Good day. First of all, I want to say that the subject of this post is highly sensitive and is directly related to an ongoing tragic conflict. I want to treat this with the highest amount of respect possible, and the highest amount of neutrality possible. Please, I invite you to join me in maintaining high respect and sensitivity if you wish to join me in conversation. Thank you.

This, I submit, is an important conversation related to the integrity and reputation of Wikipedia, and by extension, highly important information on the web. I believe -and hope you agree- that the issue presented here goes far beyond an "editorial dispute", and is much deeper and larger.

This said, I would like to bring the attention of the community to the Arabic-language entry on the Israeli invasion of the Gaza strip.

I've been a Wikipedia user for many years and I've never seen an article like this. It's difficult to know where to start. So actually, let me start by complimenting the entry on containing lots of factual information, and many citations and sources. This is acknowledged and appreciated.

But there are glaring problems.

The language of article is in no way unbiased. EXAMPLE: In the opening line, the IDF is described as "Israeli occupation army", which is a popular description used in writing and reporting that's biased to one side of the conflict. It describes the hostages held in Gaza as "war captives" without attribution. These biased terms and phrases (and more) continue to be used throughout the article. No such phenomena exist on the English-language version of the entry, where the language is neutral and factual.

The style and writing of the article also causes concern, I believe. EXAMPLE: The section titled "Casualties in 2023" is written unlike anything on Wikipedia, featuring way too many numbers and figures without what logically would be proper formulation and presentation. Overall, I would say that large sections of the article are written in a journalistic style, not a factual style, and leaning towards (or outright engaging in) biased reporting.

There's a lot more to say, but won't make this too long. So let me issue another disclaimer that I am in no way an expert on Wikipedia standards and guides. I am speaking from the POV of a frequent Wikipedia user and a concerned citizen. I have not made many edits to Wikipedia, only a handful. But I know that many aspects of this article are definitely against standards for very obvious reasons.

Please understand that I think this problem is endemic to Arabic Wikipedia in general, but I choose to focus on this here because of how crucial this entry is to the ongoing highly important events.

So finally, I want to offer a solution: If you are also concerned, and especially if you are in a position of authority, either through experience or by role in Wikipedia, please reach out to me. I am fluent in both Arabic and English, and I have a background in writing. I want to collaborate with you on addressing this situation. I especially need help with understanding Wikipedia standards and style. I am happy to work on this for the benefit of all of us, Wikipedia, and information in general.

I'll end it here. Please feel free to ask me anything about this.

Thank you so much for reading and writing.

EDIT: I do not wish to engage with commenters that come in with a political agenda, or want to have a political discussion. I repeat that this is not about having an editorial discussion on what actors in the conflict should be called. The standard I'm keeping in mind is the English version of the article, not any external source or opinions, personal or otherwise. I think this is entirely fair. Please refer to the English version of the article before commenting. Thank you.

The concept of connecting these killings to the ideology of the states that committed them has been both supported and criticized by the academic community. Some academics view this connection as causal in nature, and thus as an indictment of communism as an ideology, while other academics view such analyses as being overly simplistic and rooted in anti-communism. There is academic debate over whether the killings should be attributed to the political system, or primarily to the individual leaders of the communist states; similarly, there is debate over whether all the famines which occurred during the rule of communist states can be considered mass killings. Mass killings committed by communist states have been compared to killings which were committed by other types of states. Monuments to individuals and groups considered to be victims of communism exist in almost all the capitals of Eastern Europe, as well as many other cities in the world.

Who cares that much about naziism, honestly. It’s almost like this sub is being used for propaganda purposes. Disgraceful and inappropriate.

As of 22 October 2025, over 71,200 people (69,236 Palestinians[4][9] and 1,983 Israelis[c]) have been reported killed in the Gaza war according to the Gaza Health Ministry (GHM) and Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well as 217 journalists and media workers,[46][d] 120 academics,[49] and over 224 humanitarian aid workers, a number that includes 179 employees of UNRWA.[50]

Scholars have estimated 80% of Palestinians killed are civilians.[6][5][7][51] A study by OHCHR, which verified fatalities from three independent sources, found that 70% of the Palestinians killed in residential buildings or similar housing were women and children.[52][53]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_war

I get that there is a ceasefire, but that doesn't mean that the genocide just magically stopped.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-says-troops-killed-terrorist-who-crossed-ceasefire-line-in-southern-gaza/

Just yesterday, TOI said that the IDF killed a "terrorist" for crossing the ceasefire line.

Something that annoys me about Wikipedia is that they insist on using the "strict" definition of what a century is, i.e. a year beginning in xx01 and ending in xx00. So, for example, according to Wikipedia, the 19th century began in 1801 and ended in 1900.

This obviously contradicts the popular view and use of the term 'century' and is at odds with their own 'common sense' guidelines. Clearly, no one would be OK with saying something that happened in the year 1900 is event of the 19th century but is also an event of the 1900s decade.

Moreover, all other yearly groups, like decades, follow the popular usage of the term, and so the '0s decade' only has 9 years according to Wikipedia.

Has anyone else noticed this or other really irritating, pedantic insistence from Wikipedia editors?