Talk:Haifa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Haifa has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 26, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
March 20, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
April 13, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

Sycaminum[edit]

Haifa was apparently formerly known as Sycaminum[1]. Is this a Roman name? Drutt (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sycaminum is the Latin form of the Hebrew name Shikmona, which was to the south of historical Haifa and originally a different place. It is the site of Elijah's cave.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

see also[edit]

The article List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War is being removed from the see also section on the grounds that it is "POV-pushing for 3rd biggest city in Israel". This article states that of 62,000 Arabs that had been in Haifa prior to the '48 war more than 50,000 fled "mainly because of the shelling of Arab villages and neighborhoods". I do not see how one can in good faith remove this as a see also, but I ask whoever feels that the link is inappropriate to show how. Nableezy (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:ALSO, the section should have similar articles, not links to lists. I removed the second link to a list as well. This type of content is best given though categories. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
There is no reason these lists can't be linked like any other article. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Why do you not want people to see that information, as a matter of interest? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you had to get personal, questioning what I want and what I don't want. It's best for a collaborative effort that you not make personal judgments about editors. But now that you mention it, I actually want everyone to have all the information in the world, but there are manual of style rules on how to publish information. The information about the "depopulation" is already found in the article. I was pointing out the way the See also links are not in accordance with what See also sections are to intended to be used. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not a question of getting personal. My question is simply why you want people not to see that list. It is exactly how See also sections are intended to be used, and have been used since I've been editing. Can you explain what your problem with the list is? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, please try to avoid discussing me and what I want personally. Comment on the content, not the contributor. I may want the list there or I may not want the list there. I don't know about other editors, but I don't edit according to what I want, I edit according to WP policies and guidelines. I made a policy based assertion above and the only response I've gotten was "why I don't want people to see the list". If you would like to provide policy based argument for including the list then please go ahead, but let's stop discussing myself and what I want. Thanks, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I actually dont see anything in WP:ALSO that prohibits lists unless you take a very literal meaning of "related articles" Nableezy (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Brewcrew, exactly which sentence are you taking to mean lists aren't allowed? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
We can't expect the MOS to list everything it doesn't think belong in the section. Neither does the MOS guideline "prohibit" pics form being placed in See also section. Point is, this link to the list is not what the guideline suggests belongs in the article and thus should not belong in the article, especially since a few editors have raised concerns about its inclusion. I generally would not have a problem with ignoring the guidelines because an editor likes a certain link, but if other editors have raised concerns about the link, it's best that we just comply with the MOS guideline. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
You say we should comply with the guideline, so please say how this list does not comply with the guideline. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I thought I explained it twice above, but I'll explain again: According to WP:ALSO, the section is intended for similar articles. The link is not a similar article, but a list.
Again, the fact that the section does not state what should not go in the See also section does not mean that it allows everything into the article. The MOS guideline can't list everything that does not belong in the section, it can only state what does belong in the section. If there is a link that is not suggested by the guideline it obviously is precluded by the guideline.
I really hate to assume bad faith, but making me repeat myself with basic understanding of WP guidelines, looks like a lot like I'm dealing with WP:WIKILAWYERING and WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
"If there is a link that is not suggested by the guideline it obviously is precluded by the guideline" is simply false. You'd be well-advised to stop misusing the guidelines and policies to prevent material you don't like from appearing in Wikipedia. That's all I'm going to say here, because it's obviously not worth arguing about. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 05:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Instead of making matter-of-fact assertions, please explain why the point if false, especially since its elementary logic was promulgated twice in this thread. And again, please stop making these quasi-attacks. I have not accused of you of wishing to insert the content because you like it, and I would like the basic common decency shown in return. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Brew, I can't respond to posts that talk about elementary logic being promulgated. You know what you're doing, and you know that I know, so please quit it and start adding content, rather than removing other people's. That's my last comment. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm really sorry this discussion had to go down this path; this is not what I was hoping for. Let this unedited talkpage discussion speak for itself. Which editor is discussing content and which editor is discussing contributors. Which editor is making policy based arguments and which editor to the contrary.