Talk:Second Intifada/Archive 5

2nd intifida ended in 2005
Second intifada (Al-Aqsa intifada) ended at Sharm el-Sheikh Summit of 2005, on feb 8, 2005. A reference is eg. Pierre Razoux, Tsahal, p.468, Perrin, isbn 226202328X. Another one (I haven't personnaly checked) is : Mideast ceasefire agreed, Financial Times, feb 9, 2005. What is written in the article that it would not be finished is not sourced. It is a pov and more certainly a minoritary pov. 81.243.163.4 15:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's silly. There are still shellings and suicide bombings. There has been a lull, but it hasn't seemed like much of one. But then again, I didn't watch the news much before 2000... The Evil Spartan 19:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The suicide bombings began in 1994, but if you check the first intifada page, you will se that it was supposed to be over in 1993. So this is not the criteria. The fact is that from Israel's point of view at least, the Intifada was over in 2005 and even 2004. Only very few attacks if any, no impact on everyday life, no impact on the economy, no popular uprising in the territories (the meaning of the word "Intifada" in Arabic). From the Palestinian POV, it is much more difficult to say because life did not come back to normal. So fixing a date for the end of the Intifada is arbitrary. It could be the death of Arafat or the evacuation of Gaza, but if we have here a sourced reference for February 2005, let's use it. Benjil 21:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see more evidence for an end date. To begin with, is there a scholarly and political consensus the intifada has in fact ended in 2007? &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 22:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A survey of sources would be a good start to understanding what the academic positions are.  Tewfik Talk 05:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not accurated to refer to the 2nd Intifada as ongoing. Ask any Israeli or Palestinian (I live Jerusalem). It ended either with the death of Arafat or Disengagement. Among other sources: 0

Talk archives
Talk archives 1, 2, and 3 are now red-linked. Can an admin find these archives?

I just created talk archive 4 and a talk archive of Al-Aqsa and Second Intifada discussions. See the archive box at the top of this talk page.

Here are the link bars below for the article. They may help in finding lost talk archives.



For help on archiving please see Help:Archiving a talk page. --Timeshifter 11:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"See also" links
Tewfik and Humus are repeatedly removing Occupation 101 (2006 documentary on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict) from the "See also" links section. See Tewfik's last diff

I returned the "see also" link. The "See also" link is to a wikipedia page. Wikipedia pages are WP:NPOV. They allow people to do further reading on wikipedia having to do with the subject of the article.

The documentary has won many awards. Its site mentions many well-known people in it. So it is info that meets wikipedia's reliable source standards. Its partisan or non-partisan nature is irrelevant. "See also" links are not limited to non-partisan topics, and never have been. Same as for the further reading sections. --Timeshifter 17:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Related documentaries
Hello? Hmmm, shouldn't you all be Talking about this here? I've got no substantive guidance on your disagreement, except why carry it on thru edit summaries, why engage in unproductive reverts? What are you policy or editorial reasons for inclusion or exclusion? Do you need third party opinions on whether an item belongs under the topic? Is this a POV or a sources dispute? etc. Au revoir, HG | Talk 17:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally I don't think they merit inclusion because we should be pointing people to scholarly sources -not dueling POV documentaries. We could easily fill 10 or 12 screen-fulls of this kind of stuff, but in the case of controversial topics like this, we should raise standards to avoid disputes. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 01:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Armon wrote: "we should be pointing people to scholarly sources"

From: http://www.occupation101.com/interviewees.html - Here is the cast of the documentary Occupation 101:

The entire list of featured interviews:
 * Dr. Albert Aghazarian (Birzeit University)
 * Ambassador James E. Akins (Former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia)
 * Rabbi Arik Ascherman (Rabbis for Human Rights)
 * Dr. William Baker (Christians and Muslims for Peace)
 * Bishop Allen Bartlett, Jr. (Diocese of Washington)
 * Phyllis Bennis (Institute for Policy Studies)
 * Peter Boukaert (Human Rights Watch)
 * Sharon Burke (Amnesty International)
 * Noam Chomsky (Political Analyst - MIT Professor)
 * Father Drew Christiansen (United States Catholic Conference)
 * Cindy and Craig Corrie (Parents of late peace activist Rachel Corrie)
 * Douglas Dicks (Catholic Relief Services)
 * Richard Falk] (United Nations Fact-finding Commission)
 * Paul Findley (U.S. Congressman 1961-1983)
 * Thomas Getman (World Vision International)
 * Neta Golan (International Solidarity Movement)
 * Jeff Halper (Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions)
 * Amira Hass (Israeli Journalist -- Ha'aretz)
 * Doug Hostetter (Fellowship of Reconciliation)
 * Kathy Kamphoefner (Christian Peacemaker Team)
 * Adam Keller (Gush Shalom - Israeli Peace Group)
 * Hava Keller (Woman's Organization for Political Prisoners)
 * Rashid Khalidi (School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia U)
 * Peretz Kidron (Yesh Gvul - Israeli Peace Group)
 * Rabbi Michael Lerner (Tikkun Community)
 * Rabbi Rebecca Lillian (Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace)
 * Roger Normand (Center for Economic and Social Rights)
 * Allegra Pacheco (Israeli Human Rights Lawyer)
 * Ilan Pappe (Israeli Historian - Haifa University)
 * Dr. Iyad Sarraj (Prominent Palestinian Psychologist)
 * Yael Stein (B'Tselem - Israeli Human Rights Group)
 * Gila Svirsky (Coalition of Women for a Just Peace)
 * Ambassador Edward Walker (Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel)
 * Alison Weir (If Americans Knew) --Timeshifter 07:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is also non-responsive. You've got a few scholars mixed with a of bunch of activists pushing a particular POV on the situation. This only proves my point. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 11:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent) Armon wrote in a comment higher up in this section: "we should raise standards to avoid disputes."

This documentary has won many awards:

The film has won several awards from various film festivals.


 * Winner of the "Golden Palm" Award (highest honor given by jury) and for "Best Editing" at the 2007 International Beverly Hills Film Festival.
 * Winner of the 'Artivist Award' for Best Feature Film under the category of Human Rights at the 2006 Artivist Film Festival in Hollywood.
 * Winner of the Best Documentary Award (Special Recognition) at the 2007 New Orleans International Human Rights Film Festival.
 * Winner of the Best Feature Film Award at the 2006 River's Edge Film Festival.
 * Winner of the Best Documentary Feature Award at 2006 The Dead Center Film Festival.
 * Winner of the Audience Award for Best Documentary at 2006 East Lansing Film Festival.
 * Winner of the John Michaels Memorial Award at the 2006 Big Muddy Film Festival.

So this is one of the better external links we could use. And it is even better in that there is a wikipedia article on it. Wikipedia article topics require notability. So this is an external link that is notable, won many awards, and has scholarly input. --Timeshifter 16:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, this strikes me as passing notability and reliable source criteria. Assuming the film reflects an anti-Israeli gov't POV, perhaps Timeshifter would you accept putting this under a "See Also" subheading divided by the different points-of-view? I've seen the "See Also" categorized by POV in other articles. Would that be ok with Tewfik, Armon, et alia? Thanks. HG | Talk 13:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to categorize the "see also" section by POV. The external links section is broken down by POV. I have seen all kinds of breakdowns in the "see also" and external links sections of other articles. I haven't seen the film clips, but something tells me it is against the right-wing of Israeli politics. So I guess that is pro-Palestinian, but not necessarily anti-Israel. :) --Timeshifter 14:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought we agreed that "Occupation 101" was extremely notable - why is it not amongst the "See Also" links? PRtalk 18:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I believe I made a mistake. "External links" sections are divided by POV, but I'm not aware of such divisions for "See also" sections -- since all our articles should be presented in a neutral way. Instead, I suggest: put the external link under "Pro-Palestinian" and the article as an annotated link: "Occupation 101, a documentary favorable to the Palestinian view" -- ok? I'll WP:BRD it. HG | Talk 13:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Another mistake... I thought that the dust had settled on this question. I gather Tewfik and maybe others are still concerned about whether any documentaries should be added. So, I self-reverted on the link. In terms of the "See also", there are now 2 films. So, rather than undo both, I'd like to encourage Tewfik and others to advance the discussion. Thanks. HG | Talk 18:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if a doco won at some awards, film festivals, especially non notable ones, aren't anything like peer review. My objection still stands. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 23:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Armon, it's hard for me to see the grounds for your objection. (1) You want to rely on "high quality" sources like peer review. A fine idea, but not applicable. The "See also" section is not a set of sources but rather related articles. WP:ALSO: "The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid." (2) You want to avoid disputes, which is admirable (believe me!), but not grounds to omit text or topics in Wikipedia. (3) In what I take to be hyperbole, you say we "fill 10 or 12 screen-fulls of this kind of stuff." Again, this doesn't strike me as an objection -- if the Second Intifada has so many related articles (like Occupation 101), then it should be a category. Anyway, please be real -- can you even name 5 other award-winning documentaries about the 2nd intifada that have articles? If you don't have a persuasive policy-based objection, then folks might infer that your objection is animated by dislike for the film itself. I look forward to your response. HG | Talk 02:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the fact that I deleted both docos. If you want to watch either, they are on You Tube see here and here. I don't see what either adds except to soapbox, and I don't see what the big deal is, unless some editors insist on it. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 01:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the "Related Documentaries" section in order to solve the dispute over including/removing Occupation 101. As long as an equal number of pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian documentaries are provided and documentaries on both sides are put in an order which does not place one side over the other, I see no issue with having such a section. Although I guess others may disagree. ← Michael Safyan 05:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Michael, hi. Your comment seems unresponsive to the claim, stated immediately above, that Occupation 101 deals only marginally with the Second Intifada. (There's also been a concern about whether documentaries belong at all, but I don't see a policy basis for that concern.) In addition -- and this goes for people on both "sides" of the struggle here -- neutrality doesn't mean a quid pro quo of one "See also" source matched off against another. Sources be presented in a neutral fashion and be included if they are notable and relevant. If Occupation 101 passes muster, but no anti-Palestinian documentary of sufficient quality has an article, so be it. And vice versa. Thanks. HG | Talk 14:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

HG, I agree with your quid pro quo point. There is still the problem that neither is specifically about the Second Intifada, and as for "policy", the guideline for "See alsos" strongly suggests that they are for further exploration of the article's topic, not to highlight "must-see" films. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 00:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good, so Armon and I agree that it's relevant to check the degree to which the film focuses on, and further explores, the Second Intifada. The film's website gives this synopsis: "A thought-provoking and powerful documentary film on the current and historical root causes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.... The film covers a wide range of topics -- which include -- the first wave of Jewish immigration from Europe in the 1880's, the 1920 tensions, the 1948 war, the 1967 war, the first Intifada of 1987, the Oslo Peace Process, Settlement expansion, the role of the United States Government, the second Intifada of 2000, the separation barrier and the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, as well as many heart wrenching testimonials from victims of this tragedy." Well, I wouldn't expect to see the documentary as a "See also" for each of these 10 or so subtopics. Instead, better to list the film under the broader article(s) about the Isr-Pal conflict and its overall causes. Sorry, Timeshifter, about changing my mind, but I had assumed the documentary focused on the intifada. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, HG, I believe the "many heart wrenching testimonials from victims of this tragedy" focus on the Second Intifada. The movie clip called "Gaza Reality" that I looked at on the official site showed some of those testimonials, and focussed heavily on the Second Intifada. There are several more clips I can view. The clips are at:
 * http://www.occupation101.com/multimedia.html --Timeshifter 04:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, we are narrowing down the disagreement (as least betw Timeshifter and Armon) to a factual question: Does the film focus heavily on Second Intifada. Personally, I'd be inclined to accept Timeshifter's reading of the film's testimonials. I don't think it's a WP:OR issue, assuming that the testimonials can be readily id'd as pertaining to the Second Intifada. (It's like identifying major vs minor characters in a book.) Nonetheless, I'd suggest that Timeshifter handle this question by first editing Occupation 101 to clearly mention the film's focus on Second Intifada. The source can be the film itself (and footnoting the relevant testimonials, if need be). As long as that mention stands (or withstands challenges), then the inclusion here should be acceptable to Armon. Right? HG | Talk 06:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To be specific the "Gaza Reality" clip has interviews with kids discussing things happening to them the last few years during the time of the Second Intifada. Even if the film does not focus mainly on the Second Intifada it is highly relevant to a Wikipedia article on the topic. It would be useful to put some quotes from the kids in the article, and just link to the clip page directly as a reference. We have already established the notability of the film. A wikipedia footnote reference often has both external links and wikilinks. This may be a way to solve the problems here concerning those who are against putting the wikilink in the "See also" section. Instead we put the wikilink in the reference footnote along with the link to the clip page. --Timeshifter 07:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Section on Jenin
I've done a certain amount of fixing up of this section – for NPOV, to reduce tendentious original research, to make sure claims match sources, to clean up non-idiomatic language, and finally, to eliminate the ADL commentary (nowhere else in the timeline do we include pundit commentary, and it would obviously become unmanageable were we to do so). I spread these changes out over four or five edits, each with clearly reasoned edit summaries. A trollish blind revert by Armon has all but reverted them all in one fell swoop, leaving a non-sequitur edit summary about "blanking" the ADL that suggests he hadn't looked at what he was reverting. At any rate, I'm going to briefly itemize the changes so that serious editors can look them over, discuss them collectively, raise objections and so on. I gather Armon intends to edit war over this, but with any luck we can avoid seeing the page locked. First, I rewrote the following sentence – The battle remains a flashpoint for both sides, due to false allegations of a massacre of thousands of Palestinians that surfaced during the IDF's operations in the camp.

