Talk:Gaza City

Precipitation

I've checked the amount of rainfall in Gaza in other sites and it doesn't seem to be that low like the climate chart says, it's supposed to be between 200 to 400 mm per year and not 116 mm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone35 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Israeli pull-out

I have removed the following from the article as there is no obvious relationship between this information and Gaza City (as opposed to the Gaza Strip):

In 2004, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced that Israel would unilaterally withdraw its army from Gaza. According to the Israel unilateral disengagement plan, Jewish settlements in Gaza would be dismantled. Execution of the disengagement plan began in mid-August 2005, amidst many Israeli protesters who burned their belongings, wore orange, and resisted unarmed Israeli troops. The evacuation of Israeli citizens, whilst heavily protested, was a success and no serious incidents hampered the IDF.

Palmiro | Talk 16:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Removal of section

I've removed from the article the following section, inserted a couple of days ago by 130.111.137.19 (talk · contribs):

Gaza, like any other city in the occupied terrotories, suffered many hard hits by the Israel Defense Forces IDF and the Israeli Air Force IAF. Starting from the first intifada until the second intifada, Gaza went through hard times especially because Gaza Strip and Gaza city in particular is well known of a strong held of many Palestinian resistance groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, who had many clashes with the Israeli troop outside the city butt caused in many events death and devastation. Now after the Israeli had ended some of its occupation in Gaza Strip for exeption the control over the sea and air, Gaza is starting a new era of rebuilding the destruction that IDF left in the city not only that but also a new era of a democratic experience, like the elections of Januray 25th 2006. see Hamas wins Palestinian election. The elections proved that the Palestinians had passed the test of democracy in that region and they are building their new state.

It seems nothing more than a poorly-written POV unsourced essay or opinion piece. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

While some historical information, including regarding the years of the two intifadas, would be welcome in the article, I agree that this material is not particularly good. Palmiro | Talk 15:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Look people.

It doesnt take a genius with Wiki-Gaza entry, to compare languages, and see the more balanced attempts in any of the European Wiki pages, in French, in German, and suddenly the English language (i.e. American-slanted war readership) going totally Zionist.

So just the fact that you all have agreed on a section called "NAMING" where there is NO OTHER city or nation entry that has such a section, tells you alot. Let alone the attempt for five different Hebrew pronunciations, the Hebrew history first, the attempts at starting with "gaza is unclear" origins and all that.

How it was finally agreed that this Gaza entry is considered a "neutral", unbiased reading is telling of Wiki system fallacies in general. It started with the attempt to muscle in with "the origin of Gaza is unclear"... and the many explanations of Hebrew history, Hebrew naming, and now, we have to always acknowledge ISRAELI PALESTINIANS - ha, really, that is good. That means, no Palestinians exist, because Israelis are Palestinians. This stuff is Zionist 101 level. I assumed Wiki should eventually start flagging something on this page, or is better than that.

There is a check and balance, and it isnt Wiki: This page has started to be used by University reading groups, as a textbook example of how bad English language (American) wiki is with geopolitics, and why in essence, it fails.

Enjoy and keep adding "Israeli Palestinians" as it only helps teaching courses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.69.163 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Israelis and Palestinians

...confrontation between Israelis and Palestinians

Does "Palestinians" here refer to Palestinian Arabs? Or is the contributor trying to express the point of view that Israelis aren't "Palestinian" but that only Arabs are? If so, this POV should be sourced. --Uncle Ed 14:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Israelis are not Palestinian. Nowadays (and please nobody try to front, we have way too many sensitive Westerners trying to be politically correct so peoples' feelings don't get hurt) if you are not Palestinian Arab, you are not Palestinian. To say Palestine would not refer to Israel because they are not one in the same. Therefore, if you are Israeli, you are not Palestinian. It's time we got more specific and stopped using general terms like that. We need to get specific; the Jews are Israeli and the Palestinians are Palestinians. They were the first there (the Philistines) and therefore they were the natives. The natives get the name of the land according to the people who originally changed it from Philistine to Palestine (I forgot, it might have been the Greeks). If you were there first, you get the name, end of story. I was born in the United States but I don't get the term Native American, so why should Israeli Jews get both Israeli and Palestinian? Simple: you don't get both. You're one or the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.11.39 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Problems with your arguements:

1) Please read the history of the Palestinians. A majority of Palestinians are Arabs, but it does not make all Palestinians Arabs. Palestinian officials consider all Jews (and their descendants) living in pre-1948 Palestine as Palestinians.