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Brew, you keep saying that because the MOS says other related articles that excludes lists. Now besides the obvious counter that an article is anything that is in article space, lists are used all over in see also sections, such as Jerusalem#See also, Moscow#See also, New York City#See also, Tim Wakefield#See also (I was actually expecting a list of knuckleballers, but the list in there is just as good) and a random featured article F-4 Phantom II#See also has a see also subsection of lists and I can keep going if you make me. If that is all you have to base your objection it seems pretty weak. And when you say you favor a stricter enforcement of the guideline because other users had objected, you neglect saying whether or not those others are at all justified in their objection on NPOV grounds (which I think is fairly obvious that they are not). Is the fact that it is a list really the only issue you have with this? Nableezy (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, a breath of fresh air! You do make a good point that lists can technically be considered "articles" because they are in the article mainspace, but even if that were true, it's in any case not in the spirit of the guideline. You see, we can't lost focus of the "related" adjective in "related articles". Although it is possible that some of the entries in the links are related, it is unreasonable to argue that one aspect of commonality shared by all entries on the list causes every single entry on the list to be "related." If there is a article that is really related let it be listed, otherwise its unnecessary.
As for other See also's, I'm not generally in fond of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS arguments. For one, I can show plenty of articles that could include tangentially related lists, but don't. Also, I've been removing lists from See also sections ever since editing here at Wikipedia. Most of them by surname articles, where I moved similar surnames to hatnotes, and baseball players, where I removed lists of all the players that played for all the teams of the article's subject. Indeed, although the typical baseball player bio used to include these types of lists, they are no longer in vouge. And for good reason - the lists are a waste and do not comport with the intention behind WP:ALSO.
It's unclear to me what exactly bothered the other editors that removed the list, but I suspect it was on POV grounds. Haifa stands for far more then being depopulated during the war. If this is the only list included in the See also section, it can be seen as POV-problematic.
There are also two more technical problems with the lists inclusion. One, the list is for towns and villages. At the time it was "depopulated", Haifa was neither of those. It was considered a city. You might say that that this is gribbeling, but this is an encyclopedia and it's best we err on the safe side, especially if there are other issues with the list's inclusion. Secondly, and more importantly, it is misleading to call it a depopulated "Arab" town or village. Prior to the War of Independence, there were more Jews then Arabs in Haifa. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I havent yet read the rest of your response, but I knew WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS would be mentioned, which is why I picked a FA (at random, I am sure many do not have such lists in the see-also) from the WP:MILHIST to give as an example. I think showing you a FA with such lists would qualify as slightly more than other crap. Nableezy (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Let me then respond to your one point if I may. The list in the Jerusalem article is List of places in Jerusalem. That list obviously belongs because everything in the list is strongly related to the subject of the article - Jerusalem. The whole entire list is about Jerusalem. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The FA I spoke of was F-4 Phantom II#See also which has List of fighter aircraft, List of military aircraft of the United States and List of units using the F-4 Phantom, which, excepting the last one, are lists made up of articles that share a common aspect (being about fighter aircraft). Here, this list is made up of articles that share a common aspect, cities depopulated during and following the 48 war. The NPOV argument is, all due respect, bs. Because it is the only list that is undue weight? Cmon, there is no POV dispute about whether or not Haifa was depopulated of Arabs at that time, to say there is such a dispute is nonsense. Nableezy (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
As outlined above, "sharing a common aspect" is not what the See also section was intended for. I'm not sure how exactly your countering the POV argument. Of course Haifa was to a certain extent "depopulated", but verifiability as you know is not exclusive of POV. Still awaiting your response to the concerns about the misleading nature of the links.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course the see also isnt about sharing a common aspect, and I wouldnt put a link to all the places that are in that list as see alsos to this because they share that common aspect. But linking to a list that the article is a part of is different, it is linked in the same way as the f-4 article is linking to the lists of fighter aircraft. Now on the misleading nature; 70k Arabs and 74k Jews in Haifa prior to the war, with a much larger proportion of Arabs in the time before that. Now perhaps "Arab village" is not the most fitting term and at the time it could rightfully be called an Arab and Jewish city. And if you say the town/village is the issue I will go move the list right now to include cities in the title (maybe call it municipalities). And if Arab is the problem I'll go change it to depopulated of Arabs. How about this, include it as a see also in the British Mandate and the 1948 War section. Or are those see also links restricted to non-lists? And "a certain extent" is juuust a bit outside of being accurate, with 80%+ of the Arabs fleeing. Nableezy (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The nature of linking to these lists has obviously evolved in accordance with the current guideline that limits the section to related articles. I also remain concerned with the POV/UNDUE aspects of having this link given sole prominence in the See also section. The moves you mention might alleviate the misleading aspect of the links. However, "depopulated" is generally understood to mean a full depopulation. A "part depopulation" is sort of oxymoronic.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I dont think you are right on the definition, see here. Nableezy (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The list is currently located at List of towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestine War so I changed it to that in this article. I really hope you arent going to argue about Haifa being a city and not a town or a village and contest it on those grounds. Now would you rather it be in the section on the mandate and its aftermath or in the see also section? Nableezy (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Now that there is a section title "Palestinian exodus" I moved it as a see also to that section. Nableezy (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense. The words "town" and "city" are used interchangeably by the way. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It make "make sense," but encyclopedia's have to be factually correct. At this point, there are 5 issues that make its inclusion problematic:

  1. Not the type link recommended by the WP:SEEALSO manual of style.
  2. Not considered a town or village, but a city.
  3. The link is only one of two links in the See also section so it violates WP:UNDUE
  4. Potentially misleading because Haifa was not "depopulated" like other entities. Arabs remained in Haifa through the war
  5. Potentially misleading because most mainstream historians maintain that a major cause (if not the only cause) for the depopulation of Haifa were the threats and cajolements of Arab leadership. Readers will connect "depopulation" with Jewish force, something that is not necessarily true.

Thus, its best that this part of the article remain in the stable version that does not include this link.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

It appears that a new editor has added undue weight information sourced to Ilan Pappe, also deleting information about contemporary mass media reports. I tried to revert the edit, but was myself reverted. This is basically a violation of several policies and guidelines:

  1. Undue weight—talking about one of the events during the battle of Haifa in 1948 which is not outstanding clearly does not belong in the main article about Haifa. There are two much more specific articles—History of Haifa, and Operation Bi'ur Hametz which is where this stuff should go. Since I have the book that Pappe cites here (Carmeli Brigade in the War of Independence), I have no problem objectively adding the information myself without Pappe's bias (see next points).
  2. WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE—using a fringe historian boycotted by at least one major academic institution for a WP:REDFLAG statement. I do not have access to Pappe's work, but the current wording in the article is not entirely true to the original source (Zadok Eshel), which explains how the Jewish forces acted on intelligence information to pick one target to shell in order to cause the enemy to panic (out of many targets they shelled before and after), and this was not a "culmination" of anything. Again though, this entire explanation is very interesting and should go into the specific articles.
  3. Removal of sourced information—self-explanatory.

My suggestion is simply to revert to the original version without changes, and insert the information about the shelling into Operation Bi'ur Hametz. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Pappe is an academic historian, so it's not clear how adding his material is UNDUE. Why don't you just restore the material that was removed? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Who was he boycotted by, and for what red-flag statement? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps my wording about being boycotted was imprecise—he was not technically boycotted, but certainly shunned in the University of Haifa, in regards to the Teddy Katz controversy which I'm sure you are familiar with.
The redflag statement is fairly obvious—in the material you added (I know you didn't add it, but since you reverted to that version, I'm assuming you are standing by it 100%, including the content removal), Pappe alleges that the shelling "culminated" in indiscriminately targeting a marketplace, a civilian meeting place, and don't forget the allegation of threatening the Arabs to leave or else. Both are very serious accusations that, although they have some basis in truth, require much more explanation, including from the sources that Pappe gets his information from (one of which I have). It is undue weight in this article, and in no short summary of the battle of Haifa have I seen mention of either accusation.
About removing/restoring material—the same question goes back to you; you made no attempt to keep any of the previous relevant due weight content. Generally in content disputes the proper course of action is to revert to the original version until the dispute has been resolved (no consensus always defaults to the original version), which I did and you did not. It doesn't really get any simpler than this.
Ynhockey (Talk) 01:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Please be mindful of BLP. Ilan Pappe is an academic historian whose work is perfectly legitimate, even if disliked in certain quarters in Israel.
I want to ask how you feel you can remove secondary-source material from several academic sources, and replace it with primary-source material from the Economist and Time magazine that aren't even fully cited. [2] That's not acceptable.
If you feel more needs to be added, then please do so, but there is nothing UNDUE about it. All you had to do was combine the material you wanted with the material you didn't want, which I have now done. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary I feel that less materials needs to be added. If we write everything we can possibly get about Haifa in this article, it will be a megabyte long (or more). This is why we have History of Haifa and Operation Bi'ur Hametz. There is no point in expanding one point in the history of Haifa to ridiculous proportions. This is called undue weight. You will notice that there are now four paragraphs about the 1948 war (constituting about 1/3 to 1/4 of the history section), and if your suggestions to add more material is acted upon, it will probably be half. We need to take things in proportion and improve the article as a whole, not just adding as much material as we can section-by-section. This is the same problem as in the artilce Lod, where you sought to add a lot of material about the Palestinian exodus, eclipsing all other events in the history of Lod. This is not how it should be done. If you may have noticed for example, in the original version the contemporary media reports (not primary sources, as you claim) were in a footnote, not the main text, in order not to clutter the flow of the main text. Now that has changed. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am the editor being discussed and the reason I changed the text in the article is that the original wording was very vague, to the point of giving to a casual reader the impression that while once there were a lot of Arabs in Haifa, something happened that no-one exactly knows about (theories abound), they're gone now. I made the changes to clarify that the Arabs were expelled using force which is the accurate and neutral account, as Ynhockey above also seems to agree. Concerning the alleged Arab orders to leave, I can't quite follow why they should be mentioned in the article, if we conclude that no such orders were given. It would be simpler to just omit mention of the non-existent orders since they obviously didn't play a part in 1948. There were, to the contrary, Arab instructions for the Palestinians to stay and fight for their lands. One way to compress the clutter that Ynhockey mentions would be to compress the Arab orders to leave section to, for example, "Allegations that Arab forces would have instructed Arabs to flee Haifa have proven to be false", with the same sourcing as we have now. --Dailycare (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Question for Ynhockey[edit]

