Talk:Tel Aviv/Archive 2

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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,

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've added some notes in the sub-page. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 12:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Recently I've come across two instances of minor vandalism which went unnoticed for some time, until an IP editor added to it (e.g. typefrom=po/hi, population 390,000, etc.) I call on all editors of this article to pay more attention to edits done by unknown/IP editors so that we can avoid this situation. This is especially important because the article is very large and slows down the browser when trying to view diffs, etc., making it difficult and annoying to look for this kind of vandalism. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be good to include a picture of Tel Aviv's world famous beaches on the first picture the reader sees. The skyline is great, but I think a collage would be better incorporating a variety of images. For example, see the article on Los Angeles, CA to see what I mean. I'm going to search Flickr and ask around if we can use a photo.

Jerusalem is not really Israel's largest city.Technically, maybe, but certainly much much much more people live in the Tel Aviv (Gush Dan) area and its suburbs. Many people who say they live in Jerusalem also don't live in Israel proper if that makes any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.85.58 (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As Jerusalem was to be a UN controlled Territory. Nothing about Blockades....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? If you're disputing Tel Aviv's status as a capital in 1948-49, then please provide sources which dispute this, because sources are given which state this. If you're disputing Jerusalem's status as a capital, then please stop, because there have been numerous discussions on the issue which all came to the conclusion that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. If you want to re-ignite the issue (which is almost surely harmful and should not be done), then the place to do it is in the centralized discussion or in Talk:Jerusalem, and not in this article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's make if even clearer. If Jerusalem was not under a blockade at the time, the city would have been declared the capital of Israel in 1948, not later. With the situation as it was, Tel-Aviv was the capitol 1948-49. The dispute over the status of Jerusalem is irrelevant here. (see the extensive discussions at talk:Jerusalem regarding its status as Israel's capital). Derwig (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

How many countries even maintain an embassy in Jerusalem. They have them in Tel Aviv Jaffa. 147.188.225.65 (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

At least two countries maintain their embassies in Mevasseret Zion, a suburb of Jerusalem. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, Bolivia and Paraguay. I wonder if they are inside or outside the "corpus separatum" - from a quick look at a map they seem very close to the boundary. This matters from a legal viewpoint but probably belongs in a different article. Astarabadi (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This section was created by a vandal who's just been blocked for his edits to this article. The section is ugly, unsourced and erroneous. I think it should be blanked. Any objections? -- Nudve (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No objection whatsoever from this quarter. At the same time, it would be good if someone knowledgeable could have a look at the Religion section, 2nd para., which contains info. that does not seem to correspond to the citation, and where the total percentages now exceed 100%. Hertz1888 (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. How about simply reverting to the last revision before this IP's first edit? -- Nudve (talk) 11:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the bold step. Possibly that paragraph can benefit from further scrutiny, but at least now it's as good as before, and the Neighborhood sprawl is gone. Much obliged. Hertz1888 (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :)
I've also submitted a request for semiprotection, which hopefully will be granted. -- Nudve (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Some jack-ass white supremacist hacked into this page (I didn't even know that was possible) and added this text into section 2.4, "After Israeli independance",

This is the Zodiac speaking. You people seem so smart, yet I get away with so much. Here is a letter for you smart people: [followed by a paragraph of nonsense (non-ASCII?) characters]

That text precedes a image of the white supremacist Celtic Cross, specifically this: [omitted.] He also changed the background colour to black for the rest of the page. His edits don't appear in the History. This needs to be reverted ASAP. 76.66.209.194 (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC) (Jeztah, too lazy to sign in.)

Success! Just resaved current revision. Nevermind, just keep an eye out in case "Zodiac" decides to come back. 76.66.209.194 (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Previously I misunderstood and deleted this section because there was no sign of hacking having afflicted the article as claimed. Because it was also claimed that the article was purged of the hacking, I have brought this section back to preserve a record, but see no need to display the hacker's message in full detail. Ordinarily one would not edit another's comments on a talk page, but, as this is a case of the other editor quoting a vandal (the hacker), I think some cleanup is both permissible and desirable. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Any interest in the placement of a new picture somewhere in the article? It is an aerial view of Tel Aviv taken in June 2008.

