Talk:Haifa/Archive 1

Transliterations, translations and spellings of the word Haifa
Regarding various transliterations, translations and spellings of the word Haifa: we must keep the number of those small, to avoid cluttering up the first line. I agree that Haifa as a multi-lingual city, having a Hebrew-speaking majority and Arab-speaking minority, should mention the name of the city in both Hebrew and Arabic. However, I don't see why we need several alternative English names - "Haifa" is the only way this city's is ever written, by foreigners and by Israelis. I never saw the spelling "Hefa" anywhere (actually used), so I would leave that out. Also, if you want to explain how to pronounce the Hebrew and Arabic name (because you're right, both of them are not pronounced like English-speakers say "Haifa"), at least don't make mistakes. For the Hebrew, you write something like "Hefah", and insist on the last h. Why??? The letter 'he' in the end of the word is silent. It does not get pronounced like an h. This is why I removed it, and I don't understand why you put it back. Also, the pronounciation guides should not be bold, because these are not official names or spellings, just pronounciation guides. Just my 2 cents.... Nyh 06:53, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Moreover, the "f" sound in the name is exactly the same letter in both Arabic and Hebrew, and pronounced exactly the same. So why use "ph" in Hebrew and "f" in Arabic pronounciations? Nyh 06:56, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Lay vs. Scientific transliterations

 * Well, the civil Modern Hebrew transliterations are for lay-people, ordinary citizens who want quick information. The secondary information I've been putting all over the place is a scientific transliteration of Hebrew used by linguists to represent all the dialect-neutral phonemes.  It's just for completeness.  I don't dispute the removal of "Hefa", but "Hêph&#257;h" is very good for all us dry academic researchers out there. :) Besides, other Israeli city articles have even more alternate names than this article, and they are all relevant to the history and linguistics.  See Akko and Ashqelon for examples.  As Haifa has a shorter history and only two languages, it only needs the three transliterations: civil/lay, scientific Hebrew, and scientific Arabic. - Gilgamesh 07:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC):I agree - for language freaks like me :), the linguist's transliteration is very useful.  It certainly doesn't reflect the modern pronunciation, but it's a pretty good guide to how Hebrew was pronounced about 2000 years ago, and it is a widely known academic standard.  I wouldn't want it to be the only pronunciation info, but personally I think it has its place. - Mustafaa 07:37, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'd say that's more like 1200 years ago, Mustafaa. But I agree anyway. - Gilgamesh 19:39, 12 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Since Haifa did not really exist (or existed in a form irrelevant to today) 2000 or 1200 years ago, all this is irrelevent. But even if it were, I think you guys are wrong regarding pronunciation: The final he (much like Arabic "ta marbuta") in words ending in "a" sounds (usually signifying a female gender) was never pronounced like a consonant "h". Hebrew has a special mark, a "mapik", which says that the he is pronounced (in Arabic ta-marbuta and he are seperate letters). In fact, I believe (from what I read once) that when Hebrew originated (say, 2500-3000 years ago) from some proto-semitic language, it had no vowel marks whatsoever. Kelev and Kalba (male and female dog) were spelled exactly the same, with three consonant letters, but pronounced differently. Sometime later people began adding imot kria - letters he, yod, vav, aleph - to ease reading in some cases, and the final he was one of those letters added, and as far as I know was never actually pronounced as an "h". Regarding the "f" vs. "ph" - I believe that the Hebrew and Arabic letters sound the same, and originating from the same proto-semitic sound, so I don't understand why spell them differently just because in Hebrew the "p" and "ph" sound are spelled with the same basic letter form while arabic has no "p" sound at all.

The shrine of the Bab on the side of Mt Carmel
The shrine of the Bab on the side of Mt Carmel in the center of the terraced Baha'i Gardens is not a temple. It is a funeral monument housing the shrine and body of the Bab, the first prophet, the precursor of the Baha'i Faith, and of Abdu'l-Baha the son of the second prophet of the Baha'i faith, Baha'u'llah.

It's a nitpick, but it's a critical nitpick to Baha'is, hearing it called a temple drives Baha'is slightly nuts. Thanks for listening. - rboatright

I always thought the Bab was buried in Acre and that this was a central shrine. Danny 05:01 Feb 11, 2003 (UTC)

No, Baha'u'llah is buried at the Shrine of Baha'u'llah at Baji outside of Acca (Acre.) the Shrine on the side of Mt Carmel is the Shrine of the Bab. The Bab's body is interred in a room the "right hand" side as you face the mountain, and Abdu'l-Baha is interred in a room on the "left hand" side as you face the mountain.

The white domed building is a superstructure built over the quite plain fieldstone building that actually houses the two rooms that are the shrines themselves.

The Shrine of Baha'u'llah at Bahji is the turning point of Baha'i prayers and is the direction that Baha'is face when praying. The Shrine of the Bab is more well known and promenent because it's half way up Mt Carmel and visible for kilometers.

Some changes I made
I made quite a few changes to the layout of the page, essentially cutting the the data into topical sections to make things look a bit cleaner. I removed some previous comment saying that "Haifa's cultural and social life focus mainly around football (soccer)" - This is not really NPOV, in my opinion. I consider removing the whole sentence about Maccabi Haifa and its championships, since there is already an entry on Maccabi Haifa. I also expanded a bit on Industries.

Some stuff that's currently missing:
 * Much more on the City's history
 * Museums
 * Festivals
 * Haifa film festival
 * Chag Kol Hachagim (how do you say that in english?)
 * The port
 * More on the city's neighborhoods
 * Environmental issues
 * Sacred places

Mikiher 21:26, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Chag Kol Hachagim can be translated as the "Holiday of all holidays" and it is an event the celebrate the Jewish Chanukah, the Christian Christmas and the Muslim Ramadan and promote co-existence, since they are all occure together around December. MathKnight 21:34, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The narrative in this article is primarily an Israeli one, and seems to neglect the point of view of the many current and former Palestinian residents of Haifa. Credible historians - including some Israeli scholars - offer a very different narrative than the one provided here. Significant information has been omitted from this article, such as a treatment of Palestinian history and heritage related to Haifa over many centuries, the explusion/exodus of Palestinians in 1947-48, and the current predicament of Palestinian Arabs within Israeli society today. Israeli historians and scholars such as Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, Elan Pappe, Baruch Kimmerling, Tom Segev and others have documented the factual basis and historical legitimacy of the events neglected here - citing previously sealed Israeli state archives among other sources - and have also chronicled some of the human experiences that tell the missing story. And Palestinians scholars such as Edward Said, Rashid Khalidi and others have offered similar narratives supported by documentary evidence, all of which is missing in the heavily Israeli POV offered here. A concise web source that offers a different POV can be found at http://www.palestineremembered.com/Haifa/Haifa/ - this is not an in-depth treatment but rather a summary, and I have not attempted to incorporate significant elements from this web page into the Wikipedia article on Haifa. Rather, I've made a few minor changes and removed a couple of obvious NPOV violations, in an effort to move in the direction of neutral POV, but this article remains significantly short of that goal. To reflect this, I added the POV warning until this article can be further rehabilitated. - GeorgeA

Chag Kol Hachagim is usually translated in Haifa municipal literature as "Festival of Festivals" which sounds better in English than the more literal translation noted above. I disagree with GeorgeA: the spirit of coexistence is certainly stronger here than the adversarial narratives proposed by Benny Morris (who has retracted many of his previous opinions) and Elan Pappe (whose graduate student Teddy Katz admitted in court to falsifying interviews from Arab witnesses). Whereas sectarian tension may be found in parts of Israel, there is not much evidence of it in Haifa. - John Kennedy, Kababir, Haifa, Israel may 2005

I AGAIN removed an outrageous, uncited reference to the population of Haifa in 1852; the source cited was "Rogers." No first name was given, nor was an article title, book name, or other referencable item given. 75.25.66.45 (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)lacarids, February 22, 2009

Recent Events
Am I justified in suspecting the contents of the "Recent Events" section is politicially motivated? --Admbws 01:29, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I was indeed playing with the thought of removing this section. In addition to possibly being pollitically motivated, it also looks a bit out of place in an encyclopedia article about a city (although the event itself was indeed painful and traumatizing to Haifa's inhabitants, along with the other 3 major terrorist attacks that happened in the city during the last few years). I think we can remove the Recent Events section or at least put it in the talk page for a while. -- Mikiher 01:51, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I've just removed this section. I've pasted it below for a while for the sake of objections. -- Mikiher 01:58, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The city of Haifa known more lethal massacre during the last 4 years, including the Matza restaurant massacre and serveral lethal bus suicide bombings. Among the victims were Christians and Arabs as well. MathKnight 21:34, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Suicide attack
On Saturday, October 4, 2003 the palestinian terrorist woman Hanadi Jaradat executed a suicide attack in the popular restaurant Maxim's in Haifa, killing 21 people and wounding 51 others.

