This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tourism in Israel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | 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:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, 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.
|
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)
I know that it is hard to not focus on a political issue hen you feel it is important, SupremeDeliciousness. A single sentence controversy section is not the best way to address it. It kind of spits in the face of the manual of style and decent encyclopedic writing to highlight the issue on a page that is inherent;y not about politics. It also just isn't that important to the topic. So I have one question for you: Would your recent revert pass at GAC or FAC? If not it needs to go. It is BS. Cptnono ( talk) 07:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I 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)
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:
SD's edit changed it to:
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)
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)
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. Zero talk 14:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
There are lots of sources linking the conflict with damages to tourism in Israel. “ WarKosign ” 16:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tourism in Israel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | 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:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, 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.
|
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)
I know that it is hard to not focus on a political issue hen you feel it is important, SupremeDeliciousness. A single sentence controversy section is not the best way to address it. It kind of spits in the face of the manual of style and decent encyclopedic writing to highlight the issue on a page that is inherent;y not about politics. It also just isn't that important to the topic. So I have one question for you: Would your recent revert pass at GAC or FAC? If not it needs to go. It is BS. Cptnono ( talk) 07:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I 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)
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:
SD's edit changed it to:
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)
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)
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. Zero talk 14:47, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
There are lots of sources linking the conflict with damages to tourism in Israel. “ WarKosign ” 16:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
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)