body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2020

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)[reply]

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

Missing information about Sharon visit

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)[reply]

Typo 3rd paragraph

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)[reply]

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

recent lead changes

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

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

References

  1. ^ a b Pressman 2006, p. 114.
  2. ^ 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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

No Correct information

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move 13 May 2021

Al-Aqsa IntifadaSecond Intifada – clearly the WP:COMMONNAME. This article was moved from Second Intifada in a 2019 requested move. There, Greyshark09 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. Jr8825Talk 07:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. Jr8825Talk 11:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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. Jr8825Talk 16:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]