Changes of Hebrew definitions
See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism concerning appropriate uses of the word "Hebrew" here. IZAK 05:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Various religions

 * Noted by Jews for the Cave of Elijah, Haifa is also cherished by the Christian and Bahá'í faiths.

What about Muslims and Druze? Don't they also recognize Elijah as a prophet? Michael Hardy 03:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV
Nothing written here is fair or balanced. Haifa was always an arab city and now it is in Israel, we the Jews took it. End of story. Joseph FRIEDMANN

This doesn't really seem to be a reason to call the article NPOV. Convention is to use the current political boundaries, and refrain from political discourse one way or the other. I'm going to remove the NPOV tag from the article - if you have any other reasons why this should be discussed further, please return the tag to the article and post your concerns here. Also be sure to sign your comments with ~. ESkog 04:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. If you think that a specific fact in this article is biased, please fix it or discuss it here. The fact that "Haifa" is an existing city, in an existing country "Israel" cannot be disputed. Wikipedia is about reporting the existing facts, not about wishful thinking on how you'd like the facts to be. I'm removing the POV tag. If you want, you can eleborate in the article about Haifa's history, about the size of its Arab population before 1948, and about how certain people (who?) still consider it part of an occupied Palestine which is yet to be liberated. Nyh 08:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know where I can find actual results for the 1993 and 1998 mayor elections? Or at least know what day they were on, I only know they were in November. Pimpalicious 09:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If you have a Hebrew calendar for these years you can find the dates. According to Israeli law, election day is the 3rd Tuesday of Heshvan (the 2nd month of the Hebrew calendar) in case the previous year was a regular one, or the 1st Tuesday of Heshvan if the previous year was a leap one (with an extra month).--Nitsansh 01:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * According to my calculation, election day was November 2nd in 1993 and November 10th in 1998.


 * I agree that if people want to see more info on Arab life in Haifa, they should add it. However, we have to remember that we wiki editing maniacs are not the only people who look at these entries - the general public comes here to get 'the facts.' Half the facts are missing here. Now, it is my view that if you create an article to begin with, knowing that you are only telling half the story (this is not a creative project, in which one has license to leave out whatever one wishes) then that set of ommissions reflects that the writer had a certain POV to begin with. I personally would not start an article on a controversial subject without including info from both sides. If I did not have the requisite info, I would just do the whole caption thing and wait until someone whno has more balanced information starts up the entry. Thus, I am reverting the NPOV tag until info is added about the Arab population's experience of the city, so that people scanning the internet will know to take this entry with a grain of salt, in other words, not to assume it is fully reflective of the main views of the subject, which it is not. Best,  LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the city's name
I am temporarily removing the the following sentence:

... The name Haifa is derived from the Levantine Arabic word الحيفة al-Ḥayfah meaning 'nearby,' ...

I have found no evidence that this is actually correct. In addition it does not make any sense - how can the name be derived from Arabic when the town is mentioned in the Talmud, much before Arabs even started arriving at the area. Can the person who put this provide the reference from which this was taken? Mikiher 12:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I just found that the above sentence (and the ones before it and after it) was takend from the Palestine Remembered web site. While they may be correct, please add another source to corroborate the facts - I have not been able to do so. Mikiher 13:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Image size
I bumped the image back up to 300 pixels, which is about the width of an infobox. Most pages seem to have that (non-representative sample: Budapest, Istanbul) or bigger (Mecca &mdash; 400px!); New York City has slightly smaller, but has an infobox next to the TOC. I'm not sure what to do if this page still displays funny, because in that case all of Wikipedia will display funny for you. --Mgreenbe 13:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Funicular subway
This paragraph:

''Other intracity transport options include a funicular subway and a cablecar. The Carmelit subway runs from Kikar Paris downtown to Gan HaEm (Mother's Park) at the top of Mount Carmel. With a single track, six stations and two trains, it is among the smallest subway systems in the world. The cablecar connects Bat Galim on the coast to the Stella Maris monastery atop Carmel; it is chiefly a tourist attraction.''

is confusing. It sounds like the thing being described is not a subway (rapid transit), but a funicular. Is this correct? I'm loathe to change the article when I know nothing about it, but it needs clarification as it stands... &mdash; SteveRwanda 17:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It is subterranean... --AceMyth 18:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, then I'll just change the subway wikilink to point to rapid transit since that's where the main page for this kind of transport now resides. I doubt this is particularly rapid, however, so you may want to alter it again, but metro, subway, underground and all such things are now represented on the one rapid transit page, hence the old subway link has to point there now. Or something. &mdash; SteveRwanda 18:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Do trams have a history in Haifa, or anywhere else in Israel?Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)

Well, AFAIK, there're no tram lines in modern Israel, and it seems that they never were in the past. --unpluggged 15:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

For the last few years a tram railway has been built in the city of Jerusalem. IMHO it is a mistake. Tram systems are very expensive to build and to maintain. A smart bus system can be much more efficient. --Man are from earth, women are from earth, deal with it! (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Referring to the Carmelit as a subway system may give the (wrong) impression that there is more than a single line. I propose to remove the word "system". --Man are from earth, women are from earth, deal with it! (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oil refinery massacre
One of the main reasons this city is remembered for is the oil refinery massacre that took place against both sides and the aftermath that followed. I don't believe it has been covered in sufficient detail and deserves its own sub-heading.

I believe the key points need to be included


 * Etzel was responsible for throwing the first bomb
 * Some arabs workers had tried to protect some of the Jewish workers in the retaliation attack
 * There were further reprisal attacks from Hagana's strike force palmah, in the villages Balad al-Shaykh and Hawasa not far from Haifa where some sixty men, women, and children were murdered and destroyed several dozen houses.

These facts are not in dispute as far as i know Thanks Zcaky06 01:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears that the massacre deserves more than a sub-heading; it already has its own article at Haifa Oil Refinery massacre. I had trouble finding sources for the Irgun connection, though one of the sources on the article claims that they took credit (I recommend the Palestine Post front page article and continuation). The Balad al-Shaykh massacre also has its own article, though the numbers seem to be a matter of dispute.  Tewfik Talk 04:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thats true, but the articles are extremely short an i see no reason to include the same details in this article since, as i have already stated, it is one of the main reasons this city is remembered. The edit i put was only a short paragraph and it is not as though this article is particularly large. Also the account reported in this article as it stands is very biased, it reports that arabs massacared the Jews, but it leaves the people who threw the bomb as undefined and it does not show the complex and bloody aftermath that followed. Basically, the only defined aggressors in this whole section are the Arabs and that is simply unfair and i feel that it is essential that my edit is maintained. If you feel that my wording is unfair then please feel free to edit, but please do not delete any facts that have been backed up with the source i have provided. Thank you Zcaky06 10:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC) By the way when i reverted the edit i left a comment which was supposed to say the Etzel claim is sourced, please check the link at the end