2) Although there was a group of people known as Philistines (non-Arab), the name Palestine was actually given to the land as an insult to injuries for the defeated Jews. The Romans named the area Palaestina in an attempt to erase Jewish past from the land. It also happen to be named after an enemy in Jewish history.

Gaza Buffer Zone

I added important link to the Gaza article, somebody can write more on it. The links says a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.0.230 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved the passage to the Gaza Strip article, but have excluded it for the moment until as it is unsourced. Tewfik^Talk 17:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

AD/CE - BC/BCE

Wouldn't it be nice with some consistency in the use of these? Is there a general wiki policy on this? Benjaminmyklebust 10:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Gaza Airport

I removed Gaza Airport from the "by air" section on how to get there, seeing as the airport is closed and is accessible only by birds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.199.236 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Jewish communities in Gaza

I see no need for this paragraph....it is inserted for extermist right-jewish pro-israel propaganda there is no citation to what is written in there...and the "jewish community" in these days were very few to call them even a community...if 500 jews lived among 300000 arabs...I would not call that a community?!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.128.247.47 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

500 is definately a community. If the Jews of Hebron are mentioned countless times throughout that article, I think that the Jews of Gaza are notable enough to be mentioned here. I've added an {{unreferenced}} tag to the section, but it would be better if you add {{fact}} tags to the specific sentences needing sources instead. —Khoikhoi 21:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt the information given in this section. In whole, during the 1929 Palestine riots, 133 Jews were killed, notably 65-68 in Hebron and 18-20 in Safed. This section claims that more than 150 Jews died in Gaza, which I find hard to believe. The footnote gives a reference that is not particularly reliable, so does anybody have a more serious reference? Regardless, the phrasing of the section is POV (echoing the tone of the given reference).--Doron 08:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A direct reference would of course be best, but the Jewish Virtual Library is generally considered a reliable source. Tewfik^Talk 20:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

By whom? I should think that such a big massacre would be mentioned in other sources, don't you? Anyway, the JVL is so reliable, that it contradicts itself, mentioning a total of 135 Jews killed in the 1929 riots here, which make the 150 figure in Gaza impossible.--Doron 23:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice that the 150 was limited to Gaza; I thought you were questioning their number. That seems to be an obvious typographical error on their part that was copied to here, but in general they are treated as an RS, especially since they usually cite the primary and secondary sources used for their entries. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 06:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I NPOV'ed a bit ("1929 massacres" -> "1929 riots", same as the linked article; removed "and the death of more than 130 Jews" which makes it look like 130 Jews died in Gaza, I don't mind the 130 figure if you have a better phrasing though; removed obvious POV "and appease the Arabs"). I also removed the bit about Kfar Darom, which is not in Gaza but rather near Deir el-Balah.--Doron 09:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I kept "massacres" since most of the casualties were from the Safed massacre and Hebron massacre that were part of the riots. I expanded the sentence to explicitly make the connection, but I feel that the previous wording was both more concise and accurate. I'm not sure if you intentionally removed "appease Arabs", but that is the continuation of the sentence in the reference, and is in line with the Hope Simpson Royal Commission. I've in the past had mixed feelings about the Kfar Darom line, since it isn't in Gaza city, but it does seem like an important postscript, so I included a shortened version. Tewfik^Talk 03:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I removed the "appease" passage intentionally, because it is POV. I found no justification in the Hope Simpson Royal Commission article for this wording. We're not obliged to be faithful to the reference, especially to its POV wording. By the way, was there a "Gaza Strip" in 1946?--Doron 08:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

JVL isn't unique in its use of that language for this subject matter. What exactly would you need to see to accept those words? As for the "Gaza Strip", while I was probably guilty of using an anachronistic term, I did see the term in use for the coastal strip up to Majdal in literature discussing the period, and so it may well be an accurate phrasing. If you can think of better wording, than by all means try your hand. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 02:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the Gaza Strip was a reference to the coast up to Majdal, then Gaza City is "central Gaza Strip", isn't it? Well, I suppose you can just drop "Gaza Strip". Kfar Darom is about 15km away, so if you still think it is close enough to Gaza City (which is the subject of this article) to be relevant, you could just leave "nearby" or "15km away" or whatever.