so that it read: The battle remains a flashpoint for both sides, due partly to rumors of a massacre of Palestinians that surfaced during the IDF's operations in the camp, and partly to allegations of war crimes made in the aftermath of the siege. Reasons: "False allegations" is POV, strongly suggesting duplicity; the Amnesty report explicitly used the phrase "rumors of massacre" and attributed them not to dishonesty or exaggeration but to siege conditions (residents under 24-hour curfew and no outside media or medical access); and "thousands" reflects a tendency toward exaggeration and fabrication not on the part of Palestinians but rather on the part of Wikipedians. It is self-evident that war crimes allegations are also a major factor in why Jenin is still a "flashpoint"; the ADL statement that Armon restored illustrates that, as could any other of a hundred sources.

Next, there's this sentence: These allegations were disproved by international agencies that placed the actual death toll at below 55. The massacre allegations were not "disproved" any more than war crimes were "proved"; the relevant HR org's found strong evidence for the latter and no evidence for the former, that is all. It has been settled at Battle of Jenin that HR org's are not in the business of adjudicating crimes (i.e. proving or disproving them), and Armon has given his thumbs-up to a series of statements hashed out in mediation that make this point explicitly. "Below 55" is idiomatically strange; you use these "below X" formulations when the number is a round ballpark figure like 100 or 1000; you don't use "below 55" to mean 54. At any rate, the figure is 52-54; let's just say it. Finally, the vague phrase "international agencies" followed by a reference to the UN report suggested that the UN weighed in on whether a massacre took place. They did not. Human Rights Watch did. So I put the massacre conclusion in the appropriate sentence, the sentence about HRW's conclusions, and rewrote the passage as follows: Subsequent investigations by international agencies placed the actual death toll at 52-54. In the ensuing controversy, Human Rights Watch found no evidence of a massacre, but evidence that "Israeli forces committed serious violations of international humanitarian law, some amounting prima facie to war crimes,"[30] while Amnesty International similarly found evidence that Israel had committed war crimes. The only substantive change here, other than putting the no-massacre finding in the proper sentence, was to fix the non-idiomatic phrase "Amnesty International similarly alleged evidence so that it read found evidence. This brings it in line with found no evidence of massacre, so it's more NPOV – but more importantly, idiomatically you never allege evidence.  You find, gather and publish/present evidence, thereby making allegations.

I moved the ADL quote commenting on the investigations to its own paragraph, to keep it separate from investigative findings, but then upon realizing that it was the only pundit commentary in a timeline of several thousand words, I removed it entirely.

Finally, I added that Time Magazine's investigative report on Jenin supported HRW's conclusion that no massacre had occurred. Armon liked this part – fancy that – and so was kind enough to leave it in.--G-Dett 11:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * G-Dett, perhaps a bit of patience would be helpful. If only out of respect for the time I've put into your (and others') dispute at Talk:Battle of Jenin, I would appreicate it -- fancy that -- if you would hold off redoing summaries of Jenin in various places -- until we've settled the issue more at the main article. Thanks. HG | Talk 14:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry HG, I should not have invoked our deliberations and proposals over at that article. The point was not to rewrite this in line with what is at the moment only an inchoate solution from a different article.  The point was rather to deal with egregious problems in this section, period (remains a flashpoint because of "false allegations disproved," yadda yadda).  Likewise the question of whether to quote the reflections of pundits here (a big deviation from the rule here) is entirely separate from what evolves at Battle of Jenin.--G-Dett 15:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of your corrections may be fair, but some of them can be argued about, and one certainly shouldn't assume that some consensus on all of this wording was already reached, even if the right phrasing may be clear to you. Regarding the infobox, the question of why people were killed is a big one, and most of the other numbers can also be qualified with a "but" piece of information, many of them with several. That discussion is meant to be had in the body, not the infobox, which is just a what.  Tewfik Talk 20:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I do take some of G-dett's points, especially about disproved, Below 55 and alleged evidence, so I'll try to be more careful. However, AI does not have the final say on the subject and it's an advocacy org just like the ADL. I took out "false allegations" myself, but using AI's POV that the massacre claim was due solely to the fog of war, is just that, their POV, and doesn't explain why the propaganda about a massacre is still asserted. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 23:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Are we going to include commentary/punditry in the timeline?
I removed the ADL's comment regarding the Jenin investigations because of its anomalousness: as I wrote in my edit summary and reiterated here several times, "there seems to be no other pundit commentary in any of these yearly summaries; readers can find this in the main Jenin article." First Armon reverted it with an edit summary non-responsive to the issue I raised: " rv blanking of source". Now Tewfik has joined in, reverting without addressing the issue here, and leaving a non-responsive edit summary: "restore criticism".

Tewfik and Armon, I wonder if you'll be so kind as to discuss the matter, preferably here, but failing that at least with cogent, on-point edit summaries, instead of launching directly into yet another edit war? My feeling is that if we include commentary on events in the timeline, the section is going to become unmanageably long, not to mention an ideological battleground. Obviously you disagree, hence the reverts, but could you talk through your reasoning here? Thanks,--G-Dett 21:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, the current text is not only unbalanced, it is seemingly nonsensical. "The Anti-Defamation League questioned how HRW and AI could both acknowledge the lack of a supposed Israeli massacre and the endangerment of Palestinian civilians by Palestinian gunmen and still maintain its accusation of Israel" - wha? I don't know if that's a strangely worded summary of a meaningful criticism, or an accurately worded summary of a strange criticism, but either way it's off base. There is no logical contradiction there to question. It's like saying that you "question how HRW and AI could both acknowledge the lack of officially articulated Palestinian support for suicide bombings and the endangerment of Israelis by Israeli provocations and still maintain its accusation of Hamas". It's unaccountable. &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 21:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Rephrased to moderate criticism per HG &lt; el eland / talk  edits &gt; 22:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't quite put my finger on it, but this whole exercise seems a bit odd. You all appear to be working constructively at the Jenin page, whereas I find this conversation more negative, less cooperative, less substantive. What gives? Are you all trying to work together in good faith to write an encyclopedia article? Is there something else going on that I'm missing? Am I over-reacting? Feel free to reply on my Talk rather than muck up the gears here. HG | Talk 22:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * HG, you know how eminently wise and reasonable I think you are; this is one of the first times I've thought you were off. I think the ADL quote is totally out of place in a section devoted to a factual timeline.  I've given a simple explanation why – there are no other such commentaries anywhere in the timeline.   What I'm getting in return is edit-warring reverts with non-responsive edit summaries.  I'm not edit-warring in return, and I've opened a discussion section devoted to the matter, inviting my opponents to share their views on why we should include commentary of this kind.


 * You are the essential man on this page (I write that without irony): if you say this isn't the time for this discussion I'll remove it (with Eleland's consent). But please know that I posted this in the hopes of moving forward cooperatively.--G-Dett 22:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll second G-Dett's compliment to HG, he's made a huge effort to resolve the disputes here, and related pages. G-Dett, the reason I reverted you is simply because HRW and AI's findings (i.e. their commentary) is disputed. That is a fact. It is not proper, therefore, to erase the fact the dispute exists. If you don't like current wording, I have no problem with you making an attempt to write for the enemy and fixing it. Simply blanking it, on the other hand, isn't acceptable. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 04:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't "simply blank it," Armon, but you did simply (and blindly) revert it. As you know.  It is a rhetorical truism, not an analytical argument, to say that this or that aspect of the history of the 2nd intifada is disputed, and your invocation of "wording" is a total red herring.  The fact is that the ADL is not a comparable organization to Amnesty or HRW, and they never carried out any investigation of any kind.  They, like hundreds of others, offered their armchair partisan opinion, which within the present structure and editorial mandate of our "timeline" manifestly does not belong.  Every aspect of the I/P conflict, from ordinary RS journalistic coverage to HRW's findings of "no massacre," is disputed, and you need to make a decision whether the "timeline" is to incorporate such disputes or not.  I gather you think it should.  Very well, I disagree.  We'll need to hash the matter out here.  But be aware of the implications of your position; if you prevail, the timeline will change dramatically.--G-Dett 05:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks to both of you for your kind words (and to Eleland for rephrasing). As I look at this article, the text we came up with at Talk:Battle of Jenin could be very useful. Currently, the text here mentions massacre, then war crimes, then Time on massacre, then ADL on war crimes (a-b-a-b). Better to have massacre (2 items if you wish) and then war crimes (a-a-b-b). Moreover, instead of balancing the AI/HRW with ADL, it would be better to make use of our agreed upon "charges" language balanced by "IDF disputes" and "no trial held". This latter balancing strikes me as superior in terms of sourcing and content. Stylistically, I also wonder whether we need a "Jenin" subheading (or a new subheading thereafter) in order to use the "Main article:" summary style. Anyway, since the same folks are involved in the Battle of Jenin discussion, I do implore you all to not get into a dispute over the Jenin wording here. If both "sides" feel comfortable with my efforts (re:Jenin), then how about giving me some leeway to edit the Jenin paragraph here? I'll try to do the balancing I've suggested here (i.e., IDF, no trial). Instead of reverting me, just raise your concerns here and I'll be as responsive as I can, ok? Thanks again for your encouraging and kind words. HG | Talk 05:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Reasons why Jenin is still a "flashpoint"
HG, your edits to the Jenin section are an improvement overall, but I wonder why you removed the bolded words from the following: The battle remains a flashpoint for both sides, due partly to rumors of a massacre of Palestinians that surfaced during the IDF's operations in the camp, and partly to allegations of war crimes made in the aftermath of the siege.--G-Dett 19:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, good pt. War crimes can certainly be part of reason for flashpoint, I just didn't see a need for the last clause given what was to come. So now I'd like to put the war crimes section right after the massacre, and add something like "In addition" to show that it's an additional cause for flashpoint. This would move the causalties info down the paragraph, ok? If this works, then maybe we can get a neutral copyeditor to fix it up, too. Thanks GDett, let me know if you have further suggestions or if my edits muck it up again.HG | Talk 00:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Now I have a few minor changes. Why say "remains" a flashpoint? I tend not to like the kind of writing because "remains" always refers to the reader's present time, but the encyclopedia shouldn't be written as if it needs to be constantly updated/checked. So I changed it to "became" a flashpoint. Also, I'm thinking maybe the war crimes point should come first, it's more solid than the rumors item. Accordingly, I've changed the flashpoint 2 reasons into a "Notably, ... Furthermore..." structure. Plus, I took the body count sentences from our agreed-upon paragraph in the Jenin article. The result does read a bit choppily, but is this good enough to keep things calmer than before? Thanks for your confidence in me, sorry about my struggling with the specific edits, take care HG | Talk 01:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've submitted a rewrite/copyedit. Hopefully there won't be major issues with it:
 * Between April 2nd and 11th, a siege and fierce fighting took place in Jenin, a Palestinian refugee camp. The Jenin battle became a flashpoint for both sides. During the IDF's operations in the camp, Palestinian sources alleged that a massacre of hundreds people had taken place. In the ensuing controversy, the United Nations issued a report that found no evidence of a massacre, and criticized both sides for placing Palestinian civilians at risk.  However, based on their own investigations, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch charged that IDF personnel in Jenin had committed war crimes. Both human rights organizations called for official inquiries; the IDF disputed the charges. After the battle, most sources, including the Palestinian Authority, placed the Palestinian death toll between 52 and 56. The IDF reported that 23 Israeli soldiers were killed.   (Actually, I tweaked it a bit more, and added another ref to the NYT, so I've updated it here) &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 10:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no good reason to present the UN's findings in terms different from the ones they chose. Other than massaging the UN report, the proposed rewrite offers no substantive or stylistic improvement over the current version.--G-Dett 18:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Jenin UN
G-Dett, please stop undoing my edits. The UN did confirm that a massacre had not taken place; section 56 notes that reports that 500 Palestinians were killed has not been substantiated. ← Michael Safyan 00:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Michael, hi there. Would you mind checking the main Jenin article and see if your point is made there? I think we haven't worked out the 'massacre' write-up yet, so maybe you could bring this up and work it through at Talk:Battle of Jenin first? Thanks. HG | Talk 01:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Michael, the UN report makes no reference to "massacre." As "massacre" has no legal definition under international law, and its application in ordinary usage is subjective and context-specific, it is original research to use the term where the sources don't.  Indeed Amnesty cited the term's ambiguity in explaining why they eschewed it in their report, and for all we know the UN report may have avoided it for precisely the same reason; at any rate it is clear that they didn't use it.  Human Rights Watch did use the term in their findings, as did Time Magazine in their investigative report, so it's appropriate for us to report their respective findings on that question.  The word "massacre" is central to partisan debate about the significance of Jenin, even among those who acknowledge the accuracy of the 52-56 body count; to present sources as having weighed in on the legitimacy of that word when they didn't is a violation of WP:NOR as well as WP:NPOV.  For more on the delicacy with which investigative findings regarding Jenin are presented, see Talk:Battle of Jenin.--G-Dett 21:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Current disputes
Okay, let's see if we can sort out some of the current disputes.

