Talk:2014 Jerusalem unrest/Archive 2

Proposal for Notable section
Here is what I am proposing. Here is the criterea I am using. If we can come to a consensus on it I will move it into the article and put this criteria there but hidden: 1) To be considered notable for here the incident should be either be notable enough to have its own wikipedia article, or the person directly involved is notable enough to warrant their own page 2) Once determined notable it should only include a high level summary of: Who, what, where, when and casualties, the main article will provide the details

Any comments? Thoughts? I think its a fair qualification and a fair level summary for each article. I know right now Pro-Palestinian editors will complain these are only attacks on Israelis. I tried to create a fair definition of notable based on WP:GNG. If it does not meet that what criteria is the basis for calling it notable? It might have a place on wikipedia as part of a list of attacks but as far as notable I do not believe any thus far do. If any articles are written about the incidents that didn't make the cut they are welcome to be added here, but right now I do not believe they would be considered GNG. - Galatz (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Translation:Palestinians, though suffering a far higher higher casualty rate, are not notable because they gain less attention in Ynet, Haaretz,The Times of Israel, and of course The New York Times, and thus since sources in Israel prioritize Israeli Jewish victims, these must be showcased. Boy, that's as cynical an explicitly formulated push to break WP:NPOV as I've seen in several years. It's a no-goer, of course, since 'Silent Intifada' just means all events noted in RS now and in the long future for this phase are automatically entitled to inclusion, and editorial attempts to frame them out of the 'notable' section break with commonsense and policy by legislating a selective bias that is already present in the overwhelmingly Israelocentric sources on which the article is based.Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from but I don't think anyone is trying to "frame them out" - we're working to form consensus on "notability"... What grounds would you base notability on? sudo  people  20:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * First what is the basis for you saying many more Palestinians? More Jews have died than Palestinians in all items that have been listed here. Second, I am using Wikipedia's definition of notable on Wikipedia. What is stopping you from making articles about these instances that you believe are notable? Third an RS is an RS, no one says only Israel related sources can be used. Use Al Jazeera its an RS. NYT is known for its anti Israel bias so to use them there goes against your point. Fourth, as I said above, I am not saying they don't belong on wikipedia, I am saying they don't meet the definition of notable. - Galatz (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh come off it. They don't meet your definition of notable. yawn.Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I didnt realize I was the author of WP:GNG - Galatz (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This is how wikipedia describes notable. Like I said I am not saying it doesn't have a place on wikipedia, I just don't think its notable.
 * "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
 * "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
 * "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online and do not have to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
 * "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
 * "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
 * Galatz (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

