Talk:Second Intifada/Archive 10

Requested move 13 May 2021

 * 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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste  (t, e &#124; c, l) 01:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Al-Aqsa Intifada → Second Intifada – clearly the WP:COMMONNAME. This article was moved from Second Intifada in a 2019 requested move. There, argued that the current title is "the most common name in international high-quality sources", and linked a BBC article, Al Jazeera article and JSTOR article. The page was moved after nobody else commented.

The opposite is true: Second Intifada is the far more common name. A Google search turns up 3,830,000 results for "Second Intifada" and 721,000 results for "Al-Aqsa Intifada". Likewise, the Books Ngram Viewer shows that Second Intifada is roughly six times more common in published English-language books, and since 2005 usage has clearly settled more heavily in favour Second Intifada (the BBC article Greyshark pointed to was from 2004). Within academia, JSTOR returns 11,481 results for "Second Intifada" and 2,705 results for "Al-Aqsa Intifada". I'm unconvinced by the argument that "Al-Aqsa Intifada" is used by a higher quality of sources: The Guardian has 654 results for Second Intifada vs 96 results. Both Foreign Policy and BBC, which were quoted by Greyshark, use Second Intifada more frequently. (Foreign Policy 154 mentions vs. 12 mentions; BBC 20 pages of results vs. 3 pages, mostly from 2005 or prior).

Second Intifada is also more easily recognisable for readers unfamiliar with the topic, as a chronological successor to the First Intifada. Jr8825 •  Talk  07:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose - Al-Aqsa Intifada is the common name in English media for the event. Also, there have been several "Second" Intifada's in North Africa and the Middle East, collecting search results for all those events (Second Sahrawi Intifada for example) and citations specifically dealing with Palestinian conflict as a justification for renaming Al-Aqsa Intifada doesn't make any sense; it is more or less parallel to naming it the "Second Uprising", while there have been thousands of "Second Uprisings" worldwide historically. The "Second Intifada" was most accurately the Iraqi Intifada of 1952, while al-Aqsa Intifada was second only in the Palestinian context. If anything, we should make a more WP:CONCISE name for Palestinian Intifada -> First Palestinian Intifada or Palestinian Intifada (1987-1993).GreyShark (dibra) 09:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Al-Aqsa Intifada is the common name in English media for the event – do you have any evidence for this assertion? As far as I can see, the evidence I gathered above demonstrates how media sources have predominantly used Second Intifada since 2005, including outlets such as the BBC which seem to have largely dropped "Al-Aqsa Intifada" in favour of "Second Intifada" as time has passed. A Google search for 'second intifada palestine' still turns up 2,550,000 results. '"second intifada" -palestine' (excluding the term Palestine) returns far fewer results (173,000), almost all of which are referring to this event (I looked through 4 pages and didn't find a single link using the term to refer to a different event). '"second intifada" sahara' has only 33,900 hits and most of these are using the name to refer to this uprising in the context of Morocco-Israel relations, rather than the Sahrawi uprising (8 out of 10 links from the first page are using the term explicitly to mean the Palestinian uprising). "Second Intifada" is used as the main English name for this uprising, often without additional clarification as the Israel-Palestine context is obvious given its widespread use.  Jr8825  •  Talk  11:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - Adding to Jr8825's tally of media sources, the New York Times prefers "Second Intifada" to "Al-Aqsa Intifada" by a margin of 299 to 11. And "Second Intifada" is more WP:CONSISTENT with our article on the First Intifada. Rublov (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Also, in common parlance the word intifada is primarily associated with Palestine, so there's almost no ambiguity in Second Intifada. Brandmeistertalk  13:10, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Since I have supported the renaming of the "First" as being somewhat misleading then for consistency I must oppose the "Second". Al-Aqsa is/was (whoever changed the name neglected to change the lead text) a bold aka so I see no harm in leaving it like that but I would not object to "Second Palestinian".Selfstudier (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have any particular to "Second Palestinian Intifada" in itself, but I think it's unnecessary because of Second Intifada's broad use as demonstrated above. Its adoption as the common name (which is the entire basis for this RM) precludes confusion as to which event it refers to, and also confers the greatest recognisability. Jr8825  •  Talk  16:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Ample evidence has been presented that "Second Intifada" is the common name in English sources. Here is a Google search of several RSP sources: . — Goszei (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Second Intifada is more common, Al-Aqsa Intifada is ussed as early phase. Also why is this moved before with no voters???? Shadow4dark (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2021
Timeline -> End of the Intifada - Second to last sentence in section, Mahmoud Abbas' name is spelled "Abbass." Please change "Abbass" to Abbas. BestmonfortheGOB (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

