Talk:Rafah

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)

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)

Wait some years, Gaza have been destroyed before, Huldra (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@Veggies: Giving you a heads-up. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

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)

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. Zero^talk 00:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps the article could then begin "Rafah is a ruined city"? — Zcbeaton (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

User:Richard Nevell please do, Huldra (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

And done. Thank you for the reply, that was a handy reminder. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

 Done Citation tag added for now. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Sourced. Zero^talk 00:39, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

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

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

 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think it should still say is, because it still has the ability to recover. Datawikiperson (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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:

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

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)

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)

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

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:

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

@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)

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..."? Zero^talk 06:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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. Zero^talk 07:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Zero^talk 10:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Alaexis: I've added sources to back it up. -- Veggies (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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". . Zero^talk 04:06, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

It looks like there is a consensus against using the past tense. Alaexis_¿question? 20:17, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

+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)

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)

@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)

Which revision do you have in mind? Alaexis_¿question? 18:54, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

This one is fine. Begin there. -- Veggies (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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

• 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)

This question is under discussion and there is no point in making the request again in the meanwhile. Zero^talk 10:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

 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)

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)

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

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

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

• "

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)

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

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)

The Egyptian uses of the word before Hebrew was a thing clearly shows it is not Hebrew. Zero^talk 03:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

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)

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Wikipedia style and naming When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the lead sentence describe Rafah as "largely destroyed and depopulated"? Buskärs knöte (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@Cinaroot: I suggest you roll back your "compromise edit". There was zero consensus for that change, either. -- Veggies (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep saying "zero consensus" will not lead to consensus. Tell me what’s bothering you with my edit. Then I will consider reverting. Cinaroot (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep saying "zero consensus" will not lead to consensus. Neither will claiming to be "compromise editing" to try to arrive at a version that no one has asked for. Per the discussion above, we arrived at the consensus that the article will be in present tense, but will be described in the lead as destroyed and depopulated. You effectively buried the lead with your edit. That's why I suggest you roll it back. -- Veggies (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

That discussion mainly centers around whether Rafah should be described in the present or past. I have not changed that. Now there is an objection to mentioning that Rafah is largely destroyed and depopulated in the opening sentence. Moving "largely destroyed and depopulated" to the second sentence is a fair compromise. It’s not "effectively buried" - if people cannot read two sentences of this article - then that’s their problem, not Wikipedia’s. My edit also clarifies - how city is destroyed as well Cinaroot (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

All your edit did was make the concise definition in the first sentence (as WP:LEAD advises editors to do) into a more clunky, inefficient form. What, precisely, was the point, and what guidelines are you following? Because it's not WP:LEAD. -- Veggies (talk) 01:19, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

clunky, inefficient ? wp:lede says concise overview of the article's topic - that doesn't mean we must use minimum amount of words. What i wrote is an accurate summary of Rafah#Gaza_war Cinaroot (talk) 08:16, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

clunky, inefficient ? Yes. LEAD has an entire large section for the first sentence: 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. -- Veggies (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

It also says

It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it

There is no context on how Rafah is destroyed or depopulated. The entire lede doesn’t have it. How are user's supposed to understand - how Rafah is destroyed. When was it destroyed? You are selectively using policy to support your version.

My version address this. Cinaroot (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

No. It doesn't. For reasons I've already pointed out and you have dismissed. -- Veggies (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

And you are dismissing the Lede lacks context. So go ahead and propose a text that adds context. As long as you don’t—I’m not interested in further conversation with you. Cinaroot (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

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)

Since there has been no further input for over a month, I am proceeding with the proposed edit. If there are further objections, they can be discussed here. Buskärs knöte (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

There is not even a hint of consensus to change this. -- Veggies (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Your argument is nonsensical. The sentence you want to change is a simple statement of fact. The way to change it is to cite contradictory statements from reliable sources. You don't have such a citation. You do have a lot of convoluted wikilawering that is completely beside the point and waste of everybody's time.t

It also says some negative things about your understanding of events in Gaza, but I should probably not get into that. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Would you object to below lede?

Rafah is a city in the southern Gaza Strip, Palestine, that serves as the capital of the Rafah Governorate. Since the Gaza war it has been largely destroyed and majority of its population forcibly displaced

Above version adds context to how it is largely destroyed or population displaced. I think this is well within WP:LEDE Cinaroot (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

TFT the city is destroyed and depopulated belongs in the lead sentence, because that's the current state of the city. Context belongs in the following sentences. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Cinaroot cannot (or will not) understand what WP:LEAD says for some reason. -- Veggies (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

If you are an expert WP:LEDE, then update the lede to add context. It has been written without context. I updated it, you reverted it. Cinaroot (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

No. You deleted the most important current aspect of Rafah from the first sentence contrary to what WP:LEAD says about the first sentence. That isn't updating to add context. That's burying the lead, then confecting a clunky second sentence in opposition to the guideline and calling it a "compromise edit" that no one asked for. Aside from that, the context is fully given by the fifth sentence in my version because it describes who destroyed it and why. End of story. -- Veggies (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I completely missed that. Apologies - then you are right. Cinaroot (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I think there may be a misunderstanding of my position.

I have never disputed that the statement is factual or well sourced. In fact, the opening post of this discussion explicitly states: "The accuracy of the underlying facts is not in dispute."

My proposal is therefore not based on contradictory sources, but on lead structure. Wikipedia regularly discusses not only what information belongs in an article, but also where it belongs. The question raised in this RfC is whether "largely destroyed" belongs in the defining first sentence of the lead, or whether it would be more appropriate later in the lead. That is why I have based my arguments primarily on WP:LEAD rather than the underlying sourcing. Buskärs knöte (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

OK, we all misunderstood your argument. Which could have been a lot clearer.

The fact remains, your change makes no sense. The current status of the city belongs in the lead sentence. You can cite rules all day, but you're not going to convince people that's not true.

It's past time you accepted that the consensus is against you and moved on. I, for one, am not going to waste any more time on this. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Right, I appreciate the clarification. Could you explain what principle you're relying on when you say that a city's current status belongs specifically in the first sentence? My understanding of WP:LEAD and the Cities guidance is that the first sentence primarily defines what the settlement is and where it is, while major developments are summarized in the following lead sentences. I'm interested in understanding why you think the current status belongs in the defining sentence rather than elsewhere in the lead. Buskärs knöte (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:CITYLEAD makes a strong argument for your case. Maybe you can look at some other cities that were destroyed as part of war and use that as a reference point for this article. Cinaroot (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I did look at several comparable city articles earlier in the discussion, though there wasn't much agreement on how persuasive those examples were. I still think WP:CITYLEAD makes a useful case for structuring the lead, but I appreciate the suggestion. Buskärs knöte (talk) 08:17, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

We have a entire sections in a text sandwich plus a small gallery. Either a formal gallery should be added at the bottom or we're going to have to decide what images to keep and what to remove. -- Veggies (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

i did some cleanup. now it's cleaner and easier to read Astropulse (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2026 (UTC)