POVFORK
Can you guys spell POVFORK? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What are you considering of what has been suggested to be a WP:POVFORK? What I am suggesting is to follow the secondary page format that was used previously. Very often during the Israeli/Palestinian conflict there are sub pages that just incidents. Its following standard practice not a POVFORK. - Galatz (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a POV fork as it presents only one side of the events, namely the attacks of Palestinians on Israelis. If this article describes a purported "Silent Intifada", we need to describe all related events. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Full disclosure here about your characterization of "Pro-Palestinian" editors: I am Jewish, lived in Israel for two decades, fought in two wars. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are over generalizing. I am not saying we need to exclude one side of the attacks from this article. If the Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir happened now it would belong in this section. It didn't though, so it shouldn't be excluded. Nothing in the other direction has happened that meets WP:GNG. I am a Jewish Zionist, but check my edit history, I try and be as NPOV as possible. I very often go through and reword sentences to remove the POV. I am not looking to make this article pro-Israel, I am looking to make it not filled with irrelevant information.
 * What I suggest about creating a Palestinian article is based on there being List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. Its not a POVFORK, its creating a separate article for the stuff that fills up the main article. - Galatz (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As an aside no one mentioned that I removed other Jewish articles too. I removed the screwdriver attack because it didn't meet the criteria mentioned above. I am treating both sides equally. The screwdriver attack belongs in a life of casualties article, not the main one. - Galatz (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you please elaborate on your quip? It's not clear what you're advocating regarding the Notable incidents section of the article. sudo  people  21:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. Let me try again. If this article was a list of Palestinian attacks on Israelis, it will be OK. But this article is about something called "Silent Initifada", specifically the violence in Jerusalem, and as such we ought to include any and all events reported in RS about these events, including the ones that were deleted by Galatz. Otherwise, my view is this is a POV fork. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If we are to follow WP:SUMMARY, then my argument will be valid as well. Listing all relevant articles and events with summaries. But I see that what some of you are arguing for an arbitraty criteria that only events that have a separate article should be included. That is the issue for me, as that is not an NPOV representation of these events. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thats fine, thats why this was a proposal brought to talk to try and get a consensus. Do you have other criteria that you think better suits it? Wikipedia is not a news source, so it doesn't need to have every single event mentioned listed on it, especially on the main article. I am open for any other suggestions on how to summarize it, but right now the article is a mess, and I am trying to work with everyone to clean it up. - Galatz (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A simple criteria would be to list chronologically all violent events in Jerusalem since the kidnapping on June 2014, regardless who were the perpetrators or the victims, that have been reported in reliable sources. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen removed section(s) that weren't well sourced. That's completely unrelated to them being notable. I'm not arguing for anything specifically, only that we reach consensus on what "Notable incidents" means. In the last couple of weeks, all manner of events have been added and removed, and the list is growing long. No need to turn this section into a POV dispute; we're just talking about how to fix the growing list.  sudo  people  23:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want a list of attacks that have occurred since June then create List of Palestinian—Israeli attacks in 2014, but thats not what this article is. - Galatz (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No. What I want is to list all violent events related to the so called "Silent Intifada", and that includes retaliatory attacks from both sides. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  05:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For example, we need to include the murder of local teenager Mohammed Abu Khdeir by Jewish extremists, which incited riots associated with the subject of this article, and the killing of of Mohammed Sunuqru which also sparked violence in East Jerusalem. Source -   Cwobeel   (talk)  05:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said if you want to create a list then create a list. This is an article not a list - Galatz (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The section in the article called "Notable incidents"
I think forking the list as you've suggested is a great idea. That way when you're done with it, we can summarize it here on the main article. That's perfect. sudo people  17:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Before I do that I would want to see if there is agreement. This is the proposal:
 * Create 2014 Palestinian—Israeli attacks in Jerusalem
 * Move all the content in the "Notable incidents" there
 * Add other events to 2014 Palestinian—Israeli attacks in Jerusalem
 * Summarize 2014 Palestinian—Israeli attacks in Jerusalem here per WP:SUMMARY
 * -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would suggest List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014 consistent with List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011. For sure I would look in Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict-related lists for consistency. - Galatz (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I was going to mention that it's not just in Jerusalem. There was an attack a few weeks ago on soldiers outside of Hebron (al-Arroub?) linked to it if I remember correctly, more recently the "silent intifada" has been mentioned in Bethlehem as well although nothing particularly notable IMO. Some other attacks may have been linked to a palestinian girl's death in a West Bank settlement. etc. etc.  sudo  people  17:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 'List of' is unnecessarily restrictive. I support Cwobeel's proposal but I don't think one need raise a separation barrier on notable and not notable, which is an intrusion of an adventitious discrimination. What the press notes, is there because it is notable. Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

✅ Now we need to expand the new article and summarize it here. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Criteria for Notable
If we are creating a seperate article that will list all the details, we should have criteria of what makes something notable to be included. This is what I proposed above. What are everyone's thoughts? 1) To be considered notable for here the incident should be either be notable enough to have its own wikipedia article, or the person directly involved is notable enough to warrant their own page 2) Once determined notable it should only include a high level summary of: Who, what, where, when and casualties, the main article will provide the details 3) All other incidents should be included in the article listing all incidents at --- (will fill in blank later) Galatz (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * We will use the criteria in WP:SUMMARY. Basically a summary of the article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * We should probably rename the section. A summary will naturally include the most notable events, but I suppose the word is rubbing people the wrong way.