Ariel Sharon in the infobox
I've just noticed that Ariel Sharon is marked as being deceased in the infobox, yet his article states that he is still alive,, albeit in a vegetative state. Does this need changing? A-Nottingham | Talk 19:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Even if he's brain dead, if he's not dead dead, he's not dead. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverts of 3,902 bytes
Tewfik, Beit Or, would you care to explain your reverts of this material? Things are getting restored that have not been verified despite request (just above) to provide the text in question. Minor language edits that improved flow and readability are being reverted there as well. Can you try to isolate the specific problems and discuss?  T i a m u t  19:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Another round of major tag-team reverts. Ultranationalist POV-favoring
Tewfik intitiated another round of tag-team reverts. He reverted many of the changes made in the last few weeks. He did this after the page had been basically stable for 16 days since Tiamut's last edit before his major blanking reversion. See this diff:

Armon piled on, too. Hey Armon, how come you waited 16 days before you made any edits?

Tag-team reverts are not a productive way to edit wikipedia. This type of support for ultranationalist POV-favoring in Israeli-related articles is against WP:NPOV.

Ultranationalist POV-favoring has been mentioned many times at WP:ANI and elsewhere concerning various topic areas. Jimbo Wales has spoken out against this type of ultranationalist POV-favoring in various topic areas.

Please use the talk page, Tewfik and Armon.

Here are many examples of ultranationalist POV-favoring on wikipedia::
 * http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWikipedia+ultra+nationalist
 * http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWikipedia+ultranationalist

A lot of productive time of admins and arbitrators is wasted due to the stubbornness of supporters of ultranationalist POVs. If they understood WP:NPOV better then there would not be a problem. We can express all significant POVs in the form of X says Y. But no POV can be favored. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been busy. Anyway, the changes you've made aren't improvements in my and other people's opinion. The reverts should tell you that. There's a bunch of bold changes that you (or Tiamut) have made so you'll need to break them down into small bites so you can explain your rationale for each and we can discuss them. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No Armon. First off, you were aware of my deletion of the passage on the end of the intifada. Indeed, you participated in the discussion above and agreed that we needed to verify the information. But in your reverts and those of Tewfik, you keep restoring that passage. When you edit this way, I have reason to believe that you are "blind reverting". Both Timeshifter and myself invited editors to discuss the changes. Those who fail to take up that offer, can't come in days later and "blind revert" and put the onus on us to defend every sentence added (all sourced to reliable sources). Please isolate specific issues that require discussion and stop restoring information you yourself agreed did not meet WP:V.  T i a m u t  11:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK I've removed the "however it's ended" bit as well. That's something specific. If someone wants to restore it, they can present their evidence. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We certainly cannot say definitively that it is over based on just a pair of sources, but that is enough to present theposition that many hold, which is what I changed the wording to.  Tewfik Talk 23:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Armon, but that's just not enough. First of all, you proved my point by first reverting again (including once again the unverified paragraph) and only afterward changing your edit to remove that paragraph. That leads me to believe you are reverting before even reading the talk page.
 * Second of all, how are we supposed to improve the version you keep deleting, if we cannot understand what the specific problems are? There are a number of edits there. Am I supposed to guess which ones are offensive or below par to you? I can't read your mind. Please discuss the specifics of the edits that were made, and what specifically is wrong with them.  T i a m u t  16:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What she said, Armon. Almost all of the current talk page is about casualties. I initiated many of the discussions. I believe I participated in all of the discussion sections dealing with casualties.


 * Armon. You have been editing other wikipedia articles most days since November 30, 2007. We have basically had the same stable edition of this article since November 30, 2007. You did a blind revert only after Tewfik did one.


 * Armon. Your major complaint was that you did not want info about the number of Palestinian noncombatant/civilian casualties to be in the infobox. I allowed this obvious favoring of the ultranationalist Israeli POV, but only because the casualties section of the article had a subsection that dealt specifically with the issue of noncombatant/civilian casualties. This infobox bias is an unfair favoring of one POV, but I let it slide due to the improved casualties section of the article. Now you want to go back to an even more POV-favoring version of the article. This is against WP:NPOV, and people have been banned short and longterm for such tendentious editing that continually favors one POV. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I'm ignoring you until you decide to discuss the article -not me. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not call you any names. I said you were favoring an ultranationalist Israeli POV. You obviously aren't Israeli, since your user page says you are a Canadian living in New Zealand. Saying you are Canadian is not a personal attack either. As your user page states: "Check out the userboxes. I've restored them in the interest of full disclosure of my POV. I still strive for NPOV, but I accept that I, like everyone, have intellectual blind spots. This may help you to identify mine and point them out to me when necessary."


 * So, Armon, I now have pointed out your "intellectual blind spots" in the case of your conscious or unconscious favoring of ultranationalist Israeli POVs on articles dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This issue has been discussed many times on WP:ANI concerning many users, so it is not a taboo subject.


 * Armon. You wrote: "... I'm ignoring you until you decide to discuss the article. ..." I have now emphasized the part of my previous comment that discusses the article.


 * Armon. As I noted on your talk page you are again in violation of 3RR here (see the previous 3RR notice on November 28, 2007  from Gatoclass higher up on your talk page). I will give you time to self-revert before reporting it to the 3RR noticeboard.--Timeshifter (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Armon has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. See this diff: --Timeshifter (talk) 23:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Now is blind reverting without engaging in discussion. Can people please respond to the good faith requests to actually discuss the specific issues that are objectionable, without using edit summaries that are difficult to decipher and impede our ability to come to a consensus version? Thanks.  T i a m u t  23:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for "discussion" that pretend there was no discussion and that then reinstitute all of the same edits against the prior consensus over the course of months are not requests meant for actual resolution of disputes. Parties interested in such resolution would 1) stop adding the disputed sections and 2) respond to the problems discussed previously.  Tewfik Talk 00:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Tewfik, but I've reviewed the talk page and I still have no idea what you are referring to. Further, as you can see here, the article has been changed significantly since the last comment you made an unresolved issue (29 Nov above - something about the info on child casualties being fine but the source bgein weak. There was no consensus out of that discussion). In order to move forward here, you have to be explicit about what it is in the over 5,000 bytes of material that you are deleting that warrants this kind of mass blanking.  T i a m u t  01:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik. The article was stable for over 2 weeks until YOU started the latest round of revert wars. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

craziness
instead of edit warring over two very different versions - - i suggest we first agree on one or two of the easier issues and then move on to discuss each of the other larger issues.

feel free to open up (and attempt to resolve) more issues based on the issues.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  10:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

flag icons

 * flag issue seems to be closed with a silent agreement on this version:   Jaakobou Chalk Talk  12:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

- is it really necessary to include all the flags? i feel that this listing -- Flag of Israel Israel Defense Forces, Flag of Israel Israel Air Force, Flag of Israel Israel Navy, Flag of Israel Shin Bet, Flag of Israel Israel Border Police -- is a bit of an overkill.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  10:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. An Israeli flag should suffice. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the box and the shading. Discussion is never closed on a talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

intifada (uprising)



 * Version 1:
 * ...began in September 2000. It is the second major wave of violence between Palestinians and Israelis following the First Intifada.
 * Version 2:
 * ...refers to the second Palestinian uprising which began in September 2000. (see also First Intifada).


