Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Jaffa


Untitled

Correction required: The Palestinian flag is incorrectly referred to as an "Arab flag" in the photo caption "Alhambra Cinema boasting an Arab flag, 1937"

Pejorative language: The use of terms like "riot" vs. "rebellion" or "uprising" to refer only to (presumably Palestinian) Arab people reinforces the Orientalist racist stereotypes of Arabs as inherently violent people.

Please correct these errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.58.79 (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of "Canaanite" as a form of "Hebrew"

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

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)

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 - Um, didn't it start when Israel tried to take over Palestine? -

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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

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.

I agree that the 1936 Palestinian uprising is not portrayed neutrally, but with a a strong anti-Arab bias.

The 1920s disturbances are also misrepresented. Especially the word "pogrom" should not be used since it implies the blessing of the government. In Palestine's case, the country was occupied by the British, who actually supported the Zionist Jews. The narrated history of the Mandate period also omits mention of Jewish attacks on Arab Palestinians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.42.42 (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed. Jayjg (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I third. Tomer TALK 07:19, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Alright, will do. john k 07:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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.

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)[reply]
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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. --Zerotalk 14:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Medieval period - Call for information

I hope someone may know a little more here and can add to the article:

  • In 636 Jaffa was conquered by Arabs: so which people lived there from 1 - 636? And which Arabs? Who was leading them? From the date I can guess a context but it is not provided here.
  • Jaffa was captured during the Crusades: when exactly? I guess it also happened in the context of one or more particular crusedes
  • Jewish traveller Benjamin of Tudela (1170)...: seems like an interesting source, but did he really just count the jews and provide no other information on Jaffa?
  • In 14th century they completely destroyed the city for fear of new crusades. According to the traveler Cotwyk, Jaffa was a heap of ruins at the end of the 16th century. - There must be more specific dates for both of these

Maybe not very Wiki of me to ask for extra info rather than provide it myself.... but from all the P.O.V. discussion it seems there are many people editing this page who know stuff - this is a request to use that knowledge in another way than just tilt the article in your direction :-) Klaasvanschelven 06:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg recently removed a link to Yudit Ilany's blog about life in Jaffa. I found the site a few days ago. Although the writer is Jewish, she seems to be quite sympathetic to the situation of the indiginous inhabitants of Jaffa. Her site provides a good window into the reality of day to day life of the people who live there. It also includes some excellent photos. Some of this material would definately add to the article. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 21:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blog. See WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, number 11. I'm not sure why her allegedly being "sympathetic" to the situation of Israelis would be relevant. Jayjg (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaffa as territorial border of Dan?

The article says:

  • "Jaffa is mentioned in the Book of Joshua as the territorial border of the Tribe of Dan, hence the term "Gush Dan," used today for the coastal plain. Many descendants of Dan lived along the coast and earned their living from shipmaking and sailing. In the "Song of Deborah" the prophetess asks: "דן למה יגור אוניות": "Why doth Dan dwell in ships?""

Judges 5:17 actually says: "Gilead abode beyond the Jordan; and Dan, why doth he sojourn by the ships? Asher dwelt at the shore of the sea, and abideth by its bays." To me this doesn't says that Jaffa specifically is a territorial border of Dan. Can someone explain to me the connection? The text also claims that the Descendants of Dan 'lived along the coast and earned their living from shipmaking and sailing' -- but cites no source. Can someone point me in the right direction for this? Thanks.

Christian Identity ,the Vision of Peter and the Gentiles

(text transfered here from the article with little changes) There are some new Christian sects and religions who contest that the so-called Gentiles in the New Testament mean simply "nations" and consider they were part of the Israelites exiled from Palestine. The Apostle Paul went to the Israelite brethren and brought them the message of Christ. The Gentiles (nations) are, following these beliefs, the many nations which came from Abraham and Sarah. These nations from Abraham would be found today in the Anglo-Saxon, Nordic and kindred people of Europe. This religious - racial theory is known as Christian Identity. Others, of course, reject this theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpt.schoener (talk • contribs) 22:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter's vision in Joppa was of eating "unclean animals" and not as described in the text. Knowitall369 (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jaffa 1948

