Talk:Gaza Strip/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Gaza Photos

For some unclear reason the link to photos from Gaza is deleted again and again from the "Gaza Strip" page.

Gaza is in the news, but yet people see very narrow aspect of of it.

Between the time the link to the photos is added and until it is removed the photos get many hits - which mean people want to see them.

Here is the hit counter (last 10 hours) on the Gaza photos on my web page:

Via which site 1. en.wikipedia.org 17 2. www.pbase.com 11 3. www.google.com 4 4. search.pbase.com 3 5. www.google.ca 2 6. www.google.co.uk 1 7. www.dogpile.com 1 8. www.google.ch 1 9. forum.pbase.com 1 10. www.google.fr 1 Total 42

In case it is not clear:

Wikipedia: 17

Google: 15

rest: 10

The photos are on:

http://www.pbase.com/yalop/gaza

http://www.pbase.com/yalop/mawassi

http://www.pbase.com/yalop/gaza&page=2

Take a look at decide for your self if they are of interest to anyone searching for "Gaza Strip" on wikipedia.

One more thing: Most people will look up the word "Gaza". For some reason someone decided that the entry Gaza should be reserved just for the City Gaza and should deal with municipality issues. Most people will therefore not find what they want if they come to know about the AREA known as Gaza (yes I know it is in the f "further" section but few bother to follow.

IMHO, the entry now under "Gaza Strip" should be under "Gaza" and the entry that is now called "Gaza" should be called "Gaza City" – this way people who search on Gaza will get to the main page on this area and it's history (and relevance to Palestinian-Israeli conflict) and only if they look for municipal issues on Gaza CITY they can click on the link to the city itself.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page"

PLEASE STOP DELETING !!!! Or explain why you think photos from gaza do not belong on this page

If you want add other photos from gaza ( maybe you want this http://www.pbase.com/yalop/mawassi and other sub galleries) but do NOT delete other people work just because it does not fit your agenda

That seems like a vanishingly small number of hits. I've looked at the pictures, and they appear to be a personal website used for propaganda purposed, not an encyclopedic link. What "agenda" do you think I have? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I dis agree with you. It is not propeganda. No more than other subject I cover and links from wikipedia to my site on many issues I never deleted. I do not what Agenda you have but the zeal you have deleting photos showing what goes on in Gaza show you do have some hidden agenda. I would like to midiate this.

To Jayjg: Please explain how this gallery http://www.pbase.com/yalop/mawassi fits your defition of "a personal website used for propagand" In what way is it different from my gallery under the article about Druze or about Bedouins (both are links that exist for a year without a zealot like you to delete them)

see this for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druze

I see, so you're just inserting them to try to get more hits on your website? My agenda is the removal of dubious and self-promoting website links, because this is an encyclopedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I used the "hits" number to show that when these links are here people use them.

I want people to be able to see and not just read. A photo is worth a 1000 words.

Please open a survey on these. Wikipedia is by consensus. You and I obvioulsy can not agree (although this is just an issue of EXTERNAL LINKS. You seem to be a very distrubed person to come and visit this item every day to remove links. No one argue with you about the content just adding more options for people who want to explore the issue further by seeing photos of the place. That is all.

Everyone wants to generate more traffic for their personal websites, but that doesn't mean links to them belong in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a link repository. I'll get other opinions on the topic; please avoid personal attacks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, generally, with Jayjg. Links made to your own site are strongly discouraged in Wikipedia. Exceptions are made in the most rare of circumstances, and usually by independent witnesses. See Wikipedia:External links:

Wikipedia disapproves strongly of links that are added for advertising purposes. Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged. The mass adding of links to any website is also strongly discouraged, and any such operation should be raised at the Village Pump or other such page and approved by the community before going ahead. Persistently linking to one's own site is considered Vandalism and can result in sanctions.

However, if you own the copyrights to those photos, you are perfectly free - in fact, encouraged - to upload some of them onto wikipedia,or Wikimedia Commons under a compatible license for use in Wikipedia articles. On the information pages for these images, you can then link to your page as the source. (The added advantage of this is that it eases the bandwidth load on your server.)

Finally, to Jayjg, assume good faith.--Fangz 21:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The 2 key issues are:

1. This is after all a link, that is all 2-3 lines at the end of the article and this link in to a non-commericial documentary site

2. Do people want to see these photos ? Well here are the referal stats for the last 24 hours:

1. en.wikipedia.org 56 2. forum.pbase.com 9 3. www.google.com 8 4. www.pbase.com 7 5. search.pbase.com 6 6. upload.pbase.com 4 7. www.indybay.org 3 8. www.google.lv 1 9. webmail.013.net 1 10. www.google.fr 1 11. mysearch.myway.com 1 12. www.google.co.uk 1 13. www.google.co.il 1 14. www.google.ca 1

 Total 100 

so clearly out of 100 people who wanted to see Gaza photos

56 came via wikipedia , about 40 from google.

Wikipedia is a top-100 web traffic site. Any page linked from it will rise in Google pagerankings. This is very attractive to spammers. Just because something isn't a money-making venture doesn't prevent it from being spam.

Your argument goes something like this: You wander into a pharmacist's shop, and put a cigarette advertisement onto her window. The pharmacist takes it down. You repeat the process a dozen times, getting more and more annoyed; why does this unreasonable woman keep taking down your ad? People walking into the pharmacy see the advertisement, later they go and buy your cigarettes - people obviously want to see the ad. But could people be buying the cigarettes because they think the pharmacist is endorsing them as a heathy choice? The pharmacist doesn't want people to think that she endorses cigarette smoking, so she takes the sign down. Josh Parris ✉ 06:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you understand what Photos from Gaza has to do with smoking but I don't. My point, in case yoiu have missed it: People who come to Wikipedia to search about Gaza do want to see photos of the place If you have better photos please post them but stop taking down a link to photos people want to see.

This is not smoking this is education. It is not just words people look for They want to see photos.

As indicated before: I am open to mediation about it or do a survey. Although the high number of people who click on the link to the photos clearly show that people DO find and interst in seeing photos of the places they read about.

The pharmacist is an analogy. This is an Encyclopedia, not a search engine. Upload your photos using the instructions at wikipedia:images and add them to the article. Josh Parris ✉ 08:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it. This is an analogy. So like the Pharmasict own the Pharmacy you own Wikipedia..... It is my descision what to do with my photos. On the other hand Wikipedia is a colobaration by many people. You are free to add links to any photo you choose But stop deleting mine. It is not about search engine and if you still did not get it:

People who come to this article want to see photos of the place.

Do you have better/other photos ? if so post them or provide a link.

This is an Encyclopedia, not a search engine. Upload your photos using the instructions at wikipedia:images and add them to the article. Josh Parris ✉ 08:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

This is an Encyclopedia and it inlude links to external sites.

You are free to add your links or submit your photos. I choose to link to the site of photos This is done in many other articles in this Encyclopedia and this article is not different. So please if you can resist yourself, start a mediation process. In the mean time I will add the links that people want to see.

I'm here via RFC. I am part of the mediation process. You can't add those links, because they are a clear breach of our established policy. In almost all cases, you can't add links to your own sites. Saying that it helps make your site popular doesn't make any difference. The rules are designed against advertising, and the only way rules work are if we are fair and equal in applying them.

You are being unreasonable, here. If you want to contribute to a NPOV and free wikipedia, there is no reason not to upload the images. You actions suggest to me that either you are being selfish, or you are trying to make Wikipedia endorse your POV. Neither of them we can allow.--Fangz 13:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Fangz: Thank you for your help in mediation. Can you point out the policy, but please note, the issue is not who the "site owner" is (I am not the "owner" of the photo site. I am looking for a policy that prevents adding a link to an extrenal sitre that include photos that are jermain to the subject. After all this was the debate about. The people who removed these links claimed that these links has nothing to do with the Gaza strip. I would like to mediate this issue first: Are these photos relate to the subject of this article. Please review the photos and decide. Thank You.

Dear Fangaz: I read the external link policy and I expect that you will obeied by that policy. The photos site is not selling anything and it provide insight into the subject of the article. Thank you for pointing out the Policy. All that is left now is to implement it. The policy clearly allow for external links.

Please note that the person that first removed these links did so because he misunderstaood tham to be propeganda He wrote this insult about my work: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for right-wing Israeli propaganda images"

Many other Wikipedia articles include links to my photos. Some of them are photos that are not so pleast to right wing.

I am not a propagnist for either site I am a photogrpher and I provide insight that is all.

I never claimed the photos were unrelated to the subject of the article, I pointed out they were un-encyclopedic. They meet none of the qualifications for links under the Wikipedia:External links policy; upload your photos using the instructions at wikipedia:images and add them to the article, rather than spamming this link in. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia has a three revert rule which you have violated many times now. If you don't stop, you will be blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The person who violated the 3 revert block is you. It is nice that you now threat to use power. Clearly, once I saw the policy I know you are violting it since the policy is ecatly about adding links that jermain to the issue.

The problem is that you had labeled my work "right wing propeganda" (it is not) But once you did that you had removed yourself from a position of being neutral enough too edit this page If you see in photos that show both israelis and Palestinians who live in gaza propeganda you are not qualified to edit this article.

As I have told you I want to mediate this and don't threat on "blocking me" You do not own Wikipedia.

Please re-read the WP:3RR policy; I have not violated it, but you certainly have. Now that you are aware of the policy, you should be especially careful about abiding by it, as I will have no qualms about having you blocked if you violate it again. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Clearly the person who reverted it more than 3 times is YOu.

This policy is meat to avoid "edit wars" and this is what you did.

There are ways to resolve disputes and I am again asking for mediation. Stop threating to "block me" this is not your personal site.

The article currently links to GlobalPolitician.com, the CIA World Factbook, the United Nations, Care USA and the University of Texas. And you want a link to your site added? Is it of the same calibre of those sites? Perhaps WikiNews is an appropriate place for you to upload your photos; I believe you're photographing current events in Gaza.

The CIA World Factbook gives the population as 1,376,289 (recorded as 1.3m in the article), which you've tried to change on occasions to 1 and 1.25 million; do you have a source for your revised population figure? And have you picked one of the figures? Josh Parris ✉ 03:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

It was a typo, the correct number is 1.325

Now how about these extrenal links to photos ?

Clearly as you can see in Gush Katif and in this article Jayjg has a political bias. He mis interprest the photos as "right wing propeganda" (although some of thse phots could be very unpleast to "right wingers" to see) and took it upon himself to reveret and reveret to a page without these photos.

The photos do not violate the rule about extrenal link (they are not to a comercial site) so it leaves only one option that what what motivate him his a political hatred (or even antisemitism) against the person who took the photos or the people who are in some of the photos. So how does Wikipedia resolve such disputes ? by deleting all refernce to these photos from this and other articles ?

Are photos like this http://www.pbase.com/yalop/mawassi and http://www.pbase.com/yalop/work and this: http://www.pbase.com/yalop/harbor can be intereted as "anti-pull out propeganda " or as "right-wing propeganda" ?

Please answer thse questions.

To John : I hope you are aware of the 3RR rule. You have already reverted 2 times time and I hope you will not do it the 3rd time. On a side note I have no idea why this personal vandeta against me. Clearly I have put photos that are jermain to the subject and they show restrictions on the move of Palestinian labor.

The three revert rule states that you cannot revert a page more than three times in one 24 hour period. I hope this is clear enough. Now please stop spamming these pages with links to your photopage. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

To Jayjg: The person that used Reveret is you, not me. You used it more than 3 times in 24 hours so it is you who are in violation of the policy. Further more you did not provide a reason for your last revert. This is a BIG violation of the policy.

So.... do you want to get to the situation where you are banned for violating the policy ? If not I suggest you provide a reason for edit change you make.

I have already seen previous reasons you provided and have a itchy feeling that you have some bias against .. well we both know what it is so let's not go there. I expect to see justification for every change you make, And be carfull about violating the 3RR rule.

Regarding my reverts, I've explained them 20 times now, I don't think another explanation is required. And enough with the false accusations; exactly where did I revert more than 3 times in 24 hours? I won't be responding again until you provide some evidence. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

On May 16 Jayjg reverted 3 times in 24 hours. This is a violaition of the 3RR policy Toady (May 18) Jayjg reverted without explanation to remove photos of Gaza Palestinian rsidents (which are the subject of this article) I suggest you add these links (or provide a reson why you removed them)

If you do not provide a reason why you removed THIS LINK: http://www.pbase.com/yalop/mawassi I will add it my self. Wikipedia has rulles (thank you letting me know about them) Now YOU should follow these rules:

You remove something you say why. If you think an extrenal link does not belong here explain why: Is it not about the subject (it does) Or if you have other reason you should explain it.

Did you read the WP:3RR page? The rule is you cannot revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. Understand? More than 3 times in 24 hours. As for the issue with your self-promoting links, already explained. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

To Jayjg: Did YOU read the WP:3RR page? The rule is you cannot revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. Understand? More than 3 times in 24 hours. Note: I never reveret I edit to add contect. It is you (on May 16 ) who revereted 3 times and on may 18 you reveret without explanation. Both are violating of policy. YOU ARE A VIOLATOR.

You should follow the guidelines in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot

Look at rule #7. If someone posted a link to photos you think are .... - what ever you think they are edit the link description and say these are photos that tell .... - what ever you think. These after all photos of people living in the Gaza Strip and as such (if you like them or not) are adding info on the life of people in Gaza

It would be much easier for me to follow the conversation if all parties were registered users and signed their posts. How do I know the anonymous user is the same individual each time? Having said that, I've been following this conversation for several days now and think that, while anon's photos are interesting and artistic, they probably are not encylopedic... Several do appear to demonstrate POV. I'm still pretty new here, but I've read lots of articles, talk pages, and studied user interactions. Take my opinion how you will, but Wikipedia is about consensus (and, of course, creating a great encyclopedia). It doesn't appear consensus will be easily reached as concerns anon's photos or links to his photos, so perhaps the article should remain as it is right now -- without the photos or links to them -- as they appear to provoke controversy. --Chiacomo 14:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Chiacomo: Which photos do you find "do appear to demonstrate POV"  ?

Please provide a URL to such photos ( i.e. such as

http://www.pbase.com/yalop/image/42021564

http://www.pbase.com/yalop/image/42842182

http://www.pbase.com/yalop/image/42890598

http://www.pbase.com/yalop/image/42951605

http://www.pbase.com/yalop/image/42908774

http://www.pbase.com/yalop/image/42036415

I would say that each of these photos represent reality, an aspect of reality that may be intrpreted based on one's POV. This is realy the beauty of the photos I take (see my work on the wall and read the comments in: http://www.pbase.com/yalop/essay and you will found out that different people see diffrent POV in the same photo.

Now about Jayjg. Jayjg have delted links to photos because they are for him "right wing propeganda". I would say that by doing so he interjected his OWN POV. So keeping the photos is actuially more neutral to any specific POV than deleting them.

Makes any sense ?

Which parts of "don't use Wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising your work" and "don't include non-encyclopedic links" are you having difficulty understanding? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

...you will find out that different people see different POV in the same photo. So there is a POV expressed in the photos? This is my assertion. We should avoid controversy and seek consensus. It is obvious that these photos are controversial, do not substantially enhance the readers understanding of the content of the article, and the links are blatant self-promotion. An article such as this must be written and edited carefully so as not to step on anyone's toes as the article's subject is controversial itself. My opinion has not changed -- your photographs, while interesting and well made, are not suitable for this article. --Chiacomo 14:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg: Your arguments against the photos were first that they represnt "right wing propeganda". So you have disqualified yourself from being suitable to edit this article. It is clear that anyone who see in these photos (as you said) "Anti-Pull out propaganda" is intejecting his own POV by seeing things that are not really there.

Chiacomo: I respect your view. Most likley I can not convince you. My work is based upon the idea that most people do not really have an idea about things they read about. So Photos, AS LONG AS THEY SHOW REALITY AND MANY DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THAT REALITY are actually of encyclopidic value as they enhance the understanding of the situation.

I think that if you re-read what you wrote, and think about it in a very general way, what you are saying is that there is no room for photos in delicate subjects. I hope you would re-think tis position. Reality, as shown by photos is not something we should be afraid off.

(off course if photos are manipulated, or one sided only while hiding other aspects of reality - that is wrong) But not allowing photos at all, or not allowing them because one editor finds them in opostion to HIS POV is IMHO a negative diretion to go.

No, my arguments agains the photos are that they are POV, "a vehicle for advertising your work" and "non-encyclopedic". Don't try to make my arguments for me. As for you, since you are the person who took these photos, you clearly cannot be unbiased about them, and have therefore disqualified yourself from including them. Bye. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg: At least be honest about your motives. When you first removed these links you wrote:

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for right-wing Israeli propaganda images." (May 9)

So it is YOUR POV that made you remove these links. Since this is the case I will re-add them and you will need to remember the 3RR rule and about providing an explanation why you revert. If you reveret more than 3 times in 24 hours and do not eplain yourself (be specific) you will be violating the rulles. I suggest that when the links are added (sometime in the next 24-72 hours) you will review the photos before making your decision on the value of the photos.

On my part I will make an effort to include links to photos that show all aspects of the situation in Gaza. My aim is to add value that is not in the text alone. This is not self promotion. If I wanted self promotion I would place links to photos of girls in bikini....

I've told you why they are being removed; you prefer to believe something different. In any event, you can't use Wikipedia to advertise your photographs, and you will not be allowed to. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

When you first removed them (May 9) your argument was about "right wing propeganda" so at least b consistent and honest with us.

There are so many good reasons why you shouldn't be linking to your photographs; please be honest and stop trying to distract the reader from that. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg ignore the reason he first gave to removing these photos. any attempts to change it result in personal intimidation from one user, making a collaborative editing atmosphere impossible. These are clear violations of WP process.

So far five different editors have reverted your edits or told you to stop putting in these links; how many will it take before you will stop? In any event, Talk: pages are for discussing article content, not your opinions about other editors. I'm done responding to your personal attacks. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh my

Well, isn't this quite the interesting discussion. To the person who wants to put the links to his page up I'll just repeat what somebody else said earlier: upload your photos on the commons to be used by everyone; then they will be the photos themselves without a link to a page with an opinion, and then everybody will be happy. People will see your photos and this discussion page will turn into a garden of peace and love.

Excellent suggestion, and one I've made as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:44, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

By now it is NOT the issue of the photos. Recent edit change by Jayjg have deleted facts and replaced them with "assertions" such as the high density in Gaza (population over 1.2 mil) is because the influx of refugees in 1948 (less than 100,000) and not as a result of the birth rate population growth (nearly 4% - the highets in the world)

So judge for yourself if he is qualified to edit this page.

ust assume I load my photos into WP (making them public domain photos) But then the tyran still does not like the photos (which was his reason to start with) Then no one will see these photos.