 * if i'm not mistaken, the conflict here is about the use of the terms 'uprising' and 'violence'...? from an israeli perspective, the term 'uprising' is contentious in regards to the second intifada -- there is no contest to this regarding the first intifada, but there is regarding the second one. personally, since we have text explaining the term in the following paragraph, i suggest we leave out the word 'uprising'.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  11:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * personally, i prefer the insertion of 'first intifada' into the text over the version. i'd like to hear replacement suggestions for how to describe the violent clashes so that we can resolve this dispute also... suggest 'second major wave of clashes between ... First Intifada'.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  11:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the term "violence" should be used instead of "uprising." In my opinion, "uprising" violates WP:NPOV and suggests a justified action against oppression; whereas, "violence" does not connote any form of legitimacy or justification for either side. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, I think that characterizing it just as "violence" robs it of any context, implying that the violence is meaningless. I don't think uprising implies anything at all, but regardless, the intifada most definitely *is* an uprising against the Israeli occupation and it's not at all POV in my opinion to describe it as such. Gatoclass (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You are correct; the term violence robs it of any context (i.e. point-of-view). The removal of point-of-view is, to state the obvious, necessary for writing a neutral article. That the Second Intifada "*is* an uprising against Israeli occupation" is a pro-Palestinian take on the events of the Second Intifada; from the Israeli viewpoint, the Second Intifada is a wave of Palestinian terrorist attacks, instigated by Yassir Arafat. All can agree, however, that violence did take place. Hence, the term "violence" (a neutral term) should be used in place of "uprising" (a non-neutral term). ← Michael Safyan (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * the term Intifada is contentious in regards to the second wave of clashes (it is noted that, unlike the first one, it was organized by the palestinian leadership). being that the term is explained in the next paragraph; I suggest we leave the discussion on this to that paragraph and not use the word in this paragraph.
 * p.s. am i to understand that the issue of dispute is only about the use of the 'uprising' word and not about the word 'violence'?  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  16:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean, it was allegedly organized by the Palestinian leadership, don't you? But in any case, it doesn't matter, as there is nothing to say an uprising cannot be organized. I'm sure there was plenty of organization that went into the Warsaw ghetto uprising, but people don't quibble about use of the term there. Gatoclass (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * the word 'uprising' is the name of the ghetto event and the word 'intifada' is the name of this event. no one is trying to delete the word intifada and we have a discussion on the term in the following paragraph. to be frank, this seems like a pushing of a WP:POINT.  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  20:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not "pushing" anything Jaakobu. I am simply making a point. The point being that "violence" alone is prejudicial, and that since "intifada" means uprising I cannot see what the problem is with using it. I mean, as you yourself note, it's used in the very next paragraph anyhow, so what is the problem? Gatoclass (talk) 03:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On National Public Radio today in the USA there was a piece about tourism in Bethlehem around Christmas time. They discussed that there was only one suicide bombing, if I am remembering correctly, in the last year in the "second uprising". Those are the exact words used. I don't see how it makes any difference whether an uprising was sparked, planned, spontaneous, justified, unjustified, or a combination of all the above. It is still an uprising. To me it sounds like any spark could have set it off, especially if there were some elements willing to provoke the IDF to the point of live ammunition being used in response. That the IDF used live ammunition makes one wonder if this was a mutually-desired war. It seems that way to me. Sharon certainly had a history of whipping up the hard line to get elected, and dashing hopes of a continuation of substantial negotiations. Then he backed up his bravado with provocative visits to his enemies' religious site with obvious relish and lack of respect. But it is all speculation. In my opinion there are a bunch of psychotic war mongers on all sides. But hey, someday, I or others will need to find some more reliable sources to back that up. I am more interested in reliable sources that record the casualties that result from all the little boys with the toys. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Besides accusations against National Public Radio of anti-Israel bias, the Second Intifada did not begin last year, but in the year 2000 (some even consider the Second Intifada to have ended in 2005). In the year 2002, alone, which -- at least from the Israeli perspective -- was the height of the Second Intifada, there were more than one hundred attempted attacks and some sixty successful ones . I'm not suggesting that we use Jewish Virtual Library over NPR; rather, I'm suggesting that we follow Wikipedia guidelines and consider how our words can subtly introduce POV. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 05:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is English really your native language? I know the Intifada has been going on since 2000. Read this talk page and the talk archives. I have been editing the casualties section here for a long time. NPR was talking about the last year in reference to why Bethlehem tourism was increasing. The level of violence in the last year is a lot less. This is undisputed. So there is no need to reference CAMERA, a hyper-critical pro-Israeli advocacy group like many others. Look up "uprising" in a dictionary and stop wasting our time. This is just more systemic bias from supporters of the ultranationalist Israeli POV. Isarig was banned from this topic area for 6 months for biased POV support for the ultranationalist Israeli POV. See my user talk page for more info on this campaign of systemic bias.--Timeshifter (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, English really is my native language. I am not denying the decreased level of violence in recent years. I am pointing out, however, that the recent lower level of violence is irrelevant and does not make the term "uprising" any less POV. You seem to misconstrue my statements about the Israeli viewpoint as endorsement of the Israeli viewpoint. A dictionary is only helpful in terms of a word's denotation; a word's connotation depends on associations created by its common usage. I do not contest the definition you have provided, but rather the implications of the word's usage. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And what does the level of violence have to do with my point? My point was that NPR, a major news outlet, used the phrase "second uprising". I don't care what your POV is, as long as you support WP:NPOV. A misinformed minority viewpoint in Israel concerning the meaning and connotation of the word "uprising" does not allow us to mangle logic and the English language in order to avoid a "connotation" that does not exist. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Safyan is correct. Version 1 (violence) is better because it's neutral. Any concern about "context" isn't a problem because there's the whole rest of the article to expand on it. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Michael Safyan wrote: "from the Israeli viewpoint, the Second Intifada is a wave of Palestinian terrorist attacks, instigated by Yassir Arafat." I don't understand the point. It is still an uprising whether terrorist attacks are involved or not. Maybe a minority Israeli viewpoint is offended by the term "uprising", but I am sure most Israelis are not so deluded as to believe that it is just random violence and terrorism without the goal of rising up against Israeli occupation. WP:NPOV says that we don't give minority viewpoints more prominence than the main viewpoints. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 *  NPOV is why we don't term it "terrorist attacks". What it is, indisputably, is violence. whether one considers the violence to be legitimate or not, is a product of one's POV. "Uprising" is therefore inappropriate as it clearly has connotations that the violence is legitimate. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; (talk) 04:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Uprising" does not connote legitimacy. An uprising is a word that simply means "rebellion against the prevailing authority". It doesn't make a judgement about whether or not that authority is good bad or indifferent. It simply indicates that the authority is not accepted or regarded as legitimate by those participating in the uprising. Gatoclass (talk) 04:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree; the term "uprising" does connote legitimacy. The term "uprising" may denote "rebellion against the prevailing authority," but it implies that the prevailing authority is cruel and oppressive and it also connotes that the rebellion is justified. That we are even having this dispute should suggest that the term "uprising" conveys a point-of-view. Let's put it this way: are there any objections to using the term "violence"? ← Michael Safyan (talk) 05:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * When the Mahdi Army staged an uprising against the Iraqi Coalition in 2004, did that "connote legitimacy"? Of course it didn't. "Uprising" is a neutral term that simply means "rebellion against authority".Gatoclass (talk) 08:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * some would just call it "islamist terrorist jihad" against the jewish people's right for self determination - i.e. trying to push them into the sea. read the following comment, and try to consider consensus building.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  12:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of the violence and terrorism is from fundamentalist settlers. Some of it is from fundamentalist Islamists. Some of the violence is from non-Islamist Palestinians. Some Palestinians want Israel driven into the sea, and some want a 2-state solution. Some on both sides just like violence. Some are psychotic on both sides. All of this is true, and should be in the article, along with reliable sourcing. But in any case it is an uprising. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Armon, please stop with the bogus condescending "sigh" crap. The argumentation tool of condescension only works when it is obvious that the person using condescension is more knowledgeable. Obviously, you are not.
 * See http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Auprising - "rebellion: organized opposition to authority; a conflict in which one faction tries to wrest control from another". wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
 * Armon, there are no, as you said, "connotations that the violence is legitimate." --Timeshifter (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

comment - no one is disputing (best i'm aware) that the word 'intifada' translates to 'uprising'. there is however, contest on whether or not the second intifada amounts to one -- not by name, but by structure. please consider this and look for a solution that will satisfy both POVs.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  12:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

partial break - clarification

 * Version 1:
 * ...began in September 2000. It is the second major wave of violence between Palestinians and Israelis following the First Intifada.
 * Version 2:
 * ...refers to the second Palestinian uprising which began in September 2000. (see also First Intifada).


 * Question 1: i believe we should try and avoid the if it's possible; and i believe this is such a case. are there any objections in regards to this issue?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  12:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * reply -
 * reply -


 * Question 2: i believe that we can leave the dispute (and clearly, there is a dispute) over the issue of the word uprising to the following paragraph. are there any objections in regards to this issue?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  12:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * reply -
 * reply -

definitions and connotations of "uprising"
Let's get to the point, and stop wasting time. See http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Auprising
 * "rebellion: organized opposition to authority; a conflict in which one faction tries to wrest control from another" - wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

So using the word "uprising" implies no connotations of legitimacy or illegitimacy. This particular discussion is just more hyper-critical misinformed criticism similar to much of the CAMERA criticism of NPR, BBC, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "an act or instance of rising up; especially : a usually localized act of popular violence in defiance usually of an established government" - Merriam-Webster Online
 * A dictionary provides a word's denotation, not connotation. Hence this exercise cannot possibly establish the word's connotation. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 20:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do not edit my comments. It confuses things. I moved your Merriam-Webster dictionary definition to your comment, and out of my comment. The Google search does not pull up the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition. In any case either definition does not imply any particular connotation. Prisons have uprisings. We don't automatically assume all prison uprisings are justified. The word "uprising" does not lean toward connoting either a justified or unjustified uprising. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not realize that was supposed to be part of your comment; I thought we were simply compiling a list of dictionary definitions. As for your statement that "either definition does not imply any particular connotation," that is quite obvious; dictionaries only provide denotations, not connotations. I provided a dictionary definition to help in compiling a list -- even though I don't think such a list will establish anything with regard to connotation -- and not to establish a connotation (which could not be established by a dictionary, anway). As for your statement that you did not find the Merriam-Webster definition in Google, please keep in mind that Google is not the be-all-and-end-all of reality, and that we should not restrict ourselves to what Google has to say. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You keep going off on hypercritical, illogical tangents. I did not say that Google was the one true way to godhood, enlightenment, and fundamentalist truth. Please stay on topic. And you did not respond to my point about the use of the term "prison uprisings". --Timeshifter (talk) 20:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The term "uprising" brings to mind the "Warsaw Ghetto Uprising," not some "prison break" or "prison mutiny." I suppose you could describe a prison break as an "uprising"; however, doing so would imply justification and legitimacy. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You say that English is your native language. Yet you don't believe the phrase "prison uprising" is common? See:
 * http://www.google.com/search?q=%22prison+uprising%22
 * And are you so illiterate in English that you believe that all prison uprisings are justified? I don't think we need to waste any more time with one obstructionist. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I beg your pardon? Was it really necessary to accuse me of being illiterate? That you can find instances of the phrase "prison uprising" in Google doesn't prove the neutrality of the term, and I stand by my assertion that the term "uprising" conveys the Palestinian POV. Might I also add that, even were "uprising" to not connote legitimacy (which I still believe it does), the term would nevertheless introduce the Palestinian point-of-view, because the word suggests that the "prevailing authority" over the Palestinians was Israel (instead of the Palestinian Authority) and it suggests that Palestinian violence was directed against that authority (rather than against the civilian populace of Israel). ← Michael Safyan (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My (casual) review of the sources show that intifada is almost always translated as uprising, although some sources note that it literally means shaking off as in "shaking off sleep" or "shaking off chains". We should adhere to what the sources say, even if there is some apparent problem of POV in the views of editors. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 01:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not arguing about the translation of the word intifada. Please see Jaakobou's earlier comment: "no one is disputing (best i'm aware) that the word 'intifada' translates to 'uprising'. there is however, contest on whether or not the second intifada amounts to one -- not by name, but by structure." At issue, here, is whether the Second Intifada should be described as "the second Palestinian uprising" or the "second major wave of violence between Palestinians and Israelis." In other words, this is really a dispute about this diff. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The dispute is about what this is. It is an uprising. It is not random violence or simple criminality. And in reply to your earlier comment: Who do you think the intifada is against? Israel or the Palestinian Authority? Get real. And it is still an uprising even though Israeli civilians are targeted also. And in this war some Israeli settlers have targeted Palestinian civilians. The USA firebombed many cities in World War 2 with the direct intention to kill as many civilians as possible. Our country, the USA, also nuked 2 cities. All that is irrelevant to the fact that this intifada is an uprising. Please stop going off on tangents. This is not a political forum. Please see WP:TALK. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The translation of the word intifada is a different issue. That it's usually translated as "uprising" or "shaking off" is a fact. Stating that is not a problem, what's a problem is using WP's voice to describe it as such when it's clearly one side's POV. Can we drop this now? &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit confused here. It seems self-evident to me that the intifada (whether contrived or not) is an uprising against Israeli dominance. If it's not about that, what is it about? Gatoclass (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * comment/request - can editors please participate in this subsection?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  09:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your proposals have certainly been noted, but I don't particularly want to confine myself to addressing the issues in the terms you have outlined in that section right now. I'd like to try and establish some basic principles first, as outlined in my previous post, because I'm having trouble understanding what alternatives there are to viewing the intifada as an uprising against Israeli occupation. Gatoclass (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it goes back to the denial on the part of some supporters of the minority ultranationalist Israeli POV (a minority even in Israel) that there is an Israeli OCCUPATION. So since in their minds there is no occupation, then there can be no uprising against an occupation. See my user page for some of the long history of the obfuscation of the issue of "Israeli occupation" on wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * assuming it is indeed an uprising against occupation (rather than an attempt to kill the jews and take the jewish land for arab ownership). is it neccesary to add the word "uprise" into each and every paragraph? if so, then i suggest we add the text "terrorist" into each and every paragraph regarding such attacks. in the words of timeshifter: "I think it goes back to the denial on the part of some supporters of the minority" to claim that molotov cocktails launched randomly at civilians while the perpetrator creates his base of operations inside residential areas are not terrorist activity. if you want the page locked, we can do it easily. if you want to create a neutral encyclopedia that addresses both perspectives in a non inflammatory, bloggish sense of "there is no other way to look at it", let me know the terms you 2 would be willing to discuss consensus building.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  17:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to block the fact that there are terrorist activities involved in this conflict. On both sides. Israeli settlers have targeted and killed civilians also. Neither am I trying to block the POV that some are trying to "kill the jews and take the jewish land for arab ownership". Neither am I trying to block the POV that Israelis are trying to kill Palestinians and take Palestinian land for Israeli ownership. WP:NPOV is followed by showing all significant viewpoints in the form of X says Y. Minority viewpoints are not given prominence over mainstream viewpoints. It is a small minority viewpoint (in Israel and worldwide) that believes this is not an uprising against Israeli occupation.
 * I count 2 uses of the word "uprising" in the article itself, and they are in the first 2 paragraphs where they should be since they are the lead paragraphs telling what the article is about. This article is about a Palestinian uprising and the Israeli response. There is another use of the word "uprising" in an image caption. I count around 17 uses of the word "terror" and its derivatives in the article. So there is no censorship of that common reliably-sourced POV. When I do a Google phrase search for "Palestinian uprising" I come up with around 160,000 results:
 * http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Palestinian+uprising%22
 * The Jewish Virtual Library has a page with "Palestinian Uprisings" in the title:
 * http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf19.html
 * As I said, it is only a small minority in Israel and worldwide that do not acknowledge this as a Palestinian uprising. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * we can resolve this issue without soapboxing right here: this subsection.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  21:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are the one who is not trying to resolve the issue. The issue is being openly and fully discussed in a much fuller manner in this section. You are now following in the footsteps of Tewfik and Armon in doing mass deletions of large parts of the casualties section. Why? Because people aren't discussing the issues in the manner you want to impose? The casualties section with several subdivisions stood for over 2 weeks without objection until Tewfik started the latest revert war. You are approaching 3RR. I suggest you self-revert and return the subdivisions of the casualties section that you deleted. Please return to your previously-honorable editing. You can be blocked for 3RR violations even at your current number of blind reversions in one day. You even reverted updates to the casualty numbers in the infobox in your blind reverts. This is why they are called "blind" reverts. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the version with all the subdivisions of the casualties section (before you deleted them), and with the updated infobox casualty numbers (before you blind reverted it). --Timeshifter (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to try to explain the problem with using Wikipedia's voice to describe the Second Intifada as an "uprising." The name Intifada translates to "uprising." This is not disputed. However, this word is an Arabic word and reflects the Palestinian point-of-view. From the Palestinian perspective, the Second Intifada (which they call the "al-Aqsa Intifada") was an uprising against a brutal Israeli military occupation. From the Israeli perspective, however, the Second Intifada was a violent rejection of Israel's right to exist and series of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians. It seems, that since both sides can agree that violence occurred, that Wikipedia's voice should describe the Second Intifada as violence between Israelis and Palestinians. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to describe the Second Intifada, in Wikipedia's voice, as either an "uprising" or a "wave of terrorist attacks." Obviously, Wikipedia should note and describe these perspectives (which the current version already does); however, such viewpoints should appear with their proper attribution and should not be endorsed or dismissed by Wikipedia. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody disputes that the second intifada included a lot of terrorist attacks. What I was asking for, however is your explanation for why this wave of terrorist attacks occurred in the first place. Surely you don't believe that, after seven years of peace negotiations, Palestinians suddenly reverted to a deliberate campaign of terrorism for no reason at all? Gatoclass (talk) 04:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason for the terrorist attacks is irrelevant and hotly contested. The point is this: how is it any less biased to claim that the main feature of the Second Intifada was an uprising than to claim that the main feature of the Second Intifada was terrorism? This depends entirely on one's point-of-view. Since Wikipedia is supposed to maintain a neutral point-of-view, it would be inappropriate to select either as the primary characteristic of the Second Intifada. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 06:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Michael Safyan. You are veering from support of the nationalist Israeli POV to support of the ultranationalist Israeli POV. This is twisting the common use of English to the point of ridiculousness. This article could just as well have been titled "The second Palestinian uprising." It is a common title for this uprising. See my previous Google search. Wikipedia uses common names for the titles and descriptions of articles. There are at least 3 common names for this conflict. Second Intifada, Al-Aqsa Intifada, Second Palestinian uprising, etc.. They are all used by the mainstream news media. The main stated purpose of most of the Palestinian combatants is to liberate all of the West Bank and Gaza of Israeli occupation. Fatah already acknowledges Israel's right to exist. Some of the combatants also want to take back Israel too. But they all are rising against the Israelis. So in either case it is an uprising. It is a plain neutral fact. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please give me a break, Timeshifter. I just used the phrase "brutal Israeli military occupation". Are you seriously accusing me of pushing an "ultranationalist Israeli POV"? I think I've kept things pretty evenhanded; I'm simply trying to keep this article as neutral as possible. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 06:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Michael Safyan. In your case it seems that you are favoring a minority far-right Israeli POV. You wrote (emphasis added) in a previous comment: "From the Palestinian perspective, the Second Intifada (which they call the 'al-Aqsa Intifada') was an uprising against a brutal Israeli military occupation. From the Israeli perspective, however, the Second Intifada was a violent rejection of Israel's right to exist and series of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians." I seriously doubt that the mainstream Israeli POV is naive enough to believe that the focus of the conflict is mainly about "Israel's right to exist". If it is, then that itself is news, and I would like to see it in the article with quotes from reliable sources, and some poll numbers to back it up. No, as far as I know, the mainstream Israeli view, and the mainstream world view, is that it is an uprising against Israeli occupation. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

