Talk:Jaffa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Egyptology Portal This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.

Contents 1 Usage of "Canaanite" as a form of "Hebrew" 2 Changes of Hebrew definitions 3 Palestinian propaganda 4 Israeli propaganda 5 Page is under attacj from Zionist Vandals 6 Political agenda 7 External links rv argument 8 Article name 9 Personal website 10 Modern Jaffa 11 Deleting links 12 Why is St. Peter listed in the medieval period? 13 Jaffa photos & review

[edit] Usage of "Canaanite" as a form of "Hebrew"

See comments regarding this at [1] IZAK 08:05, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Changes of Hebrew definitions

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#New "twist and turn" as "Hebrew alphabet" is switched to "Hebrew languages" concerning appropriate uses of the word "Hebrew" here. IZAK 05:33, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Palestinian propaganda

I have never in my life seen in wikipedia so much Palestinian propaganda. Calling the jews who fought for Israel "Jewish terrorists" in a war that the arabs declared on the jews is direct propaganda and racism. Adding personal opinions in brackets doesn't make it ok, Wikipedia shouldn't have personal opinions. Telling half-truths and full lies is also unworthy. This article isn't about the Palestinian refugees and it should not give their full story especually not the parts outside Jaffa. Just like it doesn't have the story of how israelis fought the Palestinians outside of Jaffa, and it doesn't tell the story of the Jews that were murdered in the waves of pogroms and fled from Jaffa. Thus, I am removing those parts, leaving only what is a true known fact, and related to Jaffa.

Adding so much Palestinian propaganda as "data" on those years while all the other years have a few paragraphs, is very suspicious. I will remind you that this is not the place to start the arab-israeli issue again ! By wiki-laws, you should avoide' such issues unless they are needed and not use Wiki as your own personal place for your propaganda. If you cannot talk about the issue from both of it's sides, don't mention it. Many of the things written here have no historical fact, not in any Israeli refrences or outside refrences that I checked in(for example Encyclopædia Britannica), so I can only assume they came from unbased Palestinian sources or from the writer's own personal opinions. Every info added on such topics should be taken from nutral places such as Britannica.

Also, i will remind you that this topic is about Jaffa only, and not about the Palestinians living in it. This topic doesn't specific what happend to the jews that used to live in it and got kicked out, to the british who returned home, and it shouldn't be about the Palestinians outside of Jaffa either. I removed any Israeli or Palestinian propaganda issues, especually those who are not even related to the history of Jaffa, and with it a lot of untrue things that were presented as facts. If you want to restore or add it again, or add more things that are controversial and might be pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian, please avoide editing war and write here your resources for that material and talk about if that material is a true known fact and related to Jaffa. I hope you will be mature enough to do so. Maglanist

To Zero000, Don't change the facts here without checking if its true or not, Wikipedia should bring the truth, and not the opinions of extreme pro-palestinians, self-hating jews are the worst of them. The fact that you take intrest in history clearly doesn't make you it's judge. from your userpage i assume you read hebrew, so here is the Tel-Aviv-Yafo city-hall link that talks about that subject. if i am mistaking, tell me and i will try to find that webpage for you in english.

http://www.tel-aviv.gov.il/Hebrew/Cityhall/History/history01.asp

as you can see, those events happend prior to the british mandate on Israel, during the turkish time.

So why did you put it in a part of the article that deals with the British Mandate? Anyway, your link is not a sufficient citation. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Hebrew one. The T-A city web page is the last place one could expect to find an accurate history. Besides, you deleted a large amount of sound material and aren't in a position to set yourself up as a judge of what is true and what isn't. Tell us of a sound English source for this claim. --Zero 23:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

