Tel Aviv has had two previous failed FAC nominations. It had a copyedit in early February, and peer review in mid-January. The issues raised at the previous FAC's have been addressed and the article meets the FAC criterea. Namely:
It is well written - has been peer reviewed, copyedited etc
It is comprehensive covering all major aspects of the city
It is well cited
It has no neutrality issues
It is stable
It follows the style guidelines
It has images with no issues
It is of a comparable length to other FA city articles
Please switch to two columns on the references. With 100 footnotes....
Done
http://www.israelmybeloved.com/channel/israel_today/section/cities_towns what makes this a reliable site? Granted it is sourcing a name, but it is only buttressed by a company website from Joppa? And that company website seems to not really add much as far as a source for the statment it's on. In neither of these references am I seeing anything about a possible tax register.
OK removed the statement
When you reference the The Jewish Encyclopedia, you should reference it just like a book, so it needs date of publication.
Done
http://www.lib.umd.edu/SLSES/donors/eng_articles/index.html Same for this, as it's is used to source the fact that Tel Aviv was the temporary captial of Isreal. The source itself is a list of a journalists writings, which isn't reflected in the title given to the website in the reference. sort of error with the formatting of the reference, since there are some stray bits at the end. Ealdgyth - Talk02:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed what that didnt cover in terms of content as I am finding it hard to reference. I merged the shorter section into the previous one.
Done - is it not the Vatican or another Christian organization?
It's a Christian organization, but I don't read whatever language it is in. Is it Dutch? From the little I can read I think it's a polemical organization dedicated to something about Isreal and the Holy Land. Certainly NOT the Vatican (which would have it's own ending .va like it's official website http://www.vatican.va/). Ealdgyth - Talk16:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah! - it is dutch - ive removed it anyway
"Tel Aviv-Jaffa". Encyclopaedia Judaica. (2007). gives a access date like it should have a web link, but no such liknk.
It has a "last access date" like it should be a web site reference. However, there is no web site linked in the reference. If you aren't going to link to a website, there is no need for the accessed information, and it should have a page number instead.Ealdgyth - Talk16:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed reference - the next reference after the next sentence talks about this.
Image:Gush Dan.png as a source??? Needs more information to determine reliability
Changed
What makes this company that designs Enviromental software a reliable source for climate information on Tel Aviv? Especially a statement that says "The autumn and spring periods are short and appear to be shrinking because of climate change"?
removed statement
"Tel Aviv Ethnic Breakdown" (current ref 52) is a download for an Excel spreadsheet. Should probably mention that in the footnote so folks don't click on it and get a download they weren't expecting.
Could someone double check the formatting on this? I think something is off but I'm not sure what and I"m not an MOS expert on citation formatting. Ealdgyth - Talk02:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The link you used doesn't cover all the information given in the body of the text. And if you're citing the book, you need to give page numbers. It also has some
http://www.emporis.com/en/ "allows users and companies from all over the world to participate in the completion of building information in their own cities" so what makes this a reliable source?
Changed - I thought emporis does have a reputation of reliability?
