Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2024

The use of the term "Combatant" is frequently used in the article and it should read "terrorist". A Combatant is a members of an armed force who operate according to the laws and customs of war. Combatants are commanded by a person in charge of their subordinates, wear a distinctive sign, and carry their arms openly.

"Suicide bombers" the main characteristic of the 2nd intifada is not in accordance with any law or custom of war. Its savagery and terrorism. Please correct. 159.250.158.135 (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Wikipedia has a policy of not calling people or groups "terrorist". This is not an indication of condoning "terrorist" activities, but of neutrality, and avoidance of passing judgment, affirming or denying. Please debate the merit of this policy at WT:Words to avoid, not here. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph

The last two references at the opening paragraph are odd and tackle a side aspect of this article, the quotes seem to exist to promote a certain point of view, so why is this still here? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cause of the intifada and the scale of the repression when it was still a nonviolent uprising are side aspects? DMH223344 (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the sources of:
[12]: Opportunity, Culture and Agency: Influences on Fatah and Hamas Strategic Action during the Second Intifada
[13]: A Globalized Conflict: European Anti-Jewish Violence during the Second Intifada
They are out of place and were recently inserted to highlight some quotes in them that do not directly relate to the Second Intifada as a whole. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 December 2024

“occupation” should be taken out as not everybody sees it that way, so it is biased. 2600:1001:B032:1AE3:5C4E:61DC:DC8:4D00 (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. edit requests should be uncontroversial Rainsage (talk) 06:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using the term occupation is controvertial in itself, as it is biased 2A0D:6FC2:4030:E300:519D:E074:66FF:358F (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2008-2009 language

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria If you're challenged on an edit to ARBPIA content, you obviously can't just add it back. Please self-revert and obtain consensus here first. For other editors: the previous language was Israel launched a military campaign targeting the members and infrastructure of Hamas in response to the numerous rocket attacks upon Israel from the Gaza Strip and The Great Mule of Eupatoria is suggesting a change to after it had provoked Hamas by breaking the 2008 ceasefire with a raid into Central Gaza. The chronology of events is not disputed but I reverted them because their interpretation was not sourced, and because their edit obscures a key element of the chronology, the rocket fire. See Gaza War (2008–2009) for full context. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
I have provided a source for the specific case here (it’s seen in the edit summary next to the edit). The current revision seems to be an older or outdated one which words it as if to say the war was launched as a response to the rockets being launched, when the reality was that the rockets were the response to a direct provocation by Israel, and that the rockets were not a cause but the effect
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2008/11/gaza-ceasefire-risk-20081105/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/nov/05/israelandthepalestinians The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:10, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to POV-pushing words like "provoked", the raid in question occurred on November 4, almost two months before the start of the war, and destroyed a tunnel intended to abduct Israeli soldiers. The operation was a response to an increase in rocket fire that Hamas carried out when the truce expired in late December.--BePrepared1907 (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The rocket fire was the response to the provocation. The truce was set to expire in December but it fell apart in November due to this Israeli provocation
The current passage omits this extremely important context and instead frames it as if the rockets came spontaneously and Israel responded, when it was the other way around that Israel had broken the ceasefire, and the rockets were sent in retaliation to this broken truce The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of neutrality in the "Tactics" section

The leading two paragraphs describing the "tactics" used by each side is clearly not neutral. It describes the Palestinian "tactics" as purely militaristic with no mention of demonstrations and protests (that Israel bombed and killed civilians in). It has a couple sentences about checkpoints and curfews with no mention of the violence used by Israel throughout the Intifada. The most obvious example of the lack of neutrality is the fact that assassinations are listed as a tactic by Palestine, but not by Israel! The Second Intifada was littered with assassinations by Israel, including the assassination of Salah Shehade which resulted in the death of 14 civilians! The fact that it mentions assassinations as a "Palestinian Tactic" when only one was carried out, but makes no mention of Israeli assassinations is ridiculous. Almost every tactic described as Palestinian in the leading paragraph was also used by Israel throughout the Intifada and if it is worth mentioning for the Palestinian side in the lead, it should be mentioned for the Israeli side as well. Israeli tactics listed should also include the use of fighter jets to bomb densely populated civilian areas. Axesmara (talk) 01:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ARBECR you may only post edit requests. They should follow the WP:EDITXY guideline which basically boils down to simple requests of the form 'change X to Y because Z (supported by a source if necessary). You have posted an article review which is out of scope for non-extendedconfirmed editors. Perhaps you can break your comments down into multiple specific 'change X to Y' edit requests. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This work?
Change "Israeli tactics included curbing Palestinians' movements through the setting up of checkpoints and the enforcement of strict curfews in certain areas. 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."
To "Israeli tactics included firing live ammunition into crowds of protesters, even when the lives of Israeli Security forces were not at threat [a], shelling residential areas[a], assassinations[b], dropping up to one-ton bombs over densely populated civilian areas[b], extrajudicial killings[a], setting up checkpoints[a], imposing curfews throughout the West Bank that lasted for months at a time [a], and collective punishment through the demolition of Palestinian homes and orchards[a]. The tactics used by Israel throughout the second intifada have been criticized by human rights groups as tantamount to war crimes, and resulted in the deaths of many civilians, women, and children[a]."
A: https://www.amnesty.org/ar/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/mde150832001en.pdf
B: https://web.archive.org/web/20031008061808/http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=200053&contrassID=1 Axesmara (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Intifada
No tags for this post.