Talk:Tel Aviv/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

Neighbour[ing]

The article content switches off between American and British spelling of neighbo[u]r. Since the American spelling outnumbers the British by 12-3 in the article (including a wikilink), normally I would change it all neighbour spellings to neighbor. However, use of British spellings such as labourer and symbolising seem to indicate a preferred British spelling throughout (although use of the American specialize supports the opposite view). What does this all mean? It means I think that one spelling of neighbo[u]r[ing] should be used for basic consistency, but I don't know which is better and leave it to the primary editors to decide. -- Michael Devore (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - Ive changed them to US spellings - If Ive missed any could you please let me know. Many thanks--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, you not only changed the neighbor words, you Americanized (USA-ized?) the other spellings. Since you did that, I'll change symbolises to symbolizes, as it is in the same sentence as symbolizing. -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Lacking a map image

It would be nice of this article had a map of Israel showing Tel Aviv's location within Israel. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I included the location within the Tel Aviv District. I think an overall Israel map would help, but this is somewhat helpfui too for now. Maybe I'll add a complete map later. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism section

The "Terrorism" subsection is highly POV in tone, with constant reference to the word terrorist or terrorism (such as in the heading itself) which are WP:AVOID words unless they are in placed in quotes. Also the section is quite listy and reads more as a timeline. It should be converted to prose. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The attacks on Tel Aviv are said to be terrorist attacks whether you think so or not. The word terrorism is used only once in prose in the article so I dont know where you find the idea of constant reference. Can you please provide an alternative heading for consideration? Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I do agree that as-is, it's still a violation of WP:NPOV. The terrorism is directly connected to the issue of Israeli independence, and these events are part of that. It seems to me like the easiest way to solve these NPOV issues would be to combine the 'terrorism' section into the 'after israeli independence' section, and discuss how these events relate to the overall problems that Israel is facing. Using the "terrorism" buzz-word isn't exactly telling the story of Tel Aviv's past, which is what we're trying to accomplish here. Instead, it seems to be capitalizing more on people's emotions and fear, and ending the history section on that note, rather than on a historical one. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
OK - that sounds fine to me - I just dont know how to do it - could you perhaps help, Dr Cash. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I've had a go at merging it into the main part of the section - I've removed the list of attacks and just picked out three key ones, and removed the word terrorism. Hopefully this is now ok. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that the previous 'terrorism' section was generally a bad idea for an article of this caliber (there are more specific articles which sufficiently cover the topic), I also resent the current version that the previous one was toned down into. For one, the use of the word terrorism should only be discouraged for POV accusations against militants. It should not be discouraged for actual terrorism, such as suicide attacks exclusively against civilians. See Category:Terrorists for a definition, for example (this is also touched on in WP:AVOID).

Secondly, it should again be split into another section (under history of course). Currently, the paragraph about terrorism weighs heavily on the 'after independence' section, which should be much much larger. Because any info on terrorist attacks would talk about attacks between 1994 and the present, it cannot logically be part of another chronological section, which would also have completely unrelated events from these years.

-- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The section itself does not need to be titled terrorism by the way. A sufficient NPOV title could be 'In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict', or something like that. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh - I see what you mean. I think that that is a good idea although we need to ensure that the 'After 1948' section has enough information to make it look like this sub-section isnt dominating over other historical events. Do you have any ideas of what else I could put in/what is best to which wouldnt be too repetitive? Flymeoutofhere (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I've added to the section...is that better. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

Relating to the FA nomination, I have a few comments about the lead section:

  1. It consists of two large paragraph, the 2nd one being huge, with many vaguely connected themes. It should be examined what does and what does not belong in the section, and how to format it. I pretty much support keeping all the info the lead currently has, except: The "White City", as it came to be known, was designed by German Jewish architects who fled Nazi Germany and covers an area in the north of the city, which is a detailed sentence which belongs in the article itself. The second paragraph should also be split into two - one about history (founding, Jaffa, UNESCO), and the other about being the center for economic, cultural, etc. activity.
  2. The White City used to be in northern Tel Aviv, now northern Tel Aviv refers to the area north of the Yarkon River, while the old area is appropriately labelled the 'old north'. I'm not sure how to phrase this in a few words so as not to overclutter the lead, but this should definitely be corrected (better to just say that it's in Tel Aviv, and provide details in the actual article).

That's it for now, hope it helped. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Yn. Ive had a look at that and have worked it accordingly. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
OK - Ive done that. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

More information about trends and political movements?

I find this article severely lacking in some things which are very important identifiers of Tel Aviv. Here are a few points (the reason I'm not adding this info myself is because I don't have time to look for sources at the moment):

  1. I remember that in the last election, much of Tel Aviv elected the Gil party, which says a lot about voting trends in the city (apathy to voting for one) - I believe that many articles have been written about this issue.
  2. Tel Aviv's extreme liberalism in sexual and LGBT rights matters: Tel Aviv is an LGBT haven, and I saw a while ago about the astronomical percentage of gays living in Tel Aviv. There's also the Pride Parade, which is conducted in many cities, but defines Tel Aviv like no other. Additionally, I believe the first ever sex festival in Israel was held in Tel Aviv this year (or last?).
  3. The green movement seems to be very strong in Tel Aviv. Not only did the city shut off its lights yesterday, but also cycling is unusually common in the city, and the municipality is taking steps to encourage it, as well as discourage the use of private vehicles by narrowing streets, making it harder to find parking, and creating more bike lanes.

