Talk:Battle of Haifa (1948)

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 [1].

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)

I removed this again. The Hebrew caption on Wikimedia only says (per Google Translate) "The battle for Haifa ended in victory - inspection of certificates in Haifa The photo was deposited by Hauser Menashe Martin". We don't know when this was taken (before or after the capture of the city?) or what exactly it shows, so I don't see how we can include it in the article (where would it be placed and what would it be captioned?). IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Truce negotiations and Arab orders

The article contains this paragraph, referencing Morris (2004), p.191,

That afternoon a meeting was held in the town hall to discuss terms of the truce. Due to the inability of the National Committee (Haifa) to guarantee that no incidents would occur, the Arab delegation declared their inability to endorse the proposed truce and requested protection for the evacuation of Haifa's Palestinian Arab citizens.

I think this phrasing is very ambiguous and has to be rewritten to emphasise that the [Haifa Arab] National Committee could not guarantee to the Jews that incidents wouldn't occur from their own side!

According to Morris, on April 22, the Haganah offered "each person in Haifa.. to carry on with his business and way of life. Arabs will carry on their work as equal and free citizens of Haifa and will enjoy all services along with the other members of the community."

As the reason for declining the truce, Morris quotes

that they were not in a position to sign a truce, as they had no control over the Arab military elements in the town and that... they could not fulfill the terms of the truce, even if they were to sign. They then said as an alternative that the Arab population wished to evacuate Haifa ... man, woman and child.

He quotes Hugh Stockwell and other British officers, saying that the Arabs were also worried of being charged of betrayal.

Amayorov (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Morris also provides "a surfeit of evidence" that, from April 22 onwards, the Arab leaders both ordered and encouraged the evacuation. He and Karsh reference British and American intelligence reports, Alan Cunningham's assessment, personal memoirs, and Haganah's assessments, that "the Jews have been making extensive efforts to prevent wholesale evacuation," while the "total evacuation is being urged on the Haifa Arabs from higher Arab quarters and that the townsfolk themselves are against it."

For example, one British intelligence report they quote assessed that

after the Jews had gained control of the town, and in spite of a subsequent food shortage, many would not have responded to the call for a complete evacuation but for the rumours and propaganda spread by the National Committee members remaining in the town. Most widespread was a rumour that Arabs remaining in Haifa would be taken as hostages by [the] Jews in the event of future attacks on other Jewish areas: and an effective piece of propaganda with its implied threat of retribution when the Arabs recapture the town, is that [those] people remaining in Haifa acknowledged tacitly that they believe in the principle of a Jewish State.

Regarding the reasons for the alleged Arab encouragement of the exodus, the sources they quote speculate that it was to avoid "possibility of Haifa Arabs being used as hostages in future operations after May 15," and to escape "the gearing of Transjordan's armed force for a wholesale massacre" that had threatened to bomb Haifa from the air .

I suggest that this be reflected in the article, at least as a possible view. Amayorov (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time to get into this but I'm strongly

opposed to much of this. Efraim Karsh is WP:FRINGE and a lot of this information you're proposing to add is Nakba denial. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Most of it is sourced from Benny Morris, who is the most referenced author on this page anyway. My complaint is that he is quoted selectively: there's large paragraphs (rightfully) taken from his book about the Haganah's use of psychological warfare, and yet when it comes to Arab evacuation orders, he's ignored. And when he is quoted, such as the Arab NC's admission that they couldn't guarantee a truce, it is done so ambiguously that a reader can interpret the sentence in any way they choose.

I also disagree that Karsh is fringe, given that he's a professor at King's College London. However, I don't insist on his inclusion. Amayorov (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS I added this material. I have seen only two arguments against including it: (1) Benny Morris is already oversourced, and (2) that this is "Nakba denial".

The first point results in Morris' work being essentially cherry-picked. Currently, large sections of his research are omitted, seemingly due to them not fitting a particular view, while the rest forms the bulk of the article. This is a clear violation of WP:DUE:

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources

The second is simply not a historical argument. See Wikipedia:What FRINGE is not. Morris's 2004 book is one of two bibliographical sources listed in the article, and is clearly not fringe.

If you have sources that disagree with Morris' assertion, please include them as well. Amayorov (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS You moved Morris' assertion to the historiography section. Why not do the same for other views too?