provocative
It is completely bogus to describe the Sharon visit as "viewed by Palestinians" as provocative. Here are a handful of sources stating very matter of factly that it was provocative/a provocation: I will be removing that little bit of poisoning the well of tomorrow unless somebody beats me to it.  nableezy  - 02:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The Guardian: Dozens of people were injured in rioting on the West Bank and in Jerusalem yesterday as the hawkish Likud party leader, Ariel Sharon, staged a provocative visit to a Muslim shrine at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
 * ABC News: The date was Oct. 29, 2000, exactly one month after Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon made a historic and provocative visit to the Haram al-Sharif, also known as the Temple Mount complex in Jerusalem. The Al-Aqsa mosque, which lies on the compound, is one of Islam’s most sensitive and holy sites.
 * NPR: A couple years later, on Sept. 28, 2000, Sharon took the highly provocative step of visiting the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the most sacred place in Judaism. Israeli politicians had long avoided it because of its political sensitivity — it's also one of the holiest sites in Islam.
 * CS Monitor: Many blamed Sharon for instigating the uprising with his provocative visit in September 2000 to the ultra-sensitive Temple Mount compound, home to the Al Aqsa mosque, though some Palestinian leaders have publicly said that his visit merely provided a spark for an uprising already being planned.
 * USA Today: Even after a predecessor, Yitzak Rabin, negotiated a treaty with Yasser Arafat, Sharon refused to shake Arafat's hand — instead initiating a provocative visit to the Temple Mount, the most religiously sensitive site in Israel, triggering the second Palestinian intifada, which killed the peace process.
 * CNN: He made a provocative visit to an important mosque Sharon long insisted that a controversial visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, one of Islam’s most holy sites, in 2000 was not a provocation. But it is considered among many to be one of the flashpoints that sparked the Second Intifada, a Palestinian uprising that followed a failed round of peace talks with Israelis. During the visit, Sharon walked through the mosque’s compound. Within hours, protests over his visit turned violent.
 * Financial Times: In 2000 he staged a provocative walkabout on Jerusalem’s Haram al-Sharif – known to Jews as the Temple Mount – a decision widely credited with having provided the spark that ignited the second intifada, or Palestinian uprising.
 * The Economist: And in 2000, his provocative walk on Jerusalem's Temple Mount is said to have sparked the second Palestinian intifada and so delivered a fatal blow to Bill Clinton's attempts to broker a peace settlement between Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat.
 * Of course the visit was provokative as viewed by the Palestinians, whom else did it provoke? It's not a matter of NPOV, it's just a matter of not stating the obvious as most sources don't. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 04:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Being viewed as provocative by Palestinians is not the same as someone else seeing it as provocative to Palestinians. The parties stating their opinion in each case are not the same. So Nableezy has a point. Zerotalk 06:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It was and is viewed as provocative by more than the Palestinians, it is described as provocative by countless sources as a fact. Yes, the Palestinians were the people that were provoked, that does not mean the provocation is a figment of their imagination.  nableezy  - 14:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the current debate over this sentence/phrasing, a potential refinement for it could be to remove the word "highly" from the phrase "highly provocative," since all but one of the articles cited here by Nableezy simply describe it as "provocative" without the "highly" modifier. Thoughts? theraefactor (talk) 05:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, I just restored what had been there, but have no attachment to any adjective for provocative. But just saying the Palestinians considered it provocative and not that independent third-party reliable sources do was my problem.  nableezy  - 14:29, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

