Talk:Battle of Haifa (1948)

Title move and references

I hope you did mind the sideways movement to match in with the "list of operations", the other title was very clunky?

The Hebrew references/footnotes, that I like but can we also put an English speaking footnote alongside. Most readers wont have access to Hebrew text books. Maybe Uri Milstein? His tomb of a book has been translated, I'm a bit fed up with using the usual suspect, Benny Morris. As for the clean up tag. You should have seen this article a couple of days ago.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 12:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you were talking about in the first paragraph. As for the Hebrew reference, I tried to find an educational source with no political agenda, which just reports the facts, and this book is one of them. I can glady scan and translate for you if you don't believe me. Benny Morris is a good source, although I don't think most readers will have access to any of his books. Don't have access to the Milstein book either.

In any case, there's still the issue that I couldn't find a single piece of evidence that this operation was called Misparayim (scissors). Also, you're right about the cleanup, but the article still has numerous important issues. Notably, half of its content can just be removed because it's irrelevant. Other content should be more organized, properly formatted, sourced, etc. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Clunky: heavy, clangs, no rhythm.

As many sources that you can find get them in, it not a matter of belief it is a matter of any reader being able to follow up. I put the Benny ref to the op being called Misparayim and then changed after a regig so officially it should be called Mivtza Bi'ur Hametz. However all the links were to the March plan called Misparayim, so I stuck with that. I'd prefer to shift it to Bi'ur Hametz but not many people call it that. So long as there are re-directs it can be called anything.

Loads of issues on the rest but I'm sure we can sort them out.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's get some things straight

While responding to my previous comment, please note the following, as we have already made several edits to just 1 sentence which are really redundant:

1. The operation was part of the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine, hence the 1948 Palestine War. It was not part of the second stage of the war (1948-49), about which the 1948 Arab-Israeli War article talks.
2. The 1947-48 'civil war' did not lead to the Arab-Israeli conflict in 1948 (this presumably means the 1948 Palestine War), rather, it led to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (1948-49).
3. This operation was not in the 'opening stages' of anything (not sure where this came from). Rather, it was in the final stages of the 1947-48 'civil war'.

I am going to make an edit accordingly. If you disagree, please post your concerns here. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely correct the Haganah link up front, nice touch. You have palmach reference further down so haganah at the top is no problem, and I liked the HISH. I don't know about you but I've always seen Haifa and Tiberias as the opening shots in a fully fledged war and the end of a civil disturbance, this is why I refer to start? But the opening is fine by me. Avi Shlaim refers to the opening disturbances as the unofficial war with Haifa and Tiberias as the opening gambits of the official war. I like the 24 hour clock but will civies know what it is?Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC) Is there any chance of a suitable photo to drop into the box?Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You may be right about Tiberias and Haifa being the opening shots for the 'real' war (although I personally disagree, but that's for a discussion forum), but this is not clear even to a reader familiar with the subject, because this is not the widely-accepted viewpoint. If you can source this claim to a work of Avi Shlaim, then it should definitely be added, but not into the lead.

About the 24-hour clock, not sure if there's anyone who doesn't understand it, and I don't have a problem with using the 12-hour clock in principle. The reason I changed it was that the 24-hour clock is the clear standard in all battle timelines I've seen.

Not sure about a photo, although there are likely some expired-copyright photos from Haifa in 1948 of something which can be used (any works in Israel prior to 2006 had 50 years of copyright, so anything before 1958 would today qualify for PD-old).

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally have nothing against the 24 hour clock, I have more problems with the 12 h variety and most people are getting more familiar through digitisation, however the UN docs are of the 12 hour variety, obviously translated by Stockwell for the UN. From Tiberias/Haifa that the HISS/Palmach patrols became more aggressive. I'm reading up on all I can find at present, so have a load of jumbled up notes will try to straighten them out for inclusion.

I agree that the lead should be clear of footnotes, footnotes for the body text... Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Population movement within the city:-

I have muslims decamping close behind the British to Lebanon. Jewish inhabitants gathering in Hadar HaCarmel and Neve Sha'anan and displacing Christian Arabs due to an increase in tension/shooting incidence from both sides? Benny has it down as being quite marked the Jewish trans-location and noted by British docs.

The Avi Shlaim Unofficial/Official war isn't much good as it refers to the chapter titles, I'll try to find something better.