 * Summary of events ?
 * sudo people  20:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is very useful guidance at WP:SUMMARY. I'd encourage you to read the guideline in toto. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I read the majority of it, thanks. I've [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Silent_Intifada&oldid=634892618 begun] summarizing, starting with recent events since they're fresh in my mind. I've also shot some comments in there as a bit of a guideline for what's needed. sudo  people  22:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Summarizing in "Incidents" section
I've begun summarization of List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014 starting with some recent events that are fresh in mind. I've also included a bit of info that isn't specifically "violent" (eg. the house demo and its repercussions) but are quite relevant to the intifada. I hope it meets Wikipedia's standards for NPOV. That's my utmost goal as a contributor to this page.

I'd considered breaking it into month sections but I've avoided that for now. Many of us don't want it to turn into another list, and September may have been "slower" than October for instance. sudo people  22:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Background section cleanup
The Background section needs work. I assumed it was for events prior and leading up to the Silent Intifada but it's not clear from its contents.

I'd like to form a consensus about what "Background" means, and adjust the section to consistently reflect that. Comments please. sudo  people  23:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

silent what?
The problem with the current title is that it is not very descriptive. Once it is explained what is meant by "silent" then one can relate to it, but not before. Something more descriptive would be "2014 Arab violence against Israelis", or perhaps "November 2014 Palestinian violence against Israel", etc. Tkuvho (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a good idea but may result in a POV fork, as that may mean that we should have an article "2014 Israel actions against Palestinians". For NPOV and as per the comment above by, we should have an article that presents the current cycle of violence by both sides. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, we should mention the Israeli violence against the Jamals who got killed by bullets in a cold-blooded action reported by CNN to have occurred in a mosque. However, you didn't address my main concern.  Tkuvho (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure I understand what your main concern is. If it is the name of the article, sure we can do that per your proposal, but that will mean a POV fork. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 2014 Arab violence against Israelis, or perhaps November 2014 Palestinian violence against Israel. There is a policy called WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a website dedicated to framing some ethnic narrative, something numerous articles violate by focusing unilaterally on the 'violence' of one side in a two-sided conflict. Such proposals indicate, clearly, the intent of this article's major editors I guess, but we are supposed to inform our readers, not to inflame or persuade them to sympathise with either side's grievances.Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Based on WP:CRITERIA you go by whatever is most commonly used in the news. Silent Intifada is in my experience the most used. - Galatz (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Both of these proposals makes this article a POV fork. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * your deletion is questionable. These acts are part of the background in the conflict. Why deleting them? If this is an article about an Intifada, don;t you think our readers would want to know what fuels it? -   Cwobeel   (talk)  17:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want this in a background section, you still need to find an RS that links them. This was however not in the background section, this was in the section about notable incidents during the intifada. If it can't be tied to the intifada than how is it a notable incident during it? - Galatz (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * One source: Palestinian Mohammed Sunuqrut, 16, was fatally shot with a sponge tipped bullet while police were attempting to disperse a protest in East Jerusalem. and another source: The military said it would investigate the shooting, which occurred amid other clashes in Arab areas in and around Jerusalem in which several people were lightly injured. Are these events not related to acts of violence in Jerusalem? How can that be OR? -   Cwobeel   (talk)  18:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Because OR is when you draw lines that are not in the source. There has been violence and protests in Jerusalem forever. Unless you can find an RS that ties it to this, you are drawing your own conclusions that it relates to this and not something else. - Galatz (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There have been upsurges for weeks/months of killings, shootings, assaults, from 1967 to 1987, 2005-2014 that are never classified as intifadas, and the present period is, as yet, in that sense, not anomalous. That anh intifadais taking place is denied by numerous sources, and yet editors are writing it up as an intifada, while, paradox of paradox, refusing to cite anything in that wave of violence that does not fit into the Israeli victim template. In intifadas both sides kill each other, and all events falling within the ambit of the declared intifada are symptomatic of that uprising, by definition. So Cwobeel's point is perfectly legitimate. Nishidani (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:OR describes OR in the first sentence as The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. If no RS has stated that this is part of the intifada than its OR. No matter how strongly you believe its related to the events, OR is still OR. - Galatz (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If in the same article discussing one event, and that article is accepted as RS, material in the article referring to contiguous or related events, material considered by its author relevant to the context, can be also added. Since the author makes the connection, editors may also. Got it? Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You are very vague here on what you are referring to since its in response to me stating what the rule is, but I am assuming you are referring to the Time article posted before. The magazine clearly mentions it in the same article as the silent intifada, however they seem to refer to it as a separate instance of violence unrelated to it. Lets say it does have a correlation, what basis is there for this to be considered notable? Not every little instance belongs in the main article, thats why things like List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada exist. Create one for this if you need to record every little thing. - Galatz (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Getting back to the topic of this subsection, if wouldn't hurt to propose an alternative title for the page if anyone has a useful idea. Tkuvho (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