I don't know, I've never heard of them. Are there published reviews of the site that establish their reliability? Has the RS noticeboard decided it's a reliable site? I've never run across it used, and it says it accepts submissions, so I asked. Ealdgyth - Talk02:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had a reply to say "They make their living by providing accurate data, so we have to assume that they have an inbuilt sytem to check their facts. But it is not an academic source so how they collect data and how it is scrutinized for accuracy is not transparent for others to judge about unless someone else says so. Hence I will use it but attribute it to the website" - shall I put it back in. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I'm disappointed to see that the issues I raised in the previous FAC, and continued discussing with you afterward, have not been addressed before renominating. Specifically, my concern was global claims (oldest port in the world, most Bauhaus buildings in the world, most museums per capita in the world) with inferior sourcing from travel sites and Israeli interest groups. I also want to hear a response to serious issues raised by User:Doc glasgow (posted at the same link as above), particularly related to 1b (comprehensive) and 1d (neutral) concerns. Can you explain why you have renominated without addressing significant issues remaining from the last FAC? Maralia (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Maralia. That link is dead - I dont know where that's gone to. I didnt hear anything else about that - I added citations to some of those claims from international media sources - The Times of London. The Oldest Port claim and Museumes per capita were well sourced in my opinion - Israeli governmental sources as well as historical organisations. When I cahnged the oldest to one of the oldest I got told to change it back. With regards to the neutrality - I cant see the issue - the article is stable, has been peer reviewed, passed through gac, and copyedited. It has also been reviewed twice for fac - and this has never come up before. It always seems to me that with this article, whenever it gets closer someone finds something else wrong with it. Ive never had this issue with any other article. For example, noone has an issue NYC being the city which never sleeps based on the referencing there and its fac status but here it is a real issue. I wish you had actually got involved in editing the article to help to rectify these things because it has been very hard to get other users to help editing. I greatly appreciate your time given to helping me with this article but I cant see how issues of npov can be brought up when the article is well sourced and has reached this stage in development. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Maralia, I did address those points as I thought appropriate but there was no response from you to say whether they were satisfactory. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I first expressed my concern about the reliability of sources for exceptional claims in mid-February. I don't know how I can be any clearer: travel sites and Israeli sources are not remotely close to the high-quality, non-COI sources required to support exceptional claims. Adding multiple sources of the same sort does not make them any more reliable or non-COI. I repeated this concern above when you opened this FAC; you replied that you didn't know because I did not continue debating the point past 3 days after the previous FAC closed. Well, you've known for 10 days now, yet the sourcing for these claims has not been improved. Further, contacting people who had prior concerns about the article, such as Doc g, would be a much more responsible and productive endeavor than bemoaning the fact that there are concerns. Maralia (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maralia, to be honest, I feel that the reasons for the oppose are more of a personal attack/application of double standards than anything else. You claim that all travel sources used are not high-quality enough, although they are generally supporting non-confrontational statements, and most are official organisations such as Israel Tourism Ministry, Tel Aviv Munipality, Fodors, etc. The verifiable source noticeboard, if you see below, has said that in general these travel sources are fine although not for the most perhaps potentially controversial claims. These have largely been removed, and the last couple which are remotely controversial are being resourced. Your comments above initally referred to problems which had been fixed by this time and Doc G was recontacted and has commented below. This article is not 'MY' article - Wikipedia is collaborative and other users have contributed to the article. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Thanks for your interest anyway. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I spent a great deal of time on this article with you; continued working on it after the previous fail; generously initiated posting in this renom with Comments rather than an oppose despite unresolved issues remaining from the previous FAC; and went to great lengths to repeatedly explain why the sourcing is inadequate for these claims. You have responded by wishing that I had done more of the work myself, and now accusing me of a personal attack and double standards. This is most decidedly an actionable oppose based strictly on WP:WIAFA. Three specific controversial, exceptional claims have inferior sourcing: agencies with a vested interest in promoting Israel. Further, I see no indication that User:doc glasgow has commented below or been recontacted since the renomination. Maralia (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still dont really understand your points to be honest. I dont know what is a non-biased source in your opinion. The Israeli govt is democratic and wont post incorrect figures in its info. The NYC article has references from a consulate, this wasnt ok for the TA one, when you look at other FA cities articles, going through the category from A - the first one, Ahmedabad, has 40 citations, the second city, Alanya, has refs which arent acceptable here, the third, Ann Arbor, Michigan has a very short lead, and refs from travel and other sources which arent acceptable here. I havent looked further but I hope you can appreciate my frustration. Of course, in an ideal world, Id love for this article to have the best possible sources, although other FA city articles dont have any better, if not worse than this and compared to these, this article is more impressive and better sourced. Dont get me wrong, I do greatly appreciate you comments and help at all times, but I do find it unfair that this article is scrutinised so deeply whilst the models for it appear to be of a lower standard. I apologise for being hot-headed before, but Israel articles do come under overscrutilisation by many, and I have experienced it in the past. On reflection, I dont accuse you of this, but it doesnt seem right that this article should have to do more than others. I also made a mistake, I contacted Dr Cash, and not Doc Glasgow, I got confused between their usernames. Once again, thank you for all your time devoted to this FAC. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have never challenged using travel sites or Israeli sources in general in this article - I have specifically objected to their use to support global claims. None of the other FA city articles you mentioned seems to make an exceptional global claim supported by only self-interested sources. Maralia (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I participated in the first FAC. A concern that has not been addressed is the use of an interview with a tour guide to reference the entire "Religion" section. Something more authoritative should be used. --maclean17:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The article is very good and could probably pass WP:FAC this time around with a little work. A few things are still troubling, though:
"Although it is less than a century old, Tel Aviv is recognized as a candidate global city with strong evidence of world city formation." -- This sentence is uncited. What is a "candidate global city" and where is the "evidence of world city formation"?
The 'local government' section is good, although shouldn't the section be changed to 'government' as a whole, since Tel Aviv is recognized by many governments as the capital of Israel? Although maybe Jerusalem is the capital; I'm not certain here? I think a lot of national government headquarters are still in Tel Aviv, as well as many embassies? The government section could probably also be demoted in the order of sections, probably moved to closer to education & transportation, as I don't think it's nearly as important as the history, geography, demographics, or economy.
I would recommend promoting the 'culture' section and demoting 'education' in the order of sections.
Why does 'Terrorism' have its own main section? This seems to be providing more attention to one aspect of the city, and could be construed as a violation of WP:NPOV. The section mentions several historical events, and I think it would be best if the section was integrated into the 'history' section. I don't think I can support this FAC with it as-is, due to the NPOV issues.
Thanks for the comments Dr. Cash. I think I've addressed them all - Ive moved those sections around, have incorporated the terrorism section as a sub-section of the history since 1948 section and have added a bit to the newly renamed 'government' section about its international role. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that has now been addressed - the section has been merged into the history sub-section and all usage of the work terrorist/terrorism have been removed. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user who placed the POV tag on the page has removed it and posted a comment on my talk page to say he is now pleased with the general balance of the article and this point in particular. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sentence in the lead "Tel Aviv is recognized as a candidate global city with strong evidence of world city formation" is not understandable for the most readers. --Doopdoop (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current version is "Although it is less than a century old, Tel Aviv is recognized as a candidate global city with many of the key characteristics of World Cities being present." Let's ask other editors what is their opinion about this sentence from the article lead? --Doopdoop (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Query Both Maralia and Maclean stated that issues raised in the previous FAC remain unaddressed; have they been asked to revisit? One of the concerns was reliable sources; I still see, for example, several travel guides. Sourcing needs improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - are references to travel guides such as Fodors not good enough? The other ones are official - GoIsrael.com is an Israeli government site, and Visit-tlv.com is Tel Aviv municipality. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't like the post-1948 history section. According to this all that happened was bombings and killings. Neither the History, nor the Demographics indicate whether the population or city grew during this time. No one said history has to be interesting.
OK - most city articles dont have great depth in recent history as what is included there is just what isnt in other sections. For example, talking about economy would be copying the economics section, the developent of architecture, the architecture sub-section. Im not sure it is worth it for repitition and so neccessary. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, it is a deficiency in many city articles. I've been poking FAC candidates to fill the gap. I think it illustrates a lack of a comprehensive consultation of the relevant body of literature on the subject. In writing, I have found it best to write the history as a narrative: tell its story as a function of time. The History in this article starts out like this but turns into a list of names and dates by the end. It shouldn't be as detailed as the other sections, but should be congruent and supportive. For example, according to the History section TA has experienced killings and bombings since the 1990s but according to the Economy section TA "has developed dramatically over the past decades" and according to Architecture it has "the soaring price of real-estate". --maclean05:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Over the past 60 years, Tel Aviv has developed into a secular, liberal-minded city with a vibrant nightlife and café culture. is an unattributed editorial.