As for "appease", I'd like to see a quote from a British official policy or report indicating that it's purpose amounts to appeasement, otherwise it seems to me a POV interpretation. A policy that is beneficial to the Arabs can be regarded as an attempt to appease them or as an attempt to address their grievances, if the purpose is not stated, then either interpretation is POV.--Doron 21:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this issue has been satisfactorily dealt with in the article. PatGallacher (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this article about Gaza or Jews? In order for this page to have any credibility, the content has to change so that it actually reflects the subject matter more fully and doesn't give the impression that it is merely a vehicle for a narrow agenda. --manchester me 23:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue of casualty figures in massacres can often be an awkward and sensitive issue. See the Wikipedia articles on Oran massacre of 1962, Revolt in the Vendee, and Khleminitsky Uprising for similar problems, where although nobody disputes that large numbers of people were killed in these incidents casualty figures vary wildly. However while it is not disputed that several dozen Jews were killed in attacks in Palestine in 1929, every other source I have seen indicates that the most serious incident was in Hebron, if there really had been a more serious incident in Gaza we would have heard more about it than this one partisan source. The Encyclopedia Britannica article on Hebron mentions the 1929 massacre, there is nothing similar in its article on Gaza. I suspect that as a result of a badly worded piece somewhere a figure of 130 Jews killed in Palestine as a whole was mistakenly taken as referring to a single incident in Gaza. (It is possible even this figure is a slight overestimate.) PatGallacher (talk) 16:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sister Cities

Is Barcelona really a sister city of Gaza? The Barcelona entry on wikipedia makes no mention of Gaza being one of its sister cities. Haluk 25.8.06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.75 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Biblical references

A section on Gaza in the Bible should probably be included. I am not qualified to do it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.48.59.72 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 24 January 2007.

Population

Gaza itslef has a population of 1.3 million people and is one of the most densley populated areas on the planet. Can i add this in the article? (Ssd175 22:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

I believe that such information would be more appropriate for the article on the Gaza Strip, which has such a population, rather then this article. --Credema 23:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahh. Thank you for pointing that out i did not realize that this article was Gaza city rather than the Gaza strip. My mistake. (Ssd175 00:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

This article is on Gaza City itself which, with around 1.5 million persons overall (or is .41 plus 1.5? in the metro-downtown area?), there would be a population density of 33300 per sq.km instead of the 10,000 approx. we now see being listed as the population density. Since the Gaza war with the IDF strikes on the city, the population density has become quite an issue between the defenders of IDF policy and those who are saying there's no excuse for phosphorous eg. use in such a densely populted area. I suggest that a more exact number be calculated and placed down in the main article so that the actual population density is no longer confused with the population of the Gaz strip in it's entirety, as we now see it is being left as. This number is a matter of extremely high contention at the moment, as one can see by comparing numbers between groups like CAMERA, CIA, the UN or Encarta. I believe this is a job for the editors themselves as any numbers I have calculated would no doubt be challenged immediately.-- --Mycos (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC) 24.67.136.210 (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

it is NOT "one of the most densley populated areas on the planet." See here for a discussion and presentation of relevant facts. Yoshm (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ghazw

Is the name related to Ghazw or Ghaza? Mallerd 21:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that The conquest of Gaza by Alexander the Great should be included in the introduction —Preceding unsigned comment added by S.P.A.O. (talk • contribs) 00:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Some good reference Information on Gaza

http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/199405/gaza-contested.crossroads.htm Sunniestday (talk) 10:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Why was the picture removed?

There used to be a wonderful picture of gaza city somewhere at the top of the page and it seems that it was removed. Can someone please explain to me why it was removed? I've posted this 3 times before but it keeps getting removed for some reason.-NamesR4chumps (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Horid Wording

"Impasse

Hamas leadership now in control of Gaza will not recognise Israel's right to exist nor cease its use of terrorist tactics, including the deliberate targeting of civilians and the use of suicide bombers. This effectively causes an impasse since Israel, and many Western nations including Canada and the United States, refuse to deal with Hamas and will only deal with the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank."

this fails to mention the crimes Israel has commited against the Palestinian people, as well as being sourcless. i'm going to delete the above passage, until both sides are addressed.--Aristotle58 (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that statement was extremely biased, and needed to be removed.NamesR4chumps (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was No consensus Discussion seems to have petered out, the participating editors are split evenly, and no particularly strong evidence has been provided to justify moving the page has been provided. Parsecboy (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza → Gaza City — Simply for clarity between the strip and the city, both of which are commonly referred to as "Gaza" — Anxietycello (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2008 (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.

• Oppose --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support --TJ Spyke 02:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support; I also support moving Gaza (disambiguation) to Gaza to complete the disambiguation. --Una Smith (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary and unidiomatic; when precision is necessary, the distinction between Gaza and Gaza Strip is more than sufficient. I note that our population estimates imply that all of the Strip is the Gaza metropolitan area. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support the proposal or a move to Gaza (city) and a move of Gaza (disambiguation) to Gaza conditional on improving the DAB page and/or hatnotes which I will attempt now. I agree with User:Pmanderson in spirit but for most general readers, "Gaza" likely refers to the strip, not the city, and it is commonly used this way in the media, &c. I particularly dislike the current situation where a reader typing "Gaza" and looking for the strip must click a hatnote to Gaza (disambiguation) and then scroll down into a list to click on the Gaza Strip entry. Furthermore, a phrase like "For current air campaign" doesn't belong anywhere. This is not Wikinews. — AjaxSmack 02:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I understand your reasoning, but I oppose a move because Gaza has been called "Gaza" for centuries and centuries, while the Gaza Strip is a recent (60 years) term to describe one of the Palestinian territories. We can't change the name of a city because of some people's confusion, but we can create a disambiguation page on Gaza, and then put a hat-note at the top of this article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It's also the name that the media tends to use when talking about it, so I would say it's the common name (sorta like how New York City's actual name is just "New York" and not "New York City").

Hm. Al Ameer son, would Gaza (city) (or some other variant) be acceptable to you? I ask because there already is a disambiguation page, Gaza (disambiguation), and Gaza has about 750 incoming links[1] that, on casual inspection, are in need of disambiguation. See Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. --Una Smith (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. Just saw that hat note on top of the page. Actually, no that I see there's a hat note, I think the article's name is fine how it is. If someone types "Gaza" on Wikipedia Search and for some reason is expecting to get the Gaza Strip article as a result, he/she could just click on the hat note. If I had to choose between Gaza City and Gaza (city), I would choose the former by the way. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The reader would have to recover from their surprise at not being on the page they expected, notice the hatnote, click the link, then read the dab page. Wouldn't it be better if they went directly to the dab page? Also, consider how the reader gets to this page. If following incoming links, those links can be corrected, so the reader is never surprised, never has to recover. That is done by participants in the disambiguation project, but only if the disambiguation page occupies the ambiguous title (ie, the dab page is at Gaza rather than at Gaza (disambiguation)). --Una Smith (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but isn't that how many articles on wikipedia are? I typed in Napoleon in the search box and it gave me Napoleon I of France, while there is a hat note on top of that article with dozens of links to other Napoleons. Gaza is no different. As for the reader, I think he/she will be able to find the "Gaza Strip" in mere seconds, it's not that big of a deal. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This reasoning can go the other way. How about we move Gaza Strip to Gaza (Gaza Strip may be the primary topic) and let readers who want "the other" Gaza go through extra steps? And neither reasoning does anything about the problem of incoming links that are incorrect and need to be fixed (edited so they go to the intended article). See Special:WhatLinksHere/Gaza. --Una Smith (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:NCDAB states "When there is another term (such as Pocket billiards instead of Pool) or more complete name (such as Delta rocket instead of Delta) that is equally clear and unambiguous, that should be used." In my opinion, titling the article 'Gaza City' is not endorsing that as the correct name for the city, but simply and clearly disambiguating the city from the strip. Anxietycello (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

The Gaza article photo

It pains me that what I must presume is a very adequate photo of Gaza City has been nominated for "Speedy Deletion". It seems that "speedy deletion" is exactly what Isreal is trying to bring to the Gaza Strip. What, I ask, is wrong with this photo? (I must confess that it took me exactly 47 seconds of intense looking to find the "~" key.) Wookiepediac (talk) 03:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

IDF assault on Gaza

Shouldn't we cover the events of January 2009 on Gaza? RomaC (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

They're partly covered in the Palestinian National Authority section. It needs to be updated though. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Should there be a discussion here of the use of white phosphorus as a chemical agent against Gaza, during the attacks? Trent370 (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza Attack on israel

2009 there should be here some info on the rockets and f16s and soldiers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.97.68 (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Gaza Masacre 2008 - 2009

we need to bring up this topic, its something we missed i guess. Why is it locked? --219.93.21.126 (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza city is 151.0 km²?

This doesn't sounds reasonable. How can Gaza city have a jurisdiction that large? That's almost half the Strip. As far as I can tell, reading other sites, not even the Gaza Governate is that big. Something is clearly wrong here, or am I mistaken? Frederico1234 (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It is wrong. This article itself is mostly in shambles (not a disaster though), hopefully when the current conflict ends, WP Palestine will go at editing this article at full force. Right now everyone is busy with these past major events. Thanks for pointing that. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind response. I'm currently looking for a reliable source for the correct figure. Finding that source is actually more time-consuming than it sounds like, especially if you don't know arabic. I'll add it when I've found it (or perhaps someone who knows arabic could find it, hint hint) Frederico1234 (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to find a figure too, but unfortunately (and shamefully) I cannot read or write Arabic )-: I'll make a post on WP Palestine soon though. Thanks for your cooperation by the way! --Al Ameer son (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)j

Found a source which said 45 km² (WARNING: the site given below seems to be infected by some kind of malware): http://www.mogaza.org/gazacity.htm. I updated the info box with the new info, but did not add the link due to the infection mentioned. The source is in arabic, which I don't speak, so if any brave arabic-speaker could verify the info then that would be great! Frederico1234 (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was on that site yesterday and found out the English version is not infected: [2]. Where exactly did you find it? Which section was it? --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I copy-pasted the middle section (the one with the bullet-points) in [3] into GoogleTranslate. The second point says (in english translation) "the area of the city with [sic] 45 km 2". Frederico1234 (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that source you provided seems fine (i think its just the main page that's infected). You should go ahead and paste that source. By the way, 45 km2 is 45,000 dunams (to fill the XX,XXX part). Right now I'm working on the city's early history. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks a lot for the feedback! Appreciated. Cheers! Frederico1234 (talk) 15:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to point that out up higher but I suppose I wasn't signed in at the time and only my # appeared. The true number is important as it speaks to whether shelling can be justified in conditions of a given civilian density. --Mycos (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

gaza rockets attack israel

shouldnt there be something somewhere on this event? 2008 finished with 153 rockets from gaza into israel but i dont think that alone deserved wikipedia mention as relevent..but israels response in 2009 i think makes it worthy of wikimention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.97.68 (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

sad just sad none of this is tre —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.2.206.20 (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Rockets being fired from Gaza into Israel -- regardless of whether or not there was an Israeli response and the degree of that response -- is worthy of mention. Imagine if rockets started reigning down on your town or city in America or Canada or Europe or South America or Asia. That would be a pretty startling event. The firing of hundreds of rockets into a populated area is ALWAYS relevant and notable and deserving of mention in a Wikipedia article on a geographic area. ask123 (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Statistics about deaths during latest conflict need revision

The citation source for the fatalities says nothing about the number of children killed. Either remove "a third of them are children" or find support for this fact. What you've cited says nothing about children.

Thirteen Israelis, including ten soldiers were killed, while nearly 1,200 Palestinians have been killed—a third of them being children.[46]

I also believe that you should include "according to Palestinian sources" since this number is, as the citation states, according to Palestinian sources and the number has not been reported by Israel, the Red Cross or the UN -- and it will be -- for sure, soon.

Jennienina (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)jennienina

I didn't realize that particular source did not mention the children so we'll remove that portion. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Satellite view from 1918

Could someone clarify which satellite the photograph was taken from in 1918? —Ashley Y 07:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's all that it said on the Palestine Remembered website. Don't worry though, I'm replacing it with one on the surrender to British troops. Al Ameer son (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way it was an aerial view. That's my bad. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Additions to the Economy section

About the recent addition of a "description" of the Gaza economy in the Modern era subsection... It's not that the information is not important because it is, it's just that it doesn't belong in this article. The source isn't talking about Gaza City, it's on the Gaza Strip. That article is where the info belongs. There is also the Economy of the Gaza Strip, but the info you added seems more like a summary so I think it's better off in the Gaza Strip article. In addition, this Economy/Modern era subsection already neutrally covers the info you added in detail. See the first passage and the last three. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for raising your issues here in Talk about my change to the "Gaza/Economy/Modern era" section. Firstly, this section is by definition meant to talk about the Modern era Economy of Gaza, so how can the information I added about the Economy of Gaza in the Modern era not belong to this article? Secondly, Gaza City is in the Gaza Strip, and a blockade of the Gaza Strip is also a blockade of Gaza City - so when the blockade puts the Economy of the Gaza Strip into shambles it clearly also applies to all portions including Gaza City. And thirdly, the info I added is not covered neutrally elsewhere in this section - because it is not covered at all. The first passage lets us know that the fishing industry was damaged by Israel closing down its port. But I think you'll agree that the fishing industry is only a portion of the overall economy. And the last three passages let us know that Gazans can no longer cross the border to work in Israel, and that unemployment is high and economic conditions are stagnant - but it doesn't say *why*.

An encyclopedia should present the most important information at the beginning of the section - and in this case the most important information is why the economy is in shambles - and the following passages should explicate that information. So I put the essential information with clear RS citation to the top - that the economy is in shambles because of the blockade. I don't think anyone, including the Israel military, would dispute that the blockade of all people and goods going into and out of a city will destroy the Economy of that city, so I don't think this is even a disputable point. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I am certainly not disputing the fact the blockade has crippled if not virtually destroyed the economy of Gaza. And if there's no mention of how it's the blockade that is the cause of all of the economic problems in the city then by all means add it. However, because this an article on the city, we should try to stick to info about the city. The siege should mentioned as the cause of all this (we don't have to go into detail about how the siege came about because the Modern era subsection in the History section covers that) but to include figures for the whole Gaza Strip gives the impression that those are the identical figures of Gaza City. Therefore, I suggest we move the passage towards the bottom of the section (because of the general chronological order it's in) and mention that the blockade is the reason behind the following situations, without going into figures for the Gaza Strip i.e. "the strip's population have been relying on less than a quarter of the volume of imported supplies they received in December 2005. At times, significantly less than that has gone into the strip, causing severe shortages. Only basic humanitarian items have been allowed in, and virtually no exports permitted, paralysing the economy." Again, nothing disputing the siege's effects, but there are other closely-related articles where this important information is more appropriate. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I see your point about the specific reference to gaza strip you quoted above, so I removed that and replaced with a direct quote relating to Gaza City from the same source. Note that I have added nothing about "how the seige came about" as you requested (nor actually had I added it before). Let me know what you think. Thanks, Jgui (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It's much better now, thank you for making that clarification. Great discussing with you Jgui. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Page protection?

I'm not sure why this article is being protected. It has been very stable for quite a while now. I'm moving to unprotect it now. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

gaza hebrew עזה

There is no mention of Israel's good will act in 2006 of exiting the region in the modern history.

There were many families who were uprooted, and sent to live in hotels funded by the Israeli government, but not given full amounts of money for property that they were kicked out of. Wikipedia also does not mention how productive agriculturally the areas were before the exit of Israel from the region, and how desolate it became after the expulsion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.91.204.53 (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Commonwealth War Graves

Hi, I suspect this page is protected in some way since I can't edit it, so I just want to leave this piece of information here for someone to edit in:

The Britsh War Cemetery should maybe be referred to as the Commonwealth War Cemetery, or to it's name according to the Commonwealth War Graves Comission, the Gaza War Cemetery (http://www.cwgc.org/search/cemetery_details.aspx?cemetery=71701&mode=1). I'm aware that it's commonly referred to as the British War Cemetery, but quand même.

If anyone's interested, I can upload some photos from the Gaza War Cemetery. I'll get back to this talkpage in some days to check. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.90.142.65 (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. You're right. It is called the Commonwealth War Cemetery. I'm removing the protection because the article has been very stable for a while. If you could upload just a single photo of the cemetery, it would be very appreciated. Thank you, --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Now I've edited and uploaded som photos, and inserted one into the article. Feel free to take a look at the others and replace if you feel like it. --Riyaah (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Shukran Riyaah! I used the picture of all the graves instead. They're all great pictures however. If you have any more information on the cemetery we could create an article on it and use all the pictures. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

3fwan ya Ameer. :) The CWGC has some more info, and the cemetery has also featured in a couple of newspaper articles as it has suffered damage from shelling. This led to public outcry in Britain and eventually an israeli compensation of, I think, £90 000. I also remember something about the keeper being awarded an MBE. There is also some graves of Canadian peacekeepers from after WW I. Right now I don't have the eneregy to write a new article though, maybe later. --Riyaah (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That's good to hear. Start the article whenever you're ready. Salaam, --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Casualty figures and damage to infrastructure

Today an editor removed 2008-9 casualty figures and damage to infrastructure figures from the "Modern Era" section, I reverted but might the article be better if we could find corresponding statistics for Gaza city alone? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

i speak almost fluent hebrew, link in hebrew would be good to show what other party thinks, but gaza city alone casualties makes no sense. Gaza wants to be ruled by Hamas, that's main reason for 2007 uprising, but i told everyone, watch out if u remove Arafat (thru stress, lack of sunshine, other pure bs) hamas will go its separate way, if arafat was alive, this would not have happened, except may be his cousin moussa (chief of palestinian police for gaza & other areas) would have died anyways, as he was marked man (for cooperating with jews) when yaser was alive, they tried to do away with him in 2004 and before. The current approach towards palestinian problem, with current natanyahy/lieberman in charge of the gov is goin nowhere, way too out of line. The 1400 palestinian casualties is correct, on jan 27, israeli soldier was killed, 2 wounded, even though war was over, incursions continued, so proper casualty list is 1400:14, 1000 palestinian civilians is correct!

However such opretions will create to third intifada that will be more bloody, once palestinians rest, get planned well!

Another move proposal

I read the above discussion and would like to renew the call to move this article: Gaza -> Gaza city. I grant that the city has been called "Gaza" for centuries and that the Gaza Strip is a recent change, but wikipedia guidelines are based on common usage, not historical appeal. I've been poking around on Israel-related issues and this is something like the tenth time I've gotten to this article by mistake. I'd venture to guess than the majority of links to here are meant for the Gaza Strip, which strongly suggests a move. Like it or not, popular media has basically commandeered the term "Gaza" for the Gaza strip. "Gaza" should at least be a dab page in keeping with the Principle of least astonishment.--Louiedog (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Egyptian ref. to Gaza

Gaza is mentioned in the Annals of Tuthmose III (in Karnak): g'-dʒ'-tw, where the first sound is unmistakeably a voiced velar sound, quite a bit before its occurrence in the Amarna letters (cf. K. Sethe Urkunden der 18. Dynastie IV 647). Pamour (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Gaza = Minoa!

Minoa was an old name of Gaza. & from: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06399c.htm :According to Stephen of Byzantium ("De Urbibus," s.vv. Gaza, Minoa) the city of Gaza was a colony from Crete (cf. Soph., ii, 5). Böri (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Modern History: Gaza City vs. Gaza Strip

Most of the modern history section relates to the gaza strip as a whole rather than the city. All of the material in this section can be found elsewhere. While there is a need for some context, the actual content relating specifically to the city is so small that one could argue that the section should be deleted in its entirety. Before making major changes to an article where bad faith is often assumed, I thought I would solicit the thoughts of others. Sjsilverman (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, just to state the obvious Gaza City is the central hub of the Gaza Strip and by far the largest city. That being said much of the Gaza Strip's history is intertwined with that of the city. I tried to avoid constant repetition, so I only included important historic events that Gaza shared with the Strip—Egyptian take-over, Israeli take-over, PA administration, the Hamas-Fatah split and the Israeli assault last year. However, the first and second paragraph are almost exclusively about Gaza City. The third should definitely be expanded to include any significant battle or event that happened in the city during the 2007 civil strife. The fourth paragraph is not very specific to Gaza City but still very important to its history because obviously Gaza City was affected tremendously during that conflict and the siege in general. If you or anybody else could find casualty or property damage figures specific to Gaza City, then by all means they should be added. There's always room for mass improvement, but I would definitely argue that this section remain intact because all of it is important and relevant information pertaining to Gaza City either specifically or generally. I would also like to point out there is an offshoot article that deals with the History of Gaza. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Economy - 19 Century

First paragraph refers to qilw used in soap making. Had some difficulty finding meaning of the word. It is also the root of the word alkaline. Qilw (also transliterated qily) is referred to under "Nabulsi Soap" article in the second and third paragraphs of the production process but I can't work out how to cross reference qilw to those specific paragraphs. Can anyone help? Alternatively, Wikipedia needs a small article defining qilw/qily and giving it's uses, etymology etc. I was going to do so, but don't have the original references. Tiddy (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Blockade

From Blockade of the Gaza Strip:

The blockade of the Gaza Strip refers to a land, air, and sea blockade on the Gaza Strip by Israel and Egypt since June 2007, a more severe version of restrictions which began in 2001. Israel eased the blockade for non-military goods in June 2010, and Egypt reopened the Rafah border crossing in 2011 for persons.