so i made a misplacement, if that was your true problem, you would just relocate it, your only problem is hating Israel. Like it or not, Israel is a democratic country, as a democratic country, the news that are presented in it are real and accurate and doesn't side the israeli side(in israeli press, its usually the other way around as you should know). Just like to find facts on the war on Irland or the slavery that was in the US, you will look in british or american sources, while information about wars in Russia or China, you will prefer to look in outer sources. Ignoring that important fact shows you are blind with hate. ALSO, that information shows you when TLV was formed because of that issue, and it was formed before the british time, and you can check that everywhere you want. The information i posted isn't "for us", its for you, since you were the one declaring it was a british law. I can give you the same page in english, which will please anyone who isn't filled with hate such as yourself. If you want further information or changing information, i will tell you this: since this is a local jewish issue, i found information on it only in israel and jewish related sites, which are for you the same as TLV-Jaffa site, however, since its a knows fact that there was such a law, and even you agree with me there was such a law, I don't need to proove that the law existed. You claim that law was made by the brits, while I prooved to you it wasn't, and i can also proove to you it wasn't british in other ways, such as the mandate and british laws that show reversed behavior. If you say that law was british and TLV-Jaffo is lying, please show YOUR resources on that law being british. If you will give me a good and esteemed resources(and i hope you have one and you didn't just decided on your own that its a fact) i will have to agree with you and it can be changed to "law made by the british", though i doubt you will find it, since Tel-Aviv was founded because of those problems before the british conquered Israel. http://www.tel-aviv.gov.il/English/cityhall/history/history01.htm#matay Maglanist

Thank you for your personal insults; it helps to identify your type. The sentences you are inserting are nonsense. At the end of the Ottoman period there were more than 3,000 Jews living in Jaffa, a similar number to several decades before. According to you, they all had to buy new houses every year; what a lot of rubbish! I didn't say it was a British Law; in fact there was no such law ever. During the British Mandate, the number of Jews in Jaffa increased even more (7,100 in 1931). You obviously don't have a clue. --Zero 01:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

So tell me, all of the resources including the TLV-Jaffo city hall website are lying all except you? i didn't insult you, if the truth is hard for you, thats your problem. Check the history of editing of the article, you sayed that it was a british law, or is that an israeli sceme too and we edited it to make it look like you said it? Sadly, yes, the jews had to relocate every year, its written in ANY text about that issue you will find, ignoring that and calling it lies won't make it change the facts, and you know damn right that its a known fact and TLV-Jaffo doesn't just "make up" information. Also, TLV-Jaffo city hall has many arabs in it and it's known for it's extreme left-wing attitude, If any, information given there will be more pro-arab. Dismissing that fact just because it's written in hebrew is childush and stupid. Therefore I will have to assume you only care about attacking the israeli side, Given your acts, your reasons, your assults and outside this article, in how you showed such love to known self-hating israelis such as Amira Has. Please read the article we are talking about now to see the number of jews during the british mandate, you clearly didn't even read that basic. I cannot have a real true arguement about the truth with a guy who keeps making up facts and changing his own given facts according to what others say, instead of accepting he was wrong. For now, i will avoid restoring that information, since i simpley don't have time to start looking in english resource a local jewish-related law, however, should your palestinian propaganda continues, i will look for it(or simpley mail TLV-Jaffa asking for an english resource) and add it to the article. Note that this is not taunting you, it's actually the other way around, i prefer to avoid making it a problematic topic and home to arguements. I suggest you will do the same. Maglanist

[edit] Israeli propaganda

This page is clearly written mostly from one point of view, the Israeli or Zionist one . At http://PalestineRemembered.com/Jaffa/Jaffa/index.html are over 6 Oral History interviews (each over 250 minutes which you can listen) where Palestinian refugees recall their lives in Jaffa with great details. When you read this page, hardly you have mentioning of that Palestinians ever existed in Jaffa. On top of that, this page has quoted the mentions page without stating the reference, this is not ethical.

I urge you also to take the "riot" references to the Palestinian Intifada of 1936, this is an old Zionist propaganda that continues to paint Palestinians and Arabs as thugs and thieves. The uprising (or in Arabic Intifada) was politically motivated. The Palestinian striked for over 6 months with no-violence, resistance to the British Mandate intensified after wards. So this is a political struggle, and their is no political struggle absent from terror, violence, ..etc., but at the core it is a political issue.

[edit] Page is under attacj from Zionist Vandals

Hi this is to warn the Wikipedia community that this page like many others have come to the attention of propagandists from Isreal who trawl wikipedia trying to change history. This page was reverted by one of their ilk.