tactics in lead
this is now the second time youve removed any mention of Israeli actions such as targeted killings while elevating suicide attacks in the lead. I am going to revert it, again, and ask that you explain that lack of balance here.  nableezy  - 21:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Please re-read my edit, you have just reverted. You will find a reference for Israeli targeted killings there. Other than that, I don't think there's a point in listing the tactics used by each side in the article's lead. This list belongs to the "Tactics" section of the article. Tombah (talk) 05:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, with your permission, I'm re-reverting to my latest edit. There's no need to go over the whole list of tactics employed by each side. The lead should mention only the most prominent elements of the Second Intifada, which sources usually describe as being: (1) Palestinian suicide bombings; (2) Israeli targeted killings. I also added the 2002 operation, since it is usually considered a major event of the conflict. I believe that the updated lead is indeed balanced, now reflecting more accurately the primary elements of the conflict. Tombah (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am again reverting, and you need to accept that you need consensus for major changes to the lead of an article. You have completely slanted the lead to an Israeli POV, removing its major operations against Palestinian civilians and framing this as defensive violence against terrorists. And you certainly did not have my agreement, making your "with your permission" line especially mind-boggling.  nableezy  - 23:51, 9 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Nableezy I'd appreciate if we can focus on the content here. Can you relate to what exactly is considered POV here?

As I understand it, sources agree that suicide bombings were the major component of this conflict; and that the Israeli targeted killings and the 2002 operation were initiated in order to limit the effect of Palestinian political violence, with the suicide bombings in particular. The targeted killings were controversial, because non participating bystanders were also killed in several cases. Please tell me, what is your take on this? Focusing too much on balance while ignoring the sources can quickly take us to the realm of false balance. Tombah (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)