Plan D. I note you've removed all ref to Plan D. As Plan D had the section on occupying cities and was the skeleton upon which the operation plans were the flesh, I can't see how we can do without it?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any ref to AHW forces being present?... Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I just don't think Plan Dalet is so important. Until my edit, there was an entire section detailing the plan, which is clearly undue weight. I agree that the plan is worth mentioning, but this mention should consist of nothing more than a link to the main article. That's the reason Wikipedia has internal links. The article currently has enough context in the 'background' section without needing another POV elaboration. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think Irgun or Lehi were involved with Haifa.

Plan D isn't POV. It's a plan nothing more. I had included it as to the intentions for the final battle plan. I wasn't using it as a "Master Plan" for the expulsion of Palestinians. Besides the exodus had mainly occurred before any battle...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is the inclusion of a huge elaboration for Plan Dalet important for this article? I just don't see the reason. By the way, a completely neutrally-written reliably-sourced text can still fail WP:NPOV if inserted in the wrong place. I believe that an elaboration of Plan Dalet in this article fits that bill. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It was only the section for dealing with towns. And as Haifa was the first where the Battle Plan was fleshed out on the skeleton of Plan D....Maybe I take more note of Battle plans than make of bullets and bombs... all the british docs call it halrisa, wonder why the difference?....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really understand everything you said, although basically I support any new additions and information (as long as it's well-sourced, as these things are mostly disputed), although this new information does not need to go into this article if it's irrelevant. There is an article called Plan Dalet, anything related to the plan should go only there, and not here. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I know about the Plan D article...it's not "up to much". In fact last I looked it was chaotic, I'd hate to send anyone one there for information. The article last I looked it had nothing about it being the basis on which to hang the battle plans on. It's more on is it isn't it a "master plan" for expulsion. Not an area I would like readers to get side tracked with. Plan D needs separating into Plan D and the Walidi/Pappe v Morris/Milstein debate At the moment I'd prefer to steer readers clear of it...Hence include what's needed here...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

My error You have been improving Plan D...But still most is on the debate and not on the plan itself.. No section on the towns..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that an article is in bad shape is no reason to ignore it, as indeed it is no reasor for deletion, for example. You may wish to concentrate your efforts on improving that Plan Dalet article so that in the future you will be comfortable with letting the casual reader go there. It does not make it right to add irrelevant information to this article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The Plan D article is not about plan D but about the debate about Plan D...

I'd would have preferred to have seen "Plan D" at the end of a Plan D link with a see also at the bottom for the debate about Plan D. At the moment there is only a couple of short paras on Plan D...

Moving on.

Shouldn't Carmeli Brigade get a mention somewhere?...and was Moshe Carmel in command at that time?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Carmeli brigade was assigned Haifa in operational orders...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see no evidence anywhere that the Carmeli Brigade was involved in this operation in any way. I also consider the fact that it is not mentioned in Carta's description of the battle as evidence that the brigade was not involved. Furthermore, I find it hard to understand how an armored or semi-armored brigade could operate in the mountainous area of central Haifa.

On a side note, you still haven't provided any source calling this Operation Misparayim. If no such source is provided, I'll rename to Battle of Haifa (1948), or something similar. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have already supplied the ref: The usual suspect--Benny Morris....Benny Morris (2004) p. 189

At this stage there was a certain lack of armour, effectively all 21 Brigades were infantry...It was area coverage not by class/Type...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I confirm. Carmeli brigade operated in Haifa.

I have to check if Palmah was not involved.

I don't think IZL or LHI participated.

Ceedjee (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Benny Morris source and discussion

Jaques Bar who planned and led the capture of Haifa see http://www.jaques-bar.com has all the information which Benny Morris either lacks or was is a Labour spinner since nothing here is REAl... Yoram Bar.

Benny Morris (2004) p 191..."By late afternoon, Carmeli Brigade was reporting....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the Morris book in question. Do you mind scanning the relevant pages? I believe you of course, per WP:AGF, but would rather see it for myself (you'll notice for example, that I made a change 'according to Walid Khalidi...' after you provided an online source for another statement). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

google booksThe Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited By Benny Morris....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