The attempt here was to hide the fact that Jaffa was an Arab city before 1947 and there was ethnic clensing that occured here - There is a gang at wikipedia that has gone about changing several pages to suit the Zionist concept of history, we appeal to all netutral historians to monitor this page and defend it against these vandals

lalit Shastri

you are right, there was a racial clensing that occure, before 1948 the arabs had laws that says jews can't live in the same place for more than a year, that was to allow arabs to purchese any houses they want within a year. after that the arabs of yafo simpley attacked and kicked all the jews from yafo, and that is the reason the jews founded Tel-Aviv. i will check now if this info is there and if not i will add it, thanks for the heads up. Maglanist

Articles can have both Zionist and anti-Zionist contradicting viewpoints portrayed as such. These articles should actually be non-Zionist, neither leaning towards the Zionist nor the anti-Zionist view. That is the point of neutral point of view. Instead of erasing Zionist viewpoints, you should instead balance them equally with anti-Zionist viewpoints where they disagree. Anti-Zionism is no more neutral than Zionism, because they are both weighted towards a viewpoint that is not neutral. I suggest that the article be edited to mention all the relevant viewpoints, and mention how they conflict, without taking a side or writing it in such a way as to suggest the reader take a particular side, and without suggesting that the user must necessarily take a side in the conflict at all. This an encyclopedia, not a political pamphlet. (This post was selectively cross-posted where this dispute has been seen.) - Gilgamesh 02:56, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Any information that does not fit in with the zionist narrative is removed and replaced with problematic highly onesided information (often erroneous) which, even if some of it is sort of true, usually does not give the complete scope of information available, but only what fits nicely into the zionist narrative. It amuses me e.g. sometimes but mostly makes me feel sad and frustrated. why can both narratives not be told, add you info, open it up for discourse. It's funny that, when Israeli historians actually admit Jaffa was Jewish only during the short period of the kings and that Jaffa had a tiny Jewish community until the very late 19th century, the rewriters of historyb keep falsifying the information , trying to create the impression of a "jewish city". In addition, any inofrmation about the serious social problems faced by the majority of Jaffa's residents today, whether they are Palestinians or Jews, and whether they live in Al ajami, the central areas of Jaffa ("Lev Yafo") or Daled or Gimmel neighborhoods, these bits and pieces of information are smply wiped out, removed. If people don't agree, ok, say so, discuss it, but wiping out any info that does not fit the touristy image of disneyland old Jaffa? I thought stalinism was over. I have tried to add this information so often (i am a resident of al ajami and a community activist in Jaffa), that i've gotten tired.

[edit] Political agenda

I read the article unbelievably. From reading it, it seems that history in Jaffa started in 1947 (Oh yea, there is a line about a Napoleon’s massacre and reading on something about the crusades).

Jaffa has a very rich history (it was first mentioned by Egyptians in 1470 BC), including a very rich Arab history, but some of those that wrote the article have no real intention in writing an encyclopedia. They have a political agenda to push. So 50% of the article is devoted to the atrocities committed by the Jews in 1948 in Jaffa and elsewhere. And of course when someone intervenes he is a Zionist vandal and propagandist. I would love to write the full story, but reading the above comments, I am sure that doing it would be a recipe for edit war which I do not have the time for. Avihu 13:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

A - This is wikipedia. every persons writes what he knows and not what you want him to know.

if an israeli jew wrote it, he probably knows more about the later times in Jaffa, and wrote them. No one wrote anything to cover up the fact that Jaffa was arabian after it was conquered by the arabs. If you have information on that time without slaming the jews and the israelis, add it. B - Stop trying to make jews and israelis look bad everywhere. On almost every city you will look here, the data is from the recent years, and not from many many years ago, even though most cities have ancient history. I didn't see you complain about that in any information about arabian cities, and especually not on cities that were conquered by arabs. Your message reeks of anti-semics, and I suggest you would tone yourself down. If you were really just concerned about the lack of information, you could have added it yourself like on any other page in wikipedia without attacking, or if you don't know any information, simpley write "can someone write here about Jaffa during the arabian period?" Maglanist

