Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 00:17, 10 November 2023 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Gaza Strip/Archive 3) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gaza Strip article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Western Asia High‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 6 times. The weeks in which this happened: July 13 to 19, 2014 (7th) July 20 to 26, 2014 (4th) July 27 to August 2, 2014 (5th) August 3 to 9, 2014 (20th) May 9 to 15, 2021 (7th) May 16 to 22, 2021 (12th)

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Hava Mendelle (November 2, 2023). "Misplaced Pages at war". Spectator Australia. Retrieved November 2, 2023. Reading the initial two paragraphs would lead the reader to think that Israel occupies Gaza since 1967, that Hamas are not a terrorist organisation, and that Israel blocks Gazan land, sea, and air space for no reason at all.

Issues in Lead

Nableezy I agree it is odd to call it a de facto sovereign state, but I do not know what other term is most accurate. Describing it as a "Palestinian enclave" with a hyperlink to an article about West Bank enclaves specifically is definitely not accurate, especially since the actual definition of an enclave does not include territories that border the ocean. I also think it should be mentioned that Hamas won the elections but Fatah refused to recognize the results, since that is the reason as to why Hamas only rules the Gaza strip and not the West Bank as well, and the PNA is already mentioned in the article, so additional clarification is necessary. Bill Williams 22:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Im ok removing the wikilink, and maybe enclave is not the right word. But Hamas nor anybody else claims Gaza to be a state. And given that the UN and others consider it to still be under Israeli occupation it is definitely not sovereign. Why one rules Gaza and the other rules the West Bank is way more complicated than a failure to recognize results, but even then it doesnt change that all parties continue to consider Gaza and the West Bank to form one territory. nableezy - 22:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I agree that "sovereign" is certainly an inaccurate term, but I think "Palestinian territory" would be much more accurate than "Palestinian enclave", linking to the article on Palestinians instead of the West Bank enclaves. Although it may not be a sovereign territory, the term "Gaza Strip" always refers specifically to a territory that is almost entirely Palestinian. Bill Williams 22:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no shortage of correct descriptions.Here is an uptodate source that refers to Gaza as a bantustan and as an enclave. Apart from that, it is also part of the territory claimed by (State of) Palestine or you could simply refer to it as Opt.

"Bantustan" is rarely ever used to describe Gaza, and "enclave" is factually incorrect. An enclave is landlocked and fully surrounded by another territory, which does not describe Gaza. As for your source, it is far too biased to used to put a controversial term in the very front of the lead. Bill Williams 22:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

We go by sources and the given source is certainly more reliable than your opinion. As for googling things try Gaza + Bantustan.Selfstudier (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

"the given source is certainly more reliable than your opinion" does not magically prove that "bantustan" is commonly used to describe gaza, because it is not. If you tried "googling things" you would see that gaza being called a "palestinian territory" has 1,770,000 results, while gaza being called a "bantustan" has only 21,800, i.e. 1/80 the results. Similar to territory, the term "enclave" comes up with a similar number of results at 1,240,000, but the term is geographically inaccurate and therefore it should not be used. Bill Williams 18:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I never said that Bantustan is commonly used, I was disputing your "rarely" which is simply wrong. There is even a 1985 book called Bantustan Gaza.

There are different definitions for enclave. Oxford languages gives "a portion of territory within or surrounded by a larger territory whose inhabitants are culturally or ethnically distinct. and "they gave troops a week to leave the coastal enclave" <- Gaza.

Gaza (or the WB) being called Palestinian territory gets the most hits because it was called that for years. As I already said above, Occupied Palestinian Territory (or OPT) is much more common now Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Occupied Palestinian Territory means it is still a Palestinian territory, and the Israeli-Palestine dispute is already covered in this article. The territory is blockaded by Israel and Egypt, resulting in what some consider an occupation, but that has a detailed explanation later in the lead, so calling it "occupied" a few words into the article would mislead readers into thinking it is has enemy soldiers within it or something. Bill Williams 19:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree bantustan is not the typical thing to call Gaza. I think enclave is often used, but not in the way that it is used in the article Palestinian enclaves, which is more about the disconnected areas within the West Bank, though Gaza is sometimes also treated as that. I do not think state, de facto or any other qualifier notwithstanding, is appropriate. The results on "palestinian territory" are skwewed by all the results that include it within the "Occupied Palestinian territory" (including most of the first page of your search). nableezy - 18:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I did notice that it may be skewed, but I still think it is a more accurate term. The Palestinian enclaves within occupied Israeli territory should not be conflated with Gaza, since they are ruled differently and are separated by Israel, and I think that hyperlinking to them is too misleading. I think the only accurate term that can be used in the first few words of the article is "Palestinian territory" since although it may not be a state by some definitions, it is certainly a territory that is almost entirety inhabited by Palestinians. Bill Williams 18:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

See the ngram above, Palestinian territory is used by the BBC (their style guide is positively Victorian) but is otherwise old hat.Selfstudier (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Just use google and you will see numerous instances of it being referred to as a "Palestinian territory". Oxford is not a geographical expert, neither is the media, the technical definition of enclave is completely surrounded and landlocked which does not accurately describe the Gaza Strip. Israel and Egypt's blockade may make Gaza de facto landlocked, but the geographical term does not account for the political dispute, just Gaza's location, which is bordering the sea. As for Bantustan, that term is rarely used; the term rarely could mean tens of thousands, but out of millions, it is relatively rare. Bill Williams 19:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Ngrams uses scholarly sources, as well as laying it out timewise, much better. The fact that you thought Gaza a de facto sovereign state and now you think it a Palestinian territory tells me all I need to know, really.Selfstudier (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Theres no reason to be dismissive of somebody changing their mind when other information is brought up, this does not have to be combative at all. nableezy - 20:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, nowhere in Misplaced Pages on Gaza Strip did it mention the blockade that Israel has created is also equally done by the Egyptians. And for the same reason... Security Llatlarge (talk) 13:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think enclave, without the link (and Im going to remove that now, just clicking on it proves it should not be used here as it defines itself as WB areas), is inaccurate? I feel like territory is somehow accurate but too non-specific. I get technically Gaza has its territorial waters, but those are also controlled by Israel. I guess despite the border with Egypt being closed that makes it technically not an enclave? nableezy - 20:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that is what I am saying, Israel heavily restricts and often closes its border, Egypt has restrictions on its as well, and both blockade the shorelines, so its borders are effectively under complete control of other nations. But the term enclave is not about the geopolitical situation, only the geographical one; for example, although Vatican City is geographically an enclave, there are almost no restrictions on its "border" with Italy, so it functions as if it is just another part of Rome. Having no control over your external borders does not make you an enclave, since Nepal is surrounded on two sides by China and India, each of which has far more influence over its borders than it does, but it is not completely surrounded by one single country, and therefore is not an enclave. Although Israel exerts more restrictions over its territory, Gaza is still surrounded by both Israel and Egypt, in addition to its territorial waters, meaning it is not technically a geographical enclave. Bill Williams 20:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a verifiability vs truth thing, but I also think your point is fair. How about The Gaza Strip is a narrow strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, forming, along with the West Bank including East Jerusalem, the Palestinian territories. And then some bits about being bordered by Egypt (@Zero0000: is that actually a border or is that too an armistice line?) and Israel (taking care of the word border there)? nableezy - 21:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that is an improvement, but I would prefer

"The Gaza Strip, commonly referred to as Gaza, is a narrow strip of land on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. Gaza is one of the two Palestinian territories, along with the West Bank; both are claimed by the de jure sovereign State of Palestine, but Gaza is under the control of Hamas, a militant Palestinian Islamist organization."

The part about East Jerusalem is unnecessary since that is part of the West Bank, and I all of the adjectives on the State of Palestine and Hamas could be left for later paragraphs, but it would be okay this way. Bill Williams 21:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Also I think the more detailed explanation of the Hamas-Fatah conflict belongs in the second paragraph instead of the last paragraph. Bill Williams 21:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I dont like the one of the two, they together make up the singular unit. I suppose I am ok removing EJ. I dont think we need to define Hamas here either, thats what the Hamas article is for. I also dont think it is a claim that that they are claimed by the state or that there is a state is a claim, thats an established fact by other states recognizing it, but that is also not necessary here. Lets see if anybody else has any suggestions on wording here, but not too big a fan of some of these changes. Ill suggest something else soonish as well. nableezy - 22:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

That is true, I think we could shorten it and explain what Hamas and the claims of Palestine are later, simply by putting in the first two sentences:,

"The Gaza Strip, commonly referred to as Gaza, is a Palestinian territory on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea. Gaza is claimed by the State of Palestine, but has been under the control of Hamas since 2007."

The specifics could be left for later in the article or the respective articles of the individual topics. Bill Williams 22:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The "State of Palestine" is certainly not globally recognized as such. This term should be replaced, as by many this state does not exist. Meftech123 (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

To editor Nableezy: You ask if the Gaza-Egypt boundary is an armistice line or a border. The 1949 armistice agreement did not define it as either, as the armistice line followed the Gaza Strip border around the north and east. The 1979 Israel-Egypt peace treaty says "The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recognized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II, without prejudice to the issue of the status of the Gaza Strip." (A similar wording wrt the WB appears in the Israel-Jordan treaty.) So it is a border as far as Egypt and Israel are concerned, with allowance for future change of status. No Palestinian body was party to the Israel-Egypt treaty, but I don't think that either Hamas or PA claim bits of Sinai so it is a reasonable assumption (without an explicit source) that they also regard it as a border. Zero 02:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I would be content with a first para

"The Gaza Strip, commonly referred to as Gaza, is an enclave on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea (refs) claimed, together with the West Bank, by the State of Palestine.(ref) It borders Egypt on the southwest for 11 kilometers (6.8 mi) and Israel on the east and north along a 51 km (32 mi) border.(ref)"

or similar. I think the Hamas governance sits better in the second para along with the way that came to be.Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The State of Palestine has effectively almost 0 control over the Gaza Strip, so if it is mentioned in the first paragraph, then Hamas's de facto control should be mentioned as well. And once again, the geographical term "enclave" does not apply to the Gaza Strip. The sources that use it clearly do not understand the true geographical meaning, which is completely surrounded by a single state, with no territorial waters that border a sea that connects to an ocean. Gaza borders the Mediterranean, which connects to the Atlantic Ocean, so it is not landlocked, regardless of Israel and Egypt's blockage of some of its territorial waters, it still has partial control over the closest parts of the waters, and it is surrounded by two states, Israel and Egypt, not the single one required for it to be an enclave. Bill Williams 19:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Strictly speaking (at least by one def) it is an exclave and it's classed as that in our list article but that's an odd word to put in the lead, particularly when so many completely stupid and unreliable sources (BBC included) are happy to call it an enclave.

Let's see if anyone will agree with you re the need for Hamas control to be in line 2 instead of line 3. Selfstudier (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I know I am being technical, and that many sources call it an enclave, but my point is that if an editor is writing about the controversy of Israel and Palestine, they will pay minimal attention to geographical terms that they did not realize were being used incorrectly. I also agree that calling it an exclave would be odd, since most readers would not know what that is either. Bill Williams 19:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Un año mas, here's to 2022 :) Selfstudier (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Just as a point of fact: The word "enclave" does not necessarily refer to an area that is landlocked.

I suggest looking up the word at the multiple dictionary website onelook.com (I used Merriam-Webster and American Heritage dictionaries at that site) to learn a more nuanced definition that does not include the precise meaning of "landlocked". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:C082:2EA0:C00E:3FA7:BE10:BF0D (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

In the lead it seems strange to mention the Israeli Occupation but there is no mention of Hamas contorl.

Either the Israeli Occupation term comes in the body, or Hamas control gets included in the lead. Seems bias to only include one. HeddyV56 (talk) 11:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure the two are paired in that manner, but Hamas control is already in the lead. CMD (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hamas governance is in the second paragraph. Would make more sense to be in the first paragraph.

If a reader is only reading the first paragraph, they'd only know that Israel occupied Gaza from 1967 to 2005. It's unclear and omits relevant information.

The Israel occupation sentence could just as well be in the second paragraph HeddyV56 (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You're raising an interesting point. I think it would serve NPOV well to have it in the same paragraph. Homerethegreat (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The Israeli occupation predates Hamas existing much less being the government. nableezy - 18:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, seems that it would be more NPOV to include both.

Hong Kong's page and the 1st paragraph in the lead is a good example of NPOV.

This one on Gaza Strip appears bias. I think including both Israel's occupation and then Hamas as the government/authority makes sense. It ends with Israeli occupation ending in 2005 and then a gap til the next paragraph.

Stats show a lot of readers only read 1st paragraph.

Makes sense to include both. HeddyV56 (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Both are included. We dont talk about, for example, Israel's government until the final paragraph of the lead there. I have no idea what stats youre talking about or how long opening paragraphs of articles people only read that of would be, but I dont see how making the lead jump from 1967 to 2005 and then back makes any sense at all. nableezy - 01:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nableezy,

Would be better to have:

The Gaza Strip is a self governing Palestinian territory bordered by Egypt to the South and Israel to the North. It was first under occupation by Egypt from 1948 to 1967, then by Israel from 1967 to 2005. Hamas has been the governing body since 2007.

Something like that. HeddyV56 (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, and also the occupation did not end in 2005 per the UN and the ICRC and many other sources. But I disagree that this would be a good way to introduce the topic of gaza. nableezy - 03:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nableezy,

It seems you are only choosing to introduce the topic of Gaza with Israeli Occupation from 1967 and this goes against NPOV. I understand the UN and ICRC sources but many other international law firms and lawyers still say disputed. So it's contentious and the initial paragraph is taking a side. This is not NPOV. All need to be included in the first paragraph and details expanded on second. HeddyV56 (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

That doesnt make any sense, and the first paragpraph specifies that Israel does not consider it occupied, so it is not taking a side. Though it does so wrongly, the disengagement is not why Israel considers it not to be occupied, Israel has never accepted that Gaza, or the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) is occupied, making that wikilink wrong from even an Israeli POV. But we dont introduce the "most right-wing government in Israel's history" in the lead at all, much less in the opening paragraph, and logically it makes no sense to introduce Hamas as the government until you introduce the PA and why it split. And that would not make sense for an opening paragraph. nableezy - 14:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks a lot better now. The grammar of the last sentence could probably be fixed though. Cheers. HeddyV56 (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I dispute the use of the term "occupation" regarding the relationship between Israel and the Gaza Strip. Despite claims by the UN and others, facts show that neither Israel nor Egypt occupy the Gaza Strip since 2005. Hamas as a governing body controls it. Up until 7th of October 2023 There was no presence of Israeli military or governance bodies in the Gaza strip. The fact it is blockaded is due to the hostility and war declaration by Hamas on Israel and its firing rockets at Israeli civilians, but a blockade does not constitute an occupation. For example, prior to the 1967 war Egypt has closed access to the Straits od Tiran, effectively blockading Israel from accessing the red sea. There are no claims that Egypt occupied Israel during that period. Meftech123 (talk) 07:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hamas missles

Hamas in the gaza strip have sent missiles killing some Israeli soldiers in Israel declaring war. Israel have called on reservist soldiers to join the soon to be expected retaliation. Briseventy9 (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

To be factually correct, Hamas has targeted civilians and Israeli towns, not soldiers or military targets. Israeli properties were damaged and civilians injured and killed. Meftech123 (talk) 07:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

"Strip" vs "Gaza Strip"

I think to be consistent, instances of "Strip" should be changed to "Gaza Strip" e.g. "The Strip is 41 km...". 99.35.20.39 (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@99.35.20.39 There is a significant difference between Gaza and the Gaza Strip.Gaza is one side, and surrounding Gaza/Gaza Strip, it is under Israeli control. Shalom67 (talk) 09:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

That may be true in some contexts.

But unfortunately the word "Gaza" is in fact often used to mean the "Gaza Strip".

For this reason, it would be better to avoid relying on the official "correct" usage and just always specify unambiguously what area is being referred to. 2601:200:C082:2EA0:C00E:3FA7:BE10:BF0D (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Two small edit requests:

1) In the following sentence from paragraph 5 in the first section, please replace the initial indefinite article ("An") with the definite article ("The"), because this buffer has just been mentioned / described; the indefinite article is therefore confusing.

So, "An extensive Israeli buffer zone within the Strip renders much land off-limits to Gaza's Palestinians"

should instead be rendered

"The extensive Israeli buffer zone within the Strip renders much land off-limits to Gaza's Palestinians"

2) In the same sentence, please replace "Palestinians" with ""Inhabitants," because in this case that is the more accurate, inclusive, neutral, and unambiguous term.

Thank you for the hard work! timbo (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"exclave"?

it's not really an exclave is it? That would imply that the West Bank is the 'real' country, and the GS outside of it. 142.163.195.205 (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Why not? Gaza Strip + West Bank = Palestine.

Also we have Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic + Azerbaijan Proper = Republic of Azerbaijan.

Well, Nakhchivan is called an exclave of the whole Republic. Why couldn't we say Gaza Strip is an exclave of Palestine? Aminabzz (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

An edit needs to be made to the population according to the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics the current population of the Gaza Strip is 2,226,544 inhabitants. QuinnZ23 (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.pcbs.gov.ps/post.aspx?lang=en&ItemID=4544

 Not done for now: I don't see where in the source the exact figure is. The only figure for total population I see is "2.23 million". Andumé (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect Phrase

The article says "It is one of the two Palestinian territories, alongside the West Bank." It is _not_ alongside the West Bank. They are in completely different areas. It should say "It is one of the two Palestinian territories, along with the West Bank." That would mean that both are included in the list of territories. RandyKaempen (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change “Rami Hamdallah became the coalition's Prime Minister and has planned for elections in Gaza and the West Bank” to “Rami Hamdallah became the coalition's Prime Minister and had planned for elections in Gaza and the West Bank.” Abbyjedele (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done CMD (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2023 (2)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The blockade of Gaza as the reason for the poverty and low standard of living of the Gaza residents. The oppression and poverty of the Palestinians living is Gaza is due to Hamas, not Israel. The purpose of the blockade is to prevent weapons and materials used for weapons from reaching the terrorist group Hamas, which has administered Gaza since 2007. Hamas has co-opted millions of dollars in aid and materials for infrastructure to convert to buying and making weapons to use against Israel. Food, fuel and medical supplies are freely provided by Israel, however, Hamas restricts the importation of the majority of these items. Water and electricity are supplied by Israel for free. Thousands of Gaza residents are given work permits to travel to and from Israel on a daily basis. Zypzzz (talk) 06:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CMD (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Great March of Return

The Great March of Return was a pivotal moment in the history of the Gaza strip and has been dealt with adequately in the body, I fail to see why it was removed from the lede (which is a summary of the body), to which no reason was given @Vice regent:. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok I didn't realize that. But please add it with the why it was significant and what it represented, all in one sentence. VR _talk 12:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Done. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-protected edit request on 13 October 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the lead, please change "It is one of the two Palestinian territories, alongside the West Bank" to "It is one of the two Palestinian territories, together with the West Bank." It is not alongside the West Bank, they are on opposite sides of Israel. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:6993:6432:A50:ADD (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Not alongside as in “along the side of”, alongside as in a synonym of “together with” 2A00:23C6:95CE:B401:4CF5:E505:DE8B:B7FD (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I am aware of that, but other readers may not be. Since "alongside" and "together with" are synonyms, the ambiguous one should be replaced with the unambiguous one. 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:40C4:C55F:22B9:FDCF (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Wikishovel (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Two “culture” sections

There is both a “religion and culture” section and “culture and sports” section. I recommend removing “and culture” from the religion section because that section mostly focuses on religion rather than culture. Or perhaps change it to “Religion and Islamic law” or something similar. 2A00:23C6:95CE:B401:4CF5:E505:DE8B:B7FD (talk) 15:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorted, along with some other common sense structural changes. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Is Gaza the third most densely populated region in the world?

The article asserts: "With a population of 2 million, on some 365 square kilometers, Gaza, if considered a top-level political unit, ranks as the third most densely populated in the world." Dividing the population estimated as of 2022 (2.375mln as stated in the article) by the area, the density is 6507/km2. One of the citations provided is Copeland (2011), "Drawing a Line in the Sea: Gaza Flotilla Incident & Israeli-Palestinian Conflict". It says: "In fact, the Gaza Strip is the 6th most densely populated polity on Earth, just behind Gibraltar. If Gaza City’s approximately half million residents are considered separately, they live in a density equivalent to Hong Kong or Singapore." The Misplaced Pages assertion says third most densely populated polity, whereas Copeland says it is ranked 6th. Either the citation should be removed, or the article needs to be amended to be consistent with the citation. If Gaza is treated as a country, it is ranked the 3rd most dense country in the world, just below Monaco and Singapore: https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density. (Macau and Hong Kong have higher density, but they are not countries. Hong Kong's urban density when we exclude the mountainous terrain unsuited for building on, is substantially higher than the total area suggests.)

A more serious problem with the article is that it is misleading to assess Gaza's population density by treating it as a standalone polity. In terms of area and population size, Gaza is more appropriately viewed as an urban area, or city. Many cities around the world, when treated as a standalone polity (or "top-level" political unit as phrased in the article), have urban density exceeding Gaza's. Tel Aviv in Israel for example, has a urban density of about 8,000/km2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/Tel_Aviv). According to the Misplaced Pages pages on the corresponding cities, numerous other urban densities around the world are higher than Gaza's: Jerusalem (7,800/km2), Seoul (16,000/km2), Osaka (12,214/km2), Manila (22,000/km2), metropolitan Cairo (8,113/km2), Athens (7,400/km2). In fact, according to the 19th annual edition of Demographia World Urban Areas (http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf), Gaza ranks way down at 236th in the world, compared to urban areas with a population of over half a million.

It appears the regularly cited misleading claim about Gaza's density is politically motivated. Doraemon1066 (talk) 01:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

While I agree this is a subject that is open to debate, you are mixing apples and oranges in your attempt. The Demographia table you provided does not refer to the whole strip (only 88 square miles), while your comparison against cities doesn't account for the fact that the Gaza Strip contains multiple cities. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

First, you have not addressed my point about inconsistency between the Misplaced Pages article and the citation from Copeland (2011), the first asserts that Gaza is the 3rd most densely populated while the latter the 6th. Inconsistency between article and source must be corrected.

Secondly, the Demographia table considers only the "built up urban areas" as shown at top of the tables, excluding the farmlands and less populated areas around and between those areas. If Demographia included all the land in their calculation, the population density would go down, hence Gaza Strip would rank even lower compared to other urban areas in the world.

Thirdly, what counts as a city, as opposed to a district within a city, is a function of political administration and governance. It does not necessarily reflect how closely bunched are the residents, which surely is the main point of the assertion that Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated area in the world. The article hypotheses Gaza Strip as a single "top-level political unit". The question then is should this unit should be viewed as a country or as a city. According to the Palestinians themselves and many UN Resolutions, Gaza Strip is an integral part of a single Palestine entity. So it should not be viewed as a standalone country. The only way someone can substantiate the claim that Gaza Strip is the 3rd most densely populated polity in the world, is when it is viewed as a country and compared to other countries. This is mixing apples and oranges.

Fourthly, if we compare what are commonly referred as cities within Gaza Strip, against other global cities, it remains true that Gazan cities are less densely populated than many around the world. Gaza City's density 13,000/km2 according to Misplaced Pages, placing it below Manila (43,064/km2), Bnei Brak in Israel (30,854/km2), Levallois-Perret in France, Damascus, Macau, Mumbai, Seoul, Barcelona, Cairo, to name just a handful of cities listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_cities_proper_by_population_density. Indeed, Gaza City would rank about 80th in this table.

In short, the claim that Gaza Strip is one of the most densely population polity is misleading and politically motivated. Doraemon1066 (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Gaza is listed 63rd most densely populated location according to USA today. New York City has 1.7 times more density than the Gaza Strip. This is based on numbers from Misplaced Pages https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population this page lists 5 cities with in the United States with a higher population density than GAZA.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-population-density-of-the-gaza-strip#:~:text=Gaza%20City%20is%20the%2063rd,at%2042%2C059%20per%20square%20mile.

the 2601:CA:203:B80:1470:18C0:D831:7D1D (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Seth, M.J. (2021). Not on the Map: The Peculiar Histories of De Facto States. Lexington Books. p. 199. ISBN 978-1-7936-3253-1. In some ways the Gaza Strip became a de facto sovereign state on its own. Its internal affairs were not controlled by any-one. If it is regarded as a state it would be the third most densely populated one after Monaco and Singapore. Close to 2 million people are packed into its tiny area 41 kilometers (25 miles) long and 6-12 kilometers (3.7-7.5 miles) wide. And even part of this is an uninhabitable buffer zone. But it neither claims to be sovereign nor is it recognized as such. Instead it is regarded as under "indirect occupation" by Israel.

• Kao, R.W.Y. (2007). Stewardship-based Economics. World Scientific Publishing Company. p. 25. ISBN 978-981-4476-16-4. The Gaza strip is hardly a paradise for the Palestinians. They face extremely difficult economic conditions, not just because of the Israeli occupation of these regions as a result of the 1967 Six-Day War. Almost 1.4 million of them are crowded onto 360 square kilometers of land, which is ranked the sixth most densely populated region in the world. All those ranked above it (Macau, Hong Kong, Singapore, Monaco and Gibraltar) are significantly more wealthy, with the first four being among some of the wealthiest places in the world. By contrast in Gaza, some families have lived in crowded refugee camps ever since they fled or were expelled from Israel in 1948 during Israel's war of independence. Unemployment is inordinately high, particularly since many Palestinians have been unable to get to their jobs in Israel after Israel closed its borders to Palestinians for security reasons.

See above - there are sources for 3rd and sources for 6th. Depends on what counts as a state. The real point, as stated in the quote above, is that all other highly populated polities are wealthy, whereas the Gaza Strip is in dire poverty. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's really more about the urban quality of life, living space, etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Before someone can make arguments about the socioeconomic condition of Gaza Strip, one must first get basic premises right. The claim that the Gaza Strip is the 3rd most densely populated polity in the world is misleading for the multiple reasons I have identified. It is also politically motivated, to score political points about the alleged "occupation" (this claim is itself highly contentious). You still haven't addressed my first objection: the inconsistency between the article's assertion and the Copeland citation must be resolved, either by amending the assertion or by removing the citation. The fact that Gaza Strip is poor is irrelevant to the determination of its population density relative to comparable regions around the world. First settle facts about its relative population density, then one can build further arguments about its socioeconomic condition.

Seth (2021) writes: "If it is regarded as a state it would be the third most densely populated one after Monaco and Singapore." This would be a true conditional statement: if X then Y. The Misplaced Pages article can repeat this. But it leaves open the question, is the precedent X true: should we regard the Gaza Strip as a state? Neither the Palestinians nor UN regard it as such, and they do not aspire it to become a sovereign state in the future. The excerpt from Seth (2021) acknowledges this. As a matter of logic, when the antecedent in a conditional statement is false, any consequent Y is true. Here the conditional statement is vacuously true and uninformative. If we regard other cities around the world (e.g. large cities with urban slums - Manila, Mumbai, Lagos, Jakarta) as sovereign states, they too would be densely populated, more so than Gaza Strip: "If Manila/ Mumbai/ Lagos/ Jakarta / Cairo is regarded as a state, it would be among the most densely populated states in the world." Whatever reasonable definition of a "state" is adopted, Gaza Strip definitely is not a state. So it is illegitimate to compare Gaza Strip to genuine states for purpose of assessing its population density. More appropriate comparisons are densities of urbanised areas as shown by Demographia whereby urbanised regions of Gaza is ranked 236th, or ranking of Gaza City relative to other cities in the world where it is positioned 80th. That Gaza is poor is not in dispute. But in terms of available living space, numerous other urban centres around the world - some rich others poor - have to contend with much more crowded environments. For comparison, Kowloon City District in Hong Kong has a population of around 400k and population density of 42,000/km2, which is multiple times higher than Gaza City's 13,000/km2.

Seth (2021) uses Singapore as a comparison. The populated areas of Singapore is actually more densely populated than implied by the ratio between the population size and the country's total area. The country has large regions reserved as rainforests and nature reserves, limiting the amount of space available for housing.

The Kao (2007) citation mixes apples, oranges and pears. It compares Gaza Strip with Macau, Hong Kong, Singapore, Monaco and Gibraltar. Some of them are countries, others are "special administrative regions", one is an overseas territory of a sovereign state. Gaza Strip is none of these. It appears Kao's source exclude cities. Residents of mumerous cities around the world live in way more crowded conditions. Kao's commentary on Gaza (not the main subject of the book, which is on "stewardship-based economics" according to the title) is outdated. He writes: "Although Gaza is strategically important to Israel, Israel was willing to give it up...To both the native Palestinians and the Israeli settlers, however, the Gaza strip represents their home". All Jewish settlements in Gaza were dismantled, many forcibly, by the Israeli army in 2005.

I propose the following resolutions:

1] Remove the Copeland citation, and replace with Seth. Reword the article along the lines "If the Gaza Strip is regarded as a state, it would be the third most densely populated one in the world." Misplaced Pages readers can decide for themselves whether Gaza Strip should be regarded as a state.

2] Add some statement and reference to the Demographia article, which is very informative by showing a comprehensive list of urban centres with 500k+ populations. Doraemon1066 (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You're thinking way too much about this, and drawing in pointlessly tangential material. Just find more sources that speak directly to Gaza. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I have pointed multiple times to the sources that speak directly to Gaza's density:

1] The 19th annual edition of Demographia World Urban Areas (http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf), ranks Gaza at 236th in the world.

2] Gaza City would rank about 80th among cities globally: https://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_cities_proper_by_population_density.

The assertion that Gaza is the 3rd densest polity, without qualification, is misleading at best, and is disinformation at worst. Doraemon1066 (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

"3rd" might not be accurate, but please stop taking your pointers from primary sources and Misplaced Pages pages - you should just reference a secondary source like this CNN piece or this NBC one. But, to be honest, its density alone isn't really the point: it's its density combined with the fact that it is always getting bombed, when it is clearly an insane and basically criminal place to use heavy ordinance. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The lead sentence in question is purely about the density. Rather than give a ranked comparison, which is something inherently dubious for population density anywhere given all the assumptions any calculations is going to have lumped into it, perhaps the ranking part of the sentence should be replaced with a bit more geographical information, such as the shape (41 km long and 6 to 12 km wide as the body says).While on the topic of density, for all the sources posted here and the impacts the density has on the people and area, there is nothing about density in the entire body (outside of the most general possible mention in "Economy"). Proper coverage in the body would provide a much better framework for discussing how it might be covered in the lead. CMD (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The CNN piece is acceptable though imperfect as a citation, as it asserts Gaza is densely populated without making the misleading "3rd densest" claim. The piece acknowledges "the Demographia report found Gaza City isn’t as packed as the world’s most dense cities" and "Tel Aviv and Jerusalem are both crowded cities – Jerusalem’s population is the densest across the region". It was through the CNN article that I located the Demographia report, which is highly informative on urban densities around the world. This primary report should also be cited.

In response to your insistence on secondary source, I propose citing USAToday article concerning Gaza City's density: "With 42,059 people per square mile, Gaza City is the 63rd-most densely inhabited urban region in the world."

Your concluding sentence proves my point: the oft-cited claims about Gaza's density is never about accuracy, but is politically motivated to be used as a soundbite.

Gazans in North Gaza will be out of harm's way from the bombing if only Hamas would allow them to evacuate to the south and stopping using civilians as human shields. Doraemon1066 (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTFORUM and delete your last paragraph. Such nonsense is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Something about density needs to be in the lede – it is one of the most commonly stated points made about the strip in all forms of media. Some of the political claims made by Doraemon1066 above are wholly inappropriate and insensitive when thousands of people are being killed in this area right now, and precisely because of its density. It is not clear to me which “political side” allegedly benefits from this density fact, as it can be used both ways, but I suspect if you asked the million people told recently to “evacuate” they would tell you it certainly feels like one of the densest places in the world. Unless the rhetoric can be toned down, I suggest we pause this conversation until after the current round of killings have stopped. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This statistic seems cherry-picked to imply that the population density is the primary cause of poverty in the territory, whereas one might otherwise argue that it’s mostly due to poor governance and warfare. Heptor (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

1RR violation

@Wh15tL3D09N: You have refused to engage in the talk page and violated WP:1RR three times already, revert yourself before this is reported as edit warring. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Restoring old version

Opening pargraph must not contain too much detail, as the recent edit has added:

"Due to the dense population on a narrow strip of land, high poverty and unemployment rates, and blockade, living conditions in Gaza have led human rights organizations to continue to label it "an open-air prison". Gaza has eight universities, several colleges, a small manufacturing industry, entrepreneurs, and farmers. From 2014-2020, U.N. agencies have spent nearly $4.5 billion in Gaza, including $600 million in 2020."

All of this should be replaced with "Living conditions in the Gaza Strip have led human rights organizations to label Gaza as "an open-air prison"." Makeandtoss (talk) 11:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

That's already written there as well, so what's the problem as it stands? Iskandar323 (talk) 11:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

MOS:OPEN "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific."

The amount of aid Gaza recieves does not belong there, nor do the reasons why Gaza has been labelled as an open-air prison; which have been changed from having the blockade causing the high unemployment, to the high unemployment being a factor alongside the blockade; this is discussed in appropriate detail in the following lede paragraphs. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You would remove the expanded reasons on that part. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that is probably fair enough. It's a bit of tangential list. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I would say an oppressive one party state is very controversial (is Gaza a state?) and should not be in lede, because it also isn't even mentioned in the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I saw that was added. I didn't realise it was to the lead. Yes, it's undue there. Technically Hamas won the last election, and it is Fatah that refused to concede and decided to run the West Bank as a one-party system and never hold another election. It's pretty complex. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The word state comes from one of the sources, to be precise Guy Burton calls it a 'de facto state'. As to the characterisation as 'one-party' and 'oppressive,' does anyone dispute that? If it's not in the article body it should be added there. Alaexis_¿question? 20:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

gaza population

needs to be updated since 500 of them were killed 2603:8000:5000:E9D2:7115:2460:37CD:5E1F (talk) 05:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Citation number 166 corresponds to a BBC article which mentions around 250 kills, however, in the text you wrote 1300 deaths. 2A02:2149:8A60:6A00:C94A:A406:CCC:7B65 (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Brendan ❯❯❯ Talk 04:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

"Oppressive one-party state"

The word 'oppressive' is biased and NPOV. Many think the US is also 'oppressive'.

You can use something like 'totalitarian' or 'authoritarian' which are more objective descriptors. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:B544:4CFA:3D7B:F3E8 (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The word "oppressive" is sourced to the Economist article, but is a very subjective term. I've boldly deleted it. Happy to discuss. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Gaza Strip is not a state. Neither has Hamas proclaimed independence, nor has any country recognized Gaza Strip as a state. VR _talk 00:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Quite. And that's how you build an encyclopedia. Using sources, at least a modicum of WP:COMMONSENSE, and not just taking things as writ just because they appear in a single WP:RSP. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright so I'll add that the Gaza Strip is ruled as a de facto authoritarian state by the Sunni Islamist organisation, Hamas.

Thanks for the help guys! Homerethegreat (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a very disingenuous conclusion to assume that there is support for your version considering another version was rejected. This doesn't belong in the opening paragraph, nor does it belong in the lede given the absence of any sections about it in the body. Furthermore, I wouldn't give this label too much importance. There are several articles dedicated solely for talking about how Gaza is an "open-air prison", but none on how it is "de facto ruled as a one party state". Makeandtoss (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Presumably if it's like a prison, Hamas is more like the strongest prison gang than anything else - certainly far from anything state-like given that this level of autonomy has always been out of reach. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You can read the sources I attached. How many articles do you require to prove that Gaza is ruled by Hamas in an authoritarian manner? Please note included different sources. Including The Guardian, The Economist..

.

It's enough to support the sentence presented. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

.

Please note the attached sources. It doesn't matter much what one personally thinks. The facts are the facts. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct, it is. So oppose this in the lead as undue (as well as irrelevant), something in the body is OK. And why is this being discussed again, anyway? Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is indeed an encyclopaedia which has a guideline stating that the lede is a summary of the body; not that the lede is a collection of random phrases. How the lede summarizes the body is subject to proportionality and due; there is not a mention in the body of this sourced piece of information, nor is there a dedicated section to give proportionality. Most importantly, it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand. The nature of governance does not belong in the lead? I thought it was acceptable to refer to the system of government in the lead? I mean, on China's Misplaced Pages, North Korea's etc. It refers to the type of regime in the Lead. Why should this be any different? In what paragraph of the Lead is it most fitting? Homerethegreat (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not going to keep repeating the arguments if you are not going to tackle them. Lede is a summary of body; there is not enough weight in the body for this to appear in the lede, and most importantly not the opening paragraph. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Main articles do exist about the terrorist organization that control the area, and about its governmenf. They are also linked from this article. They provide the weight. TaBaZzz (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand your meaning by not enough weight. Its the appropriate Misplaced Pages norm to refer to summarize the nature of governance in the Lead. The territory is de facto ruled by Hamas. Nature of governance: authoritarian Sunni Islamism. There, a summary. In the body one can build upon and explain. But I don't understand why should the page not include this. Homerethegreat (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

West Bank governance is "authoritarian" too, Israel and PA. Can I go write in the Israel article that it is governed by the most right wing and extremist government in Israeli history? (sourced) in addition to "The country has a parliamentary system elected by means of proportional representation."? Doubt I would get very far with that. Remember too that Hamas participated in and won an election. Selfstudier (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

We're referring to this specific article and following examples of other Misplaced Pages articles. We refer to the nature of governance, however also take note that articles regarding countries that are authoritarian do have that information in the lead.

Israel's government is not relevant here, I understand this is a contentious topic. Please try and concentrate on the Encyclopedic nature of Misplaced Pages. If you wish to raise issues regarding Israel and PA do so in the talk page of Israel and PA. Homerethegreat (talk) 13:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Stop referring to what WP does in other pages and I will. Selfstudier (talk) 13:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Selfstudier, please try and use more polite terminology. It would be appreciated, I can understand this may be something close to your heart and therefore I do not judge. We must all try and make Misplaced Pages the most encyclopedic place. Thank you. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Nothing impolite in what I said. Are you bored? Selfstudier (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

As you said Lede is a summary of body. The nature of governance of Gaza absolutely belongs there and is essential for understanding the situation. Dovidroth (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

So what in the body do you want to reflect in the lead and why is it due? Selfstudier (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The lead ought to include that de facto Hamas rules the Gaza Strip, and that the nature of governance is authoritarian and Sunni Islamist. Homerethegreat (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Not in the body and undue anyway. Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Same as putting the word "occupied" before every piece of negotiable land. TaBaZzz (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Lets take a look at how sources describe Hamas as the government of Gaza, without trying to juice the google results by looking for favored words and phrasings:

• Council on Foreign Relations: Hamas has been the de facto authority in Gaza since shortly after Israel withdrew from the territory in 2005. The following year, Hamas won a majority of seats in the PA’s legislature and formed a government. It earned votes for the social services it provided and as a rejection of the incumbent Fatah, which many voters perceived as having grown corrupt at the helm of the PLO and delivering little to Palestinians through its negotiations with Israel. The outcome was unacceptable to Fatah and its Western backers, and the party ousted Hamas from power in the West Bank. In Gaza, Hamas routed Fatah’s militias in a week of fighting, resulting in a political schism between the two Palestinian territories. Palestinians have not voted for a legislature since 2006, nor a president since 2008.

  As Hamas took over the remnants of PA institutions in the strip, it established a judiciary and put in place authoritarian institutions. In theory, Hamas governs in accordance with the sharia-based Palestinian Basic Law, as does the PA; but it has generally been more restrictive than the law requires, including by controlling how women dress and enforcing gender segregation in public during the early years of its rule. The watchdog group Freedom House found in 2020 that the “Hamas-controlled government has no effective or independent mechanisms for ensuring transparency in its funding, procurements, or operations.” Hamas also represses the Gazan media, civilian activism on social media, the political opposition, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), leaving it without mechanisms for accountability.

• Axios: The Gaza Strip is currently run by Hamas — a political party whose militant wing carried out the Oct. 7 attack. Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by Israel, the U.S. and several other governments.

  Hamas has controlled Gaza since 2007 when it ousted the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority in a violent takeover after winning the Palestinian elections the previous year.

  Background: Gaza was controlled by Egypt from 1948 to 1967, when Israel captured the Strip in the Six-Day War.

  The Palestinian Authority was given some governing power in 1994, though Israel kept a military presence in the Strip for security reasons and to administer Jewish settlements that had been built in the Strip.

  Israel in 2005 withdrew its forces and evacuated Israeli settlers in a process called disengagement.

• Freedom House: Since 2007, the Gaza Strip has functioned as a de facto one-party state under Hamas rule, although smaller parties—including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), and a faction of Fatah that opposes President Abbas—are tolerated to varying degrees. Some of these groups have their own armed wings and media outlets, and hold rallies and gatherings. However, those affiliated with Abbas and his supporters in Fatah are subject to persecution.

What youre trying to do here is take a line in a news article and say this is the defining characteristic of this article. What we should include are things like Freedom House saying the territory has low rankings for political and civil rights. Ill add some of that now. nableezy - 14:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I added a bit. nableezy - 14:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Terrorist organization oppressing the people of Gaza. Yes, it’s the main situation there for years. TaBaZzz (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Not Israel? Selfstudier (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM nableezy - 14:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Not Israel? / WP:NOTFORUM (both good answers) Iskandar323 (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The additions seem to do the job. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The Freedom House source doesn't even properly support the claim, which is continued by "although" it tolerates other political groups. The line stating that Hamas has authoritarian policies for the lede is sufficient, descriptive and not controversial. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

So we have all agreed that the following phrase is acceptable?

Gaza is ruled de facto by Hamas, an authoritarian Sunni Islamist militant organization. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I haven't. Selfstudier (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

No. "governed" is just fine, and "authoritarian" is unnecessary, Iskandar323 (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Not in that sentence, no. Another sentence as in the current version. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Israeli military occupation

The sentence "Following the 1967 Six-Day War the territory came under Israeli military occupation until 2005." is factually incorrect as Gaza is still considered occupied territory by the international community.

In fact, in the "Israeli-occupied territories" article Misplaced Pages itself admits that "the UN and a number of human rights organizations continue to consider Israel as the occupying power of the Gaza Strip due to its blockade of the territory; Israel rejects this characterization" 2001:569:57B2:4D00:B544:4CFA:3D7B:F3E8 (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed we should use the consensus of the UN/Human rights organizations as the reliable sources for whether it is considered occupied Ashvio (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

There have been a lot of changes since October pushing this article in a very particular way. See this diff. Many of them added by a sock of a banned user. Im going through the changes now to work out the improvements from the propaganda. nableezy - 15:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I restored the prior lead, the changes here were absurd and wholly undiscussed. Changing the status of the occupation to state the minority view as fact, removing that it is Palestinian and just defining it as a narrow strip of land, removing that the overwhelming majority are refugees, adding propaganda like "Israel provides the Gaza Strip water, food, and electricity from its own supplies during times of peace" when they are obligated to do so as occupying power, adding that most of the territory was "handed over" under Oslo when it was still boots on the ground occupied. nableezy - 15:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, this is one of the most viewed pages on Misplaced Pages right now but it seems to be receiving less attention than some of the others. Ashvio (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Homerethegreat you have repeatedly put in a minority view as fact that Gaza ceased to be occupied with the disengagement. That is directly refuted by sources, and the sources you cite dont even support the contention. You cite the home page of OCHA oPt, which, surprise surprise, includes Gaza as occupied. You cite CNBC which repeatedly includes Gaza in the occupied territories (Gaza was under the control of Egypt from 1948 until 1967. Israel subsequently gained control of and occupied the Gaza Strip and the West Bank following its victory in the 1967 Six-Day War against Arab neighbors Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The United Nations classifies Israel as an occupier state over the Palestinian territories. ... Between 2008 and 2023 before the current conflict, Israeli airstrikes had killed 6,407 Palestinians in the occupied territories, 5,360 of whom were in Gaza, according to the U.N. Over the same period, 308 Israelis were killed. ...) NDTV, poor choice that it is, never says Gaza ceased to be occupied. Reuters never says anything about an end to the occupation. Neither does Jerusalem Post. It is disputed that Gaza remains occupied, but the UN, the ICRC, most human rights organizations and most academic sources maintain that it remains occupied. Making your repeated attempt at claiming it is over pushing a minority POV as fact. nableezy - 14:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Stance of Israel

Israel doesn't recognise the independence of Gaza, or does it? --95.24.70.129 (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Gauze

Since Gauze is made in Gaza and is named after it we can add the information in the history section. Aminabzz (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

This is already covered in Gaza City, a more appropriate location than this relatively new entity. CMD (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Dovidroth's revert

Dovidroth you made a messy edit in which you removed lots of sourced content. It seems like you blanket reverted several editor's edits in an attempt to restore material? Can you please self-revert and then carefully only add/remove the material that you're intending to add? VR _talk 15:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree about only adding/removing intended material. Edit warring between two versions will never produce happy results. There's a lot of work to do on the article and edit warring will prevent that. Please discuss challenged material. 𝔇𝔞𝔱𝔢 𝔞 𝔑𝔢𝔯𝔡 (talk) 07:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

They have additionally restored several factual errors and blatant POV-pushes in their latest revert, along with violating their arbitration enforcement sanction. Lets see if we get a response this time. nableezy - 09:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?

An editor has started an RfC asking "Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas be included in the List of Islamist terrorist attacks?" at Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks#Should Operation Al-Aqsa Flood by Hamas included in the list of Islamist Terrorist attacks?. Interested editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath 23:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

lead rewrite

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

Having gone back to the pre-sock lead, there was quite a lot of bloat in it. I tried to trim as much as I could to keep a factual concise lead, but it does need a bit more history, though that was lacking previously too. But I cut out a bunch of the meandering and things that belong in the body. If asked will self-revert. nableezy - 01:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

No need, it seems like a decent lead to me. I reverted a mass restoration, pending discussion of such additions, preferably one at a time. Selfstudier (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The current version as of writing seems pretty concise and smooth to read. Needs improvements of course but nothing the likes of what has been added in past few days. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Of course one is allowed to do edit and change. But you wrote in your edit summary that the big edit you did was to return the webpage to the pre-sock lead. That's false! I myself have edited the page, I'm certain dozens of editors have edited the page. The particular sentence in the beginning of the lead that refers to Gaza being ruled by Hamas as a one party state was very well sourced and completely befitting.

Why make huge changes without discussion in the Talk page. I therefore call to revert the page to what it was before the big editing spree and from there make the changes.

Why this version and not the other? Two weeks of hard work gone. Many agreed on that evolution. Why this version? Homerethegreat (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

You introduced a number of factual errors in to the lead of the article, and you did it without a single bit of discussion on this talk page. For example, you inserted that the occupation ended in 2005, it did not according to most reliable human rights organizations and the UN and a majority of academic sources. You introduced into the lead of the article that Hamas "brutally cracking down and executing opponents", despite the fact that this is one source discussing one event 8 years ago. Yes, your two weeks of work in which a number of changes were made to this article that are either POV-driven or factually incorrect were reverted. They never had consensus for them. Im fine going back to the pre-October 7 lead, but the propaganda piece that emerged due to edits by a sock of a banned user and number of other editors who never discussed them here are not going to stand without an explicit consensus for them. And Alaexis should know better than to try to edit-war in contested changes. You dont get to radically rewrite an articles lead without discussion and then edit-war it into place. Full stop. You write Why make huge changes without discussion in the Talk page seemingly ignoring that this is exactly what you did. I in fact opened a discussion about my changes, and I offered to self-revert them. That offer still stands, but not to the propaganda version put together by you and some other editors without a hint of discussion on this page. nableezy - 15:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

These disprove your claims and invalidates them:

• "killing their rivals by throwing them off 15-storey buildings and mutilating their bodies"
• (Hamas) 'issued 180 death sentences and followed through on 33 of them "without the ratification of the Palestinian President in violation of Palestinian law'
• (Hamas) "executed a Palestinian father and son convicted of spying for Israel in defiance of President Mahmoud Abbas, who by law has final say in implementing such rulings."

TaBaZzz (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

What exactly does that disprove? And what does it invalidate? We cover the Battle of Gaza (2007), you want coverage on executing collaborators? In the lead of the top level article on Gaza Strip? You think that gets that level of coverage? nableezy - 20:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

You based your claims for RV on

'(introducing) into the lead of the article that Hamas "brutally cracking down and executing opponents", despite the fact that this is one source discussing one event 8 years ago. "

— nableezy

This is all untrue as proven here by multiple sources. TaBaZzz (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

No I did not base the revert on that, and no, the material in the lead in the diff I showed was based one on instance 8 years ago. One of your sources is about the Battle of Gaza, and the other two are about executing collaborators. That doesnt make anything I wrote untrue. And doesnt have anything to do with the revert. nableezy - 20:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

They all shows continuous occurrences of events, that you are trying to minimize and hide. TaBaZzz (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

No, they show coverage of the Battle of Gaza, which we cover, and discuss executing collaborators. I dont think coverage of execution of collaborators reaches the necessary amount for inclusion in the lead of this article. Finally please do not attribute motives to me you have no knowledge of. Thank you. nableezy - 20:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

You're wrong. Battle of Gaza was in 2007. The cites span 15 years after that. TaBaZzz (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, one of the citations you brought was about the Battle of Gaza. The other two are about executing collaborators. What overview of Gaza discusses executions of collaborators? nableezy - 21:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

This is in reference to the nature of Hamas' rule over the Gaza Strip. Is the term One party state problematic in your opinion? China's lead refers to China as a unitary one-party socialist republic . Eritrea is referred to as unitary one-party presidential republic. The use of the term One-party is used in Misplaced Pages leads to describe such regimes.

Or perhaps you'd prefer the use of Authoritarian Regime, (for example in Egypt's lead). Homerethegreat (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/hamass-authoritarian-regime-gaza

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-hamas#chapter-title-0-5

https://carnegieeurope.eu/2021/04/23/halting-palestine-s-democratic-decline-pub-84383https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2023/10/12/in-the-realm-of-mass-terrorism-hamas-has-unleashed-a-singular-barbarity-against-a-civilian-population_6166551_23.html

https://counterterrorismethics.tudelft.nl/hamas/

Is this enough sources to prove that Hamas is ruling Gaza as an authoritarian de facto one party state? Homerethegreat (talk) 10:18, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The sentence that is problematic in your opinion is the sentence that states that Gaza is ruled by Hamas in as a defacto One party state?

This is widely known, well sourced and widely recognized. I don't understand why this shouldn't be included. Indeed it in fact essential and vital that the lead on the strip includes information regarding the nature of governance of that strip. Homerethegreat (talk) 10:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Neither the article body nor Governance of the Gaza Strip use that sort of language, nor do I see it as necessary (definitely not "essential and vital"). Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

No that’s just one of the sentences. I’m pretty sure I laid out several issues including you inserting unsourced highly pov material like the occupation ended with the disengagement and Israel gives water food and electricity out of its own supplies in times peace. nableezy - 11:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

References

1. ^ "Gaza Strip: Freedom in the World 2020 Country Report". Freedom House. Retrieved 2023-10-17. Since 2007, Gaza has functioned as a de facto one-party state under Hamas rule
2. ^ "How powerful is Hamas?". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2023-10-17. In 2006, a year after Israel withdrew from Gaza, Hamas won a majority of seats in a Palestinian election and later formed a new unity government with Fatah, its nationalist rival. In June 2007, after a brief civil war, it assumed sole control of Gaza, leaving Fatah to run the Palestinian Authority (pa) in the West Bank. In response Israel and Egypt imposed a suffocating blockade on the coastal strip in 2007, strangling its economy and in effect confining its people in an open-air prison. There have been no elections since. Hamas has run Gaza as an oppressive one-party state, leaving some Palestinians there disenchanted with its leadership. Nevertheless, Palestinians widely consider it more competent than the ailing, corrupt pa.
3. ^ Tristan Dunning, Hamas, Jihad and Popular Legitimacy: Reinterpreting Resistance in Palestine, Archived 2 November 2022 at the Wayback Machine Routledge, 2016 p.212:'Since taking sole control of Gaza in June 2007, Hamas has proven itself to be a remarkably resilient and resourceful government entity. The movement has clearly entrenched itself as the hegemonic power in the coastal enclave to such an extent that the International Crisis Group contends that the power struggle in Gaza is no longer between Hamas and Fatah. Rather the main source of confrontation is between Hamas and other more hardline Islamists and salafists. . . Hamas has been far more successful in an administrative sense than the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, despite having access to only a fraction of the resources.'
4. ^ Burton, Guy (2012). "Hamas and its Vision of Development". Third World Quarterly. 33 (3): 525–540. ISSN 0143-6597. The joint Hamas-Fatah government did not last long. Within months the two sides were fighting again, eventually leading to a political split of the occupied territory, with Fatah controlling the West Bank and Hamas establishing a virtual one-party state in Gaza
5. "Gaza Strip: Freedom in the World 2023 Country Report". Freedom House. Retrieved 2023-10-31.
6. "Israel's four unpalatable options for Gaza's long-term future". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2023-10-31.
7. Beaumont, Peter (2023-10-30). "What is a human shield and how has Hamas been accused of using them?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2023-10-31.
8. Eriksson, Jacob (2015-06-08). "Why Hamas still relies on violent repression to control Gaza". The Conversation. Retrieved 2023-10-31.
9. "Israel faces agonising choices in the battle for Gaza". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2023-10-31.
10. "Gaza Strip: Freedom in the World 2023 Country Report". Freedom House. Retrieved 2023-10-31.
11. "Israel's four unpalatable options for Gaza's long-term future". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2023-10-31.
12. Beaumont, Peter (2023-10-30). "What is a human shield and how has Hamas been accused of using them?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2023-10-31.
13. Eriksson, Jacob (2015-06-08). "Why Hamas still relies on violent repression to control Gaza". The Conversation. Retrieved 2023-10-31.
14. "Israel faces agonising choices in the battle for Gaza". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 2023-10-31.
15. Nidal al-Mughrabi (June 12, 2007). "Gaza fighting descends into new brutality". Reuters. Retrieved October 25, 2023.
16. "5 Palestinians executed in Gaza on charges of murder, espionage for Israel". CBS News. September 4, 2022. Retrieved October 25, 2023.
17. "Hamas executes two Gazans as spies for Israel". Reuters. July 26, 2011. Retrieved October 25, 2023.

Arbitrary break

I've given the rationale for my edit in the edit summary. The information I restored is important and it deserves to be in the article

• Hamas has since brutally cracked down and executed opponents - is this contested? I can provide additional sources if needed.
• Israel provides the Gaza Strip water, food, and electricity from its own supplies during times of peace. - is this contested? Not mentioning it while mentioning the blockade would violate WP:NPOV
• U.N. agencies have spent almost $4.5 billion in Gaza between 2014 and 2020, including $600 million in 2020 and In recent years, Israel has permitted thousands of Gaza Palestinians to work within its borders. Neither is controversial. Now that I'm looking at it, this should be added to the Economy section and then a summary added to the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 09:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

1. What source discusses such a thing in an overview of the Gaza Strip?

2. See Half-truth. Israel is, as occupying power, obligated to provide Gaza with water, food, and electricity. See for example Human Rights Watch: International humanitarian law requires Israel, as the occupying power in Gaza, to ensure that the basic needs of the civilian population are provided for. Israel also must facilitate, not block, the delivery of humanitarian aid. Cutting water and electricity to the population amounts to unlawful collective punishment. Under international human rights law, governments must respect the right to water, which includes refraining from limiting access to, or destroying, water services and infrastructure as a punitive measure during armed conflicts. That sentence is a basic ploy to pretend that Israel is benevolent and the siege they are imposing, which reliable sources have flat out called a war crime and potentially a crime against humanity, is within their rights to withhold when it is not times of peace.