I would like to delete: - 'The Arabs rejected the plan'. Not relevant, not neutral. - The attacks on Jewish buses near Netanya. - The call for General strike. - The estimates for casualties across Palestine. Interesting subject but not here. Instead I would propose: - 'Local notables of Jaffa National committee were generally against initiating hostilities.' A major concern was the harvest and export of the citrus crop on which Jaffa's economy depended. (Third largest export market after oil products from Haifa and diamonds from Tel Aviv). - In December, Mayor Yisrael Rokach of Tel Aviv and Mayor Yussuf Haikal (sic) of Jaffa issued a call to their residents to maintain peace and quite. - In February, Mayor Yussuf Haykal (sic) contacted Ben Gurion through a British intermediary trying to secure a peace agreement with Tel Aviv. The Haganah opposed.Padres Hana (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Jewish cemetery

Where can I find RS about the ongoing destruction of Jaffa's ancient Jewish cemetery? Chesdovi (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to see a comment on Andromeda's rock. Even if it just mentions this: "At the port city of Jaffa (today part of Tel Aviv) an outcrop of rocks near the harbour has been associated with the place of Andromeda's chaining and rescue by the traveler Pausanias, the geographer Strabo and the historian of the Jews Josephus.[3]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.85.211.196 (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Size of Jaffa?

Was visiting Tel Aviv in 2010, but hadn't enough time to see the southernmost part, i.e. Jaffa. Next time I'm in Israel, I will visit it. But must in that regards know its size to know what I'm up against. Do I need a whole day to see it properly, or what? Is it just 1 km x 1 km, as someone suggested, or much bigger? Hope for answers with actual numbers by people who knows. Best of all from real residents or people living nearby.

Stein S., Oslo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.128.106.111 (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Israel-2013-Jaffa 01.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Israel-2013-Jaffa 01.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 8, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-04-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaffa
A view of Jaffa, including the bell tower of St. Peter's Church and the minaret of Al-Bahr Mosque, from the Tel Aviv Promenade. An ancient port city in what is now southern Tel Aviv-Yafo, Jaffa is mentioned in the Bible several times in association with the stories of Solomon, Jonah, and Saint Peter. The town was captured by various groups over several millennia, including Arabs, Crusaders, Egyptians, the Ottoman Empire, the French, and British. During the British Mandate tensions arose between the mostly-Jewish population of Tel Aviv and the mostly-Muslim population of Jaffa, and conflict broke out in the late 1940s when the port town was to be included in the new Israeli state. In 1950, Jaffa was merged into Tel Aviv.Photograph: Andrew Shiva
Archive – More featured pictures...

If one goes to the Wikipedia homepage and types in "Jaffa", the link that appears with the photo is captioned "Jaffa old part of a the city of Tel Aviv-Yafo" [sic]. I am not familiar with where that entry is logged for purposes of correction, but would request that it be corrected.One-Off Contributor (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First settlement

The claim that the city was first settled in 7500 BCE is sourced to a dead link. Additionally, the page http://archaeology.tau.ac.il/?p=4803 (TEL YAFO EXPEDITION), which is likely the same as or similar to the original page, contains nothing remotely supporting that date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.45.141 (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Jaffa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crusader era......more info needed

Yaqut al-Hamawi (1179–1229) wrote that "Yafa is a city of Filastin on the coast of the Syrian Sea, and was taken by Saladin with the other coast-towns in 583 (1187). After a few years, however, it was seized on by the Franks in 587 (1191), but was again taken by Al Malik al 'Adil, Saladin's brother, in 593 (1196) and dismantled."(le Strange, 1890, p. 551)

We really need some more sources on the Crusader era times, here, Huldra (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

....and we need to integrate the Battle of Jaffa (1192) and Treaty of Jaffa (1192) into the article. (I suspect the Yaqut year of 1191 is actually 1192) Huldra (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sheikh muwannis