 * Hi Zcaky, I'm looking to Hebron and its method of dealing with the Riots in Palestine of 1929, i.e., including just the basic details relevant to the city's history, while keeping all the details of the conflict on their respective pages. I believe that this is accomplished on Haifa by mentioning the attack on the Arab labourers, and the subsequent killing of the Jewish employees. While the Palmach attack is relevant to the chain of events in terms of the '48 actions, I'm not sure if it's relevant to Haifa, though we can debate that. However, this discussion should certainly be expanded on the relevant pages. The source you provided may be sufficient for proving certain claims, but I'm not sure if it's a reliable source for all details of this matter, like the Irgun issue. Moreover, it doesn't provide any source for the Irgun statement, though I acknowledge that another (POV) site claims that the Irgun took responsibility, though again, without a source. Now even if we don't find a source for who carried out the attack, the reader can judge for themself that it may have been a Jewish group, though we cannot embark on original research. I'll continue below...  Tewfik Talk 00:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.mideastweb.org/refriots.htm

http://www.habonimdror.org/resources/arab%20israeli%20conflict/history.htm Above are other sources which also says that it was Etzel or Irgun that carried out the attack, there does not seem to be any confusion over who carried out the attack. Shere consensus of articles that aren't biased ( at least not against the Jewish people) should prove reliability so unless you can find an article that shows there maybe confusion over the perpetrators of the bombings i can't understand why you keep reverting it considering this is a very important point and prevents the article becoming plainly biased, further the Jewish Agency issued an apology for the attack. The Palmach attack is also relevent as it was intended to target the workers of the Haifa Oil refinery and also for giving a well rounded picture of the event. There is no point in being rigid in making sure what is said in one article is not repeated in another article at the risk of the individual articles failing to reveal the whole picture. Zcaky06 02:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Zcaky,
 * The Irgun/Etzel sources are carbon copies, and both are present on sites with agendas that preclude them from being WP:Reliable sources for this proof (neither quotes an exterior source either). I didn't include a reference to the Balad al-Shaykh massacre because I believe that the two events were included as background for why the Zionists felt they needed to occupy the city. The 1948 war article and/or massacre sequences would be more appropriate venues for expanding on the subject, though if you disagree, feel free to make a case. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 06:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's misleading to explain "why the Zionists felt they needed to occupy the city." For 65 years they'd been intending to seize as much of Palestine as they could manage (and Lebanon, and probably as far as Iraq). Ample evidence for that, from the people with the guns and the leaders planning to carry it out. PalestineRemembered 22:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but i strongly contest that there is a anti-jewish/zionist agenda in two of the sources i have provided, as the first talks of the event looking at the spread of communism and the second was written by a Jewish person looking how well Arabs and Jewish people worked together which was then published by the University of California, neither show a strong anti-zionist or anti-arab agenda. The fact that it was published by a reputable institution makes the article reputable even though it does not quote an external source on the following basis.

Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia.

I also disagree with the view to chop up facts from eachother and distribute them in different articles. The Haifa oil refinery massacre is not only an extremely important topic to Haifa but also an extremely sensitive one, it cannot be dealt with properly unless the whole picture is revealed. Thank you Zcaky06 12:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Zcaky,


 * I apologise for not being sufficiently clear - I didn't object because the sources were pro-Arab or pro-Jewish, but I was concerned about the socialist nature of the articles, one of whom is openly Marxist, and only in reference to a specific identification of the right-wing/revisionist Etzel/Irgun, especially when no documentation is provided. I was unaware that the second article was published by UC, and so I kept the Irgun reference, though I would still like to see a clearer piece of evidence. I should also note that NPOV generally doesn't allow for calling groups "terrorist" unless they identify themselves as such. In terms of a separate heading, it doesn't make sense to have a table of contents reading "History, Haifa Oil Refinery Massacre, Religion, etc." If you look at History of Jerusalem and Hebron, you'll note that the former only tangentially notes the major "massacres," while the latter, which is more analogous to Haifa, provides two lines on the subject of the 1929 events. In short, while it's important to mention that the massacre happened, this isn't the place for extensive documentation of the event. We can discuss the Balad al-Shaykh massacre's inclusion if you like. I believe that the refinery events are mentioned in the context of the Zionists' desire to control Haifa, though we can discuss this point. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 07:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, i will concede that it is not generally a NPOV to use terrorist, so i will not object to the exclusion of its use. However, after going through the links, my main problem is the way the Haifa massacre is now spread over three articles, the longest being 8 lines long. Also could you provide a reference that says the Arab Legion took part in the killings. Zcaky06 09:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Zcaky,


 * You're correct about the spread - unfortunately very little was written about the events. We can rectify that by expanding Haifa Oil Refinery massacre and Balad al-Shaykh massacre, so that anyone interested can follow the link and read the whole story. I have to say again that this has been a good collaboration, and I look forward to continuing work with you. As for the Legion, its best if we keep the discussion on the massacre page. For the sake of convenience: I was mistaken. I misread the original Palestine Post article (linked to on the Refinery massacre page), which accuses the Arab TAC (police) of taking part in the killing, and only mentions that the Legion may have harboured the rioters afterwards. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 01:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Peaceful coexistence???
I am aware that this city used to be considered an area where Muslims and Jews used to get along, but i am doubtful of the current situation, can someone please provide a source. Zcaky06 01:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it is still considered a city of coexistence, as in this Arab Councilor's quote. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 04:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks thats fine but i feel that the article should state as indicated in the source you provided that the peaceful co-existence is under threat of collapsing. Zcaky06 10:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The quote doesn't establish that "peaceful co-existence is under threat of collapsing," only that the concept of peaceful coexistence is commonly held with regard to Haifa. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 00:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Lebanese Rocket Attacks
On July 12, 2006, several rocketes were fired at Haifa, killing 2 civilan and injuring several more, I think that info should be added to the artice FinalWish

I strongly agree, and was going to say the same thing here too as the person above. =Joel==

It seems that if this information is added, it should be put in history. It appears that someone added it to the summary at the top. Any opinions?
 * Re Lebanese Rocket Attacks:


 * I strongly believe the rocket attacks should be left out of the article, as it detracts from the main focuse of what the article should be about - the city itself - and is only leading to what appears to be continuous vandalism of the page by both sides trying trying to present their point of views. Perhaps when the current conflict has resolved itself a small note can be added, but I think at the time being it should be removed.

Status of Hezbollah
The article describes the perpetrators of the rocket attacks as "defence of Lebanon organisation Hezbollah in retalation of the 310 lives lost, and infrastructure destroyed by Israel's bombing of their country." Being that the international community has designated Hezbollah as a terrist organization it is apparent that this article's description of it as a "defence" group is highly questionable. Furthermore, considering that wikipedia seeks to be apolitical, the second part of the setence is highly innapropriate, especially considering that the article focuses on Haifa, not on the reason of the fighting. I have tried to fix it and it was put up once again. I will try once more and seek the support of the wikipedia community in maintaining the quality and bias standards which wikipedia strives to keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.lightbulb (talk • contribs) 20:06, 21 July 2006


 * I Agree with the above posting. However here is the status of Hizbullah amongst Non Americans:


 * Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization. Only some countries like the United States say so, NOT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY many countries call Israel a fascist state. These countries include non Muslim countries as well. So should we refer Israel as a fascist state too in wikipedia.


 * Do you hear what goes on from Fox news; The Jewish owned press in many countries refer to Hezbollah as a terrorist organization?


 * Much of the Western News media is Jewish owned. In other non Jewish owned media Jews are predominant in the higher echelons of management. It is here we hear Hezbollah referred as a terrorist organization.

The Bush Blair agenda also refer to Hezbollah as terrorism, but wikipedia does not follow the agenda of political leaders even if they are from high and mighty countries.


 * The BBC used to refer to Hezbollah as a terrorist organization until the readers challenged the BBC to prove it. Now the BBC mealy refers to Hezbollah as a militant organization.


 * The US Government actually calls Palestinians fighting the military boot of Israel as terrorists. It calls the resistance in Iraq terrorist. I call Iran terrorist. Russia was called the evil empire by Ronald Reagan. However the CIA with their rendition flights and torture programs is just called a Agency


 * If we follow the Americans and call Hizbullah terrorist then The Israel Air force pilots are Surgeons:


 * What do we call the people who drop the huge daisy cutter bombs from F16s on children the Jewish press should call them surgeons as they make surgical strikes, and give employment to hundreds of Arab surgeons?


 * ALSO SOLDIERS ARE NEVER KIDNAPPED. IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE SOLDIERS ARE ALWAYS CAPTURED YOU CAN KIDNAP A CIVILIAN BUT NEVER A SOLDIER


 * ISRAEL HAS OVER A THOUSAND KIDNAPPED CIVILANS FROM LEBONON IN ITS JAILS AND HAS CAPTURED MANY HIZBULLAH SOLDIERS


 * Israel has over fourteen thousand Palestinians in detention for many years. Most of these can be said to be kidnapped as they are kept without trial


 * The hear the truth tune into democracy Now Broadcast on the Internet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * Not Terrorist?:


 * Please tell me how hezbolla aren't terrorists. Keep in mind, the American revolutionaries would also be considered terrorists today, though I feel that Hezbollah's actions have been deplorable. Their rocket attacks have been on civilian targets 100%. How does the imprisonment of lebanese justify targeting civilians?