On the Phrase "Ultranationalist POV"
Certain individuals have been using the term "ultranationlist POV" to describe any point-of-view with which they disagree. The way in which individuals have employed the phrase "ultranationalist POV" is in many ways reminiscent of McCarthyism. Such accusations are rarely accompanied by an explanation of why such a point-of-view is allegedly "ultranationalist" and are frequently employed in the defense of a point-of-view which could be equally accused as such. Therefore, I ask that all parties refrain from the use of this phrase. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a commonly used phrase at WP:ANI. Because it is common on wikipedia. I have thoroughly explained my points. Next... Please stop going off on hypercritical tangents. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A commonly used phrase by whom? The phrase does not appear on the page even once. And just because certain individuals, who wish to push their own POV, choose to use the phrase to intimidate those who intend to block a POV-edit, this does not imply that one should use such a phrase. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that "ultranationalist" is inappropriate. It basically means extremist and thus operates as a term of disparagement. If you must characterize your opponents' position, then I think "nationalist" gets the point across just as well without the inflammatory implications. Gatoclass (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Michael Safyan. Here are the previous examples I gave of its use on wikipedia:
 * http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWikipedia+ultra+nationalist
 * http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWikipedia+ultranationalist


 * You do not seem to be participating in the blind revert war, so maybe you are just a supporter of the nationalist Israeli POV. But Tewfik and Armon have a LONG history of these kind of revert wars that consistently favor the ultranationalist Israeli POV. They follow along similar lines as the sockpuppet revert wars of Isarig and his sockpuppets. Isarig was banned from this topic area. See the section on my user page about that. Tewfik and Armon just openly game 3RR without the sockpuppets. They have long used blind reverts that revert intermediate edits too by many people. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi. Timeshifter, here's another way to think about it. People have suggested calmly that they consider ultranationalist inappropriate and offensive. Generally, it makes sense to accept other people's feelings about what is offensive or not (especially when speaking across cultural, racial, gender and other lines). By defending the term, I fear that you yourself may come across as unreasonable and extremist. Irrespective of your concerns about inappropriate editing practices, the use of offensive terms is unhelpful, in my view. HG | Talk 19:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * HG. This is a game that has been played a long time on this page. A game concerning the meaning of English words and phrases. See the archived talk pages, such as the one on the dispute concerning the naming of the article. It is not a personal attack to accurately describe the POVs inserted in an article. POVs in an article can be described. See WP:NPOV. It is OK to characterize people's edits, but it is not OK to characterize the editors. See WP:TALK. Gatoclass was correct in his analysis that there are shades in the meaning of nationalist POV versus ultra-nationalist POV. Just as in rightwing POV and far-right POV. And leftwing POV and far-left POV. This is frequently discussed at WP:ANI. I wish you would do more, HG, than just try to negotiate agreements on wording in the article. That has been helpful. Sometimes agreements come about but then you seem to leave the editing for long periods of time, and allow stable versions of the article to be blanked by well-known supporters of far-right POVs such as Tewfik. It seems you do not often just come out and suggest neutral wording yourself, and take a stand against things such as Tewfik's and Armon's blanking of Tiamut's version of the article that stood for over 2 weeks. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) HG. In deference to your request, and your past good work here, I will only use the word "ultranationalist" where it obviously applies. For example; in the case of the banned editor, Isarig, and his frequent favoring of the ultranationalist Israeli POV in many articles. I call this the "Israel can do no wrong" POV.

Isarig and his sockpuppets were banned from editing anything relating to Arabs and Israel. He was almost permanently banned from wikipedia. Here is some history.

December 20, 2007 diff. Avi wrote (emphasis added): "Just for reference, I talk with Fayssal before he performed the block, and I agree with his action. Isarig, you have to demonstrate the ability to consistently edit articles completely separate from anything relating to Arabs and Israel, in a neutral, sock-free fashion, for a significant length of time, before the ban is lifted. Continued violation of the terms of your probation may result in ban extension or permanence."

August 30, 2007 topic ban placed on User:Isarig for at least 6 months, with possible extensions. See:


 * Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive12
 * Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive12
 * Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive12
 * Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive13
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive309

Sockpuppets confirmed August 24, 2007. See:
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Isarig
 * ✅. The following users are the same:

These may not be all the Isarig sockpuppets. I don't believe Isarig should be allowed to edit any part of wikipedia until he reveals all his sockpuppets. Some "Truth and reconciliation commissions" require public confession of all crimes before any leniency is allowed.

I believe the topic ban should be extended to at least a year. Other people have gotten a complete ban from editing all topics for a year for smaller infractions of the rules.--Timeshifter (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps you should consider dealing with this matter elsewhere, rather than an article Talk page. Regards, HG | Talk 00:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Blind reverts
The blind reverts by and others seem to be continuing despite repeateds requests to isolate problem areas and work towards compromise. Please engage in specific and substantive discussion so that we can stop edit-warring and work towards actually improving this article. Thanks.  T i a m u t  11:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * a blind reverter accusing another person of blind reverting him? please try resolving the disputes without reverting and then you won't feel an itch to mention my username with spurious accusations.
 * personally, i feel several editors have breached some WP:NPA and WP:CIV due to hitened sensitivity and inability to understand the positions presented by "their opponents". it would be far elpfull if everyone remained civil, would try and avoid personal accusations (that include finger pointing) and focus on suggestions that will resolve the dispute rather than promoting the ideology they believe in.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  12:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I never blind revert Jaakobou. I review other people's edits and retain changes they have made before restoring the over 6,000 bytes of material you and others like keep deleting. Neither of you have engaged in any substantive discussion that might help indicate what your problems are with the material you keep blanking from this article. Until you do, it is sourced material, written in a NPOV fashion and restoration is the undoing of what amounts to vandalism since there is no effort to improve the article in these mass deletions. In fact, it undoes linguistic corrections that have improved clarity and flow. Please specify what your problems are. When you do, there is a response, as indicated throughout this page.  T i a m u t  15:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Jaakobou. Until Oct. 28, 2007 you did not edit this article (with your current user name) except once on June 4, 2007. I checked the article edit history back several years. Your June 4, 2007 edit to this page was to remove 2 relevant wikilinks. This POV removal of 2 wikilinks is very revealing of your POV-favoring of the ultra-right Israeli POV. See this diff


 * The page was stable for over 2 weeks until the latest revert war was started by Tewfik. The last stable version was the one edited by Tiamut. You and Armon have been blind-reverting and removing large parts of the article. Nobody who has followed Tewfik in these blind reverts has explained these large reversions. They only discussed some minor points, and consensus was reached on nearly all those minor points. The rest of the large blind reversion has not been discussed. This is not the way to improve wikipedia. With your discussion of the minor points you were honorably editing this page until a few days ago when you joined in (without any explanation whatsoever) the large blind reversions of Tewfik and Armon. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * please avoid repeated personal attack violations. i'm sure you would not appreciate anyone digging into your history and targeting you for relentless bias such as attempts to push bad categories or other interesting endeavors.
 * cordially,  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  01:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that you addressed none of the points raised in this section. There were no personal attacks. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * notice posted.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  02:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Not good faith editing

 * section moved by Jaakobou to prevent disruption of .  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  16:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jaakobou, you deleted over 6,000 bytes of material and then started the section above claiming that your problem is with this one sentence. If that is the case, please restore the material you deleted and place the sentence you would prefer to see in the introduction. Blanking so much sourced material and then opening a "discussion" about one sentence is both ridiculous and offensive.  T i a m u t  16:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Tiamut, you have a bad habit of trying to force controversial changes on an article, then accusing others of bad faith when they insist on discussing the changes first. Please focus on article content and the discussion of changes to that content.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  16:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Tiamut has thoroughly discussed her changes. I have thoroughly discussed my changes. Look at this long talk page. You, Tewfik, and Armon are the ones blanking large parts of Tiamut's 2-week-stable version of the article without explanation. Tiamut has frequently asked you to point out the problems you see, but you just blank large parts of a stable article without explanation. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

House demolition wikilinks
I returned the House demolition wikilink removed from the article by Jaakobou on June 4, 2007. See the previous talk section for the June 4, 2007 diff. I also added a wikilink to House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Jaakobou. Would you care to explain why you removed the only wikilink to House demolition on June 4, 2007?

Jaakobou. Would you care to explain why you recently joined Tewfik and Armon in removing large parts of a version of the article that was stable for over 2 weeks?

Jaakobou. Would you care to explain why you keep removing the latest casualty numbers from the infobox, and going back to older numbers? --Timeshifter (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * it's very simple. the house demolition article was quite different at the time as it did not include non-military demolitions.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  01:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That is not true. Here is the your June 4, 2007 version of the House Demolition article. Here is the last version just before you edited it June 4, 2007. In either case the article covered the Israeli house demolitions. Therefore this was a POV-favoring removal of the link to it from the Second Intifada article. Here is the June 4, 2007 diff of your removal of the link. Here is the sentence you removed it from: "Until February 2005, Israel had in place a policy to demolish the family homes of suicide bombers." --Timeshifter (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * this is a bit offtopic and old in my opinion. you are free to follow the diffs of those days to discover that my attempt to change the article to -- what i believed is the proper meaning of house demolition -- did not take .  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  02:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Liftarn's version of June 4, 2007 still covered Israeli house demolitions. You shouldn't remove relevant wikilinks in this Second Intifada article just because you don't get your way in another article.


 * You also shouldn't escalate to blind reverts here that delete large parts of a 2-week-stable Second Intifada article just because you don't get your way concerning the word "uprising." You went back to large blind reverts on December 26, 2007 after honorably discussing and editing various specific points for several days. See this December 26, 2007 diff. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) i disagree with your assessment. (2) i refuse to be dragged into a 6-months-ago issue.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  15:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * p.s. if you want to resolve the current disputes, i suggest we focus on consensus building regarding the content issues.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  15:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have thoroughly discussed everything. Look at this long talk page. You, Tewfik, and Armon are the ones blanking large parts of Tiamut's 2-week-stable version of the article without explanation.--Timeshifter (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

intifada (uprising) take II
regarding these two differences - per this diff :


 * Version 1:
 * ...began in September 2000. It is the second major wave of violence between Palestinians and Israelis following the First Intifada.
 * Version 2:
 * ...refers to the second Palestinian uprising which began in September 2000. (see also First Intifada).
 * Suggestion 1 by Tiamut:
 * ...refers to the second Palestinian uprising. It began in September 2000, seven years after the end of the First Intifada.
 * Suggestion 1 by Ynhockey:
 * ...refers to the second major wave of violence between Israelis and Palestinians. It begain in September 2000 and succeeds the First Intifada (1987-1993).

please leave your personal statements (keep it short) on the statements section, and your comments regarding statements of other editors in the comments section.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  15:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

statements I
--  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  15:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) personally, i am against the use of parenthesis where it is redundant and believe this to be such a case.
 * 2) considering we already have a discussion regarding the Arab word 'Intifada' in the following paragraph (i.e. '"Intifada" (also spelled Intifadah) is an Arabic word for "uprising"'), i believe we can spare a repetition of the word 'uprising' in this paragraph.
 * 3) i'm open to hear suggestions to replace 'wave of violence' if that expression is contested.

--  T i a m u t  16:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) wave of violence is POV. on the style issue I have no problem with removing the parentheses. I suggest:
 * 2) ... refers to the second Palestinian uprising which began in September 2000.
 * 3) we can add First Intifada later on in the paragraph.

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm against the use of parenthesis in this case.
 * 2) I believe that the repetition of the word 'uprising' (intifada=uprising) is both leading and monotonous. (Sounds almost as bas as 'The good boys behaved really good on that good day.')
 * 3) I'm also against this mass reverting business and it would do us all good if we focus on resolving issues rather than on mass edits that are clearly contested.

-- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm against the use of the word 'uprising', because it's inherently a POV term which implies that those instigating the uprising are the oppressed, and are in the right (the Palestinians), while those quelling the uprising, are in the wrong (the Israelis). There is no doubt that uprising is the favored Palestinian term - no one in Israel would call this HaMered HaSheni (lit. the second uprising).
 * 2) The use of parentheses does not bother me.
 * 3) I'm also not that fond of 'wave of violence', but at least it's a 100% neutral term, favoring neither side. If someone is willing to suggest a similarly neutral alternative, they are encouraged to do so.

-- Michael Safyan (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I am against the use of the word "uprising" both because its connotation suggests legitimacy and because its denotation endorses the Palestinian POV. See my earlier comments.
 * 2) While I prefer the version without parens, I am more concerned with objectivity than style, and I am willing to accomodate the stylistic concerns of the other editors in regard to the use of parens.
 * 3) I find mass editing/reverting to be annoying and immature. I recommend that editors make smaller edits before committing, so that edits can be accepted, disputed, or rejected at a finer granularity.


 * 1) As I said before, I agree that "uprising" has POV connotations.
 * 2) Like Michael, I'm agnostic on the stylistic issues.
 * 3) I've asked TS and Tiamut repeatedly to refrain from lengthy unilateral edits to the article and instead, discuss or sandbox their proposed changes first. That will solve mass editing/reverting issue. &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; (talk) 08:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiamut and I don't make lengthy unilateral edits. Note on this talk page that I initiated many of the talk sections. You, Armon, and Tewfik are the ones making lengthy unilateral edits in the form of massive blind reverts. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

-- Delad (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC
 * 1) I'm fine with "uprising" considering that it's probably the most popular word (at least outside of the U.S.) used in translation of "intifada", "wave of violence" is a looooong way from neutral.
 * 2) Re parenthesis, I'd prefer it without but...
 * 3) I'd support Tiamut's attempt at compromise.

--Timeshifter (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) "Wave of violence" is original research. I agree with Tiamut and Delad. Uprising is the correct term. Uprising is used a total of 2 times in the article. That is not too much. "Terror" and its derivatives are used around 17 times in the article. "Wave of violence" is POV, and inaccurate, and shouldn't be used in the neutral voice of wikipedia article narration. It can be put in the article as a POV if someone can find a reliable source for it. It needs to be referenced. Israelis call it the Al-Aqsa Intifada. Intifada means uprising or "shaking off." As I noted previously National Public Radio in the USA called it the "second uprising" recently.
 * 2) Use of parentheses is a stylistic issue. Others can decide that issue.

comments regarding statements I
Per your concerns Jaakobou, I changed the intro to read: "The Second Intifada, also known as the al-Aqsa Intifada (انتفاضة الأقصى, Intifāḍat El Aqṣa or Intifāḍat Al Aqṣa; אינתיפאדת אל אקצה (or hyphenated אינתיפאדת אל-אקצה), Intifādat El-Aqtzah) refers to the second Palestinian uprising. It began in September 2000, seven years after the end of the First Intifada." I also placed this information "'Intifada' (also spelled Intifadah) is an Arabic word for 'uprising', which literally translates into English as 'shaking off'. 'Al-Aqsa' is the name of a prominent mosque on the Temple Mount (known to Arabs and Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif)." in a footnote to avoid unnecessary repetition. Further, I restored the rest of the 6,000 bytes of material you deleted, since it has nothing to do with the issues you have raised here. Cheers.  T i a m u t  16:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * i appreciate that you agree with me on point no. 1, however, you have not addressed the other points or discussed all the other issues; and therefore, i've reverted the mass edit.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  16:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tiamut's version of the article was stable for over 2 weeks. She, I, and others thoroughly discussed everything. Look at this long talk page. That is why the article was stable for over 2 weeks. You, Jaakobou, along with Tewfik and Armon, "have not addressed the other points or discussed all the other issues" as to why all of a sudden you 3 are deleting large parts of the article along with large parts of the casualty section of the article. Respect for other editors would mean that it is up to you 3 to explain any proposed changes to a 2-week-stable version of the article BEFORE making those changes.


 * And I believe other editors need to step in and rein in this dishonorable editing. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Disregarding "dishonorable editing" and "2 weeks" timetables, i believe we have clear consensus for Suggestion 1 by Ynhockey. Is there anything else you'd like to add to the conversation before i open an request?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  10:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no "clear consensus," Jaakobou, about the use of the word "uprising" in the article. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * it looks like 5 people cast an approving opinion for not using the inaccurate and leading term more than is unnecessary. considering "intifada"="people's uprising" and that Delad hasn't been involved in this article or seems to understand this note (or notice the term is explained on the next paragraph) - don't you want to move on to other issues so that we can get a little more consensus on the bigger (and smaller) issues and maybe allah (p.b.u.h.) willing, get over with the overall edit conflict?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  01:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then that is 5 for using the word "uprising" to describe this conflict in the lead section of the article, and 5 against. This includes the people commenting in other sections of this talk page. 3 people in this talk section are for using the word "uprising" to characterize this conflict. 2 more people are found in this talk section: . --Timeshifter (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * i'd like to add that this is an attempt to solve things calmly. if you still disagree, please come up with a new suggestion or explanation that might persuade the other editors.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  01:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Delad, have you noticed that the word is being explained in the following paragraph?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  01:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou, I see that "uprising" is included in the following paragraph. The insertion of the POV expression "wave of violence" is what I would take issue with. If you want to include "wave of violence" do so later in the article and source it (inserting it where it stands now lends it undue weight). It seems to be OR otherwise. Excuse me if my previous comments were misleading.- Delad (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Timeshifter, i disagree with the superficial connection between acts of terror and the meaning the repetitive (redundant) use of "uprising" twice within' the space of 3 lines. i will accept an "also second uprising" text next to the article's title... if that is a compromise you are willing to consider (pending also the thoughts of my fellow editors).  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  01:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not say there was a connection between the meaning of the word "uprising" and acts of terror. I was discussing the number of times the word "uprising" was used in the article (2 times) in comparison to the number of times derivatives of the word "terror" were used (around 17 times). If a word is correctly used in the article it doesn't matter how many times it is used.


 * Could you give the complete sentence in which you want to put "also second uprising"? --Timeshifter (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Tiamut already moved (unnecessarily in my opinion) one instance of the word "uprising" out of the lead section of the article. Compare the 2 lead paragraphs from the December 16, 2007 2-week-stable version of the article with the December 28, 2007 version of the article.

See this December 28, 2007 diff. Tiamut's edit summary was "restoring material deleted without any explanation - changing sentence in intro to address Jaakobou's concerns as expressed on the talk page."

From Tiamut's version of December 28, 2007:

The Second Intifada, also known as the al-Aqsa Intifada (انتفاضة الأقصى, Intifāḍat El Aqṣa or Intifāḍat Al Aqṣa; אינתיפאדת אל אקצה (or hyphenated אינתיפאדת אל-אקצה), Intifādat El-Aqtzah) refers to the second Palestinian uprising. It began in September 2000, seven years after the end of the First Intifada.

Many Palestinians consider the Second Intifada to be a war of national liberation against foreign occupation, whereas many Israelis consider it to be a terrorist campaign.

From Tiamut's version of November 30, 2007:

The Second Intifada, also known as the al-Aqsa Intifada (انتفاضة الأقصى, Intifāḍat El Aqṣa or Intifāḍat Al Aqṣa; אינתיפאדת אל אקצה (or hyphenated אינתיפאדת אל-אקצה), Intifādat El-Aqtzah) refers to the second Palestinian uprising which began in September 2000. (see also First Intifada).

'"Intifada" (also spelled Intifadah) is an Arabic word for "uprising", which literally translates into English as "shaking off". "Al-Aqsa" is the name of a prominent mosque on the Temple Mount (known to Arabs and Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif).' Many Palestinians consider the Intifada to be a war of national liberation against foreign occupation, whereas many Israelis consider it to be a terrorist campaign.

Tiamut moved the emphasized sentence out of the lead section of the article, and moved it elsewhere in the article, in order to accommodate Jaakobou's request not to use the word "uprising" twice in the lead section of the article. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, tiamut's December 28 version accepts the palestinian narrative that it was an "uprising", however - the whole point of this section is to clear up that many people believe it was a "terror campaign" rather than an "uprising" in the western sense... (don't make me soapbox with arafat quotes). i believe the most neutral way to deal with this is keeping the "Arabic word for uprising" section and not going into any labels on he paragraph before that. A compromise solution i'm offering on my part (can't vouch for the other editors) is to start the text with: "The Second Intifada or 'Second Uprising', also known as the... refers to..." - this gives the name in the title and while giving some credence to the uprising narrative doesn't completely overtake and declare it to be an actual uprising. p.s. since when do we count in people who refused to participate when requested to and also haven't made a comment in more than a week?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  08:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is an uprising according to much of the mainstream media, not just the Palestinian perspective. Terrorism is involved, but that does not mean it is not an uprising. People who already participated in discussion about the use of the word "uprising" do not need to participate every time you start a new section. Your section is too limited in its format anyway in my opinion. I think the other discussion was detailed and indepth. People are not required to repeat themselves in order for their opinion to matter. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * i've suggested a compromise... care to comment on it?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  13:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please give me a full sentence. I can't tell exactly what you are suggesting. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

suggested compromise:
 * The Second Intifada or 'Second Uprising', also known as the al-Aqsa Intifada (انتفاضة الأقصى, Intifāḍat El Aqṣa or Intifāḍat Al Aqṣa; אינתיפאדת אל אקצה (or hyphenated אינתיפאדת אל-אקצה), Intifādat El-Aqtzah) refers to the second major wave of violence between Israelis and Palestinians. It began in September 2000 and succeeds the First Intifada (1987-1993).


 * "Intifada" (also spelled Intifadah) is an Arabic word for "uprising"...

i can't guarantee that others will accept this suggestion, but would this be an acceptable compromise to you?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "major wave of violence" is original research. I don't mind it being in the article, but only if it is no longer original research. In other words you have to put it in the form of X says Y, and say WHO is saying it is a "major wave of violence". See WP:NPOV. I can easily source the word "uprising". Here is yet another source:
 * http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579974/Intifada.html
 * Partial quote (emphasis added) from the above-linked Microsoft Encarta encyclopedia article:


 * "Intifada (Arabic for 'throwing off,' as a dog throws off fleas), uprising by Palestinians against Israeli rule in the West Bank and Gaza Strip territories. Palestinian discontent has resulted in two separate uprisings since 1987. Both were attempts to liberate portions of Palestine from Israeli control through a combination of force and negotiations. These uprisings have involved a series of demonstrations, strikes, riots, and violence against Israelis, their settlements, and their institutions. Originally characterized by civil disobedience, the movement became increasingly violent and included attacks against Israel in its sovereign territory (the land Israel held before capturing the Gaza Strip, West Bank, and Golan Heights in the Six-Day War of 1967). ..." --Timeshifter (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are some sources for the phrase "wave of violence": Michael Safyan (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * BBC : "It was the beginning of a wave of violence which became known as the second Palestinian intifada (uprising), or by some as the Al Aqsa intifada." (emphasis added)
 * Associated Press : "'The second intifada -- then all the problems started,' Benesh said in a phone interview from Israel, referring to the wave of violence that began in 2000 between Israelis and Palestinians." (emphasis added)
 * "A History of Modern Palestine" (book) : "...the wave of violence that began in 2000..." (emphasis added)
 * "The Camp David Summit -- What Went Wrong?" (book) : "...the wave of violence known as the second intifada." (emphasis added)


 * Timeshifter,
 * the BBC link clearly supports my suggested compromise... what do you say.. ready to fix this one and move on to other issues?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  08:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I now support using both terms. But they both need all the sources listed above, so that other users and readers do not have to wonder all over about whether the terms apply. Neither term should get preference over the other, and there should be no artificial limitations on the number of uses of the word "uprising." The Encarta encyclopedia article uses it several times. The terms do not contradict each other. It is only when spin is attempted that there is a contradiction. So let's reference both terms thoroughly in the usual WP:NPOV way of X says Y.


 * The first few paragraphs need to be completely rewritten to incorporate all this, and to get it in the form of X says Y (with all the references), and to take both terms out of the narrative voice of wikipedia. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * i'm guessing the article shall stay locked then (since you reject a compromise and suggest making things worse)... perhaps we should open mediation?  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  22:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with Timeshifter's compromise? I think that 'wave of violence' would actually not be so POV if included after the Encarta material (as it would include context and references). How is this making things worse? Again there seems to be some kind of dichotomy here.-Delad (talk) 00:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed wave of violence until we can come to consensus about how to include it. I might note that the introduction already refers to the Palestinian view of the intifada and as national liberation war and the Israeli view that it is a terrorist campaign. I don't see what "wave of violence adds in terms of understanding or NPOV.  T i a m u t talk 13:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

general commentary about the 2 weeks version

 * So let me get this right; a stable article is edited heavily without requisite discussion (personally, I think it should be requisite). This mass edit is reverted and then a little revert-war ensues. A request for discussion on any changes to the previous stable version is made on the talk page. The mass-editing continues with the excuse that a single phrase isn't appropriate. Then, hey-presto, those who were protecting the original, stable version from unwarranted (in the sense of a lack of discussion) mass-edits are accused of mass-editing. So it's okay to mass-edit something if you're advocating whatever it is you're advocating but not if you don't? Now a protection has been slapped on the article containing the mass-edit. Yes, I have read the talk page. No, you haven't discussed anything other than one phrase from the mass edit. For what it's worth, 'wave of violence' is far too POV, I don't personally see what's wrong with 'uprising' (no need for repetition though). I'd support Tiamut's version redux or his/her attempt at compromise. Delad (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Casualties section.
Jaakobou again reverted the 2-week-stable version of the casualties section, and then sought protection of the article. The article is now fully protected. Here is Jaakobou's version (December 29, 2007).

Here is the last 2-week-stable stable version (December 29, 2007). The casualties section is essentially the same as in Tiamut's version of November 30, 2007.

Please look at the article history and note the 16-day period from November 30 to December 16, 2007. The article was basically stable during that period.

Then Tewfik started the revert war on December 16, and reverted around 6000 bytes. See this diff. Armon soon tagged along with Tewfik in the revert war, and then Jaakobou followed.

None of these 3 established editors of this article have explained the bulk of their mass deletion of the casualties section of the article.

Note the many subdivisions of the casualties section that Jaakobou deleted in his last reversion before seeking protection.

I suggest the creation of a separate article called "Casualties of the Second Intifada" modeled on "Casualties of the Iraq War".

This way we can go into the detail that Jaakobou seems adamantly opposed to in this article. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Question. I am wondering if Tewfik (or Armon & Jaakobou) would confirm Timeshifter's understanding of the start of this dispute (based on Tewfik's Dec 16th edit, linked above) or do you have another explanation? Here's why I'm asking. I think everybody realizes that this article covers contested matters. So, there's an expectation that editors would raise issues on the Talk page before making potentially-disputed changes. (Or, at most, do a BRD and discuss after a revert.) For this reason, it doesn't quite look proper to make a large number of edits (as w/the Dec 16th set) and then try to keep reinstating them without adequate discussion. Looking above, I don't quite see an answer to my question. It does sound like Armon or Tewfik disagreed with some prior edits (by Tiamut?) but were those edits all in such a large batch, too? Please let me know. Thanks. HG | Talk 00:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Jaakobou will not be able to reply here for awhile. Jaakobou was blocked for 84 hours (3 and a half days) for "edit-warring and persistent reverting across multiple articles." Please see:
 * - User_talk:Jaakobou
 * - Talk:House_demolition_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict
 * - 3RRArchive63#User:Jaakobou reported by User:Bless sins .28Result: 84 hours.29 --Timeshifter (talk) 06:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * my personal reply, is that i saw an edit dispute between two very different versions and i started concentrated discussions per-issue to resolve them.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  10:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Instead of discussing first, you did a massive blind revert first. See this December 19, 2007 diff. You reverted a 2-week-stable version that had been the result of months of discussion and editing on this talk page. Then you discussed the phrasing of one sentence in the infobox that I quickly agreed to. See section of this talk page. Then you discussed the use of the word "uprising" in the lead section of the article. See . --Timeshifter (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * you're getting really repetitive. clearly the version i reverted was flaued to a fault, otherwise i would not have reverted... please don't tell me that you've never done something similar.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  01:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I rarely do massive changes to stable versions of controversial articles without discussion first. I usually break up my edits so that all the changes can be discussed in pieces. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Jaakobou, thanks for your reply but please look at my question again. I'm not asking about your reverts, but whether -- as best you can tell -- Tewfik's (Dec 16) was the beginning of the dispute over multiple changes within one edit. See what I mean? Thanks. HG | Talk 03:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi HG. In my opinion, this problem goes back even earlier, as I am sure you have noticed. My own involvement in this particular issue dates back to November 30th, when I noticed that large sourced sections of the article were being deleted, without clear explanations for why this was so, and despite multiple notices posted by Timeshifter on this talk page trying to solicit discussion on how to move forward. I made some edits to the section in question, cleaning up the language, removing redundancies, etc. I also asked for people to explain their problems with the section in detail. After there were no responses, and the section kept getting blanked, I continued making more changes to the article (step-by step, many of which were for flow and language, and some of which added new references and material) while restoring the material blanked, since without an explanation as to what was wrong with this sourced material, restoring it seemed quite logical. Both Timeshifter and I have invited editors blanking material to discuss over and over again (even posting messages on their talk pages), and no one took the request seriously. While Tewfik and Jaakobou left messages saying they had already discussed these issues, my own review of the talk page left me baffled as to what they were talking about and I asked them to explain to me further, particularly since any discussion that had taken place, took place prior to my own edits which changed the text in question significantly. I cannot read people's minds and when sourced material is being blanked without discussion, it is difficult to make changes that might lead to a consensus version. However, any comments, largely those made in edit summaries, were responded to in my follow-up edits, as the page history shows. Jaakobou's latest attempt to discuss the one sentence in the lead was put forward after blanking over 6,000 bytes of material unrelated to that sentence and none of the editors that jumped on the blanking bandwagon made any effort to discuss until after Jaakobou was blocked for edit warring. Still, discussion is reserved to one sentence for which Jaakobou has claimed he garnered consensus (which he has not). And I still have no clue as to what the problem is with the 6,000 bytes of sourced material being blanked that replaced much material that was unsourced and uncited.  T i a m u t  16:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logoprc.jpg
Image:Logoprc.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Casualties of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Please see this relevant talk section:
 * Talk:Israeli-Palestinian_conflict#Casualties_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict

It may help in sorting out where to put casualty info for the various wars, conflicts, uprisings, etc. in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

pov
sorry about putting this here but i have no idea how to make a new talk section: now before i say anything i want to let evryone know that i am jewish and support israel. now onto my rant, this seems like a very pov thread, i wouldnt say anything if this wasnt an encyclopidia but it is and an encyclopidia needs to be 100% unbiased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.200.133 (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I moved the above new comment from near the top of this talk page to here. Please see WP:TALK and WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

About to restore the material that was the subject of edit-warring
Could those who object to the restoration of Timseshifter's last edit here, please outline specific changes they would like to see made or controversial sections they would like to isolate and discuss more before they are restored? There are many changes and I cannot identify the problem areas without specifications from fellow editors. Thanks.  T i a m u t  04:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I found a very large portion of Timeshifter's edit(s) to be objectionable. It would be difficult to fully expound upon these objections, since Timeshifter made so many edits at once. Rather than repeat all of those edits, please break them down into bite-size pieces, which we can more reasonably discuss. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We are discussing 2 separate things. The 2-week-stable casualties section, and all the rest of the 2-week-stable edits. I returned the 2-week-stable casualties section arrived at after months of granular discussion of every part of it. It is up to you, Michael, to discuss changes to the casualties section (and its subsections) before reverting it as a mass edit.