You may have missed my question, so I'll repeat it here in case it gets lost in the discussion above. The question was: how can you justify removing secondary-source material from several academic sources, and replacing it with primary-source material from the Economist and Time magazine that isn't even properly cited? [3] SlimVirgin talk|contribs 13:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have already answered your question, but will again answer it because you never seen to read what I write. I will answer in several points:
  1. Removal of academic sources: What several academic sources? Do you mean Pappe? Look at the diff again; I did not remove any other sources. For the reason why I removed Pappe's opinions on the matter, see WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG (and please read my previous comments again).
  2. "Replacing it with primary-source material"—you must be misunderstanding the difference between primary and secondary sources. The mass media is not a primary source. How is it a primary source?
  3. It is true that the original version was not properly cited (the Economist part, anyway). This has nothing to do with the issue though; when an editor inserts new controversial material, the burden of proof that this material belongs lies with that editor, as I have already explained in a previous comment. As for my position on the actual content (Economist + Time), I wouldn't mind if it was also removed.
Ynhockey (Talk) 16:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
1. Pappe is an academic historian. The RS noticeboard decided that he is a reliable source. I know of no sources other than Israeli ones who have attacked him.
2. The mass media from that period does indeed count as primary-source material.
Please don't remove Pappe from articles again. His research is needed if our articles are to be neutral, and he has specifically looked into what happened at Haifa. Have you read his work? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

SV: I have made this request a number of times from you: please dial down the belligerency. There's no reason to start a section with a user name and then proceed in a semi-mocking tone ("you may have missed my question...") to address a well-reputed admin. Let's be a bit more civil towards each other. As for the underlying point, the most that RS discussion board concluded, was that Pappe should be accepted for his fringe and extreme theories and all his claims must be attributed to him within the main text. As he's in the position that he is, his pronouncements are ipso facto notable. However, regarding substantive subject matter, his position should be given the proper weight. Most of his findings are strongly disputed by mainstream historians and no article should mislead otherwise. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

provide a "mainstream" historian that disputes what we cite him for here and add that if you feel there is not proper balance. nableezy - 08:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Haifa is a mixed city?[edit]

90% jewish and 10% arab christian would hardly be a mixed city. Who writes this stuff? I also see on the city website that it is a multicultural city, hardly true with these figures.