 * The below quote seems biased to me. I would like for whoever put that in there to educate the rest of us and describe just how terrible a place Haifa was before the Jews came and worked their butts off to make it so beautiful. Please include pictures. Even if it's correct, the way that paragraph has been presented serves no purpose but to put down Arabs while putting Jewish people on some sort of a pedistal.


 * The city was predominately Arab pre-1947; however, over 85,000 Arabs fled to Lebanon. The beautiful infrastructure and vibrant economy of the city is due to the hard work of Jews who have setteled here. Their pioneering efforts have made the city one of the most beautiful in Israel. These immigrants who escaped from Germany and who were later joined by others from the USA have preserved most of the old city by converting old dwellings into luxury apartments while preserving the historic facades of the buildings.


 * I already deleted an entire paragraph that was poorly written regarding the current mess that's going on over there. I don't think it belonged in the "history" section, anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcm267 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 21 July 2006


 * My changes were reverted with a suggestion to see the whole talk page first, but it looks like there's not much disagreement with them actually written here. There's Talk:Haifa, but that provides no reason to keep a similar paragraph in the face of its citing no sources at all. Nysin 11:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Pointless reverting?
User:81.170.0.101 keeps reverting even edits initially of mine that, as far as I can tell, are completely innocuous by any reasonable standard, such as this and the change from "seaport" linking to Port of Haifa specifically. Is this just knee-jerk editing, or is there a reason for this? Nysin 16:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying here with these examples you're giving, but I just went through and tried to bring some order to this talk page and I found that there was a lot of deleting going on by a couple of people.


 * This is the first time I've seen people delete other people's statements on talk pages. The rational given is sufficient to remove such statements from the article, but not on a talk page. If you disagree with them then disagree without censoring them. If you don't want to argue then don't argue, but don't delete someone else's comment. This is the forum for the article. If there is censorship here then it will be nearly impossible to identify and reduce POV in the article.


 * Also, if you're responding to someone else's post, sign your name by writing ~, and please post under them in the same heading. There's no need to start a new heading unless you're starting a new conversation or the current one is getting really long. -LambaJan 01:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Re Lebanese Rocket Attacks
I strongly believe the rocket attacks should be left out of the article, as it detracts from the main focuse of what the article should be about - the city itself - and is only leading to what appears to be continuous vandalism of the page by both sides trying trying to present their point of views. Perhaps when the current conflict has resolved itself a small note can be added, but I think at the time being it should be removed.

We Jews unlike the Nazis do not distort or rewrite history, we also must not get emotional about the facts
Haifa had a small Jewish population and pre 1947 it was an Arab city mostly populated by Muslims. While not going into the rights or wrongs, of why the Arabs of Haifa fled to the Lebanon. The fact remains that Haifa is now a Jewish city. We will not try and pretend the Arabs did not exist and deny their existence. We have our own Holocaust deniers so what happened did happen and nothing can reverse it and we do not deny we forced them out. Haifa is now a beautiful city of Jews from Germany and America. Israel is an immigrant country and nearly all the population are first generation or second generation immigrants. We know we did not move into an empty land, nobody can deny this, the refugee camps of the Palestinians with 2.5 million refugees bear testimony to the fact that the land was not empty when we moved in. But all this is in the past. Three are many wrongs in History look at the plight of the Red Indians, Black slaves transported from Africa, Our of course our own Holocaust. Fifty years ago IS in the past, history, FULL STOP, we must not history interfere with the article on Haifa. What we must concentrate on as it is Haifa today in this article. We must write about work and achievement by these Jewish German and American pioneers who made the economy of Haifa boom. Sure there is Racism against the Arabs but then who can blame us, we are at war with them, the Muslims fire rockets at us. We are not angels but human beings - do not expect us to either love the Arabs or wish them well as long as they are at war with us we are entitle to treat them less than dogs. However we will not deny Haifa was pre 1947 and Arab town with very few Jews like the rest of Israel


 * First: would you please sign ( ~ ) your comments?


 * This person is doesn't know what he's talking about. The city's population in 1948 was a very easy to remember 100,000. Most of it was recent, as the port was built in the 1920's to replace the port of Acre. In 1948, the Jewish population was 60,000, the Arab population was 40,000, mostly of Lebanese origin. The Mayor was Jewish. The Battle of Haifa was a militarily stupid attack by the Arabs. It failed, utterly. What happened next is the single most disgraceful thing the Arabs did in the war -- they bugged out. The British retained control over the port and permitted ferries to carry the Arabs to Lebanon. Why they left has been a matter of speculation ever since, but no serious historian claims that they were forced out. I recently interviewed the son of a Haifa "refugee" and asked him why his father left. The man sighed and said that his father was never able to answer that question. If anyone buys the current Arab line that the Arabs of Haifa were expelled, I suggest a trip to a university library to read the daily news reports. They are very clear. Also, ask yourself why neighboring Acre is still entirely Arab -- the answer is simple. Acre lacked a port for Lebanese ferries. The Arabs couldn't leave. Scott Adler 23:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * First, if you are going to insert comments into old discussion, please give it extra indentation so the sequence is not confused. Second, your population figures are a bit off, as indicated below.  Third, your "mostly Lebanese" claim is complete fantasy.  Fourth, bringing respectible sources will get you further than just sounding off. --Zerotalk 11:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In any case, did you see this, this, this, this, this, and this? I note in each edit comment why I was whittling down each part of that paragraph you added back (and that another user just changed somewhat by shuffling sentences around). It's not about emotion, or distorting or rewriting history. Indeed, many of the historical statements in that paragraph this article already contains elsewhere, so removing that paragraph doesn't actually remove those statements. Nysin 13:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This page, as any in Wikipedia, requires objectivity and focus and would benefit by further editing and expansion. However, I'd advise against making unsupportable claims, as in the title of this comment, about "[we] Jews" not practicing distortion and revisionism in writing history. One needn't make comparisons to the Nazis, but take a sober and instructive look at past and present examples even in Israel alone (let alone Jews writing in the Diaspora). Education Minister Yuli Tamir's current efforts to restore the Green Line to maps in textbooks used in Israeli schools, for one! As for "letting history interfere [sic]  with the article on Haifa" -- many Wikipedia pages on geographic locations include content on the history, and such information is highly appropriate in an encyclopaedia article.-- Deborahjay 22:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

changes

 * My changes were reverted with a suggestion to see the whole talk page first, but it looks like there's not much disagreement with them actually written here. There's Talk:Haifa, but that provides no reason to keep a similar paragraph in the face of its citing no sources at all. Nysin 11:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

An explanation fior reverting, we also must not get emotional about the facts
Haifa had a small Jewish population and pre 1947 it was an Arab city mostly populated by Muslims. While not going into the rights or wrongs, of why the Arabs of Haifa fled to the Lebanon. The fact remains that Haifa is now a Jewish city. We will not try and pretend the Arabs did not exist and deny their existence. We have our own Holocaust deniers so what happened did happen and nothing can reverse it and we do not deny we forced them out. Haifa is now a beautiful city of Jews from Germany and America. Israel is an immigrant country and nearly all the population are first generation or second generation immigrants. We know we did not move into an empty land, nobody can deny this, the refugee camps of the Palestinians with 2.5 million refugees bear testimony to the fact that the land was not empty when we moved in. But all this is in the past. Three are many wrongs in History look at the plight of the Red Indians, Black slaves transported from Africa, Our of course our own Holocaust. Fifty years ago IS in the past, history, FULL STOP, we must not history interfere with the article on Haifa. What we must concentrate on as it is Haifa today in this article. We must write about work and achievement by these Jewish German and American pioneers who made the economy of Haifa boom. Sure there is Racism against the Arabs but then who can blame us, we are at war with them, the Muslims fire rockets at us. We are not angels but human beings - do not expect us to either love the Arabs or wish them well as long as they are at war with us we are entitle to treat them less than dogs. However we will not deny Haifa was pre 1947 and Arab town with very few Jews like the rest of Israel.