[edit] External links rv argument

OK, listen up. <soapbox> This is probably something for which there is, or should be a WP policy. The link that has been characterized as propagandistic (without getting into negative characterizations of wikipedians based on their in/ability to properly spell a few "difficult" words) is not necessarily intentionally propagandistic, but it is clearly written by someone with a strongly pro-"Palestinian Arab Nation" mythology POV, and as such, it ends up actually being propagandistic, intentionally or otherwise. There is a lot of useful information available at that site, but it adds nothing that can't be gleaned from the other links. While there's nothing prohibiting external links from having an expressed POV, I think that we, as wikipedians, should come together and discuss this kind of thing, in this case, based on the merits of keeping the link, rather than perpetuating or spreading a very contentious political issue through discussion rather than through reverts and edsum accusations. This is a perfect example of why these TALK pages exist and are, indeed, a GOOD thing. </soapbox> Tomer ^TALK 04:15, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

The link is indeed propogandist. Examples: the title "History of an old palestinian arab city." Jaffa is Phonician, Egyptian, Hellenistic, Roman, Crusader, Jewish and Arab, not just "Arab". in the article itself there is a very biased and one sided description of 1948 events. The IDF forces are reffered to as "Zionist bands". Much of the site is a long propogandist pro palestinian manifesto titled "Jaffa arabs voice support for palestinians", which has nothing to do with current Jaffa affairs. The site gives partial and biased (as well as POV) information, and I don't think Wikipedia should link there, or at least warn the reader of the nature of this link. Almog 05:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They do not appear to mention IDF soliders as Zionist bands. In 1947 and 1948 there was sharp fighting between Jaffa, which was largely inhabited by Arabs, and the adjoining Jewish city of Tel Aviv. On the 13th of May 1948 (A day before the proclamation of the State of Israel), the Arab forces in Jaffa were defeated after long fighting with the Zionist underground Haganah and Irgun Zva'i Leumi forces, and the city was occupied by these Zionist Bands. As mentioned, it's pov. El_C 06:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Although the city was taken in May 13th, and the IDF was officialy formed by May 26th, The Hagganah forces which took the city were part of the regular army that became the IDF two weeks later. They can hardly be reffered to as "Zionist Bands". Almog 06:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Two weeks later. It wasn't the IDF, that's all I was saying. Not to be pedantic, minor point, but still, technically, it wasn't the IDF. El_C 07:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The link <Jacqueline Schaalje, "Jaffa"> barely mentions the Arab period and intentionally avoids noting that in modern times the city had a large majority of Arab inhabitants. That is much more propagandistic than the link you don't like. Criticising the point of view of links is beside the point anyway, since POV links are a normal practice in WP. As for 1948, it was the Irgun that attacked and captured the city and the Hagana were only involved at the final stages. This was before the Israeli declaration of independence and before the Arab states entered the war, despite Jaffa being in the "Arab State" according to the UN resolution. In other words it was blatantly illegal with no plausible self-defence excuse. --Zero 07:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First, the Schaalje link can be removed as well. Second, Jaffa was not in the "Arab state" (and anyway the palestinians never accepted the partition). Third, Jaffa was a center for attacks and bombardments on Tel Aviv, and as such its taking was legal and in self defence. About the "Irgun" The fact is that the city surrendered to the "Hagganah" forces, and not to "Irgun" forces. Almog 07:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can find the actual map appended to the partition resolution at http://domino.un.org/maps/m0103_1b.gif (large). Take a look at Jaffa. If you want the borders more precisely, you can find them in the resolution itself. --Zero 07:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Some of Jaffa was an Arab enclave in the Jewish state. (While some wasn't). However, all of it is included in the internationaly recognized 1949 armistice borders, so it is in no way under "Military Occupation" Almog 07:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is silly. Instead of noting it as propaganda, which in the West has negative connotations, why not say: site with a pro Israeli, pro Arab/Palestinian pov? I mean, those sites, I haven't really looked at them, but they're pretty useful, no? Are they, with those issues aside? El_C 08:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Pro Palestinian link is less than useful because its political tendencies tends to warp the facts. Almog 09:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, but it may not be shared by other editors, such Zero and Mustafaa, so the comrpomise I outlined above can then solve this. We'll see what they and others have to say, and we can move on from there. Thanks. El_C 09:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In my drunken stupor, and I'm sure I'll agree with myself after I sober up, I came up with a solution to this, which is eerily similar to that suggested by El_C. Can we agree to reword the description of the link to something like "Description of the City from a Palestinian Perspective" or whatnot? I won't pretend to not have an opinion on the value of the link, but our responsibility technically ends at the boundaries of WP, not with the content of the links themselves. Therefore, what we need to decide upon is (A) whether or not the link should be included (which doesn't seem to be a point of dispute between the warring parties) and (B) how to describe the link (which seems to be the relevant discussion). So, let's try to find a compromise on the link description OK? Tomer ^TALK 10:32, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Snuh? I mean, heh! Anyway, I wasn't going to actually call it pov, that would be gay, and by gay I, of course, mean far too cheerful for a serious encyclopedia! I was going to call it: from an Israeli/Palestinian frame of reference, orientation, focus, or some other synonym. Yeah, prespective works, though proportion less so! Sorry, what? El_C 10:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you describe the external page as "Palestinian POV" it actually strengthens Israeli arguments that Palestinian public opinion by and large is rejectionist of the existence of Israel. Supposedly, it's the 1949 armistice lines - not the 1947 partition plan - that the Palestinians want as a basis for a two-state solution. --Leifern 10:50, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, what "the Palestinians want" varies from "Palestinian" to "Palestinian", and from day to day. That should come as no surprise, since the definition of "Palestinian" varies from "Palestinian" to "Palestinian", and even that, from day to day. That issue is not even remotely germane to this article. The revolt against saying that the article is POV is POV itself, as everything is POV, even saying "the sky is blue" is POV-dependent, as some languages don't distinguish between green and blue, and their native speakers don't have any way (or clear desire) to distinguish between shades of these two "obviously different colors". Women talk about "pink", "salmon", "coral" and any number of other made up apparently similar "colors", all of which are either "pink" or "orange" to me. I hope my drunkenness isn't clouding the point I'm trying to make. POV is inescapable. The issue here, however, does not seem to be whether or not the link is POV, but rather, how to describe its POV. I realize I kind of stepped into an ongoing argument (or growling fest, as it appears), but I'd like to see it resolved as amicably as possible. Tomer ^TALK 10:58, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Oh by the way, that "pro-Palestinian" link uses lousy English grammar, so it's clear that some "alien" is at work trying to "look intelligent" when in fact it's just a collection of cheap-shots to make Israel look "bad". (Why Arabs always try to appear to be the "victims" is a mystery worthy of the One Thousand and One Arabian Nights?) After all, there is a way of writing about the facts of history, and I don't think that anyone is denying that the Irgun got a few thousand Arabs to move out of Jaffa, far less than the million Sephardi and Mizrahi Jews that the Arabs got rid of during the Jewish exodus from Arab lands. As usual, all sense of proportion gets lost in all the back and forth here. IZAK 11:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a way to end this dispute amicably, so that we can all return to writing articles rather than talk pages, I'll agree to any description of the link that makes it clear that the link is biased, such as "Palestinian POV" or any phrasing of similar meaning. Almog 11:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If we can all agree on this, I move to open the floor for recommendations. Tomer ^TALK 17:33, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