When I visited Haifa, I was told by the tour guide that Christians, Jews, and Muslims get along, i.e. coexist peacefully and in a friendly manner, to a greater extent than in most other parts of Israel. Is this true? Is there anything concrete we can say (and cite to a reputable source) about this? Thanks. LordAmeth (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Biblical times[edit]

The second paragraph says that the city has a history dating back to Biblical times. What's that? The time when the manuscripts that conform the Old Testament were written. The time of Adam? I think that "Biblical times" is a frequent expression in English, but not valid as a temporal reference for an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.42.250.70 (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Black Panthers[edit]

This article refers to the "Black Panthers", but I think it links to the wrong "Black Panthers". Also, I think there's some kind of mistake, as the Israeli "Black Panthers" (according to their wikipedia article) didn't exist in 1959, the date of the event that this article connects to the Black Panthers. The cited article from Haaretz doesn't list the Black Panthers as being specifically involved in the 1959 incident, but mentions them in connection with later incidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.40.178.2 (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Air pollution[edit]

the quality of the air in haifa is notoriously bad with relation to the rest of israel due to certain factories present, should mention this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.17.64 (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

biased[edit]

the article reflects too much the zionist narrative. there isn't even the arab name of the city, not even the israeli name in arab transcription. this kind of shortcoming continues, esp. in the section about the history of the town.--Severino (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this article should be reviewed. --mo-- (Talk | #info | Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg ) 09:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. So we need arabic name and etymology mentioned in lead and discussed (sentences) in etymology section. Can someone source and add this? Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The Arabic name IS "Haifa." That said, this is the first time in my entire life I have ever seen an article tagged towards a specific ethnicity. It's like a shout out to make the article less scholarly and moar ethnic. 108.65.0.169 (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I added some more info and sources to the etymology section. I think it cold still use more work, bt it is a bit more comprehensive than it was. Tiamuttalk 19:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay then, can other issues be specifically itemised below so each can be discussed? Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
(i.e. let's try and see if we can navigate this calmly and collaboratively) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Casliber, I believe that the official languages there is Arabic and Hebrew (as can be seen in the coat of arms and other around Israel). I just want to make sure that this article is truly neutral and if someone who is not Muslim or Jewish or Christian visits this page (for example someone in China), I think he should have a clear article without thinking it is too Jewish or too Muslim. I want to make sure the article stays clean (as with other Israel/Palestine related article). --mo-- (Talk | #info | Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg ) 14:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I guess this is a good place to start - is there any information on the arabic page regarding arabic name and derivation that can be sourced and added? I can't read arabic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Arabic writing should be in the lead section, but beyond that I can't see any bias. To those saying the article is biased: please elaborate on where you believe the bias lies. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There is more that can be added regarding the Arab history of Haifa, such as a description of how it changed from majority Arab to majority Jewish during the Mandate period. However I don't see this as serious and I propose to delete the tag if no convincing counter-argument is posted here in the next week or so. Zerotalk 04:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I was waiting for more stuff myself, it's a big tag to stick on a GA - it'd actually be good to give this a shove towards FAC (timely with wikimania in Haifa too this year...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The "Early history" section seems to be hgely problematic. It mentions only Tell Abu Hawam and not Tell es-Samak (Sycaminum). There were two ancient port cities located in what is now modern Haifa. One at the foot of the Carmel mountains and one at the opening of the Kishon River. [4] Both seem to have been abandoned before Efa or Caiapha was established in the Roman period. I can see why the editor tagged the article for bias based on hat section alone, which gives too much space to biblical narratives, and not enough to scholarly works and archaeological evidence. I will try to fix some of it up, but help wold be appreciated. Tiamuttalk 20:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
By the way, Tell el-Semak is also known as Haifa al-'Atiqa. The nucleus of the modern city of Haifa was established by Daher el-Omar in 1764-5 by taking the population of Haifa al-'Atiqa, then a hamlet of about 250, one and a half miles to the east to a new fortified site, after which he laid waste to Haifa al-'Atiqa (Atiqa means "old" or "ancient", probably so named after the move). [5] Tiamuttalk 20:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources to mine[edit]

Benjamin of Tudela[edit]

