of Israel. I agree a title change is needed but I do not agree that unrelated politics need to be plastered above every section that hurts your feelings. Cptnono (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I gave you multiple sources that relate Israeli tourism with the occupation of these territories. If you fail to understand the relevance there is not much more I can do for you. nableezy - 04:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yet you cherry picked unrelated lines and didn;t use the lines barely touching on the topic. So I suppose there is nothing I can do for you since you still don't understand what you are repeatedly doing wrong.Cptnono (talk) 04:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Im not doing anything "wrong" and I dont plan on taking editing advice from you. I use real sources, not travel guides, when writing an encyclopedia article. You start doing that and I just might start taking you seriously (probably not, but there is always a chance). nableezy - 04:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't write the standards on verifiability for Wikipedia so you need to take that issue up with someone else if it concerns you so much.Cptnono (talk) 04:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You also apparently did not read the "standards on verifiability for Wikipedia". Would you like to tell me how the information added fails WP:V nableezy - 04:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I explained the problem at 02:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC).Cptnono (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

And your "explanation" is meaningless as the sources specifically discuss the occupation wrt the topic of this article, so SYNTH is not an issue. And I am not "advancing a position", I am saying what the world sees these places as. And none of that has to do with WP:V. Would you care to explain how the content fails WP:V? nableezy - 05:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

East Jerusalem

The recent edits by Shuki and Jiujitsuguy are bullshit, pardon my French. East Jerusalem is not in Israel, the only country in the world that says EJ is in Israel is, you guessed it, Israel. This is POV-pushing at its worst, treating fringe views as though they were fact and suppressing the super-majority view that EJ is occupied Palestinian territory out of some nationalistic urge to ensure that a certain state is seen as the most pure and best country in the world that can do no wrong. Since a certain unnamed user has taken it upon himself to ensure that this POV push is successful by attempting to remove me from this article, I have taken the issue to the NPOV noticeboard here nableezy - 02:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

But it is Tourism in Israel according to the sources. Some mention of the dispute is acceptable but an offtopic in your face disclaimer isn't needed. And of course, the obligatory just because the intl community ignores it doesn't mean it isn't so. That really doesn't matter in an article regarding th tourism industry in Israel though. Maybe all of us need to focus on solution over reverting each other (nudge nudge JJG since I just reported Nableezy and you have made a few over the last week yourself). Unfortunately, some editors seem to only do it that way but it is never too late to change.Cptnono (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not off-topic and you do not address the issue. The sources say this place is outside of Israel and the article currently pretends that it is in Israel. This is a violation of NPOV as the article is promoting a fringe view. And, as usual, you neglect to provide a single policy based reason why the super-majority view should be suppressed while the fringe view promoted. nableezy - 02:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Israeli law applies in East Jerusalem and has applied since its annexation. As for your claim of "military occupation" and "recognized as 'Palestinian' territory," have a look at these that debunk you POV push.

• "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title." Stephen Schwebel,"What Weight to Conquest," American Journal of International Law, 64 (1970):345-347
• Contextualizing Resolution 242
• Resolution 242 (land for peace) and British security interests: Setting the record straight
• FROM "OCCUPIED TERRITORIES" TO "DISPUTED TERRITORIES"--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not Israel has imposed its law on territory it occupies does not have any bearing on whether or not that territory is occupied. And the argument you just made was unanimously rejected by the ICJ in the Wall case (pp 41-45 where they flat out say the Israeli argument that because Jordan was not a lawful sovereign in the West Bank that Israel does not occupy the West Bank is without merit. They also cite a statement by the high contracting parties to the Geneva conventions in which they reaffirm that the 4th GC applies to the "occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem") and countless real sources, not propaganda pieces by such organizations as the JCPA or people like Dore Gold, are clear that EJ is occupied Palestinian territory. Again, there is not a single state besides Israel that accepts that EJ is in Israel. nableezy - 03:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So your only comeback is that any source contrary to yours is "propaganda."--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, my comeback is that the sources I provide are published by high quality presses, not by advocacy groups or the personal opinions of government agents. And that they explicitly say that EJ is occupied Palestinian territory. nableezy - 03:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

And the one real source that you have (Schewbel) is listed in the journal as "editorial content" so it is the opinion of this one person, not established fact (but I dont have a problem including that as a attributed quote, but he is not part of the "international community" as you dishonestly portray in the article). On top of that, "some" in the international community is misleading. You cite "others" in the international community that are not part of the "international community (Schwebel and the JCPA and HJS). nableezy - 04:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Jerusalem

The western wall is the single most visited 'tourist' site and nothing even approaches it. will attempt to find english source. --Shuki 12:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I re added this info about Jerusalem since it is sourced and relevant and no explanation has been provided at the talk page why it shouldn't be in the article [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Golan Heights