Thanks. --Shamir1 (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

wow! someone should upload that picture it is beatuful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yummyzummy (talk • contribs) 21:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Too bad about the haze. Because of it the quality is severely compromised, though the composition is really nice. But I see that the question was posed here nearly two weeks prior to the addition to the article of a sharper, clearer photo, which should serve very well. Hertz1888 (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that we should ditch both night shots, but if a night shot is chosen, then it should definitely be the higher-resolution one. We have enough pictures of Tel Aviv's skyline not to need a tiny 480x254 picture as the first (and therefore most viewed) image in the article. I am posting this here because recently an anon has been constantly replacing the image, so clear consensus should be established before we consider his actions vandalism. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Which one would you choose? -- Nudve (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The aerial shot at the bottom of the article, which is huge and annoying in that location anyway, could be used, as its proportions are perfect for an infobox. Other than that, this partial photo by Beivushtang is pretty good. here's another decent aerial shot. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with Beivushtang's photo. -- Nudve (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The aerial shot is faded and ugly, especially when the dimensions are small, and could be ANY city.--Gilabrand (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I just updated the population figure to reflect the new CBS update. This is problematic because I remember that it said somewhere that the population 'peaked at 390,000' and since it's greater now, that should be changed. Just letting everyone know. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The article says that two embassies are currently in Jerusalem, and all the others are in Tel Aviv, sourced to here. However, from the source it's clearly visible that two emassies (Bolivia and Paraguay) are in the Jerusalem suburb of Mevaseret Zion (a very important distinction because of Jerusalem's political status), and a few other embassies are located in Tel Aviv's suburbs of Ramat Gan and Herzliya (a less important distinction, but important nevertheless). The article should be changed to reflect this, although I'm not sure the sentence in the history section should be expanded to include all this information. Maybe the info should be moved to another section of the article and clarified. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't specify that the two are in Jerusalem, it only says they are not in Tel Aviv. It also says that "Today, all but two of the national embassies are in Tel Aviv or the surrounding district". I'm not sure the article should go into more detail than this on that subject. -- Nudve (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I automatomatically associated with Jerusalem because of the preceding text. In any case, I still maintain that the text is misleading, as there are quite a few embassies in Tel Aviv's suburbs. Perhaps that can be clarified with 2-3 additional words. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's a matter of minor tweaking, go ahead :) -- Nudve (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should a link to the Municipal LGBT Community center (http://gaycenter.org.il/eng_odot.asp?lang=2). Truth&Rights —Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC).

I'm not particularly convinced we should have an LGBT section on a main article about a city, unless there are sources that show them to be an indelible aspect of the culture. --David Shankbone 20:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is relevant for Tel Aviv as it is one of the only gay-friendly major cities in that part of the world. If it was just another European or US city (except SF) it would not be worth mentioning. Truth&Rights —Preceding undated comment added 04:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC).

I know of some external links that would significantly add to this article, but hesitate because of the "NoMoreLinks" template someone has placed in this section. Are there really too many links? I see that, e.g., the article for New York City has more than twice as many, and with no such warning. What is the community standard for "too many links"?

The external link I would like to add is for a new digital collection of materials on the history of Tel Aviv at Stanford University, containing several thousand freely accessible historical photos, documents, posters, etc.:

http://lib.stanford.edu/telaviv

Any thoughts about adding this? Or about removing the scary NoMoreLinks warning? I understand we don't want link spam, but this seems excessive.