 * Again, this person is doesn't know what he's talking about. See my previous comment.Scott Adler 23:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not an explanation for reverting. Primarily, the paragraphs you (I guess - you're on a different IP than the other one doing those reverts) have done and are doing are simply redundant. Further, do you deny that this article frequently fails to cite its sources, in violation of WP:V? Nysin 14:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is unsourced.
I just went through and noted some dozens of unsourced statement. Unless someone can justify they're being sourced, they're endemic enough the tag to stay. Nysin 18:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm tempted to start going through the article, looking for statements not essential to describing the basic demographic, political, geographic, economic, and religious situation, and removing them; given that virtually none of the statements are currently sourced, and seem to have little hope of becoming sourced, it seems that this article shouldn't overextend itself. Objections (besides by that 8[01].x.y.z editor)? For example, the recent vandalism around claiming Haifa is "tolerant" I would remove outright unless it could be sourced, but (ostensible) statistics about the religious demographics of the city I would not. Nysin 22:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. Hopefully when I start doing this hitherto unnannounced users won't come out of the woodwork, indignant. The notion is to reduce the article to what it can't do without as a basic description of the city, whilst ensuring that all new additions are sourced. Nysin 03:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Tolerence of residents of Haifa
Nasin I wish these paragraphs to stay (First three introductory). I have included all your edits and thank you for your contribution to this page


 * First: you've sort of incorporated my edits. You haven't reverted as such, and in particular have kept the unsourced annotations, both sentence-specific and article-wide. That's progress.


 * However, you merely added back the same introductory paragraphs you added back before that are now doubly redundant insofar not only are my edited versions of those paragraphs in the religion section, those portions I edited out are, as my edit comments noted for each removal I did, already present in various portions of the article. Specifically, you appeared to ignore, rather than incorporate, this, this, this, this, and this. I'm not (yet) going to revert your addition, because you finally appear not to be editing entirely antagonistically, but do you dispute that not only do those five linked diffs highlight your adding information already in the article, but that rather thaer than having "included all [my] edits]", you've essentially ignored them in re-adding precisely the same paragraphs I removed them from without taking specific issue with my reasons for editing down your paragraph?


 * Once you agree not to keep re-inserting those five diffs' worth of sentences (or equivalent) in the article, then I'm more amenable to placing it somewhere - I'm not really attached to the religion section.


 * Finally, to point out the obvious - they're just as unsourced as anything else in this article. Do you have sources for them? Nysin 02:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Separate but equal
It didn't work in the US. Does it actually function as "equal" in Israel (assuming that part of the article isn't totally concocted)? Nysin 03:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Political agenda
I read unbelievingly the article and parts of the discussion. Surely the history of modern Haifa is more then the grievances inflicted by the “brutal” Jews on “innocent” Arabs? At the beginning of the 20Th century Haifa was a small town of about 20,000 residents (2,000 Jews) not 100,000 as is specified. How it evolved to be the main port in British Palestine and the center of engineering studies (see Technion) does not concern a bit those who have a political agenda to push. The only information they seemed to think is important is that in 1938 (in the middle of the great Arab Uprising in which 500 Jews were murdered) Jewish terrorists killed Arabs and that in 1947 because of the Jewish atrocity Arabs killed 39 Jewish workers. Shame. Avihu 04:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Whilst one cannot unambiguously read political agendas into people's edits, certainly numerous edits not particularly fitting the notion of "brutal Jews and innocent Arabs" exist:          . I'm especially fond of (my father was one of the original settlers there is no bias). The current state of the article is somewhat different, but it's oscillated. Nysin 10:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Haifa's climate
Does anyone else thinks that the recent change in the climate section (from hot, humid summers to hot, dry summers) is ridicules and should be reverted? Db1944 14:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

People of note born in Haifa
Should there be a section on this? Even though Gene Simmons is the only person of note ever born in Haifa.--74.114.107.77 02:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I created it (though you could've). The Haifa page in the Hebrew Wikipedia has nothing similar, so let's see if this heading will generate further content. Also, I'm not sure it's properly worded or placed in the sequence of sections on the page, so hope a more knowledgeable editor will adjust this if necessary. Deborahjay 22:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This was cut
The following was cut without comment. I notice that it had a tag on it, so I am not restoring, but I think it is a useful bridge, if someone can cite for it. There is little in the article now to suggest how recently the city was overwhelmingly Arab. - Jmabel | Talk 02:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"At the beginning of the 20th Century, Haifa had emerged as an industrial port city and growing population center. At that time Haifa district was home to approximately 100,000 inhabitants, comprised of 82% Muslim Arab, 14% Christian Arabs, and 4% Jewish residents."


 * Note it says Haifa "district". After some awesomely brilliant detective work, I believe that these numbers are the Ottoman statistics for the Haifa Kaza in 1905-6, except that the total is 4 times too high.  McCarthy (Population of Palestine, p52) reports: 19244 Muslims, 3302 Christians, 914 Jews; Total=23460.  For the city of Haifa, the 1905-6 figures were 3635 Muslims, 3185 Christians, 125 Jews; Total=6945.  In both cases, probably only Ottoman citizens were counted which would have missed many Jews (maybe most).  The city population during the British Mandate (Government of Palestine, Office of Statistics: Vital Statistics Tables 1922-1945) was 1922:  9377 Moslems, 6230 Jews, 8863 Christians, 164 Others;  Total=24634. 1931:  20324 Moslems, 15923 Jews, 13824 Christians, 332 Others;  Total=50403. 1944: 35940 Moslems, 66000 Jews, 26570 Christians, 290 Others;  Total=128800. The fact that Haifa's Arab population had far more Christians than the Palestine average is worth noting.-- I'm almost out of editting time for a week, so if anyone else would like to add this information to the article, feel free. --Zerotalk 11:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are Christians cut out of the article?
This article in the paragraph Haifa Today states that there are only Bahai, Arab and Jewish people in Haifa. Why are Christians not mentioned? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flembotembo (talk • contribs) 13:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Too many images
I think this article has too many similar photos. There are for example two almost identical photos of the Bahaii gardens from below (and an additional one from above). Which images should we keep? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

A Personal intro. to Haifa?
What was this: Doing in the external links? 1. just after what? 2000 IL-Leb invasion? what is this? 2. Who is the writer? 3. what does this mean? except the fact that the author has some fond memories \ ideas about Haifa? The only good thing I see about this is that it includes lots of pictures of Haifa. However, these are taken from very few locations. There are no pictures of most of the docks and bay, the student neighborhoods, The Carmel center and Moria, The technological industries park (MATAM), The Technion, Much more of the University + all pictures of "downtown"* Haifa are looking outside and not at the "downtown"* itself. (* "downtown" - is used in Haifa to refer to some of the lower areas - neighborhoods) 85.65.215.115 12:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A personal introduction to Haifa (PowerPoint presentation) — just after the 2000 Israel-Lebanon invasion

Can't Read part!!!!!!!
PIc covers some info —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.54.105.2 (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Picture Dilemma
Maybe the article needs to be on picture diet. There is a lot of pictures all over it. - Qasamaan 08:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, especially the 3 pictures of the Bahaii gardens are unwarranted. I think they should be moved to a gallery. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 12:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * the pictures need just be better distributed throughout the article. Deror 08:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Photos
The Bahai Temple is very nice but it is not the only site in Haifa, and there are far too many images of it! In general, the quality of the photos here is very bad. Some should be removed and/or replaced by better ones--Gilabrand 15:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
 * The photos here are getting worse! Why is that gigantic greyish blob splashed across the front of the page. If no one responds in the next little while, I will do the job of deleting and resizing photos on my own.--Gilabrand 08:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Etymology changes
Since there were a number of changes to the etymology section over time, I wanted to clear it up a bit. "There is also a possibility that the name may come from the Arabic word حفَّ ("haffa") which means "beach", or the word حيفة meaning the "suburb" or "side of the city". Another term which is very close to the name is حيفاء which is an adjective used to describe rare raining places ."
 * I changed the paragraph based on Alex Carmel's book to a direct quotation (translated from Hebrew by me), so it doesn't get mixed up with other paragraphs
 * I removed the following statement on grounds of improbability - the name of the city just cannot be derived from Arabic words, simply since the name appears in Hebrew sources (the Talmud) a few hundreds of years before Arabic became a spoken language in the area. If the editor who added this section wants to challenge this, please provide a reasonable translation of the relevant entry in the mentioned source (a dictionary, if I'm not mistaken):


 * There was one last explanation of the name for which I couldn't find the source (I may have even put it in myself a long time ago, but I cannot find the source now). I added a [citation needed] mark. Mikiher (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The origin of the name is UNCLEAR, I added the possible Arabic origin based on a current research. According to the latest results from this same research the name may have more ancient origins back to the Canaanites period (where the Canaanite Language was dominant before its evolution to other distinct languages such as Phoenician and Ammonite). The meaning of the word according to the research is "The Close" or "By Near". I will add these new findings once the research is confirmed and published. But until that time we have to provide all possible origins.Bestofmed (talk) 04:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review
The article does not meet the Good article criteria, and cannot be passed in its present state. There are still lots of issues which need to be addressed. Some of the more notable ones include (may not be a complete list, but should get editors pointed in the right direction):


 * Fix all of the 'citation needed' tags in the article. Reference citations are generally lacking throughout the article, which is a requirement for GA status. Specifically, the 'citation needed' tags MUST be addressed.


