Talk:Tourism in the State of Palestine

restricted to the West Bank?

Why? There is also tourism in Gaza, and other areas as well. --Shuki (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw a source from prior to the Hamas-Fatah split about the PNA's Tourism Ministry operating in Gaza, but The Telegraph source says "Today, tourists are not even allowed in to the isolated, war-ravaged enclave ruled by the Islamist movement Hamas." nableezy - 01:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

So what? This article isn't just about tourism right now, but tourism's history and infrastructure. There certainly has been tourism in Gaza in the past.--TM 06:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I didnt say anything about "what", I was explaining that meaning of the sentence in the article was about the present day. nableezy - 12:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Tourism includes going to the beach and visiting other cities. Many pictures regularly come out of Gaza showing this takes place. --Shuki (talk) 16:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean if somebody lives by the beach and goes to the beach they are a "tourist"? Or if the visit a relative a few towns down, they are a "tourist"? Maybe, but I dont see it. nableezy - 16:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with Shuki. According to tourism, "Tourism is travel for recreational, leisure or business purposes." Just because there is tourism in Gaza, doesn't mean the siege is any less devastating. Including information to compare Gaza's tourism industry prior to and since the siege would be enlightening, if such information exists.--TM 17:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Travel being the key word. Living by the beach and going for a swim in the sea does not make you a tourist. nableezy - 18:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Another typical example of an editor who instead of wanting to improve an article, is going to make sure that Israel looks bad in it. --Shuki (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

That is just stupid. I did not say anything about Israel. Try not to be your usual self. nableezy - 20:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Shuki, lets not assume bad faith, ok? We don't need it. Palestinians in Gaza do travel, Nableezy. They just don't travel widely. Lets not be ridiculous. Do you really think no Palestinians in Gaza go for a vacation to the beach these days?--TM 20:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, they very well might. But like all things on Wikipedia, we need a source saying so. And the Gaza Strip at its widest point is 10 km from the sea. I personally would not call somebody who travels 10 km a "tourist". I lived about 10 miles from Lake Michigan. I went there quite often. At no time was I a "tourist", I was a local going to the lake. nableezy - 20:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

If anyone has sources about tourism to the Gaza Strip, by all means include content on this. I noted that there's no tourism due to Hamas' restrictions as that's what was said in the sources I found, but this doesn't preclude using other sources. Why does every article on Israel/Palestine have to get such heated responses? Tourism is what reliable sources say it is, not our own opinions. Stop arguing and pontificating and instead go and find some sources! Fences&Windows 21:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, internal tourism is tourism. If I go to a water park or if someone flies in from out of town and goes to the same park, it is still tourism. Please check out these pictures of tourism in Gaza: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] --Shuki (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing just for the sake of disagreeing, nor am I doing so because "to make sure that Israel looks bad" whatever that means. I disagree because "tourism" requires travel. Yes, the person flying to the city that has a water park is a tourist, but if you live down the block from that water park and you go you are not a tourist. I have been to a ton of "tourist" sites in Chicago like the museums or the lakefront or the Sears tower or a number of other places. I was still just a local boy, not a tourist. But this is all personal interpretation (on my part and yours) and the solution for this is to actually find sources discussing tourism in Gaza. nableezy - 16:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It is silly to even be arguing whether tourism exists in Gaza or not. Gaza is mostly closed, yes, but inside of Gaza there is freedom of movement. Logically, someone from Rafah going to Gaza City is indeed tourism. Moreover, this link, which admittedly incredibly out-dated, tells us much about the tourism industry in Gaza.--TM 17:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This may be of interest

Palestinian Tourism in Transition: Hope, Aspiration, or Reality? from The Journal of Tourism and Peace Research. The 'History of Tourism in Palestine' section has some potentially useful info pertinent to both Tourism in Israel and Tourism in the Palestinian territories. There are also a lot of references listed. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Marriage in the Palestinian territories which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Visit the Ottoman Empire

The picture currently being used is one that was created during the British Mandate. That is what it means when it says "Visit Palestine". To use that picture for an article about the Palestinian territories is misleading and confusing. Additionally, the picture shows Jerusalem, both west and East. Only East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territories. CSWP1 (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Tourism in the Palestinian territories. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130724192233/http://english.pnn.ps/index.php/national/3396-destination-palestine-tourisms-denied-potential to http://english.pnn.ps/index.php/national/3396-destination-palestine-tourisms-denied-potential
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131127151421/http://english.wafa.ps/index.php?action=detail&id=22622 to http://english.wafa.ps/index.php?action=detail&id=22622
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140318053118/http://jerusalem.usconsulate.gov/border-crossings.html to http://jerusalem.usconsulate.gov/border-crossings.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131001072621/http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_6010.html to http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_6010.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002045618/http://www.fosna.org/content/conferences-and-trips to http://www.fosna.org/content/conferences-and-trips
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140307212611/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/5D4CBD90BC8A8D4F85257C30005F790D to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/5D4CBD90BC8A8D4F85257C30005F790D

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).

• 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) 05:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Sister Cities

International popularity has resulted in fifty four cities in twenty seven countries becoming twinned (Sister Cities) with Bethlehem. - Is it correct? I have found only 22 countries here [7] --იაკობ მახარაძე (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2024

Change the title, "Tourism in the state of Palestine," to "Tourism in the Occupied Palestinian Territories." Also change in the 2nd paragraph, "has not proven successful in Palestine," to "has not proven successful in the Occupied Palestinian Territories." Finally change in the 3rd paragraph, "encourage international visits to Palestine," to, "encourage international visits to the Occupied Palestinian Territories." To keep this list in line with edit request guidelines, these requests do have a reliable source, as the official UN report on the area involving human rights (https://www.ochaopt.org/content/situation-human-rights-palestinian-territories-occupied-1967-united-nations-sep-2008) continuously refers to the area as, "the occupied Palestinian territories" or "the Palestinian territories under Israeli occupation." They only refer to "Palestine" when discussing the borders of the geographic region of Palestine, not the proposed nation, and any connection would be when referencing the occupied Palestinian territories' borders, since some parts of the border are on the edge of the geographic region (ex. the Jordan River) so the report uses it interchangeably. This official report was made in 2006 and published in 2008, but more recent reports and articles of the UN continue to use the same type of terminology to describe the area. The UN is the considered the governing body that determines the status and geopolitical/security situation of any state/nation (https://www.un.org/en/about-us/main-bodies), which would include disputed and/or unrecognized ones like Palestine/occupied Palestinian territories, so if they use the terminology of "occupied Palestinian territories" Wikipedia should follow suit in order to be more politically accurate and bipartisan. This in no way means that Wikipedia is taking a side on whether there should be a Palestinian state, but it is simply a more factual term to describe the place and the term which is accepted by the UN. 96.245.174.114 (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Jamedeus (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Changing "Palestine" to "Occupied Palestinian Territories"

Hey, I just read this article and I saw some of the terminology is contradictory to UN standards, so to be more factual and accurate given the current situation I think we should make these changes: First, change the title, "Tourism in the state of Palestine," to "Tourism in the Occupied Palestinian Territories." Also change in the 2nd paragraph, "has not proven successful in Palestine," to "has not proven successful in the Occupied Palestinian Territories." Finally change in the 3rd paragraph, "encourage international visits to Palestine," to, "encourage international visits to the Occupied Palestinian Territories." To quell any doubts, these requests do have a reliable source, as the official UN report on the area involving human rights (https://www.ochaopt.org/content/situation-human-rights-palestinian-territories-occupied-1967-united-nations-sep-2008) continuously refers to the area as, "the occupied Palestinian territories" or "the Palestinian territories under Israeli occupation." They only refer to "Palestine" when discussing the borders of the geographic region of Palestine, not the proposed nation, and any connection would be when referencing the occupied Palestinian territories' borders, since some parts of the border are on the edge of the geographic region (ex. the Jordan River) so the report uses it interchangeably. This official report was made in 2006 and published in 2008, but more recent reports and articles of the UN continue to use the same type of terminology to describe the area. The UN is the considered the governing body that determines the status and geopolitical/security situation of any state/nation (https://www.un.org/en/about-us/main-bodies), which would include disputed and/or unrecognized ones like Palestine/occupied Palestinian territories, so if they use the terminology of "occupied Palestinian territories" Wikipedia should follow suit in order to be more politically accurate and bipartisan. This in no way means that Wikipedia is taking a side on whether there should be a Palestinian state, but it is simply a more factual term to describe the place and the term which is accepted by the UN. Do you guys agree we should change this? 96.245.174.114 (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Not done. First, the terminology is contradictory to UN standards is not correct. The observer state of Palestine at the UN is seated as State of Palestine. Also there are a number of these child articles, not just this one, all linked from the article State of Palestine. Selfstudier (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)