--Glen Worthey (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Noticed a discrepancy in the Religion section; it says Tel Aviv has over a 100 Synagogues, then goes on to say there're 544 active synagogues. Shouldn't we just say Tel Aviv is currently home to 544 active synagogues? Danish Ranger 02:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The "Economist City Guide-Tel Aviv" is no longer at the stated address and it seems like the Economist has disowned it. So I don't think it any longer qualifies as a

The name of the city is Tel Aviv. The name Tel Aviv-Yafo is the name of the municipality of two cities - Tel Aviv and Yafo. In Arabic you wrote Tal Abib, I don't see any reason why not to write also in English and Hebrew the name Tel Aviv. Yafo is a separate city, much older than Tel Aviv. The city of Tel Aviv (without Yafo) deserves a page of its own. (I also wrote this in the Hebrew version of Tel Aviv). 79.177.122.32 (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Tel Aviv-Yafo municipality. I think this page should not be redirected to Tel Aviv, but explain about the municipality of Tel Aviv-Yafo, and link to the two cities - Tel Aviv and Yafo - each of them should have a page of its own. 79.177.122.32 (talk

) 15:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

in Reading the article I was surprised to notice that the first time the Palestinians were even brought up was because they had "frictions" with the Jewish communities We need someone to fix the story straight about the Palestinians that were there before the creation of Israel and the so many Palestinians who were forcibly kicked out of the homes before and after the creation of israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jihad.beydoun (talk • contribs) 19:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The article says: "On May 21, 1910, the name Tel Aviv was adopted." ...which leaves me wondering what the place was called before 1910. I have seen a Farfour video (the final one) stating that the Palestinian name for Tel Aviv is "Tel Al-Rabi", and the assertion in the video is that Palestinians are the rightful owners of the land, with the video going to the point of Farfour's grandfather, just before he died, handing him the key to the city and tasking him to liberate the land. Obviously this is a contentious issue, but an NPOV article on Tel Aviv would at the very least make mention of this minority point of view. YouTube: Tel Al-Rabi vs Tel Aviv. I am an American with no direct tie to Israel/Palestine or Muslim/Jewish religion, so I might be seen as an "uninvested outsider" in presenting this observation. An analogy would be a Wikipedia article on Manhattan Island that talks about New Yorkers, with no mention about the natives who lived on that island before Europeans displaced them. And if that transition happened less than 100 years ago, such neglect would be very curious. -- ChrisnHouston (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The information is false, and the Youtube video doesn't deserve a serious response. The previous name for Tel Aviv was Ahuzat Bayit, this is well-known. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The point in question is what the land was called before its 1906 designation as a Jewish homestead (Ahuzat Bayit). The land was called something before it was called "Tel Aviv", and before it was called "Ahuzat Bayit". The article is clear that the "Tel" part of the name indicates a long history of civilization laid on top of civilization, yet no name is attributed to it's pre-1906 history. This article, as it stands with the current reversion, ignores all of that. Anyone who is comfortable with the approach that those who win the wars get to write the history can leave the article the way it is. Those who prefer accurate and complete history with a neutral point of view can strive to improve the article. My best research (5 minutes worth) says that the name may have been "Tel Al-Rabi". I expect that there is a whole aspect to the story that is not being told.

I just now found this quote in the Jaffa article: "The Tel Aviv municipality has been accused of trying to erase the city's Arab past." ...for whatever that's worth to you all. —ChrisnHouston (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

...........you are using "Farfour videos" as your source for information? Sigh. Moments like these make me wonder why I keep trying.

Breein1007 (talk

) 02:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

ChrisnHouston, I suggest doing more than 5 minutes of research if you want to include new information in a high-profile article such as this without background knowledge. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 02:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This Mark LeVine book may be of interest, Overthrowing Geography. Jaffa, Tel Aviv, and the Struggle for Palestine, 1880-1948. Quite a bit of it is readable via Google [1]. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the title image (collage) was replaced with another one recently. The bottom part of the image is extremely concerning, as there is no evidence that it's free, and it's unusually modified (stretched), against Wikipedia policies. I will revert to the old image if there are no objections. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

there are objections! i've worked hard for this catpion to be on this page! please don't touch it! (Deanb (talk))

Hi Deanb! Please address the above concerns, especially about the bottom image. Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I might also add that the image is overall of much lower quality than the previous one, and there is also no evidence that the top part is free. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As the one who inserted the image, I can tell you that all of that was seen in the previous image. If they are not free, we will have to find a new image completely. RM (Be my friend)

