Talk:Tourism in Israel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CameronClark.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Absolutely yes.Cptnono (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sources decide whether it's significant or not. --Dailycare (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thats an essay, which means your entire argument is invalid. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[1]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agree, AnotherNewAccounts changes are not good, they are not following the sources. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please read the discussion. Cptnono (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have and you are still not addressing the issue I and SD want to improve. You even say that the current one is "descriptive and neuteral wording". Can you then respond to the issue that I addressed? --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it seems to be two disputes, I will focus now on the first part regarding East Jerusalem. Let us take a look on the current wording and then SD's:

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.

SD's edit changed it to:

In 2009, 2010, and again in 2015, the UK Advertising Standards Authority ruled against a series of Israeli 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 ads implied East Jerusalem as being in Israel and thus the advertisements as presented were "likely to mislead." The ruling from 2009 also included criticism about Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights being shown as part of Israel.[12][13]

The last sentence was not part of the first dispute so I address the first one now. I think this one is better as it portrays what the issue was according to the Advertising Standards Authority. BBC wrote: "The Advertising Standards Authority said the advert implied East Jerusalem, which has been occupied since 1967, was part of the state of Israel". From Ynetnews: "Britain's advertising watchdog banned an Israeli government tourism ad on Wednesday, claiming it suggested that the Old City of Jerusalem was part of Israel... Following a complaint, the ASA ruled the title of the brochure "Israel Land of Creation" and references to Old City attractions was misleading and banned the advert from appearing again in its current form". So the issue was that they thought that the Israeli ad was misleading because it implied that East Jerusalem/Old City was part of Israel. None of this is appear in the current wording here.