it was the only on line reference I could find. But also Kimche has it in, but he's not exactly easy to get hold of....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the link. I will make major changes to the article based on that source, although they will be made slowly and discussed, of course. At the first stage, I believe that the article should be moved to Operation Bi'ur Hametz, because Misparayim, according to Morris, was the name for a Carmeli plan which was never carried out, and replaced by Bi'ur Hametz (they are not the same plan). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, I realized that Carmeli was part of HISH, originally I thought that they were not. That clears things up. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read back up I to had thoughts for a move to Bi'ur Hametz; under Title move and references. All the original links for operations etc was for Misparayim. They were basically the same plan only Bi'ur Hametz was based on latest information. All the original Brigades were part of HISH. It was only later that Armour/Infantry designations appeared. I only started looking that up after you put the HISH link in, as the linked article was nearly empty. The HISH article could do with a make over. As remarked on earlier the main exodus was before any attack approx 75%-80%. I've been looking for reliable figures but keep getting side tracked. The British civil evacuation precipitated most of the Palestinian exodus. Benny in his normal style has Haifa spread all around, he's not a very clear logical thinker is Benny. He doesn't exactly have start middle and end. I believe he throws his notes in the air and then writes them up in the order that they fall to ground....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC) PS notes to Benny (which the limited preview doesn't have) if you need a note I'll flick through my copy and write it up for you...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Don't forget to put references to those numbers ALA was only 450 until desertions took them down to 0 by Feb/March....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Commanders in infobox

I believe that the list of commanders in the infobox has been overcomplicated (not to mention, it's hard to tell what NC, OC, etc. mean). For one, ranks are never listed in the infobox, also non-notable commanders should be kept to a minimum. I suggest leaving just Amin Bey Izz ad-Din, unless the notability of the others can be proven. I am sure that we can find the names of more Israeli commanders for example, but since such low-level commanders are non-notable, they should not be in the infobox. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree.

Note that Benny Morris, 1948, p.142 confirms it was Moshe Carmel who commanded the operation with the 2 battalions of Carmeli brigade troops. He faced between 500 and 1000 militias men.

He adds p.143 that another assault was launched by 3 companies (one of which of the Palmah) on 22/4.

Ceedjee (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Haifa NC should be noted as their evacuation of children etc was an important part and they were the Civil administration. What about a separate box/line within combatants for civil administration?.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The field you entered doesn't work. By the way, I still haven't figured out what NC and OC are, in this context. Is OC like commanding officer? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: I remembered what the NC was based on the article's body, still not sure what OC is. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ynhockey,

NC is "National Committee".

OC is "officer in command"

Ceedjee (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Palestine Post quote

I'm searching the Palestine Post archives (including the search query given) and can't for the life of me find that quote. Not only that, but also there seems to be no Palestine Post issue on April 30 (strange, because it was a Friday, not a Saturday). I'll try to search further but if nothing comes up, the quote needs to be changed. I have found another article on this battle in the Post. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To add to the above, after reading the entire article from April 21 (published on April 29, and not 30 as the Wiki article says), it does not have any mention of this quote, nor could it because it was written before the battle. The article says something else which is very interesting though - it says that the committee representing the Arab leadership of Haifa initiated a massive Arab exodus. I believe that, while it should not be stated as fact in the article, it should be given much weight, because the Palestine Post was the main news source of the time. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: just found the quote. It is in the April 23 edition. I was right to suspect Khalidi. Here's the link. It has some other interesting info about the surrender terms, which should probably be in the aritcle. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Try the edition of the 30th and the quote is accurate from a report written on the 21. And if you read what is written in the article you will find that we have been putting in what tallies with the newspaper article...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said, there was no Post editing on April 30 at all. Moreover, the quote is not from the April 29 editing (writted on April 21), but from the April 23 edition, written on the same day. Indeed, it could not have been written on April 21, because the events described took place on April 22. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

translation

it's not passover cleaning, it's passover removal of leavened bread. Amoruso (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Benny Morris

Benny Morris is not the whole source for 1948.....Much better alternative sources are available.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There are numerous books recently published concerning these events.

But books from 1955 are not wp:rs sources with the information and new picture new historians brought in the 1990's. As well Arab of that period or Israelis such as John Kimche.

Some good recent references are given in the bibliography of the article 1948 Palestine War.

Ceedjee (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjeee your blatant POV causes you to lose sight of reality. If as you say there are numerous books why remove until you could replace the material. Oh I know it's your blatant POV showing. The incidence of intimidation using the loudspeaker broadcast is well known. I made sure that the earliest mention of it was produced. ...And as Benny et al use those books from the 50s your assertions about the age of the book is poppycock. Try reading the bibliography in any good history book.....The search of the CIA and BBC archive recording from Cyprus and Beirut were carried out not last week so it is far more accurate to refer to the study of that than Benny's or any other third hand source..... Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ashley, please read WP:Civil.