Historian Walid Khalidi described "the mass exodus of Haifa's Arab population" as "the spontaneous reaction to the ruthless combination of terror and psychological warfare tactics adopted by the Haganah during the attack."

Amayorov (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@IOHANNVSVERVS I also don't think Historiography is a good place for it. Historiography refers to the study of methods used by historians. It is not a place to describe historical disputes. In fact, describing disputes is a part of WP:WIKIVOICE: Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Amayorov (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Infobox strength parameter

I removed the info in the strength parameter of the infobox.[2]

The numbers presented there were the estimate of "The British" as cited in Morris 2004:

The British estimated that in the battle for Haifa some ‘2,000’ Arab militiamen were set against ‘400 trained Jews backed by an indeterminate number of reserves’. The estimate of Arab combatants seems excessive; of Jewish troops, on the low side.

I believe that since this is not the estimate of a secondary source, and that Morris criticizes these numbers, that this estimate doesn't belong in the infobox. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Pappé 2006 has "The 2000 Carmeli Brigade troops faced a poorly equipped army of 500 local and mainly Lebanese volunteers" IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Historiography and Khalidi/Morris disagreement

Opening a separate section to discuss this. @Amayorov IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. 'Historiography' relates to the study of methods used in historical research. It isn't the appropriate section to describe disputes. In fact, disputes are already part of WP:WIKIVOICE: Wikipedia aims to describe disputes [but not engage in them]. I don't see why the disagreement between Morris and Khalidi can't be tackled in the main 'Battle' section, as it is done currently. Amayorov (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe your understanding of the scope/definition of historiography is accurate. Nor @Alaexis's "historiography is the study of the methods used by historians, the differing views should be discussed in the relevant section"

See Morris, Benny. (2005). The Historiography of Deir Yassin. Journal of Israeli History - J ISR HIST. 24. 79-107. 10.1080/13531040500040305 and Pappé, Ilan. “The Vicissitudes of the 1948 Historiography of Israel.” Journal of Palestine Studies 39, no. 1 (2009): 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1525/jps.2010.xxxix.1.6. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

From Morris (2005):

There are a number of historiographic lessons to be culled here, relating to the value of oral testimony versus documentation and to the interface between politics and historiography.

From Pappé (2009)

Arguing that history writing is a dialectical process fusing ideological agenda and political developments with historical evidence, the author analyzes the two major transitions experienced by the Israeli historiography of the 1948 war

If you were to discuss how political developments or newly released evidence affected the discourse, or the relative value of "oral testimony versus documentation", that would be Historiography. A simple disagreement between two historians on a particular matter is definitely not that. Amayorov (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Could we get some other opinions on this? I still think creating a historiography section is the best thing to do here. The edits I made were reverted here. We have a lot of articles about the 1948 Palestine war that have historiography sections like this, I don't think the objections are valid. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

A recent RfC at 1948 Palestinian expulsion resulted in no consensus to include Morris' analysis regarding Arab evacuation orders at Haifa Talk:1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight#RfC – In the article section about "Haifa", should the following paragraph be added? and I don't think it belongs in this article either, though it would be appropriate to include in a historiography section. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Rename

I believe this article should be renamed. None of the references use "Battle of Haifa" capitalized as a proper name. Only three of the references use the phrase "battle of Haifa": Morris 2004, Karsh and Kimche. Morris 2004 uses the phrase once and along with Karsh also use the phrase "fall of Haifa" as well.

I suggest we retitle this to Operation Bi'ur Hametz (which fits better with how the article reads, the opening sentence for example describing "a Haganah operation carried out on 21–22 April 1948") IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

A google search and a Google Scholar search all yield results mostly for Battle of Haifa (1918). IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The decision to rename this article Battle of Haifa, from its original title of Operation Bi'ur Hametz, did not nake reference to reiable sources. Talk:Battle of Haifa (1948)/Archive 1#Rename to Battle of Haifa?, Talk:Battle of Haifa (1948)/Archive 1#Move to Battle of Haifa (1948) IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The downside is that the proposed name is much more cryptic and would say nothing to 99% of the readers. Have you checked the proposed name in Google Scholar? If there is no one commonly used name then we should go with the descriptive one, according to the policy. Alaexis_¿question? 22:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)