Talk:Gauze

First discussion on Lokotsch

@GordonGlottal added reduntant links to dictionaries that themselves reference to an already referenced source.

The claim "and no trace of a historical Gazan textile industry has been found." is based on these links.

[10] https://archive.org/details/etymologische00lokoguat/page/54

Lokotsch, Karl (1927). Etymologisches Wörterbuch der Europäischen (Germanischen, Romanischen und Slavischen) Wörter Orientalischen Ursprungs

This is where the claim is stated, that no textile industry has been found. A simple research proves this is false, since Gaza was a port city and an important trade node for cloth.

[4] https://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/gaze

This french dictionary, with "GAZE : Etymologie de GAZE", ultimately referes to the FEW, Französisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, https://lecteur-few.atilf.fr/index.php/page/lire/e/125235

which describes how Deiz supported the claim that the word originated from the port city of Gaza, while Littmann refuted it with, wait for it, "no textile industry has proven to be documented in Gaza". That sounds oddly similar to what Lokotsch claimed. Oh, look what the source is, Lokotsch. @GordonGlottal also ignores the bit where it says: "However this argument against Diez is hardly consclusive since inland products often are named after the port which it is shipped through and traded.

[7] https://books.google.com/books?id=poMYAAAAIAAJ

I don't think @GordonGlottal ever read this, since it refers to Gauze being of Persian origin, not belonging to the Spanish-Arabic dictionary, the origin is unknown and probably arrived through commerce. You can find the pdf here:

https://desocuparlapieza.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/corominas-joan-breve-diccionario-etimolc3b3gico-de-la-lengua-castellana.pdf

[11] https://www.google.com/books/edition/Derivati_da_nomi_geografici_F_L/pJ1xmEtMa8gC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA230&printsec=frontcover

This refers straight to Lokotsch [10], so it's just repeating his words and doesn't add new weight of proof.

I think it's pretty obvious someone is making false claims and creating inaccurate references that doesn't support the claim so it looks well funded, hoping no one will actually read them. Lardglob (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

You say "A simple research proves this is false". Please point me and other editors to any evidence of a historical Gazan textile industry and/or any evidence of gauze being related to Gaza. Thanks! GordonGlottal (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Astonished really. Majdalawi weaving has a whole article. It was part of the Gaza district. Tiamut (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

See also here for a description of how silkworms were imported and silk cloth was made and exported from Gaza. Will be restoring this article to reality shortly. Tiamut (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Have added text based on this source while trying to maintain what sources are already there. But I think it should be cut down and cleaned up further. There are a lot of primary sources cited that are perhaps unnecessary. And too much detail on garzatum. There is really little dispute that gauze comes from Gaza because a fabric exactly like it what produced in Palestine and exported out of gaza and it was also known as 'qazz' based on the Arabic name for the silkworm. Tiamut (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

You say that "fabric exactly like it what produced in Palestine and exported out of gaza". Please point me to any evidence which supports this claim. Recall that gauze/gaz/gaze was first mentioned in the 16th century. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I provided it above and in the edits I made Here it is again. Tiamut (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The only mention of Gaza in that book is In early modern English, the raw type of silk made in Palestine and known as qazz, became known as gauze or Gaza, the name of the Palestinian city; it was a thin, often transparent woven fabric used in clothing, drapery and surgical dressings. This is is an entirely circular citation, because the only evidence for the existence of this silk in Gaza, is the spurious etymological connection between gauze and Gaza. As to the second question, CNRTL has a first French mention in 1461. The OED has a first English mention in 1561. 21:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC) GordonGlottal (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Links: CNRTL, OED. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

You are using primary sources to engage in original research. I am providing reliable secondary sources stating exactly what I am writing. Furthermore, your French source says it is associated with Gaza and only claims the existence of a textile industry is not assured. But I have given you a source that says there was one, and explains exactly how it was developed. Tiamut (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by "primary sources"? Or "original research"? Can you name a primary source I have cited? GordonGlottal (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The only sources you cite are etymological dictionaries, and you conclude a timeline based on them. That is OR. Tiamut (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Etymological dictionaries are not primary sources. I didn't "conclude a timeline", I added claims they make to wikipedia, cited to those sources. That's what we're supposed to do. Please do the same. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Dictionaries can be primary, secondary or tertiary sources depending on how they are used. You are using them to make WP:SYNTH Tiamut (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

For what claim? Thanks. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

You are using the years that dictionaries say the word entered various languages to disregard what the secondary sources say explicitly. That is synth. Urge you to re-read this talk section and look at how you have dismissed the many different sources brought here (not just by me). A review of the article's history also shows you reverting out the edits of others trying to add these reliable secondary sources to the article multiple times. This is not collaborative editing. And it sccounts for the big mess in the citations in the etymology section, some of which I managed to clean up, but there is still more to be done. Tiamut (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Every time I ask you for a specific source or a specific claim, you don't provide it. What "secondary sources" are you talking about? What claim is "synth"? What's the ideal source for the time of entry, if not an etymological dictionary? In what sense is an etymological dictionary a primary source for that information? GordonGlottal (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

No, there is much more mentioned in that source. There is also this source: "Silk weaving and dyeing is often recorded. In fact, we read of entire villages in the south which were engaged in the latter industry. It has been suggested that the existence of densely populated cities—Kurnub, Khalassa, Ruheeba, Isbeita—in the deserts along the southern route from Aqaba to Gaza can be explained in part by their industrial activities, especially the unraveling of raw silk imported from India and the weaving of mixed silk and linen fabrics. Our word “gauze” comes from Gaza which manufactured and dyed silks and cotton."^[2] Tiamut (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Please provide the source that says the word entered English in the 16th century. And how it makes the two secondary sources I provided invalid. Tiamut (talk)

Also, please provide the links to the sources as requested, and here please, for clarity. Tiamut (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Again, this does not mention any evidence at all. The only reason to claim Gaza "manufactured and dyed silks and cotton" is to backfill an explanation for why gauze is formed from "gaza". It is entirely circular to cite "Gaza must have manufactured silks because of the word gauze" as evidence that the gauze is from Gaza. GordonGlottal (talk) 21:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The other source I gave you is a reliable secondary source that explains that silkworms were imported in the Middle Ages and qazz was produced and it cites five other secondary sources for the existence of this textile industry. You are engaging in wp:or to push your point of view. Tiamut (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

What sources are you talking about? You say that "it cites five other secondary sources for the existence of this textile industry". Where does it do that? GordonGlottal (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

"Palestine produced a variety of silk fabrics - including one coarse type of fabric mixed with various types of wool and woven into coats, which became known as qazz silk, and bi-harir - which were exported to Arabia and various Mediterranean and European countries (Gil, N. 1997, Goitein 1983, Lewandowski 2011, Weir 1994)" Tiamut (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

These are not sources about Gaza. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

The very next sentence is about Gaza. Because regardless of whether it was produced there or not, it was exported out of Gaza, like much else that left Palestine at the time. And so it became associated with Gaza because that was the port of export. This happened with wine too. Some of which was produced in Gaza and some of which was produced elsewhere like Yibna. It is not your job to second guess the reliable sources. We report what they say, and if there is a refutation in another secondary sourxe, we report that too. Tiamut (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Regardless, here is another source, from the text by Weir:

"Garment fabrics were woven on simple treadle looms by professional male weavers who worked in a number of towns and small villages, mainly Safad, Nazareth, Nablus, Ramallah, Beit Jala, Bethlehem, Hebron, Gaza and Mejdel. The greatest variety of local fabrics, and the finest, were produced in Gaza, Mejdel and Bethlehem using yarns imported from Egypt, Syria and Britain. Gaza and Mejdel were the largest weaving centres in Palestine. Fifty looms were operating in Gaza before the First World War, and five hundred looms in Mejdel in 1909, of which only two hundred remained only a few years later. Weaving continued in both places, albeit on a smaller scale, through the Mandate period; in 1927 there were 119 weaving establishments (employing 440 people) in the Southern Subdistrict of Palestine, the great majority of which were in Gaza and Mejdel."

Your objection to this reality expressed in multiple secondary sources is unfounded. Tiamut (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

You keep making claims but where are the sources? You say "whether it was produced there or not, it was exported out of Gaza". According to whom?

The second source is entirely about the 20th century (and about "garment fabrics"). I have repeatedly reminded you that gaze/gauze is hundreds of years old. GordonGlottal (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

You keep moving the goalposts. The reliable secondary sources say gauze comes from Gaza, not me. You think they are wrong based on your WP:SYNTH interpretation of what dictionaries say. Regardless, here is urt another source. It explicitly says there was a textile production industry in Gaza from at least the 13th century and that a textile known as gazzatum was produced and this gave its name to gauze. Have also added it to the article.Tiamut (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to keep asking you for sources. There's just no point in giving me your opinions again and again if you can't back them up, it wastes all of our time. If there are no sources, an encyclopedically-minded editor concludes that the claim isn't true, rather than tendentiously editing in the aim of inserting the claim anyway.

I have repeatedly explained that it is circular to point to sources which say "Gaza must have had a textile industry, because of the word gauze" as evidence that gauze is connected to Gaza. You need to read the sources I put on the page with an open mind. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I am giving you sources all the time. You are ignoring them in pursuit of a particular line of thinking centered around gazzatum. Also you did not answer my question here. What makes your cherrypicked dictionary sources from 1901 and 1943 more relevant than the current, well cited definitions in this Silk Textile catalog source? 08:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)Tiamut (talk)

What sources? I'm confused. What does "well cited" mean in that sentence? You haven't posted any sources that include any evidence. They're all superficial claims repeating the same folk etymology. By contrast, the sources I've posted are investigative and discuss the quality of evidence for each claim. GordonGlottal (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Are you not looking at the sources cited in the text I wrote?

English word for "gauze" comes from Gaza, Palestine, which has a long history of textile production.[1][2][3][4] In the Middle Ages, Arab traders imported Asian silkworms (dudat al-qazz) to Palestine, with sericulture undertaken domestically in nearby Ascalon and silk weaving in both it and Gaza itself.[5][6] A particular type of coarse silk fabric that was mixed with wool was alternatively called qazz or bi-harir, and a thin, sometimes almost transparent version of it was used in clothing, drapery and even as medical dressings.[5] Exported from Gaza's port to various destinations in Europe, it also came to be known as qazz or gauze or gaza there.[5]

Please engage with each source. You will see they have been faithfully transcribed. Enough WP:IDNHT please. Tiamut (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

In your opinion, which of these sources includes evidence? Because I have already explained that none of them refer to anything except the etymology itself, which is completely circular. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Its been five days since this request. The text is now quite different (& the sources too). All of them eminently reliable and relevant. Don't understand your engagement style here at all. Tiamut (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Please confirm or this will be removed

The article currently states:

"However, there is no evidence to connect gauze and garzatum,^[1] and a relationship is considered unlikely because gaze and gauze entered lexicons long after garzatum had been abandoned.^[2]"

Do these sources directly support the information stated? I cannot check, but suspect they do not. Please provide the relevant passages. Tiamut (talk) 07:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Sources are the way we conduct this discussion. You don't get to say "I don't do sources, I'm just going to keep removing sourced material and refuse to look them up". I'll copy both out here. The first is Du Cange conjectures that it may have been named from Gaza in Palestine, but there is no evidence for either supposition and the second is In all the above languages, however, it appears a good deal later than the MedLat. word, but there is no doubt that it has been popularly associated with Gaza. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, I have not yet removed a single sourced piece of information, and that info is still in the article at present . It is not me removing info I don't like. Tiamut (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Second, these sources are rather old. A dictionary from 1901? And a book on English Textile Nomenclature from 1943. We can do better than that, no? Is there a newer source saying the same thing? Or has the scholarship outpaced this? Tiamut (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

The current entry for "gauze" at the Silk Heritage Thesaurus says: . From the French "gaze" and the Scottish "gais" "gadza", later in English "gawse" "gause" "gauze". That denomination is derived from the city of Gaza in the Palestinian Gaza Strip. It refers to a thin, transparent fabric of silk, linen or cotton. The areas of corssed warps result in a small and visible openings in the cloth." Helpfully, it also cites its sources:

"BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION Simpson, John; Weiner, Edmund (eds). The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford : Clarendon Press ; Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 1989; [www.oed.com]; Tortora, Phyllis, y Ingrid Johnson. The Fairchild Books Dictionary of Textiles, 2015. Phipps, Elena. Looking at Textiles. A guide to technical terms. Los Angeles: Getty Publications, 2011"

Why would we privilege a dictionary from 1901 and a textile guide from 1943? Tiamut (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I don't want to jump in, but I do think GordonGlottal's reasoning is correct, that your sources are not strong enough to suggest a textile industry in 16th century Gaza without using circular reasoning (by starting from the proposition that gauze and Gaza are etymologically linked). However, it is obviously true that textiles were exported through Gaza - after all, it was for many, many years the only major port in Palestine. It suffices to find a source that shows this directly.

According to Population and Revenue by B. Lewis, Nablus was the center of the textile industry, and it was the only city who had taxes levied on textiles. Safed also had a textile industry, although its textiles were exported through Sidon. However, "The third town of Palestine in which a dye-house is mentioned is Gaza. Both in 1538-9 and 1548-9 a revenue of 2,000 aspers is recorded. At the earlier date it belonged to the Imperial Domain, at the later to the waqf of the Bimaristan of the town. The registers from the second half of the century do not mention the dye-house, though throughout the century there was a special market for spinning and dyeing (suk al-ghazl wa'l-sibagha), suggesting that this trade did not die away" (p. 62). Thus there were textiles being sold in Gaza.

Further evidence shows there was a covered market in which textiles were sold. From Heyd, Ottoman Documents, p. 135:

'You who are the Cadi have sent a letter and have reported that a large group of merchants of Gaza have made the [following] declaration before the court of the sacred law: "Our shops, which we have been occupying for buying and selling our cloth (kumas) and other merchandise in which we deal with the inhabitants of the town of Gaza and other fellahin, are in most parts on the verge of falling into ruin. Hence we have no safe place to put our goods by night and in the daytime. For that reason many of our things get lost and perish, and the Public Revenue also suffers constantly. Since the merchants who sell cloth are altogether not [trading] in safety and security, they have requested My noble firman to the effect that all of them move into the covered market (bezzastan) which has now been built and that no buying and selling is to be [done] outside [it]. I have therefore ordered that such merchants shall buy and sell in the above-mentioned covered market. I have commanded that when [this firman] arrives you shall enjoin such merchants who buy and sell cloth henceforth not to sell outside [but] to sell in the covered market.'

From Mar. 7, 1589.

In Notes and documents from the Turkish archives from the same author, where the revenue for the Gaza dye-house in 1533/9 and 1548/9 are given, and Lewis posits that since it was not included in prior or later registers, that it was established by Jewish immigrants.

I also found clear evidence that in the 11th century, there were textiles coming out of Gaza in some form. From Material for a History of Islamic Textiles up to the Mongol Conquest by R.B. Serjeant: "Usama ibn Munkidh spoke of a 'handsome Gaza saddle (sardj) . . on which my name was written along the border (da'ir) in black. The center of it was quilted (munabbat).'" On the other hand, a small quilted portion of a "Gaza saddle" need not imply a huge center of textile exports. Mzrvtfni (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. There is (more than one source) already presented here and in thr article that explicitly speak of silk weaving in Gaza. Masalha is one here. And in his new book which will be released in summer 2026, there will be an expansion of that section (as noted in the overview here where there is explicit mention of gauze and silk weaving in Asqalan and Gaza. Tiamut (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I've already dealt with this several times. Masalha does not cite any evidence whatsoever other than the etymology itself. Thank you @Mzrvtfni very useful. It's 80 years after "gaze" is first mentioned and would by SYNTH to include directly, but we should moderate the claims by scholars that there was no such industry. GordonGlottal (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Masalha is a historian. And he says there is a silk weaving industry in Gaza/Asqalan. And he connects this to gauze, which he names as qazz:. Why are you ignoring all that? We don't have to engage in any synth. Its all right there. Tiamut (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

He says it because of the etymology! Which is circular, as I and another editor have already explained to you multiple times. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Nope sorry. He is a historian and academic graduate of Hebrew university and SOAS in London. He writes this in a history book. And in new book, as I have already mentioned, he expands the discussion on the silk weaving industry in Ascalon & Gaza (something you have for months denied even existed). You can't keep accusing scholars oland editors of circular reasoning while pushing your original research based on obscure sources and your own connections into this encyclopedia That is not how it works here. Tiamut (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Time to drop this. Two different editors have already repeatedly tried to explain the problem to you. Engage productively please. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

? Have been working very productively with Mzrvtfni's sources (though as a new account, they may not actually be permitted to edit this topic area. All throughout this talk page, there are comments from other editors complaining about your reverts, not mine. Tiamut (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Also while I appreciate the additional sources, there is already another one in the article at present that establishes Gaza as a site of weaving for cotton and silk fabrics in the 11th century that you can see here; ie. Jacoby. What is happening here is that GordonGlottal is trying to disprove a particular etymological explanation centered around gazzatum (while also ignoring the abundant secondary sources already establishing what he is asking for). The sources I provided mostly avoid gazzatum and say the etymology comes from either qazz (raw silk or the particular gauze like fabric produced in Gaza/Asqalan/Majdal) or simply the name gaza because that is where it was produced/exported from. Tiamut (talk) 08:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Outdated & incorrect information in Lokotsch

This has already been discussed by others above, but must be dealth with in order for the article to be further improved. The text by Lokotsch is from 1927 in a German etymological dictionary. It reads:

"702. Ar. (Gazza:

Hebrew '^Azzäh; Greek Vdta, N. pr., name of the southernmost city on the coast of Palestine [cf. ZDPV VII, 1/14]; from this city, gauze, French gaze, 'a transparent, fine fabric', is said to be named. However, since no textile industry has yet been documented here in earlier times, the etymology must be questioned as purely arbitrary; the derivation from kazz [see here No. 1147] is definitely preferable."^[3]

The entry is about Gaza itself, not gauze. Though it mentions gauze as being thought to come from the city's name, Lokotsch disputes this by saying "no textile industry has yet been documented here in earlier times", suggesting instead it comes from kazz. Under the entry for kazz, he writes:

"Ar. kazz:

'Rob silk, flock silk' [from Persian käz, gäz ZDMG L, 640]; from this Spanish gasa 'transparent fine linen or silk

fabric', French gaze, German Gaze 'that', Romanian hasa [via the Tk.] 'calico'. — [For the older etymology, see here No. 702, and also ML 3710]. — MWiD 94."

There are several problems with this source. First it is from 1927 and we have more current etymological sources. Second Lokotsch is not an expert in the textile history of Gaza, as he apparently does not know of the city's long history of textile production, as established in sources recently added to our article. Nevertheless, he does agree with some of the contemporary sources that attribute gauze to kazz/qazz, the Arabic (& Persian) words for silk (& for the name of the fabric produced in Gaza/Asqalan that was in fact gauze). So he can be used to note the etymology of kazz, but his uninformed opinion outpaced by later scholarship on the textile industry in Gaza should be enitrely disregarded. Tiamut (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Just to further explain too, the Arabic word qazz itself comes from the Middle Persian equivalent, which is more often ttanscribed as kaz in its new Persian usage. For the purposes of this article, the etymology of qazz itself is rather irrelevant, particularly since we have Masalha saying explocitly that qazz was one of two names for the fabric gauze produced in Gaza/Asqalan, along with bi-harir (meaning "in silk"). Tiamut (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I have no problem with using more recent sources instead, but you have to explain what that they know that Lokotsch didn't. It is not true that he is less expert. In fact, he actually deals with the evidence, which none of your sources do. If he was "uninformed" and has been "outpaced", then what is the new information he was lacking? You should be able to answer if it exists. I also included several other more recent sources which repeat the claim, as you know. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

All of this has already been explained several times. See also Talk:Gauze#First Discussion on Lokotsch. Also Masalha and Jacoby are reliable sources. Tiamut (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Gazzatum is obviously unrelated to gauze. Interestingly, I am still unconvinced that it comes from “Gaza” and not Arabic “qazz,” but I guess it’s possible. The thing is, at the time of the 16th century, all of Egypt and most of Syria already pronounced the letter ق as a glottal stop. If it was imported from, say, Egypt, the French would’ve called it "aze." Gaza and Antioch are the only major ports in the eastern Mediterranean that rendered it as [g]. So it is indeed possible that even if it’s not derived from “Gaza,” it’s associated with it. Of course, this doesn’t prove anything, but it’s food for thought, and maybe will point to other sources. Mzrvtfni (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

If you have something to add about gazzatum and how to deal with it in the article, there is a section below to discuss that. Feel it is taking up inordinate space in this article when it probably has nothing to do with gauze the fabric discussed.

As for your thought about the pronunciation, I was thinking the same myself. Q to G is a dialectal feature of speech in Gaza (& the Naqab) and a clue to qazz being exported from there. But this is OR speculation (and we don't actually need it because we have a source making all the connections between Gaza, qazz, its production & export (ie. Masalha). All we have to do is report that.

One good thing though to come from this stubborn insistence on proving the existence of a textile industry in Gaza is that I have discovered several references to one throughout history.While not relevant to a page on Gauze, they are relevant to the History of gaza and I am adding some there. Tiamut (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Frankly, none of the sources I consulted from subject matter experts seemed to mention gauze. I think the "qazz" and "Gaza" theories should be given equal weight in the etymology section, since I have yet to see a convincing source that argues for (and not just claims) only one. The books you keep on citing pretty obviously do not use the primary sources (if they did, we'd be able to trace it down), so I'm not sure where they are getting the information. Mzrvtfni (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The current phrasing I added says the word comes from Gaza, or the qazz produced/exported from there. That is an accurate reflection of what the sources say. Tiamut (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

There are several in the first paragraph of the etymology section saying clearly it comes from gaza or qazz which was produced/exported from gaza. Masalha explains the name of the gauze produced in Gaza was qazz or bi-harir. Its not our job actually to track down primary sources. We report what the reliable sources say. We can move the sources saying it is from qazz generally meaning raw silk alone to the first paragraph (they are currently at the bottom). That will faithfully reflect the majority opinion of the sources we have. In the sumner of 2026, Masalha's new book with an expanded section on silk production in Gaza and Asqalan/Majdal will be released. I hope it will have more detailed information to add & suspect it will make a link to Majdalawi weaving because Ascalon was destroyed in 1270 and Majdal established further inland and it is a town famous for its weaving industry. Its also probably some of the weavers moved to nearby Gaza. The subject of silk production in the Mamluk era is still being written (as noted by Jacoby in several other papers he authored. We are not aupposed to write this history ourselves. Only note what the current scholarship says. Tiamut (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Think this passage from another editor further up the page is important and useful:

This french dictionary, with "GAZE : Etymologie de GAZE", ultimately referes to the FEW, Französisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, https://lecteur-few.atilf.fr/index.php/page/lire/e/125235 which describes how Deiz supported the claim that the word originated from the port city of Gaza, while Littmann refuted it with, wait for it, "no textile industry has proven to be documented in Gaza". That sounds oddly similar to what Lokotsch claimed. Oh, look what the source is, Lokotsch. @GordonGlottal also ignores the bit where it says: "However this argument against Diez is hardly consclusive since inland products often are named after the port which it is shipped through and traded.

Tiamut (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

FEW made the same conclusion I did, though. "Daher muss vorläufig die Entscheidung zwischen den beiden Vorschlägen noch offen gelassen werden."

It is the most respected French etymological dictionary. Mzrvtfni (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

None of this "scholarship" is on the textile industry/exports of Gaza contemporary to the time the word was borrowed - i.e. the 15th to 16th century. They are books about other topics that mention this in passing. It is not our job to trace/synthesize the primary sources, but it is necessary to make sure the scholarship used on the page actually uses these sources rather than reporting a folk etymology as a curio.

Does one of the books you have include info about the textile industry/exports of Gaza in the 15th to 16th century? Bernard Lewis's book was the only one I could find that does. Mzrvtfni (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Its common knowledge that Gaza is heavily developed during the Mamluk era and a primary port for exports, including textiles. But here is a source from the Head of History and Archaeology department of the Islamic University in Gaza. Note he mentions the textile industry three times and cites it once to Idrisi. Tiamut (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Going to stress again though, our role here is to report what the reliable sources say. And the vast majority say that the word gauze comes from Gaza, either from the name of the city or the qazz it produced/exported from there. That is what I added to the article. There are other things in there now that are poorly sourced, phrased, and undue. To improve the article, we need to deal with them. Not search for lengthy exposition on the Gaza textile trade in the 16th century. Tiamut (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

If the most reliable RS on French etymology, FEW, says it's inconclusive, then it should be treated as such. Regardless of if some pop history books assert confidently that it's derived from Gaza. If there was some smoking gun/primary source that obviously connected "gaze" to "Gaza," I would have seen it already, which tells me these 'reliable sources' are taking a shot in the dark. That is why the other theories must be given equal weight.

I think I said already, there is a chance that the fabric did come from Gaza but the word is still derived from "qazz." Mzrvtfni (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

There is no doubt the word comes from Arabic, either qazz or gaza. Most reputable etymological, historical and textile specialist sources say both. That is what the material I added says. I can make it more explicit. It would help if anyone would give feedback in about what sources in particular say it comes from Persian/Arabic qazz in the section on that below. Was waiting for feedback there before editing that info in to the beginning of the lead. Tiamut (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Not cited to Idrisi. It's cited to this book: https://archive.org/details/1999-it7af_ala3izza1-altabbaa

It does look like a scholarly work, but it doesn't even have a page 67. Maybe you can figure out what's going on. Mzrvtfni (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry. I thought the sources at the end of the paper (one number 14) were the footnotes. It does have a page 67. Its a listing of the sources for a mega historical work by Shaykh Othman al-Tabaa, a well known local historian in Gaza, whose own work covered the Mamluk era as well. However, as you said, its a scholarly work, from a head of the Archaeology and History Department in Gaza. He is saying those works speak of a textile industry in Gaza during the Mamluk period that exported. That's enough to put the claim there was none to rest. We are not independent researchers writing PhD theses. We just report what the reliable sources say. Tiamut (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

It clearly does not have a page 67. You are looking at the forward, which has its own page numberings. The real page 67 is on the left side of this: https://archive.org/details/1999-it7af_ala3izza1-altabbaa/page/n193/mode/2up Mzrvtfni (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

So its probably referring to an edition that is paged differently than this one. The introduction mentions there are different editions. Not going to search for needles in haystacks. The professor eho wrote the paper says there is a textile trade and export in Gaza during the Mamluk period. Multiple other sources say Gaza's port was exporting all kinds of goods in that time too, it was a regional center. Multiple other sources also mention textile production in Gaza in the Iron Age, early Roman era, during Fatimid rule. Ascalon and later Al-Majdal alao produced textiles. Gaxa still produced textiles in the Ottoman era and up to 2023. There are no extraordinary claims being made here. Tatreez exists. Textile production is an ancient Palestinian household craft. Its ridiculous this has been denied here by Gordon for so long.Tiamut (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Just making sure you understand that it's basically a coincidence that the two etymons scholars have considered based on phonetic similarity (qazz, Gaza) are both Arabic. There's no general reason to think that it comes from Arabic per se. Anyway the ridiculous number of typos in that article doesn't exactly inspire confidence, but so far as I can tell it also doesn't mention gauze at all. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't mention gauze, no. And I have no problem removing it. It was provided because you have repeatedly insisted the existence of a 16th century textile trade in Gaza be proven. Even though there is already a historian telling us it does and that is produced a type of gauze fabric called qazz (Masalha). I will remove it now in fact. I should not have bothered catering to these requests, because this is exactly how WP:OR gets introduced into articles. The historical and etymological sources are clear. Whether or not the cloth was produced in Gaza itself is actually irrelevant because it was exported from there. And I encourage you to review List of English words of Arabic origin. Textile words are well represented precisely because of the many fabrics that were made and exported from the Arab world. You have been denying this history for months now, and reverting all editors who have tried to reintroduce it to the article (it was in fact there before you began removing it). Tiamut (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

You really need to stop pretending that Masalha is a real source. You know perfectly well that both I and another editor have repeatedly told you it isn't. Come on. And I'm not the one doing OR—you keep trying to use sources that don't mention gauze!! GordonGlottal (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Masalaha explicitly mentions gauze, qazz and gaza. And he is a historian, graduate of Western academic institutions no less, with a Phd. More than a reliable source for our purposes. And there is no OR involved in using him at all. Tiamut (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Gazzatum/garzatum is perhaps referring to another fabric altogether

None of the modern etymological sources that provide an coherent etymology for gauze mention gazzatum/garzatum, instead saying it the name comes from either qazz or Gaza' itself. And the descriptions of the fabric gazzatum/garzatum and its uses seem be discussing a very fine luxurious silk fabric devoid of wool. Recommend that we remove this entire discussion about it from this article as it actually has very little to do with medical gauze, which is the focus of this article. Unless we want to start a subsection on Gauze (attribute) that discusses fabrics described as gauze, like chiffon, etc. Tiamut (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

As i suspected, gazzatum is described as a "black brocade" material in the 1279 decree of Baden: "We decree that all in the Monastery, or in the Canonical Regular, shall be clothed in one and the same vestment without distinction: expressly forbidding that any of them should presume to have any vestments of any color, except only white, or black, or gray, among which we forbid all to wear black brocade, Gazzata, and any other cloth of a notably delicate nature." Tiamut (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

This is not correct. Please actually read the sources I posted. There is no word "gazzatum", it is a 1678 emendation or typo from garzatum, a common Late Latin word related to Italian verb garzato, meaning to full or nap cloth. It has nothing to do with Gaza. "Garzatum" and "brunetam nigram" are listed separately in the 1279 document, they are not the same thing. Again, all this was perfectly clear on the page before you started messing with it.GordonGlottal (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Have not touched the section on gazzatum yet and it reads exactly as it did before I began editing. So I did not mess up anything actually. Only added reliably sourced scholarly and contemporary material. Tiamut (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Looking at old versions of the page, I found this passage you wrote:

According to Leif Wilhelmsen and James Murray, the words gaze and gauze are probably not related to garzatum anyway, because they first appeared long after garzatum had fallen out of use.^[2][1]

So again, I am wondering what the relevance of the entire garzatum/gazzatum section is to this page? None of the sources I have added to support the new text that establishes its etymology use it. I think the whole thing should be removed, as its merely a distraction from the actual subject of the page. Tiamut (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The whole point of garzatum is that Cange erroneously believed it to be related to Gaza and gauze - and thus "corrected" it to gazzatum, when in fact it concerns neither topic (garzatum is derived from an Italian word). It doesn't have to be in the article, but it is still relevant and useful information. Mzrvtfni (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Its the longest paragraph in the etymology section right now. There are hardly any sources that discuss it. Its WP:UNDUE.Tiamut (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Note that the new source on textiles lists gauze &gazzatum as a separate entries. See here. Tiamut (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

The reason that I added it is simple. Popular works very often make claims about gauze that ultimately trace to Du Cange's conflation of "gaze" and "garzatum", but this is a difficult mistake to untangle. The paragraph is somewhat long and detailed to save other researchers from replicating my effort. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

You are admitting you engaged in WP:OR. The passage should be deleted. Its not the subject of scholarly works. Its your own original research based on a handful of random references. That is the opposite of how we write articles here. Tiamut (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Again, what are you talking about? What is OR? This is the same section you're accusing me of having removed above BTW. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Please review the material in the removed section below. Explain how it is relevant to the current article content and what you would like to retain if anything and why, so we can move forward. Tiamut (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Have removed the entire gazzatum section. Posting it here in case there are any useful sources related to Gauze that people want to incorporate:

In 1678, the lexicographer Charles Du Cange suggested a medieval European ancestor for gaze (and therefore, for gauze). The 1279 Council of Buda banned clergy from wearing "black burnet, garzatum, and all other fine cloths",^[4] and the term garças is known in Italian texts from c. 1250.^[5][6] However, there is no evidence to connect gauze and garzatum,^[1] and a relationship is considered unlikely because gaze and gauze entered lexicons long after garzatum had been abandoned.^[2] Modern scholars derive garzatum from Italian garzare, and describe it as a napped^[7][8] or carded cloth.^[9] Indeed, the 1525 municipal code of Belluno equates pano garzato with pannum garzatum,^[10][9] garza is reused in modern Italian to represent gauze.^[11] Du Cange further suggested that garzatum itself derived from the city of place name Gaza (Arabic: غزة ghazza), emending it to gazzatum.^[12][13]

Just looking further into the whole garzatum/gazzatum issue (as a hobby really) ... where is the source that says explicitly that Cange incorrectly transcribed/changed it? Also, looking at text you linked for the Baden declaration it has several typographical errors (using f instead of s sometimes for eg) and it lacks a comma between "brunetam nigtram" & "garzatum" indicating the former are indeed color adjectives for it. Tiamut (talk) 13:50, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

using f instead of s sometimes for eg

That's a Long S. The text is definitely correct.

The glottal guy said it's explicitly stated in Lexicon mediae et infimae latinitatis Polonorum. Vol. 4 p. 497. No idea how they accessed this obscure book, though. Mzrvtfni (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

The text is correct. If you don't want to look up sources (though, again, I don't really know what you're doing here if so) you can just search "gazzatum" on GBooks and see that it has never, ever been used except by lexicographers citing Du Cange. There are no actual uses. "Garzatum" by contrast, is a real word that appears all over the place in pre-modern Latin documents. There are typos in every book, and editions of foreign language texts suffer especially, but I assume that "using f instead of s" refers to Long S. With regard to "lacks a comma", there is no need for a comma because there is no ambiguity in Latin. But you can see a comma in other editions if you really want, just search online. Here's an example. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter because none of the reliable sources used in the article mention gazzatum anyway. I was just curious. Tiamut (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be easier if you provide a direct quote of whatever Lexicon mediae et infimae latinitatis Polonorum has to say on the matter. Mzrvtfni (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Which one of these sources supports the sentence written?

"Most scholars trace gauze to a Persian word for thin cloth or an Arabic word for raw silk."^{[14][15][3][16][17][18]} Tiamut (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, why are we including these fringe ideas sourced to two dictionaries from 1904 and 1907?: "Other scholars trace the word gauze to a Norman word for a fine-leafed plant^[19] or a Hindi word for coarse cloth.^[20] It may be related to gossamer, which is known from Chaucer in the 14th century.^[20]" Tiamut (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The third is absurd and should be removed. I guess the first two are fine. Mzrvtfni (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Think they should all be removed. I don't see any modern sources proposing any of those etymologies.

Can you help parse which citations support the sentence about Persian thin cloth and Arabic raw silk? Want to remove irrelevancies. Understand though if you are uninterested. Your first comment here indicated you are not really invested in this subject. Tiamut (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

First of all, gazzatum doesn't exist. Second of all, there is no "outdated" source in this subject. It's not like there's some new information about the etymology of gauze that's come out in the last 100 years. Mzrvtfni (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Gazzatum doesn't exist, so half of this article's etymology section is devoted to discussing it. And there is no serious body if scholarship on it or any if the points put forward in our article. A singularly undue and WP:OR piece of work that has been up for months. Going to remove it now. The only information on gazzatum/garzatum on the web comes from this article. Tiamut (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

While looking for more info on gazi, found an excellent reliable source to use in this article. It distinguishes between gauze & gazzatum by the way, attributing both to Gaza. It also clarifies that gazi is a completely different cloth. See here. This erroneous, outdated info in our article about gazi should definitely be removed. Tiamut (talk)

Still waiting for someone to explain which sources support the sentence at the top of this subsection. The sentence and its sources should all be removed in my opinion, as this is just about qazz which is already covered as one of the two main etymological sources for gauze in the two paragraphs I have added above it. Tiamut (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Both Mzrvtfni and I have now repeatedly explained to you that there is no new information, and the theoretically "updated" sources you keep trying to use are less informed, not more. It's time to stop wasting our time please. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry but you are evading the direct question regarding this sentence and the sources it cites (& the fact that it is referring to qazz which is now very well explained in the material and sources I added. Please stop trying to evade the content questions by casting aspersions. Tiamut (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. There are 6 sources cited there. Did you look them up? GordonGlottal (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I asked you to provide the excerpts that support the sentence written. You didn't. The sentence is referencing qazz/kaz anyway. And its covered already in the sources now there. So if you have nothing new to add from them, they aren't needed. Tiamut (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Given the lack of response to the content/citation questions raised and the fact that the same general idea is explained more clearly now elsewhere in that section, I have removed the sentence and sources above in this edit. Tiamut (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Removed sentence and footnote per objection to its being synth

This is sentence:
"Etymological dictionaries remain nearly unanimous in assigning the origins of the word to a medieval Arabic source somehow."
I included it to conclude the etymology section in a way that expresses that the mainstream scholarly and popular view is heavily weighted for several centuries now to a gaza or qazz origin. But welcome feedback on how/whether to express that.
And here is the footnote (taken from another page here, as stated above. It contains much useful info but because of concerns raised about synth, am open to reworking it or extracting what is directly relevant):
"Excepting small quantities, silk was not produced in Latin Europe until the 14th century. Instead almost all the silk fabric of the medieval Latins was imported from Byzantine and Arabic lands, pre-14th century; and importing continued in the 14th and 15th centuries – "Silk in the Medieval World" by Anna Muthesius in The Cambridge History of Western Textiles (year 2003). Hence multiple mercantile routes existed by which an Arabic word for silk could have entered Western languages. A change from 'q' to 'g' in going from Arabic qazz to a Western gazz has parallels in other Arabic loanwords in the West, which are noted by Dozy year 1869 page 15, Devic year 1876 page 123, and Lammens year 1890 page xxvii - xxviii. In medieval Arabic there was also الخزّ al-khazz = "silk fabric; half-silk fabric; fine fabric" and it was a commonly used word – الخزّ @ Baheth.info, الخزّ @ AlWaraq.net, Lane's Lexicon page 731 – and an Arabic 'kh' converted to a medieval Latin 'g' has parallels in Algorithm, Magazine, and Galingale. As a separate idea, some of today's dictionaries report that the late medieval French name gaze originated from the name of the Middle Eastern coastal town Gaza. This is an old idea which can be found in Gilles Ménage's Dictionnaire Étymologique year 1694."

It's just extraordinarily confusing why you insist on editing this page and apparently devote serious amounts of time to it, but refuse to read any of the sources cited. The idea that gaze is Gaza comes from Du Cange, Ménage is only copying him. Why are you trying to insert this amateur OR which conflicts with the actual sources? What is the purpose? GordonGlottal (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I am fine with leaving it out completely actually. What is there now is great. Tiamut (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)