Is the 'unilaterally annexed' term relevant here. The western wall is also on land unilaterally annexed by Israel. --Shuki 10:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

support, relevant article provide detailed discription of holan's status. --tasc 10:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

i'll remove it. --tasc 10:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The Western wall is in Jerusalem. Jerusalem was turned over to the State of Israel by Jordan in the early 90s when it cancelled all territorial claims against Israel. One could argue they actually turned it over to the Palestinians, since part of that agreement was that Israel would give Jordan's territory captured in 1967 to the Palestinians following final negotiations. 88.154.162.106 08:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I re added this info about Golan since it is sourced and relevant and no explanation has been provided at the talk page why it shouldn't be in the article [2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Last revert

this revert says in the edit summary that this article is about tourism, not politics. The only problem with that is that material removed was explicitly about tourism. The sources removed were among the highest quality in the article from publishers such as Cambridge University Press, University of Minnesota Press and Routeldge. I am at my wits end with this article, no information about the occupation of these territories, no matter how explicit the connection with tourism, is allowed by a set of editors. I request an actual explanation as to why material about tourism was removed. nableezy - 07:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would you change "administered" to "occupied" without seeking the talk page first when you know it is contentious? I actually made sure to include "occupied" in one of my edits (which you later had to add another disclaimer above) so it isn't a push to remove "occupied" but a push to remove over politicization. I personally don't mind if "occupied" is in the lead but "administered" is just as good. Controlled works also. If you don't understand why multiple editors think you are politicizing this article then I just don't get it. Of course, the reverting editor may ofer another explanation but that is how I see it.Cptnono (talk) 07:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You did not answer a single one of my questions. Would you care to try again? The sentences dealing with the settlements in the Golan being geared towards tourism rather than agriculture, the sentence on Israeli citizens traveling to the territories occupied, the sentence on Israel establishing these tourist attractions to further entrench their grip on these territories were all removed even though they are explicitly about tourism, the sources discuss the occupation in the context of tourism, and the sources are of the highest quality. If you dont understand why editors have a problem with implying that areas under military occupation are in Israel then I just dont get it. I used "occupied" because that is what the overwhelming majority of sources use, that is the standard terminology across the world and is the name of the article that we have dealing with these territories. And the Golan Law explicitly does not use the word annex nor does it claim that the Golan is in Israel, it says that Israeli civil law is applied to the Golan. The US had to extract a statement from Israel saying that they had not annexed the territory to stave off UN sanctions against Israel following the passage of that law (as changing the penal code of occupied territory is a violation of the 4th GC, with certain exceptions, namely any laws changed must be done for valid military reasons) nableezy - 07:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The article about the Golan Heights does say it was annexed by Israel. Marokwitz (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Look at the article Golan Heights Law. The Golan Heights article is incorrect if it uses that term. Israel explicitly denied "annexation" as that would have been a much more serious violation of international law and very well may have brought sanctions down on them. nableezy - 08:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this article should focus on tourism, not on political issues. We should point the reader to the relevant articles to learn more about the politics. Marokwitz (talk) 07:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

But the sentences you removed were explicitly about tourism. nableezy - 07:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ, the word "occupied" is disputed as mentioned in the article itself, and the lead should not contradict the article. And using scare quotes, such as in the sentence "in order to attempt to make them "Israeli"" , as well as negatively phrased sentences such as "to further entrench its presence in the territory " make the article a political one and change the tone to a non neutral one. Probably this is impacted by the political book you have used as a source, by Waleed Hazbun of Department of Political Studies in the University of Beirut. And I didn't revert everything, I kept some of your changes which I found to be useful for the reader. Marokwitz (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If you looked at the source you can see I did not use "scare quotes". The source says the following:

the establishment of tourist facilities within Jewish settlements that helped bolster their infrastructure, build their economies, and stabilize the cartography of “Greater Israel”; the use of tourist development and discourses to renationalize East Jerusalem, remaking it as (in the words of the Israeli Ministry of Tourism) an “Israeli” place.

The quotes are in the source as they were quoting the Ministry of Tourism. And fine, keep "administered" even though the super-majority of sources, including the sources cited, use "occupied". And the book by Hazbun is published by the University of Minnesota Press, and the only thing that was used for was the sentence on the first ski resort being built in the occupied Golan. The other material you removed was from sources published by Cambridge University Press and Routeldge, two outstanding academic publishers. It is not my fault that sources use such language regarding the territories occupied by Israel, and you are not in a position to substitute your opinion with those from sources published by UofMinn Press and Cambridge U Press. nableezy - 07:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You have no idea what my opinion is. So please don't accuse my of substituting my opinion "with those from sources". I'm just trying to keep the article neutral. Administered is a neutral term not implying in any way that there is or isn't an occupation. By the way your quote is quite a distortion of the above source. The source says to renationalize East Jerusalem and make East Jerusalem an "Israeli" place while you misinterpreted this to refer to all the settlements. And it's so easy to take specific words from a source and make the result have a totally different tone. Marokwitz (talk) 08:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right. I dont know what your opinion is. Let me rephrase. No editor is in a position to substitute their personal views in place of what the sources say. And I said keep administered, you still have not addressed the issues with the rest of the material you removed. And my edit did no such thing, my edit said "Israel established these attractions in places such as East Jerusalem in order to attempt to make them "Israeli" places." How does that distort the source? And I read the whole article, I am not cherry picking specific bits when the source makes a different point or has a different tone. If you want to accuse me of such dishonesty you need to back it up showing how I did so. That same source, referring to the rest of the occupied territories and not just EJ says:

The links between tourism and occupation in the Israeli context greatly exceed the cases and narrative forms examined here. Rather, the tourist crowds that followed in the wake of Israel’s euphoric victory in 1967 were merely the first indication of the ways that Israelis would mine the military occupation for leisure purposes, a social phenomena that continued and grew in strength in subsequent decades. The catalogue of such instances is too numerous to document here, but it includes the establishment of field schools in the occupied territories catering to Israeli “nature lovers”; hikes and nature walks (tiyulim) conducted in these territories as a means of laying claim to land