What did the US congressional research service foresee?
here is all I found in the report: Whether and how to intercede to end the conflict and avoid spillover into third countries or a third Palestinian intifada (uprising). This seems to be a far cry from the claim in the current version of the page that the said service foresaw an intifada. This seems to be an instance of outright misrepresentation. Tkuvho (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It says no such thing:
 * "The U.S. Congressional Research Service foresaw, immediately after the outbreak of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, that the conflict might engage the Obama Administration in a search for means to avoid a spillover into what could become a Third Intifada"
 * You might change 'foresaw' with 'imagined', 'projected as a possibility'. The obvious sense is that the research office laid out prognostications or outlined possible implications for American policy, when the war broke out: should be intercede, how, should be avoid, and how, possible collateral spillovers into the region; how and should be act if a third intifada emerges from the ashes of the war. All political analysts assist politicians in projecting the possible collateral outcomes of a given even, and to prepare for them, and Jim Zanetti's group foresaw the possibility that an intifada might occur (as I think many other articles at the time stated)Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * As you User:Nishidani seem to acknowledge the verb "foresee" is a misrepresentation of what the research service wrote in their report. Adding a lot of additional verbiage between "foreseeing" and "intifada" does not change the fact that the page currently does not represent their report accurately. Tkuvho (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No. You misconstrued the sentence,(as you misread my reply) which was, at least for average readers, somewhat complex. To foresee a possibility is not to predict an event. If you have having trouble with how I construed the source, you should exercise your right to offer an alternative construction for our perusal here. Lemme see how you'd like to rephrase it.Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, attaching this kind of significance to the mention of "intifada" in the report would involve checking whether or not they include this kind of vague phrase after every single conflict in the area. Tkuvho (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No, there is no obligation to do that, and what you imagine here is an invitation to WP:OR. We have a source? its meaning is paraphrased, and with that, our remit finishes.Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I precisely challenge the accuracy of your paraphrase. The mention of intifada is far more speculative than the paraphrase makes it appear, and also it is mentioned among a great variety of other possibilities. Describing this is "foreseeing", even with much additional verbiage before "intifada", is inaccurate. Tkuvho (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (ce)We have a text. I paraphrased it. You challenge my paraphrase. I can't see any point to your nitpicking because '''Whether and how to avoid spillover ... or a third Palestinian intifada,' obviously envisions an intifada as a forseeable possibility. So.
 * No one doubts the text is RS, that it alludes to the possibility of a future intifada in the wake of the outbreak of war in Gaza. So, rather than repeat yourself, offer your version of how this relevant text should be paraphrased. Be practical.Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be easier, if one of you could copy/paste here the portion of the report in which this is presented. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Here it goes:

Congress and the Obama Administration might address a range of issues pertinent to the conflict, including: Whether and how to intercede to end the conflict and avoid spillover into third countries or a third Palestinian intifada (uprising); Whether various Israeli and Palestinian actions comply with international laws and norms, and how to respond to any breaches; What implications there are for Palestinian unity, diplomacy and international action regarding Israeli-Palestinian disputes, and regional dynamics; and Whether and how various types of material and political assistance to Israel and the Palestinians might proceed, change, or cease (see CRS Report RL33222, U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel, by Jeremy M. Sharp and CRS Report RS22967, U.S. Foreign Aid to the Palestinians, by Jim Zanotti).

Note that the "conflict" being referred to here is not some nebulous "incipient intifada" but rather last summer's miniwar. In this sense, these recommendations (whether and how to intercede to end the conflict, etc.) are perfectly irrelevant, the conflict in question having ended. Tkuvho (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You beat me to the gun by 5 seconds. I note only that you don't want this text mentioned. It is an analysis of the Gaza war (mini war =2,200 dead?) Your evaluation of irrelevancy is, I believe, wholly subjective. Zanotti'0s analysis for Congress evaluates the background, motives, and possible political issues arising from that war, one of which is spillover in the region, and avoiding a 'third Palestinian intifada'. The 'third Palestinian intifada' is in the source, a very high quality one, and this rightly justifies its inclusion in the article. The only objection I can see so far is not policy-based, except in terms of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I like it, User:Nishidani. I think we agree it is a high quality source.  I just don't like the way you misrepresented it. Tkuvho (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

in the immediate wake
The current version contains the following passage: In the immediate wake of the kidnapping and murder of three Jewish teenage boys, Jewish mobs attacked Arabs in Jerusalem.In the immediate wake of the kidnapping and murder of 3 Jewish teenage boys, Jewish mobs attacked Arabs in Jerusalem.[33][34] Now obviously somebody thought this point is worth emphasizing, since it is repeated twice. Tkuvho (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Or it was an obvious typo. sudo  people  18:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of underlying factors
Moved punditry and speculation about causes and possible underlying factors to won section. Certainly there are causes, but with little agreement about what they are the did not belong in the 2nd paragraph of the lede. Nor did it seem to make sense to mix them in among events.ShulMaven (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's make more of an effort to find a more suitable title. Even "incipient intifada" seems better than a silent one. Some editors have been arguing that "silent" is a commonly used term but I take it you disagree? Tkuvho (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "silent" was the term in common use in Israeli media in October. I currently see all sorts of modifiers used with intifada.  But what I mostly see is assertions that there should be an intifada, assertions that this is an intifada, discussions of whether this is an intifada, and denials that this is an intifada.  I'm waiting for the conversation to settle in two ways.  i.e., we need some consensus in the media on whether this is an   intifada.  Then, if it is so deemed, we can follow media consensus on what to call it.ShulMaven (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (talk) is right that the article needs a better name. incipient intifada doesn't work, because we don't have a crystal ball.  How about something NPOV, NPOV, that is, on the question of whether this is or is not an incipient intifada.  Something along the lines of 2014 sectarian violence in Israel and the West Bank  Let's try to brainstorm.ShulMaven (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * How about redirecting this to List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014 ? Since everybody seems to agree there is no official intifada yet, that's the appropriate target. An additional benefit is that it makes the silly punditry irrelevant. Tkuvho (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Aside form the actual incidents, So much of what is on the page is punditry, speculation and special pleading.ShulMaven (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The news media is calling this a third intifada, silent intifada, urban intifada, Jerusalem intifada, etc, etc, etc, etc. The title of the article (Silent Intifada, alt: urban, third) perfectly follows the guidelines at WP:COMMONNAME. We've discussed this time and time again on this talk page. Instead of constantly debating the same subject, read through this page and see that your concerns have mostly been addressed. If you're still not satisfied, improve the article to further clarify that it's a contentious term. The fact is, people will and already are Googling the term and expect to find out what it means. It is not simply a giant list of attacks. There's a reason we forked it. Where were you when we decided to fork the article? Now you want to unfork it via redirect?

The biggest problem I see with this article at the moment is quite a few people pointing fingers at the article from the talk page and doing very little improvement. If you'd please mark the items you have contention with, I'd be happy to continue improving the article with well cited sources linking the statements here with the popular term, Silent Intifada, as I've done repeatedly. sudo people  18:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Propose redirecting page
It is proposed to redirect this weirdly speculative page to List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014. Tkuvho (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * At present, the first half of that article is a wild string of unsupported allegations. ShulMaven (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see, I didn't look at it carefully. So it's not much better than this one. What do you propose? Tkuvho (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Improving one or both. A Herculean task, given the amount of special pleading and grandstanding that is being inserted.ShulMaven (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No. This article is well supported. Try reading through some of the sources. Every one of them in the Incidents section (that I just rewrote, and am continuing to improve) includes the word intifada in reference to a new, third, silent or otherwise. You don't just get to say it's weird and redirect it. You back up your statements, just like the article has. If you find a couple references that could use improvement, I'd be happy to find you 10 more that substantiate it, or *gasp* you could even improve them yourself. 18:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The article is supported by good sources and very informative. If there are issues that need addressing list them so that they can be discussed. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Terminology and precedents section
This review of 1st and 2nd intifadas is unnecessary. Lede links to each of the intifadas, where all of this is available.ShulMaven (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a weird section but it shows the reader why current events may end up being a third intifada. I suggest keeping it and renaming and improving it. sudo  people  18:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Think of the reader. A good summary and background is always useful. Needs improvement? Sure. All articles do. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva
Arutz Sheva is a borderline newspaper, expressing an extremist POV. It should be used with great reserve, and certainly not to document a succession of incidents which, if notable, are covered extensively in the mainstream Israeli press. The list of articles used in this edit is an example of hijacking wikipedia to rewrite it from a specific and marginal POV, and the edit should be reverted as manifest settler-perspectivizing.Nishidani (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Arutz Sheva is no less POV than Maan News.--190.17.194.157 (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I therefore presume you are unfamiliar with Ma'an News Agency. Ma'an has been funded by the Dutch, British (UK Department for International Development ) and Danish governments, by the EU and UNESCO, as well as several other groups, and is now 50% self-funded. Arutz Sheva is based in Beit El, i.e. Palestinian territory. Ma'an is based in Palestine as well, since it is Palestinian, and robbed no one to get there. Arutz Sheva was an outlaw radio, retroactively amnestied for its infractions of the law, till that law was cancelled by the Israeli Supreme Court. I believe it still operates without a licence. Ma'an News Agency's English reports are drafted without hysterical language, and tend to dry reportage. Arutz Sheva is a mouthpiece for settler fanatics, immigrants who like cheap housing even if it means evicting 'natives' with title, and for journalistic hacks no mainstream Israeli paper would publish, and defends deliquency. Ma'an registers in relatively neutral language what happens on its terrain when the deliquents rampage. Ma'an translates into Hebrew; Arutz S into Russian, its main readereship. This is how Ma'an reported the Har Nof synagogue attack. is how Arutz Sheva, in one of many articles, tended to spin the murder of Mohammad Abu Khdeir. One is journalism, the other is tabloid innuendo-mongering.Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * : "I believe it still operates without a licence", "Arutz Sheva is a mouthpiece for settler fanatics, immigrants..." "Arutz S into Russian, its main readereship" - what do you mind? Have you any RS for this info? --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Amit Schejter, Muting Israeli Democracy: How Media and Cultural Policy Undermine Free Expression, University of Illinois Press 2009 p.30
 * Aaron Klein, [The Late Great State of Israel: How Enemies Within and Without Threaten the,] WND Books, 2009 pp.69-70
 * Alan T. Levenson (ed.) The Wiley-Blackwell History of Jews and Judaism, Wiley & Co 2012 p.491
 * Colin Shindler, A History of Modern Israel, Cambridge University Press, 2013 p.262
 * Max Blumenthal, [Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel,] Nation Books, 2014 p.457
 * Its Alexa ranking for the Russian version is 20 times higher than the rating for hits in Hebrew (Russian immigrants were raised in an imperial dictatorship exposed only to the comically named Pravda and Vremya etc without any understanding of modern states and democracy, any cultural exposure to Western traditions of institutional justice and moved to one which is ruled by ethnic obsessions, colonialization and war.); It began as an expression of the Gush Emunim movement; it was a pirate radio station, it was repeatedly closed down by the government; it opposed the Oslo Accords (i.e. Peace)indicting them as responsible for Hamas suicide bombings; it got even more vitriolic when Baruch Goldstein 'patriotically' machine-gunned 29 Muslim worshippers at the Cave of the Patriarchs Massacre; when Mt Carmel Caught fire in 2010 what was precipitated by a local (Druze?) act of negligence was being pushed by Arutz Sheva as perhaps 'the worst terror attack in Israel's history'; even today it is airing the views of serial plagiarists like Giulio Meotti, as he recounts how in a recent tour of 'Smaria and Judea' he could see no signs of occupation!; it is full of reports the Islamic brotherhood penedtrated the Obama administration, that Obama can't shake off his Islamic roots, and thus panders to terrorists etc.etc.etc. And some guy wants to compare its sense of perspective to Ma'an?Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm, why did you bring the sources related to the history of the Arutz Sheva radio station, but not to the news site discussed here ? I have to inform you that A7's broadcasting was terminated in October 2003. To some extent, 'Galei Israel' may be regarded as its successor - it aired only in late 2010 after a long red tape and leftists' protests.
 * But we're talking about the A7, isn't it? :)
 * Your appeal to Alexa doesn't prove your arguments too. If we'd based on it, the AP7 is the most-most RS. :) I am not going to discuss the following results at the moment. One note only - besides of Haaretz there numbers for a foreign language are bigger than for Hebrew. '?' is for strange results (as min, for me).

53,172 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/www.inn.co.il (he) 13,590 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/www.israelnationalnews.com (en) 18,100,619 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/www.israel7.ru (ru)

1,422 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/ynet.co.il (he) 9,102 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/ynetnews.com (en)

9,234 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/haaretz.co.il (he) 6,007 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/haaretz.com (en)

41,574 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/israelhayom.co.il (he) 114,243 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/israelhayom.com (en)

8,941 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/nrg.co.il (he)

5,060 (?) http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/jpost.com (en)

106,416 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/israeltoday.co.il (en)

(ru) 958,450 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/israelinfo.ru (left one) 67,000 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/cursorinfo.co.il 33,141 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/9tv.co.il 24,033 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/mignews.com 1,704 (?) http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/newsru.com
 * 15,034 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/newsru.co.il (daughter)
 * 10,616 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/newsru.ua (daughter)
 * Regarding to your "(Russian immigrants were raised in an imperial dictatorship..." (without any smile) as well as for the following your edit's description "Sure, but from a PA perspective, inviting an Israeli ninvestigation is npointless. They only inverstigate Arab crimes against settlers" - I just have to remind you about the wp:NOTFORUM & wp:NPOV. No discussions here for the Gideon Levy's blood libel & other such fantasies.
 * And about the Ma'an quality: only one propaganda's example what you did decided to add to the article "On 11 August, according to a Hebron mother of 12,Jihad al-Atrash...". Let me know if you've added something from it "sexual" part 1. :)
 * By the way: "this edit" & info what you mentioned above should be added to the article because it doesn't differ from your such edits what you regularly add to it. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Israeli news sources
I reverted "Some Israeli news sources have marked the beginning of what they claim might be the latest intifada as July 2014" to "Israeli news sources have marked the beginning of the latest intifada as July 2014"


 * The new version contributed to a run-on sentence that was difficult to read, and isn't accurate to what the three inline sources say.
 * The "some" aspect of "Israeli news sources" is obvious. No one assumes every single possible news source in Israel claims the same thing about anything. The sources don't say "some" they say "the media" and "Israeli media" which is stronger language than used in the article - as if "the media" is a unified entity. The original (and current) text treats news agencies as individual organizations (with differing opinions).
 * The controversy over the term has been hashed out and is well represented in the lede. Readers will have cemented in their mind by now that the "silent intifada" is a tenative term used to describe 2014 violence in Jerusalem. We don't need to hammer them over the head with incessant caveats and qualifiers.

I also modified "who was kidnapped and burned alive by Jewish extremists who were rapidly identified and arrested by Israeli police — a retaliatory attack following the" to "who was kidnapped and burned alive by Jewish extremists — a retaliatory attack following the"
 * The sentence was almost unreadable and obviously POV creeping into a perfectly neutral sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudopeople (talk • contribs) 23:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I am making a draft for a new page that might replace this one.
The silent intifada as described is not only in July 2014 but continues to this very day. Shouldn't we make a page for the esculation itself? (I will link the draft soon) --&#39;&#39;&#39;Bolter21&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)