 * The lead section is too short. It should provide an adequate summary of the article. Please see WP:LEAD for information on improving this.


 * There's no section on demographics. This section should discuss the general makeup of the population and population dynamics. I would place it fairly early in the article: most city articles begin with: History, Geography, Demographics, Economy,...


 * Put climate into its own subsection within geography and expand the content. Expand 'neighborhoods' as well.


 * 'Arts and culture' is very short. Short sections such as this are discouraged, and need to be expanded prior to WP:GA and WP:FA status.


 * There should be a section on 'media'. It should contain information on local newspapers, weekly magazines, television and radio stations, and maybe even some limited popular culture (motion pictures filmed in the city).


 * Rename 'politics' to 'government'. While the overall political landscape is important, more inormation should be included about the government itself and how it operates; mayor/city manager, legislature/city council, municipal courts, etc. You might want to include information about how the city is represented in the national legislature as well.


 * In the 'education' section, convert the bulleted list of colleges to prose. Information should also be provided about primary and secondary schools, total number of enrolled students, and libraries.


 * In the 'transportation' section, try to weave the information about different transportation options into prose format better; eliminate the subsection headers for each one; eliminate bulleted lists.


 * Add an 'infrastructure' section, with information about electricity generation, water supply, hospitals and healthcare, maybe even police and fire protection.


 * The 'famous residents' list is getting a bit long. It might be advisable to move the to a List of famous people from Haifa article, and link to it from the 'see also' section.


 * The only thing that should appear in the references section are inline citations. The four items that appear in the bulleted list should not appear in references; if they cite information in the article, cite them directly using the inline method ('general references' that cite the article 'at large' are not acceptable). If they don't cite information in the article, move them to a new main section entitled 'further reading'.

Those are some of the major issues with the article. Hopefully, that will give editors some tips on getting started towards improving the article. I would also recommend taking a look at some of the city articles that are current Good articles. Taking a look at some of the guidelines and templates at WP:CITIES might also help as well. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Addressing of Points

 * Fix all of the 'citation needed' tags in the article. Reference citations are generally lacking throughout the article, which is a requirement for GA status. Specifically, the 'citation needed' tags MUST be addressed.
 * This is more or less fixed now. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The lead section is too short. It should provide an adequate summary of the article. Please see WP:LEAD for information on improving this.
 * Hopefully this is now an improvement. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no section on demographics. This section should discuss the general makeup of the population and population dynamics. I would place it fairly early in the article: most city articles begin with: History, Geography, Demographics, Economy,... Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Put climate into its own subsection within geography and expand the content. Expand 'neighborhoods' as well.


 * 'Arts and culture' is very short. Short sections such as this are discouraged, and need to be expanded prior to WP:GA and WP:FA status.


 * There should be a section on 'media'. It should contain information on local newspapers, weekly magazines, television and radio stations, and maybe even some limited popular culture (motion pictures filmed in the city).
 * Not sure if possible to create a large section here as so much of Haifa's media is national media--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename 'politics' to 'government'. While the overall political landscape is important, more inormation should be included about the government itself and how it operates; mayor/city manager, legislature/city council, municipal courts, etc. You might want to include information about how the city is represented in the national legislature as well.
 * Is the additional information neccessary seeing as I think it will be the same as in other Israeli cities. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In the 'education' section, convert the bulleted list of colleges to prose. Information should also be provided about primary and secondary schools, total number of enrolled students, and libraries.


 * In the 'transportation' section, try to weave the information about different transportation options into prose format better; eliminate the subsection headers for each one; eliminate bulleted lists.


 * Add an 'infrastructure' section, with information about electricity generation, water supply, hospitals and healthcare, maybe even police and fire protection.
 * Again - Im not sure this is neccessary as it is the same accross all Israeli cities. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is now a healthcare section - the only one which I think is possible to discuss here. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The 'famous residents' list is getting a bit long. It might be advisable to move the to a List of famous people from Haifa article, and link to it from the 'see also' section.


 * The only thing that should appear in the references section are inline citations. The four items that appear in the bulleted list should not appear in references; if they cite information in the article, cite them directly using the inline method ('general references' that cite the article 'at large' are not acceptable). If they don't cite information in the article, move them to a new main section entitled 'further reading'.

--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC) --Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC) --Flymeoutofhere (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Points raised by Ynhockey

 * Why is architecture under geography? Similarly, I find it a bit problematic that 'religious importance' is under history.
 * While it's by no means a requirement, it would help to have an audio file of the Hebrew pronunciation, considering there's an Arabic one.
 * Many of the images are formatted badly, and located for example at the bottom of sections and on the left, meaning they move section headers to the right (looks very ugly and out of place)

I could fix these myself, but don't have the time at the moment. Maybe tomorrow. Although I'm sure the nominator can take care of these small issues quickly.

-- Ynhockey (Talk) 23:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've addressed the first and third issue - if anyone can address the second, it'd be much appreciated. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review 2
I currently can not pass this article as it does not meet the Good article criteria. Specifically criteria 2 and 3. The article has improved much since its last review but it still needs some work. Here is a list of issues and reasons for my decision:


 * The 'Demographics' section is lacking in quantitative data. Some areas that data could and should be provided are: Race, density, litteracy rate, lifespan, etc. The article "Demographics of Hong Kong" can give you an idea of what sort of information to include, although I don't expect the section to be as comprehensive. I also noticed some demographics information located in the recent history section that could be moved or copied over. Also the population data in the Ottoman and Egyptian control section should be placed in the demographics section. This data could be compiled into a table such as the one found in the Hong Kong article. I tried to find some information to fill this gap but was unable to locate a source.


 * The 'Religious importance' section lacks sources for many of its claims. Also citation #19 is insufficient.


 * The 'Geography' section also lacks sources completely.


 * Additional citations are required in scattered spots. I will place citation needed tags on these. Either locate a citation for them or remove the claim.


 * Another thing I just noticed: Theres no map! See Category: Maps of Israel.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.--Drew Lindow (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your review - the feedback is really appreciated. I think I have addressed all the citation issues and have removed or hidden statements where I haven't been able to find anything. I moved a lot of that information into the demographics section although am going to struggle to expand it much beyond this point. In fairness, I dont feel it is insufficient in comparison to other current GA city articles, although I agree it would be nice to have a larger section here. Similarly with the map, in the short-term I am going to struggle to get a map for this article, although most GA city articles dont have one. Thanks once again - I really appreciate it. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Providing another opinion on the article, I still don't think the article meets the GA criteria, mainly on the completeness criterion. There's still just too many short, stubby sections with little text. Like 'Architecture'; why is this in its own main section? Usually, architecture itself isn't covered in its own main section, but rather, the different styles of buildings should be covered in a section about the neighborhoods, which belongs as a subsection within the geography section. You should discuss more aspects to the population and characteristics of the people living in the neighborhood as well, in addition to its architecture. Of course, the 'neighborhoods' subsection really doesn't tell me much about the development of the various parts of this city, and I would expect more of a discussion here for a city of this size. Likewise, 'climate' is very short as well -- a very short paragraph with most of the subsection dominated by the table.