The paragraph is discussing the various changes to Tel Aviv's borders. Sheikh Muwannis was part of the Jaffa subdistrict until incorporated into Tel Aviv. How exactly is including that a problem? nableezy - 15:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the city of Jaffa, not about Jaffa subdistrict. The article doesn't even mention the subdistrict even once. How is Sheikh Muwannis relevant to the city of Jaffa? How are various changes to Tel Aviv's borders, apart from the integration with the city of Jaffa, relevant to the city of Jaffa? --My another account (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its background material, showing the boundary changes that Jaffa was a part of. nableezy - 15:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The section is "Boundary demarcation of Tel Aviv-Jaffa", which is relevant to every part of the expanded city. Removing a key step just makes the section less useful. Zerotalk 08:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, the section makes no mention of Al-Mas'udiyya, Al-Jammasin al-Gharbi, or Jarisha, which all became part of Tel Aviv, but have nothing to do with Jaffa -- somehow, just Sheikh Muwannis got this special treatment.
Besides, the purpose of sections is to chunk up the scope of an article, not to expand it. May I propose renaming the section in question to "Boundary demarcation between Tel Aviv and Jaffa" to make its scope less ambiguous. --My another account (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the section is following an excellent source and contains the points that the source considers important. Since Jaffa and T-A became one city, the story of how that happened is just as relevant here as it is at Tel Aviv. The other depopulated villages could be added too; S.M. is there first because it was easily the biggest and because the source provides data for it. Your text "the opposite (northeast) side of Tel Aviv from Jaffa" looks silly and has to go. SM was not on any "side" of T-A, it was 4k away. Zerotalk 12:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since Jaffa and T-A became one city, the story of how that happened is just as relevant here -- would you agree to rename the section in question as "Incorporation into Tel-Aviv"? Or "integration", or "unification", or "annexation", whatever -- just to make sure the section stays about "the story of how that happened", and not about any and all changes to T-A city borders. --My another account (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the combined city is not Tel-Aviv, but "Tel Aviv-Jaffa". It is plausible to go into greater detail regarding the unification process, which was complex. I think you are right that the section heading can be improved, though. What about "Integration with Tel-Aviv to create Tel Aviv-Jaffa"? Zerotalk 00:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

town hall

To editor Arminden: "'Serrani', Jaffa's town hall built by a Jewish architect during the Late Ottoman years". This needs a source. I'm sceptical because architects design buildings, they don't usually build them. Zerotalk 06:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Zero0000: hi. I will look for a source. Apart from maybe using poor English, I'm quite sure about it. Usually there were (are?) 2-3 specialists involved in larger projects, one might do the design, maybe following a sketch by a master architect (or the owner's), a structural engineer might do the actual calculations and create the final blueprints, then another might supervise the construction. Or one does it all. There are lots of examples for splitting the job, just came across another couple since yesterday, both from the same period, both with colleagues of different ethnoreligious backgrounds.

OK, I found it. Baruch Papirmeister from Rishon L'Zion (all this can be written in all the permutations known to you). There is one confusion possible, between the town hall, which got blown up in 48, and the building immediately right/S of it, the governor's residence, restored to become a museum before Erdogan got upset with Netanyahu, Israel and the rest. This I cannot figure out, as nobody reliable is trying to connect the dots, or show a picture. The 'Serrani' sentence is been copied by the whole Internet, with no single explanation what that is and why they call it that way. The 'Saraya' might be either the (blown up) town hall or the adjacent governor's residence. Here you go, maybe you can figure it out: here, and look for Papirmeister. You find again '"Saraya (Government House) in Jaffa' attributed to 'Papirmayster Baruch' on this page, based on the Rishon local museum archive. A less reliable page (here) suggests that Papirmeister's building would be the one still standing. If they're right, then I was wrong. It is confusing, two buildings sharing a wall and both are official municipality/admin. buildings. Whatever. Arminden (talk) 07:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of sources say that that the Saraya was blown up, including detailed accounts like in Milstein. It might have been rebuilt, so a modern reference to it doesn't prove it wasn't blown up. The name "Serrani" is hard to find, except in Wiki-derivatives, so I suggest that the name in the article be changed to Saraya. Your first source is enough to show that Baruch designed it. It is simply incorrect English to write that the designer of a building "built" it, and you'll note that none of your three sources uses that terminology. The two parties which can be said to have built it are the building company and the owner. The architect "designed" or "planned" it; I prefer the former since the latter is ambiguous. Zerotalk 07:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Zero0000: wait, wait! It's 2 buildings. 100% sure. Of the blown-up town hall one can still see the facade columns (look at the Anzac photo, you can see the facade. Now all the walls are gone, but the columns are like a landmark, kept standing & renovated.) The other one is fully restored, I'm sure there are dozens of pictures online. If you can figure it out, fine, but there are two buildings, let's not mix things up any more than they are. Saraya is how Saray (building) is known in IL/PAL, it usually is alone the seat of the governor. In Jaffa though a 2nd building served as some kind of town hall. Apart from that, my bad English can be fixed, or even better, the whole sentence removed, since I can't say for sure which building is which. Arminden (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here they are. Now (facade remains + renovated "saraya") and with both still standing (on the right side, residence first, town hall with columns right after it). And here are the Anzacs facing both. Arminden (talk) 08:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arminden: Great, I have a photo in a book of the aftermath of the bombing and for sure it is the building on the left. There is a loose-end here, though. Where does the name "Serrani" come from? Incidentally, Pal Post said that the "Old Serail" was bombed, which is a spelling version of Saray mentioned at Saray (building). Every reliable source I have calls the bombed building some variation of Saraya, so I think we should call it that too. Zerotalk 11:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: It's not Germany. I'd say the loose end should stay loose until we have some positive source. Ottoman governors were local despots, see Hassan Bek. The power was where the Pasha/Bey/Agha was.