These things are probably worth adding for the comprehensiveness of the article. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I've added a bit more about the political results of the last result including a sentence about Gil. I dont really know what/where to write about the second point. If you could help with that, itd be much appreciated, whilst I cant find a source for the cycling and discouraging of vehicles point. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Tourism statements

I've noticed two problematic tourism related statements that border on brochure territory. The first is in the intro, about TA being a "magnet for tourists". This should be changed to something like "TA is one of Israel's biggest tourist attractions" (with refs, of course), or dropped altogether.

The second is at the end of the "after Israeli independence" section, stating that "things" have improved since 2006. It's too vague, especially considering how little "things" have improved in the Israeli-Arab conflict. It should be replaced by some reliable statistics, or dropped. -- Nudve (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've changed this. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Before the next FAC

Can someone please either authoratively scource (and this means to a reputable historian) or remove this stuff: Jaffa has been a fortified port town for at least 4,000 years and is believed to be the oldest port in the world.[16][17] and the associated claim further down? According to the archaeology, Marseille has been settled for 30,000 years; Pireaus for 28,000 years; and Dover for 10,000 years. These are all ports. As it's only 4000 years old, Jaffa cannot possibly therefore be the oldest port in the world. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the issue here is the definition of "port" or "port town". I am not an expert, but somehow I find it a bit hard to believe that 30,000 years ago Marseille cavemen actually built an active commercial harbor in the modern sense of the word. But Roger Davies is right, and this statement should be clarified and better sourced. -- Nudve (talk) 07:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps this is better now: "Jaffa has been a port for at least 4,000 years, with some claiming that it is the oldest port in the world" - it states the historic fact of 4,000 years which I dont think is being disputed, and saying that some claim, because some do claim this. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe "reputedly" is better than "is claimed", to emphasize the hearsay nature of the argument. Even so, the Jerusalem Post article won't be enough. You'll need a more serious source. -- Nudve (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
With great respect to all, the insistence on unsourced and implausible claims like "oldest port in the world" is the reason this article has failed three FAC nominations. We can be as dismissive as we like about cavemen but the fact remains that there was extensive trading/bartering in the Stone Age as the archaeological record proves. Dover has Beaker folk artefacts about 4000 years old, which makes it as least as old as a trading port as Jaffa. It also has an excavated Bronze Age boat, carbon-dated to about 3500 years ago. Why should Jaffa be older as a trading port than Dover or Piraeus or Alexandria or Marseilles? And what is the evidence, the actual hard evidence, for claiming this? --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
If Jaffa has a plausible claim to being the oldest port in the world, there will be reputable scholarly sources to confirm this and the other contentious claims in the article. In the absence of scholarly sources for these claims, it is undue weight to repeat the claims and beliefs of interested parties (such as Israel itself) or non-academic sources without at the very least explicitly addressing the contrary view. Maralia (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I've toned this down taking out all about it being the oldest port/claims for this, and just keeping 4,000 years. Ive put in about when the earliest archaelogical ruins were found from. Ive moved the world city claim out of the lead so hopefully this addresses the issues. Please let me know what else needs to be done before I enter for a peer review (in which I think I will contact all commenters during the FAC. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
It's still in the lead. --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
So it is - thanks - Ive removed it. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

OTTOMH, I've thought of a couple of things:

1.) The Reading Power Station should be mentioned. 2.) In the education section, perhaps something should be said about the whole "college area" in the north. -- Nudve (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

1-What section do you think this should go in?
2-I'll do this. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I would say under economy, no? -- Nudve (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Book reference

I added a reference to Ruth Kark's book on Jaffa that has gone awry as the result of someone's recent editing. The author is Prof. Ruth Kark. There is no co-author. The publishing company is Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi. Is there anyone who can fix this? Thanks--Gilabrand (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry - I misread your ref. Its fixed. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Jaffa

Just a little more background on the Arab and Crusader rule of Jaffa should be mentioned before skipping several centuries to the Mamluk era. Also, the section mentions Jews immigrating to the town without stating its overwhelming Arab Muslim and Christian majority at the time. No need for a lot of text since its an article on Tel Aviv, but these points should definitely be addressed before the next FAC. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Good points. I've got some good sources on this and will add them shortly. --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. I've still got a fair amount on but should be able to start serious stuff on this on Wed. --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

History section

This bit: Archaeological evidence shows that it was the site of permanent settlement some 7,500 years before the Christian era.[15] The earliest remnants discovered to date are from the end of the second century BCE.[16] is contradictory. The first sentence says the earliest evidence dates it to 7,500BCE; the second says the earliest evidence dates it to 2nd century BCE. What do the sources say on this precisely, please? --ROGER DAVIES talk 18:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

OK - source 15 is the Tel Aviv University dig website which states that they have found a Middle Bronze Age Gate as well as Late Bronze Age, and Iron Age ruins. The second source, I dont know but will contact the editor who added it to comment. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother, to be honest. The dig website is easily comprehensive enough and covers a wide time span. No point in overdoing it :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I just did! It shouldnt matter though, anyway. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Beefing up etymology section

Some points:

  • OK, naming a city is a pretty big deal - who decided there'd be a ballot? Was there an impasse? Some more info here would be fascinating.
  • Two or so words describing Nahum Sokolow would make the text flow better - choose the best couple and place in. eg "Russian-Jewish Journalist", "Zionist Pioneer" or whatever you feel best typifies him.

More later.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)