I'm not exactly getting why there's a 'religious importance' section. I mean, like other cities in Israel, I would think that this is important, but I think it would be better if much of this were integrated into the history section, instead of putting it into its own main section, which could be construed by some as a violation of WP:NPOV. Especially with sentences like, "Haifa is also cherished by members of the Bahá'í Faith as it is an important site of worship" -- which is uncited, so we can't verify it, and it uses some rather flowery language as well, so it sounds like it's almost an advertisement. Also, with regard to, "Mount Carmel and the Kishon River are both mentioned in the Bible." -- so what? No, seriously, while it's notable that they're mentioned in the bible, the mere fact that they're mentioned is rather trivial. If this section were integrated into the history, it would help to put these two geographical features into the overall context of the city's development, and help to set the stage for why the city is where it is. But the mere fact that these two things were just simply mentioned in the bible is hardly worth writing about -- lots of things were simply "mentioned" in the bible.

The history section as a whole could use a rewrite, as there are also several short subsections in there, and these could be woven together better to tell the story of the city.

The lead section is getting better, but still needs work. It's still very short, and doesn't really summarize the article. Try not to repeat the phrase, "The city", to start sentences.

The 'arts and culture' section is very short. I am certain that more can be said about the local culture than what is written there.

'Government' is just a short, stubby paragraph followed by a historical listing of the mayors of the city. And the links to most of the mayors are red links. This smacks of incompleteness. The paragraph talks mostly about the city's politics with very little mention of the different offices, branches, and composition of the government itself, or the city's government services. There's a brief mention of the 2006 legislative elections, but this isn't put into context at all, so it sort of just appears as a "by the way" kind of offhand mention. The photo is of the Courts building, but no mention of the judicial system is written about at all! So we basically have a random assortment of miscellaneous bits and pieces that were probably added by several different people, with no connection whatsoever. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a classic Start-class article attribute!

'Medical facilities' section. Very short. Really just lists the hospitals and medical facilities in the city in prose format. Whoop-dee-doo! It might make more sense to combine this section with 'transportation' into an 'infrastructure' section. You could add a discussion of some of the city's other infrastructure, like electric generating facilities and a discussion of the water supply.

So I'm going to have to agree with the other reviewer's assessment here; the article is just not complete. There's still a lot of work to be done here. I hope these comments have provided more insight into the article and can help editors out better. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I saw this on the GAC page and had a look. I think having the first section of the "History" section as "Talmudic history" is problematic. This implies that the early history of this town is synonymous with early Jewish history. This may be correct if this town was in fact founded by Jewish people, but as people have been living in this region for a very long time this may not be the case. The section should begin with a section on "Ancient history" with a wider range of source material that clarifies who the earliest inhabitants of this town were. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

First inhabitants
Who were the town's first inhabitants? Canaanites, Phoenicians? This should be mentioned in the article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the second half of this line is clearly POV: Haifa was the target of many Hezbollah rockets during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, which caused suffering for Jews and Arabs alike. No need to mention that, in this way. Perhaps, you should just add the amount of people killed (ex. 100 Jews and 50 Arabs), the amount of rockets that hit the city and if possible the amount of damage. And of course a reliable source for it. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done and done. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you sir! Good luck on the GAC. BTW, I copy and pasted the history section of the article and created the History of Haifa article. We (the wiki community) could edit it and expand it from here. I added both project tags, so as to help the overlap issue. Regards. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

GA on hold (minor issue
Just give ref. to-

✅ Over time, it has fallen under the rule of the Byzantines, Arabs, Crusaders, Ottomans, Egyptians, and British and today is home to a mixed population of Jews and Arabs, as well as to the Bahá'í World Centre. (in lead). thanks. rest all the article is awesome. Sushant gupta (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion- Please turn those red links to blue in the section- Mayors of Haifa. though it is not necessary for GAC. but it will improve the coverage of the section. thanks, Sushant gupta (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I havent really got enough info to expand these to anything beyond one-liners. Let me know if I should do this? Flymeoutofhere (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Referencing
There is also a lot of redundant referencing, meaning the footnote is being used unnecessarily. Here are some examples:

✅ ''Between Haifa's medical facilities there are approximately 4,000 beds in hospitals across the city.[73] In 2004, there were a total of 177,478 hospital admissions.[73] The city's largest hospital is the government-operated Rambam Medical Center which has approximately 900 beds, and had approximately 78,000 admissions in 2004.[73] The municipal Bnai Zion Hospital and health-service run Carmel Hospital each have approximately 400 beds and had 35,000 admissions in 2004.[73] Other hospitals in the city include the Italian Hospital, a mission, and three private hospitals the Elisha Hospital with about 100 beds, and the Horev Medical Center and Ramat Marpe with 36 and 18 beds respectively.[73] In the city's three largest hospitals, Rambam, Bnai Zion, and Carmel, the average length of stay was approximately four days.[73] In 2004, the Rambam and Bnai Zion hospitals had bed occupancies of 96% and 94% respectively, whilst the Carmel hospital had occupancy of 104%.[73] In 2005, Magen David Adom had 48,103 operational dispatches with approximately 180 a day. About 1,500 of these were false alarms. MDA intensive care units saw 16,097 dispatches over the same period.[73] Furthermore, Haifa has 20 family health centers.[73]''

✅ ''Before 1948, Haifa's Municipality was fairly unique as it developed cooperation between the mixed Arab and Jewish community in the city, with representatives of both groups involved in the city's management.[69] Under mayor al-Haj, between 1920 and 1927, the city council had six Arab and two Jewish representatives, with the city run as a mixed municipality with overall Arab control.[69] The city changed towards more of a mixed society under mayor Hasan Bey Shukri's second term (1927–40) in which cooperation between Jews and Arabs in the running of the city was encouraged.[69] Whilst the two groups were treated differently in terms of needs, with Arabs coming before Jews, greater coexistence was fostered.[69] The major change in the leadership of the city occured in 1940, when the first Jewish mayor of the city, Shabtai Levy, was elected.[69] Instantly, the Jews in the city were no longer treated behind the Arabs. Levy's two deputies were Arab (one Muslim, the other Christian), with the remainder of the council made up of four Jews and six Arabs.[69]''

✅ ''Haifa is Israel's third-largest city with a population of 266,300, consisting of 103,000 households.[2][28] The population is divided between religions with 82% Jewish, 4% Muslim, and 14% Christian (both Arab and non-Arab).[28] The greatest origin of immigrants to Haifa is from the former Soviet Union since 1989, who now make up 25% of the city's population.[28] Despite this influx of immigrants, however, Haifa has seen a steady population decline, especially since 2001, and it is unclear what will happen to this in the future, with some arguing that the population will continue to decline, while others feel that, due to the performance of the hi-tech industry in the city, the negative immigration trend will end, or even be reversed in the future.[28] Haifa has an ageing population compared to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem as younger people have moved away from the city for education and jobs in the central part of the country, and young families have migrated out to bedroom communities in the vicinity of Haifa.[28] The changing demographics of the city are also affecting its religious split. In general, the Jewish residents of the city are ageing and the younger ones leaving, while the number of Christians and Muslims is growing.[28] In 2006, 27% of the Arab population was age 0-14 compared to 17% in the Jewish and other population groups.[26] This trend continues with 27% of Arabs aged 15-29, and 23% 30-44. The population of Jewish and other groups in these age groups are 22% and 18% respectively.[26] 19% of the city's Jewish and other population is between 45 and 59 compared to 14% in the Arab population.[26] This trend continues with 14% of Jews and others aged 60-74 and 10% over age 75, in comparison to 7% and just 2% respectively in the Arab population.[26]''

✅ ''Following the Israeli War of Independence, the city recovered relatively quickly due to the city’s role as gateway for immigration.[20] Thousands of immigrants were absorbed into the neighborhoods which were previously Arab, before new housing projects containing mostly blocks of flats, were built.[20] These new neighborhoods include Kiryat Hayim, a municipal housing project, western Kiryat Hayim and Ramot Remez, Ramat Shaul and Kiryat Sprintzak, and Kiryat Eliezer.[20] Furthermore, educational and public institutions were expanded and created incluing the Bnei Zion Hospital and the Central Synagogue.[20] In 1953, a master plan was created for transportion programme and the future architectural layout of the city.[20]

✅ ''In 1959, Haifa saw large social and community discomfort with riots taking place in Wadi Saliv totally. These formerly Arabic neighborhoods were subsequently demolished as people were moved to newer neighborhoods and replaced by modern, more functional neighbourhoods.[20] In the early 1970s, Haifa's population reached 200,000 and consultation about expanding the city began taking place with new neighborhoods and streets being constructed in the 1980's and 1990's.[20] The mass immigration to Israel from the former Soviet Union increased the population of Haifa by 35,000.[20]''

MoS
✅ Also, in the "Under the British Mandate" section, "Haifa" should not be emboldened and dates should be written in a consistent format and the year doesn't have to be present in every date if it's already written previously. For example, ..."On 30 December 1947 members of the... on April 21, 1948... was captured on April 23, 1948... on 21 April following...".