I have done a lot of research and here is what I have. It seems that the bombed/columns building held the offices and the governor lived in the next door building: for the population & the press, both were "the palace" (serail, saraya). Think of the Sultan: the Power was called the High Porte, because a gate to the palace was all the populace got to know of "the Palace" = the Power. Who knows why the governor in Jaffa decided at some point to have two buildings.

The bombed/columns building is categorically NOT the Old Sarail, but the "New Sarail". There was an "Old Saraya", built by Muhammad Abu Nabbut (gov. 1807–1818) inside the old walls; this one is outside. I easily agree to drop "Serrani" if there's no source for it and either use town hall, which is a correct term and gives all the information one needs, or some variation of "New Sarail" or "New Saraya". According to Bshara quoting "Shukri Arraf, al-Saraya: Government Headquarters in Palestine during the Ottoman Era (Ramallah: Riwaq, 2016)", seray, sarai, or saray is the Turkish/Persian word for palace, and by contamination with an Arabic word for military detachment or brigade, sariyya (sing.) / saraya (pl.), al-saraya became the popular word for the HQ or seat of power in Ottoman times. Bedouin ruler Dhaher el-Omar & his clan has built several, so it was a decentralised matter for a while.

Why two buildings? Not clear. Were they built together? Not clear. Was the pretentious columns building with the faux façade rising higher than the actual building designed by Baruch Papirmeister? Yes, no doubt. Was the adjacent residential villa of the governor also his work? I cannot say.

The standing residential house, which was supposed to open as the "Turkish Cultural Center in Israel", is now also officially called the Seraya. That's now, not sure about earlier, when the office building was still standing. Here are the Commons images. They amalgamate the 2 buildings, as does the explanatory text on the plaque from the columns facade: it uses the term "saraya" for both buildings, as one complex. The usual mess. MAYBE Papiermeister designed both, but I doubt it a bit. However, even if the residence looks more traditional, it's the same shoe box (rectangular cuboid) after all... Only the decoration varies, and that makes a big visual difference. See also the Papirmeister article (Hebrew): easy to recognise the almost identical cuboid "style" of his buildings, with only the decoration distinguishing the one from the other.