 * "Israel engaged in gunfire, targeted killings, tank and air attacks, while the Palestinians engaged in suicide bombings, rock throwing, gunfire and rocket attacks." Tombah, what is wrong with this sentence? It concisely states what both sides were doing. it is not a "list of tactics". Also removed at the same place "Palestinian suicide bombings were a prominent feature of the conflict, contrasting with the largely nonviolent First Intifada, and mainly targeted Israeli civilians." which explicitly states that suicide bombings were a prominent feature of the Intifada, flatly contradicting the idea that this has been downplayed at all.
 * Then inserted further down "Israel also conducted targeted killings against suspected Palestinian terrorists."
 * It would appear that the entire purpose of the quite unnecessary shuffling around of material is to enable the highlighting of targeted killings as a response to Palestinian terrorism.
 * (Reverting "slowly" against opposition is still edit warring, btw, best not do that) Selfstudier (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It was not a response at all it was a mean to stop those attacks and this should be clearly stated Shrike (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tombah and Shrike. This is exactly what the sources say. Based on several sources, our own Wiki article about 2002 Operation Defensive Shield states that "...the Israeli government announced 'Operation Defensive Shield', terming it a large-scale counter-terrorist offensive." As for the targeted killings, there are plenty of sources mentioning that they were initiated as a measure of counter-terrorism, aimed at killing suspected terrorists. I believe that should be clearly stated in the article's lead. Eladkarmel (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * IsGov would say that wouldn't they? WP is also not a source. Though it might make sense if that was what Tombah edit reflected, but it didn't. Nor does it agree with what Shrike said. Note that the heading of this section is "tactics in lead", the dubious reason given for the edit in the first place. So when y'all make up your mind what it is y'all want to say and why you think the original prose didn't say it, let's hear it. Selfstudier (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course the Israeli government presented Operation Defensive Shield as a counter-terrorist offensive. And of course the Israeli government claimed that "targeted killings" were "aimed at killing suspected terrorists". Reliable sources however dispute both things, for example Asef Bayat calling it an invasion and human rights groups calling it a collection of war crimes. Reliable sources also call the policy of targeted killings illegal (eg here), not simply an anodyne measure of counter-terrorism. We do not parrot the claims of the Israeli government as though their propaganda is objective fact. Further, we do not slant our balance so far to the Israeli POV that everything that Israel does is a response to Palestinian terrorism. This website is not an arm of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and we do not promote the Israeli POV as though it were fact.  nableezy  - 23:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nableezy, going over the sources you mentioned here, few things draw my attention. The first source explicitly mentions that Operation Defensive Shield was a retaliation for the Passover massacre and previous suicide bombings carried out during the Second Intifada. The second one states that "In the Israeli terminology, a Palestinian is forever a terrorist, never a combatant", what clearly makes it an oriented sources. Targeted killings and the 2002 operation were both initiated as a retaliation for Palestinian terror attacks, and that is a fact that is nearly uncontested among reliable sources. It is a super-majority view. Many of these sources indeed criticize Israel for selecting these methods, but still, all agree that their purpose was stopping Terrorism. Selfstudier reminded us that the original debate here was surrounding tactics on lead, but at that point I think its already clear it has no point, I am yet to see a long list of tactics in the leads of other conflict-related articles. If we wish to stick to the facts, while maintaining balance, we should remove that irrelevant list, describe the purpose of targeted killings and the Defensive Shield Operation, plus adding that some of the Israeli actions were criticized by the Arab World and human rights groups. Are we ready to conclude this thread? Tombah (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like there are some chronology issues to deal with here in the body copy above and beyond any concerns over the lead. The Passover Massacre is currently not mentioned adjacently to Operation Defensive Shield, and while it is possible that the former may only have been used as a justification rather than a cause of the latter, the timing is surely worth noting more emphatically. As an aside, how history repeats eh? Reflective time to be reading about the old 'massive invasion' under the guise of a 'defensive operation'-style messaging in the current global geopolitical climate. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight, sources that support the Israeli line are totally fine, but ones that question it are "clearly an oriented source"? As far as the laughable "super-majority view", here is another view:
 * But your position is that we in fact should just parrot the Israeli line that this was purely retaliation for terrorist attacks? Nah, that is a basic NPOV violation. As far as the tactics, if you wish to highlight one set of tactics, suicide bombings, the other side should likewise be highlighted. You are seeking to frame this as Palestinians bad terrorists, Israelis brave defenders of freedom. And that will not do.  nableezy  - 14:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * But your position is that we in fact should just parrot the Israeli line that this was purely retaliation for terrorist attacks? Nah, that is a basic NPOV violation. As far as the tactics, if you wish to highlight one set of tactics, suicide bombings, the other side should likewise be highlighted. You are seeking to frame this as Palestinians bad terrorists, Israelis brave defenders of freedom. And that will not do.  nableezy  - 14:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Riddled with implicit bias
Just looking at the section on the year 2001: there are four named deaths: all of them Israelis. No Palestinian is given a name. Although great detail is given to the Israeli deaths, the Palestinian deaths are generally placed in sentences alongside Israel deaths:

"Violence in March resulted in the deaths of 8 Israelis, mostly civilians, and 26 Palestinians." "A total of 469 Palestinians and 199 Israelis were killed in 2001." "After a suicide bombing struck Netanya on 18 May 2001, Israel for the first time since 1967 used warplanes to attack Palestinian Authority targets in the West Bank and Gaza, killing 12 Palestinians."

The last is particularly disturbing since the action of the IDF is attributed to the suicide bomb, but there is no such justification given to the suicide bombing.

Of the 659 words devoted to violence, sentences comprising 352 words, or 53% of the description, is set to describing Israeli deaths. Sentences comprising only about 211 words, 32%, on Palestinian deaths (half of that is a single quoted paragraph). This is despite the fact that over twice as many Palestinians were killed during that time.