✅ Add conversion templates in the "climate" section for units of measurement and temperature.

✅ Add the English translation for "حيفاء" in the "Etymology" section.
 * There's already one there.

Broad coverage
✅There is barely any mention of Islamic Arab existence in the city in the "Byzantine and Crusader period" section. The section should be renamed. There's hundreds of years of Arab Muslim rule between the Byzantine and Crusader period. Their contributions to the city, their influence on architecture, culture, religion, battles fought there (if any) should be incorporated into the section. Did Haifa prosper under their rule? Or, if the Arabs did absolutely nothing in the city, this should be mentioned with a reliable source.

And finally, there should be another section for media, notably newspapers if possible. This is not all that necessary but it would benefit the article's coverage, because I know Haifa is home to many media outlets and newspapers. Do all this and I believe you got yourself a good article (at least from a quickscan, the prose seems good enough) --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are there many media outlets and newspapers based in Haifa? Can you give me a ref please because I really havent been able to find anything. There is a sentence in the arts and culture section which doesnt merit its own section really - I havent been able to get anything beyond this.


 * Thanks for this review. ITs much appreciated. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Your work and dedication to the article is much appreciated ;). As for media outlets, I know of some Arab-based newspapers like Kul al-Arab and the Arabesque Press which are located in Haifa. I'm sure there's Jewish-based newspapers, just got to look. Anyway, until more sources and content could be found/added, I wouldn't advise starting the section so its not stubby. This won't prevent the article from passing the GAN though, so no need to worry about it. I believe you have a good article now, again great work. Cheers friend! --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

GA pass
i really do think you have put in much of your efforts! the article is factual, neutral, well cited, and of-course it follows WP:MoS. i will gladly pass this article. congrats, keep it up! Sushant gupta (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Eshkol tower, or sail tower, or....
Someone please work on this, it's very very contradictory, or at least confusing? Which tower is now the tallest? (and how relevant is all this? - of it is, please explain a bit) "The Eshkol Tower at the University of Haifa was the tallest building in Israel outside Tel Aviv when it was completed in 1978 at 102 m. It was the largest university building in Asia until 1989 when it was surpassed, although it remained the tallest building in the city until 2002, when it was surpassed by the Sail Tower. With a total height of 137 m, this building remains the tallest building in the city to date, although with a floor height of 113 m, it was surpassed in this respect in 2003 by the IEC Tower at 130 m. " LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole article is a badly-written hodge podge of conflicting information. I don't know how it was ever upgraded to a "good article." Maybe it was, but it certainly isn't now.--Gilabrand (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Druze
I could've sworn Haifa had a Druze population? Is it just lumped with the Muslim 4%? --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The stat.s that were 'embedded' into this page a while ago didn't mention them. Haifa's Druze pop has got to be miniscule, not much bigger than the Armenian, however I'm sure it would not be hard to find stats at the ICBS. Daliyat ha Carmel and Isafiya are the two closest Druze centers, but are not considered part of Haifa. However, they are very very close, so one could justify mentioning them.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

1948 War - heading
The events described here thus far focus on events through April - however, mention of the depletion of the Arab population refers equally to the impact of the war itself, after May. Please do not remove mention of the war from the heading (or change its name), as it is obviously a vitally important turning point and the terminology has been agreed upon. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

High-Tech parks
I've been living in haifa for most of my life, and for my entire adult life. During this time, there was always a single high tech park (science industries center, AKA MATAM) in the city and not several parks, as written in the introduction. --Man are from earth, women are from earth, deal with it! (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Interpreting refugee motivations
Interpreting the refugees' reasons for flight should not be done unless 'both' views are represented with equal depth. At present, as edited, the range of interpretations are represented. I am pasting these quotes here, removed today, which gave UNDUE weight to one perspective: "The Economist explained its view: "There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit...It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades." "On May 3, 1948, Times Magazine interpreted the events thus: "The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city...By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa." [33]" I removed these quotes because, first of all, they were unnecessary - the basic concept had already been expressed through the current wording (i.e. Benny Morris and other scholars have shown that Haifa Arabs left due to a combination of Zionist threats and encouragement by Arab leaders, but mostly due to the shelling of Arab villages and neighborhoods. Foreign media coverage at the time emphasized the role of the Arab leadership as a motivating factor in the refugees' flight) and second, there were no quotes representing the perspective of Palestinians on the matter of their own refugee status. I would be happy to see the opinions/impressions of these individual reporters re-inserted, only in the event that we have a separate section on the controversy surrounding Haifa's Palestinian refugees which gives an NPOV presentation of various scholars' interpretations of the reasons that so many Palestinians left Haifa. Otherwise, what is there is sufficient.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't delete this passage because you don't like it - as you have been doing from the moment you set foot in Wikipedia. It is not undue weight at all. Your views are the ones that are getting undue weight. The Economist is a solid source.--Gilabrand (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the only passage I have EVER deleted wholesale from wikipedia, and I explained the reasons very clearly above, in addition to posting the deletions here for the sake of total transparency. If you look at any and all of my edits you will see that I am generally against deleting, and favor editing things down for conciseness instead. If you have restored the info, then I suppose I will have to go in and add Palestinian views for NPOV, as I said above. On another note, refrain from making accusations with a personal tone, especially ones based on 0 evidence. Finger-pointing with "it's not me that is giving undue weight, it's you," is also very unproductive. These two tendencies together make for an absolutely poisonous approach to communicating with other editors, very disrespectful.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "modern" :

Black Panthers
Can anybody substantiate the reference to "Black panthers" in 1959? I remember them being a much later phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.218.156 (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

More lies and disinformation by Wikipedia

 * The level of inaccuracy on the part of Wikipedia is off the scale when it comes to articles relating to Israel. It is becoming ludicrous. Buried in your articles relating to Israel are countless lies, half-truths, and myths.
 * Take for example the claim in this article that during the Wadi Salib riots, "police shot and killed several rioters". This is an absolute lie. No one was killed during the riots. 13 policemen and 2 demonstrators were wounded. 34 demonstrators were arrested. I have not been able to find evidence of live fire being used during the riots themselves, though the riots were touched off after false rumors spread that a man who had been shot and wounded in the leg by police had died.
 * Since the correct account of the events is given in the separate Wikipedia article "Wadi Salib Events", I believe that the false version in this article was added maliciously and with a defamatory intent.
 * Those who are interested in impartiality and factual information should be on particular lookout when it comes to Wikipedia articles relating to Israel.
 * On a separate note, I was just curious about how it is possible for the name 'Haifa' to have an Arabic etymology, when the first mention of the town by this name is during the Talmudic era (3rd century c.e.) as a Jewish fishing village, more than 3 centuries before the Arabs conquered the area. Surely, a Hebrew or Aramaic etymology would make more sense.
 * Jacob Davidson
 * Keeping Israel-related topics factual and truthful is a daunting task. There is indeed much disinformation out there, and no end of "editors" who are seething with malice and intent on pushing their warped version of history. If you have references to back up the real outcome of the riots, please add them. --Gilabrand (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Public transportation
I edited the transportation section because there were a few inaccuracies (regarding buses on Shabbat, the Metronit etc), because information about buses and railways was mixed together, and in order to clarify the intercity connections, so that a visitor can understand how the intercity transportation works. Image of me (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made some small changes, but the section still needs to be trimmed a merged. There's no need for 2-line sections, or 2-line paragraphs. Also please try to source the additions you have made. As this is a good article, entire paragraphs shouldn't be left unsourced for too long. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 07:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)