Maybe the best photo so far, as it also shows part of the N side. The website of Eyal Ziv, the architect who restored the column facade & the residential villa, has all the visual info one can hope for. But nothing on who has designed the villa and when. Arminden (talk) 05:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have no good source for "Serrani", I'll change it to "Saraya" with a reliable source. We can't keep a name that we have no good source at all for. I have several maps that are detailed enough to pick out the building that was blown up; a map of 1918 calls it "town hall", and maps of 1929 and 1930 call it "governorate". Neither of them label the building to the right at all. However, on the next detailed map I have, 1943, the "governorate" has moved to another building 500m east (which probably explains why PP called this one Old Serail and why in 1948 it housed the National Committee and not the Sub-District administration). Zerotalk 12:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000: The Brits had no reason to also adopt the Turkish governor's residence, a relatively small Oriental town house probably not to their liking. By the time of the bombing, the Arab leadership (National Committee or otherwise) had moved out of the old town hall. Not sure when, probably between Nov. 1947 (UN partition decision) and January 1948 (bombing), but maybe even earlier. Arminden (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here one more photo with both buildings. I'm not sure it is indeed from 17 Nov. 1917, Nov. 1917 is when the Anzacs conquered Jaffa, I don't even know if they made it there by the 17th, but 1917-1918 is good enough for most purposes. (c)-free. Arminden (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Arminden: If the Survey of Palestine labelled the building as "Governorate" then that's what it was. Also, Milstein quotes from intercepted phone calls of the chairman of the Jaffa branch of the National Committee after the bombing that make it quite clear that the NC had not left. Incidentally, a Hagana guy told Milstein that Hagana had been planning to bomb the building until the Lehi got in first. Zerotalk 03:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Zero0000: I don't get you. I'm happy to learn, but what are you saying? You wrote that "maps of 1929 and 1930 call it governorate", but the 1943 map shows that "the governorate has moved to another building 500m east". I was talking of 1948, so 5 years after the "governorate" moved out. What was the columned-facade building in 1948, still the "governorate" or not? And I was buying the Arab argument that by 4 Jan. 1948 the building was only being used as a "social services" site with a soup kitchen for poor children, and the militias' HQs had moved "to the suburbs". Was it still used by the "National Committee"? Besides: what's meant by that? The Arab Higher Committee? What I know is that the Jewish militias had an eye on it because the leaders of the different "gangs", i.e. the various Arab militias, were working out of that building. The Arab Higher Committee was the Mufti's faction, he didn't control other factions and I think Jaffa had several, probably including local ad-hoc citizens' units. I think it's another case of "fog of war". Militias don't keep numbered cubicles & offices, they probably had stuff in that building, met there when convenient to try and coordinate, but also had their strongholds in the "suburbs", where they would gather in the house of a leader or supporter (call it HQ if you want). The Mandate worked European-style, some of the Jewish organisations maybe tried to, a few Arab notables might have; the rest went about their business the Levantine way. It would help to know why the Mandate officials had fully abandoned the building - maybe the 1943 map gives the answer to that: Brits out, "Arab Higher Committee" & local factions, militias and notables in. But it's guesswork, again. Arminden (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Arminden: In the early mandate it was a Government building; "governorate" implies that it was the administrative headquarters of the Jaffa Sub-district, which had a Governor. This changed sometime between 1930 and 1943 when the governorate moved away. Some time between then and 1947, the National Committee moved in. The National Committee (Al-Lajnaha Al-Qawmiyyah) was formed in 1936. In addition to a country-wide National Committee there were National Committees in many towns and cities. The story is confusing because National Committees were also formed in 1947, supposedly under the direction of the Arab Higher Committee but in practice largely independent. The Jaffa NC in 1947 included Mufti opponents as well as supporters. Zerotalk 06:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

aerial photos 1937

Jaffa 1937
Jaffa 1937

I think these photos are rather good & should be included. Padres Hana (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are good. A problem is that the article is crowded -- can you suggest images to remove? Zerotalk 14:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tricky question. My first reaction is the one with British soldiers & the sniper attack one. Could all the ‘tourist’ shots be put in a gallery? To complicate matters I found a photo of cars being brought ashore by the boatmen. Maybe ‘landing at Jaffa’ needs an article of its own! I think if you look carefully at these two you can see the areas demolished by the British the year before. Perhaps I am the wrong person to ask because I have already cluttered up several articles with archive photos - some of which do need weeding. Padres Hana (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The photos definitely are informative, but need photoshopping (margins, but mainly CONTRAST). I'm not in favour of removing the snipers photo, it stands right after the bombing photo and together they make sense. Also, the WWI photo is very good, WWI is usually left aside, and it shouldn't, it had a huge impact, is mistakenly pushed to the sidelines. Arminden (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I cropped and adjusted contrast. Caching might prevent you from seeing the difference for a while. Zerotalk 03:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Maybe next to the 3 maps? They're like 3D additions to the maps. And I think regrouping some of the photos in galleries is a good idea, with just the most relevant ones left next to the respective text paragraphs. Arminden (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daily life in Mandate Jaffa & Tel Aviv: not what nationalist purists are trying to present

A great read: Maayan Hillel, Under the Radar: Arab and Jews Crossing Cultural Boundaries in Mandatory Palestine. Hillel got her PhD from TAU, this is a lecture based on her thesis and held no later than 2013. It contains an August 1927 quote from the Falastin newspaper that's absolutely perfect for T-shirts & any future Forest Gump remake: "The Jewish woman will be kind enough to drown in the sea of[f] Tel Aviv [rather than Jaffa]." It's the conclusion to a story of how Arab men/boys saved a Jewish girl from drowning. Followed by a story of national appropriation from the opposite side from 1935 Tel Aviv, but w/o the incredible punchline character of the Falastin quote. People lived, let live, and helped each other stay alive; ideologues scoffed at this fact. Not always, but as a general norm. Arminden (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How long was Jaffa a Phillistine town

It is clear that Jaffa (Biblical Joppa) was a Philistine harbour town and nowhere in the Bible there is a claim of it being taken over by the Israelites. In the old Testament there are only 4 references, firstly in Joshua 19:46 geving the tribe of Dan land against Joppa, never claiming Joppa itself as part of Dan, unlike f.i. Ekron, even though that also remained a major Philistine centre, even becoming the seat of the Assyrian governer of Philistia in the 7th century. Then it is for a long time not mentioned again until IIChronicles 2:16 claims it was used as a port for the cedar wood of the Lebanon for the building of the first temple. However, the book of Kings (which is a much earlier source) doesn't mention that and it is likely that this is just an echo of Ezra 3:7 telling that cedar for the second temple arrived via Joppa. Cronicles is usually supposed to be written by Ezra, but might even have been written much later. The last reference is in Jonah, as a port of transportion to Tarshish (wich is probably a late fictional work).

Interestingly, both the stories in Kings and Chronicles mention the cedars being transported as floats, which would be a totally logical thing to do at that point in time as ships would be to small to transport large numbers of beams. As an added bonus this would need no harbour to land them, they could just be beached anywhere that was convenient. One would certainly not use a harbour for this, with the difficulties of navigating it into a harbour and risking blocking it and damaging ships. So the retelling in Chronicles has probably mixed these two events. However, between the 9th and 5th century ships had certainly become a lot bigger, so a transport of timber by ships might be a possibility at that point in time (any shipwreck archaeologist might have some insights on this?) So the story in Ezra might be historical (he is not mentioning floats) and ownership of Joppa is no problem at that time, as both Joppa and Jeruzalem were in the Persian empire.

So i wonder: is there any clear archaeological or historical evidence on what was the last point in time this port was part of Philistine? The present article is very unclear and the claims it was taken in the time of king David and Solomo does not seem to be based at any facts so should be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codiv (talk • contribs) 14:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Norris Hamilton

To whoever in dealing with potential edits: Victor Norris Hamilton, listed under "notable people," died in 1997. Dorothy Kernaghan-Baez (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2022

change is an ancient port city in Israel. to is an ancient port city in Palestine.

[1] MKweight (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think WikiPedia admins are the ones who are respnsible to say so. The references provided can end the controversy. MKweight (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ references:- https://www.britannica.com/topic/mandate-League-of-Nations https://mobile.twitter.com/Shaimaa32A/status/1532526682036371461 https://omniatlas.com/maps/southern-asia/19460928/ https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/map-of-the-middle-east-1930 https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/map-of-jewish-settlement-in-palestine-1881-1914 https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/map-of-ottoman-administrative-districts-1915

Map of historical boundaries

To editor Artem.G:, To editor Onel5969:, To editor Crash48: User-generated maps are always based on published maps and their reliability rests only on the reliability of the published map and the faithfulness of the copy. There is no requirement for another source. In the case of the disputed map, the 1944 maps made by the Survey of Palestine are an excellent source for the 1944 boundary. The only thing I'm concerned with is the 2022 boundary: Crash48, can you give more information about that? Zerotalk 14:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's Tel Aviv-Yafo now—one city, not two—and I don't know how the boundaries of Jaffa are defined in 2022. This was one of my concerns with this map. Boundaries of 1944 should be fine if they are the same as in sources. Artem.G (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The current boundaries of Jaffa are clearly defined on the municipality's website: https://www.tel-aviv.gov.il/Transparency/DocLib4/%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%9C%20%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A2%207.docx --Crash48 (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I admit I'm wrong - but if you cited the source right away, there would be no misunderstanding. Artem.G (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2023

Change "1129 peace treaty" to "1229 peace treaty" in the lead section. The typo is here in the second paragraph: "... as well as a later 1129 peace treaty. In 1799, Napoleon also sacked the town...". Md143rbh7f (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 February 2024

Please add the following pronunciation as it is the most common one:

Hebrew pronunciation: [ˈjafo] SuzieMillen (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That pronunciation is already included in the article. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2024

I would like to request a recorded pronunciation of the Arabic spelling of "Yafa" similar to the pronunciation provided in Hebrew.

"Jaffa (Hebrew: יָפוֹ, romanized: Yāfō, pronounced [jaˈfo] ⓘ; Arabic: يَافَا, romanized: Yāfā, pronounced [ˈjaːfaː]), also called Japho, Joppa or Joppe in English, is an ancient Levantine port city which is part of Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel, located in its southern part. The city sits atop a naturally elevated outcrop on the Mediterranean coastline." Siwar.mansour (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Before making an edit request to add a file to an article, that file needs to be uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons. If you speak Arabic, then you can record yourself speaking this word and upload that recording. If not, I suggest asking one of the Wikipedians who speak Arabic. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jaffa