I think this is cited throughout the article, whether we need 4/5 references to already cited sources at the end of the sentence Im not sure? Flymeoutofhere (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just needs one. An explanation of what leads that conclusion/observation would be nice, too. This is what is making the recent history feeling under-developed: it is silent (or counter-intuitive) on what factors are driving the city's development. --maclean05:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ive developed that section more. Hope that is enough - I dont want to start repeating the whole article in the recent history section, although I can see what you meant now. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The city has 200 known homeless people... The reference says that 200 people use that one homeless shelter, not that there are 200 homeless people in total. Likewise with the In London, for example, 1.9% of the population... stat, not total but an maximum estimate of single homeless people.
That reference talks about total homeless population of TA. It is in reference to funding of a charity, but does give overall statistics. If you want the London bit removed, though, I can do that of course. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 21:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best not to compare 200 people who used one emergency shelter in TA with an estimate of entire homeless population of London. --maclean05:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tel Aviv is known for its openness, thriving night life, and around-the-clock culture.[70] is referenced to a Tel Aviv tourist website... How about "Tel Aviv markets itself as open, with a thriving..."? --maclean18:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. The prose is good; I have called out a couple minor issues that jumped out at me below. However, like some other reviewers, I have a problem with almost anything being cited to tourism-industry sites, official or otherwise. FA criteria 1c and 1d apply. The tourism sites have a massive conflict of interest and cannot be relied upon to provide objective information. Almost the entire Culture section is cited thus. There must be many articles in periodicals and journals about culture in Tel Aviv, and those sources should be preferred over what is there now. My concern is really only contained in the Culture section, but I could not consider supporting as it is. Other comments: Concerns addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are some items double- and triple-cited because they are likely to be disputed? If not, consider choosing the best source and using one citation. Multiple footnotes after seemingly innocuous passages like "Another housing society, Nahalat Binyamin, began to build on April 11, 1909, after holding a lottery to divide up the land." are just distracting to the reader.
Likewise, "On May 21, 1910, the name Tel Aviv was adopted." Is that date disputed? If not, two citations not needed.
Three citations: "More recently, however, many have been refurbished to their original condition."
"Tel Aviv was the Hebrew title of Theodor Herzl's book Altneuland..." Use is instead of was, unless it has a different Hebrew title now.
"This area is traditionally made up demographically of a greater percentage of Arabs, but recent gentrification is finding them replaced by a young professional population." The phrase "finding them" is awkward and should be avoided. Better to just say, "...but recent gentrification is replacing them with a young professional population."
"Nine of the fifteen Israeli billionaires live in Israel; at least four live in Tel Aviv or its suburbs (according to Forbes)." I don't get the "at least" qualifier. They do or they don't.
"It falls just short of New York City and Dublin and just ahead of Rome and Vienna." I'm not sure if "just short" and "just head" mean less expensive or more expensive.
Thanks for the comments. I think I've addressed all these points apart from your inital comment regarding the travel sources. Its very hard to find english sources for this information other than in travel sites. I have posted a request on the Verifability notice board, and will wait to see what they say. I have already changed loads of these, but what are left are well-sourced and not really points which are going to be made up - they are looking for accuracy in them. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Travel sites. Throughout this FAC there have been 'problems' with the use of travel sites/sources as sources of verification. I posted a question regarding their useage at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and this is the answer I received.