When I write in the Golan section that such things were established "by Israel in order to further entrench its presence in the territory and to attract tourists." I am referring to this quote, specifically the part about as a means of laying claim to land nableezy - 08:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It is a distortion. How did "to renationalize East Jerusalem, remaking it as (in the words of the Israeli Ministry of Tourism) an “Israeli” place" change to "in places such as East Jerusalem in order to attempt to make them "Israeli" places."" ? And I didn't accuse you of anything, I just don't approve of politicizing an article that should be about tourism. And omitting the words "in the words of the Israeli Ministry of Tourism" means that the user has now way to know it is a quote, and when we give quotes, the policy is to attribute them to whoever said them. Marokwitz (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

How is it a distortion? The second quote says that this was done in places other than EJ. The quote on making it "Israeli" is specifically about EJ. Just saying "it is a distortion" does not make it so. You need to say how. And you have yet to make a single argument as to why you removed all of that content. This is getting tiring. nableezy - 13:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There has been no actual reason for why the material was removed. The sources are high quality, the specifically discuss tourism in the occupied territories and is wholly relevant to the topic of this article. I said fine, you can keep "administered", as vague as that it. What exactly about the other text that was removed was objectionable? nableezy - 05:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

As there has been no response since the 7th, I have reinserted the material removed. The sources are specifcally discussing tourism and the text is in no way misrepresenting the sources. Please do not remove the material without a valid reason, it being "political" is not one. nableezy - 15:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

And yet again a user has removed the best sources from the article. Not one valid reason for removing material that is highly relevant and sourced to high quality sources has been given. nableezy - 15:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And yet again, another user has removed the information claiming there is no consensus without even having the decency to make an appearance on the talk page. nableezy - 17:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Would anybody care to explain why text sourced to Cambridge University Press, University of Minnesota Press, and Routeledge explicitly discussing tourism in the occupied territories has been removed from this article? Any reason besides not liking the text? Any one of the users that has repeatedly removed the text, the only reason being there is "no consensus" for the text? What policy based reason is there to exclude the three best sources in the article? nableezy - 04:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The information you found could be very useful and does appear to be encyclopedic at first glance. However, there are many facets involved in the scope of the article (or at least what the scope should be). And no, it is not just interesting sites. Your edits focus primarily on what could reasonably be read as "Israel bad. These places are not Israel". It is a weight and POV issue. Easy ways to fix it are by adding in other aspects not focused on Israel's occupation/administration/control of certain areas. Those sources have tons of info so it shouldn't be hard to combine those with other RS (not your opinion of RS but Wikipedia's) in a neutral and factual tone. The sources you provided may actually be less neutral than what you feel is a lesser source which means it needs to be used with caution (not sure since I only briefly looked). Along with potential bias, there is an obvious focus on only one thing. The title of one of them even makes it clear. Cherry picking certain information (whether from a source or by only looking at certain sources) can lead the reader to draw the conclusion of the editor. I personally don't mind the info as much as some others it looks like but it was really bordering what I consider giving exceptional prominence to a single issue and I can understand why other editors thought it was not acceptable. Sources are only part of what is required for inclusion and NPOV is an actual pillar. You should understand this and I would be shocked if you didn't. Try reworking the info to be less focused on one controversial issue and it will work out just fine. And the info is in right now so it is curious that editors were "repeatedly removing it" since it therefore was repeatedly put back in. And Marokwitz did respond so IDIDNTHERETHAT is not an excuse to include controversial edits without consensus.Cptnono (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Then add other stuff. And the material I added was NPOV, nobody has given any explanation that would say otherwise. If there is some view in those sources you think is not adequately represented add that view, nobody is stopping you or anybody else. Im not the one filibustering here. Sources aren't expected to be "neutral", and anybody who says that needs to re-read both WP:NPOV to understand what "neutral" means in "NPOV" and WP:RS to see whether or not that factors into the quality of a source (look at what it defines to be the high-end of the range, peer-reviewed journals and books published by quality academic presses, not travel guides). One unfounded claim of distorting the text, a claim that is demonstrably untrue, was made. Besides that not a single policy-based reason for deletion has been given. Just saying "no" is not acceptable, there has to be a reason to exclude material. nableezy - 05:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Or you could add it. Since neither of us have, your edits present undue weight so until it is done you are out of luck. And I didn't say sources have to be neutral so you don't need to debate like that. Misuse of sources (especially when they are not neutral or are single tracked) is the problem.Cptnono (talk) 05:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats bs. You cant just reject text because you are too lazy to add other text. I dont feel that the text I added is not-NPOV, it documents well-established facts found in hundreds of sources. If you feel that it is too much weight you should add other text, not reject what I have added. And claiming somebody has misused a source is a serious charge that requires evidence. This being a baseless charge I doubt you would be able to produce such evidence, making it simply a personal attack without substance. nableezy - 06:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if I or even you are too lazy. If the info is given undue weight it is given undue weight. And presenting sources in a manner that is not neutral is misuse. I'm not saying you are not telling the truth or anything just that you are including information that pushes the article into a tone that is overly political. That is not a personal attack.Cptnono (talk) 06:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not "presenting sources in a manner that is not neutral" and these vague accusations without any substantive backing are beginning to do more than annoy me. nableezy - 06:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors have commented that the edits you presented are overly political. If you are taking offense to that than you are misinterpreting the argument. No offense was meant. You asked what the problem was and more than one editor has attempted to explain it via edit summaries (which is annoying) and here in multiple sections.Cptnono (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimers

I have removed the disclaimers from certain sections since there is a good one in the lead now and many editors have commented on the politicization of the article. If you don;t kike it feel free to edit war since that is now acceptable apparently. Or oyu could just be happy that it is in the lead and chill out already.Cptnono (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead does not once mention these territories are recognized as occupied Syrian and Palestinian territory. And stop being sad that an admin thought your EW accusation was "tenuous" and declined to issue a block. nableezy - 05:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled by the view that the presence of information is politization given that the absence of information is also politicization. This is an encyclopedia so absence of relevant information seems worse than presence and tourism is politicized nowadays (e.g. Myanmar). Why, only a couple of weeks ago I watched a Lonely Planet TV show about tourism in Israel and the oPt. It was almost entirely about the political aspects in one way or another either directly or indirectly, the effects of the security situation on the traveller, the status of Jerusalem, dealing with police at a settlement (quite amusing), possibly being exploited for propaganda purposes by the Palestinian guide (also quite amusing), refugees living in caves, the barrier, all sorts of things. I guess editors think they are doing the right thing, fighting Islamofacism in Wikipedia...hmmm, demonization of Israel, whatever, I won't pretend to understand it or care about it. Some kind of compromise should be possible to cover the political aspects with due weight using the words sources use to describe these things. This is just an encyclopedia after all. Editors not liking the political aspects of tourism isn't a policy based reason to do anything and a consensus based on that approach has no validity IMO. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been a proponent of making it clear. Just not repeated unrelated disclaimers. One of my edits made it painfully clear but it wasn;t sufficient for whatever reason.

And you were still edit warring Nableezy. One admin didn't believe so but he was wrong. I'm not going to start arguing about it with him since that is a tactic that has just been annoying. But just a heads up: Since there was other stuff going on in this article making the edit warring report overly complicated and there have been multiple issues since your return on other articles you should probably expect an AE if you don't change your editing habits. You know better and shouldn't need to be warned repeatedly.Cptnono (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought we already established that I dont care what you think or do. File whatever you want. nableezy - 13:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, this is getting tiring. The Golan Heights disclaimer was actually succinct and quite good. The OPT disclaimer was a tad long and detailed for my taste. I say that we should restore the Golan Heights disclaimer and shorten the West Bank + Gaza disclaimer.--TM 14:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono claims in his edit that he is "removing politicization".. while at the same time the article includes regions in Syria and the Palestinian territories and he removes important information about these regions, so the regions are therefor presented as being in Israel. Who is the one politicization the article? Either the regions in Syria and the Palestinian territories are removed from this article, or it must be clear information in the Golan and WB sections that these regions are regions in Syria, and the Palestinian territories and not in Israel, according to npov. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"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." That seems sufficient. It is right at the top in all its glory.Cptnono (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No it is not sufficient, there must be clear information in the separate WB and GH sections describing the situation so not to mislead the readers. It must be information that Israel captured these regions in 1967 and that the entire worldview is that these regions are Palestinian and Syrian lands occupied by Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There is not one word in there about the occupation. nableezy - 05:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There sure isn't. As mentioned above, "occupation" being included in there isn't a big deal to me. Another editor didn't like it and used "administered" and then "control". Both of those seem fine to me as well. I really don't see any problem. "Occupation" appears overly political to other editors so maybe it is. It might be best not to get hung up on a single word when it is obviously contentious. Maybe ping the editor who made the change and see if he wants to engage in more conversation. But that could be its own section here since the issue is the disclaimers that you and SD are so fond of. IS there another way to make it clearer? More wikilinks? Working it into the prose the prose less dramatically? This doesn't need to be so complicated.Cptnono (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont understand when people say "occupation" is political. The term is regularly used in the English press in many regions. Do you really think that using words like "administered" or "controlled" is not "political". These words are standard terminology, and if you expect to make an article that even pretends to be part of an encyclopedia you need to recognize that there is a certain way these places are described in serious sources and the attempts to ignore that are the "political" problem. And before you say these links are not about tourism, I am not suggesting to use them in the article, Ive already given you sources from what would be the best sources in the entire article that are specifically about the occupation and tourism. nableezy - 05:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you not understanding it is the problem. Several editors have expressed concerns so there just might be something there. I really still don't care if occupied is mentioned in the lead but administered and controlled are still fine. There are sources for those also. What is the problem?Cptnono (talk) 06:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the problem is that people object to standard terminology with reasons that are marginally different from flat out saying they dont like it, not being able to articulate exactly why using "occupation" is "political" and not using "occupation" is political. The problem is that every single source that mentions the occupation as it specifically relates to tourism has been systematically removed from the article. The sources removed were the highest quality sources that were in the entire article. The only reason they have been removed is because of "political" leanings. That is the problem. And is far as "several editors have expressed concern so there just might be something there", several editors have expressed concern with the implications made in this article that occupied Syrian and Palestinian territory is Israeli territory. That doesnt seem to bother you though, just when other "several people express concern". nableezy - 06:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are you changing the subject? This was originally about your multiple sections. Figure out a way to incorporate the term if you want but your disclaimers were overly political. It has been explained already. Cptnono (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tourism in Israel

Just to let people know that I'm trying to get an admin to look at the move discussion in the hope that it might remove some of the issue in the current edit war.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of non-Israel territories is extremely POV

I tried to appropriately name the category for the content included, which would be "Tourism in Israel and the Palestinian territories", but this was reverted. Seeing as the name is "Israel", which does not include areas which are occupied by Israel (the West Bank and Golan Heights), I removed these entries. However, I was also reverted in this endeavor. User:Gilabrand, could you please explain these edits, since you did not when reverting them?--TM 07:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The only think 'extreme' here is your bold name change of the article. For one thing, the Golan is not Palestinian. This is an article about tourism in Israel, you should not really jump to conclusions that everything here is 'in Israel'. In fact, you can get on several boats leaving Israeli ports and go into international waters and I think that it is not unreasonable at all to claim that these excursions remain in the subject 'tourism in Israel'. Likewise, if part of the tourism 'in Israel' involves going to disputed areas, it is still Israeli tourism. Certainly, a bus hired by a group in Tel Aviv on a day trip to visit the northern Israel including Golan Heights or Kedumim, is still in the subject of tourism in Israel. In contrast, the same group driving to Eilat and crossing into Jordan to visit Petra, is no longer about Israeli tourism, though it would be legitimate to add a line to Eilat if significant tourism in Eilat involves a hop to Jordan or Taba.