3. Again, half-truth. UN agencies have spent this much because of the airstrikes that have flattened neighborhoods repeatedly over the years. And because 90% of the population are UNRWA refugees. Israel has allowed a token number of Gazans to receive work permits in Israel, but again, what overview of Gaza includes that. But you cannot pretend like telling half of the truth in a way to obscure the reality is what that is not doing. And, regardless, edit-warring in a contested change is not acceptable. We can go back to the pre-sock lead if you want. Im not going to edit war this rewrite in either. But you cant force in these changes without consensus. nableezy - 11:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I will look for sources re 1.

Re 2, even if we assume that Israel is the occupying power (not everyone agrees with that), then the extent to which it fulfills these "obligations" is notable. Only mentioning the blockade would also be a half-truth.

Re 3, I'll see what the sources say about the economy and will start with the economy section. Alaexis_¿question? 20:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

2. no, that is not true, because nobody made note of it until Israel began withholding electricity and water, and then they called it a war crime. Would you like to include that they have since withheld these supplies and are being accused of blatant war crimes and potentially crimes against humanity?

3. I can recommend a book I just received, Roy, Sara (2007). Failing Peace: Gaza and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. London: Pluto Press (UK). ISBN 0-7453-2234-4.; and a few others by Roy like Roy, Sara (2015-11-01). The Gaza Strip: The Political Economy of De-development. Washington, DC: Institute for Palestine Studies USA, Inc. ISBN 0-88728-321-7.. nableezy - 20:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

"Israel provides" seems inaccurate and at the very least it should "Israel sells", whether in the lead or body. VR _talk 02:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesnt belong period, it was added here with no source whatsoever, and in fact sources do indeed say "purchased" from Israel for water. nableezy - 04:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Should it not be in the body with appropriate context? "International law requires Israel as the occupying power to...In peace time, Israel allows Gaza to purchase water,..." VR _talk 06:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, something along these lines. Possibly also adding "According to Human Rights Watch," depending on how many others hold this opinion. Alaexis_¿question? 06:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

This entire discussion is irrelevant. The lede is a summary of the body and none of the mentioned points are adequately covered in the body, or even properly sourced or remotely neutral. "Israel provides Gaza with water during times of peace", so benevolent of the occupying power to control the water supply. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The proposed text below is for the body. After we add it there we'll discuss how this content should be summarised in the lede. Alaexis_¿question? 16:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Alaexis_¿question? 06:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Im fine including that in the body, I dont see why any of it would go in the lead. Do territories or states usually specify where they get their water in the lead? Is it a topic that is usually discussed in an overview of Gaza? nableezy - 16:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

But also I think this should be split off into a different section. The purpose of this one, at least my purpose when I made it, was to see if people wanted me to self-revert the rewrite back to the pre-Oct 7 lead. The lead that was modified then without discussion however is a non-starter in my view, and if people edit-war it back in then that may need outside intervention to deal with. But, as I wrote above, Ill self-revert my rewrite if anybody asks, or we can start building from here. nableezy - 16:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

References

1. "Gaza's limited water access, mapped". CNN. 18 October 2023. Retrieved 27 October 2023.

Amend section heading "2014 Gaza War to present"?

I wonder whether the words "to present" should be removed from this section heading as the section seems to cover only the events of 2014. Misha Wolf (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes I agree; I just renamed it. Arp242 (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Misha Wolf (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Trim

I have trimmed large portions of text that are largely irrelevant to be in the Gaza Strip article, and are already covered in the forked articles linked. Still a lot of work to be done; for example on the religion section, which discusses everything but religion in the strip. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: Ok, those are some pretty big cuts - are you sure the material is covered elsewhere? For example, the economic history material - if you're going to make such cuts, surely splitting might be better? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I would retract describing it as economic history. Instead of describing a coherent narrative, is a nonsensical collection of news articles that jump from IDF references to EU statements to other things remotely related to economy sometimes. I can’t think of any article scope that could host this, sorry to say, badly written content, which seems to have been inserted around 2012. Overall, the content that is not covered by the main articles is usually similar to this, just news pieces without conveying an important idea. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Seeing this thread, I tried to understand these cuts and rearrangements, and it is impossible to understand them all. It would be much better to restore the prior version and make detailed edit summaries or talk page explanations for each of these many changes. SPECIFICO talk 16:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, some of the citations appear to have lenthy quotations embedded, possibly WP:COPYVIO but certainly appearing to give UNDUE weight to those particular views in a way not commensurate with NPOV for the article as a whole. SPECIFICO talk 17:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Citations have quotes because people challenge that they don’t directly support the material they are cited for. None of them come close to a copyright violation and it also has nothing to do with WEIGHT. nableezy - 18:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

There does not appear to have been any such challenge as to the Verification of aritlce text, yet we now have several extended quotations presenting one view on controversial content. The effect is that the views published on this page are not presented with DUE WEIGHT according to their incidence in mainstream RS. SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

No, we have quotes from reliable sources backing up the material they cite, and we have here an editor making unsubstantiated claims about what they think is their incidence in mainstream RS without realizing those quotes are from mainstream RS. nableezy - 17:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

occupied and disengagement

The disengagement did not end the Israeli occupation according to Israel, according to Israel Gaza was never Israeli-occupied. The final sentence in the opening paragraph is just wrong. Now it did have an impact on what the Israeli Supreme Court said, their view is that Gaza was occupied prior to 2005 and that it ended with the disengagement. But when you say "Israel disputes" you are referring to the government of Israel, and the government of Israel has never accepted that any of the occupied Palestinian territories are "occupied" (maybe Sinai and Golan pre-Golan law? but that also isnt relevant here). As far as majority and minority views, see However, the majority of international opinion considers that Israel has retained effective control over the Gaza Strip by virtue of the control exercised over, inter alia, its airspace and territorial waters, land crossings at the borders, supply of civilian infrastructure, and key governmental functions such as the management of the Palestinian population registry. nableezy - 14:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

What alternative are you suggesting? Makeandtoss (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Remove since its 2005 disengagement from the opening paragraph. Basically change the Gaza Strip has been under Israeli military occupation since 1967 (though Israel disputes this following its 2005 disengagement from Gaza) to the Gaza Strip has been under Israeli military occupation since 1967, though Israel disputes that is occupies Gaza. nableezy - 19:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

The text proposed by Nableezy is clearer than the wording you placed in the article. SPECIFICO talk 21:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 November 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"the Gaza Strip has been under Israeli military occupation since 1967 (though Israel disputes this following its 2005 disengagement from Gaza)."

This needs to be changed to: The Israeli military withdrew from Gaza in 2005. The Gaza Strip has been under Hamas control since 2007.

Sources: https://www.npr.org/2005/09/12/4841877/last-israeli-troops-exit-gaza-strip ("The last Israeli soldiers leave Gaza early Monday, ending 38 years of Israeli occupation. Thousands of Palestinians rushed into the area that used to be the Jewish settlements in Gaza, and burned at least four synagogues.")

https://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/14/gaza.pullout/

https://international.ucla.edu/israel/event/11390

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jun/15/israel4 80.187.126.246 (talk) 19:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

See above section, and no not done as requesting a minority POV be presented as fact. nableezy - 19:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• Low-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• High-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• B-Class Western Asia articles
• High-importance Western Asia articles
• WikiProject Western Asia articles
• Pages in the Misplaced Pages Top 25 Report
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics