Jump to content

Talk:Rafah

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opening comment

[edit]

Working on it. waiting for the library to open - can't find anything online. Ridiculous. 80.178.69.175 10:16, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anti-Tank Missiles

[edit]

I made a change from the term "anti-tank missiles" being fired at IDF forces to "RPG" (rocket propelled grenade), which is more accurate. If there is evidence of an anti-tank missiles (missiles are guided, rockets are not), being used, I'd love to hear it because I'd be curious. If so, change back. Terrapin

Rafah and the Rephaim?

[edit]

Could the village of Rafah possible have any connection to the "RAPHA" or "REPHAIM" mentioned in the Bible?

Needs a picture

[edit]

The article needs at least a skyline photo of Rafah, to enrich the article. Once somebody finds and uploads one add it to the infobox. Al Ameer son

I agree, but I removed the photo of the bombed mosque because it was an obvious effort to push POV rather than illustrate the subject Edgespath24 (talk) 12:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We can take it out of the info-box, but sadly, the picture *does* illustrate the subject. Inserting it into the body. Huldra (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only crossing?

[edit]

I see referenes online and at Sufa to the "Sufa crossing" between Israel and the Gaza Strip. Have there been any others since the end of the 1948 war? Have they all since been closed? -- Beland 20:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think this meant to say it's the only crossing between Gaza and Egypt. -- Beland 16:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mosque in Rafah, destroyed during the Gaza War.

[edit]

there is no place for this pic. it will be better to have no pic at all. Nachum (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish we had a better picture, but we don´t. I cannot see that the article would be better without pictures, though. If you find a better picture with a licence which we can use, please upload it. Huldra (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rafiah

[edit]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines: "Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted." Rafiah and the whole Gaza Strip were de facto part of Israel between 1967 and 2005; therefore, according to the guidelines, the Hebrew name is permitted -- especially since the transliteration of the Hebrew name is already there. --My another account (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its not relevant, it was not de facto a part of Israel at any time (occupation is not sovereignty), and ive removed the transliteration to deal with the more pedantic part of your argument. nableezy - 15:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
occupation is not sovereignty -- so what? Dunkirk and Lviv both give a German name in the lead, Daugavpils and Tskhinvali both give a Russian name, Nablus and Hebron both give a Hebrew name, how many more counterexamples do you need? --My another account (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You said it was de facto a part of Israel. The part you quote of my response is in regard to that falsehood. Hebron has a Hebrew speaking population and a Biblical history that warrants the inclusion of Hebrew, Nablus likewise has such a history. Rafah however does not. nableezy - 22:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a couple of older Israeli maps which include Gaza Strip and West Bank as part of Israel, not even showing any border between them. Do you want me to scan them? Or what would you accept as an evidence that Israel had treated these territories as part of the country? --My another account (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lol no need. Israel never ever ever treated the Gaza Strip, or indeed the West Bank with the exception of East Jerusalem, as part of Israel. nableezy - 23:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to back your conjecture with any evidence. I have presented mine. --My another account (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the above, I want to note that many articles about Israeli cities with mainly Jewish population (Eilat, Beersheba, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Tel Aviv, Caesarea, Tiberias, Haifa, Safed, and perhaps others) include the Arabic name in the lead, and take no offense at it. Why should the rules for Palestinian cities be any different? --My another account (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since Arabic is an official language in Israel (together with Hebrew, of course), *all* places -and persons- in Israel should have the names in both Hebrew and Arabic, Huldra (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know about including it for all people, but for places yes, as Huldra mentioned Arabic is an official language of Israel. Hebrew however is not an official language of the Palestinian Authority. nableezy - 23:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@My another account: Regarding the guideline, it allows for an etymology section instead of alternative names in the lead, which this article already has, and then says "Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line." Therefore you were in fact editing against the guideline. You need a better reason for your edit and I don't see one. Zerotalk 23:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A great many articles, including Palestine itself, do have an etymology section and a multitude of alternative names in the lead, so the guideline doesn't seem to reflect the established practice. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). --My another account (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Rafah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rafah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitar

[edit]

https://www.inn.co.il/flashes/969325 2.55.12.247 (talk) 10:53, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from being in Hebrew 2.55.12.247 the report about the IDF spokesman in Arabic's announcement of a tactical truce between 10:00 and 14:00 isn't really relevant to this page. Mcljlm (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2024