You should realize you are more and more alone... Ceedjee (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee do you know what talk is???????? Talk is not Ceedjee making demands....Turn to the Biliography in any of Beeny's books and then tell me that he does not use 1950s books....You are looking rediculous in you assertions that books older than a week do not count......I'm putting it back as per talk...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Try looking at all the other bits before you vandalise ceedjee...because as per your talk you will try to take out and as per my talk I will reinstate.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Benny Morris can use such books. Because he is a professional.

But you cannot. And if you read this in Benny Morris's book, then your source is Benny Morris, not his own sources.

I have asked a sysop to discuss with you. Not possible for me.

Ceedjee (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Rename to Battle of Haifa?

I propose renaming this article to Battle of Haifa. There are two reasons:

1. It is a more neutral and descriptive title, taking no sides and easy to understand
2. The current title is the official and final name of the operation, but actually many still know it as Pe'ulat Misparayim, which would cause confusion among those familiar with the subject matter. However, renaming the article to Operation Misparayim is also misleading because this was the original plan and not the name of the operation (similar to the Larlar Plan which was eventually called Operation Danny). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 06:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I came here to make the same proposal. As I've argued before, we shouldn't name things after one side's military operational name, though a separate article with the internal details of that operation would be fine. I suggest Battle for Haifa or Battle of Haifa. "Battle for Haifa" gets 103,000 where I am, and "Battle of Haifa," just 83, though results vary a lot between localities. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I should clarify what I wrote. My preference would be for a much less militaristic article called "the fall of Haifa," or something similar that doesn't suggest a "battle" on equal terms. What I meant to say is that we should definitely move away from the operational name. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not notice this comment before, and am replying now: basically the "fall of Haifa" is also a title that clearly favors one side—for the Arabs, it was a "fall", while for the Jewish side it was a conquest. Would you say "conquest of Haifa"? Battle of Haifa is much more neutral, and the Google search in this case doesn't appear relevant because both searches mostly return results about the Battle of Haifa Street. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Conquest of Haifa is fine with me. Battle is POV, because there doesn't seem to have been much of a battle. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The word battle does not imply that the sides were equally matched. There was a battle, the Arabs lost. I don't really understand the opposition for the word. What's POV about it? Whose POV is it exactly? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's similar to the situation we had at Lydda. Calling it a "battle" does imply a degree of equality, even if not exact equality. If a group of soldiers invade my home, and I try to fight them off with a knife, it's not quite accurate to call it, "The Battle of SlimVirgin's Home." It's just me doing what I can. What happened was that Jewish forces invaded the city, drove the Arab residents away, most of whom didn't fight at all, and proceeded to loot it. Sir Alan Cunningham said, "Recent Jewish military success (if indeed operations based on the mortaring of terrified women and children can be classed as such) have aroused extravagant reactions in the Jewish press ..." (Morris 2008, p. 144). As with Lydda, I suggest we find a title that no one would say was false e.g. Conquest of Haifa, Fall of Haifa, Invasion of Haifa. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Google hits from highest to lowest (all with key term in quotation marks):

• Fall of Haifa (minus Wehbe, to remove Haifa Wehbe, an actress who apparently fell during a rehearsal): 89 [1]

• Conquest of Haifa: 36 [2]

• Battle of Haifa (minus street, so as not to include Battle of Haifa Street): 14 [3]

• Invasion of Haifa (minus Hauranis): 2 [4]

Google books hits from highest to lowest:

• Fall of Haifa, minus Wehbe: 192 [5]

• Conquest of Haifa: 65 (one entry that I can see not about the 1948 conquest) [6]

• Battle of Haifa, minus street: 50 (one that I can see not about the 1948 battle) [7]

• Invasion of Haifa: 4 (one perhaps not about the 1948 invasion) [8]

It looks as though it's either Fall of Haifa or Conquest of Haifa. I'm fine with either. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's settle on Fall of Haifa then. Conquest just seems silly to me. I will make the move now. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed the name change. I'm sorry for arriving after consensus has been reached, but I also think "Battle of Haifa" should be the name. First of all, WP:MILMOS#NAME says generic titles need to be descriptive and avoid non-neutral titles. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) agrees. WP:GOOGLE also says neutrality overrides popularity, so the Google test shown here should not be decisive. Several sources agree, including the aforementioned Morris, who gives a map of the "Battle for Haifa", including both Jewish and Arab attacks (1948, p. 141). -- Nudve (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can change :) Thanks for your comment. Israeli historiography usually calls it 'Battles in Haifa' or similar, so if Morris and 'New Historians' also use this term, then it's a fairly simple choice. What do other historians say? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Trevor Dupuy's section title is "Operation Misparayim". Chaim Herzog does not have a section title, and he refers to it as Operation Scissors. He has a battle map, which is also subtitled "Battle for Haifa". Yoav Gelber has no separate section but talks about "HaMaaracha [campaign] al Haifa". -- Nudve (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with "Operation Scissors" (Misparayim) is that it's not actually the name of the operation. It's the name of the plan for the operation, which was called Operation Bi'ur Hametz, a very little-known title. I would still like to know though, what about other non-Israeli historians? Does Pollack have anything on this? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Morris says "conquest of Haifa" and "fall of Haifa" too. I find "battle" not neutral, because there really wasn't much of a battle, and it involved women and children. I therefore think we should go with whatever the most common neutral term is. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was eventually renamed Biur Hametz, because it was near Passover. Pollack doesn't discuss it, because he analyzes state armies (Egypt, Iraq, etc.), and not the irregulars that fought in Haifa. Of course Haifa was "conquered" and the Arab town "fell" to Jewish forces, but the question is what would be the most encyclopedic and neutral term for this article. I'm sure some Zionist narratives would say that Haifa was "liberated", but obviously that would not be neutral either (although there's always the Liberation of Paris). So I still think "battle" should be used. -- Nudve (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever name is selected, can I suggest appending "(1948)" to it? There have been very many battles and conquests of Haifa over the ages. See Haifa. Zero^talk 13:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The google statistics above in this thread misses the phrase "Battle for Haifa" +1948, which gets more than 200 hits.[9] ("1948" was added to exclude hits for the battle in Iraq.) Most of the hits are relevant. The name "Fall of Haifa" is, of course, POV, for the same reason "Liberation of Haifa" would be a POV name from the other perspective.

I agree with Ynhockey original suggestion and with Nudve, and suggest to stick to Yan's original suggestion, with the qualifier (1948) as Zero suggested, to form the name: "Battle of Haifa (1948)". This is the usual convention to name battles articles in WP, and it is reflected properly in references. The argument that the word "Battle" in the article's name is POV is WP:OR. The Haganah forces lost almost 20 soldiers killed in this battle, even if it was surprisingly less than what was expected when the operation was planned. Noon (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Move to Battle of Haifa (1948)

I waited three days for comments, and made the move as per this discussion. I also restored the previous lede to better reflect the new title. Noon (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Noon, could you move this back please, and post it at requested moves instead? You're not allowed to use the tools in a content dispute, and as you can see, there was an objection from me to the move. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was assuming when I posted that you must have used admin tools to make the move, but thinking about it, you may not have, so I apologize for that assumption. Nevertheless, the move should not have been made over an objection. The way to proceed is via requested moves, which an uninvolved admin will close. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

SV, there appears to be consensus to move the article to Battle of Haifa (1948). WP:RM requests should not be opened because of one objection against the consensus of four editors, as it clearly states in the WP:RM page itself. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

RM says that if someone might object to the move (and someone did), you should treat it as controversial and list it as such. Please move it back, and list it as a requested move so we can attract some fresh eyes and an uninvolved admin. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not really how I understood it:

In some situations the appropriateness of a move may be under dispute, and discussion is necessary in order to reach a consensus. There is no obligation to list such move requests here; discussions of page moves can always be carried out at the article's talk page without adding an entry.

Seems fairly clear to me. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You're ignoring the key sentence: "If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to open a WP:RM request, but your insistence on these actions despite being the only editor opposing the move is not helpful in any way. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the editor who wants the move, Yn. I'm requesting that you or Noon please move the article back to Fall of Haifa, and if you want to move it to Battle of Haifa, please post a request. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A reminder: The article's original title before the discussion was Operation Bi'ur Hametz, not Fall of Haifa or anything of the sort. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yn, you're an administrator. You're supposed to uphold the rules. You and I agreed on Fall of Haifa, because you did not want Conquest of Haifa, and I did not want Battle of Haifa. And so we made that move with full consensus. A few days later, Noon arrived and after a brief discussion, he ignored my objection and moved it to Battle. That move needs to be undone. Please uphold the rules here, and not your POV. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I could say the exact same to you. From the beginning, I made it clear that Battle of Haifa was the title I supported. After no other editors came to the page and you vehemently opposed to Battle of Haifa, I conceded in order not to drag out the dispute, thinking that no other editors cared about this. Apparently, they did, and this is the perfect example of "consensus can change". As an administrator, I expect you to uphold one of the basic ideologies of Wikipedia, which is consensus. When several other editors disagree with you, and you are the only one opposing, it means consensus is not in your favor. You should know this just as well as I, so please let it go, and if you really feel that strongly about it, start a WP:RM from Operation Bi'ur Hametz. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page not moved. —harej (talk) (cool!) 18:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Battle of Haifa (1948) → 1948 Conquest of Haifa — This page has had a couple of titles named after Haganah military operations e.g. Operation Misparayim which was changed by Ynhockey on July 2, 2008 to Operation Bi'ur Hametz. On June 8 this year, he proposed it be moved again to Battle of Haifa. I objected because the invasion of Haifa didn't involve much of a battle; it involved women and children; and the relative casualty figures (100-150 Arabs, 14-16 Haganah (Morris 2004, p. 193) aren't suggestive of a battle. My preference was Conquest of Haifa. Ynhockey objected to that, so we compromised on Fall of Haifa, and Ynhockey moved it there. Discussion here.