Given all that, it would be productive to create the article Tourism in the Palestinian territories. In it, I have no problem with adding excursions to 'Israeli' areas, like sites abandoned in the 1948 war, as part of Palestinian tourism, if trips like these actually are based out of Area A and B. --Shuki (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware that the Golan Heights is part of Syria, not Israel or the Palestinian Territories. If tourists to Israel go into the Palestinian territories, Golan Heights, Jordan, Egypt or Micronesia, that is not the concern of this article. Perhaps a passing sentence can sum up that tourists often travel from Israel to territories occupied by Israel, but including areas like Bethlehem and the GH gives the perception that they are fully part of Israel, which everyone agrees they are not. I agree that if the consensus is to not rename the article, then a separate article on Palestinian tourism is entirely productive.--TM 10:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course the areas that are not in Israel: The Westbank, east Jerusalem and Golan can not be in this article, because they are not in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This is getting tiring. Everything from food to travel is getting mucked up by editors trying to shape Wikipedia in the way they see it and not how it is. If someone is flying into Ben Gurion or Negev, staying at a hotel near there, spending there money at local restaurants, and doing touristy stuff then it is tourism in Israel even if they cross the line into territory that is disputed. Lonely Planet goes with "Israel & the Palestinian territories"[3](some other big names in the industry do not though) and the lead of this article spells it out clearly. Some books give the disputed areas their own sections which is something we could try. Some don't. SDs removals are problematic. Here are some sources equating those sites removed with tourism in Israel. Fodor's, Lonely Planet, and Frommer's are the big names:

• • Banias[4][5][6]
  • Qumran[7][8][9][10]
  • Mount Hermon[11][12][13][14]
  • Katzrin[15][16][17][18][19][20]
  • Gamla[21][22][23]
  • Nimrod Fortress[24][25]
  • Bethlehem[26][27][28][29]

Cptnono (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Which brings me back to my original idea: rename the article in favor of including both Israel and the Palestinian territories. As noted by Cptnono, much of the coverage includes both. We have an example to work from in Islam in Israel and the Palestinian territories. Frankly, it is impossible to separate them at this current point.--TM 07:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It is very possible. There is virtually no Israeli tourism to the Palestinian Territories since Israelis are banned from Area A and B. Area C is under Israeli administrative and security control. Can't we find examples from other parts of the world? I find it hard to believe that all these discussions have not been made in other places. Cptnono has made an effort to show why the current version is accurate, I want to see those who do not agree bring evidence that this is not good based on real examples not 'I think'. --Shuki (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Well something needs to get done. Israel, the Palestinian Territories, and the Golan Heights are all connected tourism wise. And as much as it might hurt some people, the Golan Heights have been administered by Israel for decades and there is a chance that will continue for many many more. Name change to the article, a few notes in the body, or other solutions need to be implemented. If the biggest names in the industry are lumping them together then we can too.Cptnono (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Golan was captured by Israel in 1967. It's been administered by Israel ever since. It was annexed by Israel in 1981 and Israeli law applies there. It can only be accessed via Israel. Palestinian territories can only be accessed via Israel and most of the West Bank is still administered by Israel or under some form of Israeli control, security or otherwise. Article restored to its original form until consensus can be reached on Talk.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There is not a single state, excepting Israel, that accepts the Golan as anything other then Syrian territory. I added a source that says clearly that notwithstanding Israel's effective annexation of either the Golan of E. Jerusalem, both are still recognized as occupied territory (Syrian and Palestinian respectively). You want to say Israelis travel to the Golan, fine. But what you cant say is that they are traveling to Israeli territory when they do. nableezy - 21:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The name of the article is "Tourism in Israel". Wikipedia rules for neutral pov, due and undue weight is clear: [30] "It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views" The vast majority view is that Golan is not part of Israel. So it is against Wikipedia rules to say in the article that areas in Syria are in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I balanced Nableezy's somewhat suprisingly POV-ridden one-sided edits with even-handed balanced ones.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, you took what one of the highest quality sources on Wikipedia said and distorted that to suit your own POV. It is not simply "some" in the international community that say that EJ and the Golan are occupied by Israel, it is almost every single state and international organization that says, unequivocally, that those territories are Palestinian and Syrian, respectively, territory held by Israel in a state of belligerent occupation. But that was not suitable to your own POV, so you introduced weasel words and a meaningless act by the US Congress that even GWBush said had no bearing on the US view (which by the way is that the Golan is occupied Syrian territory and that EJ is not within Israel). nableezy - 22:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, you have the somewhat ridiculous idea that quoting established experts in the field of international law is undue weight, but choose to include what the US Congress feels about the sovereignty of EJ. Interesting. I think this is the point that you forfeit the right to ever say one of my edits is "POV". nableezy - 22:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