The problems go beyond this, of course. There are stand-alone wikipedia articles for basically every attack on Israel or death of an Israeli, but none on any Palestinian deaths:

With Wikipedia pages: Ofir Rahum, Shalhevet Pass, Yaakov "Koby" Mandell (13) and Yosef Ishran (lookie, Mandell even gets his nickname), suicide bombing struck Netanya, "Islamic Jihad suicide bomber detonated himself in the Tel Aviv coastline Dolphinarium", Murder of Georgios Tsibouktzakis, and " Sbarro restaurant massacre, with 15 civilian casualties (including 7 children);[81][82][83] the Nahariya train station suicide bombing and the Pardes Hanna bus bombing, both with 3 civilian casualties;[84][85][86] the Ben Yehuda Street bombing with 11 civilian deaths, many of them children;[87] and the Haifa bus 16 suicide bombing, with 15 civilian casualties."

Without Wikipedia pages: "seven Palestinian militants were killed in an explosion" "Israel for the first time since 1967 used warplanes to attack Palestinian Authority targets in the West Bank and Gaza, killing 12 Palestinians."

And, of course, the only graphic is a memorial to Israeli victims.

I won't say this is the most biased section on Wikipedia, especially since I have not looked at the year 2002.Mcdruid (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * This sentence: "Support for the idea that Arafat planned the uprising comes from Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar, who said in September 2010 that when Arafat realized that the Camp David Summit in July 2000 would not result in the meeting of all of his demands" Seriously "demands?" Unless you have a direct quote from al-Zahar, then it is NPOV to use the Jpost's biased wording here. As it is, I can find no primary source for al-Zahar's speech. Mcdruid (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2022
This is a single sentence.

Outbreaks of violence began in September 2000, after Ariel Sharon, then the Israeli opposition leader, made a provocative visit to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem;[14][13] the visit itself was peaceful, but, as anticipated, sparked protests and riots that were put down by Israeli police with rubber bullets and tear gas.

Could it be replaced with this?

Outbreaks of violence began in September 2000, after Ariel Sharon, then the Israeli opposition leader, made a provocative visit to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.[14][13] The visit itself was peaceful, but, as anticipated, sparked protests and riots that Israeli police put down with rubber bullets and tear gas.

This turns a 50-word sentence into sentences of 25 and 23 words; the second half has been shortened by replacing passive voice with active. 120.21.178.95 (talk) 05:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Lemonaka (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit request
Edit "Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon" to "Israeli Opposition Leader Ariel Sharon". This is in 2000 and he only became PM in 2001. Basedeunie042 (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks. 04:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Where did the claim that the Israelis fired 1.3 million rounds of live ammunition in the first few days of the second intifada? it appears it came out of someone's bum are you trying to tell me that the Israelis fired approximately between 130,00 and 650,000 rounds a day? seriously? for example, the US gave Ukraine 104 million rounds of small-arm ammunition as of April 19th 2023 which is 419 days of the war in Ukraine. that comes out to 248,210 rounds being fired by the Ukrainians a day on average. you are telling me that the IDF fired approximately more rounds on average daily than the Ukrainians who are in a war and have inflicted around 20,000 deaths upon the Russians which comes to about 5,200 small arms rounds per Russian (out of 104 million rounds) (also we are ignoring the fact there is artillery and other stuff that is killing people in Ukraine) meanwhile the Israelis are shooting around 27,660 round for the 47 Palestinians who died in the first 5 days.

So I'd recommend either explaining where the 1.3 million rounds fired in a few days number comes from or it gets removed. their is only one source of this the number of rounds in the timespan given does not make sense, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.66.155 (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Unnamed section
Is it islamaphobic to describe the Noble sanctuary of Jerusalem as simply “Temple Mount”? Indigenous Muslim’s perspective should be considered for academic works, given our obligation toward objectivity. Also, there is no Temple Mount there right now, respectfully it is an Islamic noble sanctuary and should be described as such due to its holy status in sha Allāh. Right now, there is no active temple in sight Alhamdulliah.