Nudve and Noon then came along saying they wanted Battle, and Noon moved it to Battle of Haifa (1948), ignoring the objection. I'm therefore filing this requested move in the hope of attracting fresh eyes and an uninvolved person to close it. My suggestion is 1948 Conquest of Haifa. It's neutral in that it doesn't suggest there was or wasn't a battle, doesn't imply that the result was good or bad, and it's a term often used by historians. I'd also be fine with Invasion of Haifa or Fall of Haifa. The titles with the most Google hits are Fall of Haifa and Conquest of Haifa in that order. See below. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support 1948 Conquest of Haifa for the reasons explained above. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support 1948 Conquest of Haifa or Fall of Haifa. Agree with SlimVirgin that these are the more common than Battle of Haifa and more representative of what actually happened there. Tiamut^talk 21:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose—Battle is a more neutral title any way you look at it, which was the original point of contention. Moreover it's more common in academic sources (and possibly online ones as well). See all previous discussions on the talk page. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ynhockey, although I don't have a strong opinion either way. --GHcool (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Conquest isn't the right word here; battle is a more neutral term, and lacks the political overtones of "conquest". "Fall of Haifa" might work though. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 23:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons I gave above. Another option, if we choose to describe the event in a wider context, would be something like "Haifa in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War". But as long as the article is about the fighting, "battle" is the best term to use. -- Nudve (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - to call it a battle tends to excuse a seizure and annexation by force (illegal) and the fact this was an unprovoked use of force. 81.144.199.142 (talk) 11:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - A battle is a battle, even when the results are lopsided, and even when the forces are not equal. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia is about neutrality, and the word "battle" is definitely more neutral; if you believe otherwise then this will encourage other editors to say that the Jordanians "conquered" the West Bank in 1948, which is once again POV.George Al-Shami (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Funny the thing about Haifa Wehbe. She's become more important than a historical event that left thousands homeless. (Personal disclosure: Some of members of my extended family had to leave Haifa in 1948 because of the bombings there and lost two family members and their family home. After the British left, Arab civilians were left largely without defenses there.) Tiamut^talk 21:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ynhockey, you claim above that Battle of Haifa is the most common term in academia. Do you have any sources for that? I've shown below with the Google Books hits that it's not the most common one. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Searching for Battle of Haifa minus street doesn't really accomplish anything because the term 'street' is very common and could appear on any page. A more accurate search shows 89 relevant hits. But that's not really important; it's not that Battle of Haifa is predominantly used in academia, it's that the other terms are used in specific contexts so "Battle of Haifa" (or a variation thereof) is the most common regular term. The sources I have mostly list it as the "Campaign for Haifa" (e.g. Gelber, Vilnay), and a couple list the "Liberation of Haifa", a POV term. I have seen no evidence that Morris uses "conquest of Haifa" to describe it on a regular basis, but have seen him use "fighting in Haifa" in some places, which is similar to Battle of Haifa (translated into an article title), and "Battle of Haifa" (Revisited, p. 9). I just don't think any of the other proposed titles have a case. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Just looked at the Fall of Haifa sources on Google Books, it appears that about half of the ones relevant to 1948 are just citations of Khalidi, and the actual authors of these books don't describe this event as the "fall of Haifa". As a term, it is also problematic because it has no Hebrew translation and could therefore be seen as biased against one side even if you ignore the fact that it's inherently the name given by the defeated party. By comparison, the Battle of Tzemah in the Battles of the Kinarot Valley is called Fall of Tzemah by most Israeli sources, but I did not use that term because of that. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Would Fall of Haifa be okay with you, Ynhockey? Because Battle doesn't do it for me or Slim Virgin and other editors against "Conquest" seem to be okay with "Fall". Tiamut^talk 06:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I accepted this term in the past in order not to drag out a dispute with SlimVirgin (thinking that no one else cared about the name), but this is definitely not the term I support. The post you replied to partly lists why (see P.S. paragraph). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you still willing to accept it as a compromise? Because I cannot really accept "Battle" myself given the near total lack of Arab forces in Haifa. Even the article itself notes this: "The Arab garrison for the Palestinian Arab areas of the city was commanded by Captain Amin Izz al-Din who had been appointed by the Arab Liberation Army's (ALA) military committee on the 27 March in Damascus. Through the next month his original force of 450 was depleted by desertion until it was no longer a fighting force." Tiamut^talk 10:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"Fall of Haifa" isn't really a compromise between "Fall of Haifa" and "Battle of Haifa", which are two mainly-used terms. Besides, as far as I know, over a dozen Haganah persons died in the battles, so it's a deception to say that the Arabs didn't have a fighting force. Almost every battle has a tactical winner and a tactical loser; this doesn't mean that the either of their POVs gets to be represented in the title. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

