Talk:2000 Ramallah lynching

Al-Aqsa Intifada

Please change the reference in the first line to the neutral "Second Intifada", instead of the terror-promoting "Al-Aqsa Intifada". The way it is currently presented disrespects the lives of the victims in the terror attacks that made up the Second Intifada. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.148.136.155 (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2022

This wasn’t an incident, but an attack. Moreover, the writer of this page seems to have an opinion and not just telling facts about the attack but trying to justify the attack. instead of explaining the Ramallah lynching it tells what happened before, which is not the subject. Happy to see it fixed thank you. 2001:4DF4:8BA0:2:A56F:4616:593B:588A (talk) 08:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Broken link

References 19, 20, 23, 24 are broken links. Reference 19 have a right archived version this. References 20 and 23 have an archived version this and this. Reference 24 is a Google Translate link, but the correct archived version is this. I can't make edits due to the page's protection. --Vgg5465 (talk) 13:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 done: Thanks! मल्ल (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Artists4Ceasefire

See Artists4Ceasefire PIN DESIGN AND SYMBOLISM - "Artists4Ceasefire enamel pin is composed of a red background to symbolize the urgency of the call to save lives. The orange hand conveys the beautiful community of people from all backgrounds that have come together in support of centering our shared humanity. The heart being cradled in the center of the hand is an invitation for us to lead with our hearts, always, to lead with love. When we lead with love, we understand that all of our fellow beings deserve to be loved and protected." This is inconsistent with this content written using Wikipedia's editorial voice, no less. That is a very obvious problem that any competent editor should be able to understand and avoid. And let me take this opportunity again to remind people that there is a Universal Code of Conduct. Section 3.3 – Content vandalism and abuse of the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct, prohibits "Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view". In other words, willfully biased editing is not allowed. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect Internal Link

The link for Maariv in the article brings the user to page for Ma'ariv, the prayer. The link should direct users to Maariv, the newspaper. Pingu87 (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2024

Referring to the two Israelis as "IDF reservists" is an inaccurate representation. They should be referred to as civilians, because they are civilians. IDF reservists makes it seem like they are willingly involved in the military. Almost all Israeli's are required to be reservists, and that does not change the fact that they are civilians. It should still be mentioned that they are reservists, but for the opening paragraph it should be changed to "Civilians". In summary change " Israel Defense Forces reservists." to "civilians." Ed1225 (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

The Israeli press called them "reservists" or "soldiers". They were reporting for duty in uniform with their weapons. Not civilians. Zero^talk 03:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, this is one of the more interesting and puzzling requests I have personally seen in the topic area. The perspective is surprising, that foreign soldiers on active duty on foreign soil are civilians because they are reservists. This is a way of thinking I've not seen before. I wonder how common it is in Israel (or Russia), how it comes about and whether any Wikipedia articles address it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Minor corrections to the record here. They were not on "active duty on foreign soil". They were reservists (as non-combatant drivers) of a foreign country driving in a civilian car to report for reserve duty -- which is not the same as active duty -- who were detained at another foreign country's roadblock. They were then transported by the local police to a police station. They were also in plainclothes, if one were to look at the (quite disturbing) photos of the incident, because reservists (in any country's military) are not considered to be on "duty" until they reach their base for assignment. This is different than the case of reservists who are activated to serve on active duty, such as what is occurring during the current Israel-Hamas war. So yes, technically, they were still civilians at the time of their detention, but non combatant would be a more appropriate word here. Zero0000, what sources support your statement that they were in uniform, because photos and video (not linking) of the lynchings beg to disagree? Longhornsg (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. So, in fact, I now realize that I probably don't really understand the nuances of the transition from non-combatant to combatant status as a non-combatant moves through time and space to report for duty as a combatant. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I looked up the Jerusalem Post of the time and read the account of a journalist eye-witness that he knew that one of them was a soldier because of the khaki trousers and military boots. That's all I know about what they were wearing. Maybe they were dressed differently? The story linked above speaks of Arab headdress. I think that the clothing issue is confused by the rumor that they were undercover operatives. The Hebrew wiki explicitly says that their personal weapons were taken from them, so I take it that they were armed. It also says their duty began the day before(?). Israel considers enemy soldiers to be military targets whether they are on duty or not (same as US military law, also international law, see para 1677 here) so I don't see why the same shouldn't hold in reverse. In any case, none of this matters because we follow sources and all of the many sources I have looked at in the past couple of hours refer to them consistently as reservists or soldiers so we should too. Zero^talk 09:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Of course, IHL also says they should be treated as POWs.

Thanks for your thoroughness. The page could use a lot of work anyway, so will make sure the language is also faithful to what the sources actually say. Longhornsg (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)