The Temple Mount was there long before any mosque was there and Temple Mount has been it's name time in memorial — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.66.155 (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2023
After this change, could somebody replace the semicolon for a period point?: "...made a provocative visit to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem......"--Duponiuex (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Lemonaka (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe this is the same question as my request below. Please can the basic changes be made, as the page is currently grammatically incorrect (and has been for several months, by the looks of it...) MrGnocci (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 July 2023
"Outbreaks of violence began in September 2000, after Ariel Sharon, then the Israeli opposition leader, made a provocative visit to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem;[14][13] The visit itself was peaceful, but, as anticipated, sparked protests and riots that Israeli police put down with rubber bullets and tear gas.[15]"

The word "the" should not be capitalised, or a full stop should be placed after "Jerusalem". I think the sentence could also be re-worded to very briefly explain why violence or protests were anticipated, for the benefit of readers. – MrGnocci (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅: Changed to lowercase. If you want the sentence reworded, you'll have to write it out exactly as you want it, and either reopen this edit request or start a new one. Xan747 (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Ambiguous Phrasing
This is one of those moments of "the English language sucks sometimes", but this sentence is misleading/badly phrased: "They switched to live ammunition after the chief of Jerusalem's police force was knocked unconscious by a stone and killed four Palestinian youths."

It makes it sound like the police chief got conked on the head by a rock and as a result started spraying live ammo as he went down. I would recommend rephrasing it as: "After the chief of Jerusalem's police force was knocked unconscious by a stone, they switched to live ammunition and killed four Palestinian youths." 143.59.120.103 (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Well spotted. Dodgy syntax indeed. That's fixed now. Thanks. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Sources not correct
The sources used for “graph of reduced bombings” and “suicide bombings” are both non available on servers. These are the Only claims that defend preemptive sanctions on Gaza as effective counter terrorism. Please update 2601:404:D600:B0D0:A90B:2E7F:A406:819 (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Infobox picture NPOV
Two pictures about Israel in the lede does not satisfy NPOV, especially when you have removed a picture that has been described by many as iconic in the context of the second intifada. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that the bus image illustrates little. There's plenty of choice. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am with the Faris Odeh picture which has been described by many as iconic. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * True. That is probably the single-most iconic Second Intifada image. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not so iconic to begin with. Stone-throwing, unlike the First Intifada, was not so characteristic of the Second Intifada, which was more focused on shootings and suicide bombings. And the image is already in the proper section anyway, where it belongs. Dovidroth (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Opinion this is not. "The photo of Faris Odeh, a boy standing alone in front of a tank while he throws a rock at it, has become an iconic image of the second intifada" Clark, J. E. (2018). 9 Pawns, Martyrs, Fighters, and Innocents. War Experience and Memory in Global Cultures Since 1914. Routledge. And Faris Odeh is not actually mentioned in the section that you have linked, so the image is in no way beholden to that. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

So the Faris Odeh image has been clearly established as an iconic image reflecting the Palestinian side of the conflict; now what's the single-most iconic image from the Israeli side that might be best used to complement it? Iskandar323 (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The image is from December 2000 and is in the section dealing with events of November/December 2000. Dovidroth (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I reverted. The idea that the infobox on an event in which 3,000+ Palestinians were killed should only feature images of Israeli casualties and/or Israeli soldiers is absurd.  nableezy  - 15:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Where is the pictures from the Intifada ?
This was a Palestinian uprising. Yet most of the photos are from an Israeli perspective. It's even worse on Commons. Ezzex (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * If you have other photos that are allowed by Wikipedia's copyright policies, feel free to add them. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

grammar error
in section 2002 of the timeline talking about the Arab peace deal the final line states "...endorsed by Arafat, but virtually ignoring by Israel" this should be "ignored by Israel" or "virtually ignoring Israel" 185.108.171.62 (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)