Tiamut cites the PEF quarterly report of Jan 1876 (not 1875; there are two reports in the same file), which says (page 17), "the town Caiapha or Caiaphas (the modern Haifa), which Benjamin of Tudela makes to have been founded by Caiaphas the high priest,". The edition of Benjamin's travelogue I have (Adler, 1907) apparently doesn't say that at all. Benjamin wrote (page 19) "From there it is three parasangs to Haifa, which is Hahepher (החפר) on the seaboard, and on the other side is Mount Carmel, at the foot of which there are many Jewish graves." The editor says in a footnote that "the land of Hepher, 1 Kings iv. 10 is probably meant". The Hebrew text in Adler (page כא) notes some variations between manuscripts at this point. I don't find Caiaphas in this source but he could be somewhere with a name I don't know. Zerotalk 02:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that further Zero0000. Either PEF was wrong, or they are using another manuscript. Anyway I'll keep digging. Finding some strange confusion surrounding Haifa in ancient times, its names, its relationship to Sycaminum (also possibly Shiqmona?) As soon as things begin to make more sense, I'll add more to that section and begin to address some of the problems in the history section. Tiamuttalk 16:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Weird. This source says Eusebius' Onomasticon used Caiaphas Civitas to refer to Haifa (or Hepha). Other sources quote Eusebius (Onom. 108, 31) when discssing Haifa: "There is a town Sycaminus on the way to Ptolemais from Caesarea, also named Hefa." The same source disptes that identification. But this one accepts it as valid, noting further that Sycaminus is Shiqmona and this is all attested by archaeological evidence from Tell es-Samak (also called in Hebrew Tel Shiqmonah). See also this.
Anyway, do you have any insight as to how the first source gets Caiaphas Civitas out of Eusebius? I'm still looking for infomation of Benjamin of Tudela and the Caiaphas claim. This source attribtes the emergence of the name Caiaphas for Haifa to the Crusaders themselves. Its like a neverending trip through the rabbit hole. Tiamuttalk 17:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
No luck with Eusebius. I looked in two editions (Greek and Latin with notes in German) but I couldn't find anything. I found elsewhere a place "108, 31" that probably refers to some other edition of Eusebius (a page number and a paragraph number). Meanwhile, I found that John Maundeville (1322) says there was "a good city of the Christians called Caiphas, because Caiaphas first founded it; but it is now all waste". Perhaps our PEF writer mixed Benjamin and Maundeville? Zerotalk 21:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe. What should we do? Source and attribute the Caiaphas founding idea to Maundeville directly? Take it out altogether? And/or look around some more? I wonder now too about the Eusebius Caiaphas civitas reference. Not sure how to proceed.
The article needs a lot of work though. To be honest, I'm not sure it deserves GA status at present. It is missing qite bit of information, and gets some of it does have wrong. (Even before my additions :). Anyway, I'll keep trying to fill in the blanks, time permitting. Tiamuttalk 22:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe itemising the main omissions as you see them would be a start? And folks can work from there. I am not familiar with the city (apart from visiting for half a day many moons ago...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll try, but its a little complicated.
  • Sources listed under the section "Poor sources" need to be eliminated and replacements need to be found.
agree, and I think others on the page would too. That shouldn't be too hard. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Wherever the article pretends that Haifa's history as a city under that name dates back beyond the 1st century, this needs to be changed. There were predecessor sites to Haifa to be sure, and one of them Sycaminus even merged with the first Haifa at some point. But to pretend these were the same as the modern Haifa of today is embellishment. Also, the history section tries to pretend that settlement by the same group of people was continuous, when in fact it was not. The article currently does not mention, for example, that almost all the inhabitants were massacred after the first Crusader conquest. Problems like this should be fixed by reviewing the "Sources" section on this page and checking the entries for Haifa there against what we have.
  • Related to this are the problems in the "Early History" section which identifies Tell Abu Hawam as the progenitor of Haifa. This is misleading. While Tell Abu Hawam is located within the vicinity of modern Haifa, it was never named Haifa, and was abandoned long before Haifa emerged as a name for a place at a wholly different site in the 1st century. Tell es-Samak is much more central to Haifa's history and it is not mentioned in our "Early History" section (though it is obliqely alluded to by the mention of Shikmona (the Hebrew name for Sycaminum or Sykaminos. In general, the updated "Etymology" section needs to be checked against the "History" section.
  • The section on the 1948 war gives undue weight to Zionist narratives that the Arab poplation fled on orders of Arab governments. I see that people have tried to address this before (from a review of this page). I think the suggestions made there on how to deal with it are worthwhile pursuing. Tiamuttalk
There are other problems. But that's a start. Tiamuttalk 15:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Poor sources[edit]

Some of the sources in this article should be replaced if possible. In particular tourist guides and company web sites are especially unreliable as sources of history. They are in it to promote their own interests, so they are prone to present interesting myths even if scholars dismiss them. (Company websites might be ok for the activities of the company.) I note for example:

  • www.tour-haifa.co.il [6] (etc) — company web site
  • www.gav-yam.co.il [7] — company web site
  • Footprint Travel Guides (I have a replacement for this)
  • Mideastweb.org — self-published source
  • www.timeanddate.com [8] — highly reliable on time zones, sunrise times, etc, not on what it is used for here
  • www.ddtravel-acc.com [9] — company web site
  • Haifa foundation [10] — what is this?