References

So what happened to Egypt's role? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there has been some POV whitewashing recently removing any mention of the Egyptian blockade and some OR for good measure. I'll revert presently to the previous version pending some sort of explanation that is consistent with out policies.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That isnt anywhere close to a reason for a blanket revert which reintroduced several factual errors initially made by an IP intent on removing the word Palestine from the article. The lead says who is currently involved in blockading Gaza. It is not Egypt. nableezy - 18:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

And brewcrewer, if all you wanted to add was Egypt had been involved in the blockade you could have done that (like I just did). Instead you chose to reintroduce errors of basic fact (Jerusalem is in central Syria-Palestina? Really???) nableezy - 18:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

And how surprising that your first ever edit to the article was a revert of me, and your first ever edit to this talk page is this right here. I do wonder how you mysteriously show up to revert edits I make at articles you have never edited. A mystery it must be. nableezy - 18:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I typically don't respond to your personal attacks except where the hypocrisy is blatant, as in this instance. I have edited and am watchlisting over a thousand different articles related to I-A conflict and you're going to accuse me stalking you because you happened to make an edit to this article before I did? When you're finished responding to that point, kindly explain how you wound up at the article of a boxer that I had just prior to your edit made substantial edits to. Do you typically edit boxing related articles? Was it on your watchlist?

As for your substantive comment: You removed sourced content because you perceive it to be an "error of basic fact" (which discussed the historical term, not the current made up term). That's not the way things work around here, though I think you know that already. Kindly self-revert.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Egypt and Israel imposed a strict blockade on the territory, arguing the closure was needed to prevent weapons and militants from moving in and out of the area. If there are no objection I'm going to add this ref. to support imposing parties. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

What nonsense. What "sourced content" did I remove as an "error of basic fact"? Or, because the article was not in your watchlist and you hounded my edits to make a disruptive revert, did you not notice the raft of edits by an IP removing the term Palestine and inserting inaccurate material? Is that what you call "sourced content"? Or is it just that you have no other explanation for your tendentious and disruptive reinsertion of blatantly bogus material that you would like to convince those unfamiliar with the sequence that you had been simply "restoring sourced content"? Because if so, I would ask that you try to make an honest argument. But you would like me to explain why I edited a page on a boxer that I had edited months prior to you first touching it, and a full year prior to my supposed "stalking"? And you say my hypocrisy is "blatant"? Nice try. nableezy - 19:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

right here.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

And what sourced content did I remove? To repeat myself: did you not notice the raft of edits by an IP removing the term Palestine and inserting inaccurate material because the article was not in your watchlist and you hounded my edits to make a disruptive revert? nableezy - 19:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Play your games elsewhere on the internet. the removal of sourced content is clear in the diff.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

What is clear is your inability to say what sourced content I removed. For those uninterested in these games, an IP changed every instance of "Palestine" to some other set of words, either Syria-Palestina or Ottoman Syria. None of those changes brought any sources, and some of them are simply wrong. You, brewcrewer, restored that the Battle of Ajnadayn took place in central "Syria-Palestina". Do you know what the term "Syria-Palestina" means? If so, could you please tell me how the area near Beit Shemesh is in "central Syria-Palestina"? Or where the source for saying that battle took place in "central Syria-Palestina"? If not, you can just admit that you were not aware of the fact that an IP had disruptively removed all uses of the word "Palestine" in a POV attempt to wash that word from the article. And that, given you were unaware of the IPs edits, you did not have the article watchlisted and tendentiously hounded my edits here. And that you, hopefully mistakenly and not in bad faith, restored the IPs POV and inaccurate edits. That would be honest. nableezy - 19:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, got it. Did not realize the IP changed that. I stand corrected.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)