And the top image has confirmed that the uploader allows it to be used on Wikipedia. More information can be found on Wikimedia Commons. RM (Be my friend)

"In 2009, as part of the centennial celebrations, the Tel Aviv Marathon was held for the first time, 14 years after the last one took place, with 15,000 runners." - how can something happen for the first time when it happened before? It makes no sense. (I also question whether this is notable enough for the main article on Tel Aviv.) Zero^talk 06:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

First time in 15 years. Reworded accordingly. Question of notability left open for others to decide. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

...should probably be discussed here rather than continuing the edits/reverts. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Although better than the last two title images, its not a whole lot better. It still does not illustrate a great view of the city, which is what a title image (especially a collage) is supposed to do. I think that a better collage can be composed of the following images: File:Tel Aviv Skyline At Night.jpg File:Fountain in Dizengof square.jpg File:Jaffa Tour horloge.JPG File:Azrieli Towers Sept.2007.JPG File:Tel Aviv Beachs.jpg File:Kirya bridge Tel Aviv.jpg

These would illustrate a broader view of the cityscape. Only problem is, I don't know how to create a collage, so I would appreciate it if someone did. Also, if anyone could give me a few tips on how to do it myself, it would also be nice.--RM (Be my friend) 04:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone did, but it lacks variety. Nearly all high-rises and other towers, very little else. Lots of room for improvement. I would like to see someone incorporate/substitute some (or all) of your suggestions. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Should we have "Tel Aviv-Jaffa" in the lead as the full name of the city, as well as "Tel Aviv-Yafo"? Jaffa is the normal name of the city in English. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I truly believe that the Montage picture that I created is much better than the Collage one, which is way too wide, and doesn't look as good as the one I want to be up there. I ask of you all to leave the Montage one, without changing it all the time! Please - It's a picture I created! (Deanb (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed that recently users have been changing some cities' infoboxes again into the cluttered and ugly (IMO) universal infoboxes. I believe there is no reason to do this, as there is no problem with the standard Israeli infobox. If there are no objections, I will restore the original infobox. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

An edit war is currently developing over whether we should include a single panorama or a collage in the infobox.--RM (Be my friend) 20:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support:
  • Collages are inherently more interesting on account of the variety they can encompass. Putting it another way, a collage is an opportunity to showcase the diversity of the city. The night scene, impressive as it may be, resembles too many other night scenes, and IMO is not the best choice to represent T.A. in the infobox. It can surely find a cherished place elsewhere on the page. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Discussions on Wikipedia aren't decided by voting, but by consensus. Having said that, I support the collage for the same reasons as Hertz1888. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose:>
• Comment I support a collage, but the current one is horrible. In general, the article has been overloaded with too many poorly laid out photos that disrupt the text and add nothing.--Geewhiz (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

As someone who actually lived in TLV u must understand tht the current infobox is a bitof an eyesore, its not colourfull, and ituses the worst possible image of the beach, and the Azrieli towers are too stretched out. Does anyone disagree with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shlomohasoon (talk • contribs) 01:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your desire to improve the infobox image. Color is just one of the dimensions. In my opinion, replacing the existing collage, with its variety of images, with one that is so dominated by high rise and other towers (and skyline) is not a step forward, as it fails to showcase the many other available types of landmarks and features. I hope others will join the discussion and weigh in with their observations. From past experience, that may take at least several days. Meanwhile, it would be proper to respect the status quo. Thank you. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The infobox is getting worse by the moment, and certain editors keep inserting the poorest possible images of Tel Aviv throughout the article. Can nothing be done to stop this consistent uglification process by editors who seem totally obsessed, and unwilling to devote their energies to the thousands of pages on WP Israel that have no photos at all? See for instance, the poor photo of Tel Aviv University that one of the editors keeps reinserting that shows a hodgepodge of signs in front of the brick facade of the law faculty building rather than one of the many attractive photos that are currently available on Commons.--Yespleazy (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone has this below, but there's some vandalism. Specifically the population of Tel Aviv is not, I assume, 393,900,000,000,000,000,000,000 (393 sextillion, 900 quintillion). I tried to edit it, but something weird had been done so that it wasn't possible. Youdontsmellbad (talk) 01:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Strange. That was fixed ten hours ago. It was vandalism. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Under the city's history, there is a historically-inaccurate sentence:

"Jaffa began to grow as an urban center in the early 18th century, when the Ottoman government in Constantinople intervened to guard the port and reduce attacks by Bedouins and pirates.[30] However, the real expansion came during the 19th century, when the population grew from 2,500 in 1806 to 17,000 in 1886.[6]"

I am changing "Constantinople" to "Istanbul". Although both are names for the same city, "Constantinople" implies the capital of the Greek-speaking Christian Byzantine Empire. The Turkic and Muslim Ottoman Empire took over the city in 1453, renamed it "Istanbul", and made it the capital of their empire. Let's please be historically and politically accurate. Skyduster (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"EUE Editions Universitaires Européennes", Verlag Dr. Müller, And

I've substituted the reference to the EUE book (Catherine Weill-Rochant, Le travail de Patrick Geddes à Tel-Aviv, un plan d'ombre et de lumière, Saarbrücken, Éditions Universitaires Européennes, May 2010) for that of the thesis: Rochant Weill, Catherine (2006). Le plan de Patrick Geddes pour la « ville blanche » de Tel Aviv : une part d’ombre et de lumière. Volume 1 (PDF) (PhD thesis). Paris: Université Paris 8. Retrieved 2010-07-09. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The EUE book (Catherine Weill-Rochant, Le travail de Patrick Geddes à Tel-Aviv, un plan d'ombre et de lumière, Saarbrücken, Éditions Universitaires Européennes, May 2010) contains maps and documents, as in the PhD manuscript, and contrary to the link Rochant Weill, Catherine (2006). Le plan de Patrick Geddes pour la « ville blanche » de Tel Aviv : une part d’ombre et de lumière. Volume 1 (PDF) (PhD thesis). Paris: Université Paris 8. Retrieved 2010-07-09. So it is preferable to maintain it, as it is the same text than the thesis, completed by documents. --Mp (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This is about Tel Aviv, Israel. I don't see why the Palestinian Authorities are shown on the map. In an article about a city in an existing, recognized state, I don't see why it is necessary to include in the map what some extremists call their land, because, technically by all definitions, that is ISRAELI LAND. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.92.44 (talk) 06:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The land belongs to everyone that lives in it. Please don't bring your extremist politics here. Only the pre-1967 borders are internationally-recognized. The West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights fall outside the pre-1967 borders, and their final status is undetermined. All maps of Israel, not just the one used in this article, demarcate the territories from Israel proper. Like it or not, the map used in this article follows convention. Skyduster (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

yeah i agree with the first person who wrote here, palestinian authorities aren't even a country and currently ISRAEL is the one who holds those lands so i also think that the palestinian authorities don't need to be mentioned here... like wikipeida doesn't mention any "illegally captured" lands in china and india, wikipedia should mention these lands in israel, at least be consistent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.203.116 (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if you take a look at the Wikipedia entries for

People's Republic of China, you'll see that the country maps in these articles clearly demarcate territories or regions which are disputed and/or have an undetermined final status, and the status of Western Sahara in the Morocco entry is also clearly illustrated in maps. Contrary to your claim, this practice is not limited to maps of Israel. Nor is it limited to Wikipedia. As you can see in these maps of Israel from PBS, Merriam-Webster, the US State Department, the BBC, CNN, The Economist, and the CIA World Factbook, demarcating the post-1967 territories from Israel proper in maps of Israel is well-established convention, and not something exclusive to Wikipedia. Again, I reiterate that the map in this article follows mainstream convention regarding maps of Israel, whether you like it or not. Skyduster (talk

) 05:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)