[edit]

add to the page Meandmybrix (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: the copyright status of that file seems iffy to me. Either a) it is official and not the uploader's own work, and they have violated copyright by uploading it to commons under CC, b) it is unofficial and their own work, so not encyclopedic, or c) it is official and their own work, which would be pretty strange and I would want to see a source where it is used. If it is their real logo can you give a source? HansVonStuttgart (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ps-rafa.html Meandmybrix (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "State of Palestine"

[edit]

Hi, on 12 February an anonymous / logged-off user removed all four mentions of "State of Palestine" in the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rafah&diff=prev&oldid=1206530279 I believe it should be readded, don't know what you think. 84.109.78.250 (talk) 09:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, fixed, but please format this kind of thing as an edit request next time per WP:MAKINGEREQ because of WP:ARBECR Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive

[edit]

Netanyahu just approved an offensive into Rafah. Refugeee numbers prob need to be updated, current event tag, and section in history is needed soon. IEditPolitics (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two parts, one history (Gaza Strip & Sinai)

[edit]

The article only focuses on the half-town in the Gaza Strip.

Consequences: The Negev history section mentions the Ottoman railway connecting Bir Saba with "the port of Rafah". There is none in this section, maybe in the Egyptian section? Where was the station, in which part, E or W? One cannot wikilink to this article in good faith because of that. Arminden (talk) 12:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Arminden: I don't have full timing information. The north-south line split into two north-east of Rafah and these came together again well south-west of Rafah in Egypt. In 1917 the western part of that was unused. The eastern part had a station (marked as Rafa Station on maps) just over the border in Egypt. The line from Beersheba joined at this station. Zerotalk 12:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 1931 map (cropped) used in the article still shows an old railway track leading north to the coast and bypassing a tiny Rafah from the east. The 1938 map only has the new NE-SW tracks crossing into Egypt toward Qantara, north of Rafah. I can imagine that a pre-WWI line had its terminus on the coast at some new, small landing named after nearby Rafah. Shame that the map is so narrowly cropped.
It also looks as if in 38 Rafah still was more of an admin. centre with a police station and hardly any population. The names of the areas S of it indicate Bedouin tribes; they or part of them probably became sedentary and populated Rafah, similar to what happened at Ottoman Bir Saba (re-est. in 1900). But too much guessing.
Anyway, no Rafah west of the border till - when? 1940s (right after 48)? 1950s? 1960s? What is the story of W Rafah since 1967? Arminden (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the bit of old track shown on the 1931 map is the same as the Rafah-Beersheba track shown on my 1917 map and "Rafah Station" is in the same place. I only see a few scattered buildings on the Egyptian side before the 1960s, but I don't know a good source for the development. Zerotalk 13:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can also see a Tell Rafah on the 1938 map right where the border reaches the shore, maybe E of it by a tiny margin. What is that? Arminden (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on the source, it is either the site of ancient Raphia or the port of Raphia. Zerotalk 14:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Zero0000. I know you're focusing on maps, but when you have the sources handy, maybe you could add the info into the article? Now I checked and there is one mention of the tell, describing it as the landing place (port) of the city, which itself was more inland, like in many other cases. That makes sense, see Gaza with Maiuma and Antedon, Ashdod and Yavne with Ashdod Yam and Yavne Yam (Paralios), and maybe there are more examples. Arminden (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting rpwḥw to rpḥ

[edit]
  • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

In inset, add ", read /rpḥ/," In text, add after Rpwḥw: {{[read only Rpḥ per phonetic group-writing; no meaning supplied but visually ‘at this metaphoric tusk (foreign land)’]}}

  • Why it should be changed:

Gauthier (1926) "overread" the glyphs, whereas Gardiner (1957) provided the proper reading (called group-writing). I added explanatory helping text.

  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

[1]

CMasthay,StL — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarklMasthay (talk • contribs) 14824, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Error in Rafah page * Pppery * it has begun... 18:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Allan Gardiner: Egyptian grammar, ed. 3, London, 1957, 1973 (ed. 1, 1927), Oxford University Press, § 60.
 Not done: I would ask for consensus before making this change, but if another editor wants to make it, feel free. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2024

[edit]

F.f 114.129.4.179 (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 June 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Polyamorph (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– There is a city Rafah in Palestine, but also across the border there is another (kinda) city Rafah in Egypt. Although Rafah, Palestine is more notable currently, both are important cities. Josethewikier (talk) 05:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2024

[edit]

Change Rafah was to Rafah is 2A01:9700:4310:E300:69DF:4B2B:A604:4AFA (talk) 07:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Zerotalk 11:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section: 2023–2024 Israel–Hamas war

[edit]

Should be 2023–2025 Israel–Hamas war. 104.171.53.110 (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rafah was

[edit]

This article should be past tense. It’s all gone. There’s nothing left. 2A00:23CC:F20B:D001:B9B4:9C0F:EE53:8CB3 (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I have time, I will change the article to past tense and designate the city as a ruins with no stable population, per this article (archive link: https://archive.is/KFzPr) JasonMacker (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait some years, Gaza have been destroyed before, Huldra (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Veggies: Giving you a heads-up. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that the article should begin with the words "Rafah was". The city in its previous form no longer exists. If it is rebuilt or in the process of being rebuilt, we can update the article, but it should currently reflect the present-day reality. Haaretz is not the only source for the destruction of Rafah – for example, here is an article published by Prospect on 12 November 2025 which quotes Eyal Weizman, director of Forensic Architecture, as saying: "Rafah doesn't exist." — Zcbeaton (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the past tense. A city of ruins is still a city. It can only be said to have ceased to exist when the state of destruction becomes permanent and no population recovers. Zerotalk 00:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the article could then begin "Rafah is a ruined city"? — Zcbeaton (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a label regularly applied by sources? We've seen plenty of cities ruined by war, but we typically still just call them a city. — Czello (music) 13:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
After a quick search, I can see the phrase "ruined city" has been used to describe Rafah by Reuters (5 Feb 2026) and Le Monde (8 May 2025), and in a letter signed by dozens of British MPs and reported in The Guardian (12 Jul 2025). — Zcbeaton (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Using the past tense when referring to Rafah carries significant political implications. Rafah is an ancient city that has been part of the Gaza Strip and Palestine for millennia, and its population endures. To speak of it in the past tense implies that Israel has successfully completed its ethnic cleansing of the city to facilitate colonization, replicating a pattern seen across Palestine since 1948. Such linguistic choices risk normalizing or becoming complicit in crimes against humanity. ~2026-14611-51 (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

Section order

[edit]

It seems a bit odd to me to have the 'Development' section before 'History' when the former begins in 1906. Would anyone mind if I moved the history section higher so that it comes after the 'Etymology' section? Richard Nevell (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Richard Nevell please do, Huldra (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And done. Thank you for the reply, that was a handy reminder. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 8 February 2026

[edit]

Description of suggested change:

The claim that Rafah was mentioned in an inscription by Seti I in the late bronze age has no citation Diff: Warning Unnamed parameter |1= set to default value. Please change it. Failure to use {{Text diff}} to specify your requested text changes, if not adequately described above, may lead to your request being denied.
~2026-86237-6 (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Citation tag added for now. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced. Zerotalk 00:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2026

[edit]

rafah is a city not was a city pls change it? ~2026-13990-93 (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request.

This would require essentially undoing an edit that would be controversial. diff is where, as far as I can see, the change was made. Slomo666 (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They can't participate in consensus forming discussions. That requires a registered account that has been granted extendedconfirmed. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. What kind of response should I use to (potentially) controversial edit requests when the user is unregistered? Slomo666 (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm not sure either. The options are at Template:EEp. I guess it would need to be something like " Not done: - edit requests need to follow the WP:EDITXY guidelines". That says that they 'are expected to be uncontroversial without requiring further discussion' Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but then I would think that the template I used corresponds to the correct subsection/paragraph of EDITXY.
You are more experienced than I am with this, but in the past I have made edit requests (for pages related to ARBPIA) that weren’t entirely uncontroversial as a registered (but not yet EC) user and that was not treated as a big issue. Usually, the request was either implemented anyways (because I was right) or just closed the way I did here so that EC editors would discuss it.
Anyways, what else would this template (eep|c) option be for?
Slomo666 (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's all a bit fuzzy/subjective, which probably has practical advantages. My 'experience' is no use at all for edit requests. It's true that edit requests sometimes trigger useful discussions by EC editors, but we know that non-EC editors aren't supposed to participate, so I guess they need to know that. I'm always assumed the eep|c option is either a left over from less restrictive times in the PIA topic area or perhaps for other topic areas that have different ECR rules. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should still say is, because it still has the ability to recover. Datawikiperson (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting that such an edit was made, but isn't reverted automatically until a consensus is reached. Is this not somewhat vandalism in a way? There was no consensus for "was" as far as I know-- even back then, it seemed controversial. The original state should be "is" until a consensus is reached, not "was"... Tulikit (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, (that I think it is weird) but I am not going to be bold enough to revert this since a lot of time (and edits) have passed, and it might still be considered the stable/consensus version. A discussion should be had, or EC editors can form consensus through editing. I am curious about it, so I would like to be pinged if such a discussion starts.
Now, @Tulikit, you are not EC and thus not supposed to be discussing this topic, so please do not do so until you gain EC privileges.
Slomo666 (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 4 March 2026

[edit]

I see now that the word "was" is being used everywhere for Palestinian cities. Change it back to "is". Thanks. I don't donate to you guys so you can help systematically erase Palestine and help with retrospective framing of israeli lobbies.

Other cities with the same type of retrospective framing: Beit Hanoun, Al Qarya, Om Al-Nasr.

I won't be leaving this alone, thanks in advance for the changes.


Diff:

−
ORIGINAL_WIKITEXT Rafah (Arabic: رفح Rafaḥ [rafaħ]) is a city in the southern Gaza Strip, Palestine, that served as the capital of the Rafah Governorate. It is located 30 kilometers (19 mi) south-west of Gaza City. In 2017, Rafah had a population of 171,889.[5] Due to the Gaza war, about 1.4 million people from Gaza City and Khan Yunis, about 70% of Gaza's population, were displaced to Rafah, as of February 2024.[6] By April 2025, most of the city is destroyed by means of systematic razing by the Israeli military and the remains fell under Israeli control.[7][8] The same was visible for most of the city.[8] Rafah was the site of the Rafah Border Crossing, the sole crossing between the Gaza Strip and Egypt. Formerly operated by Israeli military forces, control of the crossing was transferred to the Palestinian Authority in September 2005 as part of the larger Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. A European Union commission began monitoring the crossing in November 2005 amid Israeli security concerns, and in April 2006, Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas's Presidential Guard assumed responsibility for the site on the Palestinian Authority side.[69] On the Egyptian side, the responsibility is assumed by the 750 Border Guards as per the agreement signed by Egypt and Israel in November 2005. CHANGED_WIKITEXT Rafah (Arabic: رفح Rafaḥ [rafaħ]) is a city in the southern Gaza Strip, Palestine, that served as the capital of the Rafah Governorate. It is located 30 kilometers (19 mi) south-west of Gaza City. In 2017, Rafah had a population of 171,889.[5] Due to the Gaza war, about 1.4 million people from Gaza City and Khan Yunis, about 70% of Gaza's population, were displaced to Rafah, as of February 2024.[6] By April 2025, most of the city is destroyed by means of systematic razing by the Israeli military and the remains fell under Israeli control.[7][8] The same is visible for most of the city.[8] Rafah is the site of the Rafah Border Crossing, the sole crossing between the Gaza Strip and Egypt. Formerly operated by Israeli military forces, control of the crossing is transferred to the Palestinian Authority in September 2005 as part of the larger Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. A European Union commission began monitoring the crossing in November 2005 amid Israeli security concerns, and in April 2006, Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas's Presidential Guard assumed responsibility for the site on the Palestinian Authority side.[69] On the Egyptian side, the responsibility is assumed by the 750 Border Guards as per the agreement signed by Egypt and Israel in November 2005.
+
This was a test!

~2026-13986-46 (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Already being discussed above. I find it interesting, however, that this is being pitched here as a way to erase Palestine, while other pro-Palestinian voices (many of them external to Wikipedia) actually want the "was" wording to illustrate the devastation of the city. — Czello (music) 16:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
According to our own definition of city: A city is a human settlement of a substantial size. ... has different meanings around the world ... In a narrower sense, a city can be defined as a permanent and densely populated place with administratively defined boundaries whose members work primarily on non-agricultural tasks.
I think contemporary Rafah can be framed as a "city". ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race (talk・contribs) 23:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

collapsed non EC

[edit]

Edit request 6 March 2026

[edit]

Description of suggested change:

Rafah is still the capital of the Rafah Governorate and describing it in the past tense is effectively an act of erasure and bias.

Diff:

−
Rafah was a city in the southern Gaza Strip, Palestine, that served as the capital of the Rafah Governorate.
+
Rafah is a city in the southern Gaza Strip, Palestine, that serves as the capital of the Rafah Governorate.

Bridgess0 (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Bridgess0: Is there something new you want to add to the multiple of identical rejected requests above? -- Veggies (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see multiple rejected requests above. I see disagreements without a consensus. By a pure count, I see more EC-editors for the present tense than for the past tense. (Non-EC editors don't matter.) Of course the counts are not what matters, but the case for past tense looks especially thin to me. It's a pile of rubble therefore it doesn't exist? It doesn't work that way; many cities in history have been piles of rubble from time to time, even repeatedly. If it was half destroyed would we write "Rafah is half a city..."? Zerotalk 06:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see multiple rejected requests above. I do. 1, 2. the case for past tense looks especially thin to me. Based on what, exactly?—your contention above that a (ahem) "city of ruins is still a city"? I'd call that transparently risible. It's a pile of rubble therefore it doesn't exist? It doesn't work that way Of course it does. And "rubble" has nothing to do with it. Königsberg no longer exists even though it isn't rubble. It was eradicated by war and an entirely new city was built on its ruins. The people of Rafah were expelled from the destroyed city—just like the people of Königsberg. -- Veggies (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Non-EC edit requests are irrelevant for consensus. But, since you brought it up, have you noticed that the lead of Königsberg does not describe it as a former city? It calls it "the historic German name of the city that is now modern-day Kaliningrad". That is, same city, different name. And Kaliningrad says it "was founded in 1255". Not in the 1940s? You need a better example. Zerotalk 07:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Non-EC edit requests are irrelevant for consensus. Where did I say they were? That is, same city, different name. That is completely incorrect. A city is not a spot on a map that happens to have a certain population density. That's rather the reason we have separate articles for Königsberg and Kaliningrad or Byzantium, Constantinople, and Istanbul. New Amsterdam is not New York City, though the spot and rudimentary planning survive in many places. Tenochtitlan is not Mexico City. Now, if you're expecting me to divine the future, you'll be rather disappointed. Maybe Rafah will become something else. Bayt Nuba became Mevo Horon. Maybe it'll become Israeli Raphiah. -- Veggies (talk) 08:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Using "was" is clearly a controversial change and I see zero reliable sources supporting it in the article. I believe it should be changed back to the present tense while we discuss it. Alaexis¿question? 10:05, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it should. Regarding the examples, I see "In 1664, the English military seized control over New Amsterdam and renamed it New York" and Constantinople states that Byzantium was renamed Constantinople which was later renamed Istanbul. In both cases (and in the previous two) these are explicitly indicated as name changes, not as one city disappearing and another appearing in the same location. Sometimes, especially if there is a lot to say, we divide articles on locations into separate articles that cover different time periods. That is a wiki-choice we make sometimes and not other times, and not much can be concluded from it. If Rafah is rebuilt and repopulated, we will decide then whether to start a new article. Meanwhile, the status of Rafah is that it is a city in ruins. Zerotalk 10:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaexis: I've added sources to back it up. -- Veggies (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they are sufficient. Titles are not RS (I don't have access to most Haaretz article, do they say explicitly that Rafah does not exist any more?), as to the JP, the article says According to a planning map seen by Reuters, the compound would be built near Rafah on Gaza's southern edge, an area depopulated and demolished by Israeli forces during the war with Hamas. It's improper synthesis to conclude from this that Rafah *was* a city. Alaexis¿question? 12:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Zero & Alaexis that referring to Rafah in its entirety in the past-tense is not only contentious, but a novel reading of existing sources. I also echo Alaexis' comment above regarding the cited JP article not supporting your assertion.
As for the Haartez article, while it does repeatedly use the word "erase"/"erasure" i.e.
"It was against this background that Rafah was erased, joining the eradication in the Morag Corridor – a new corridor north of the city. It now looks as though the IDF is continuing to expand the swath of annihilation northward, toward Khan Yunis."
I don't believe it would be proper to interpret this as explicit support for Rafah's nonexistence, but rather an expression of the level of damage.
Rafah is indeed a city in ruins, but a city in ruins is still a city & we'd need several high quality sources explicitly stating otherwise to justify such an exceptional characterization. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, while there are few standing buildings in Rafah, it is not devoid of Palestinian life. From very recent UN reports, Rafah has one "health service point" and five newly established "displacement sites".[1] [2]. Zerotalk 04:06, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
ukranian cities which were invaded by russia is still mentioned as a city of Ukraine and just because its bombarded that doesnt means that's not a city . Still people roam there , still no international body denied the fact of those cities existence . Wiki shoukd focus on these editors Who're polarising something here and prevent them from editing furthermore ~2026-14741-15 (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually going to change my position, given further analysis of other ruined cities. Wikipedia lists ruined cities in both the present and past tenses. There's no good uniform criteria that I can see. Chichen Itza is described in past tense while Teotihuacan, Göbekli Tepe, and Vilcabamba are described in present tense. Given this disunity, I have to concede that ruined cities can be described in both manners. Therefore, Rafah should be described as a ruined, destroyed, and depopulated city. -- Veggies (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there is a consensus against using the past tense. Alaexis¿question? 20:17, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
+1 @Alaexis: There should've been significant discussion as this was a major change, and as there was contention, it should've gone back to the status quo while it was being discussed. This doesn't even go into the fact that under the Palestinian legal & political system, the city of Rafah still exists. It still has a mayor in Ahmed al-Soufi as recently as February 9, 2026 per this article (in Spanish), and will have elections for the municipality in April per our own article. Rafah is the only class A city in the Rafah Governorate, as detailed by the elections document cited in the aforementioned article (page 24). In addition to the previous evidence, this should be more than enough to revert it back to the present tense. AG202 (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the use of "was" implies that Rafah will not be rebuilt. This change to past tense is a preemptive move that takes side with those who aim to erase presence of Palestinians and speaks against the very practice of Gazans to keep rebuilding since the Nakba. I call upon the community of editors to undo this change as soon as possible, as it presents a precedent that puts the neutrality of the project in question. Fouadas (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaexis: If you're going to close the discussion, I would strongly suggest that you not revert back to a version that deleted RS citations like you did. Rather, you should go back to the last version with full citations and just manually change the tense throughout the article. -- Veggies (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Which revision do you have in mind? Alaexis¿question? 18:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This one is fine. Begin there. -- Veggies (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can we just use "is a destroyed city" or something to that effect? Rafah clearly no longer meaningfully exists as an urban settlement. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]


  • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): Inaccurate
  • Why it should be changed: Rafah is still a city in Palestine
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):[1]

~2026-14407-17 (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This question is under discussion and there is no point in making the request again in the meanwhile. Zerotalk 10:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
exactly.  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before posting an edit request. happy editing, Slomo666 (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Palestinians living in Palestine

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2026

[edit]

It is located 30 kilometers (19 mi) south-west of Gaza City. In 2017, Rafah had a population of 171,889. Sasnoasnimd (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 16:26, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of NPOVN convo

[edit]

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Multiple_social_media_posts_referring_to_past_tense_in_palestinian_cities User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 10:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 March 2026

[edit]

Change had to has. Change was to is. ~2026-15418-58 (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Already being discussed elsewhere. — Czello (music) 21:03, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew name and usage

[edit]
  • "

In English, Rafah (/ˈrɑːfə/ (US) or /ˈræfə/ (UK)), derived from the modern Arabic, is most common, but Rafiah /rəˈfiːə/ (from the modern Hebrew) is also used.[1][2] The form Raphiah /rəˈfaɪə/ (from the ancient Hebrew)[citation needed] is used as well, especially in historical contexts such as the Battle of Raphiah."

  • Please note the sources cited here do not support the text as formulated. Raphiah as a form of the name was used in Ancient Greek before Hebrew. I already removed a references to "ancient Israelites" as there is no evidence for the name's Hebrew form until the Talmud, which was written long afterward. Unfortunately I cannot find any solid sources on the ancient Semitic source for the name (though I suspect its Canaanite given the established habitation history of Gaza and its surroundings). If anyone has any leads please provide them. Tiamut (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tiamut (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This book reference I just added from Simona Rodan notes that the Hebrew name for Rafah is Hazerim or Hazor. And Rafiah is first used in the Aramaic targums of Onkelos, translating that Old Testament name to Rafiah. So the name is clearly not originally Hebrew, as our article suggested, and not ancient Israelite. It is either Canaanite of Philistian, but I still have no source saying that, so included the Greek folkn etymology provided by Rodan. Tiamut (talk) 16:39, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The Egyptian uses of the word before Hebrew was a thing clearly shows it is not Hebrew. Zerotalk 03:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And yet our article, prior to my changes mentioned "ancient Israelites" once and "Hebrew" twice in the etymology section when there is zero connection whatsoever. Several articles on Palestinian towns suffer from this kind of bias and those attempting to correct it using reliable sources are often accused of biased editing because those without knowledge of the subject just see you erasing the same unrelated terms and assume the worst. Oh well. Tiamut (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

'Largely destroyed and depopulated' in the opening line

[edit]

There is a dispute regarding the inclusion of 'largely destroyed and depopulated' in the opening sentence of this article. I removed this phrase and my edit was reverted with the summary that 'there is nothing vague or editorializing about this; the city is both destroyed and depopulated.'

The accuracy of the underlying facts is not in dispute. My position rests on two arguments.

The primary argument is one of WP:LEAD and WP:MOS compliance. The standard format for city articles on Wikipedia is to open with what a city is — its location, status, and defining characteristics. A city's current condition resulting from a recent conflict is not a defining characteristic and does not belong in the opening sentence. As another editor independently noted in a similar edit to this article, the information is already present in the last sentence of the first paragraph, making its inclusion in the opening sentence redundant as well as non-standard. For a concrete comparison, Avdiivka is a city that has been completely flattened in a similarly recent conflict, yet its opening sentence contains no reference to its destruction or depopulation. This is the established Wikipedia standard for city articles and this article should be no exception.

The secondary argument is that the phrase also constitutes a WP:NPOV and WP:WEASEL violation. The word 'largely' is a qualitative and unverifiable hedge — what percentage of destruction constitutes 'largely', and who determines that threshold? These are questions no citation can answer because they are questions of editorial judgment, not verifiability. The phrase 'destroyed and depopulated' in the opening sentence of a city article also carries an editorial weight that goes beyond neutral encyclopedic description, particularly given that no comparable city article uses this construction.

The information about Rafah's current condition is not being removed from the article. It belongs in the body, stated precisely and cited properly, as it already partly is. The dispute is solely about whether it belongs in the opening sentence. Kålrabbis (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

One quick observation is that the statement "This is the established Wikipedia standard for city articles and this article should be no exception." is false and therefore has no utility. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:50, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I shouldn't have stated it as fact without backing it up. To demonstrate rather than assert, here are comparable city articles and their opening sentences:
  • Avdiivka: ...is a city in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  • Bakhmut: ...is a city in eastern Ukraine.
  • Gaza City: ...is a city in the Gaza Strip, Palestine...
  • Khan Yunis: ...is a city in the southern Gaza Strip, Palestine...
All of these cities cover the destruction in the article body, just not in the opening line. That's the standard this article should follow. Kålrabbis (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A sample set is not a standard. A standard would be a rule that requires cross-article consistency in this context. That doesn't exist, so I don't think there is utility in appealing to that. Cross-article consistency doesn't really seem to exist in practice, nor is it required, it's more of an aspiration (for some editors anyway). Even WP:LEAD is only a guideline rather than a mandatory rule. Policy based arguments and referring to guidelines like LEAD is probably a better approach. Either way, it all comes down to finding consensus in the end. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So taking your advice and focusing on policy—WP:LEAD states that 'the emphasis given to each statement in the lead should roughly reflect its relative importance to the topic.' Rafah has thousands of years of history. Its current condition, however significant and well sourced, is a development of the last two years. Placing it in the opening sentence gives it a prominence that doesn't reflect its importance relative to the topic as a whole. That's the core issue—not whether the information belongs in the article, but whether the opening sentence is the appropriate place for it given what WP:LEAD actually requires. Kålrabbis (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What location would give it a prominence that reflects its importance relative to the topic as a whole in your view? There are some dependencies that we need to follow. The 'topic as a whole' = the article body, the lead should summarize the article body and is entirely dependent on its contents. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Out of interest, are there any instances on Wikipedia where we have described a city as something like "destroyed and depopulated"? — Czello (music) 10:11, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yalo and Bayt Nuba are described as depopulated. Soledar, Sokoline, and Marinka, Ukraine are described as destroyed. -- Veggies (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The examples you've raised are worth looking at carefully. Soledar for instance says 'is a destroyed city' in its opening, which I'd also argue isn't ideal per the same guideline. I'm not going to claim those articles are correct just because they exist—if the guideline isn't being followed consistently across Wikipedia that's an argument for fixing it consistently, not for keeping it in this article. Kålrabbis (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
if the guideline isn't being followed... The guideline is being followed. LEAD literally says: "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." Unless you want to genuinely bury the lead, one of the more important contextual definitions about a destroyed city is that it's destroyed. -- Veggies (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEAD does say the first sentence should put the article in context—but it also explicitly says 'do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.' That's exactly my position. The destruction is notable and belongs in the lead—just not crammed into the first sentence when the same guideline tells us to spread important information across the whole lead. Kålrabbis (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. One example would be Warsaw, 'Much of the historic city was destroyed and its diverse population decimated' in the 2nd paragraph. Another Dresden, 'killed approximately 25,000 people, most of whom were civilians, and destroyed the entire city centre', 3rd paragraph. But I'm guessing many people won't like those examples. I don't think they tell me anything useful (i.e. policy/guideline based) for this article. The objective should be to follow WP:LEAD, which amounts to compressing the contents of an article body into a few paragraphs without changing the weighting of things too much. If there is a due weight problem in the article body, it should be addressed there. Generating the lead should be the easy part, in theory, but there seems to be an unhealthy focus on leads in the PIA topic area for obvious reasons. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're actually in more agreement than it seems. If the body of the article gives appropriate weight to the destruction and depopulation of Rafah—which it should and does—then the lead should reflect that weight, just not necessarily in the first sentence. The first sentence is for 'what and where'. The destruction belongs in the following sentences of the lead, which is exactly where it can be given proper weight without making it the very first thing a reader encounters about a city with thousands of years of history. Kålrabbis (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You say that the opening sentence should include a settlement's location, status, and defining characteristics. Is largely destroyed and depopulated not a status?
Some articles on settlements include population in the opening sentence, so noting depopulation would be consistent with that. eg:
  • New York, often called New York City (NYC), is the most populous city in the United States
  • London is the capital and largest city of England and the United Kingdom, with a population of 9.1 million people in 2024.
🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at this more carefully I want to concede part of my original argument—'depopulated' as a descriptor has a reasonable case for inclusion in the first sentence. Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure explicitly lists population as valid first sentence content, and depopulation is directly related to population status. I was wrong to argue against that.
However 'destroyed' is a different matter. The same guideline defines first sentence content as 'context (what and where), total population'—and that's it. Conflict-related physical destruction doesn't fall under any of those categories. Your London and New York examples actually illustrate this distinction well—both reference population, which is stable and defining. Physical destruction from a recent conflict is neither stable nor a defining characteristic of a city in the same way. So my argument now is more precise: 'depopulated' can stay, 'destroyed' is what doesn't belong in the first sentence. Kålrabbis (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Kålrabbis: I don't wish to offend, but did you use an LLM to write your response? 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, none taken. What gave it away? No, I just have the time to dig through stuff and write a lot. Kålrabbis (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There was something in the tone and the use of an unspaced dash which seemed distinctive. 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Kålrabbis: If you were to pick characteristics of your writing that might have appeared to have come from an LLM what would you suggest? 🏰 Richard Nevell (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They might have used any AI grammar checker. It tends to add — I don't think there is a need to focus on LLM use here. Please take it to their talk and refocus the discussion on Rafah. 🐈Cinaroot   03:43, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No. There's definitely a concern to address. Per WP:AITALK: Comments, nominations, and opening statements that are obviously generated (not merely refined) by a large language model or similar AI technology may be struck or collapsed... -- Veggies (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are signs of AI use. But I can’t say for sure if its 100% written by AI. They already denied it. What are you going to do? 🐈Cinaroot   04:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify something first since I think there may be a misunderstanding—my argument has never been about removing this information from the lead as a whole. I'm only arguing that it doesn't belong in the first sentence specifically. I want to make that clear before responding to everyone. Kålrabbis (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Rafīah: Gaza Strip; name, map, geographic coordinates". Geographic.org. Retrieved 11 August 2014.
  2. ^ Zaki, Chehab (2007), Inside Hamas: The Untold Story of Militants, Martyrs and Spies, I.B.Tauris, p. 180, ISBN 978-1-84511-389-6, retrieved 2 September 2015
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rafah&oldid=1357019563"