So if you want to help, start by removing the tyrany from this page. There are many links to extrnal photos and extrenal sites on WP (look up rafah and thousands other articles

Uploading your images will not make them PD. You can use any license, so long as it is compatible with Wikipedia.--Fangz 21:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Your other edits were poorly written, POV, and entirely unsourced. And don't make assumptions. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

It does not matter what license I use. Jayjg does not like to see photos of settlers, he will delete them.

AS for accuracy this is what Jayjg wrote:

"The majority of the Palestinians are refugees or their direct descendants, who fled Israel during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War (see Palestinian exodus); as a result it has a high population density. "

Does this make sense ?

Of course it does not.

Here is the truth which I wrote, he removed and none of you other "editors" bothered to check:

"By 1967 the population had grown to about six times its 1948 size. The city's population has continued to increase since that time, and poverty, unemployment, and poor living conditions are widespread" (see http://www.palestinehistory.com/gazacity.htm )

I repeat what I said again and again: When you give one person the right to conduct tyrany over this page (just look at the history: Jayjg decides what goes on here, almost every contributor to this page run into argument with him and eventualy leaves) when you do that you defeat the purpose of WP.

If you want to have a colaborative edit process, why don't you review the text, change the completely biased staements Jayjg wrote (like the reason for Gaza density, like the false assertion that there are no arm smuggling tunnels, like the false assertion that the PA is in control all over Gaza and ignoring the Hammas role, the popular cometees (ran by the arm smugglers of Rafah (the Abu Samadna gang of war lords) And....

You can also add links to photos (not just mine, look it up on the web)

So do your work instead of just letting Jayjg decide for you.

And about who is in charge in Gaza PA or Hamas:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0E93FE7B-A69F-4A1F-A038-B01E1BA74661.htm

A new discussion on the pbase Gaza photos

Well, I've been wrong before... I had another look at the photo links from pbase most recent added by User:Yuber. The photographs are quite good, actually and don't express a blatant POV. What are the current objections to these photos, again? --Chiacomo 03:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A new discussion on the pbase Gaza photos

Well, I've been wrong before... I had another look at the photo links from pbase most recent added by User:Yuber. The photographs are quite good, actually and don't express a blatant POV. What are the current objections to these photos, again? --Chiacomo 03:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After filtering the ranting, whinging and personal attacks out, the photos are:

• <anonymous user> Good photos and make lots of traffic to my website. Lots of articles have links to photos. These photos are neutral.
• <User:Jayjg> Pushing your photography business. Not encyclopaedic. POV (look at the captions). Wikipedia is not a link repository. Upload and add to article.
• <User:Fangz> Contrary to Wikipedia policy. Upload and add to article.
• <User:Josh Parris> POV and non encyclopaedic. Upload and add to article.
• <User:Chiacomo>Interesting and artistic, they probably are not encylopedic.

And, as an aside, I think they're pretty and some are very well composited. But it's still inappropriate to link to them from Wikipedia. Josh Parris ✉ 04:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I've said, I was initially against inclusion of a link to these photographs. After reviewing the photos..

• I can't find an obvious POV (though I'm still looking and if you find one, please document) -- the captions seem to accurately represent the content of the pictures, both of Palestinian and Israeli subjects.
• I can't seem to find a link to purchase anything...
• Responding to my own objection: the photographs seem no less encyclopedic than other "daily life" pictures already included, and, in the case of the Khan Unis pics, aren't found elsewhere.

While none of the individual pictures seem to represent an idea that merits inclusion in the article itself, as a collection they are quite interesting and did in fact help me understand a bit more about the Gaza Strip. I now think a link is appropriate. --Chiacomo 04:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Even if a link is appropriate, three is not. If the photos were embedded into relevant parts of the article, they would add to the atmosphere of the article. And we're not seeing that, but three obscure links at the bottom. Perhaps an article on the daily life in Gaza would be an appropriate place for links of this nature. But the Gaza Strip article is encyclopedic. My understanding of external links is that they're mainly used for cross-checking of facts. Josh Parris ✉ 05:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, then we should remove some of the other external links and create an article covering daily life in the Gaza strip? Or, a single link to the collection of photos might be appropriate. --Chiacomo 05:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why I formed the opinion that the images push a POV:

• http://www.pbase.com/yalop/image/42890598 "Soldiers telling a Palestinian fisherman to leave the beach for just one day"
• http://www.pbase.com/yalop/image/42021562 "Fantastic composition, with great sense of space and play... captures the adventure of childhood, and has timeless appeal. The uniform-like clothes provoke our thoughts..."
• http://www.pbase.com/yalop/image/42021971 "Shechade: Where will we work after the Israelis are gone ?" and "Copyright: Eual Ofer - proof copy"
• http://www.pbase.com/yalop/image/42034988 "At work: Muhammad just want to work"

I'm not saying that the POV isn't valid, nor that it is valid. It's just not the neutrality that Wikipedia strives for.

Feel free to start a section on Daily Life in the Gaza Strip. I have no expertise on Gaza, but I do feel responsibility to protect Wikipedia's reputation.

BTW, User:Yuber didn't add the photo links, s/he reverted them in. They were originally put in by <anonymous user>. Josh Parris ✉ 06:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==Daily life in the Gaza Strip==

Main article: Daily life in the Gaza Strip or maybe Gaza Strip/Daily life

What can you say? There are taxis and buses, and people grow food. Yadda yadda yadda.

About POV:

The photo "soldiers telling..." is EXACTLY what it was. The sub-headline reads: "Tomorrow is fine, today the settler march is going through this beach so the area is closed"

This is NOT MY POV. This is what actually occurs in Gaza. My POV that the soldiers should not be there. That this fisherman does not-represent any security risk and that if the settlers will see him there they may cause a stir - none of that is in the photo or the caption.

I can go on and on about every such photo. The point is that none of these photos can tell you what I really think. The Proof is that you all think that my POV is different from what it really is which mean that my POV is not expressed in the photos. And if someone left a comment under the photos this is again not the Photo POV. (I can delete the comment if that is what bothering you)

Are the links encyclopedic?

All of you said: Load them to wikipedia. Which mean that you know the encyclopedic value of the photos.

External links to photos: For over a month every time I placed a link to the photos on pabse you removed them. Then I placed a link to other web site and that link did not bother anyone Now I have re-added the link to pbase and again you removed them.

This is not consistent. Either no photos should be linked att all from wikipedia (thousands of links to photos exist throughout wikipedia)

I suggest you re-read what Chiacomo had written. The ability to change one POV is a gift. Don't be fanatic.

And BTW, the traffic to my web site from wikipedia is slim at best. It turns out that in the past the fact that I placed the discussion about this subject in the main page talk page was what generated the traffic. Still once in a while someone who reads this article wants to see how gaza looks like, who are the people who live there.

Clearly when I added in the page about "disengage plan" photos about the road blockers who demonstrated against the plan these were directly related to the "opposition to the plan" but use jayjig removed even that.

This is a crsade. Wikipedia is about collaboration not about personal crusades. Let us not forget that when user jayjig first removed these photos he did so because he claimed that they are "right wing Israeli propaganda"

So every time you remove these links you are following his mistake (in understanding the nature of the photojournalistic / documentary photos) and his POV (against israel).

I suggest you special:upload appropriate images for inclusion in the article. You can tag them with {{CopyrightedNotForProfitUseProvidedThat|credit is given and copyright is attributed to Eual Ofer}} which will mark them as

 _© 

This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for a non-profit, educational purpose, provided that credit is given and copyright is attributed to Eual Ofer

I would even suggest that linking to your web site from the image would be appropriate in that context, as it is the source of the image. Life would be a lot easier if you created a user account for yourself and you became a contributor to Wikipedia. Having your work appear in Wikipedia could be quite a feather in your cap. Josh Parris ✉ 08:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. When one uploads their pictures, it's welcomed — when one links to them, it tends to be viewed as self-promotion. El_C 08:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will think about it but I need to learn how to do that. I got to Wikipedia because other photo page of mine someone (not me ) linked to it from a wikipedia article. I started getting hits and wondered where these hits come from.

When I started working on Gaza I linked to my photos from the Gaza page. No hidden intentions. Wanted people to have access to the photos to see for them selfs. What you are asking me, to become a contributor to Wikipedia, to read understand the type of license I am giving awayetc... all this takes time and maybe even a legal advice.

I'll ask you again: Is there value to Wikipedia readers to SEE how does Gaza look like, how do the settlments in Gaza look like, how much military control is there over there etc.....

If there is a value than it does not really matter if the photos are linked or part of the article. Who ever want to know more can click on a link and see the photos of settlers who built to stop the pullout and of Palestinians who want Israel out and those who are apprihensive of every change.

If there is NO VALUE in thse photos - why are wasting our time ?

I was really hoping anon wouldn't show up again -- I really don't know if he's helping or hurting himself. I generally discount IPs; I really wish he would create an account. I would, however, tend to agree with anon's assesment of the captions of the photos. I understand that multiple links to the same collection of photos might be bad. My question: Is there a link to this collection of photographs, as a whole, that y'all would find at least as appropriate as some of the other external links? --Chiacomo 13:59, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I may the only one here who is NOT ANON. My (real) name is on the web site. I have no idea who Jayjg is. So creating an account does not remove anonimity but creates one. An IP address is at least somewhat traceable.

Anyone who thinks these links are self promotions must be kidding. I suggest you read the relevant pages/definition of self promotion in wikipedia. These links do not describe a product etc... Their only "sin" is that I am the photogrpher who took them and that Jayjg is "hooking up " to the "self promotion" (false) argument because he first did not like these photos which he (misteknly) thought are against his own POV.

I would suggest everyone would take a deep breath of air: 1. A link to OTHER photos from gaza stood here for a month without bothering anyone. 2. You all agree that if thse photos were loaded to Wikipedia you would like to see them included.

Well ? What is the logival conclusion :

That it is OK to put an extrenal link to photos as long as thse are NOT photos that you would want to see uploaded to Wikipedia ?

John Paris: Try be logical in what you revert or not reveret - do not automatically follow Jayjg. Signed: Eyal (my Real name although I have no Wikipedia handle)

Why don't you get yourself a Wikipedia "handle", Eyal? As for the other photographs, they do not appear to be self promotion. In any event, you have been told many times to upload your contributions rather than linking to them, and to avoid self-promotion. I recommend listening to the arguments being made, rather than attacking those making them? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why getting an ID makes any difference ?

These photos were added to this page by a person with an ID (not me) and you still delted them I do not buy your "no self promotion" argument. When you first removed the photos you claimed they are "right wing israeli propeganda". You know your problem is your POV about this photos so why don't at least be honest with us.

I write the truth. I use my own name, I use my own IP address. It is YOU who hide behind nonsense arguments and "handles"

ANYONE who think this is about "self promotion" should look at Jayjg last revert. He list the reason as "(revert absurdly pro-Israel bias "

This is how he treats facts. This is how he treats external links. In fact one user is trying to exceside tyrany over this page. Will you allow him to continue ?

Getting an ID makes a big difference; then people can communicate with you on your Talk: page for one thing. And you can use your own name for your ID, as opposed to a number. You certainly aren't editing from your own IP address, but rather from a series of IPs owned by RIPE Network Coordination Centre in Amsterdam. Also, saying that the Palestinians did not "flee" Israel, but rather "left after they were asked to do so by Arab leaders" is absurdly pro-Israel bias, which is a good reason for reverting it. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I give up! Anon is doing more harm than good in our discussion about his photographs -- I do think he would gain credibility if he registered and studied convention here before becoming embroiled in controversy. I do also think it would be fair to remove the other external link depicting "Daily Life" in Gaza... It appears to represent a POV as well... I could be convinced the BBC pics are biased too. --Chiacomo 19:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not particularly keen on any of the photograph links on this page; I'd be happy to see them all go. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, this appears to be the best option -- as neither of the two uncontested links to photography appear to be sources for the article and both evince POV of some type, they should be removed. --Chiacomo 20:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chiacomo: I could get a handle if this would make you happy. But the issue is not me. The issue is use of links to photos.

Links to Photos exist everywhere on Wikipedia. Except that in this page you now suggest removing ALL of them ? Does this makes any sense ?

"consensus" is a very nice word but what shped your view ? The photos: NO ! You "gave up" because what I say, not based on the photos.

And user Jayjg, he post here a lie "You certainly aren't editing from your own IP address, but rather from a series of IPs owned by RIPE Network Coordination Centre in Amsterdam" which only shows that he has no idea how to look for IP addresses. I suggest he look up the IP address of my ISP "Barak, Israel" and try to match it to the IP address on the edit page: Bingo.

I do not hide behind any "handle" or "nick name" I have nothing to hide. The one who lies about his intentions is Jayjg who first was against the photos because they do NOT match his POV, but now convinced you that they are "self promotion". Hope you have good time with your faked "consensus" I will continue to add links to extrenal photos. Such links exist in many other Wikipedia articles and there is no reason to deny them here.

If you think differently put a talk item on the main page : "Should wikipedia have extranl links to photos" ? This is after all the reason you give to remove these photos so seeq consensus for this bizare opinion.

Talk:Main Page is not the proper forum to discuss this -- it clearly says at the top of the talk page, This page is to discuss the Main Page only. Perhaps you should become more familiar with convention before becoming embroiled in controversy. --Chiacomo (talk) 14:25, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In my short time here I noticed that there are manu rules and modus operandy, most of them are vioalted all the time.

But in any case, why instead of starting to discuss the issue of a new rule we can discuss the issue we started with.

Your view Chiacomo was first that the PHOTOS add value, but later due to my words on the discussion page you decided to give up. So is it about the PHOTOS or about "my style" or "me not knowing the rules" ?

By now consensus emarged on this talk page that no external links to Photos should be allowed. This is a very bizare view and demonstrate how easy it is for consensus to emarge in a completly biased way. This this is a generalization that is not about these photos nor on Gaza but about external_links all over Wikipedia this is something that need to be discussed by the Wikipedia community as a whole. Please advise where the right forum is.

Alternatvly, maybe from this absurd conclusion you will see that somehow the "consensus" has emerged in the wrong direction....

Why not upload the photos and release them under GFDL? I still haven't heard an answer to that. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'll answer again:

1. If I load the photos under GFDL and after that you decide to delete the photos? This will not get us closer to solution. The photo is the same photo on Wikipedia or on external link. Your initial objection was that the photos are "right wing Israeli propaganda". Loading them would not change anything.

2. I am not an attorney. I know nothing about the legal issues and frankly I could not understand what people can or can not do once the photos is on a site which is generally regarded as "no copy right protected".

So the questions remain:

If these photos have value ? If so we should allow external link.

At some point you will understand that "Self promotion" (as clearly define as references to commercial sites" Does not apply here.

Your objection is about photos which contradict your POV (so you think) Make it easier for everyone and discuss your REAL objections to these photos ?

Maybe because they show settlers as human beings ? But they also show Palestinians as human beings .....

Please do not presume to tell me what my objections are or are not; I think every single one of your last 50 comments to me or about me has done so. Use the Talk: page to discuss article content. As for no uploading your photographs, you don't seem to be willing to contribute to Wikipedia in any way, but are perfectly willing to use it to increase traffic to your pictures. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't need to presume anything. When you first removed the links to ther photos you wrote: "Right wing Israeli propeganda". Only when you understood that this is a POV based removal you used other arguments. You are the abusing the medium. The fact IS: These photos add value. Your request to upload them show that even you understand that value. The value exist if these photos are loaded or linked. — Unsigned, again, by 85.65.55.125 It's annoying for other people to sign your comments for you; the comments bellow yours, despite the indentation stand the risk of being mistaken for yours, 85.65.55.125, and it's unfair for every editor who comments bellow you to be forced to do what you yourself can much more easily do by typing ~~~~ (four tildes). El_C 07:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Either you upload them, then we can discuss which is relevant where, invidually; or, the links will be reverted by a majority of editors, these album links are considered inappropriate, that is the reality. Please make sure you sign your name with ~~~~, anonymous editor. El_C 07:02, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what 21:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) is and anyone here Identify my comments no need for you to sign them.

"Majority of editors here" has proven to be quite a funny crowed:

1. Instead of discussing the photos you complain about my signature and other non jermain issues.

2. You have concluded that external links to photos is not appropriate on Wikipedia.

I wonder: When will you address the real issue: DO these photos add value to a reader about this subject ?

I believe, as perhaps other editors do, that external links to photos are appropriate if they are source material for an article. As I've said before, it would be helpful if you created a username and signed your posts using it (with four tildes "~~~~"). As it stands, I cannot be certain you are the same anonymous editor we've been conversing with or not -- you could be an entirely new person! --Chiacomo (talk) 21:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Chiamcomo: You wrote:

"As it stands, I cannot be certain you are the same anonymous editor we've been conversing with or not -- you could be an entirely new person! "

Man, a little bit of intelectual honesty. Do you believe your self ? I am the same person and you know it. I am not an "anonymous editor" as Jayjg keep refering to me. I am not the issue. The photos are.

None of you have addressed the simple issue: Do the photos add value ? They are not "source material" they are "added value" material. — As always, comments unsigned. By 85.64.35.16 El_C 04:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we have. El_C 04:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a contributor you are in fact an anonymous editor -- you really should consider more formally joining the community by creating an account. I think your contributions would be valuable. Perhaps the issue is not the inclusion of photo links, but rather, your motives in repeatedly attempting to include them. We should be attempting to create a great encyclopedia -- not a great collection of links. I will agree that the photos are potentially valuable (I've enjoyed looking at them) -- and some of them, perhaps, should be uploaded to WP or the commons so they can be used in this and other articles. I encourage you to do so, actually. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chiamcomo: Thank you for addressing the issue of the photos. Al C: Please stop signing for me.

With the exception of Chiamcomo, none of you have addressed the issue. I must confess: I have a problem joining an encycklopedia where the editors do not use their real names.

If Wikipedia is serious it should mandate that funny names like "Jayjg" will not be allowed. If someone wants to contribute to world knowledge he/she should use his real name. You know who I am , just look at my web site and search my name on google.

---

I, and others, have said the same thing above, you just didn't bother responding to it, instead continuing with your circular rant.*** Fine, I won't sign for you, but I'll separate my comments from yours and let other people complain about that. And it's El_C, 85.64.35.16, not Al. El_C 05:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I found your suggestion that Jayjg is a funny name that should'nt be allowed, hysterically absurd, Anonymous editor. El_C 05:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm a public/elected official and my name can easily be googled -- I choose a "funny name" to at least attempt anonymity. This, I think, is one of the strengths of WP -- you can edit and contribute without fear of retaliation. Of course, here in the USA, I needn't fear arrest or persecution, but other people in other places might. By using a pseudonym, editors are free to publish the truth without fear of reprisal. Some editors do, in fact, use their real names, but I don't consider their contributions any more reliable than Jayig's or El C's. Anonymous editors, in some ways, have less anonymity than registered users; had I the inclination, I might locate someone very precisely based on their IP address. My username, by the way, is a bastardization of Danny Kaye's character in The Court Jester. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Anon is more than free to propose policy changes or new policy through the propper channels (or, for that matter, start his own wiki with his own a priori policies), but proposing drastic policy changes on-the-fly, on a talk page, is questionable. El_C 06:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what value there is any more in this dialogue; the anonymous editor does not propose any new arguments, refuses to get a userid, and even refuses to sign his contributions or have others sign for him. I see no evidence of good faith here. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:26, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

I am not sure if you know what "good faith" is. Good faith is to try and make a contrbution here. Good faith is NOT first saying you are against someone POV (as you misunderstood the photos to be) and later hooking up to the "winning argument" of "self promotion"

I don't have to get an ID to contrubute here. So far I could contribute to this page with or without ID. Despite the fact that you (with no good faith) keep refering to me as "Anon" You know who I am am , you know what I add and ... Never mind. You are right on one thing no point in this discussion. You guys are prisoner of your cult. No outsiders welcome I guess unless they dress up like you. (ID and All)

---

First you want Wikipedia to demand real names, then you claim to be happy hiding behind no account. An account would give us a measure of the value of the contributions you make to Wikipedia; with anoymous editing we assume that you are making no contribution to Wikipedia.

The argument is not about your POV, but about having any POV. Wikipedia is neutral. Images are (generally - that can be misleadingly framed) neutral, but captions can give them a slant. Wikipedia editors can't address POV issues on external sites, but the captions on an image within the article can be edited (and monitored) to a NPOV.

For prisioners of a cult, it certainly seems like you want in. Josh Parris ✉ 00:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Last comment by Josh Parris was one of the most intlegent arguments. At least now I know what is the reason behind creating an account and i will consider doing so. I also understand (and agree) with your point about the inabaility to chenge captions on external sites and about the ability to monitor them on Wikipedia. All points are well taken and I'll consider joining to the "cult". BTW, I am not hiding behind any anonimity. You are welcome to look up my name on my web site and look me up in the phone book.

Comment: An anon user requested mediation last month, to which we are just now responding. First, please accept our apologies for the lateness. Second, please follow the rules for submitting requests - condense your complaints to a paragraph only. Log in as a registered user, and sign all your comments. These are standard requirements for dealing with talk page discussions.-SV|t 19:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Opposition Support for Hamas in the United States

I took out the reference to support for Hamas among the "opposition party and politicians" in the United States. Rationale: (1) Realistically, the opposition party is now the Republican party. (2) Even the Democratic party doesn't support dialogue with Hamas under present conditions.

For example, Obama's view:

http://www.thestar.com/World/Columnist/article/535239 "Obama has said he would hold talks with Hamas only after it recognizes Israel's right to exist, renounces violent struggle, and accepts the terms of previous agreements reached between Palestinians and Israel."

If specific politicians support dialogue with with Hamas, feel free to mention them explicitly and provide citations, but the assertion that the "opposition party and politicians" in the United States support dialogue with Hamas, is false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.124.21 (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about offshore gas field in the front of Gaza strip? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.52.232.84 (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Overcrowding

I deleted the following passage (in ""): When Hamas assumed power the next month after 2006 elections, "what follows a systematic denial of basic rights to the Gazans which included cutting off" direct aid to the Palestinian government. I replaced it with "Direct direct aid to the Palestinian government was cut off". Rationale: direct aid form one government to another is not "a basic right" of any sort, it's purely a voluntary act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.101.163.106 (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This small piece of land is perhaps the most crowded piece of real estate on the planet and is home to about a million Palestinians. Most of these people lived in other parts of Palestine prior to the Naqba (the establishment of the state of Israel), when they had to flee. These Palestinians have not been allowed to return to their home villages, in violation of international law, in particular the fourth Geneva convention.

News flash. Singapore is twice as big as Gaza, yet has a population which is three times bigger. 88.101.163.106 (talk) 15:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A quick look at the Gaza Strip on Google Earth as well as the map on this wikipedia page show that only a fraction of the Strip is urbanized. Most of it is orange groves. Since there are no orange groves in concentration camps, the section calling the Gaza Strip a concentration camp is inappropriate. Gaza City is crowded, but there is no international law against any place being crowded. Israel did not keep the people in refugee camps since 1948. Responsibility for the crowded situation lies with Egypt, which ruled Gaza before 1967, and the Palestinian leadership itself. The Gaza Strip has been autonomous since 1994. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.152.40 (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

While it is popular to describe the Gaza Strip as crowded, it has about the same population as Manhattan Island on a piece of land that is more than 7 times as large. And Manhattan is filled up with offices, highways, and parks. The daytime population of Manhattan is much larger, of course, as workers come in for the day. Gaza is also about twice the size of Washington DC, which has a population more than twice as large as the Gaza Strip. The above paragraph contains the common myth about Gaza.

Washington DC also includes suburbs in Virginia and Marylans whereas that is not the case with Gaza. Ina ddition Gaza does not have skyscrapers like in Manahttan so there is more overcrowding in Gaza then there is in Manhattan.

Recently, Israel has established settlements (or colonies as Palestinans call them) inside the Gaza strip. Although home to only a few thousand people, large parts of the Gaza strip have been reserved for them. This has worsened the situation of the Palestinians yet further.

When is this "recently"? Unless I missed something, there is absolutely no Israeli settlements in Gaza since 2000; Israeli troops aren't stationed there either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.101.163.106 (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The questions of refugees and settlements have been discussed at length in other articles, it is redundant to state them here (as opposed to linking) and have to argue about them again. --Uri

---

Uriyan -- I have moved some of the points of the above text back in, but have tried to stick to objective facts about the history and demographics of Gaza, and avoided politico-legal issues like the Geneva Conventions. I partly agree with you -- this page is not the place for detailed discussion about the general issue of Palestinan refugees or Israeli settlements. However, it still should mention basic demographic facts, such as how many Palestinians and settlers are there, how much land there is, how much land per capita each uses, how did so many Palestinians end up in such a small area (refugees from 1948 war -- arguments about exactly why they left can be left for elsewhere.) -- SJK

I think you have to put Gaza as one of the most densely populated places on Earth back in. It's about context. There are few highrises in Gaza, nothing like what existsw in NYC or Singapore. So while one square km of a given population in Singapore can house thousands comfortably, the same cannot be said for Gaza. Plus the area is significantly smaller when one looks at the militarized zones all along the border. And the comment about Gaza being mostly Orange Groves is simply untrue, a quick peek at the satellite pictures on Google maps will show this In addition, many leading journalists have callee it that or similar (John Pilger, Robert Fisk, Joe Sacco). It is a no brainer that this should go back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.120.215 (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we move the country table to the entry on the Palestinian Authority? Otherwise, we would end up with two different tables for the Palestinian entity (which probably will become an independent nation witin 5 years). I have no objection to the content; I just don't want readers who visit Wikipedia to imagine that Gaza and the West Bank are two different nations. Rather, they are semi-autonomously controlled regions under Israeli administration that soon likely will fuse into one independent nation. RK

Robert, your optimism inspires me! Five years - I would have estimated more like fifty. May it come to pass as you predict! :)

I'm in two minds about your suggestion. I don't have a problem with there being duplicated info in West Bank - after all, only some info would be duplicated - the West Bank has a different area and population density, for example. I think Hong Kong is a good example of a broadly similar situation... Martin

I removed the president and PM, because while in some sense Arafat is the president of the strip, in another sense Sharon is, and in a third sense, nobody is. So it seems misleading to just say President=Sharon. I think the rest of the info can stay... Martin

---

==Palestinian Refugees==You forgot to include that Gaza stopped being ocup and became a Isreali concentray camp instead. Wayne t936 (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Before you proceed to delete my entry again, perhaps you could specify what part of it in your opinion constitutes a POV, and prove that it has no factual basis. What part do you object to? That the majority are refugees, or that they fled voluntarily? Just because certain facts speak in Israel's favour in no way impairs their status as facts which can safely be included in a NPOV article. LoveOfFate 18:21, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The "voluntarily" is a nonsense (but I don't have to prove it's a nonsense, only to note that it is regarded as such by a body of learned opinion). It is also POV to give the war the name used by only one of the sides. --Zero 20:57, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Since you refuse to provide any references to factual evidence that would justify deleting my entry, I have chosen to take the initiative and provide some of my own sources.

According to you, adding the word voluntarily is a [sic] nonsense as decided by a "body of learned opinion." I am curious who exactly these venerable scholars of yours are, but have no way of knowing since you obviously do not feel compelled to list your sources.

As for mine, a plethora of evidence exists demonstrating that Palestinians were encouraged to leave their homes to make way for the invading Arab armies.

The Economist, a frequent critic of the Zionists, reported on October 2, 1948: "Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit....It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades."

Time's report of the battle for Haifa (May 3, 1948) was similar: "The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city....By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa."

Benny Morris, the historian who documented instances where Palestinians were expelled, also found that Arab leaders encouraged their brethren to leave. The Arab National Committee in Jerusalem, following the March 8, 1948, instructions of the Arab Higher Committee, ordered women, children and the elderly in various parts of Jerusalem to leave their homes: "Any opposition to this order...is an obstacle to the holy war...and will hamper the operations of the fighters in these districts" (Middle Eastern Studies, January 1986).

And perhaps most conclusive: In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948-49, also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave:

“Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.”

I am prepared to compromise and rename the War of Israeli Independence to the more neutral 1948 Arab-Israeli War.

What you seem to overlook is that Wikipedia is an eliteless, collaborative endeavour and I will not tolerate you deleting my entries simply because the facts don't suit you. The only thing that makes any user's argument more valid than another's is providing facts to support it, at which point the argument is essentially over unless of course, the other party chooses to ignore the facts. So stop ignoring the facts, and bring evidence to support yourself if you seriously believe my entries are factually unsound. LoveOfFate 22:26, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oh not again. Have you actually read any of these sources? The poor quality of your reply indicates that you know very little about this subject. Did you read Morris' new book? Btw, there is a better version of Azm's text in Palestinian Exodus (taken by me directly from the memoirs). Meanwhile, here is a little quotation for you, given you like quotations so much. --Zero 05:47, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't suggest that we should trample on others' rights, but one must call a spade a spade: Zionism and rights don't always go hand-in-hand. The very establishment of this state is an affront to the Arabs' rights. Arabs lived in Jaffa. They didn't leave; they were expelled. We went into the villages and said 'Get out.' And they got out. Yes, it's important for me and others that this state be a democratic one, but you still have to consider the difference between ourselves and the other countries and remember that democracy is not an end in itself but rather an instrument. Zionism takes precedence over everything.
-- Limor Livnat, member of the Likud Central Committee, quoted in Tikkun, Sep/Oct 1991, p14.

Is there some information about the isaelian wall in the gaza strip available in Wikipedia, I can not find it.

below are some further media accounts of the palestinian refugee crisis, in addition to LoveOfFate's sources. "poor quality of his reply" - he has offered independent, verifiable sources that establish his point as fact, you may not like it but you can't dispute testimony from arab such diverse viewpoints as those of arab leaders, humanitarian workers and the international media - the biggest factor that caused to refugee crisis was the "war of annhilation" and Arab propaganda - this was established long bfore Livnat was even born. see sources below:

1. “The first group of our fifth column consist of those who aban- don their homes…At the first sign of trouble they take to their heels to escape sharing the burden of struggle” -- Ash-Sha’ab, Jaffa, January 30, 1948 2. “(The fleeing villagers)…are bringing down disgrace on us all… by abandoning their villages” -- As-Sarih, Jaffa, March 30, 1948 3. “Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives, to get their shops and businesses open and to be assured that their lives and inter- ests will be safe.” -- Haifa District HQ of the British Police, April 26, 1948, (quoted in Battleground by Samuel Katz). 4. “The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by order of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city.... By with- drawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa.” -- Time Magazine, May 3, 1948, page 25 5. “The Arab streets (of Palestine) are curiously deserted (because)…following the poor example of the moneyed class, there has been an exodus from Jerusalem, but not to the same extent as from Jaffa and Haifa”. -- London Times, May 5, 1948 6. “The Arab civilians panicked and fled ignominiously. Villages were frequently abandoned before they were threatened by the prog- ress of war.” -- General John Glubb “Pasha,” The London Daily Mail, August 12, 1948 7. “The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the act of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem.” – Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee, in an interview with the Beirut Telegraph September 6, 1948. (same appeared in The London Telegraph, August 1948) 8. “The most potent factor [in the flight of Palestinians] was the announcements made over the air by the Arab-Palestinian Higher Executive, urging all Haifa Arabs to quit... It was clearly intimated that Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.” -- London Economist October 2, 1948 9. “It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees’ flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem”. -- Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station, Cyprus, April 3, 1949. 10. “The Arabs of Haifa fled in spite of the fact that the Jewish authorities guaranteed their safety and rights as citizens of Israel.”- - Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, New York Herald Tribune, June 30, 1949 11. “The military and civil (Israeli) authorities expressed their profound regret at this grave decision (taken by the Arab military delegates of Haifa and the Acting Chair of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee to evacuate Haifa despite the Israeli offer of a truce). The Jewish mayor of Haifa made a passionate appeal to the delegation (of Arab military leaders) to reconsider its decision.” -- Memorandum of the Arab National Committee of Haifa, 1950, to the governments of the Arab League, quoted in J. B. Schechtman, The Refugees in the World, NY 1963, pp. 192f. 12. Sir John Troutbeck, British Middle East Office in Cairo, noted in cables to superiors (1948-49) that the refugees (in Gaza) have no bitterness against Jews, but harbor intense hatred toward Egyptians: “They say ‘we know who our enemies are (referring to the Egyptians)’, declaring that their Arab brethren persuaded them unnecessarily to leave their homes…I even heard it said that many of the refugees would give a welcome to the Israelis if they were to come in and take the district over.” 13. “The Arab states which had encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promise to help these refu- gees.” – The Jordanian daily newspaper Falastin, February 19, 1949. 14. “The Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade...Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes, and property to stay temporarily In neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of invading Arab armies mow them down.” --Al Hoda, a New York-based Lebanese daily, June 8, 1951. 15. “Who brought the Palestinians to Lebanon as refugees, suf- fering now from the malign attitude of newspapers and communal leaders, who have neither honor nor conscience? Who brought them over in dire straits and penniless, after they lost their honor? The Arab states, and Lebanon amongst them, did it.” -- The Beirut Muslim weekly Kul-Shay, August 19, 1951. 16. “We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.” -- Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said, quoted in Sir An-Nakbah (“The Secret Behind the Disaster”) by Nimr el-Hawari, Nazareth, 1952 17. “The Arab Exodus …was not caused by the actual battle, but by the exaggerated description spread by the Arab leaders to incite them to fight the Jews. …For the flight and fall of the other villages it is our leaders who are responsible because of their dissemination of rumors exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs ... By spreading rumors of Jewish atroci- ties, killings of women and children etc., they instilled fear and terror in the hearts of the Arabs in Palestine, until they fled leaving their homes and properties to the enemy.” – The Jordanian daily newspaper Al Urdun, April 9, 1953. 18. “The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in.” A refugee quoted in Al Difaa (Jordan) September 6, 1954. 19. “The wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic press and the irre- sponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab states, and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and re-take possession of their country”. -- Edward Atiyah (Secretary of the Arab League, London, The Arabs, 1955, p. 183) 20. “As early as the first months of 1948, the Arab League issued orders exhorting the people to seek a temporary refuge in neighbor- ing countries, later to return to their abodes ... and obtain their share of abandoned Jewish property.” -- Bulletin of The Research Group for European Migration Problems, 1957. -- etc and there are many more that establish this as fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.194.70.65 (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

History of Gaza

I think the history of gaza might be appopriate - but when I say history I mean *history*; at least 2000 years worth. It would help to indicate the jewish and arab links to the area and I was frankly surprised not to find such a history on this page. Maybe I'll add one but I'm concerned by the degree of emotion surrounding articles like this one and perhaps any history I could add would never be considered unbiased by all sides and would probably be promptly deleted. So I'm wondering if some sort of consensus can be reached. There are solid sources concerning Napoleon's march across the gaza strip. Similarly, there are legal documents pertaining to the Ottoman administration of the sanyak/vilayet that could be used; as well as archeological evidence. However, since all these sources would seem to indicate a strong historical Jewish presence in gaza they, of necessity, would attract controversy on this site. Apparently the enlightened neo-liberal post-modernist trend in world affairs is to regard jews in gaza as recent alien "settlers" and to strive to drive them out and seal the borders against their return. In fact, perhaps it would be fair to say that the general historical trend in world affairs is to regard jews anywhere and everywhere as alien "settlers" and to drive them out and seal the borders against their return.. or am I being too extreme? - 84.228.103.146 11:09, 5 July 2005

Is it meaningful to speak of the History of the Gaza Strip prior to 1948, as opposed to the history of Gaza City, which does go back a long time, or the history of Palestine as a whole? PatGallacher (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

One of the most densely populated areas?

From the article - I think this should be removed:

as a result it has one of the highest population densities in the world

Highest population densities of what? It sure isn't denser than many cities in the world. The Gaza strip is roughly the size of Dublin city and its environs (pop. roughly 1 million) and that's one of the least dense cities in the world.

Gaza city itself looks quite dense judging by the map, but I would doubt it even remotely bargains for the position of one of the most dense cities!

The Gaza Strip is less dense than Hong Kong or Singapore. It has less people than the Tel Aviv urban area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.152.40 (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

zoney ♣ talk 23:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As no one has provided good proof as to the claim (it seems like bogus propaganda based on the pop and area), I am not removing it, but am reducing it to merely "a high population density". zoney ♣ talk 11:38, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It looks like your fix has been undone. "one of the most densely populated territories on earth" is a gross overstatement for the third sentence of the article. See List of selected cities by population density and note that Gaza Strip has a density of 3888 per square km, comparable to Berlin and Toronto (which are both larger than the Gaza Strip: 1_E8_m²). Dosai 19:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

List of selected cities by population density is a list of cities, whereas the Gaza Strip is not a city, contains several different towns, and is surrounded by what amount to borders. Berlin and Toronto are not territories in the sense that the Gaza Strip is, though you could certainly argue that West Berlin before the Wall (sorry, anti-fascist protection barrier) came down was one. So the comparison is not really relevant. Palmiro | Talk 19:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. The word territory is the crucial modifier. Perhaps it should be wikified. The reference is the List of countries by population density.Dosai 21:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

One should consider the difference between the territory of Gaza and a city of comparable population density (e.g., Berlin or Toronto as noted above). Berlin, Toronto, (and any other city) depend on resource inflows from their environs. Imagine cutting off Berlin or Toronto from their resource rich environments or exchange networks from abroad... After some time you'd probably create a situation similar to Gaza... a situation where a population density of approx 388 per square km becomes a major problem. There are too few resources (and resource producing capacities) in Gaza to support its growing population and that's why people are alarmed by the territory's population density.

With all due respect, 3888/sq.Km. is about half of the density of Tel Aviv (7,015), a piddling fraction of Bnei Brak (19,127) or Givatayim (14,750) or, to choose an even closer neighbor, Bat Yam (16,087). Calling it "one of the most densely populated territories on earth" is simply objectively wrong and misleading. A more accurate statement would say "It is often claimed that the Gaza Strip one of the most densely populated territories on earth. However, at fewer than 4,000 people per sq. km., it is comparable to many similar areas, some of which are more crowded, others less."

As for the issue of resources per people, the issue is not one of resource availability, it's the management and proper exploitation of resources. In any case, that's not the point here - the point is that the article currently contains a factual error that should be corrected. It is NOT "one of the most densely populated territories on earth" That mis-statement should be permanently removed and the issues of resource utilization, propaganda about density, etc., dealt with in the appropriate places.Yoshm 18:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Tel-Aviv is not a territory . However, Singapore, a country, and Hong Kong, an autonomous territory, are both denser. AtikuX 01:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Another note: Per the Municipality of Gaza website [1], Gaza City (the CITY, not the entire Strip) is 45 sq.km. and has 400,000 people - thus the density of Gaza City is approximately 8,900/sq.km. - slightly more than Tel Aviv & less than half that of Bnei Brak. So not even the principal municipality in Gaza can be called "one of the most densely populated ... on earth" Yoshm 12:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I have also always wondered about that. Highest population density of what? It might depend on the criteria. Compared to Hong Kong, the population density per square meter of land might be lower. However, Hong Kong (or similar) is a high rise city compromising many (very) tall buildings, with lots of public spaces underneath private buildings, in shopping malls,... as well as private space inside the different stories of a high rise building. Most buildings in the Gaza strip however are only one or two stories at the most, not twenty or thirty as in Hong Kong. There are only a few high rise buildings near Omar al Mukhtar Street in Gaza City (definitely less than in Tel Aviv). Therefore, population density per square meter of living space (including above ground and underground space inside buildings, subway stations, underground parking garages, you get the drift...) is definitely very high and might compete with Hong Kong or similar cities.--Soylentyellow 23:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yoshm is wrong to compare population density of Gaza city to Tel Aviv without taking into account the last paragraph (housing space, public space etc..) but also the fact that Gaza Strip is a sort of prison. Most residents in Tel Aviv could leave and take advantage of the surrounding areas or even of other countries - the vast majority of Palestinians in Gaza Strip cannot. Also the poverty of Gazans should be taken into account. If no-one has the means or money to leave their hovel it would make a difference to any meaningful description of life even if it wouldn't register as a difference in "population density". What this article should be attempting to provide is some sort of objective account of the conditions of life inside of the Gaza Strip. "Population density" can easily become an abstraction that allows the most inhumane, absurd and distracting comparisons. Canuckistani 22:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuckistani (talk • contribs)

Gaza Photos

Archieved to Talk:Gaza Strip/yalop - I got a 37Kb warning. On a talk page! It blew up my browser! Josh Parris ✉ 04:35, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A new discussion on the pbase Gaza photos

Archieved to Talk:Gaza Strip/yalop2 - I got a 37Kb warning. Again! Josh Parris ✉ 02:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on the pbase Gaza photos continues

Archieved to Talk:Gaza Strip/yalop3 Josh Parris ✉ 5 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)

Intro

Heraclius, I see you've reverted the intro again. Would you mind discussing your reasons here? Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:28, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

It's illogical to talk about Egypt capturing the Gaza strip in the second sentence of the article. The fact that the Gaza strip makes up part of the Palestinian territories should be stated first.Heraclius 20:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your comment. I disagree about the flow. It's a controversial piece of land, and it makes sense to state up front how it's related to Egypt and Israel. The next paragraph deals with how it relates to both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. It makes the introduction disjointed and arguably POV to select one of those for the first paragraph. What does "the sites of areas" mean in the version you're reverting to (as opposed to "areas", which you reverted)? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ramellite, what's your reasoning for needing Palestinian territories in the second sentence? The previous version flowed better, and it's provocative to put what many regard as a POV term in the second sentence. Why do you feel it's important that it be placed there? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I was adjusting it from the version I was editing, which was "Together with the West Bank, it is mostly run by the Palestinian Authority, and makes up part of the Palestinian territories." I removed "run by the...", I didn't add anything. There were some reversions going on while I was editing, I guess. However, the previous version flowed horribly. With no mention of who lives there, the intro looked like one was writing about Mubarak's toilet seat. Many editors (and Wikipedia policy) have enlightened me to the fact that, in disputed circumstances, the most generally neutral English language terminology applies, which is why I didn't write "makes up part of a desired Palestinian State" which would be my own POV. It is referred to as "the Palestinian territories" pretty much according to the article on the Palestinian territories, and is common in most influential western media sources. As far as I'm aware, that's more neutral than a POV, especially as I don't think Israel really wants it either. Do you have a better suggestion? What do you think? Ramallite ^(talk) 22:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the commonest Western media term is probably the Occupied Territories; however, since it doesn't take due heed of Israel's (absurd) position that the territories are in some metaphysical sense not occupied, this would be dismissed as POV. "Palestinian territories", by contrast, is unquestionably factual, and is preferred by such uninvolved parties as Lonely Planet, the British Council, and Oxfam. - Mustafaa 02:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing provocative about it. In a few months all Israeli settlements in the strip will be disbanded and there will be no dispute about who the Gaza strip belongs to.Heraclius 22:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I honestly do not see what people's objection to the much improved new version is. Wholesale reverting is not going to help anyone's cause. If there are specific objections, discuss them here (as SlimVirgin is currently doing). - Mustafaa 02:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I suppose my objection was that it's a political point in the second sentence, a political label, and I felt it would be better in the second paragraph for that reason. I'd also say that more readers would recognize the term Occupied Territories. However, I agree that Ramallite has done a really good job with the writing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - I thought of it more as a recognition label (as it is a mainstream media definition rather than a political statement) - if I could get by writing "occupied territory" I would, but some things are not worth revert wars over if they clearly state enough information for readers to decide for themselves. Thanks again Ramallite ^(talk) 02:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

It's unclear what this adds, besides POV. And it's certainly illogical to include information about the West Bank in the first paragraph, before you even explain what the Gaza Strip is. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand - what would be an opposing POV in this case? See also Mustafaa's "Actually, the commonest" entry above... Ramallite ^(talk) 17:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the objection is that it's a political term, and yet it's in the second sentence. It's not the name of that piece of land. Perhaps it could be moved lower down, but not left out, as a compromise? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:05, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly; people keep injecting politics into an opening section which should instead give dry facts; what and where it is, who lives there, etc. Political claims don't always have to come first, as much as people like to give them prominence. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes what some people call "political claims" are actually "human claims" to others, particularly to those who live there. It's not fun being demoted to complete and utter human disregard by having even the mention of their identity considered a political statement or a POV. Furthermore, as I mentioned below, there is more to an important place like Gaza than introducing it solely by who's fighting over it. Ramallite ^(talk) 20:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Humans make politics, and political claims. And it is used precisely for that purpose; it's hard to decry its politicization when it is used in exactly that way. It should be introduced by describing where it is, how big it is, how it came to be, who controlled and controls it, etc.Jayjg ^(talk) 22:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay... so are you saying that most descriptions of territories should not start with so-called political statements? Or just Gaza and the West Bank? The Israel article, for example, states that it is a "parliamentary democracy" right there in the first paragraph (and I even helped correct the flow of that paragraph), which as you can tell from the Talk page there is pretty disputed (as is "Palestinian territory" evidently). Should that political statement go as well? I'm trying to follow your logic here, that's all. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

In case it's helpful, here's a description of the Gaza Strip from the UN. It avoids mention of Palestinian territories or Occupied territories, and sticks to terms that aren't disputed:

The Gaza Strip is a narrow strip of land on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, lying about 40 miles southeast of the West Bank. It is bordered by Israel on the north and east and Egypt on the south under whose sovereignty it was until the 1967 war. Stretching about 40 miles from north to south and only about 5 miles wide it comprises an area of only 365 KM. With a population numbering 1.25 million it is one of the most densely populated areas of the world. Gaza is highly urbanized with the bulk of the population living in cities, towns and 8 crowded refugee camps, home to approximately 468,071 refugees. From 1967 until 1993 both areas were under complete Israeli occupation. Following the Oslo Peace Accords, some areas of the West Bank were handed over to Palestinian Authority (PA) control, along with 60% of the Gaza Strip. The population of both the West Bank and Gaza Strip is young, with about 47% fourteen years of age or younger and 57% 19 years old or younger. Families are large, averaging between 6 to 7 individuals per household in Gaza and 5-6 persons in the West Bank. The rate of population growth is high, about 4.7% a year in the West Bank and 5.4% in Gaza. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:10, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how accurate the UN description is, especially since the two territories are barely 25 miles apart as opposed to 40, and few of the other stats look suspect as well. In any case, the problem we are having is that, as I said above, without mention of who lives there, who the Gaza Strip is "home to", the intro is written like it describes an inert object as opposed to a land with a nation and culture. When people write of Normandy as being French territory, or that it is "in France", it is reasonable to assume that the people living there are French. But stating that it is "Palestinian territory" appears to be POV or political, as is stating that it is "occupied territory". And saying it is "Israeli territory" certainly isn't true either, or else Ariel Sharon wouldn't need bodyguards right now. The result, as is clear even in the UN piece above, is that the uninformed reader who hears about the Strip on the news and comes to Wikipedia to read about it will not get a clear sense of what the territory actually is, but rather who fights over it, and that's an unfair and unencyclopedic description. As long as there is no dehumanization or condescension of Palestinians to the point of insignificance, I guess I'd be ok with anything else that gets this point across but avoids disapproval by the rest of the editors. So have a go at it if you'd like! Ramallite ^(talk) 18:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The Gaza Strip is a politically defined entity, not a geographically defined one; political claims are inherently highly relevant. However, if for some reason you want an indisputably geographical intro, I suggest "The Gaza Strip forms the westernmost section of the region of Palestine. - Mustafaa 21:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Most countries are politically (not geographically) defined as well, as are states, provinces, territories, etc.; I daresay almost all "entities" of this sort are defined this way. This seems an entirely arbitrary differentiation. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Of course most countries are politically defined (exceptions include Australia); that's exactly my point. - Mustafaa 23:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

And yet, articles start by describing where it is, what its size and shape are etc. See, for example, Egypt. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I would compare Nakhichevan or Cabinda, myself, where the territories in question are part of a larger discontinuous entity - which of course gets top billing. That said, note that these articles also frequently start with a description of political status ("republic" of Egypt, "democratic constitutional federal republic of fifty states" of U.S.) even before the geography section. - Mustafaa 23:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

None of them seem to describe the populations first. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Tibet and Nagorno-Karabakh do. - Mustafaa 23:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, none of the other articles seem to give history the sort of billing it currently has here. - Mustafaa 23:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg - I still don't understand what is wrong with describing populations in the intro? If most articles don't do that, so what? If it sets a precedent, what is wrong with that? It seems pretty benign to me, and can only add value... Ramallite ^(talk) 23:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, actually - I think the opening paragraph standards need to be rethought. Opening paragraphs should certainly include the geographical basics, but I'd be a lot happier with some sort of cultural detail. Israel is a good example: unlike most country articles, it starts with cultural and population data, and only then gives the bordering countries. - Mustafaa 00:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I've just rewritten the intro to reflect, among other things, Jayjg's points about comparable articles. Interested to hear opinions. - Mustafaa 00:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

It looks quite good to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me a major flaw that the current version doesn't point out that the Strip is part of the Palestinian Territories. This leaves out a crucial element of its political geography - perhaps the crucial element. I appreciate that some people don't like the term but this is discussed in considerable detail on the page in question. Palmiro 10:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Did you read through the whole talk page? That's exactly what the controversy has been about from the start. As I've pointed out to you in other pages, that is a political claim that only introduces confusion and POV, not clarity. This article is about the Gaza Strip, not the "Palestinian territories", there are plenty of other articles which discuss the various things people claim as Palestine or Palestinian. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it. I felt the point needed to be made. Perhaps you could tell me why you think it is that so many references to the Gaza Strip (including on Wikipedia) are coupled with a reference to the West Bank? I'm not talking about making a political claim, but about pointing out that the Gaza Strip is part of a wider territory in dispute. As far as political claims go, as I said above, this issue is covered in the PT article.Palmiro 19:41, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, of course the connection to the West Bank needs to be made somewhere. "Occupied Territories" and "Palestinian Territories" are simple acknowledgements of normal English usage, no more POV than "British Isles" or "Free French Forces". (Don't even bring up the utterly non-notable term "liberated territories", Jayjg.) However, in light of the fact that a large number of people mistakenly imagine these terms to be POV, I think that placing it within Palestine (region), which consists of Israel, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank, is sufficient for the introduction's purposes. It's not as if the current article Palestinian territories is worth linking to anyway; it's yet another one of those horrible "list of POV" articles, like so many of the articles on this topic, with no substantive description of the territories or their situation but plentiful rehashes of the opinions of people most of whom don't even live there. - Mustafaa 22:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

This is the opening sentence???: "The Gaza Strip is a narrow strip of land not recognized as a de jure part of any sovereign country." So, any part of Antartica that is not part of any country's territory is a "Gaza Strip". An opening paragraph should also tell the reader WHY it is significant (bone of contention in the regional conflict), and the Mediterranean is northeast not merely north of the territory. Come on, forget who is a Palestinian etc. and just give the what, where and why. There's plenty of neutral fact all can agree on. Imagine someone at their computer hearing news again and again about "Gaza Strip" -- he/she wants to know if it is a contraceptive or a nightclub. They dont want to know it's detailed borders or its de jure status up front. General locale, why an area of interest, history of how defined, up front.

This version is boring and I will revert and fix unless it gives up front useful info. -- Anon

Tweaked -- at least it is now mentioned it is in the Middle East in the first sentence. The first paragraph should give enough info that it educates the uninformed by itself.

Ah i see. I thought youy had just reverted to your previous version but you in fact merged both.Heraclius 14:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

And it was a very good merge indeed (aside from containing a minor typo that made a link look funny). Jayjg ^(talk) 14:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

A new anon has added info that says that the PA controls 90% of Gaza and that it is located in southwest Israel. Is he trying to push opposite POV's?Heraclius 15:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It is 89% not 90%. Check the maps.

Absolutely not, see maps [2], [3]. According to globalsecurity.org, area A in the strip is 69%, area B is 19%, and area C is 12%. Since Area B no longer effectively exists anywhere, this leaves around 69% of the Strip with some measure of effective PA control except when the army moves in and out. Remember that Israel controls all access roads and the areas surrounding the settlements, not just the settlements themselves. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Using the map annexed to the Oslo II accords, I measured 36% in Israeli control including border corridors and Area B. The accuracy would be plus or minus a few percent so I can believe that 31% may be true (i.e. 69% area A). Figures close to 90% are ridiculous. --Zero 14:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Well. It is true that area B no longer exist. It used to be part of Gaza (for example next to karni crossing) were there were Israeli factories. This area no longer exist for 5 years. The result is that today under PA/Hammas control: 69%+19% = 88% and under israel control 12%. ( this is also shown in the maps [4], [5].

Not true - in this conflict, when area B ceases to exist, it becomes area C, not area A. Israel did not evacuate area B, but rather took over area B and even area A in some cases. Your assertions are not based on fact. Please read documents and news carefully. Ramallite ^(talk) 15:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Ramalite: You seem to know everything. In gaza Israelis no longer enter Area B. This is fact. Soon they will be "expeled" from Area A as well.

Well, not everything - but enough about this topic to know - there are other people who posted information above to the effect that 69% sounds right and around 90% is ridiculous, including some people who know the region (Gaza) very well. Of course Israel enters Area B. As for those being "expelled" from Gaza, they are leaving area C, not area A. And if or when they do leave, this article can be revised. So relax and let's wait and see what happens. Ramallite ^(talk) 17:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Propeganda Vs. Truth: Just look at these maps see maps [6], [7]. According to these maps the area under israel control is about 12%. But all this discussion shows two things: 1. consensus based wikipedia can still be wrong. 2. It 3 weeks the % will be 0. So much for writing an encyclopedia on current events.

BTW, 40% is just a bit under 1/2. Look at the maps : Is this how 1/2 of an area look like ?

Maybe the discrepancy is of whether the security corridors along the border are included. They are quite large, see the official map. The PA Police are supposed to be in charge of them but I think that in practice the IDF is -- I could be wrong about this. --Zero 13:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I can not understand why people like "slim vrgin" and "jayjg" who are administrators can not read a map but still they want to be able to administer this article.

The security corridors are at the size of the road and in some places about 100-150 meters on each side of it. Even if you add them you will never get above 12% of the area. You know what lets make it 15% just to be on the safe side. I don't plan to argue with people who are so anti israel that even if there is a map in front of their eyes they refuse to trust it. Later these people who claim to be the guardians of "no original research" post as proof web sites like "kafar kasam. com" and other propeganda sites. You should think hard if you want this encyclopedia to be worth anything or just, like many other web sites, be controlled by propaganda and a desire tio re-write history.

So let us start with the maps. 40% is just under a 1/2 of the area: Does any one (other then ramlite, jayjg and slim version) see 40% ? I don't. Here is another map that include the security corridors: http://www.ynetnews.com/home/0,7340,L-3491,00.html

Just to be clear there are 3 israel control corridores: Kisufim to Netzer hazani. karni to Netzarim and the philly corridor (the longest) which is 12 K'm over 50-70 meters. The "sufa - Morag" and other area B areas were abandended at 2002, israeli no longer control these areas.

Ok, first it would be nice if you signed a username so that you will not remain anonymous all the time. Second, the original research that was objected to was the blatant POV entries by another user (I assume it wasn't you), and you reverted this article to the edits of that editor - that is when SlimVirgin reverted your edit. As for the maps, there is a long border strip (see the official map here) along the border with Israel that is supposed to be under Israeli control. If you have evidence that the border corridor is not under Israeli control, or evidence that "Area B" was abandoned as you say, could you please provide a source? Ramallite ^(talk) 15:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. So wikipedia is becomeing a web site by which we need to argue about things that are in front of our eyes. I do not see 40% but I do not plan to argue about it any more. Israel control now about 12% and in the future it will zero (which is good if I can express my POV here)

There is no area B area in Gaza at all: http://www.mideastweb.org/palestineisraeloslo.htm but even if you include the gaza "yellow area" Israel does not control 40%, not eeven 30% but about 11%-12% of Gaza.

Couldn't you just wait a few months so you wouldn't have to go through this pointless argument? It'll be almost 0%.Heraclius 04:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

"or were expelled"

While some Arabs were certainly expelled, is there evidence that they were expelled to the Gaza Strip in particular? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you are quick, I barely got my bits back from Wikipedia when you made your comment, and I had to check whether you hadn't made it first! I'm sure Zero or others would know much more on such topics than me, and would probably have references for wartime expulsions at hand but as I noted in the comments, the post-independence expulsions are irrefutable - and not clouded by the fog of war. References like the following appear in standard histories:. "The Expulsion of the Inhabitants of the Town of al-Majdal to Gaza: In the summer of 1950, the remaining 2,700 inhabitants of the southern Arab town of al-Majdal, which on the eve of the war had 10,000 inhabitants (now called Ashkelon), were transported to the border of the Gaza Strip over a period of a few weeks." [8]--John Z 19:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I'll take a look at it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Certainly the refugees of Gaza would say they were expelled. Pro-Israelis would say they "fled". It is accurate to include both words.Heraclius 20:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The difference isn't between pro-Israelis and anti-Israelis, but between fleeing and being expelled. The majority of Arabs fled the region, for various reasons. Some were expelled as well. Fleeing a war zone (or potential war zone) is not the same thing as being actively expelled. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Of note, most of those who fled still consider themselves "expelled" because they fully expected to return once hostilities ended but were not permitted to. Most claim to have fled war and shelling of their neighborhoods (doubt many left because some foreign Arab dictator would ask them to, as some have claimed, because most people are not that short on IQ) with their keys and minimal belongings, planning to go back home after the fighting had died down. When they were refused re-entry to their villages and homes, that's how they considered themselves to have been expelled. Many who argue the "fleeing" aspect of the events don't realize that being "actively expelled" and "being forced to flee for fear of one's life and then denied re-entry" both amount to expulsion in the end - in the eyes of those who lived through losing their homes. Ramallite ^(talk) 21:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, everybody agrees some were expelled, some fled (and some just happened to be away from home and couldn't come back). There's a gray zone where it is hard to say whether a person is fleeing or being expelled, and people would draw the line in different places. The link I gave doesn't absolutely support the present wording, but would if "due to" replaced "during." Especially in wartime, people are usually expelled from, not to a place. The present wording is fine in my opinion and doesn't strictly state that people were expelled to Gaza during the war, just that expelled refugees, which all agree exist, ended up in Gaza, which is another reason I think the anon's cavils are pretty silly. By the way, Ramallite, your percentages sound more sensible than his and perhaps should be in the article.--John Z 22:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear 85.65.49.249: Did you note my above comments? e.g.: The link I provided concerning a well-known postwar "expulsion to Gaza"? The observation that the present version does not in fact state that there were wartime "expulsions to Gaza" ? - an odd concept in itself? Do you seriously doubt that there are expelled wartime refugees and their descendants in Gaza? You agree that there were expulsions to the West Bank. Do you think that none of these refugees ever moved to or married anyone in Gaza? Doesn't all this imply that at most wording should be changed, not phrases deleted? Ramallite gave reasons for his percentages, do you disagree with them? I would be very happy to see your response. Regards, --John Z 11:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Hard to see what the fuss is about. The article does not say that refugees were forcably pushed across the border of the Gaza Strip. It only says that some of the Palestinians who "fled or were expelled from Israel" ended up in the Gaza Strip. Of course that is true, where do you think all the residents of the Gaza Strip refugee camps came from? You can go to the UNRWA site and the details for each camp will tell you roughly were the residents originated. In addition, there really were some expulsions into Gaza in 1950 - residents of Magdal and some bedouin. There were Security Council resolutions about it. --Zero 14:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Interlingua

A page has been added on the interlingua wiki; please add it.

ia:Banda de Gaza

211.202.17.124 04:16, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

protected

can someone add current please? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this page is protected... It doesn't appear that it was being more heavily vandalized than anything else currently newsworthy. Certainly there are enough benevolent Wikipedians reading this lately that we can unprotect it and rely on them to speedily revert any vandalism. A page so close to such a current event shouldn't be unnecessarily prevented from evolving. Chris 03:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Chris 03:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Big wave of vandalism today. Twinxor t 04:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

facts or fiction

I wonder what is this article is based of ? We can either use facts or we can use Israeli government statements or Palestinian propaganda. I prefer to use facts. The facts are that currently there is self Palestinian rule over Gaza. Like Every border, gaza border are supposed to be under control of the two neighboring entities. In this respect Gaza is no different from any other country in the world. The borders between Gaza and Israel (which include also a part of that border that goes into the sea) are of course guarded by Israel from it's side of the border for known reasons (to prevent attacks on innocent Israeli civilians) The borders between Gaza and Egypt, (including the maritime part of that border that extend into the sea) were supposed to be guarded by Palestinian police and Egypt border police are AS OF THIS MINUTE wide open and thousand of people cross these open border. An hour ago Hamas people have removed the Egyptian border police soldiers and the Palestinian police from the border and exploded a larger hole in the Border wall. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/624877.html http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050914/NEWS06/509140479/1012/NEWS06

So now what are you planning to write in your encyclopedia? That Israel control the borders of Gaza ? This is not true. Israel control the Israeli side of these borders but this is normal. That the PA only control the internal part of Gaza ? This is also not true as everyone who is there knows there are multiple armed fractions and the PA has no control over these armed groups. According to PA STATEMENTS they will dismantle thse armed groups but this remains to be seen. All previous past suggest that will not be able to do it. To sum up: I suggest that facts will be used in this and other values in this encyclopedia . See also this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050914/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians;_ylt=AmSz04dHmunK50b.FF07ESFvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.65.43.180 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 14 September 2005.

So you want facts, here are some:

• Israel is much smarter and better about "propaganda" than the Palestinians, so it's not "Israeli statements" vs "Palestinian propaganda", propaganda exists on the Israeli side too.
• There is Palestinian "self-rule" over Gaza, but not "sovereignty". This is an important difference, most notably when it comes to foreign relations.
• The open border between Gaza and Egypt is temporary, yesterday the Egyptians shot and killed a Palestinian and, if this open border continues, Egypt will start to shoot a lot more Palestinians, and it won't be "open" for much longer. Remember, Israelis do not require a visa to go to Egypt, but Palestinians do. Do not think for one moment that the Egyptians care about "humanitarian" gestures towards Palestinians.
• The "self-rule" is "internal". Why? Israel still controls exit and entry, even with Egypt (except for the current few days). A Palestinian passport must be registered with Israel. A Palestinian must (officially) be checked by an Israeli when coming back from Egypt via the Kerem Shalom checkpoint, after the Rafah border was closed. A Palestinian must have a special Israeli permit to leave the Strip. The Palestinian Authority cannot grant the right of freedom of travel to it's residents, which is why the control is only internal.
• The Palestinian airport is forbidden from operating by Israel, even if the traveler is going from Gaza to Siberia.

I hope you enjoy these facts, if you want more, I'll be happy to provide you with more Ramallite ^(talk) 17:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Ramalite I'll just quote your "facts". anmyone who think his POV is "facts" is not suposed to write in wikipedia.

Here is your #1 "fact" : "Israel is much smarter and better about "propaganda" than the Palestinians "

Here is your #2 "fact" (a speculation aboutr the future) : "if this open border continues, Egypt will start to shoot a lot more Palestinian"

I can not argue with someone who thinks his POV and specualtion about the future (as well as present) are "facts"

So learn what the english word 'fact' means and come back we will continuwe this discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.65.43.180 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 14 September 2005.

Funny, you think that "In this respect Gaza is no different from any other country in the world" is a fact, and "According to PA STATEMENTS they will dismantle thse armed groups but this remains to be seen" is not speculation about the future? Anyway, are you proposing to give me English lessons now? I wasn't trying to argue with you specifically, but to point out that there are many misconceptions that need to be cleared up. It's the attitude that I'm concerned about, not these "facts" you mentioned. You say that the border is open between Egypt and Gaza like it's a bad thing, when these people in Gaza have lived in desperate conditions for most of their lives and would like to smell some fresh air for once (and yes that is my POV, but if citizens from many countries can freely cross between their borders, why is there a problem here?) So try not to be so confrontational, and rest assured my English is pretty sound. Lastly, everybody at Wikipedia has their own POV, but we (mostly) try not to incorporate them into articles. That is what discussion pages (like these) are for. Salam Ramallite ^(talk) 18:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

As long as we stick to the facts that is all I want. What "remained to be seen" is just that : Remained to be seen. So far Israel has not stopped a single boat to or from Gaza. The Border between Gaza and Egypt is wide open (so if someone want to smuggle people or merchandise or weapon they can do it freely) Under such conditions Israel would be stupid to try and stop boats while the smuggling will continue on land routes. The Palestinian airport was destroyed in fighting so no one knows now what would Israel do or not do to a Palestinian who want to fly from Gaza to Siberia.

Overall, it seems Palestinians should wake up to the new reality: Israel is out of Gaza. (Personally I am very happy about it - POV). Now, that Israel is out and the gaza-Egypt border is under Palestinian rule (from the Pal side) and Egypt (from the other side) all the talk about "Israel is responsible" should be reconsidered. For 38 Years Israel WAS responsible but the reality is changing in front of our eyes.

These changes in reality are not limited to Gaza:

1.Israel is changing politically.

2. Israel court is telling the government to re-route the wall in places like Kalkilia who were the poster-case for Palestinian to argue against the wall.

3. The Hamas and other fractions are dividing the new land in gaza between them and the PA.

All these changes are now occurring . An encyclopedia should limit itself to facts that are verified, and that will not change in the next 5 minutes or 5 days.

At the same time let's adjust to the new reality: Gaza is now the responsibility of the Palestinian people (not of Israel)

This, is a change that will remain for long time.

Salamt Ramallite, Ya'atikum Afia Signed: Anon [[User:85.65.43.180|85.65.43.180

85.65.43.180 - it would really help if you got a username - (it will cost $5,000,000 in the future, but for now they are free :-) ) - as someone with a similar ip address 85.65.155.150 just extensively vandalized the article, and confusion would be very easy. John Z 09:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I am not a vandalizer and have no responsibility on the tens of thousands who use the same ISP as me.

How does one get a handle ?

and no I did not made any of the recent changes that were made by someone from the same ISP as me 85.65.155.150 is not 85.65.43.180

aparntly I am now 85.64.50.146 (use to be 85.65.43.180)

I didn't really think it was you except for the first minute, it is hard to remember long ips. Here is a help page Wikipedia:How_to_log_in, or just go here Special:Userlogin, it's pretty easy; just remember to have cookies enabled. Welcome to wikipedia!John Z 10:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Population statistics

An IP editor has substituted Palestinian Ministry of Health statistics for the CIA factbook ones. They differ, sometimes radically. Which should be used? Both? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Unless someone can prove either is more correct, I believe we should stick to the official Palestinian. --Cybbe 06:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Why would both be bad? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

a) The Israel article uses the Israeli CBS data only, adding both here would make it seem like the Palestinian stats are not trustworthy (I know I know, to many around here nothing 'Palestinian' is trustworthy, but we're not here to debate that). b) They don't differ 'radically' in most categories. c) The Palestinian MOH probably got it's numbers from the Palestinian CBS, which gives a detailed account of how they gather their numbers (they are professional statisticians), whereas I don't know how the CIA gets their numbers ALTHOUGH (and this brings me to) d) I am almost sure that, prior to the most recent Palestinian CBS update, the numbers on the CIA website matched those on the Pal CBS site! If I'm right, this would mean that the PAL CBS is one of the sources of the CIA site, but the CIA is a few updates behind. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

O.K. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

According to text in Demographics subsection "The Palestinian population is growing by around 4% a year.", while the Palestinian Ministry of Health states that population growth rate (probably overall) is 2.8%. As non-Palestinians are less than 1% of the population, both figures cannot be correct. I guess first sentence should be omitted, or both figures should be given side by side with cited sources.

According to CIA World Factbook July 2008 population was 1,500,202 with a 3.422% growth rate. Salisburybs (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the CIA Factbook, Gaza now has the 27th highest birth rate, not the 19th as listed in the first paragraph of the Demographics section (citation number 72). Stickmaster flex (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, is there anywhere to get information on the breakdown by gender or age for the Gazan population? Stickmaster flex (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Current legal status

There are several opinions on the matter, some of them not very surprising. The official Palestinian position is that the Gaza Strip is still occupied territory: [9] I assume the official Israeli position is the opposite: that the occupation has ended. As for the international community, including the EU and the US, no statements seem to be found regarding Gazas legal status. Legal scholars and other commentators produce a bit more nuanced picture than official Palestinian/Israeli statements, see for instance these different links for different viewpoints: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] I suggest we simply write what the two parties official position are (i.e. occupied vs not occupied), just to keep the ambiguity at a minimum. If some statements from other states, the UN, GA resolutions etc, emerge that might clarify the international position on the issue, we should include it, but untill then, we shouldnt be guessing on it, as I guess its a bit too early to tell. --Cybbe 12:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This seems an eminently sensible suggestion. Palmiro | Talk 13:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There certainly are "several legal opinions on the matter". Unfortunately, the article discusses only one. That is, the opinion that Israel still occupies Gaza. --Wikismile 12:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Zeq's new additions

Better, but still has problems. You really must wish for the Palestinian state to look like Somalia, as you said. The most important three points are:

1. Since you are relying only on this BBC article, you have not summarized it properly, and you chose the parts that make the Palestinians look bad. You left out a critical opinion of this BBC article which says "there has been very little serious, sustained violence" or "This society has been radicalised and traumatised by its confrontation with the Israelis, who occupied Gaza decades ago and only evacuated their settlers and troops last summer. Thousands of Palestinians have been killed, injured or lost their homes during years of violence. There are numerous armed factions that used to channel their violent energies into attacks on the Israelis - but they now have little on which to focus. In this broken, crowded, poverty-stricken place there is an intense struggle for resources that can lead to lawlessness."
2. This section on post separation anarchy does not belong in the intro which is about the geography and population, it belongs in a separate section.
3. Your quotation is not from "some Palestinians", it is from ONE Palestinian. Only when a group of people is singing or praying can you quote "some" people!

Ramallite ^(talk) 06:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Zeq always tell people to use the talk page, but doesn't want to take his own advice and use talk. His entry is clearly POV pushing because he took one article from the BBC, picked the parts of it that show that the Palestinians are ruthless bastards, and refused to respond to my comments here.

The BBC version is (roughly) that: There has been plenty of lawlessness and competition after the Israeli withdrawal, the reasons for which may be related to years of occupation (including killings and house demolition) that has both radicalized and traumatized Gazans, and left the society broken. There have been militants taking over institutions and briefly kidnapping foreign hostages. The editor of a Palestinian daily newspaper has lamented in his editorial that such displays of lawlessness and corruption are worse than occupation, which Palestinians should not blame for this problem as per habit.

"All this has to be kept in context," says the BBC. "Much of the upheaval has been confined to the south, and to the town of Rafah in particular - and much of the turmoil has about it an element of show. There have been few casualties, and very little serious, sustained violence. Protesting gunmen who occupy government buildings often leave as soon as they have made their point."

Zeq's version is that: After the Israeli disengagement, Gaza has descended into "complete chaos" with kidnappings and takeovers of buildings, and "many" Palestinians say that the occupation is better. " Zeq also introduces his POV in his own edit summary where he states "This is what a Palestinian state will look like: Somalia".

This is very dishonest of Zeq. Ramallite ^(talk) 18:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Here are more quotes. To ckaim that anatchy in Gaza is my POV is a joke. don't make fun of yourselfs.

"Militias battle police, police battle other police, gangs brawl with other gangs; there are revenge killings, aimless killings, kidnappings, bombings, clubbings, mutilations, some pointless, some unmistakably pointed. Chaos rules in Gaza, utter mayhem. "It appears as if Gaza has degenerated into anarchy," explains CNN. There has been a steady outflow of pro-Palestinian NGO personnel from the Strip, some out of panic, some from a realization that the Palestinian revolution, so called, is animated by bloodlust. According to The Times of London, one British aid worker who was recently held hostage by gunmen for three days told her kidnappers, "I came to work with these people and I feel like I've been stabbed in the back." Is this the future of Palestine? [18]

I can find gazilion quotes like this, to claim that the events are limited to the south is dishonest. just few days ago teachers in gaza city were kidnaped. theree month ago Araffat was shot to death in gaza city. There is a problem in Gaza and everyone know it (unless they relay on wikipedia) Zeq 19:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Even the very pro palestinian pro hammas um-yousof [19] is angry about kidnapping NORTH of gaza city. so much for the "confined to the south".... 19:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

First, get your section NPOV, then we can move on to the rest your Palestine-bashing. Everybody is angry about Gaza, but you have to clearly represent what it is people are angry about, not make up your own interpretation. In other words, there is clearly a problem in Gaza, but you have to describe the problem fairly, ACCURATELY, and NPOV. As for "confined to the south", as usual you are attacking a source that YOU YOURSELF provided. This is too funny. Also, you used to do this original research about "you and I know better what is going on" in October (it's like you telling me "call your friends in Qalqilya and they will tell you"), and back then you were new here. But now you have been here long enough to know that you must rely on credible verifiable sources, not on your personal interpretation. Do one or two events in north Gaza mean that the "complete chaos" has spread to the north? In any event, it's disappointing that you still have no clue how to follow WP rules after all this time. Your problem is that your primary objective is Palestine-bashing, and your secondary objective is trying to enforce rules that you don't seem capable of understanding. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I nebver engage in "palestinian bashing". In gaza there are Palestinians who do do worth things to each other. You don't want this mentioned in Wikipedia. That is fine. that is your POV and let's all just go along with it. Zeq 19:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You just reverted yourself in a manner that is weird. I suggest you start a new section entitled "The Gaza Strip after September 2005" or something like that and start working on that. I'll help you if you get started. As for your sentence above, what I "want" is irrelevant. Wikipedia policy says that if something is RELEVANT, it has to be mentioned FAIRLY, ACCURATELY, and from a NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW. I know you understand these words, so just do it. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, as for BBC let me explain it once and forall (it will apply for future as well): BBC is a biased source. it is strongly pro-palestinian. so when BBC publish something that does not look good for Palestinian propeganda officer, this means that the reality is so grave that even BBC could not ignore it . So yes I am "bashing" the source that I use but I trust them on facts (such as quotes) but not on analysis ("confined to south") which I know is false (by reading other sources). Zeq 19:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

But... but.... YOU are the one who introduced this source..... !!!!!!! Ramallite ^(talk) 19:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

And I explained that I indeed trust the facts but not the interpretation they give them. "Confined to the south" is clearly false. If you don't understand me, never mind. I tried to explain but if you don't want to understand that is fine as well. Have a happy Id. Zeq 19:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

So are you going to start a new section? Ramallite ^(talk) 19:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Position of government of Israel

The opening paragraph says "The Israeli government disputes this, especially after the withdrawal of Israel in 2005". It is not clear what Israel is disputing or the reasoning behind it - are they saying that the current situation does not consititute an occupation, because Gazans have attained their liberty, or are they saying that there's no occupation because the Gaza Strip still really belongs to the Jewish people (as they argued [20] before the disengagement). An official statement of the current Israeli position would be helpful. Sanguinalis 17:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Christian and Jewish in Gazastrip

According to the Cia World Factbook there are 0.7 % Christians and 0.6 % Jewish in Gazastrip. (makes around 10 000 Christians and 8900 Jewish). Your source for this article estimates only 2000. I'm not sure if that is because orthodox Christians are not counted by that source but by the CIA WFB. Any sugestions which source is right ? Stan _talk 16:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Now there are 0 Jews in Gaza.