"Yes, they are reliable by or rules. However, they do have limitations. We have to remember their purpose, which is to give a very quick overview of the site and events discribed, and to encourage tourists to visit them. They will gloss over many facts (especially negative ones), and editorial review may not be the best. If information listed on a tourism sight is contrary to what is stated in more scholarly works, we should defer to the scholars. Blueboar (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)"
I therefore think that their use in this article as it now stands is acceptable considering they are not really supporting controversial claims. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't really agree with Blueboar's answer, or perhaps his answer lacks clarity. From the policy page WP:V: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This statement certainly doesn't apply to travel-industry sites. I think Blueboar meant that you have to be very careful what you use these for. If it is an extremely general statement like the presence of a building or the date of something opening, they are fine. But any kind of "claim", like something being the biggest, oldest, most popular, etc. should never be cited to a travel-industry site. --Laser brain (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that now we just have these sources for the more general statements. Those which were used for those claims have been changed now I think. Most of these are cited by news/journal sources which definetely cannot be doubted factually. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Random example: "The Batsheva Dance Company is Israel's most well-known contemporary dance troupe." This statement is cited to a travel site. I don't trust a travel site to back up this claim. --Laser brain (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Something's wrong with the appearance of the hebrew in the Infobox, at least it is in my Firefox browser. The vowels and letters aren't aligning. I suggest a post to the languages Ref Desk could help sort this out if you can't do it yourself. --Dweller (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained on help desk, the Hebrew letter and vowel-point Unicode characters are in as correct an order as they're allowed to be (given the errors in the Unicode specification of combining classes for Hebrew diacritics), and display bugs are the problem of each individual browser program, so there seems little point in changing anything... AnonMoos (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I've explained on the help desk, the problem can be fixed by replacing the {{Hebrew|text here}} template (which forces a font choice that is not advisable on all browsers) with {{lang|he|text here}}. This means someone really needs to either fix the "Hebrew" template, or substitute it on all the pages on which it's used. It's fixed in Tel Aviv now, at any rate. - Nunh-huh00:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very well-written and thorough article. I made a few small copy-edits to improve grammar (mainly comma placement) throughout the article, but it would've passed without it. I would like to see the climate, religion, sports, education, and especially the media sections all be expanded and the list of mayors either put into a table or expanded into a separate article, but overall it's definitely up to featured article status. Great job! bob rulz (talk) 10:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Maralia. Seriously, the global claims need to be toned down or sourced to neutral academic sources. Travel articles are insufficiently reliable, and the Jewish Virtual Library is insufficiently neutral, to make "Tel Aviv has the most xy in the world" claims. TomTheHand (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to address this once and for all.
Most populous city in Gush Dan - cited to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics - the most reliable source of these stats
Most Bauhaus buildings in world - cited to The Times of London
One of oldest ports - cited by Jewish VL & Ive added Rough Guide publication source
Most musumes - is now cited by a book (Governing Israel: Chosen People, Promised Land and Prophetic Tradition)
The travel articles used are therefore, well sourced, by internationally acclaimed news sources or travel guides. Most of this information is primarilly in Hebrew and as such I cant get an English source so easily. These publications, however, are well researched and sourced, and unless they were pretty sure about someting, wouldnt make the claim. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the claim that it's the most populous city in Gush Dan, because the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics is sufficiently reliable to make a claim about its own metropolitan areas. A travel article in the Times is not sufficiently reliable to make the Bauhaus claim, because it is unlikely that significant fact-checking is performed to come up with such blurbs. An article about the Bauhaus school which makes that claim would be different; it would be assumed that to make that claim a significant amount of research and fact-checking was performed. The article does not claim that it is one of the oldest ports in the world; it claims that it is believed to be the oldest. That needs to be toned down. I do not have a big issue with the museums claim, because it is phrased "is claimed to have the highest number of museums per capita", with sources plainly showing who makes that claim. TomTheHand (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I would have thought the Times to be a reputable enough source considering that usually news organistaions of this calibre are almost flawless. Anyhow, Ive trawled the net and have got a list of possible refs for this claim which I list below. Please tell me which are ok.