So you're not willing to accept Fall of Haifa as a compromise? Tiamut^talk 11:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "fall" need necessarily imply the other side didn't have an army - the Fall of Constantinople involved a long siege, for example. However we do use Battle of France, not Fall of France, which lends some support to the anti-move side. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that it does not necessarily imply a lack of army, which is why I'm (re)proposing it (its already been proposed and was the name of this page before and out-of-process move) as a satisfactory compromise for both sides - those uncomfortable with "battle" and those uncomfortable with "conquest". Given that its used as much, if not more, than both, it also fits with WP:COMMONNAME. An all-round win win situation, no? Tiamut^talk 23:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I've redirected Battle of Haifa, previously a redlink, here. If this move fails to achieve consensus, you may want to discuss moving to that target instead. Jafeluv (talk) 00:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Google hits for the possible titles

Google hits from highest to lowest (all with key term in quotation marks):

• Fall of Haifa (minus Wehbe, to remove Haifa Wehbe, an actress who apparently fell during a rehearsal): 89 [10]

• Conquest of Haifa: 36 [11]

• Battle of Haifa (minus street, so as not to include Battle of Haifa Street): 14 [12]

• Invasion of Haifa (minus Hauranis): 2 [13]

Google books hits from highest to lowest:

• Fall of Haifa, minus Wehbe: 192 [14]

• Conquest of Haifa: 65 (one entry that I can see not about the 1948 conquest) [15]

• Battle of Haifa, minus street: 50 (one that I can see not about the 1948 battle) [16]

• Invasion of Haifa: 4 (one perhaps not about the 1948 invasion) [17]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

strength

The 2000 to 3,500 estimate for the number of militiamen looks a bit strange. Jon Kimche (" I was in Haifa during these days and watched the fighting.") states "The actual number of armed and trained Arab combatants was not much larger than that of the Jews - 560, to be exact." (Kimche, Jon and David (1960) A Clash of Destinies. The Arab-Jewish War and the Founding of the State of Israel. Frederick A. Praeger. Library of Congress number 60-6996. Page 120.) This figure is so different from the number in the info box I don't know how to incorporate. Padres Hana (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Kimche is a primary source so we should avoid relying on him. Having said that, the figure seems at least notable. The correct way to add it to the infobox would be to write: 560^[1]–3,500^[2] —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Battle of Haifa (1948). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526061809/http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC21UK1.pdf to http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC21UK1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526061611/http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC21UK2.pdf to http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC21UK2.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/2f86ce183126001f85256cef0073ccce/8f8675274b4c7e4a85256a5700687322!OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526063953/http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC21AP35.pdf to http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC21AP35.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526063321/http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC21UK116.pdf to http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC21UK116.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526063558/http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC21UK112.pdf to http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC21UK112.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701120321/http://schumacher.haifa.ac.il/templers.htm to http://schumacher.haifa.ac.il/templers.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526062759/http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC21UK123.pdf to http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC21UK123.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910181356/http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC21UK120.pdf to http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC21UK120.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://jic.tau.ac.il/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=Archive&Source=Page&Skin=PalestineP&BaseHref=Palestine/1948/04/23&PageLabel=&EntityId=Ar00100&ViewMode=HTML&GZ=T
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526062258/http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC21UK126.pdf to http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC21UK126.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/dc2eddeb3864796785256a570064fe71!OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Haifa (1948). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319003435/http://ipsnewsite.mysite4now.com/enakba/exodus/Erskine%20Childers,%20Walid%20Khalidi,%20Jon%20Kimche,%20et%20al.pdf to http://ipsnewsite.mysite4now.com/enakba/exodus/Erskine%20Childers,%20Walid%20Khalidi,%20Jon%20Kimche,%20et%20al.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 03:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2017

