Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:03, 9 February 2011

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Travel and Tourism Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Israel C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

ceasefire line is not border

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

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

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

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

Mount Hermon Ski Resort is not in Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compromise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags

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

Source material

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

Worldview?

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

Tags

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

• Unassessed Tourism articles
• Unknown-importance Tourism articles
• WikiProject Travel and Tourism articles
• C-Class Israel-related articles
• High-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles