Wikipedia

Talk:Second Intifada/Archive 9

< Talk:Second Intifada
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Nableezy in topic No Correct information
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

FUR for Ramallah lynch photo

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have submitted a Fair Use rationale in connection with this photo[1]. Placing the photo at the appropriate section makes sense and is illustrative of the event. This source brought to my attention by Sean.hoyland notes the iconic nature of the incident and also notes the image of the bloodied hands. In light of the Fair Use rationale that includes a source, I’m restoring the image.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Combatant vs civilian casualties

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I have found this source that specifically states that Palestinian fatalities have consisted of more combatants than noncombatants. There is however, one slight problem. The ICT study was completed in 2003 and covers the period of September 2000 through September 2002. The Wikipedia article notes that the Intifada ended in 2005 with the qualification of "unclear" adjacent to the date. Presumably, the "unclear" means that we're not entirely certain when hostilities actually ceased and when the war was "officially" over. Given that there is little else to go on, and the ICT study seems exhaustive and verifiable, does anyone have objection to its usage as a source in the article in connection with combatant-civilian ratios?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

A possible solution would be to indicate the time period covered in the footnote. The time period is actually noted in the title of the article. I also have no problem with attribution.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
  Done With attribution and the time period covered.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's far too many external links on this page, some of which may be useful and some of which may be inappropriately POV. I'm not sure which to keep or which to integrate so I've moved them to this talk page for people more familiar with the topic to sort through. If others disagree with this removal, feel free to re-add the links but please consider the advice at Wikipedia:External links. Otherwise, re-add the {{External links}} tag but with an updated date parameter. ClaretAsh 13:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-characterized
Pro-Palestinian
Pro-Israel

recent addition to overview section

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Palestinian attacks and bombings primarily targeted civilians, and most of the Israeli casualties were non-combatant.[1] While it is in debate as to the number of Palestinian civiliants killed, it is generally agreed that the majority of Palestinian casualties were combatant.[2][3]

References

  1. ^ [http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Palestinian+terror+since+2000/Victims+of+Palestinian+Violence+and+Terrorism+sinc.htm
  2. ^ Don Radlauer (November 29, 2002). "An Engineered Tragedy – Statistical Analysis of Casualties in the Palestinian – Israeli Conflict, September 2000 – September 2002". International Institute for Counter-Terrorism.
  3. ^ "Statistics:Fatalities". B'Tselem. 31 October 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-29.

First off, Israel is one of the parties to the conflict, so just to use the Israeli government website as a citation for fact in the wiki voice without mentioning the Palestinian POV or the opinion of third party RS is inherently problematic per NPOV. Secondly the B'tselem cited source, far from verifying the statements, directly contradicts both of them. The figures show that equal numbers of Israeli security personnel and civilians were killed (contradicting the first statement), and that more Palestinian civilians were killed than combatants, (contradicting the second statement). Dlv999 (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, revisiting this page and I see it is unrecognizable. 4 photos suggesting Palestinians are terrorists at the top of the page, and an absurd addition to the lead. The Israeli government source stating that the majority of Palestinian casualties were combatant is misleading, since pro-Israeli sources
  • (a) tend to classify the dead and wounded as combatant
  • (b) the statistics don't reflect that. During the second intifada, according to one statistic, 882 Palestinian children, as opposed to 124 Israeli children, were killed.
  • (c)It ignores a time-line and cause and effect. It is true that after 5 months, some Palestinian groups developed suicide attacks against civilians, and that accounted for the majority of their casualties. It is also true that at the outset of the intifada, before any Israeli had been shot, for a whole week a million rounds were shot at mainly protesters, and 1850 odd Palestinians were wounded or killed, with no Israeli casualities. Such was the intensity of the sheer firepower unleashed by Israeli gunships that Chirac notoriously protested to Ehud Barak at the use of helicopter gunships to quell a predominantly unarmed protest.
You need a very neutral source, that is not associated with the Israeli or PNA authorities, nor with defence institutes or anti-'terrorism' institutes, for a statement of the kind 'Palestinian attacks and bombings primarily targeted civilians'.Nishidani (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Nishidani, I agree that the one particular opinion about casualties that has been inserted into the lead is problematic per NPOV. It should either be removed from the lead, or balanced with all the significant opinions on the issue. Dlv999 (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
We have to be very careful. Scholars like Juliana Ochs Security and Suspicion: An Ethnography of Everyday Life in Israel University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011 pp.6ff. give a good preliminary analysis of the 'ethnic inflection' of Isrfaeli-Hebrew discourse on 'terrorists'. The IDF can shoot, as a state army, at will, whereas any retaliation by 'militants' is terroristic, etc. In wiki's NPOV voice, one must take care to avoid being caught up in the tendentious jargon of even good sources.Nishidani (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Nishidani, the IDF targets militiants. They do not indiscriminately kill civilians, as Palestinian terrorists do. The most deadly attacks on Israelis took place in locations such as restaurants and buses and hotels. The number of Israeli civilians killed is more than twice that of the number of soldiers killed (and this according to the B'tselem, by the way). As another person already pointed out, if you are going to discredit MFA, which is used on numerous other Wikipedia pages, you may as well discount HRW, Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, B'tselem, and several other sources. The MFA link is a list of casualties, military and civilian, that briefly describes when, where, and how each incident occured. One of the sources used to point out the higher number of combatants than non-combatants on the Palestinian side is used elsewhere on this same page, and it is apparently considered reliable there.
Perhaps to make the text more unbiased, it can be worded more along the lines of "according to such and such..." rather than simply stating it as fact. Add another oppinion on the combatant vs non-combatant casualties for Palestinians, and simply state that Israeli deaths were mostly civilian, leaving out the "primarily targeted" part. --96.60.170.188 (talk) 03:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Reliable history, nowhere, is written by repeating government memes on official press handouts, or what institutions with close collaboration with any state conclude. You're taught that in the first semester of any undergraduate course in historiography. The IDF, according to many sources, only a few of which I added, in the first week fired without discrimination on civilians. It did at the mosque, as it does at Bi'lin every other week. These things are thoroughly documented. Analysts say that the suicide tactics, against Israeli civilians, followed that, in the mad logic of 'you shoot ours, we'll kill yours'.
As to the MFA, I may trust it for numbers killed, but certainly no government source in a conflict like this is reliable for the breakdown into 'militants' and 'civilians', as they have a vested interest in classifying their 'kills' as primarily aimed at militants. We learnt that in Vietnam ('body counts'), we learnt it in Iraq, and we learn in in Afganistan.
The NGOs have a much better track record than governments. Some of those you mention are criticized by both parties to the dispute, unlike government sources, which are challenged only by their adversaries. The point you raise has been answered by others. Nishidani (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
@ 96.60.170.188, the Israeli government certainly represents a significant opinion on this issue, so as long as you properly attribute there is no issue adding this to the article. The issue is using it as an unattributed source of facts, because firstly it is not third party and secondly there are other sources which contradict its claims. Also just as a general point, I think it would be better to first add this information to the appropriate casualty section. The overview should then summarize all the information in that section. Dlv999 (talk) 09:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Structure of the article

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Currently we have two background sections and an overview section which to me seems excessive. Also we have sections on 2006 and the "Gaza War". I know there is no definite end date for the intifada, but I am not aware of any sources that suggest it was still continuing in 2006, let alone 2008/9. Dlv999 (talk) 09:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is any reason for this article to have two background sections I propose to remove one of them. Dlv999 (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Is Israel MFA a reliable source?

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Some say not. If you argue the MFA is not a reliable source, fine - let's remove any and all things in the article sourced there. Then, let's also remove all sources the pro-Israeli considers not to be reliable sources. Some examples would be:

  • Betselem
  • Al-Ahram
  • Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group
  • Amnesty International
  • Human Rights Watch
  • Peace Magazine
  • http://qumsiyeh.org
  • International Socialism
  • Gulf News

Let's remove all of those, and with all this, let's simply remove 90% of the article. Good idea, isn't it? Let's basically just delete the entire article! Or maybe just quit the nonsense and accept sources from both sides as long as they make sense? In any case, accepting all pro-Palestinian sources as valid while rejecting the Israeli MFA is completely biased. I myself am absolutely not a Zionist, but I do know what is fair and what is not, and this is not. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Es-Cha, I have already started a discussion on this issue, I think it would be more appropriate for you to address and respond to the points that have already been raised rather than starting a new section. Dlv999 (talk) 08:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
"Is X an RS" isn't a useful question because it depends on what it is being used for. Almost every one of those sources you list are not regarded as reliable sources for unattributed statements of fact using Wikipedia's voice. They require attribution to the source. Statements from that kind of source shouldn't be in the article without attribution. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Even with attribution, it should not be in the lead. With attribution elsewhere, it requires a balancing statement from the other quarter, since the assertion is controversial.Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Zionist propagandists actually want to include the Israeli government and its propaganda organs in Israel as supposed "sources", but then cry that Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and other completely valid international recognized sources like this are supposedly "biased" and part of a "conspiracy against Israel", blah blah. I suppose these international organizations are allegedly all control by the mysterious "Arab Sheikhs" as Zionist propagandists claim about the UN, UNESCO, and on and on! It really shows the level of ridiculousness of Zionist propagandists to make such statements against international organizations and then want the Israeli occupation's own regime and its state funded propaganda organs to be cited in articles like this.Historylover4 (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

IF you keep up this verbal barrage about 'Zionist propagandists', you won't be round here long. Some of the points you make are valid, but as soon as I see this kind of language I am compelled not to second you. Zionist propagandists certainly exist, bullshit artists exist, dickheads exist, but in making an argument, you are sweeping out all nuances, since some 'Zionist propagandists' make arguments that are shared by 'non-Zionist' sources. So please drop the hectoring cliché. Nishidani (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Historylover7 has been indefinitely blocked, see [2]. Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussing detailed casualty statistics in the lead

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Personally I don't like these detailed figures in the lead. These figures should be discussed at length in the appropriate section. The choice of which figure to put in the lead seems arbitrary at best. Why are we quoting figures from a 2002 study for instance, when the intifada lasted till at least 2005? I could turn round and quote Amnesty's figures after the first year, ""The overwhelming majority of cases of unlawful killings and injuries in Israel and the Occupied Territories have been committed by the IDF using excessive force." Dlv999 (talk) 07:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Shalhevet addition

Latest comment: 12 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion

Is this matter for an overview, or are we to work up biographies of killed infants everywhere (for both sides) and then copyedit them into overview articles (WP:Undue).

One of the most controversial incidents took place in Hebron, where a Palestinian sniper killed ten-month-old Israeli baby Shalhevet Pass.[1] This event shocked the Israeli public mainly because the Palestinian sniper was intentionally aiming for the baby.[2] A spokesperson for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said:

The fact that they could pick off the baby and then the father makes this a hideous, deliberate, cold-blooded murder. Snipers are not just gun-toting youth... If Arafat had wanted, the sniper would not have been there.[3]

 
Shalhevet Pass with her mother before she was shot and killed by a Palestinian sniper

The murder is not 'controversial', and to assert so is idiotic. Giulio Meotti is furthermore disputable as a reliable source, given the execrable quality of his ultra-polemical screeds.Nishidani (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This was a major incident in the conflict, easily on par with others already mentioned in the section, such as the killing of 7 unnamed militants, or the murder of an Israeli teenager. There are 3 sources for this section, including Human Rights Watch, and if you have a probelem with Meotti, the sentence attributed to him could easily be replaced but dozens of other sources. I fixed the "controversial" wording, hopefully to your satisfaction. Eat memory (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Compare

Thirteen-year-old Iman Darweesh Al Hams was killed by the IDF when she strayed into a closed military area: the commander was accused of allegedly firing his automatic weapon at her dead body deliberately to verify the death. The act was investigated by the IDF, but the commander was cleared of all wrongdoing,[4][5] and more recently, was fully vindicated when a Jerusalem district court found the claim to be libelous, ruled that NIS 300,000 be paid by the journalist and TV company responsible for the report, an additional NIS 80,000 to be paid in legal fees and required the journalist and television company to air a correction.[6]

Note the differences. Most of the ref to Iman Darwish al-Hams is explaining how the commander was cleared of wrongdoing. All of the Shalhevet Pass passage is characterised by alarmist language ('controversial' (nonsense): 'shocking' (we don't use emotive language here); 'intentionally aiming for the baby' is again an interpretation by the source. He shot a kid in his sights just as Captain R did with the Palestinian girl, and then went on record saying that the age limit below which one shouldn't kill Palestinian children is 3 years old. Anything above that was fine by him, though Israeli snipers say the regular rule is not to shoot anyone under 10 or 12 years of age. The sum effect is the Palestinian girl killing was an unfortunate mistake, whereas the Israeli child was killed deliberately in cold blood, again a gross NPOV violation. In describing these killings, we should use quality RS, not the crap cited here, which all deal with both, and keep it to a minimum, in a specific para on child killings.Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
It was not a major incident in the conflict.
  • A great many children were killed in the conflict.
  • The photo should not be there
  • The space it occupies compared to the far more well-known incident, in Israel and the world, of Iman Darweesh Al Hams, shows it is WP:Undue
From September 2000 to November 2003, 428 Palestinian minors were killed in the Occupied Territories, as opposed to 30 Israeli minors in that area. 74 Israeli minors in Israel were killed by Palestinians from the Occupied Territories. One Palestinian minor was killed by Israeli Security forces in Israel.
The rational thing to do in an overview article is to provide the statistics (b) cite two instances without hyperbole, and leave it to the leader to follow the links. I.e. Children were also targeted by both sides, notably Iman Darweesh Al Hams and Shalhevet Pass. I think both the detail re the Palestinian and the Hebronite infant are not appropriate to an overview.
The edit, with the photo, apart from WP:Undue, is an open invitation to edit-war by POV warriors on both sides, since it elicits the demand to put a photo of a Palestinian child killed, and a spiral of idiocy will ensue. I trust in the good offices of encyclopedic editors on both sides to review this.Nishidani (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not opposed to the suggestion of limiting the overview to just statistics - but that is not what you did. You removed the Pass incident, while leaving the Al Hams section intact. That seems like advocacy for one side (i.e., Palestinian minor's death is notable, Israeli minor's death is not). Perhaps you were just careless in your editing rather than partisan - I have no objection to removing all the details, in an even=handed way. Eat memory (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I noted the spurious edit, and removed it on solid grounds, to prioritize the photo of a little kid. I saw and marked that when it was first written. I've never used the technique many employ of asking that her one-off page be deleted, since it is one of many tragic blips in the ongoing mutual massacre. I respect the dead, and the feelings of the bereaved, but I don't think one should waive this about polemically unless the incident becomes controversial, as undoubtedly the Iman Darwish al-Hams incident did for years in Israel. Many such pages, outside the I/P area are almost invariably deleted as unencyclopedic. It can stay there, though her page needs rewriting, and the lurid language toned down for neutrality.

The proper thing to do is to respond by mentioning that Iman Darweesh Al Hams was given a couple of lines and details, and WP:NPOV requires a balancing figure among child victims in Israel or among settlers. Had that been done, this would have been resolved, trimming down the Palestinian example, which is extremely well known, and adding next to it, a reference, as I indicated, with a link to the Hebronite child's murder. Reverting is not the way to go about this.Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your position. We either list both Al Hams and Pass (with the same level of detail), or neither one. You removed just one - which is unacceptable. I added it back, to create balance, but I am open to remving them BOTH, to retain balance. Eat memory (talk) 12:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you didn't analyse the article before joining wikipedia to edit in this area. Take the photos, one of which you have restored without analysing the specific issue of photos.
  • 14 photos

-Palestinians-

  • a masked Palestinian militant
  • A Palestinian throwing stones
  • A photo of Arafat
  • A photo of Aziz Salha exulting over the murder of the two Israeli agents with blood on his hands

-Israelis-

  • An Israeli soldier on patrol
  • A photo of Israeli soliders in Nablus during Operation Defensive Shield
  • A gory shot of a victim of the Mercaz HaRav massacre
  • A photo of the Sbarro pizza restaurant suicide bomb area
  • A momument of the Maxim restaurant bombing
  • A snap of Shalhevet Pass and her mum
  • A photo of military equipment confiscated from Karine A
  • A photo of caterpuller bulldozers used to clear explosive traps round Jenin
  • A booster shot of the IDF caterpillar bulldozer again. It helps keep IDF casualities low, guys
  • A booster shot of the ah-64 Apache helicopter used to shoot missiles and targeted killings of militants and terrorists.

If anyone can take this stacking of the images as meaning anything abut the message that the 2nd Intifada was a massive threat to good modern Israeli people, who saved themselves from a violent leader and his terrorists by efficient use of modern technology, though, unlike Palestinians, suffering immensely, he's a genius. My objection, as a long time editor, was to the image. The photos are stacked to give WP:Undue weight to Israel, and patently violate WP:NPOV. Adding her image gives Israel a 4 to 0 representation in terms of images of suffering, and your revert thus worsened the violation of policy already present.Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If your objection is/was to the image - you should have just removed the image. That's not what you did, nor did you give this reason when you removed the entire section. Instead, you wrote "Is this matter for an overview, or are we to work up biographies of killed infants everywhere (for both sides) and then copyedit them into overview articles (WP:Undue). " and "The murder is not 'controversial', and to assert so is idiotic. Giulio Meotti is furthermore disputable as a reliable source, given the execrable quality of his ultra-polemical screeds." - nothing whatsoever about images. This seems to be an after the fact excuse. Eat memory (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I have edited this page for some years, and am long familiar with it and its defects, not to speak of the stacked POV of the images. You just joined up and came immediately to the I/P area. Another newbie added a further unbalancing of the article, which is virtually in any case beyong repair, and it was reasonable for me to excerpt that section as WP:Undue, aside from many other considerations. You simply reverted back, and now want a long conversation. Feel free to edit out, as policy and WP:NPOV require, the added image. If I see signs of understanding the original violation caused by the other newbie your editing supported, I'll get back when you actually show the quality of the editing you propose and observe NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the image. I suggest that the two cases be drawn together, and alluded to in two lines as per WP:Undue, along the lines suggested above.
Children and minors were also the victims of violence from both sides. Two cases which, in particular caught media attention were the deaths of the Palestinian Iman Darwish al-Hams and the Israeli Shalhevet Pass.ref Charles W. Greenbaum, ‘Prevention of Violence to Children in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Perspective from Ecological System Theory,’ in Charles W. Greenbaum, Philip Veerman, Naomi Bacon-Shnoor, (eds.)Protection of Children During Armed Political Conflict: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, Intersentia 2006 pp. 433-456p.446./ref
Since these are the object of academic study, the use of tendentious newspaper articles in both cases, esp. in an overview article, is best avoided.
Statistics of overall death of children via B'tselem or another other source from RS can then follow in a chart. The best example I have seen of this in in Henry Laurens who simple provides a chart comparing the statistics of those killed in the Arab Uprising, and those killed in the Jewish revolt, and leaves it to the reader to draw conclusions. Absolutely NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't understand your issue with showing Shalhevet's photo, aside from the fact that it makes the sniper look even more heartless. If you want, I'll add a picture of Iman Darwish al-Hams as well. The murder of Shalhevet Pass is considered a prominent incident in the Second Intifada and was widely reported. --2602:304:6F77:6E99:39D1:AB13:4F4D:3FC8 (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Nishidani, I understand your objection to the photo if the problem is a lack of balance, showing an image of an Israeli child victim but not showing a Palestinian child victim. I don't think there is anything wrong with showing Shalhevet's picture, and that it is better to simply add one of a Palestinian too in order to be NPOV rather than just removing it. So I put Iman's picture with 2004, as her death is mentioned in that section. I think both of the photos should be allowed to show, as they help to humanize the victims amid all the statistics. --2602:304:6F77:6E99:8DE6:BE11:73AE:9FDC (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
You haven't addressed the key problem: there is a massive overbalance of photos in the article in Israel's favour. And your edit added to the problem of this NPOV imbalance.The murder of Shalhevet Pass is not considered a prominent incident in the Intifada. Read Deborah Sontag. After a week, the Israeli public got very annoyed that the Hebron community kept delaying her funeral so they could bargain with the gov. to get the IDF to attack the Palestinian quarter from where the shot came and take it over, expelling more Palestinians and expanding their own settlement in a very cynical manoeuvre. Only one politician attended the event, the rest stayed clear. The Iman incident remained a dominating feature like that of al-Dura because court trials occurred, and the discussion lasted for years.Nishidani (talk) 07:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I think showing the picture of a Palestinian child victim balances out showing an Israeli child victim. If you think there should be more pictures of Palestinians, add them. The murder of Shalhevet Pass is considered a prominent incident. There was a court trial over it. Thousands attended the funeral. It was very widely reported, in Israel and throughout the world, and Shalhevet is still written about years after her death. It is certainly no less noteable than the other incidents listed under 2001. The Pass family refused to bury their daughter until the IDF would reoccupy the Abu Sneineh neighborhood. Not until they "attacked Palestinians". I have seen no reports of the Israeli public becoming "very annoyed" and ceasing to care about the murder.
However, the death of Muhammad Tamimi is not considered a prominent incident. Looking through the Internet, I couldn't find a news article that reported his death.
Meotti is considered a reliable source, though if you insist on not using it, there are countless others that can be used instead. --2602:304:6F77:6E99:2802:C1F0:949A:9DFB (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I fully agree such controversial changes should be discussed in talk first anyhow Nishidani I will remove one of the pictures if you think that what makes the article not WP:NPOV--Shrike (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Shrike, very decent of you. This is war reporting, as experienced editors know, and it is very very tempting for partisans to see every edit by 'the other side' as emotional leverage. As I said, (since I follow closely everything that takes place regarding Hebron) the Shalhevet Pass page was badly written from its inception. I never got round to balancing it, too much to do. My objection was to the shifting of matter from that page into this article, with the photo, without a minimum control of sources.
My analysis of the photos above shows that there was a marked imbalance in representation. Of 4 Palestinians, 3 were represented as either masked militants, young rock throwers, or euphoric cunts exulting in blood after a coldblooded lynching. 'Balancing' the masked militant (terrorist?) are two snaps of Israeli regular soldiers 'keeping the peace': 'balancing' the boy throwing rocks were three photos of the scene of (a)A gory shot of a victim of the Mercaz HaRav massacre (which itself violates the infobox where the Al Aqsa Intifada's date of termination is noted as disputed but given as September 2000–2004/2005. The Mercaz Ha Rav massacre occured three years beyond that date, and therefore cannot, given the ambiguities, be included on this page): (b) A photo of the Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing (c) a photo of the Maxim restaurant suicide bombing.
To this stark imbalance, an editor added Shelhevet Pass, making it 4-0, or 10 photos to 4 overall.
Eat memory restored it, and after I made my several points, he duly removed it.
So, though the numbers are small, 2 editors agreed it was, in the context of NPOV, improper to add yet another photo to the unbalanced series.
Against this provisional if small consensus, without any attempt to reply or address that general issue, 2602:304:6F77:6E99:2802:C1F0:949A:9DFB not only restored the photo, but removed my cautionary language (WP:NPOV) that the 'delibverate aiming' required attribution. The single ref. to the Israel Ministry of Education source is represented as a fact. All editors know that these things require attribution.
In conclusion, I think we need to review the photo imbalance, before taking anything out, or adding anything, and such a review requires considerable discussion, which I invite editors to engage in.
But I will remove the Shalhavet photo as per the agreement with editer East Memory, and edit the language per WP:Undue. It would be very easy for me to play the battlefield mentality syndrome and cite the killings of Muhammad Tamini or the killing of four-month-old Iman Hijo, or use the Shalhevet Pass notice in order to develop several lines on the controversy in the US reportage of her death, as compared to reportage of Palestinian infant deaths,(For the Palestinian perspective see (1) AAI A Tale of Two Killings:Observations of Media Bias in Reports of Palestinian and Israeli Deaths, Media Monitors Network here, and James Zogby ‘The Media War we are Losing But Can Win, hereArab American Institute, June 18, 2001) spurred the youngest victim of the Intifada that year, killed in Gaza. I refrain from doing so, since I don't want to be sucked into the bad editing that has characterized this page.Nishidani (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I still think both of the photos, that of Shalhevet Pass and Iman Darweesh al-Hams, should have been allowed to stay for the same reason I stated before: they help to humanize the victims in a way that blunt statistics do not. However, I don't really care to keep arguing and restating the same thing. --2602:304:6F77:6E99:A97A:A327:B58E:72EB (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Wiki doesn't 'humanize' victims. In fact, it is dead set against anything that looks like emotive representation. And this stuff only spurs people to pick their favourite tragedy, and [up the ante], which is to be avoided. Sorry I did not notice the Iman photo. Forget you'd said you'd add that. Otherwise I'd have removed that as well.Nishidani (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Timeline

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The main table of the article says that the Second Intifada ended in 2004/2005. The B'tselem casualty figure for Palestinians is up through 2008. I think one of these needs to be altered. --68.8.13.18 (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Oslo war

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Three sources are cited for this. I've never heard it mentioned in 12 years, and therefore there is a fair presumption this is WP:Undue for the lead.

  • The phrase was used in English in a brief monograph by Efraim Karsh in 2005 to connect the two events, separated by several years (p.305 Itamar Rabinovich)
  • It was used by settler politician and rabbi Binjamin Elon in a political-religious tract, the year after, published by Balfour Books, a minor specialist in POV promotion for Israel which is not RS.
  • Devin Speer is no scholar either, he's a businessman. The publisher is Sy Publishing,which is by the looks of it a self-publishing venue, and therefore not RS.
  • It's an Israeli partisan idiom, and has to my knowledge never been adopted in scholarly sources, and is by the looks of it a strongly slanted minor POV slang expression for the intifada.
Unless better evidence can be found for this, I believe it should be removed from the lead.Nishidani (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

lynch photo

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is no non-free media use rationale to use this image in this article. Further, no possible one exists as it would violate WP:NFCC #2. The fair use rationale applies to the article in which that image is the subject. Outside of that article its use violates Wikipedia policy. As this is clear cut (no rationale=no image), I am once again removing the image. nableezy - 18:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Casualty figures and dates

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

It seems to be accepted that the Second Intifada was over by the end of 2005, but the casualty figures are those from 2000 to 2008. I am going to alter them to fit the timeline given in the article. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

If anyone believes the new figures are inaccurate and wants to change them, please discuss it here first. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Btselem numbers:

Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians in the Occupied Territories:

210 (2000-04)

Israeli civilians killed by Palestinians in Israel:

434 (2000-04)

Israeli security force personnel killed by Palestinians in the Occupied Territories:

218 (2000-04)

Israeli security force personnel killed by Palestinians in Israel:

83 (2000-04)

Israelis killed by Palestinians between 2000 and 2004: 945


Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces in the Occupied Territories:

3112 (2000-04)

Palestinians killed by Israeli security forces in Israel:

56 (2000-04)

Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians in the Occupied Territories:

34 (2000-04)

Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians in Israel:

0 (2000-04)

Palestinians killed by Palestinians:

152 (2000-04)

Palestinians killed by Israelis and other Palestinians between 2000 and 2004: 3354

--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this. There doesn't seem to be a concensus on the figures. For fatalities between September 27, 2000 and January 1, 2005, the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism gives the following figures:

Palestinians killed by Israel: 2,773

Palestinians killed by other Palestinians: 406

Total Palestinians killed: 3,179

Israeli civilians killed: 764

Israeli security personnel killed: 215

Israelis killed by actions from the own side: 22

Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs gives a detailed list of each attack that resulted in deaths, and it supports the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism's figures. --68.6.227.26 (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Palestinian casualties, B'Tselem considers the number of people killed is higher than your sources. And gives proper details of every full name, place of residence, age and incident.--Sonntagsbraten (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Israel MFA also gives every full name, age, place of residence, and circumstances of death, so I would consider it and the ICT to be the more reliable sources for Israeli casualties. Israel MFA includes Israelis killed in Palestinian attacks abroad, which I think might explain the differences with B'Tselem, as B'Tselem only lists those killed within Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. Perhaps both figures should be given in the article's infobox:

Israelis total: 945-1,010

Israeli security force personnel: 215-301

Israeli civilians: 644-773

Palestinians total: 3,179-3,354

Palestinians killed by Israeli security force: 2,739-3,168

Palestinians killed by Israeli civilians: 34

Palestinians killed by other Palestinians: 152-406 --68.6.227.26 (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone see the contradiction between the casualties and the description of Palestinian and Israeli tactics? The high level of Palestinian civilian casualties (and their age/sex characteristics) are directly attributable to the predominant (highest numbers and occurring most often) form of resistance i.e. youth demonstration; that were countered with force. There is not a single mention of youth demonstrations against the occupation in the tactics section. Indeed, the emphasis on the Palestinian struggle as a predominantly armed one is highly debatable. As is the statement that the resistances' most effective method was suicide bombings, many (such as Usher, Kaufman-Lacusta, Qumsiyeh and Sharp) have argued quite the opposite that they were in fact a strategic mistake, merely obscuring the vast amount of limited violence and nonviolent resistance performed by civilians. This entire article is an under sourced mess which entirely misrepresents the nature of the second intifada. Where is the balance? 86.132.59.126 (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Steffan Smith

Casualties, again

There are big problems with this highly manipulated section.

  • Figures still given for after-Intifada
  • Original research and WP:POV in section Combatant versus noncombatant deaths:
    • This item is exaggerated to undue proportions (in fact, the combatant-noncombatant ratio is virtually oninteresting and irrelevant)
    • percentages are fabricated and until 2008
    • Chart is controversial and until 2008
    • Highly undue part about criticizing B'Tselem statistics, using many unacceptable non-neutral sources, including opinion articles and Shin Bet figures. The critics are essentially that B'Tselem uses the definition for civilians conform international humanitarian law (http://www.btselem.org/statistics/casualties_clarifications) and includes civilian police, non-violent ("not participating in fighting at the time of death"), unarmed Hamas members and stones-throwing children.

--Wickey-nl (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

restore to prior accepted version

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I just noticed User:Wickey-nl made a number of changes to the article in the last month. Some were good but some were horrific POV problems. For example the opening paragraph in the lede states

It started in September 2000, when Ariel Sharon made a provoking visit to the Temple Mount and Palestinian demonstrations were cracked down by the Israeli army with brutal force, using lethal ammunition.[6]

While I can't claim that this position is unreasonable for one side narrative, it does not represent the other side of the narrative. And the words "provoking", "cracked down", and "brutal force" shouldn't be used regardless in an encyclopedia. Therefore I have restored the prior consensus version that would allow us to figure out what changes are acceptable.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

For clarity, the revision referred to as the "prior consensus version" is Revision as of 2013-11-24T09:12:37. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
So, brewcrewer, you say I made some good edits and after a month, with one edit you undo many former edits, including those of others. I claim that my edits are reasonable in a very unbalanced article. Provocative is not my word, but you can find it frequently on internet. It is even not a biasing word, but a word expressing an experience. The very authoritative Mitchell report uses even the words "highly provocative" and "a large number of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators and a large Israeli police contingent confronted each other ... Police used rubber-coated metal bullets and live ammunition to disperse the demonstrators, killing 4 persons and injuring about 200". You might discuss specific wording or change some details, instead doing a dirty job with a dirty trick. --Wickey-nl (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Aftermath: >> Jerusalem holy site visit sparks riots (Lihaas (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)).

Result ?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I find some of the acclaimed results in the infobox a bit strange. Especially the conclusion "Decrease of violence in the West Bank". Was the violence decreased compare with the period before the intifada? According to the article, the intifada started when Sharon visited the Temple mount. I assume that the situation in the West Bank was relatively calm, before his visit.--85.166.156.71 (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

ICRC report on targeted assassination

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Averysoda: I again fail to understand your edit summary. it doesn't say "international community"? Did you read the source? I quote from the source I cited (pg 375): The assassinations have also drawn widespread condemnation in the international community. It gives various examples. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring over the lead - Arafat's role in the intifada

Latest comment: 9 years ago26 comments6 people in discussion

How many times will people revert back and forth before someone realizes that edit-warring is useless and one should open an RfC or something? Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

LoveFerguson, in extremely tendentious articles like this, you really have to take things to talk. Whether you agree with those who are reverting you or not, there is a process. I gurantee you that no matter what, the final disposition of this article will please no one's point of view. This is neither Palestinopedia or Israelopedia. What we intend here is to try and represent all valid points of view (those that have verifiable and reliable sources) in proportion to their penetration in the greater world (with an emphasis on English-language sources, as this is the English Wikipedia project). Just as you feel, for example, that there is a valid source for Arafat being the cause, many others here disagree. You are all probably colored by your points of view, upbringing, families, political leanings, etc. THAT'S OK, you're all human. Again, the key is to take the slow and steady way to discuss the points in question in detail and have everyone explain their reasons and try and develop the "least of all evils" agreement. One suggestion I have found very useful is that if you want to add point A which represents one point of view that belongs in the article, try mentally wording it from the perspective of point B. At the least, it tends to remove partisan words.
Regardless, continued reversions, additions, deletions of material that has clearly been contested and removed only serves to inflame tensions and needs to be curtailed. Continued disregard of consensus-based methods of dispute resolution may result in measures taken to protect the project. Of course, that goes for everyone here (myself included). -- Avi (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I will attempt to make the case for my edit here. My point of view is very simple:the notion that Arafat pre-planned the intifada is a conspiratorial pro-Israel view. This is reflected in the sources cited by LoveFerguson which are mostly editorials from ideologically committed observers. To my knowledge, this viewpoint is not accepted by reliable scholarship on the issue. Nevertheless, since it is certainly a prevalent opinion, it should be included somewhere in the article, though I do not think the lead is appropriate, because it creates a false balance and gives undue weight. JDiala (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Whatever your reasoning, why does it take so much time to open a talk page discussion? This thing has been going on for a couple of weeks, with nobody making a single comment on the talk page. Complex historical matters are not amenable to arguing through edit summaries. Besides, edit-warring is not allowed, even if you are correct. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay. You're right. Do you want me to apologize or something? I'm here now; we can discuss it. JDiala (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Kingsindian, the discussion is now occurring. We want to enforce that behaviour, not attack it. JDiala, fair enough, let's wait a while and see if there are any agreeing or opposing arguments. I guarantee you, no matter what happens, Wikipedia will be wrong. 8-) -- Avi (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

No I don't want anyone to apologize. I was simply expressing the frustration over seeing reverts back and forth on my watchlist for the last fortnight. I even opened this talk page discussion yesterday, hoping someone would notice it. But people seem to ignore the talk page. So I made a dummy edit linking it on the main page. As to the edit, I am not the one who wants to make the edit, it is up to LoveFerguson to provide their rationale. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that JDiala's persistent removal of sourced content is a clear case of wp:I don't like it. For example, this is an indisputable secondary source. JPost is a known newspaper in English, which is used in several articles throughout Wikipedia as a reliable source to report about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both Israeli and Palestinian newspapers are used as RS, because sources are required to be reliable, but not necessarily neutral in a "pure sense". However, that's not even the point here. Suha Arafat is someone who knows about her own husband much more than all of us together. And she is admitting that Arafat planned the Intifada due to the collapse of Camp David talks, and NOT Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount (that was merely a trigger or pretext, not the ultimate cause for the Intifada). Per wp:balance, I propose to include the following sentence next to Sharon visit: ...when Ariel Sharon made a visit to the Temple Mount, seen by Palestinians as highly provocative; and Palestinian demonstrators, throwing stones at police, were dispersed by the Israeli army, using tear gas and rubber bullets, although Suha Arafat admitted that her husband planned the uprising due to the collapse of peace talks. Objections?--LoveFerguson (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The claim made was "some consider that the uprising was pre-planned by Yasser Arafat due to the collapse of peace talks". I propose that, if such a statement is to be made, the claim itself should be backed up by some sort of reliable source, not a woman asserting the claim is true. I do not think that is sufficient (for example, she may be saying that for attention or political reasons - it is difficult to surmise whether or not she is being honest). I can cite two reliable secondary sources (books I have, The Iron Wall by Avi Shlaim and Righteous Victims by Benny Morris, which disagree with this view, as well as the Mitchell report which explicitly states that the PA did not "[deliberately] plan" the intifada). I would also like to note that I am not arguing that the claim be dismissed, but rather placed elsewhere in the article. LoveFerguson seems to misunderstand the purpose of the lead section. It is to provide a "concise overview" of the article "with appropriate weight". The viewpoint that Arafat preplanned the intifada is a partisan viewpoint which is best excluded from the lead; controversial viewpoints should not be given the same weight as the mainstream opinion that the cause of the intifada was the provocative effect of Sharon's visit to Al-Asqa mosque and the discontent regarding the failed peace talks. JDiala (talk) 04:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually ,the "indisputable" secondary source says nothing of the kind. The JPost is RS, meaning that it is correct that MEMRI actually claims that Suha Arafat made such a statement. It says nothing about the reliability of MEMRI. Secondly, this, by definition is a primary source. Historical matters are not decided on primary sources. There can be a hundred different reasons why Arafat (assuming he did) made such a statement, the simplest one being that he could be boasting, or blustering. Just because I claim in a video that "I am going to cause an earthquake" and by some chance, an earthquake happens, does not mean that I caused the earthquake. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
JDala, you are wrong. Mitchell Report doesn't say the Intifada was caused by Sharon visit. This is what it says:

:::"The Sharon visit did not cause the "Al-Aqsa Intifada". But it was poorly timed and the provocative effect should have been foreseen; indeed it was foreseen by those who urged that the visit be prohibited."--LoveFerguson (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The relevant quote from the Mitchell report states: "we have no basis on which to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the PA to initiate a campaign of violence at the first opportunity". Your statement is true, but not relevant. The mainstream position is that the visit was seen as highly provocative, as the lead states, not that it "caused" the intifada. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't object to contrary opinions being expressed, but that is not the only problem here. The worse problem with the sentence is "Palestinians have claimed", which contrasted with "others" appears to imply that it is Palestinians versus everyone else. Actually the first part is the mainstream opinion (though poorly worded) and the alternative is primarily the Israeli government position. Suha doesn't actually belong, there are tons of reasons why she is not a reliable source for this. Zerotalk 14:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
LoveFerguson, I never said Sharon's visit caused the intifada, nor did I say that is what the Mitchell Report says. I was referring to the "provocative effect". My chief point, again, is not that Suha Arafat's statement should be ignored or omitted. I simply believe that it should not be in the lead. It should be elsewhere in the article. JDiala (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

How about the following. In the lede, we retain what we have, but source it explicitly to the Mitchell report. Something like "According to the Mitchell report, it started in September 2000, after Ariel Sharon made a visit to the Temple Mount—seen by Palestinians as highly provocative—and Palestinian demonstrators who were throwing stones at police were dispersed by the Israeli army using tear gas and rubber bullets." Firstly, I prefer that punctuation to that in the article, and secondly, I believe changing "when" to "after" is more true to the Mitchell report page 4, where the first two paragraphs are chronicling chronology. It is the next two which bring the etiological claims of the government of Israel and the PLO. I think what we have in Second Intifada#Views on the Second Intifada, "…while others have claimed that Yasser Arafat had pre-planned the uprising.[120][121]" where 121 is the JPost article is sufficient. LoveFerguson, even if Suha's statement as brought is correct and the Mitchell report's statement that "We have no basis on which to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the PA to initiate a campaign of violence at the first opportunity;" is wrong, it is not Wikipedia's place to right that wrong. We need to be faithful to how the matter is portrayed outside of Wikipedia, as part of our five pillars. For better or for worse, the dominant narrative is per the Mitchell report. The claim of Arafat or others pre-planning the second intifada is not a fringe theory, it is the stated claim of the government of Israel per the Mitchell report, but it is the minority opinion. However, I think that if we keep the lede to a more chronological flavor and expand on causes in the causes section, that may be even better. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

That is fine. I support that. JDiala (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I happen to be reading Stephen Kern's A Cultural History of Causality, Princeton UP 2004, which however is focused more on the patterns of explanation for individual behavior. But it does underline growing sense that causality is, in any dimension, multifactored. I think at one time we even had the death of an Israeli soldier some days earlier as a 'contributory factor'. I often removed this as nonsense, for it is chronologically close to the event, but not causally significant (even though Cordesmann, from memory, notes it) because otherwise every soldier's death would potentially lend itself to being interpreted as an eve-of-a-potential outbreak of I/P hostilities, whereas statistically it is far too common, as are Palestinian deaths, to rank as historically important.
There are two elements to consider in historical causality: the long-term build-up of factors, root causes, retrospectively considered by historians to contribute to a defining historical moment (war or whatever), and short-term factors. These should be distinguished. The short-term factors are several, but in causality analyses we have the term 'trigger event' (for example , as we all know, the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria 'triggered' (though the event itself could not be said to have 'caused' the war, since multiple factors enter here, like German strategic worries that Russian industrial growth under late Tsarism, unless stopped by a major conflict, would present Germany 2 decades down the line with almost insurmountable geostrategic threats, etc.). This holds for the First Intifada as well: the trigger was the truck ramming into a Palestinian car, but the following uprising was spontaneous, and resisted all centralized control though efforts were made to steer it.
Sharon's decision to go to the Temple Mount was, in this sense, a trigger event, like several others listed in the introduction to Tore Bjørgo (ed.), Root Causes of Terrorism: Myths, Reality and Ways Forward, Routledge, 2004 p.3 et passim). We know the political calculations by Ehud Barak, Sharon, and Arafat associated with this, but these are opportunistic calculations that probably did not have any detailed foresight into the violent complications that exploded.
Any attempt to reduce complex historical incidents, eruptions, to a single plot or plan should arouse skepticism, here, with either Sharon or Arafat plotting it and therefore to be pinned with the blame. Both Israel and Palestine have their easy versions for popular consumption and unilateral blame. Serious historians, by which I mean archival historians, tend to sideline simplistic explanations as pabulum of more value for national images than for our understanding of the age. These simplistic explanations should of course be duly noted but given a back seat, discursively. What we should be doing is looking at the extensive range of materials dealing in the run-up events in the several preceding months,and those key factors which coalesced, to precipitate the outbreak of the Intifada. Nishidani (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate the distinction you are making, Nishidani, betweem cause and trigger. Causes are complex, multi-faceted, evolve over time, and can sometimes exhibit the logical flow of a bowl of spaghetti. Triggers are sharp, distinct delineations. I think we can all agree that the Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount is the best proxy for a single-event "trigger" as you state, and I think the lede reflects that. Whether or not the PLO was sitting in the wings rubbing their hands just waiting for the right moment to spring the Intifada, or whether or not the Israeli government was engaged in a deliberate process to escalate provocations of the PLO until the point where they snapped, is something best discussed in the cause section. Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
@Avraham: As far as I am aware, other historical sources than the Mitchell report state the same thing (I have not checked lately but I remember reading something a while back). Nobody serious doubts that Sharon's visit was seen as provocative. I am not sure would not be a good idea to attribute it to the Mitchell report, but it's ok as a compromise I guess. I am definitely opposed to any mention of this Suha Arafat stuff in the lead. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Nishidani's comments, I will hopefully soon take an axe to the "Views on the Second Intifada" section. It is way way way undue, almost all of it devoted to one "view". It is full of trashy sources, such as the son of the Hamas leader, who was a spy for Israel for years, published by a press largely known for religious publications. Also, it is filled with non-sequiturs and WP:OR statements like the stuff starting with "Following Israel's pullout from Lebanon in...". Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I would suggest you write up your suggested text and post it here on the talk page first for review. Statements like calling the testimony of someone who was very close to the sources in Hamas "trashy" because he had a change of heart and started spying for Israel can cause someone to perceive (hopefully incorrectly) that you have a PoV of your own you are trying to push. If we are careful to stick to verifying our sources and keeping the points of view in the article distributed according their penetration in the wider world (focusing on, but not exclusive to, English-language sources) we will navigate the minefields of Is/Pal articles. We have plenty of time; the article will never be perfect. -- Avi (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
@Avraham: I try to always follow the forms. I usually open a talk page discussion discussing my edits. But I don't "wait for review" first, that is an unreasonable expectation. If someone objects to my edit, I don't reinstate it, I discuss it. This is just WP:BRD. Regarding my calling of the source "trash", that depends on the facts. If it is indeed trash, then my calling it that is correct. Mine was a general comment, I haven't actually made any edits. You can judge for yourself when I make them. Kingsindian ♝

♚ 17:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: I agree that in general previewing edits on the talk page is an unreasonable expectation. In the past though, I have found that significant re-writes of very controversial areas sometimes benefited from the fact that the discussions were more focused on the talk page. However, you are right that at this moment, there is no reason why you cannot start with your edits, and if we see any escalation, we can move more of the editing to the talkpage. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
@Avraham:I may be wrong, relying on wobbly impressions culled from a dulling memory, but I don't think one can speak of an 'Israeli government' plotting in that way at least in this case (I could cite several incidents, of timing, that are often viewed precisely in this Machiavellian light (major incidents by the IDF coinciding with a peace brokering effort by American emissaries are well documented), but that kind of this is not Israel-specific). Generally in history, overarching plots and conspiracies are to be regarded with skepticism or subject to extreme hermeneutic caution, not only because they feed public paranoia and skew complexities into dumb stereotypes, but also because such single cause theories assume a prescience and calculating omniscience that defies the law of unintended outcomes. The proximate elections, as we know, led to staging rivalries between different figures and factions. Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon's relations at the time are a good instance. The IDF furthermore is one thing, the Israeli government at any one time another. As you well know, many of the highest ranking intelligence directors of Shin Bet et al., though loyally carrying out their duties, often contested key decisions by either body. Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
If a revision is underway, we might consider where possible replacing period newspaper reports with later historical analyses, in journals or academic works specifically on the subject. All of the interpretative dissonance is there, but it is good practice to try and meet the ideal standards for RS. (Also because spin plays a very large role in newspaper reports coinciding with events, and only the pathos of distance, the detachment of years, and deeper familiarity with every relevant detail that has emerged over time allows one to take a more rounded encyclopedic tone and approach).Nishidani (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Btw, for the uninitiated, LoveFerguson has been blocked as a sock of NoCal100, so we can edit in peace (at least for a little while). Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 16 external links on Second Intifada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Question about "hundreds of security/police men

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the section about Sharon visits the al Aqsa...

Wouldn't it be better to use an exact or even approximate number, or even just "with a security detail," since "hundreds" could literally be anything from 200 to 999 without it being even weirdly phrased, and pedantically 101-infinity? It just seems very unencyclopedia, as is. Sorry if this is done incorrectly, I'm bad at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.221.183 (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Second Intifada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Second Intifada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

lead changes

Latest comment: 8 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Camp David doesnt belong in the lead. I also have a problem with the subtle change in order of causes of casualties to Palestinians, making it so "suppression of riots" leads the list. What "epithets" were shouted at the MKs? The NYT piece cited doesnt support that, unless Allah Akbar is now a term of abuse. Im restoring the first couple of paragraphs. nableezy - 17:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Camp david does belong in the lead. it's background information. It's much more complicated than "sharon did it", barghouti himself said “The explosion would have happened anyway. It was necessary in order to protect Palestinian rights. But Sharon provided a good excuse. He is a hated man.” mitchell committee-- "The Sharon visit did not cause the 'Al-Aqsa Intifada.' But it was poorly timed and the provocative effect should have been foreseen; indeed it was foreseen by those who urged that the visit be prohibited. More significant were the events that followed: the decision of the Israeli police on September 29 to use lethal means against the Palestinian demonstrators; and the subsequent failure, as noted above, of either party to exercise restraint."

As for order, it should start with the thing that caused the most deaths. For israelis that was suicide bombings by far. https://www.ochaopt.org/documents/cas_aug07.pdf For palestinians (west bank) it was "military operations". So tank/gunfire. As for invective..... "As Sharon made his way around the Mount, guarded by hundreds of Israeli policemen and soldiers, Muslims began screaming epithets."--Monochrome_Monitor 20:01, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

No. Leads summarize the body of the text, respecting the order of the historical development of an incident. The casualties that ensued are neither relevant to the definition, background, or immediate causes, and are to be summed up, as is normal, in the third or fourth paragraph.Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I'm talking about the list of how both sides died- it should start with the one that caused a plurality/majority of deaths.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The lead right now doesn't summarize the body. What I wrote is a start. I thought it was very balanced.--Monochrome_Monitor 21:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
barging over a minefield again? It wasn't just 'seen by Palestinians as a provocation' Read Security Council resolution (2000) which deplored Ariel Sharon's provocation and the excessive use of force by Israel.Nishidani (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The current text is "seen as highly provocative." I wrote "seen as a provocation". I think the latter carries more weight personally. You don't need to coach me about how palestinians feel. They were made to stay behind barriers enforced by hundreds of cops while a few israeli politicians walked around in a "tour" of where the temple stuff used to be. It made them feel powerless and humiliated both for their nation (they are reminded that even though the jordanian waqf controls the temple mount, it is ultimately under Israeli sovereignty) and their religion. Not to mention he didn't even go to pray! He went as a stunt to say "the temple mount is ours and barak is a pussy". But I digress. Under al-aqsa is a jewish holy site predating it by nearly two thousand years. Judaism's traditions were appropriated by both christianity and islam, both of whom claim to be the universal faith superceding judaism. And what are the jews left with? Suddenly the western wall, which is literally the western retaining wall of herod's temple, is called "al-buraq wall", after a mythical creature that apparently muhammad tied to the wall (UNESCO certified). Culturally and spiritually the temple mount is far more meaningful to jews than muslims, that is undeniable. And it's an injustice that jews are not allowed to pray there. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: While I share at least a few of your sentiments, MM, a lot of what you said is beside the point, and unrelated to the actual content and the editing of the article, unless of course you think there is a tone issue. The significance of the site to both peoples should be mentioned in brief here, of course. The original mosque was probably even built due to it being the site of the temple, as well as the Judaic omphalos (a legend early Muslims may have subscribed to, given that it was the first qiblah), and the Buraq ahadith a later ex postfacto addition. However, that's likely undue here, and the place for that would of course be the Al-Aqsa Mosque article. It's probably even there; I would be surprised if it wasn't.
I know you dislike coaching, and probably even more so from someone who has less content contributions than yourself. But that's in part because the topic areas I have an interest in are often battlegrounds for ideologically-driven editors, and I tend to distance myself from substantial contributions that would likely be reverted or endlessly (and probably needlessly) debated. While you need not be as over-cautious as myself, it's perhaps a lesson you might learn from: if you feel passionately about something, then treat it like a conflict of interest, and tread carefully. As they say, and as you know, this isn't a place to right great wrongs. I realise that both Nableezy and Nishidani have a definite POV in this topic area, but they're keeping a relatively cooler head in this discussion.
That being said, I do agree with your phrasing of "seen as a provocation". Even though the former "seen as highly provocative" is undoubtedly true, and sources do state that as well, a more careful neutral wording here might be preferred, and I think it's a reasonable compromise. Of course, as Nishidani points out, sources also state that they regarded it as correlative, and it could be written with the addendum of "with the United Nations [resolution] likewise saying that they believed the action to be a provacative one [reference]," or something of the sort. As far as the way the casualties are presented, I don't think that it matters in what order it's presented, even though casual readers skimming the article and read it in terms of emphasis. Thankfully, articles aren't written on the basis of attention spans (that's what infoboxes are for, eh?) The way it's presented overall, a la Israel's response, and per the wording, could be something you could ask for a third opinion on, from an uninvolved editor (aside from myself). Then again, this is all just my humble opinion. ;) I hope you haven't felt that I've been too didactic, especially as we've only addressed each other maybe once before (and briefly), I think. I have, however, watchlisted many of the articles related to Judaism, Islam, and the I/P conflict, so I do have some familiarity with involved editors here, and I thought maybe it would be better to have someone impartial weigh in, with fresh eyes. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
That's welcome input, thanks. I don't think however that a person who believes that the site is 'ultimately under Israeli sovereignty', espousing views identical to those of Yehuda Glick, or labouring under a principle, that whatever was made by Jewish people 2500+ years ago, whatever the intervening circumstances of history, ipso facto can be claimed for restitution, should be jumping into this article. What next, the Ostia Synagogue? It's the old story, there is nothing serious about the Christian or Islamic heritage in Israel. It's all only 2,000 or 1,300 years old.Nishidani (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Simon, I don't disagree that editors with a preconceived and immovable worldview should steer clear of these kinds of articles. Though I'd venture that describes probably the majority of editors who happen upon this page. And I'm also not fully convinced that the latter is the case here, though it seems [to me] you've come to that conclusion. Editors can change, and grow. I certainly have, and I think that applies to the majority of us who have been on Wikipedia for some time. But perhaps I too am labouring under a false idealism as well, part of the little bit left that's not jaded. I also think its a bit unfair to compare her to Glick, a man who (like Kahane) wants the Palestinians (and others) summarily exported, the Al-Aqsa Mosque bulldozed, and a third Temple built in its place. At least, I've never seen her express views like those- but you have more familiarity with this editor than I. I have seen her emphaisise some Zionist views (that seem more Labour than Revisionist), but that's not unexpected, or beyond the pale. From the bit that I've seen, I'm not sure that her beliefs are necessarily any more extreme than, say, a Palestinian born abroad in a western nation, who rejects a two state solution. That is subjective (of course), perhaps not the best (or most astute) example, and I'm not really sure anyway. I can't speak for her, and I haven't had the level of interaction you've had with her. Perhaps you have reason to assume bad faith on her part. But even if that is the case, I still don't believe that's an insurmountable obstacle. I think perhaps she could benefit from taking on a mentor, probably stay clear of ARBPIA articles for a bit, and be the better for it. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
That being said, I think I'm bowing out of this conversation for now. Two cents have been given, and I'll be unable to respond for most of the day anyway. I still think a third opinion could help, as far as the content dispute. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
His name isn't simon ;) You completely distorted what I said. When I say "ultimately under Israeli sovereignty", I mean Israeli controls it. And they are reminded of that. And I don't see anything extremist about me saying "it's unfortunate jews can't pray there". What, is it fortunate? My view is it was a provocation. I also think it's sad that jews can't pray there. I don't see what's so radical about that. I don't want it to be destroyed for a third temple or anything. I just think it would be nice if jews were allowed to close their eyes and whisper to themselves on their holiest site.--Monochrome_Monitor 17:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
QS (thanks for the compliment. I'm flattered by an association with Simon) My point was, that if MM is willing to argue, like Humpty Dumpty, that 'sovereignty' means what she wants it to mean, and not what sources or diction aries state, then such errant cavilling on the ABCs flags to other editors that she will be a real problem on articles that demand an awareness of complexity, precision and high sourcing quality. MM. Israel is a sovereign nation. It is in international law the belligerent occupying power of that area, outside of its recognized borders. The Haraam al-Sharif/Temple Mount is a waqf property, unalienable, and Jordan's Awqaf has the senior authority as sponsor, in concord with the Palestinians. A sovereign power does what it wants on its own territory. Israel cannot do what it wants there, and indeed successive governments have recognized that its power are more or less restricted to what it calls security. Any rights in such cases are determined by negotiations between the parties. The first way to undercut Muslim fears is to stop the dunam by dunam approach to everything in that territory. Everytime they have conceded an inch (Hebron) they have lost a mile. The Christians I've accompanied there don't pray, though many thought of its associations with Jesus.Nishidani (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Well of course it's not legal sovereignty, but neither is the waqf's. The area was supposed to be an international zone- the waqf only has control over the site because Israel conceded it. Jordan never legally possessed the land. But if you like I'll say "Israel ultimately controls it". Instead of "has sovereignty". --Monochrome_Monitor 17:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC) QS is also right that I am a Labor Zionist, not a Revisionist Zionist. Oh, and as for Ostia, no, but I do think that the Santa María la Blanca should be returned to the Spanish Jewish community. Or at least renamed.--Monochrome_Monitor 18:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Second Intifada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Main picture

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The most iconic symbol of this intifada was to blow buses with suicide bombers. So how come the main picture of the article ended up with Israeli soldiers in Op? This should be the main photo in the operation article, but for the intifada article we need to use its symbols and therefor a blown bus. Sokuya (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

"Protesters hurled stones and other missiles"

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am concerned about the word choice of missiles under the Timeline section, specifically Sharon visits Temple Mount. When I first read the text, it seemed to imply that Palestinian protesters had ballistic missiles. In the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, "missile" most often is used in reference to ballistics missiles. To avoid confusion, I recommend the word be changed to something like projectile. The text in question is :

Israeli police responded with tear gas and rubber bullets, while protesters hurled stones and other missiles, injuring 25 policemen, of whom one was seriously injured and had to be taken to hospital.

According to WP:Manual of Style (see specifically Choice of Words in guidance on applying MoS), words which may carry different meanings to English speakers should be omitted in favor of less ambiguous words. The article mentions "missiles" a total of 10 times, and in all occurrences except this one, missile specifically refers to a more sophisticated weapon with some sort of explosive. Wikipedia's own Missile page disambiguates missile, by having non-guided missiles direct to Projectile.

I do not suspect the use of missile originally was biased, but merely carried over from the BBC article cited, which used "missile." Nonetheless, the use by the BBC of this term is outdated and ambiguous. The Wikipedia Missile page even notes that "In ordinary British-English usage predating guided weapons, a missile is "any thrown object", such as objects thrown at players by rowdy spectators at a sporting event."

Recommend simple edit from missile to projectile to avoid confusion. Cjmithli (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I have changed "missile" to "projectile". Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Add a picture

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I took this picture in Jerusalem during the second intifada, after an attack downtown. Can you add it to the page.--Jane955 (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Broken_glass_store_front,_Jerusalem.jpg

  •  
    broken glass
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Second Intifada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:47, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Second Intifada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Iraqi support

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Currently, in the userbox we list Iraq as having aided the Palestinians. The only source we have for this is in Turkish, so it is not ready accessable to the average reader. If this is true then it is important and should be included but I think we need more references. It also is not discussed in the article as far as I can see. Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Oslo war?

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

No one in Israel calls it by this name, except maybe the most delusional right-wing fanatics who blame everything on Rabin and the left. I'm an Israeli who lived during the 2nd Intifada, and still live here, and I never heard this name/expression before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.6.76 (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Mishmeret Yesha?

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Who in Israel ever heard of them? What part did they take in the 2nd Intifada exactly? If any part at all, it surely wasn't noteworthy to be listed alongside the IDF or the Shin-Bet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.6.76 (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 24 October 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No opposition, so moved — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Second Intifada → Al-Aqsa Intifada – The most common name in international high-quality sources is either Al-Aqsa Intifada (see BBC, JSTOR (2002), FP) or (2000-04/05) Palestinian Intifada. Though the Israeli most common name is indeed Second Intifada, some also use al-Aqsa (like Ynet, INSS). Since this is an English Wikipedia, the global perspective is preferred - hence al-Aqsa Intifada. GreyShark (dibra) 15:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

add Iran and Hezbollah to who supported Palestinian groups and I've a source https://www.unitedagainstnucleariran.com/full-scale-patronage-irans-military-support-to-palestinian-groups-0 Shabab Dura (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change "Infrastructural attacks against Palestinian Authority targets such as police and prisons was another method to force the Palestinian Authority to repress the anti-Israeli protests and attacks on Israeli targets .[citation needed]" to add citation https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/media/csis/pubs/israelvspale_intafada%5B1%5D.pdf

"Israeli forces attacked terrorist infrastructure, refugee camps perceived as safehavens for terrorists, and facilities of the Palestinian Authority." Unicameral nado (talk) 03:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

  Not done This is not Israelopedia. Zerotalk 11:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Missing information about Sharon visit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As you can read in Suicide Bombings in Israel and Palestinian Terrorism By Michael V. Uschan (page 12), or other books of reference. Sharon visit was coordinated and accepted by Muslim clerics. This is an important information because the visit is presented as illegitimate and a deliberate provocation.--MrChandlier (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Typo 3rd paragraph

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is a typo in the third paragraph "Sharon also agreed to release 900 Palestinian prisoners of the 7,500 being held at the time,[19] and to withdraw from West Bank towns that had been reoccupied durin the intifada." The typo is "durin" instead of "during". I cannot edit it and request for someone to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salvador the stupid (talk • contribs) 14:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Ty! Fixed. ImTheIP (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

recent lead changes

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The changes here are outrageous and I am reverting them. Going through a list:

nableezy - 17:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Giulio Meotti (2010). A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism. Retrieved April 7, 2012.
  2. ^ Nechemia Coopersmith, Shraga Simmons. Israel: Life In The Shadow Of Terror. Retrieved June 18, 2012.
  3. ^ Peter Bouckaert (2001). Center of the storm: a case study of human rights abuses in Hebron District. Human Rights Watch. pp. 64–65. ISBN 1-56432-260-2. Retrieved June 18, 2012.
  4. ^ "Moral Quagmire". The Jewish Week. December 3, 2004. Archived from the original on December 4, 2004.
  5. ^ "Israeli army under fire after killing girl". Christian Science Monitor. November 26, 2004.
  6. ^ "Does it pay to sue for libel in Israel?". Haaretz. January 21, 2010.
  7. ^ a b Pressman 2006, p. 114.
  8. ^ Byman 2011, p. 114.
responded is indeed a word used in the sources and precisely how they describe as the conflict playing out. uprising is an inappropriate, loaded term used primarily in popular sources (you provided Vox as an example) and not academic ones. And there's no question several sources describe the visit as provocative, the second version indicates why it was provocative rather than merely stating it was provocative. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

What does popular source mean? How about BBC? How about NYTimes? How about Haaretz? How about Jerusalem Post? How about Times of Israel? Or Foreign Policy? Academic sources? Oh boy this is going to be a fun one.

  • "Israeli Unilateralism and Israeli–Palestinian Relations, 2001–2006", International Studies Perspectives, 7 (4), Oxford University Press: 360–376, 2006, Israeli-Palestinian relations witnessed dramatic changes from 2001-2006. Sharon came to power, the second intifada (uprising) raged, Arafat died, Israel withdrew from Gaza ...
  • Kurd, D.E. (2020). Polarized and Demobilized: Legacies of Authoritarianism in Palestine. OXFORD University Press. p. 3. ISBN 978-0-19-009586-4. When the five-year deadline for statehood passed, Palestinians launched a second intifada. This uprising was very different from the first in terms of character and outcomes: it was much less organized and achieved few of its political objectives. The disorganized nature of the second uprising also meant greater violence, as groups within Palestinian society found it harder to coordinate on common strategy and sanction spoilers.
  • Ben-Ari, E.; Lerer, Z.; Ben-Shalom, U. (2010). Rethinking Contemporary Warfare: A Sociological View of the Al-Aqsa Intifada. SUNY series in Israeli Studies. State University of New York Press. ISBN 978-1-4384-3186-4. In the Al-Aqsa Intifada, the presence of the Palestinian police (or armed forces) has added a crucial dimension of armed aggression from that side. Much of the uprising has been organized and carried out by a variety of Palestinian security forces and militias (the Fatah's Tanzim, some of the security services, and the Hamas and Islamic Jihad). (a bunch more quotes, just a random one showing use of uprising)
  • Beinin, J.; Stein, R.L.; Project, M.E.R.I. (2006). The Struggle for Sovereignty: Palestine and Israel, 1993-2005. Stanford Studies in Middle Eastern and I Series. Stanford University Press. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-8047-5365-4. The Al-Aqsa Intifada, as the uprising was named

And oh, the subtitle of this book:

I can literally bring 100 academic works using "uprising" interchangeably with "intifada" or defining it as an uprising. To say that it is not commonly found in academic works betrays an ignorance of the subject area that is just astonishing. nableezy - 04:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, the short description change is nearly reportable imo. This short description is seemingly purposely untrue. Given that this article covers acts in Ramallah, Bethlehem, and that one of the most notable events of the intifida was the so-called Battle of Jenin, none of which are in Israel. This game of making massive changes, all with a very obvious POV slant, to articles where you very obviously do not have even a basic level of knowledge of the topic really needs to stop. nableezy - 19:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Crickets. At least silence is better than making things up. nableezy - 17:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

No Correct information

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have no idea under what reason you wrote that the intifada was a "uprising". Murdering, massacring and committung genocide against innocent peoplr is not "uprising". Many innocent Israelis (and many of them were children from the age of 0 to 18) were brutally murdered by Palestinian terrorists. This is not an uprising. This was a genocide. Please correct this one. Daniel LMSDF (talk) 12:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

We write that because that is what the sources say. I am unaware of a single serious source calling the intifada a genocide. Absent that, this goes past the purpose of the talk page to discuss the article and pretty far in to WP:NOTFORUM territory. nableezy - 22:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Intifada/Archive_9&oldid=1081529138"