Talk:Second Intifada

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Edit request 23 September 2025

Typos:

Diff:

−

Israeli armoured bulldozer demolishingg a Palstinian house in Gaza city, 2001

+

Israeli armoured bulldozer demolishing a Palestinian house in Gaza city, 2001

WannabePale (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Nubzor [T][C] 20:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Fatah Flag Vector Graphic.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 18 April 2026

Description of suggested change: "] The article reads:

Israeli security responded with extreme violence, killing over 100 Palestinian protesters within the first few weeks.[citation needed]

This article is much too sensitive in nature, that statements not directly backed by a citation should not be allowed in the article. let alone in this specific part of the article that should describe events confirmed by facts only. Such an edit, without a citation, should have been outright moderated.

Diff:

−

Israeli security responded with extreme violence, killing over 100 Palestinian protesters within the first few weeks.[citation needed]

+

~2026-23859-53 (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Citations are not required for the lead section, since it is supposed to be a summary of cited information in the body of the article (see MOS:LEADCITE. I will check to make sure the lead follows the body here and make any necessary changes. Day Creature (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 29 May 2026

Description of suggested change: The line "On 3 March, a Palestinian sniper killed 10 Israeli soldiers and settlers and wounded 4 at a checkpoint near Ofra,[96] using an M1 Carbine." is both factually incorrect and minimizes the civilian status of the non-combatants killed by the sniper. Sources conflict on the type of weapon used. Based on the interviews cited on this page, Hammad stated it was an M1 (supposedly made in 1936, which is impossible, production started in 1937), elsewhere 8 round magazines are mentioned, concurrent with the M1 Garand. Wikipedia's own article on the subject uses the term civilians. Remove "settlers" and "M1 carbine" and replace with "civilians" and "M1 Garand", as follows:

"On 3 March, a Palestinian sniper killed 10 Israeli soldiers and civilians and wounded 4 at a checkpoint near Ofra,[96] using an M1 Garand." 

https://web.archive.org/web/20150924215139/http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/10-slain-near-ofra-soldier-dies-in-gaza-1.51390

https://web.archive.org/web/20071028092616/http://www.alasra.ps/news.php?maa=View&id=477

Diff:

−

ORIGINAL_WIKITEXT On 3 March, a Palestinian sniper killed 10 Israeli soldiers and settlers and wounded 4 at a checkpoint near Ofra,[96] using an M1 Carbine.

+

CHANGED_WIKITEXT On 3 March, a Palestinian sniper killed 10 Israeli soldiers and civilians and wounded 4 at a checkpoint near Ofra,[96] using an M1 Garand.

7thcavalier (talk) 00:52, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Day Creature (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

To begin with, my source was WIKIPEDIA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wadi_al-Haramiya_sniper_attack), but I agree that it's not a reliable source: you literally have two different pages on one subject saying two different things, and I thought I'd help you out. I tried reediting the request by adding two sources as you requested and changing the "yes" to "no" as per instructions, but that hasn't elicited any response. Clearly I'm doing something wrong. Given how disgustingly overt Wikipedia's bias is and how little respect I have for this platform as it stands, I'm not sure why I bother. Because let's be honest: you need no source to change "settler" to "civilian." Settlers don't lose protected status just because they're described as such, and the term has no meaning in the laws of land warfare. This is a deliberate choice and we all know where Wikipedia's support clearly lies. Do as you will. I'm done. 7thcavalier (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Please assume good faith rather than throwing around evidence-free claims of bias. Your edit request is in the queue and will be assessed by someone eventually; there's a large backlog of such requests, so it may take a while. (I didn't take care of it myself because one of the sources is in Arabic, which I don't speak.) Day Creature (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

•  Done - consistency is key; while both 'civilians' and 'settlers' are valid descriptors, judging by the standalone article on the attack, consensus is with the former. ZionniThePeruser ^{( talk with me | read up on me )} 07:33, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  Careful with WP:PRESUME'ing consensus. I don't have a strong opinion on this one way or the other, but I think this was jumping the gun a bit. The requester warns that a settler is a civilian, (which is not always the case, they can be a combatant if they are engaging in hostilities, holding weapons for instance) which is probably true in this case, but also disputed (the suspect himself allegedly claimed they were armed). Either way, I agree this is an important distinction. Now, with this edit, that distinction is even further away, as the text did not distinguish clearly between the "settlers" and the "soldiers", but merely said "killed 10" (of both combined). Now, with the edit, the fact there were seven soldiers killed and three civilians, is still not clear to the reader.

  For what it's worth, the english source used does say 'civilian', and I cannot read the arabic one myself. Help from an automatic translation quickly tells me that this source claims 11 were killed (it makes no distinction between soldiers in the number here) in this attack, and 8 wounded, contradicting the Haaretz article. Slomo666 (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  how do we deal with such contradictory sources? Slomo666 (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

  For the record, civilian possession of a firearm does not negate protected status. One must take active part in hostilities for this to occur, and the premise that a civilian who employed their weapon in a strictly defensive role (such as this particular instance) would then be considered a combatant is highly doubtful, though in wartime with loosened ROE such considerations may be academic. When I was in Iraq, we were faced with a constant presence of armed Iraqis in support roles and sans uniform and ROE required we receive direct fire or PID banned weapons (such as an RPG) before engaging any targets. 7thcavalier (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Why is the date missing?

"An uptick in violent incidents started in September 2000, after Israeli politician Ariel Sharon made a provocative visit to the Temple Mount" The date was 28 September 2000 - is that a secret? John.St (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

The lead is based on the body of the article, but shorter. In the body of the article, it says: On 28 September, Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon and a Likud party delegation guarded by hundreds of Israeli riot police visited the Temple Mount... So no, it is not a secret, just a detail that the editor who wrote this sentence did not think was important. Lova Falk (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2026 (UTC)