And then you remove the statement that the US President views that meaningless law as no more than "advisory". nableezy - 22:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

A day after coming off your lengthy topic ban you make this provocative and contentious edit on an innocuous article about tourism, without so much as uttering a word on the discussion page. Technically, you didn't violate the letter of your topic ban but you certainly violated its spirit. You've managed to turn yet another article into a WP:BATTLEGROUND--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, no. The battleground was made by editors insisting on saying that territory outside of Israel is "in Israel". nableezy - 22:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Furthermore, while Nab's edits didn't violate the topic ban, by putting in one view and not reflecting the contrary view -- in both both the Golan and Jerusalem sections -- he dramatically violated wp:npov, and by building up these short references to have more discussion of sovereignty that any other similar sections do about tourism -- the focus of the article -- he dramatically violated wp:undue.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, nonsense. You violated NPOV by flouting WP:WEIGHT. You decided that a law that the President said was merely "advisory" and had no effect on US policy about Jerusalem is worth being discussed, and removing what the International Court of Justice had to say on the matter. You also weaseled what a source of the highest quality said flat out, that the international community regards these areas as occupied. You are the one flouting NPOV by insisting on giving undue weight to fringe views. nableezy - 22:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that it was Nableezy's intent to add productive content. His intent here was to shift the focus of an article dealing with tourism to an article dealing with sovereignty and yet again Israel's legitimacy. It's utterly repugnant.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

BS, my aim is to not have a Wikipedia page parroting right wing expansionist positions as if they are fact. Your aim is apparently to pretend that EJ and the Golan are in Israel. nableezy - 23:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That could be. I mean--after all, he has already indicated clearly that he does not feel personally bound by Wiki rules. Nab--your 20-year-old ref, which you treated as current in your usage, and maintain is of the highest quality, is laughable. Why do you take these outrageous clearly not-supported-by-the-evidence positions? Do you think other editors/sysops are stupid? And then you do it with all the fanfare/strong words that do little to obfuscate the game you are playing. You: 1) provided a statement that was only one side of things; 2) treated a two-decade-old ref as though it was current; and 3) pumped up a short section in an article about tourism w/wp:undue discussion of issues of sovereignty ... discussion that was much larger than any tourism discussion. That's disruptive, and just the sort of behavior that has led to you being banned/blocked more than once.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

My ref is laughable? Published in the peer reviewed American Journal of International Law and written by a scholar. Would you like a newer ref? Here. Or here, or here. The statement that the international community views EJ and the Golan as occupied territory is not a "POV", and the only thing you have to dispute that is a law passed by the US that the President said in his signing statement was only "advisory" and did not affect the US policy on Jerusalem. The international community views EJ and the Golan as occupied territory. That can be backed by a thousand references. nableezy - 23:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It disgusts me that now we have to waste time getting into yet another wiki war with the usual suspects when time could be devoted to expanding content on tourism, which was the original focus and intent of the article. I don't want to get dragged into the repulsive, mud-slinging issues raised by Nab and SD but here's a more contemporary view of the subject of sovereignty [31] Everything from food to culture to art to tourism is used as an excuse to attack the legitimacy of a sovereign nation.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry you are disgusted, but I get "disgusted" when certain people act as though territory held under occupation magically becomes a part of the state occupying it. You know that is not true. I shouldn't even have to say a word to you at least about the status of the Golan or EJ in international law, while you are capable of arguing the other position you know that those territories remain occupied under international law and that Israel cannot unilaterally annex occupied territory. My only problem here is saying that the Golan and EJ are "in Israel", and if you look at my initial edits to the page there is nothing objectionable in them. Do you really dispute that both of those territories are "recognized by the international community as Syrian/Palestinian territory held by Israel in a state of military occupation"? Really? Cmon now, you aint that dumb, this shouldnt be an argument. One state in the world disputes that status, every other state agrees with it. Cmon, I give you peer reviewed journal articles by actual scholars and you give me Dore Gold. That is what is laughable. nableezy - 23:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, nurse a hangover all day and come back and see this wackiness. This article is about tourism. A good idea to limit the political aspect is not to insert every source that can be found about the intl court or US congress. How about keeping it to sources discussing travel? That is pretty much what is called for with WP:SYNTH since it looks like editors are trying to "imply C" (C=Israel BAAAAD). Luckily, even the travel books (seriously, click on all the links I provided) go into detail. Lonely Planet devotes pages to it. Lonely Planet then goes on to discuss many of the places SD removed. A simple explanation in the lead with some wikilinks and a footnotes where appropriate or clarifying lines. This doesn't need to be a battle and I must say I am surprised Nableezy jumped into one so fast. I recommend everyone chill on the reverts because that will only lead tot he page being protected and AE requests.Cptnono (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have made one revert and I dont intend to make another one. If you look at my initial edit you can see I was not trying to overload this article with any arguments about sovereignty. I provided a small qualifier for something that can be sourced to a thousand different sources. The attempts to play down an absolute fact, that EJ and the Golan are regarded by the international community as occupied territory, is where this turned from a "simple explanation" into a "battle". Does anybody here have a source that disputes that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights are regarded by the international community as occupied territory? Not a source from a former Israeli ambassador or from a random lawyer arguing that they really aren't occupied, but something that disputes that they are regarded as such by the international community. Look at the initial edit. Tell me exactly what anybody finds fault with. I even added "by whom" in the revert. There was one small sentence next to the Jerusalem entry and the Golan entry with a quote from a peer-reviewed article by a known scholar in the field of international law saying exactly what the text said. There is not a single serious source that disputes what I put into the article, and there is not a single serious reason it went from that to the weasel-worded nonsense put in their by Epeefleche. nableezy - 01:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Those sources have any mention of tourism? If not, you are unnecessarily adjusting the tone of the article by cherry picking key points that paints a negative picture. This article is about tourism. Of course there will be some mention of the dispute since it is intertwined with everything in Israel but there needs to be a limit.Cptnono (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

All right, thats fair. Here you go. Rebecca L. Stein (2008). SOUVENIRS OF CONQUEST: ISRAELI OCCUPATIONS AS TOURIST EVENTS. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 40, pp 647-669, Cambridge University Press:
p. 647:

The gradual dissolution of borders between Israel and its newly occupied territories in war’s aftermath generated numerous new possibilities for Israeli travel to places that had been inaccessible since 1948. What resulted was a tourist event of massive proportions.

p. 662:

The links between tourism and occupation in the Israeli context greatly exceed the cases and narrative forms examined here. Rather, the tourist crowds that followed in the wake of Israel’s euphoric victory in 1967 were merely the first indication of the ways that Israelis would mine the military occupation for leisure purposes, a social phenomena that continued and grew in strength in subsequent decades. The catalogue of such instances is too numerous to document here, but it includes the establishment of field schools in the occupied territories catering to Israeli “nature lovers”; hikes and nature walks (tiyulim) conducted in these territories as a means of laying claim to land; the establishment of tourist facilities within Jewish settlements that helped bolster their infrastructure, build their economies, and stabilize the cartography of “Greater Israel”; the use of tourist development and discourses to renationalize East Jerusalem, remaking it as (in the words of the Israeli Ministry of Tourism) an “Israeli” place.

Would you like more? nableezy - 01:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I certainly applaud the effort. However, you still cherry picked certain points unrelated to tourism that negatively impacted the tone. It is god to see that tourism was at least mentioned somewhere in those sources though. It might be better to focus on the passages that discuss tourism as opposed to the conflict which is what those sources are about. WP:OR can be read many ways. However, using sources to advance a position, using sources out of context, NPOV, and so on are all clear enough. That is why I am asking editors to focus on sources that are primarily based on tourism and travel. It is a shame when guidebooks are more neutral than a Wikipedia article. I am sitting here right now with several books opened in my browser. They all discuss the complex situation but none of them mention the detail of international law that you are attempting to introduce. It is a simple request: Make this article about tourism not the conflict. It doesn't mean don;t mention the conflict. Just keep it in the proper context.Cptnono (talk) 02:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That article is specifically about Israeli tourism following the occupation of the territories. And, again, look at my initial edit. All I want it to say is that those territories are recognized as occupied territory not in Israel. I am not trying to introduce any detail of international law. nableezy - 02:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Another one, just for fun. Hazbun, Waleed (2008) Beaches, ruins, resorts: the politics of tourism in the Arab world U of Minnesota Press. ISBN 9780816654925:
p. 94:

On the occupied Golan Heights, captured from Syria, Israelis built the country's first ski resort, which became a popular destination for domestic tourism. With a new confidence and a sense of regional military superiority, Israelis began touring the Arab lands their army now occupied, and Jews from around the world were attracted to Israel as a travel destination.

nableezy - 02:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thought the intl law and US congress bit were you. My bad if I read the diff incorrectly. And that last source is about tourism. That is good.Cptnono (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I added the initial sentence that they are recognized as occupied. Ep first removed that, then modified it to "recognized by some" and added the bit about the Jerusalem Law as an example of the "others" who disagree. I then added the bit about the signing statement saying any section on Jerusalem's status was merely "advisory" as that section of the law, if mandatory, would infringe on the Presidents constitutional authority to direct foreign policy. I also added the ICJ ruling to contrast the opinion of the Congress. I would prefer to go back to the simple statement about "recognized by the international community", but if people insist on giving bogus qualifications I should be able to show just how bogus those qualifications are. nableezy - 02:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well you essentially just admitted to battling. Probably shouldn't try to balance what you see as bogus with what other people see as problematic. Frommer's summarized it well by saying it was too much to explain in a travel guide. We on the other hand do have wikilinks and should use them. Making long qualifications to ensure that the Palestinian territories and the Golan are in (like almost every book on travel does) shouldn't cause this much trouble. It shouldn't matter what the international thinks here since most experts on travel combine them. If editors had to tried to remove what is commonly viewed as the way it is then maybe the battling wouldn't have started. That is why below I mention a background section. A couple lines on it should be easy enough if editors don;t try to win.Cptnono (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If you read what I wrote as "admitting to battling" I cant help you. What I wrote is that editors tried to dilute a simple fact by raising irrelevant noise. I tried to demonstrate how irrelevant that noise is. If you want to call that "battling" go ahead. nableezy - 03:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It is no secret that several editors think that you have contributed to the battlefield mentality in the topic area. That "noise" very well might be other people battling but more on topic:

With the proper wikilinks, would something similar to what is below work in a background section or as an addition to the lead? The long explanations can be left in the other articles (which there are plenty of) and more of the conflict is likely to get some space if we start adding in travel restrictions, warnings of mines in the Golan, and other touchy points:

"The region has had a turbulent and complex history dating back to ancient times. The Israelis and Palestinians have struggled to coexist since the nation's establishment in 1948. Jerusalem, a popular destination for travelers, is one of the most contentious aspects of the conflict. Other attractions are in the the Golan Heights, which Israel seized from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War. The Palestinian Territories are the sub-autonomous West Bank and Gaza Strip where various sites for travelers can also be found."