Ancient History

I don't believe the material on ancient history, or indeed any history before the 1948 war, belongs in this artlcle. The articles History of Palestine and Gaza are more suitable for that, and in fact already contain most of what has been inserted here. This article is about the Gaza Strip, a region which did not have any specific geopolitical significance before 1948. Sanguinalis 01:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. If you look at other encylopaedic sources' descriptions of the Gaza Strip, in fact they typically contain such historical information. For example, the citations in that section .... e.g., Britannica. --Epeefleche 01:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

One million inhabitants or 1.48 million inhabitants?

Hello,

the article Gaza Strip seems to leave little doubt : there are 1.48 million inhabitants. However this Wikipedia article[21] suggest it's about a million. Which is correct?Evilbu 01:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a controversy with political significance, like most other things in the conflict. There is some coverage of it in Palestinian people#Demographics. The estimate you mention was much lower than previous PA estimates, and it was in turn rebutted by Sergio DellaPergola who criticized its methodology and produced an estimate only slightly below the PA figure. --JWB 01:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Palestinian population has never been accurately measured. Since 1948 the Palestinians ave over-reported births and under-reported deaths to the UNRWA to increase their share of UN aid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.152.40 (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Out of date text on map

The map image (taken from CIA World Fact Book) contains descriptive text stating that Gaza is occupied by Israel, whcih is not currently (Sept 2007) the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.84.3.72 (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Ideally we should find a map that doesn't include commentary, but since the article makes it clear Gaza's status is debated, I don't think its a huge issue if one isn't available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonditz (talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

External Links

Why are there no External Links to any official websites of the players involved? E.G., Fatah's website, Hamas' website, Israel's website, etc. Also, is there an official website of the Gaza strip? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tragic romance (talk • contribs) 10:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Can an administrator please add the following link to this website, newly launched on the current crisis in Gaza?

• GazaSiege.org - Background, News and Analysis on the siege of Gaza —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazasiege (talk • contribs) 06:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

USS Liberty

I removed this text from the page since I think it's inaccurate and certainly is not NPOV. "During the six day war Israeli unmarked fighter planes fired on a US ship off the coast.It is believed this was a ploy to incite America into believing this was an attack by the Palastinians and retalation would be executed. However while some Americans on board the ship{ name needed ) were killed no action was taken against Israel or Palastine." Aitch naught (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

How do Gazans pay their Israeli cell phone bill?

The article states that cell phone coverage is also provided by Israeli cell phone carriers. I wonder how the Gazans pay their cell phone bill? --Soylentyellow (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the people stranded in Gaza are from other countries... it is likely those people pay through credit cards or by accessing funds in foreign banks. --Jasonditz —Preceding comment was added at 17:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the vast majority of people that live in the Gaza Strip have either always been there or they are refugees hailing from where today is Israel proper (pre 1967 Israel). They aren't from foreign countries, actually, most of them are stateless (well, Palestinian actually, but because it isn't really recognized by anyone they are in reality stateless). I doubt that many Gazans have either Credit Cards or funds in foreign banks - except may be a few that worked in other Arab countries in the past (Kuwait, the Gulf, Suaid Arabia).

I still wonder how they do it (pay their cell phone bills) --Soylentyellow (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

De jure government?

I question the statement that Mahmoud Abbas's regime is the de jure govt. of the Gaza Strip. De what jure? By what law? Hamas won the recent Palestinian elections, the president of the PNA does have the ability to declare a state of emergency for 30 days but this has surely expired by now. So you could argue that it is actually Hamas which is the de jure govt. of the West Bank. PatGallacher (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right. It's certainly not neutral to say Fatah is the de jure government. Sanguinalis (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a question in the same vein. Hamas is described as the de facto government, but the wiki article on the Palestinian legislative election, 2006 seems to imply they are in some sense a legitimate government. Doesn't this seem a little unclear? S.Wilson (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No Photos from Gaza? Use mine!

The article is seriously lacking pictures. You could use mine. I took these [22] pictures in 1999 and 2000. They are a little dated now (also as the settlements have gone) but they might be better than none at all. However, I have no idea how to upload them or what license to attach - so if you think they are useful for the article (or any of the settlement pictures for an article about the settlement) feel free to use them. --Soylentyellow (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Problems with this article

Some problems I am having with this article:

The article has become somewhat messy, and could really use a clean-up (if not an entire re-write). I was suprised that the number of former Israeli settlements in Gaza was not even mentioned and the PA corruption - a mayor problem - was only mentioned in passing, while other things are being repeated several times throughout the article, like the Israeli withdrawal in 2005. More relevant information on the Gaza Strip is missing here, though I lack the overview of what is covered in other, related articles. I added a few things.

As for the question whether Gaza is still occupied, the article discussed only sources that claim it is, so I added a bit on the opposing viewpoint as well to balance the article. Also I don't see the added value of citing the view of law professor Iain Scobbie and The Al Mezan Center for Human Rights after citing Betselem's view and the Palestinian view.

The info in several sections is un(chrono)logically placed and/or overlapping, like in Palestinian Authority control (2005-2007), Hamas (2007-Present) and Current status.

The bad human rights situation under Hamas rule is underexposed IMO.

"with the weather, cold,windy, and rainy the flow of people has shrunk to a trickle" and stuff like that read like a news report and should not be in a encyclopedic article.

Finally, I deleted the link to Electronic Intifada, as it had no direct relation to Gaza. All kind of news sources and websites on the conflict could have been added that way. Edith71 (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I did some further editing and updating on the points mentioned. Several -at least 4- of the refering external links at the bottom are no longer valid. What is the policy for this? Remove or remain?Edith71 (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest removing them from the article (if they are dead and not just temporarily down), moving them to a section in the talk page with a note (so there is an easy to find record of where they once were), and adding a {{fact}} tag to information they once supported (so they can be replaced).-----Adimovk5 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

== Israeli border closures - blockade? == Isreal built cannels between Gaza and Egypt with gun towers that is called the kill zone in order to control Gaza crossing into Egypt two years ago.Wayne t936 (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Several parts of the article (as well as cited sources) contain the phrases "blockade by Israel", "fuel/food/power/etc prevented by Israel from reaching Gaza" or some such. Since section one of the article contains the correct statement "Egypt, which governed the Gaza Strip from 1948-1967 controls the southern border between the Gaza strip and the Sinai desert." any blockade by Israel can only amount to controlling its border with the Gaza Strip. I.e. Israel can not possibly block the flow of fuel/food/power into the Strip since Israel does not control all border crossings. It can only prevent the flow of fuel/food/power into the Gaza Strip from Israel but that does not prevent Egypt from sending in supplies. Hence the assumed blockade of Gaza can only be a joint venture of Israel and Egypt or something that does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.89.233 (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Israeli blockade?

Several parts of the article (as well as cited sources) contain the phrases "blockade by Israel", "fuel/food/power/etc prevented by Israel from reaching Gaza" or some such. Since section one of the article contains the correct statement "Egypt, which governed the Gaza Strip from 1948-1967 controls the southern border between the Gaza strip and the Sinai desert." any blockade by Israel can only amount to controlling its border with the Gaza Strip. I.e. Israel can not possibly block the flow of fuel/food/power into the Strip since Israel does not control all border crossings. It can only prevent the flow of fuel/food/power into the Gaza Strip from Israel but that does not prevent Egypt from sending in supplies. Hence the assumed blockade of Gaza can only be a joint venture of Israel and Egypt or something that does not exist.

Somebody deleted this comment before instead of adding his comments.

Again: the statement that Egypt controls its borders is supported by footnotes, references, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.31.170 (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Merging Hamas Control and Current situation?

These two sub-sections overlap in terms of the time that they cover and "Current situation" goes back to 2007 making it not very current at all. I feel like they could be merged and summarized a little to make them less of a list of events that were clearly added as they happened and more of a cohesive article. Lot 49a^talk 07:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I went for it and have attempted to clarify and merge the two sections. Hopefully this isn't anything controversial.

Lot 49a^talk 03:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I took this analysis out, it needs much citation

I removed this text that was recently added, as t makes a bunch of claims about conditions in the strip that require citations. It's has a big risk of being inflamatory. Here's the text for reference:

Despite the fact that Israel no longer occupies Gaza, Israel continues to supply the region with basic energy, water, azand humanitarian supplies in coordination with the UN and other agencies. Gaza receives sufficient power and food to survive, but not to economically prosper. Although the Hamas officials would portray otherwise, casual observance of marketplaces indicate substantial produce, fish, meat, and other foodstuffs are readily available. Speculation is that Hamas positions Gaza as starving for food and energy, but those are simply not true. More realistically, Hamas is using hard currency to purchase expensive weapons and to pay for militants, rather than invest in infrastructure.

Lot 49a^talk 06:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

In regards to sanctions, "The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet," joked Dov Weisglass, an adviser to the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert. 78.86.172.199 (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over occupied status section

1. I put in some need citations or material will be removed because it's dated and confusing. (And that applies to other places I didn't put it.)
2. There has been dispute over whether Gaza technically occupied under international law which hinted at, discussed in one source, and there are other sources, including UN, saying it is technically occupied because Israel controls the borders. So I'm working on a new relevant section on the dispute. But I don't feel like checking out pre-Hamas status in case someone else does before questionable material deleted. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Gazan Massacre 2008-2009?

I think theres something about that, anyone wanting to add that? aah i heard it before, but i not so sure, its seem like there something keeping the fact off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.93.21.126 (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor edit: missing space

{{editsemiprotected}}

I've never done this before - hope this is okay...

In the paragraph:-

During the Sinai campaign of November 1956, the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula were occupied by Israeli troops. International pressure ledIsrael to withdraw.

there should be a space between the words "led" and "Israel". —Preceding unsigned comment added by AstroWiki (talk • contribs) 13:15, 8 January 2009

Done Thanks! haz (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please any admin put the interlink to Khmer Wikipedia on this article, [[km:ដីជ្រោយហ្គាស្សា]]. Thank you. --សីលាបាភ្នំ (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

GAZA attack in israel

nothing here about 2009 and gaza rockets into israel causing israeli response.this should be included,i guess so.i read in wikiedia about gaza guy running into a school and using kids as bullet proof vest but he and kids were killed by female israel soldier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.148.97.68 (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello IDF bot, and welcome to Wikipedia! Your propaganda is not welcome here. 78.86.172.199 (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaza terror bot hola de espana Is your comment here like a virtual rocket?Are you in a schoolhouse?.. We are in spain not israel,,we are impartial..STILL!

but the gaza is not giving up never........ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.244.208 (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

not truth but what!

[23] im to . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.228.45 (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Main author

Was this article written by a Zionist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zalzalahbuttsaab (talk • contribs) 18:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Why? Can you not find any flaws? Chesdovi (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Views on Gaza current situation

There is nothing really to discuss here. This section obviously does not belong here. Maybe at International reaction to the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict? Chesdovi (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me, that if it is going to stay here, it needs to at least be neutral. It seems to be slanted very heavily against Israel. --omnipotence407 (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

These comments were made regarding the conflcit and should be moved there. Are we to mention that according to Israel the Strip has become a large terrorist training camp, or according to others a large prison or earthquake zone? I have not looked, but would be suprised if there is any other page on a territory or location which lists what certain people think it reminds them of!? Chesdovi (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think this whole section needs to go. I'm a big fan of Eno but still.. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Current Situation

this section doesnt seem very NPOV. it talks of hamas terrorists surely it should be hamas miliatants. talking about how hamas snipers shot UN workers but not how israel killed UN workers and the claims of israeli war crimes with them using phospherous on civilians need to be mentioned.

This section of the article is out of date anyway the number of dead and injured and the number of those that are militants are wrong. This needs to be re-written completely i think. i dont know how to do it but someone needs to as this must be a topic people are looking at a lot at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allie cabab (talk • contribs) 21:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

In truth, none of it belongs here. It all goes under the main conflict page, with only a breif mention here! Chesdovi (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Walled Territory

It seems noteworthy that Gaza is surrounded by a barrier with concrete and barbed wire and sentry towers etc, shouldn't this article describe that situation? As it there is little mention in the article about the barrier itself, only the breach last year. RomaC (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

done Sean.hoyland - talk 16:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding flag

Future Perfect at Sunrise believes that Infoboxes must burn in Hell

Hello folks. I'm adding flag to infobox. Thank you for discussion. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The flag of Hamas is not the flag of Gaza. Nableezy (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. No consensus for Hamas flag. Reverted again. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The page of Gaza can not be seen

Something is wrong there.Tushyk (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

OK now.Tushyk (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Gaza Greenhouses

When Israel withdrew from the Gaza in August, 2005, it left intact 20 synagogues of the Gush Katif Jewish communities following an Israeli Cabinet decision against demolishing the structures. Immediately after the Israeli evacuation was completed, Palestinian Arabs destroyed most of the Gaza synagogues.

Speaking to The New York Sun from Gaza, a spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees, Abu Abir, said the area in which the synagogues once stood is now used to fire rockets at Israel. “We are proud to turn these lands, especially these parts that were for long time the symbol of occupation and injustice, like the synagogue, into a military base and source of fire against the Zionists and the Zionist entity,” Mr. Abir said.

Mr. Abir blamed the Jewish state for the desecration of the Gaza synagogues by Palestinian Arabs, claiming the decision to leave the structures intact was part of an Israeli conspiracy. Israel “left the synagogues behind so the world would see the Palestinians destroying them,” Mr. Abir said.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24611_Palestinians_Turn_Ruined_Synagogues_Into_Terror_Bases&only —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.165.2 (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Israeli control (1967-94) has material which belongs to the section Palestinian Authority control (1994-2007)

The Israeli control (1967-94) section includes material for the 1994-2007 period. Some of the material is duplicated and some of which is more extensive than that for the section Palestinian Authority control (1994-2007). Ablonus (talk) 07:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

RCS: Weapons of Mass Destruction & Egyption Border

It has been known for decades that Palestinians have been smuggling weapons and weapons of mass destruction under ground in tunnels from egypt into palestine (Gaza) to use against Israel.

Israel has taken full military control of the border between Egypt and Gaza, to prevent weapons from being smuggled in, weapons which will eventually be used by Palestinians against Israelis.

Markacohen (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. Nableezy (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

they bring in weapons, so does hezbulla, but kindly keep in mind they are not wmd, but simple rockets, no country or city ought to be without! next thing u ll say bush found wmd, yea... only thing they found was crap, fertilizer, of course that could be dangerous...smells! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.2.148 (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Casualties image

I was about to revert the most recent removal of the casualties table, but I noticed someone else has already done so. The reason for its removal doesn't make sense. It displays the casualties and is not supposed to show how many rockets were launched by the Palestinians. It also doesn't show how many Israeli weapons were used against the Gaza Strip, so I don't see how it is biased. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's simply casualty data from a reliable source. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Gaza map and buffer zone

Should the Israeli-enforced "buffer zone" inside Gaza be represented on the map? RomaC (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

unwra school

UNWRA admitted, as reported on that famous source of information - Wikipedia, that the shelling was not of the school and that all supposed fatalities (for which no evidence was produced) took place outside the school http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unwra#January_6.2C_2009_incident —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamnon (talk • contribs) 11:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

palestinian flag

for those of you who are still unaware israel still owns the gaza strip even if its controlled by hamas, which by the way uses a different palestinian flag-it uses its own flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Star-of-David92 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

People From Gaza Strip

1-Moustafa Ahmed Abu Hasira 2-Abdullah Moustafa Ahmed Abu Hasira 3-Alaa Moustafa Ahmed Abu Hasira 4-Ismael Ahmed Abu Hasira 5-Ayman Ismael Ahmed Abu Hasira 6-Eyad Ismael Ahmed Abu Hasira 7-Ahmed Ismael Ahmed Abu Hasira —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.237.196.156 (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Administative subdivisions

There needs to be a section about the administrative subdivisions into which the Gaza Strip is divided, along with accurate population figures from the Palestinian National Census. Skinsmoke (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Descendents?

Is there much point including this (uncited) claim: "The majority of the Palestinians are descendants of refugees who were driven from or left their homes during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War."?

Presumably refugee and non-refugee Palestinians marry and have children, so eventually all Palestinians will be able to trace their parentage to at least *one* refugee, so this information is not particularly useful Tom.Q.Ellis (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's useful because of the date information and the demographic information. Perhaps {{citation needed}} would be more appropriate? ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 06:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It's simply wrong. The majority of the Gazan Arabs are decedents of Gazan Arabs. Gaza has been one of the largest cities in what was the the British Mandate of Palestine before 1947. TFighterPilot (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Birth defects cite

How reliable is 1 and 2? I'm not sure of paltelegraph but I know the Tehran Times is owned and edited by the Iranian leadership.

I can't find any research proving Palestinians are experiencing higher birth defects that is linked to the Gaza War or munitions used by the IDF. A similar complaint was made during the aftermath of Operation Phantom Thunder by Iranian-controlled press but that went nowhere.

It seems the section is predicated on the Hamas-controlled health ministry and hospitals under the auspice of the government. Can we accept Hamas claims unchallenged? Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any research that has established a causal link between higher birth defects and the munitions used by the IDF is there ? I haven't seen anyone other than NWC looking at these kind of issues in Gaza, their work is preliminary/quite small scale, not yet peer reviewed and being sensible scientists they tend to say things like 'can have serious effects' rather than 'has had serious effects'. I'm not aware of anyone out there in RS world in a position to challenge the Ministry's claims. I think including attributed material along the lines of the Haaretz report is okay i.e. Health Ministry says a higher percentage of children have been born with birth defects, but these sources surely aren't even close to reliable for statements like "is a result of Israel's use of internationally prohibited weapons against the civilians of Gaza." Has this been picked by WHO, UN etc, media outside the region ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The most recent Gaza humanitarian update by the UNDP mentions nothing of a surge in birth defects in post-Gaza conflict. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Refugee camps?

Just wondering why there is no link from this article to the one about palestinian refugee camps in the Gaza strip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.207.176 (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Census Information

The article contains this: population_census = 9, 520

I assume this is inaccurate because it is widely incongruent with the other population number. As there is no source nor reference I'm removing it. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 06:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaza is a paradise!

The recent pic uploads certainly make one think twice about that so-called "humanitarian crisis" -- surely the pristine (unbombed) mosque, that swank Al-Deira hotel and, especially, people relaxing on the beach improve the article because they are faithfully representative of life in the Gaza Strip! RomaC ^TALK 16:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the beach won a Destination of delight, 2010 award at the Tourism for fecal coliforms conference a few months ago. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a surf club though. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this a problem? Gaza has beaches, hotels, etc. This isn't propaganda. Would you prefer doctored photos with dead infants spread around the shore? Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think these idyllic pics are representative of the Gaza Strip? One out of eleven of the pics depicts damage. In Israel's Sderot article, five of the six pics show damage or rockets. RomaC ^TALK 01:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Gaza Strip is the size of your fingernail. Should we only use photos with bombed out buildings or photos that show the culture and lifestyle of the ordinary Gazan? Most of this pics are taken by Palestinians and are frequently published in Palestinian newspapers. Who are we to challenge their own media? The Arab version of Gaza has some great photos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, though I'm not sure how to put them in the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The Gaza Strip is much bigger than my fingernail. Yes we should have photos that reflect Gaza and life in Gaza. Do the newly-added photos do this, in your opinion? RomaC ^TALK 15:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The 'lifestyle of the ordinary Gazan' involves bombed out houses-apartments-commercial buildings-farms-mosques-ambulances-hospitals, living in tent camps and a whole lot of shit so I have uploaded some nice pictures to commons taken last April. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice language. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-neutral POV "High Population Density"

I removed the part about "HIGH POPULATION DENSITY". Kowloon, for example, has a density of 10x what Gaza is, yet the Wikipedia article for Kowloon doesn't say "HIGH POPULATION DENSITY". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.241.252.65 (talk) 14:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your edit as vandalism, and if you want you could add to kowloon's page another statement about its well-known high density,Passionless (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I am removing it - but before you revert it, please consult the archived discussion here. This is not the first time the red herring of "high population density" has been raised. It happens to be objectively false so wikipedia should not be publishing it. Yoshm (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The CIA source cited says "High population density, limited land and sea access, continuing isolation, and strict internal and external security controls have degraded economic conditions in the Gaza Strip". Please try to make edits based on policy rather than personal notions of red herrings and objectivity. That is the second time today I have had to revert one of your edits because of a mismatch with the sources cited. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sean - with regard to the first revert you did - the WP article on the Flotilla raid (cited & xrefed) says

the flotilla organisers rejected Israel's demand, as it did not believe that Israel would transfer the cargo to Gaza,[72] and said that, "This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians.

thus my use of the word "purported" was correct and in keeping with the referenced material.

With regard to this revert - the CIA may be a generally reliable source but in the other material referenced from the archived talk pages I cited above you have a half-dozen contrary cited facts demonstrating that it is objectively false. Gaza does not suffer from extremely high population density, although it certainly does suffer from many other things. Did you consult the material I referenced above? I suggest you undo your reverts. Peace, Yosh Yoshm (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If you would like to say something in this article you just need to cite the source in this article. WP:V compliance can't be provided by linking to other Wikipedia articles. I realise that there are many different views about the Flotilla's cargo and pretty much everything else related to the Israel-Palestine conflict but if we say something in this article readers must be able to verify it by using the sources cited in this article.

Yes, I'm aware of the various discussions about population density of the Gaza Strip in this article and related articles such as the Gaza War article. I'm sorry but you can't say that a reliable source is 'objectively false'. Well, you can say it but it doesn't affect content decisions. If the CIA factbook says ""High population density, etc" ... " have degraded economic conditions in the Gaza Strip" we can say that and cite the CIA source. If we have reliable sources that say that the high population density hasn't negatively impacted on the economy we can cite those too. What we can't do is argue that the CIA are wrong by calculating pop densities and doing comparisons ourselves or citing sources that aren't discussing the relationship between the pop density and the economy. There are presumably reasons why the CIA said what they said. We don't know what they are. We don't know how they mapped/binned the population data or the economic performance data or how they related the population density within a given area to the economic performance in that area. All we know is that they said that the high population density was one of the factors that had a negative impact on the economy. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. ACK. Thx. Yoshm (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Repeated Source - Israel Allowing International Aid Organizations to Deliver Aid

Source 108 is a repeat of source 107. Source 108 is a Scribd file, not appropriate for Wikipedia standards.

Furthermore, I request clarification for the topic "Israel's cooperation with international aid programs" as it seems to suggest that Israel is donating this aid, when in fact, it is allowing its delivery by the UN and other programs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.198.24 (talk) 03:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"designated terrorist organization"

It is true that Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by the US and EU. How that is relevant to them functioning as the government of Gaza is not clear (actually, it is clear that it is irrelevant). We do not poison the well by including such descriptions of people and groups wherever they are mentioned. This can be seen in not using "pro-Israel" whenever the word AIPAC appears, or "designated terrorist organization" whenever the Irgun is discussed. Jiu's comparison to saying "occupied" or "illegal settlement" is bogus as I do not stick that in for every mention of the illegal settlement in occupied territory wherever it is mentioned, but rather I include that information in the actual article on the illegal settlement in occupied territory. The article on Hamas includes this information, it is not relevant here. nableezy - 17:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Hamas is a designated terrorist organization by the US and EU. It is not a controversial fact. It's not the article says Gaza has a terrorist organization, though some reliable sources have made this claim. Like Hezbollah, Hamas has not made an attempt to differentiate between it's "political" and "militant" wing. In fact most of the leaders find it insulting that any foreign observer would make such a claim. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikfan12345, I agree with the poster, and it's a political designation. Israel and the US didn't object when they were candidates for election. Perhaps we should make the claim that they were actually nurtured and cared for by Israel as an alternative to Fatah everywhere they are called terrorists. "Hamas has not made an attempt to differentiate between it's "political" and "militant" wing. In fact most of the leaders find it insulting that any foreign observer would make such a claim." That you don't know that there is a differentiation between the political arm or Hamas and the Al-Quassam Martyrs Brigades is displaying your own ignorance and your attitude toward Nablezzy is arrogant. Your lack of neutrality/objectivity is apparent.

'Merikan (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No-go zone

There seems to be a lack of information on Israel's "no-go" or "buffer" zone, which runs from 300 meters to 2 kilometers along the demarcation line and into the Gaza Strip. [24] [25] [26]. It seems this comprises some 20% of the arable land in the Gaza Strip, so this would seem notable. RomaC ^TALK 15:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

PCHR Factsheet RomaC ^TALK 04:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

My comment is with regard to the Hamas-Israel ceasefire adhered to particularly over the course of the summer/Fall of 2008. Yes, there is the graph depicting the drastic cessation of rocket-fire, but I believe this should be acknowledged in the text as well, along with acknowledgment that during this time Israel girded for war. (With apologies, there did not appear to be a specific category available for making this suggestion, so added it here. DVM.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.51.83 (talk) 06:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Question about GDP

Hi! On the Gaza Strip page there is written that total GDP in Gaza Strip is $770 mln, and here: List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP) it is $5 bln... It is better to have no GDP data included, than incorrect.

Why has this not been corrected? If no substantiated objections are raised I will update it to reflect the CIA Factbook figure Yoshm (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong data in Economy section

The article states "Per capita income(PPP) was estimated at US$ 3,100 in 2009, a position of 164th in the world." and points to the CIA factbook as a source.

As of today, The CIA factbook on the Gaza Strip does not specify this number but refers to their page on the West Bank.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gz.html

The economies of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are separate and different, thus the number of US$ 3,100 is probably wrong.

Another set of economic data about the Gaza Strip should be found or this quote should be removed.

HananCohen (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the addition of the following sentence to the Economy section to indicate the increasing amount of agricultural export:

In 2011, "PA farmers in Gaza exported more than 399 tons of strawberries, 10 million carnations, 6.5 tons of cherry tomatoes and 6 million tons of red, green and yellow bell peppers to European markets." http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/149694#.TsLZoPJjeM8

Labellesanslebete (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Using a source that represents the settler movement to source statistical information about the state of the Palestinian economy seems unwise. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

glaring attempt at POV insertion in the Status section

"Christopher Gunness, spokesperson for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) contends that Israel is an occupying power. However, Meagan Buren, Senior Adviser to the media group Israel Project, contests that characterization.[29]" A consultant for a PR Firm whose purpose is to clean up Israel's image around the world is a poor choice for a legitimate rebuttal to the occupation narrative (presented via quotes from international governance and judiciary bodies' representatives) in this section. Quite frankly, it has no place in this article at all. 69.165.217.17 (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Gunness is a spokesperson (a.k.a, PR), and if a mainstream Israeli activist group offers a response, we must include it. Editors don't get to decide what is a "legitimate rebuttal." That is, in fact, POV. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Israel's cooperation with international aid

This section contains the following statement, which is problematic in a number of ways: "There are also cases where aid to Gazans is blocked by Israel such as the Gaza flotilla raid,[107] or the blocking of aid from the 'Asia to Gaza Caravan' on December 30, 2010.[108]"

Firs of all, the second instance mentioned (Asia to Gaza Caravan) is a case of aid that was allowed to go through, not blocked, and to the extent any blocking or restrictions were placed on it, they were placed by Egypt, not Israel.

Second, with regards to the Gaza Flotilla, there are different views on the purpose of the flotilla, with several sources stating its main goal was to draw attention to the blockade (i.e: a PR exercise) - even the reference used in the article says this. Finally, , the humanitarian aid that was carried by the ships was allowed into Gaza after inspection at Ashdod (see this: http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=292851), so again, this was not blocked. Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it much of the aid such as building materials was not sent on from Ashdod. Regardless there are other incidences of less spectacular prevention of aid reaching gaza.

More generally: Why is there a whole section for this? should it not just be in the section about the blockade, it seems to me that the inclusion of this section is an attempt to put a pro-israel title in the contents. Regardless it is messy and should be moved into "Gaza blockade continues" --Ehouk1 (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Israeli Occupation of Gaza Strip in 67, POV on Fatah v. Hamas and the attempted coup.

The "why" or the Israeli stated reason for the Israeli occupation of Gaza is missing from instance of reference to it.

In the main section:

[Egypt] administered the territory through the All-Palestine Government and then directly from 1959 until 1967, when Israel occupied it following the Six-Day War.

Egyptian control

Egypt continued to occupy the Gaza Strip until 1967, except for four months of Israeli occupation during the 1956 Suez Crisis. Egypt never annexed the Gaza Strip, but instead treated it as a controlled territory and administered it through a military governor.[9]

Israeli control (1967–94)

Israel controlled the Gaza Strip again beginning in June 1967, after the Six-Day War.

From Tiny Revolution:

The funny thing about the Israeli attack on Gaza following its long blockade is that Israel's original justification for taking over Gaza in 1967 was that Israel was being subject to a blockade. This is from the official Knesset history of the Six Day War:

Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser blockaded the Straits of Tiran on May 21st and 22nd to all shipping from and to Eilat; the area was open to Israeli ships under UN supervision since 1957, and Israel repeatedly stated that such a blockade will be considered as casus belli (justification for acts of war).

legal status about the occupation of gaza

However, Meagan Buren, Senior Adviser to the pro-Israeli media group Israel Project, contested that characterization.[24]

There are three good references, and then this person. Why is she included? She's not objective, and doesn't have any particular knowledge about legalities.

On the support for the Palestinian Authority after the Elections that brought Hamas to power, dismisses the civilians that voted in Hamas as their representatives. The war between the PA and Fatah didn't just happen. There is a dirty back story that is pretty much white washed. The US sponsored and encouraged a coup by Fatah, Dahlan's US armed and trained troops. http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9366.shtml http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804?printable=true&currentPage=all

This section on the economy and the withdraw from Gaza, and the green house issue is shamefully based on one AP article , that doesn't even display the authors name. Here's another: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/international/middleeast/15mideast.html?_r=3

As a comment about the overall neutrality of this article, it's pretty one sided; cherry picks facts, and includes pro-Israel, PC, and non-expert opinions. History isn't democratic. It doesn't give a care about what someone's opinion is. I'll return later and fix some of these issues. Please comment if you have other neutral authoritative sources,

'Merikan (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that the page is biased, and after writing a rant, which I will not post, I've decided to help...here are some key points from my rant which further your point:

The images throughout the article make the place look like paradise-a deception, making Palestinian complaints seem less real.

The section 'Israel's cooperation with international aid programs'-100% pro-israeli image, we all know there are tons of cases were Israel denies aid (and sometimes kill the bringers)...like a few days ago blocking donated generators from entering Gaza.

Pro-israeli editors will always demand a rebuttal to any critism of israel, which is why that Meagan Buren person is a part of the article, cause we all know a neutral statement + a POV statment = NPOV.

Anyways just remember to stay neutral while editing, this page especially...I'll start working soon, and I'll always be watching. Passionless (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Your quote "..we all know there are tons of cases where Israel denies aid (and sometimes kill the bringers)..." introduces a claim I have never heard elsewhere. Do you have a source for the claim that Israel has killed anyone bringing aid? Labellesanslebete (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

NPOV? 1.1 Egyptian control 1.2 Israeli occupation (1967–1994)

Why "control" for Egypt and "occupation" for Israel? Note main article for Egypt refers to Occupation. Shouldn't this article be consistent (both internally and with the referenced article)? Yoshm (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

History?

The intro to this article states: "This article is about the geography, demographics, and general history of the Gaza Strip."[emphasis added]

Yet the History section starts in 1948, a mere 63 years ago. That's hardly history - a better name would be "Current Events".

There is a lot of history to the geographic area known today as the Gaza strip that is well-known and highly-documented going back a few thousand years. This gap should be filled. If this article is not the right place for it, then cross-references to appropriate articles should be added. Yoshm (talk) 08:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The Gaza Strip wasn't really an entity before 1948. They were really just a bunch of towns and villages scattered on the southwestern coast of British Mandate Palestine. The 1948 war and Egyptian occupation made the Gaza Strip what it is. -asad (talk) 11:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a "Gaza Sub-District" during the Mandate period. As can be seen here, its boundaries did not correspond well to the Gaza Strip boundaries established by the 1949 armistice agreements. Yoshm has a point though, since many articles on modern political entities allow history going back earlier than their creation. It is something we can decide for or against. Zero^talk 13:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Citing again the intro comment specifying the intended coverage "This article is about the geography, demographics, and general history of the Gaza Strip. For the geopolitical area, see Palestinian territories." [emphasis added]. Asad - this isn't supposed to be about the geopolitical entity - it's supposed to be about the geographic area. It probably does not occur to people that this is the same area that was occupied by Philistia or the history during the time of the Ottoman Empire, etc., etc. In fact it doesn't even have a cross-reference to District of Gaza that Zero mentioned.This is a serious lacuna. Yoshm (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

perhaps a brief mention of the history and a more in-depth daughter article on the history of the area would be in order? There's certainly no lack of content for this region, historically speaking.204.65.34.171 (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Structural Issue

The following sections:

1.8 Gaza War

1.9 Gaza blockade continues

1.10 Islamization Trend

1.11 Israel's cooperation with international aid programs

Seem like they should all be subordinate to the heading "1.7 Hamas control (2007–present)" as they cover incidents or issues during that period. Any reason not to fix the article's structure? Yoshm (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed the structure following no objections to above suggestion. Yoshm (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Israel/JNF owns land in Gaza

Someone should add information because it is missing from the article but very relevant. Specifically, page 8: http://www.iasps.org/policystudies/ps49.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.77.156.152 (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Mahmoud Zahar

[27] "'Against whom could we demonstrate in the Gaza Strip? When Gaza was occupied, that model was applicable,' Zahar said." Retrieved from Ma'an News Agency, January 5, 2012

This statement was deleted from the article, on the premise that Zahar also said "since we are resisting occupation, we should use all means including armed resistance." But the full paragraph in which he says that is:

"We can't use the same means seen in Egypt, Syria, and Tunisia because they are inappropriate in the West Bank. Egypt got rid of the British occupation with arms, and since we are resisting occupation, we should use all means including armed resistance."

He is saying that the West Bank is occupied, not Gaza. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:State_of_Palestine#Mahmoud_Zahar. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I do not know what specifically you are referring to in the article. However, Mahmoud Zahar has said multiple other times that armed "resistance" is necessary in Gaza, or they must continue their current "resistance" (which consists of rockets and mortars and the occassional infiltration/bus bombing). See here, here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activism1234 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

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

The result of the move request was: Merge.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

---

The article on Gaza Strip is defined as an article on the "geography and demographics" of the area, so apparently this one is WP:FORK and is completely redundant and overlapping. It should be clarified that articles on "West Bank", "Gaza Strip" and "Palestinian territories" deal with geography, while "Palestinian National Authority" and "State of Palestine" are articles about political entities. Please vote Merge or Keep whether to merge "Geography of the Gaza Strip" into "Gaza Strip", providing an explanation for your choice.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The main reason why I would merge both articles is I think a numerical geographic point of view over a portion of land over which a war is being held on the present days is misleading for those who access wikipedia and this article to understand the Gaza Strip actual condition of existence. A merging would at least place this information in a more realistic picture, specially since the context is so obviously complex and important. On the other hand, there are two important images included in the Gaza Strip article that show the relative position of the strip in relation to the countries that surround it, etc, that a purely "geographic" article cannot lack of. Mahavishnu87 (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge Agree that this article is completely duplicative of information in the Gaza Strip article. --Sjsilverman (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Israeli cooperation with international aid programs

Hello,

On this Wikipedia page, there is a brief section entitled "Israeli cooperation with international aid programs." Tragically, the paragraph does not comply with the title. Instead, it goes to mention a report by a U.N. committee that said Israel should lift its blockade (Israel's response being this would allow free flow of weapons, bombs to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, DFLP, etc, and UN Palmer Report maintains blockade is legal for these reasons). This is very nice, but there is no relevance here. The image it basically gives off is that Israel does not comply with international aid programs since the blockade is still there. Yet that is completely false. There are two options that we can go about:

A) We can remove this paragraph completely, as it has nothing at all to do with the topic or title. It is misleading entirely, and appears to be set up that away deceitfully. B) We can keep the paragraph, but include statistics for each week/month demonstrating Israeli cooperation with international aid programs and their flow of goods/items into Gaza and Gaza's flow of exports out of Gaza, and the recent easing on restrictions in the past few months that has allowed for more imports/exports. All the best.--Activism1234 (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph is about Israel's cooperation, or its lack of cooperation, with aid programs as reported by OCHA. If you have additional sources that provide more information, please bring them, but removing the section because you think the title is inaccurate isnt an option. nableezy - 04:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Then it is with great respect that I offer my own personal opinion, which opines that said content should be condensed and moved someplace more appropriate, for example in a section dealing with the blockade. It appears as though its sole purpose was to demonize Israel through a consortium of various means, including, but not limited to, the use of fraudulently deceptive titles, the use of information that does not fully correspond with said title or provide a fuller picture, & the lack of responses towards the report.--Activism1234 (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I wrote that UNOCHA assessment part although not the title "Israel's cooperation with international aid programs". That was already there. I added the material here when there was other material in the section (not written by me) that was pertinent to the section title. Later I went back to look at everything else in that section to check every statement and every source (see edits and edit summaries below).

• 10:30, 24 March 2012‎ Sean.hoyland (→‎Israel's cooperation with international aid programs: the part of that statement that is relevant to Israel's cooperation is not supported by the source. rm entire statement.)
• 10:27, 24 March 2012‎ Sean.hoyland (→‎Israel's cooperation with international aid programs: link dead. version captured by archive.org is an MFI rep from 29/3/2009. nothing about billions of pounds of aid. again, does not provide WP:V compliance. rm statement. re-order)
• 10:23, 24 March 2012‎ Sean.hoyland (→‎Israel's cooperation with international aid programs: link dead. version captured by archive.org is an IDF report for May 30th to June 5th, 2010. again, does not provide WP:V compliance)
• 10:17, 24 March 2012‎ Sean.hoyland (→‎Israel's cooperation with international aid programs: UN link redirects. nothing at archive.org. google cache version contains nothing relevant. it's from 23/4/2008.)

That resulted in the removal of all material that did not comply with policy, leaving just the UNOCHA assessment and the existing title. I agree that the title is not ideal but the content is clearly pertinent, well sourced and informative, so I suggest just changing the subsection title to something like "UNOCHA assessment" or "Easing of the blockade" or "Humanitarian impact assessment". There are many options. For the record, I am not deceitful, there was nothing deceitful about the edits and it has nothing to do with demonizing Israel. That is a very odd thing to say. Be careful with your words about the actions of other editors and avoid making statements without evidence. It's easy to start fires in this topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that. I don't mind if the title is left. You can either change the title if you want to something else, or I'll just add in more information from OCHA when I get a chance to fill it up with other info.

The report cited, Easing the Blockade: Assessing the Humanitarian Impact on the Population of the Gaza Strip deals with Israeli actions since the blockade was "eased". This isnt a "fraudulently deceptive title", please dont continue with such histrionics. What response would you like to include? So long as it is from a reliable source, or the Israeli government itself, by all means, include it. That isnt what you did though. nableezy - 04:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The user above agreed the title was not ideal. I don't mind whether the title is changed or kept. If it's kept, I'll add more information when I get a chance. I don't exactly have all the time in the world.

OCL

Gila, regarding this edit, the name of the article is Gaza War, not Operation Cast Lead. Please self-revert that change. nableezy - 20:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

As you have neither responded or reverted the edit, I have restored the section title. nableezy - 19:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Please expand Economy section

What are the main industries and products of the Gaza Strip? What are its export markets if any? How much of the economy depends on outside aid, and who finances such aid? How much employment is there and how much unemployment? How many Gazans commute to Israel and/or Egypt for work? Any noticeable companies? Does it grow its own food mostly or is that imported? From where? How is the infrastructure, state of the roads, is there any public transport, etc. etc. ?-- 16:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.26.60 (talk)

Infobox

I added an infobox, imported and adapted from Governance of the Gaza Strip. The infobox uses {{Infobox Country or territory}}, the infobox template for territories. I'm not sure what parameters we should include, or if we should include the flags tough, so discuss that here, and other things related to the infobox here. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the government parameters and the Hamas flag ought to be removed. Among other reasons, my understanding is that the Hamas regime doesn't conceder itself a an independent Gaza Strip, it conceders itself the legitimate Palestinian Authority, and the Fatah regime also conceders itself the legitimate Palestinian Authority, and tuss the legitimate ruler of the Gaza. I don't see a problem with the Palestinian flag though, unlike the West Bank which is largely under settler rule (Area C) the whole Gaza Strip is under Palestinian rule. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This all could change if a State of Palestine receives recognition by the UN. Then we would have to go over how to present this article, and the articles on the West Bank, the Palestinian territories and the Palestinian Authority. And, the Hamas flag should indeed be removed because Hamas is still a movement—political, social and armed—and not an entity in itself--Al Ameer son (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and implement those changes. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

In responce to this, how does Governance of the Gaza Strip having an infobox make it confusing for this article to have an infobox? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That infobox should really be here, at the main page, rather than at a rather unique subpage. CMD (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Dlv999 (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

The infoboxes are different, here's the infobox that was at this page. It didn't include the government parameters. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

An infobox here should include the government parameters. The government footnote could perhaps be replaced by a note of "Party - Hamas", and the currency footnotes should be removed. Such detail belongs in the article text. CMD (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I guess I'll move the infobox to this article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Legal Status section

It seems to me that the entire section entitled Legal Status could use some review/removal of biased language. There is a lot of opinionated language that shows up throughout the section that really doesn't need to be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.249.210 (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Nuzzle redirects to this article

Is that really as it should be?

Well, that is pretty obscure. Search for "Nuzzle" on 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade to see the connection. Zero^talk 13:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Is Nuzzle supposed to be Nazla? --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Good catch! I wasn't able to find any other reference to "Nuzzle". I'll ask the editor who made the link. Zero^talk 00:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Nutrition surveys

Someone claimed that the 2002 nutritional survey doesn't exist, but what is this, then? I found three copies online in a few minutes. Problems in locating sources should be referred to the talk page or a suitable noticeboard and cannot be inserted into articles. Someone also cited this report, but reading it provides a very different picture from what is cited. That section of the article is weak and confusing, but ignorant and distorted is worse. It needs a proper clean-up. Zero^talk 01:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Fuel crisis gibberish

I quote

"Responded with another citizen of Rafah: 'Nude talk more about health crisis in Rafah and more exploited in the Drivers' Rafah ', while the other response more sharply, he said:' I wish, Lord, tells the story of Sheikh Eid any of these buses come from?, Is the bus power was to change the color and print the names and fake companies, good company, company Ailia, Islamic Society, as well as be confiscated diesel fuel from the stations and tunnels and traders, and is then to organize a campaign on behalf of Hamas to relieve citizens, but everyone knows ...... ., the story of diesel buses and the story of a failed attempt to improve the image of Hamas'"

Vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.240.167 (talk) 22:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

If it is vandalism, it isn't recent vandalism. According to the reference, the quote has been translated. The translation may have been garbled. Unless a replacement quote can be found, I suggest that the quote be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Another editor has deleted the quote. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

History sections out of order

Some of the sections on the history of the Gaza Strip are out of sequence. For instance, 2007 events are after 2014. Is there a reason, or should they be rearranged? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I have reordered the sections.

New section needed

There needs to be a History section about the 2014 Gaza war. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

War crimes section violates NPOV

Israel is NOT been officially accused of war crimes. Quoting one side of a conflict making unfounded accusations is a serious violation of NPOV. It should be removed until Israel is officially accused of war crimes. Opinions should not be aired in this article. 72.5.190.138 (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC) Now it is...

Mathematics/GDP?

How GDP $1.6 billion per 1.8 million people can give $6100? The ratio will produce only $880 per year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.101.238.236 (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed those figures for now because a source hasn't been cited and it's not obvious where they come from, at least not to me. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Biased against Israel

The 1967 Israeli occupation section of this article should use a less inflammatory word choice. The word "occupy" has become increasingly offensive or radicalized over the past few years. Perhaps, the article should say 1967 Israeli rule. To be consistent this article should say Egyptian rule and Gaza under Palestinian rule. Saying the 1967 Israeli Occupation, and then saying Gaza under Palestinian Rule, and later referring to a terrorist group as Hamas Government gives the article too much bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matityahu V (talk • contribs) 12:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You should read WP:NPOV so that you understand what neutral means in Wikipedia. Wikipedia reflects published reliable sources. It's not offensive or radical to comply with mandatory policy. Every editor is obliged to do it regardless of their personal views. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Elections

When is or was the next elections due? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.107.162 (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Israeli genocide in Gaza

Poor grammar and completely biased point of view.

Suggested edit:

New title: 2014 Gaza/Israel conflict

Israel started retaliating against Hamas rocket attacks from Gaza since 8 July 2014. More than 1,000 people have been in the ongoing conflict, most of them civilians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.16.20 (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

There's already a(as of yet empty) section for the 2014 war. This "genocide" thing is not only completely idiotic, it's misplaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.148.236.182 (talk) 02:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Its worth mentioning 0.1 off Gaza Strip Population died in Operation protective Edge and over 0.8 is made wounded.200.48.214.19 (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Controlled by

Currently the infobox says

Controlled by: State of Palestine

That seems to be untrue. Gaza is controlled by Hamas for many years now. Should the infobox be changed? This is not questioning that Gaza is part of Palestine. It is questioning who controls it. It is not controlled by the State of Palestine. --Jersey92 (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest we change the "Membership_type" parameter so it doesn't say "controlled by". The template instructions indicate that field is intended for groups like the EU that have members. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of David Norris

Here is the analysis of David Norris about the conflict, as expressed in a speech at the Senate of Ireland: Video on YouTube. Maybe this could be used a a source for the reactions in other countries?

Sedarr oup gr (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC).

Population density

Apparently BBC's claim regarding population density is not quite accurate. Exact figures show that Gaza strip's density (13000 per sqaure mile)(1.8 mil in 139 sq mi) is less than half of New York City (27700), so it is definitely not one of the most populated parts of the world. Here is a more detailed analysis[28]. Now if we consider Gaza city only (not the entire strip) , it population is 515000 with an area of 17 sq mi. So its density is about 30000 per sq mi, compare that with List of cities proper by population density. So even the city does not make the top 50 in the world. Vekoler (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Read this >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density

This error has been previously discussed and corrected several years ago - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_Strip/Archive_1#One_of_the_most_densely_populated_areas.3F I am removing this misstatement again. Please do not re-introduce this incorrect information. Gaza's population density may be high compared to many other places, but it is objectively NOT "among the most densely populated parts of the world" Yoshm (talk) 12:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Sovereign state/Controlled by

First of all, the Gaza Strip is not a sovereign state. Israel controls its air space, maritime and land borders. Second, the current JPost source used to back the claim that Gaza is somehow part of the "State of Palestine", simply mentions an agreement between Hamas and Fatah which wasn't implemented yet. To say that Gaza is governed by the Palestinian Authority of Fatah/Abbas just because of that agreement is utterly false. On the contrary, Hamas remains as the sole ruler, administrator and authority inside Gaza, at least for now.--190.17.237.182 (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Not in source, Baatarsaikan

You have broken the 1R rule and are obliged to revert.Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Following the takeover of Gaza by Hamas, Israel sealed its border with the territory to limit Palestinian rocket attacks and to prevent Hamas from rearming. One of the sources is Dion Nissenbaum, who says no such thing, but does say:-

drastically reduced the amount of food, fuel and supplies flowing across its border, a major Gazan lifeline to the outside world

In sourcing, the text much faithfully reflect what each source says. I did not object that this is a blog, which anyone with a POV might be entitled to challenge. I wrote according to that source.

Either you remove Nissenbaum as authoritative for that statement, or you add something from him which reflects what he wrote. Stop the nonsense. Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

First, I didn't break 1RR. This (or this) edit is not a revert since I wasn't removing your POV addition, but only adding context and balance per NPOV. I did that precisely to avoid edit-warring. Second, check the sources before changing for even more POV. Middleeastmonitor clearly says: "Israel maintains that the blockade is necessary to prevent rocket attacks on its cities, as the blockade prevents Hamas from obtaining weaponry."--Baatarsaikan (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

In this edit, you used two blogs, one from Nissenbaum and the other from Middle Eastern Monitor to write as follows:-

('Following the takeover of Gaza by Hamas, Israel sealed its border with the territory to limit Palestinian rocket attacks and to prevent Hamas from rearming

The source immediately under this is Nissenbaum who says no such thing, therefore it shouldn't have been introduced for that statement. The other source (Samira Shackle, 'Israel tightens its blockade of Gaza for 'security reasons'.' Monday, 14 October 2013) says

'Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip has been a huge point of contention since it began in 2007. The blockade covers land, sea, and air, and is supported by Egypt, which largely sealed its borders to Gaza after Hamas came to victory in 2006. Israel maintains that the blockade is necessary to prevent rocket attacks on its cities, as the blockade prevents Hamas from obtaining weaponry. Yet critics point out that it is not just military supplies that cannot enter Gaza, but basic construction materials, medical supplies, and food stuffs. The issue came to international attention in 2010, when a flotilla of activists attempted to break the blockade and carry humanitarian aid into Gaza. Nine were killed when the Israeli navy entered the ship.'

The second text gives some support to your statement's wording, but you have twisted it grotesquely.

(a) for 'Egypt, which largely sealed its borders to Gaza after Hamas came to victory in 2006' you write:'Israel sealed its border with the territory,' changing 'Egypt' to Israel.

(b) The second source, like the first, says that the reasons given for the blockage are highly contentious. What you did was ignore the content of the first source, attribute to it what the second source says, and cherrypick the second source to give one side of the two versions provided by both Nissenbaum and Shackle.

Namely in Nissenbaum

Since Hamas took control of Gaza last year, Israel has dramatically reduced the amount of food, fuel and supplies going through its border crossings with Gaza that are the main Palestinian lifeline to the outside world. . Since the Israeli military operation on Nov. 4th, according to humanitarian groups, about 700 truck loads of goods have gone into Gaza. That's what should be going in-and-out on a single day.

and in Shackle

Yet critics point out that it is not just military supplies that cannot enter Gaza, but basic construction materials, medical supplies, and food stuffs. The issue came to international attention in 2010, when a flotilla of activists attempted to break the blockade and carry humanitarian aid into Gaza. Nine were killed when the Israeli navy entered the ship.The incident shone a spotlight onto the harsh blockade of Gaza. At one stage, prohibited materials included coriander, ginger, nutmeg and newspapers. A relaxation of the rules in June 2009 meant that processed hummus was allowed in, but not hummus with extras such as pine nuts or mushrooms. These small details highlight the excessive nature of the restrictions. One of the biggest issues has been building materials. The strict restrictions on goods going into Gaza meant that it was impossible to start reconstruction work after intensive air strikes on the city in December 2008. A leaked UN report in 2009 warned that the blockade was "devastating livelihoods" and causing gradual "de-development". It pointed out that glass was prohibited; it was therefore impossible to repair shattered windows to keep out the winter rain.

What military use coriander, ginger, nutmeg, pine nuts, mushgrooms (and I might add tampons, which were forbidden by Israel at one point) have to do with stopping Hamas from importing armaments, is unclear. Whatever, in both sources both POVs are given, and in your recension, only one side of the reports is provided. Apart from the editorial incompetence in confusing Egypt and Israel (which never 'sealed off' the Strip), you skewed the sources to push a POV, and your partial revert doesn't undo the damage.Nishidani (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware that the blockade is contentious, that's why I added Israel's point of view to counterbalance your previous grotesque POV which says that the blockade makes Gaza the "world's largest prison" (let's remember this is an opinion, not a fact). You are suggesting to add even more anti-Israel statements (as well as deleting the important fact that explains why Israel decided to impose a blockade), which is unacceptable per NPOV. Both points of view should be presented. That's exactly what I did, and I brought several sources to support it. I'll add even more sources to support the obvious fact that Israel imposed the blockade in response to rocket attacks and Hamas' takeover of Gaza. You should come down and accept this compromise, because your POV-pushing sentence shouldn't be in the lead in the first place. I'm only trying to avoid an edit-war. Besides, you know very well that for the last four years the blockade has been greatly lifted, to the point that now it's only a weapons blockade, and even cement is being allowed to enter the Strip, despite the fact that this material has been used for military purposes like the cross-border tunnels.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

My adding a notable point of view about Gaza is not my 'grotesque POV' but registering a fact. The fact is not that Gaza is the 'world's largest prison' but that many view it that way (not 'critics' as is now written: Roger Cohen, who has just walked through it, made the statement as a factual statement, in the New York Times, and his 'liberal Zionist' viewpoint is shared by many observers, not only on the 'left' of the spectrum). Roger Cohen is not Israel, he is stoutly pro-Israel.

If you cannot understand this, edit elsewhere. If you cannot reply adequately to what an editor like myself said about your grotesque confusion of Israel and Egypt, go elsewhere to edit.Nishidani (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This is from one of the sources you added: "At the time the Gaza Strip was under severe economic sanctions and widely viewed within the kingdom as an “open air prison” because Hamas had seized power there. Jordanians may have been willing to assert that Hamas was a legitimate organization because they were appalled by the conditions that had been imposed on Gaza’s population in order to punish Hamas."--Baatarsaikan (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

There are dozens of reliable sources that quote scholars, academics, investigative journalists, government officials etc from many countries around the world who are quoted as saying that Gaza is the world's largest open air prison, due to the Israeli blockade. Even some Israeli figures have said this. It is not 'extreme POV' to include sourced content in the lead section, and in the body of the WP article, to the effect that the strip is considered to be an internment camp because of the blockade/ siege by the Israeli government. IjonTichy (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, French President said "Gaza must neither be an open prison nor a military base". I agree with him. Gaza should be demilitarized and the blockade completely lifted. The problem is that Hamas uses any possible material for military purposes, which for them are more important than the needs of the civilian population it controls. I'm not against including the "prison" view in the lead, as long as there is another sentence to balance it, explaining why Israel imposed the blockade. In any case, I'm satisfied with the current version. It's not perfect or ideal, but I'm willing to reach a compromise.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

That's your personal view, and you (a) are bringing a personal animus to an article which (b) in the leads should not be tampered preemptively by newbies who, notoriously, don't read the page but try to 'fix' the first few paragraphs to get the proper 'spin' on it, particularly when, as here, you make the most elementary confusio0ns between countries and misuse sources.Nishidani (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Gaza Strip

The entry for Gaza Strip is historically inaccurate and biased against Israel . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.8.85 (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This article suggests that Gaza Strip has been under "military occupation" by Israel (1967-1994), Egypt (1948-1967), Great Britain (1918-1948) and Ottoman Empire (until 1918). Why don't we expand the list to cover all "military occupations" in Gaza's history? Ottoman Empire (1516-1918), Mamluks (1277-1516), Mongols (1260-1277), Ayyubids (1187-1260), Knights Templar (1100-1187), Fatimids (909-1100), Tulunids (868-909), *destroyed* (796-868), Umayyads (634-796), Byzantine Empire (330-634), Roman Empire (63BC-330), Nabataeans (ca. 100BC-63BC), Seleucids (ca. 200BC-100BC), Macedonians (332BC-200BC), Persia (ca. 600BC-332BC), Egypt (ca. 700BC-600BC), Assyria (ca. 730BC-700BC), Israel (ca. 1100BC-730BC), Philistines (ca. 1200BC-1100BC), Egypt (ca. 1550BC-1200BC), Canaanites (ca. 2500BC-1550BC) and Egypt (ca. 3300BC-2500BC). That's over 5000 years of military occupation, fascism, racism, imperalism, white privilege and islamophobia for you! Ok, to be serious, this article is catastrophic and totally inaccurate. JJohannes (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi JJohannes, the term "military occupation" means most power was held by a military government, rather than a civil government. So none of the examples you provide would qualify. Please see the wikipedia article on the subject of military occupation for more detail. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Prior to this, Gaza had been subject to military occupation, most recently by Israel (1967–94) and by Egypt (1948–67) (see Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt), and earlier by Great Britain (1918–48) and Turkey when Gaza had been part of the Ottoman Empire.

I have brought the above text here - you raise a good point. It is a very confusing sentence, as the Ottoman control was definitely not "military occupation" (I have never seen a source suggesting this), and the British mandate was a civil government outside of the OETA military occupation period. Without a source and the above corrections, this sentence does not belong in the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)