"Perspective of a descendant of the Palestinians expelled from Jaffa"? - Mustafaa 19:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that's not what Tomer et al had in mind; it seems a wee bit, oh, I dunno, propagandistic? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is that what you think? According to the page, his parents are from Jaffa. Like IZAK, I am not aware of any dispute that the Palestinians were expelled from Jaffa. - Mustafaa 20:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we could add a little bit about the hardships they endured. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So your suggested wording is...? - Mustafaa 20:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about "Perspective of a descendant of Palestinians who were dispossessed and brutally expelled from Jaffa by terrorist Zionists, and have lived in abject poverty for 60 years as a result of the racist policies of the Zionist entity". Or we could go with "Palestinian perspective". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Palestinian perspective" (my original wording) is not entirely adequate. It fails to distinguish between the substantially different perspectives of Palestinian refugees and Palestinians in Palestine - the former, unsurprisingly, generally being more hardline on the issue of territory lost before 1967. - Mustafaa 21:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what distinction you are making; as far as I was aware, most Palestinian refugees are, in fact, "Palestinians in Palestine". Regardless, I'm sure you can come up with something neutral; for example "Perspective of a descendant of former Arab residents of Jaffa". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, less than 40% of the refugees are in Palestine. I find it distinctly mealy-mouthed to tiptoe around the accurate term "expelled" (just another case of Nakba denial...), but I would accept the more concise "Palestinian refugee perspective." - Mustafaa

Let's just stick with prespective/s (it's simple enough) and let the site/s do the explanation. El_C 23:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Palestinian refugee perspective works for me, too. El_C 23:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• While there are excellent reasons to not name it that, for the sake of peace, I concur with El_C. Tomer ^TALK 00:46, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

As most of the site is devoted to an article describing the devotion of current Jaffa inhabitants (Who are without doubt not refugees) to the palestinian cause, it is hardly apropriate to cal the link "Refugee's perspective". I can agree to "Palestinian perspective". Almog 04:32, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. Can we consider ourselves as having reached consensus on labeling the link as "Palestinian perspective"? Mustafaa? IZAK? Jayjg? Zero? Almog? El_C? Leifern? Tomer ^TALK 06:57, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Mustafaa's vote:

IZAK's vote:

Jayjg's vote: aye

Zero's vote:

Almog's vote: aye

El_C's vote:

Leifern's vote:

Tomer's vote: aye

__________'s vote:

[edit] Article name

Given that the city has not been called "Jaffa" during a time when Israel existed, this seems like an odd location for the article. john k 22:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

To be constructive, I'd suggest that this usage is prominent enough over other usages of Jaffa to permit this article to be at Jaffa, and the current Jaffa article to be at Jaffa (disambiguation). john k 00:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I third. Tomer ^TALK 07:19, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, will do. john k 07:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, even today in Israel Jaffa is called Jaffa, just that, in English. e.g. on Ma'atz roadsigns, it specificaly says "Jaffa", underneath the Hebrew "Yafo" and above the Arabic "Yafa", and from a purely linguistic POV correctly so. Also the municipality, in its official correspondence in English, uses the word Jaffa interchangeable with the word Yafo. Frankly, I don't know if my comments should be here.

This page has copied and pasted information from http://PalestineRemembered.com/Jaffa/Jaffa/index.html without referencing the source. The section I am referring to is : Jaffa had the most advanced commercial, banking, fishing, and agriculture industries in Palestine. It had many factories specializing in cigarette making, cement making, tile and roof tile production, iron casting, cotton processing plants, traditional handmade carpets, leather products, wood boxes for Jaffa oranges, textiles, presses and publications. The majority of all publications and newspapers in Palestine were published in Jaffa.

This page is heavily biased and tainted with pro-Israeli points of view. At http://PalestineRemembered.com/Jaffa/Jaffa/index.html there is over 6 Nakba Oral History Interviews to prove many of the fact that has been omitted from this page.

[edit] Personal website

I'd like to remove this website from external links, as it's one person's personal website, and he's not someone who could be regarded as a credible source (not an academic, specialist, journalist, or similar). In addition, the material he has on there isn't just POV, it's factually incorrrect. However, I saw in the history there was a bit of revert warring about it before, so I'm checking here first. Cheers. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:04, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

As there seems to be no objection, I'll delete it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:45, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

You didn't wait long enough. If you look up above you will see that there is a hard-won consensus to keep it. It is also no more propagandistic than the Schaalje article, and it is not all the work of one person but contains articles by others as well. Btw, which errors of fact did you notice? --Zero 11:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep, I like the pictures. It's a valuable resource. Also it has already been discussed and the consensus was to keep it but label it. // Liftarn

[edit] Modern Jaffa

The section reads as if it had been copy-pasted from a certain website to which the section was not explicitly referenced. The section must be rewritten and reference to good, reliable sources. Pecher ^Talk 09:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleting links

User:Pecher seems to be very annoyed with the link Jaffa City Home Page that I added. Could I please get an explenation why it is so important to delete that link? // Liftarn 13:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The issue of this link has already been discussed many times. It is a link to an anonymous personal website to which we don't usually link per WP:EL. Pecher ^Talk 13:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It's clearly not anonymous. http://www.jaffa.8m.net/about.html actually tells quite a lot about the webmaster. And as per WP:EL it should be included because "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article." and "other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article". I see no ground in WP:EL why it shouldn't be included. Also the claim that "this link has already been discussed many times" seems to be bogus. // Liftarn

I didn't notice the section on the webmaster, but again, it's just a personal website maintained by a non-notable individual; the site is neither neutral (it's obviously anti-Israeli), not accurate (Jaffa is not "military occupied by Israel"). Please read the talk page for all the discussions regarding this site. Pecher ^Talk 14:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The site isn't mentioned earlier. // Liftarn

It is correct that this site has been discussed many times, but the result after much discussion and a vote was to keep it with a "Palestinian perspective" label. See the section "External links rv argument" up above. You can reopen the discussion if you want, but just overriding the consensus of your own accord is not reasonable. I'll also note that the link "Jacqueline Schaalje, Jaffa" is worse. It is supposed to be a history of Jaffa but never mentions that Jaffa was ever an Arab city. This is pure racism. --Zero^talk 14:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The site definitely mentions Arab and Ottoman reign in Jaffa, as well as Jaffa's Mosque, so your arguments for link removal are groundless. Mag2k 18:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The site is a good and diligent study of Jaffa's history and contains much information not found in the article. Calling something "racism" is not an argument, but rather an umpteenth infraction of WP:CIVIL by the same editor. Pecher ^Talk 19:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it's fair to call it racist, but it certainly seem to go out of its way to avoid discussing the city's Arab-ness during the centuries after 1268, and to it doesn't mention the expulsion of the Palestinian population in 1948. At the same time, it goes to great lengths to mention any Jewish connections. It's clearly slanted, and misleading, but I don't think one can call it explicitly racist in any way. john k 04:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I see that http://palestineremembered.com/Jaffa/Jaffa/index.html has been mentioned, but never http://www.jaffa.8m.net I see no evidence of archived discussions either so please explain how it can have been discussed earlier. Anyway, if the consensus was to keep it it should be included and not deleted. // Liftarn

I agree this should be removed. It's just a personal website. We can't add everyone's relevant personal websites to articles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No personal websites or blogs, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Earlier the consensus was to include the link. // Liftarn

Including this link, which at first was inserted as the official jaffa city/municiplaity web site is an example of what is wrong with wikipedia.

It is not that this is a blog that is the problem (blogs provide usefull info and at some point wikipedia policy about blogs will have to change) .

It is the content of this web site (one sided propeganda, falseshoods etc...) that should not be included in wikipedia.

The person who originaly inserted this blog must have known exactly why he inserted it.

Zeq 05:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It is clearly not a blog and for being one sided itäs not more so than many other links included in Wikipedia. // Liftarn

It was 46 years ago, on May 13, 1948—the day before Israel's creation—that the all-Arab seaside city of Jaffa surrendered to Jewish forces. It was the largest Arab city in Palestine and, under the U.N. Partition Plan, was to have been part of a Palestinian state. But Menachem Begin's terrorist Irgun group began bombarding civilian sectors of the city on April 25, terrifying the inhabitants into panicky flight. At the time, the city's normal population of around 75,000 was already down to 55,000. On the day of surrender less than three weeks later, only about 4,500 remained. The rest of Jaffa's citizens had fled their homes in terror, becoming part of the 726,000 Palestinian refugees created by the war. Although Arab armies from neighboring countries did not enter Palestine until May 15, Jewish forces had been active in a campaign of ethnic cleansing since passage of the partition plan the previous Nov. 29. The first effort was aimed at clearing out Palestinians living in cities designated as part of the Jewish state

[edit] Why is St. Peter listed in the medieval period?

The Middle Ages started with the collapse of Rome, some 4 centuries later. Moreover, the climax of St. Peter's visit to Jaffa was not the resurrection of Tabitha, but a vision he received there (Acts X). Jancikotuc 09:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jaffa photos & review

I recommend that an external link will be added to http://www.biblewalks.com/sites/jaffa.html The site adds many original photos, information, references, which will be useful for the readers. Biblewalks 17:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)