"The unfinalized status of East Jerusalem has caused issues..." and "the authority ruled that the status of East Jerusalem was the 'subject of much international dispute,'..." does not really explain what the Advertising Standards Authority thought was misleading. Their point is that the Israeli ad shows the area as part of Israel when it is not, not that it was only "unfinalized" and "disputed". --IRISZOOM (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That edit, Cptnono, completely whitewashed what was reported. Ive made a change so that it actually reflects the cited source, and not what some random person on the internet wished the source had said. nableezy - 14:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this matter is presented at all, it should include the fact that the ASA objected to the advertisements implying EJ to be in Israel. Without that key information, it is misleading. Incidentally, I don't know if anyone linked to the actual rulings. Try these: 2010 2015 To confirm that it is not the advertising of East Jerusalem but the implication that it is in Israel that is the problem, compare these: 2011 2012. Zerotalk 14:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten my original paragraph to clarify the rulings more specifically. There were multiple rulings, so specific quotes from a single ruling would be inappropriate, except the generic quotes I've added that seem to be common to all of them. Any more information risks WP:UNDUE. In particular, the introductory sentence is important to explain how the ruling relates to the subject of the article. Otherwise, it just comes across as a WP:COATRACK paragraph. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That edit whitewashes what it says. They did not simply say the status of East Jerusalem was in fact the "subject of much international dispute", they said the status of the occupied territory of the West Bank was the subject of much international dispute. They did not say that the ads were in Israel and because the status is the subject of dispute they were then likely to mislead. They said the status of the occupied territory of the West Bank is the said subject of international dispute and that the ads implied the sites were in Israel they were then likely to mislead. Those are two thoughts, and you whitewashed both. nableezy - 02:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am in full of support of removing (not whitewashing) what is clearly coat rack and POV material. Of course it is whitewashed!The content only serves to make a point. It doesn't assist the reader. It it there just to remind people that there is an ongoing conflict. Why are other locations brought up? It is BS and every editor jumping in on this knows it.Cptnono (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep insisting on quoting only one part of it ("the status of East Jerusalem was in fact the 'subject of much international dispute'") and not have the whole part ("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")? If the quote is going to be included, cite it properly. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AnotherNewAccount has now twice misrepresented the sources when he is editing the article. Therefore, I suggest he stops editing the article. He also removed the text about Gaza, West bank and Golan Heights for no reason. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"He also removed the text about Gaza, West bank and Golan Heights for no reason because the section is about Jerusalem." is probably what you meant.Cptnono (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was a "Controversy" section that he removed:[2], so we should restore it, then we can restore the important information about Gaza, West bank and Golan Heights. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know what COATRACK is supposed to signify in this discussion. There are sources that clearly relate the two subjects. That by definition is not coatracking. I dont understand what POV is supposed to signify. I included both the UK charge and the Israeli response. You mean POV the way it is commonly misused on these pages I presume, in that the material shows something you dislike. Unfortunately for you, that isnt what POV means on Wikipedia. nableezy - 00:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy section was rightfully removed,SD.
Fine, Nableezy, I'll use nonwiki talk: It is inappropriate to use sections or sentences or paragraphs or extra sources to make a point on WIkipedia. Wikipedia is not some sort of proxy war or your college thesis or some square being protested in. Some articles (this one is a good example) should not be subject to trying to make a point. If you don't see how the term coatrack or even WP:COATRACK is not related than you are ignoring common sense.
Also, I think it would be super sweet if we held wikilawyering in as bad of a light as edit warring. New editors wouldn't call more experienced editors liars if they just got to the brass and tacks and stopped trying to make it some sort of game.Cptnono (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The argument used to remove the Controversy section was that you pointed to an essay, but both me and Dailycare pointed out to you that essays are not a guidelines, so that argument is invalid. I don't see any other option but to restore the section and the information about Gaza, West bank and Golan Heights, as no valid reason has been presented for they're removal.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not making a point, its relaying information that reliable sources consider important to the topic. This is not a travel guide, it is an encyclopedia article. That you dislike that these topics are considered material to the topic by reliable sources isnt really my concern, nor is it Wikipedias. You keep babbling about some nonsense about making points and protesting in squares, and because I dont care to try to understand what any of that has to do with this article I will simply repeat the thing that actually matters here. Reliable sources consider these things to be relevant to the topic. And so long as they do NPOV requires us to do the same. And when that is the case we must follow the sources, not whitewash them out of some misguided attempt to "not make a point". There has not been one valid reason for misrepresenting the cited sources, and as such I am reverting the last edit. nableezy - 14:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and before you accuse me of edit-warring, four different editors have objected to this whitewashing of the cited sources, changes that were first introduced a week and change ago without any consensus for. nableezy - 14:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A different approach[edit]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
I'm not sure the content discussed here is expansive enough to warrant an article in its own right. In particular, I'd be a bit concerned if this new article could have the effect that the disputed aspects of Israel's tourism would be removed from the present article. --Dailycare (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think a concern is that there is too much emphasis on focusing on the controversy (WEIGHT). Is this an article primarily about tourism or the I-P conflict? Maybe an alternative would be a standalone section (not 20 paragraphs) discussing the situation instead of inserting it throughout. The article already has a poor format with it alternating between prose and lists.Cptnono (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree WEIGHT needs to be respected. On the other hand, I don't think most of the article is currently about the controversy. In fact, in the beginning of this thread there was a concern that only one sentence was in the controversy section. Of course, if more than half of sources that discuss "Israeli" tourism are about the controversy, then in that case over half of the article should be devoted to the controversy. I don't think that's the current situation. --Dailycare (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of sources linking the conflict with damages to tourism in Israel. “WarKosign” 16:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Super, maybe there should be a section about politics. Again, sections about controversies are frowned upon (ignoring that shows a lack of understanding) however a section with proper attention to NPOV (including the section title) might be preferable to littering lines throughout. I made the mistake of not reading the entirety of the article. I trust you have not done the same?Cptnono (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Im being dense here, but where is there a section about controversies? The content belongs where it is relevant, so the section that covers East Jerusalem is where the material on the occupation of EJ belongs. nableezy - 04:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tourism in Israel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New tourism record set in 2018[edit]

Over 4million people. can someone change the opening intro to have this new information in it? "In the months January-December 2018, about 4.1 million tourist entries were recorded, 14% more than 2017 and 42% more than 2016. Revenue from tourism in 2018 reached about $5.8 billion (about NIS 22 billion)" --2001:8003:4092:AB00:DD0D:809F:D3C7:DDA7 (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tourism_in_Israel&oldid=1210745798"