Zerotalk 03:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Haifa is a mixed city?[edit]

90% jewish and 10% arab christian would hardly be a mixed city. Who writes this stuff? I also see on the city website that it is a multicultural city, hardly true with these figures. —75.159.96.176 20:34, 2 July 2013

Indian troops[edit]

The article says "....by Indian horsemen of the British Army after overrunning Ottoman positions armed with spears and swords". Under a close reading of the grammar this would mean that it was the Ottomans who were armed with spears and swords, but it could be slightly careless editing and it was really the Indians who were so armed. Which is correct? Diomedea Exulans (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The source says the Indians were armed with spears and swords. But the story has "romantic myth" written all over it. Zerotalk 07:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

William of Tyre[edit]

lived in the 12th century, but his writings are dated here to the 6th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.105.225 (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

December 1947[edit]

A few editors want to insert the text "On 24 December 1947, 4 Jews were killed in Haifa by Arab snipers." with the source "Gilbert, Martin (2005). Routledge Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-35901-5". Here is why it is not reasonable.
1. The source is a weak tertiary source that has the form of a book of pictures with a few words per page. Even if the author wanted to present a balanced view (which he obviously did not) the format simply doesn't allow it.
2. The information is highly misleading. In fact there was a ongoing violence from all parties during December. Here is a summary of fatalities reported by the Palestine Post, usually on the following day. (NB: I did it very quickly and probably missed some and made mistakes.) I'm leaving out countless shootings, bombings, etc, that didn't kill anyone.

Dec 2: 1 Jew
Dec 6: 1 Arab
Dec 8: 5 Jews, 1 Arab, 1 Brit
Dec 9: 9 Arabs, 2 Jews, 1 Brit (3 Arab deaths from wounds not reported until Dec 11)
Dec 10: 1-2 Arabs, 1 Brit
Dec 11: 6 Arabs, 1 Jew, 1 Brit
Dec 13: 1 Jew, 1 Brit
Dec 21: 1 Arab
Dec 24: 4 Jews, 4 Arabs
Dec 25: 10 Arabs, 2 Jews
Dec 26-27: 8 Jews, 8 Arabs, 2 Brits

Even on the 24th of December, as many Arabs as Jews were killed, and in total for the month more Arabs were killed. So kindly stop the nonsense. Zerotalk 09:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

So why did you decide to include only one incident in the article? It seems POV--ISavedPvtRyan (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The largest and most significant incident should be mentioned. Significant because it had a profound effect on the progress of the conflict. The other incidents were similar to what was happening all over the country and were not unique to Haifa. I put in a one sentence summary, but because Haifa was no different to lots of other places, if anything less violent than Jerusalem or TA-Jaffa, it is hard to find a single source that summarises the Haifa experience. Zerotalk 01:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
An update. I rediscovered my copy of Gilbert's Atlas and found that he did mention most of the events above. In particular, the fact that 4 Arabs were killed in the same day (in what he calls a "reprisal") is mentioned at the same place. I hope that those who kept inserting only half of what Gilbert wrote have the (feeble) excuse of not actually consulting the source. Whoever first aded it does not have that excuse. Zerotalk 09:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Haifa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

New York Times article about Arab culture in Haifa[edit]

See...

WhisperToMe (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Haifa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Outdated info[edit]

I noticed, particularly in the Tourism section, that information & figures are given from as long ago as 2005......surely in the past 12 yrs, there's been updates? I know nothing about this subject; was just looking up something. Is there someone more conversant with the subject matter who can find more current info? ScarletRibbons (talk) 07:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Haifa. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Correction of Search Link[edit]

If one goes to the Wikipedia homepage and types in "Haifa", the link that appears with the photo is captioned "Haifa City in Palestine". I am not familiar with where that entry is logged for purposes of correction, but would request that it be corrected.One-Off Contributor (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Problem corrected--erroneous entry in Wikidata listing.One-Off Contributor (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Haifa. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)