Just reading on, if I put 'is claimed' in front of the claims would that be ok because I know that these claims havent come out of nowhere, but am finding it really hard to find any concrete refs. When I come across them, then I'll add them. If you could confirm this, I have no issue changing them. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, travel sites and blogs are not going to work. You need to find a serious academic source for global claims. Roger, below, brings up a really good point. You shouldn't be putting stuff into an article and then scrambling around trying to find good sources for them. You should be finding good sources, and then putting what they say into the article. TomTheHand (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have watched this article through a peer review and three FA nominations and I still remain of the opinion that it is not FA material. Far too much of the prose still reads like a prospectus and I am unhappy about the determination to stick with peacock claims supported by less than impeccable sources. A Wikipedia article ought to be built on facts extracted from reliable sources, not built on claims which scrabble round for sources. --ROGER DAVIEStalk14:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article has improved but the prose doesn't meet FA standards. An example: However, lately things have calmed down and the city has started again hosting many tourists and even more annual events. Careless diction (things) combined with nebulous phrasing (many tourists and even more events) dulls the prose. Majoreditor (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hey, surprised no-one contacted me, since my previous concerns are being discussed here - and are still not addressed. This article is not neutral. Despite several objections references to "the city that never sleeps" and "global candidate city" have not been removed. No, yes I know that both are referenced. However, stuff in the lead should be factual, seldom value judgement and if value judgement are being reported they should be notoriously commonly held views, or from indisputably relevent and authoritative sources. "The city that never sleeps" does not appear to be a general epithet of TA. And the relevance of "global candidate city" is unclear. It seems that rather than trying to find neutral description of TA the author is trying to find positive spin that he can subsequently justify by reliable citations. That's how you write factual promotional material, it is NOT how you write an encyclopedia article. If the lead is written like this, I am loathe to trust the objectivity of the rest.--Docg11:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ive moved the "city that never sleeps" down into the culture section. The global candidate city is referenced to two academic institutions so I cant see the issue here. If you look above, and on the Talk page, the objectivity issues were solved. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Bauhaus Reference. Is this ok: Mann, Barbara E. (2006). A Place in History: Modernism, Tel Aviv, and the Creation of Jewish Urban Space. Stanford UniversityPress. p. 336. ISBN080475019X. On page 162. Here's the link. This is published by Stanford Univestiy Press. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about the Jaffa has been a fortified port town for at least 4,000 years and is believed to be the oldest port in the world and its related claim further down? A couple of points here:
First, even the travel sources don't say that it has been "fortified" for 4000 years. They say the harbour has been used for 4000 years, a very diferent claim.
Second, your article dates Jaffa to the Bronze Age. The following natural ports have settlements dating from the Stone Age: Piraeus, Marseille and Dover. Considerably older.
Now, what about the source for the local government claims? It leads to an empty page.
Thanks for the comments. I've added a citation here and have sorted out the local govt. I think I still dont get what you're trying to say with the Jaffa part. If you could go into the article and edit it as appropriate (and anything else), I'd really appreciate it because obviously if it needs to be done in order for the article to become FA, then it has to be done. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I'm not an expert in ancient history, but surely Alexandria and Byblos are contenders, as well. On the Bauhaus note, I encourage you to read the UNESCO sources I provided: UNESCO explicitly distinguishes between Bauhaus and the more general Modern Movement in architecture, and makes a point of characterizing Tel Aviv's architecture as Modern, not Bauhaus. Working backwards from travel sites and promotional literature is just not an effective method of arriving at verifiable facts. Maralia (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed the docs at that link. I've had a go at incorporating that info and toning down the Bauhaus bit. What does this do to the world's highest concentration. Should it say 'is claimed to' in reference to Bauhaus or Modernist? I dont think its quite right yet but hopefully we are getting there! Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