Cptnono (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

And it is no secret what I think of most of those "several editors", so forgive my lack of interest in their opinions. As to the actual point, you neglect to use the word "occupied" a single time and do not once clarify that these places are not in Israel. If you want to include these places as within the topic of "Tourism in Israel" you need to define "Israel" as "Israel and the territory it occupies". Neglecting that aspect is simply pretending these places are in Israel, which is a fringe view. nableezy - 04:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The best next step for the article would be you actually specifying where you want that in the draft or creating an alternative. I did try to base it off sources which also failed to make the distinction. Not everyone thinks that what you see as an occupation is the most important thing going on over there. Especially in an article about tourism. The reason I put it here and not in the main space was for feedback. But if you just want to complain I hope others will at least participate.Cptnono (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, I already said what I think the article should say. And it is not what I "see as an occupation", it is what the sources say is an occupation. And it is important, because by including the Golan and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as being in Israel without making any clarification on the undeniable fact backed by countless sources about the status of these territories you endorse, in Wikipedia's NPOV narrative voice, an extreme minority position that has no backing in serious sources. I am not just "complaining", I am raising specific issues with your proposed language. If there is a background section, I would include a paragraph, based on the above listed sources, that since 1967 Israel has occupied these territories and has seen significant tourism in both the Golan and the West Bank, including EJ, and earlier in the occupation in Gaza and Sinai. Then, I would have an asterisk next to any item in the list that is in occupied territory that leads to a footnote that says the territory is recognized as occupied Palestinian or Syrian territory by the international community. That is it. You are making this seem like I am trying to fill this article with polemic POV. I am not, I am trying to raise a significant issue that too many people are trying to gloss over. Again, if you want to say that Israelis travel to the territory it occupies, or that it generates tourism revenue off of those territories, fine. But what you cant do is imply that these places are in Israel. That is what you are trying to do and that is trying to push an extreme minority POV. nableezy - 05:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought simply stating that Jerusalem was a contentious issue, the Palestinian Territories were sub-autonomous, and that the Golan Heights were seized (strong word imo) were sufficient with the wikilinks to mkae it clear to the reader that it is not all sunshine and lollipops. You wanting to insert asterisks after each line is exactly why people say you are inserting POV. NONE of the guidebooks do that. And a whole paragraph on occupation? Some people disagree with that to the point it i not fringe. However, adding that some people call it occupied in a paragraph trying to summarize the dispute without going into drawn out detail in an article about tourism might be a fine idea. That is why I posted it here. If you want to add a whole paragraph you might run into a roadblock. Maybe not though. Collaborative editing not making a point editing.Cptnono (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Im not "making a point", stop writing things like that. And no, it is a fringe idea that any of these places is in Israel. If you look at the overwhelming majority of sources you can see that. I didnt say a whole paragraph on the occupation. I said a paragraph that says, in a single sentence, that Israel occupied these territories. Then another sentence or two on the tourism to these territories. And "seized" says nothing of its current status, and sub-autonomous does not give their current status. And it cant just be "people call it occupied", at the very least it needs to be clear that the territory is recognized as occupied by the international community, not just the always silly "some people say". nableezy - 05:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

<- What might help is if people accepted that this isn't about nableezy despite several editor's near homosexual infatuation with him (I'm recycling a marvelous comment from here). What I see is an editor, one of several, trying to address a simple but rather important content issue. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I very well might be assuming the worst or misreading what you are saying. Can you think of a way to add a line about occupation in the paragraph I started? I'm not trying to gloss over anything. I am just trying to get a paragraph that is a disclaimer so that the rest of the article can be written a little smoother.Cptnono (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, phew. This has certainly exploded. Lets get back to the original issue. Should this artlce include places occupied by Israel? Should we rename the article? I am in favor of renaming it in the same manner as the Islam article. The Islam article doesn't need to get into soverignty issues or status issues; it focuses on the topic at hand, Islam. I believe we should do this for the Tourism article as well. If we do not rename it, then we MUST create a viable Tourism in the Palestinian territories / Tourism in the Golan Heights article. Perhaps even a separate Tourism in Jerusalem article which can be a mutual link from both articles? I am sure there is enough info for all 3. Plainly, it is improper to include areas not within one state in the article in question. Would we mention in a Tourism in New York article that many tourists visit Connecticut's coast? That many come to New York and visit Toronto? No, it makes no sense. Either rename the article to include all the areas or split it into separate viable articles.--TM 06:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that typically happens with Nableezy and I writing enough to fill volumes. I think a rename would be fine. As pointed out with some travel books, many of them discuss Israel, the Golan Heights, and the Palestinian Territories together. I think we should emulate that. I do understand that some sort of disclaimer paragraph needs to be in early to address that it there are disputes. Cptnono (talk) 07:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree there should be one article. I agree that the Golan Heights are not Palestinian. I suggest renaming the article Tourism in Israel and the Occupied Territories is the most practical solution. Everyone in the world, including the Israeli Cabinet, accept that the status of EJ, GH, WB and G are controversial, and part of an ongoing conflict. One day, this conflict might be resolved. We do not know how it will be resolved. As in the real world, so in the encyclopedia - one day, there may be one artricle named "tourism in Israel," or one article named "Tourism in Israel and Palestine" or two articls, "Tourism in Israel" and "Tourism in Palestine." But until that day comes, I think this article should be titled, "Tourism in Israel and the Occupied Territories." Then a few links in the article to other articles will suffice and we will not have to put an asterisk after every sentence. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)