The mention of the Partition Plan of Palestine should not say that Haifa was "allotted to a Jewish state". The Partition Plan didn't allot anything to anyone. It should read that it PROPOSED or RECOMMENDED the incorporation of Haifa into a Jewish state. Jacob D (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)Jacob D Jacob D (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 17:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Haifa (1948). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080519065846/http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/46815f76b9d9270085256ce600522c9e%21OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/46815f76b9d9270085256ce600522c9e%21OpenDocument
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ipsnewsite.mysite4now.com/enakba/exodus/Erskine%20Childers%2C%20Walid%20Khalidi%2C%20Jon%20Kimche%2C%20et%20al.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit Request

Please replace the comma with a period after the following sentence in the Background section:

"Haifa was the country's largest deep water port,"

Thank you! 208.114.192.129 (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done Diff of change. I also took the liberty of fixing additional punctuation issues I came across in that paragraph, although I'm sure I missed more. OhKayeSierra (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 October 2023

Change "atrocity propaganda" to "the recent events in Deir Yassin" . Don't change the hyperlink. Busdurrr (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

De-piped. Thanks. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Palestine Post paragraph

I removed the following paragraph from the "Battle" section of the article:

The banner headlines of the Palestine Post on 23 April 1948 announced "Haifa Pivotal Points fall to Haganah forces in 30-hour battle...". The report continued that "Haganah crushed all resistance, occupied many major buildings forcing thousands of Arabs to flee by the only open route-the sea". The report was written up on 21 April but not printed until 30 April, presumedly for security reasons.

Seems irrelevant in my opinion. Maybe would belong in a "Reactions" section. I leave it here for discussion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Significant changes

I've made significant changes regarding controversial content here [18].

I think the article still needs a lot of work and I plan to make further changes along these lines.

I'm just putting this here for visibility/review and to invite discussion/comments. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal of image - to be restored

I removed this image which was captioned "Papers inspection during the battle." It will ideally be restored in the future, but first its source needs to be verified as well as when it was taken.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I restored the picture, which is from the IDF archive. Let's not remove pictures this way, I don't see reason to doubt the content unless something is clearly off. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand that the image is extremely likely to be legitimate but it is in fact unsourced. Additionally, and most significantly, we don't know when this image was taken nor do we know for certain what is happening in the image. In fact, we don't even know for sure where the image was taken, as it could easily have been mistakenly identified as being in Haifa. I know it's unfortunate to lose good images but I don't see how we can keep this one. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS: This is how majority of images on WP are sourced. The pictures is clearly referenced to the IDF archive? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Surely we need reliable sources for images as well, no?

And the picture is said to be from the IDF archives but no source is provided for that claim. Even if it is from that archive (which is extremely likely), how could we not need a reliable source to tell us what is happening, when, etc?

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

There are millions of historical images and most archives do not have the capacity to publish them in a reliable source. Thus they just release them into the public domain with a caption that was likely written on its backside or implied from the date and location it was taken. There is no need for RS verification when there's nothing off or suspicious about the images. This is how most pictures on WP are used. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Restored with a citation needed tag. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, it's definitely Kikar Paris in Haifa, there is Abu Yosef restaurant in this building now (maps.app.goo.gl/7YoyWUH9621pfBoX7). The practice is that we don't require every picture we use to have been published in a RS (to take Haifa article as an example, were these jars really excavated at Tell Abu Hawam?), so I think that it can be used.

It's true that we don't have a source for the caption, so maybe we should change it so something less definite. Alaexis_¿question? 08:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't understand the example you chose about the jars. That image appears to be well and sourced and the description in Hebrew of the file describes ~"An archaeological excavation expedition at Tel Abu Huam that took place in 2001 by the University of Haifa, the Department of Maritime Civilizations led by Prof. Michal Artzi." (Google translate)

The idea that images or captions should require less sourcing than anything else is perplexing to me.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it wasn't the best example. This image is a better one. It was uploaded by a Wikicommons user and has never been published anywhere. Do you think that it should be removed?

As to the caption, I already wrote that I agree that it should be changed. Alaexis_¿question? 12:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)