 * Tiamut is also talking about other sections of the article. I did not edit those other sections of the article. I only edited the casualties section. I helped return the other 2-week-stable parts of the article, but I did not edit them. I will not be editing or returning those other sections of the article. Others will have to work on those sections of the article. I will continue to concentrate solely on the casualties section of the article. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, Michael, I can't divine what your specific objections to the edits are if you don't articulate them. As Timeshifter pointed out, he did not make all of the edits in question. I made some of them, piece-by-piece, only to have them mass reverted along with Timeshifter's edits. If you can't outline what your specific objections are, I'm going to reinstate the edit, and you can remove or edit the sections you find objectionable. That's really the only logical way to proceed. You can't expect me to redo my edits one and one and guess which one's are troublesome to you or others.  T i a m u t talk 12:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This logic is backwards. If an article is already in "equilibrium", so-to-speak, it is YOUR obligation to justify changing it, not my obligation to justify not changing it. I have already made it clear that there are too many changes involved for this to be rationally discussed in a single section. I have already made clear my objections to "uprising" instead of "violence" in an earlier thread. That, alone, should suffice as a reason why this massive change is objectionable and POV. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How exactly does objecting to one word "uprising" "alone, suffice as a reason why the massive change is objectionable"? If you disagree with one word, please change that word only.Bless sins (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point Bless Sins. I would further point out that none of the ousrces Michael provided above characterise this as the "second major wave of violence". That formulation remain WP:OR and WP:POV since it characterizes the first intifada as "violent" without any supporting sources, as well.  T i a m u t talk 12:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I stated earlier that I found a very large portion, not just "uprising," to be objectionable. However, the fact that even one portion of it was determined to be strongly POV by a number of editors, is more than enough reason for a change to not be made. Due to your persistence in pushing for these POV changes, I will list my objections below. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that you found "a very large portion" to be objectionable. But you need to clarify and justify your objections. Thank you in advance for doing that.Bless sins (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Uprising vs. Violence
Timeshifter's Version:
 * The Second Intifada, also known as the al-Aqsa Intifada (انتفاضة الأقصى, Intifāḍat El Aqṣa or Intifāḍat Al Aqṣa; אינתיפאדת אל אקצה (or hyphenated אינתיפאדת אל-אקצה), Intifādat El-Aqtzah) refers to the second Palestinian uprising. It began in September 2000, seven years after the end of the First Intifada.

Jaakobou's Version:
 * The Second Intifada, also known as the al-Aqsa Intifada (انتفاضة الأقصى, Intifāḍat El Aqṣa or Intifāḍat Al Aqṣa; אינתיפאדת אל אקצה (or hyphenated אינתיפאדת אל-אקצה), Intifādat El-Aqtzah) began in September 2000. It is the second major wave of violence between Palestinians and Israelis following the First Intifada.

Michael Safyan's Version
 * The Second Intifada, also known as the al-Aqsa Intifada (انتفاضة الأقصى, Intifāḍat El Aqṣa or Intifāḍat Al Aqṣa; אינתיפאדת אל אקצה (or hyphenated אינתיפאדת אל-אקצה), Intifādat El-Aqtzah) is the most recent major wave of violence between Palestinians and Israelis. It began in September 2000, seven years after the end of the First Intifada.


 * Comments
 * Object to Timeshifter's Version: Timeshifter's version causes Wikipedia to endorse the Palestinian point-of-view that the defining characteristic of the Second Intifada was a Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation. From the Israeli point-of-view, the defining characteristic of the Second Intifada were suicide bombings in Israel -- which many Israelis do not attribute to Israeli occupation -- and which is the reason why some Israelis view the Second Intifada as having ended in 2005 (because suicide bombings became few and far between). Both viewpoints, however, agree that violence transpired. Hence, Jaakobou's version accurately and neutrally describes the Second Intifada. Regarding User:Timeshifter's objection that User:Jaakobou's version is POV, because it "characterizes the first intifada as 'violent' without any supporting sources", this is an unreasonable objection given that the First Intifada was violent from both POVs; from the Palestinian POV it was violent due to Israeli military operations in the occupied territories and from the Israeli POV it was violent due to Palestinian rioting and throwing of Molotov cocktails. That the First Intifada was violent does not require "supporting sources" for the use of the word "violent" when sources indicate actions which are evidently violent. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no reference in Timeshifter's version to "Israeli occupation". In his version the second intifada is a "Palestinian uprising" not "Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation". As for "uprising", that term is used interchangeably with "intifada".
 * Bless sins (talk) 02:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Did I suggest that Timeshifter's version mentioned "Israeli occupation"? It doesn't need to mention it for it to be implied. The term "uprising" has an implied "against" in it. It is obvious that "Intifada" translates to "uprising", however, what something is and what people call it are not necessarily the same. The nature of the Second Intifada is disputed. In keeping with WP:NPOV, Wikipedia should not endorse one POV interpretation of what it is over another. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You contradict yourself. In your above statement you seem to be saying that "Palestinian uprising" implies "Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation", am I correct? If not, then I don't see the problem.
 * Secondly, "uprising" is inherent in the word "intifada" (which is actually a poor translation, but a popular one nonetheless). Do you propose we remove "intifada" from the title as well?Bless sins (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not contradicting myself. As you noted, I am saying that "Palestinian uprising" implies "Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation." That is not the same as saying that the verbatim phrase "Israeli occupation" appears in the text. After rereading our comments, it appears that I have assumed that the words "reference" or "mention" are explicit, only; whereas, it appears that you are allowing for these words to be both explicit and implicit. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not propose that we remove "Intifada" from the title of the article. There is nothing wrong with stating that the Second Intifada is named the Second Intifada or that, from the Palestinian perspective, it was an uprising against Israeli occupation (we can even include the phrase "Israeli occupation", if you like). What I find objectionable is to take the Palestinian point-of-view and present it as the undisputed or neutral point-of-view. Points-of-view should be clearly identified and labeled as such. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Calling the intifada the second Palestinian uprising is the most NPOV of the two options presented. Calling it the "Second major wave of violence" is both WP:OR and inaccurate. There were significant differences between the first and second intifadas (as outlined here for example) which preclude the use of such a generalized assumption. The first intifada aimed not to use violence against civilians, whereas in the second intifada, tactics ranged from non-violent civil disobediance to suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians. We cannot, as such, describe the second intifada as the second major wave of violence, since it assumes the first intifada was violent (which the sources dispute), and it makes it seem as though besides the first intifada, there was never any violence between Israelis and Palestinians (which is patently false, as evidenced in pages like 1948 Arab-Israeli war, Palestinian fedayeen, etc., etc.


 * I suggest that the first sentence of the article should state simply that the second intifada was the second Palestinian uprising. An explanation of the differences between it and the fist intifada should be enunciated in the body, perhaps under the section on tactics. There are no sources that support Michael Safyan's preference for the lead, whereas there are numerous sources that support a simple statement of fact: that the second intifada is the second Palestinian uprising.  T i a m u t talk 12:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how one could not describe the First Intifada as violent, but if that's your objection to Jaakobou's version, then I have proposed a third version (see above), which I believe should address your objections. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the effort you are making to come to a compromise formulation, but I don't think "most recent major wave of violence" responds to my objections. I should note that the section under tactics in the article describes a large number of non-violent activities undertaken by Palestinian during this second intifada. Your formulation ignores these non-violent activities which were enjoyed widespread and popular involvement by the Palestinian people during the second intifada. While militant actions were more common than during the first intifada, they were not the sole activities undertaken. I remain unconvinced that "major wave of violence" is NPOV or appropriate in the intro in this fashion. I encourage an addition to the section on tactics exploring the higher levels of violence during the second intifada as opposed to the first, but one sentence in the intro that lacks nuance and accuracy seems to me POv and unnecessary.  T i a m u t talk 11:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Non-violent activities since September 2000 to the present are not part of the Second Intifada. The Second Intifada, according to all notable sources, refers specifically to Palestinian-Israeli violence during that period. Non-violent activities during that period deserve note, but do not constitute the Second Intifada. To downplay the violence which characterizes the Second Intifada in the manner you are suggesting is inaccurate, undue, and POV. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any further input? If not, I will replace the current version with the one that I have proposed, following a 24-hr grace period. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to include 'wave of violence' then i think you should also include something along the lines of have involved a series of demonstrations, strikes, riots, and violence against Israelis, their settlements, and their institutions. . Not mentioning the the non-violent aspect of the intifada is POV (ie you are characterising it as a purely violent act, which it demonstrably isn't/wasn't). Delad (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Michael Safyan, I noticed you went ahead and replaced "uprising" with "wave of violence" again. This despite the objections raised by Delad and myself here which remain unaddressed. I don't want to revert your edit, so as to avoid an edit-war. I'd ask that you restore the previous wording until we can come to a consensus on an alternative acceptable to everyone. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 17:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I gave all the editors 24 hours to respond, under the assumption that if anyone strongly objected, that they would say so. When only Delad responded, I assumed that only he objected. I also ignored Delad's comments, because his suggestion that we list elements of the Second Intifada is unreasonable; an exhaustive list would become unreasonably long and an inexhaustive list could lead to nearly endless debate regarding what ought to be included and what ought to be omitted, not to mention how to indicate that the list was inexhaustive. I have already proposed a compromise version. If you would like to propose and discuss an alternative compromise version, please do so. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well isn't that a good reason why we should adopt the word "uprising"? It cover all the various forms of protest, not just the violence. Gatoclass (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see my prior objections to the use of the word "uprising." ← Michael Safyan (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * have involved a series of demonstrations, strikes, riots, and violence against Israelis, their settlements, and their institutions. doesn't seem overly long to me. I never mentioned an exhaustive list, a concise sentence would suffice. Objections to 'wave of violence' have been raised and you ignored them also. Why? Delad (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your list is not "overly long," but it is also not exhaustive. It seems to be missing "suicide bombings," "bus bombings," "snipings," "launching of Qassam rockets," "assassinations," and much much more. I have already explained why both an inexhaustive list and an exhaustive list are infeasible (an inexhaustive list will almost always be POV or perceived to be POV, whereas an exhaustive list will be overly long). ← Michael Safyan (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Two rubrics, violent and non-violent, should be included. Why have you ignored objections to "wave of violence"? Delad (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested compromise: why don't we refer to both an "uprising" and a "wave of violence" (or something along those lines)? Would that be a way of getting around this impasse? Gatoclass (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a false compromise. The phrase "uprising" is inherently POV, and cannot be used in Wikipedia's voice to describe the Second Intifada (e.g. The Second Intifada was an uprising). The term can only be used to describe the translation of "Intifada" or in order to describe the Palestinian POV (e.g. Palestinians view the Second Intifada as an uprising against Israeli occupation). I do not understand the objections to "wave of violence" (the Second Intifada consisted of several distinct but related instances of Palestinian-Israeli violence); however, while we can try to search for a completely different phrase/term, the term "uprising" (except to describe the Palestinian POV) is unacceptable. Period. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand your objection to "uprising". It's the most common translation for "intifada", which is after all the name of the subject we are discussing - i.e. the second Palestinian uprising. "Wave of violence" is way too pro-Israeli POV, especially considering the many non-violent actions that form part of the second intifada which it ignores and the fact that it implies only Palestinian violence, since this was a Palestinian uprising. I am open to considering other descriptions, but I still don't understand why we can't just call it the second Palestinian uprising, which it was, followed by the Palestinian and Israeli perceptions that it's a "war of liberation" and a "terrorist campaign", respectively. That covers the allusions to violence, without using "wave of violence". Uprisings tend to encompass both violent and non-violent actions. I don't see how the term is POV at all.  T i a m u t talk 00:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Uprising", or "shake-off" is a POV term, obscuring its intense violence. But whatever it was, was it violent? Definitely yes. For something to be violent, it doesn't have to be all-violent, or violent to all, or violent by all, etc. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "Uprisings", as I said previously, can entail violent actions. But they also can include non-violent civil disobediance and demonstrations (much of which is documented in the section on tactics. By emphasizing "violence" in the intro, we downplay the non-violent aspect of the intifada, which involved more people than the actions of a few militants. I strongly disagree to the phrasing "wave of violence" as well, which seems unnecessarily polemical and amounts to editorializing. All the reliable sources that we have refer to an "uprising", not all of them refer to a "wave of violence". Per WP:NPOV, it should be called simply "the second Palestinian uprising". Remember, we show, not tell, at Wikipedia.  T i a m u t talk 10:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me we have somewhat got off the track here. Ultimately it's not about what you or I or someone else thinks, it's what reliable sources have to say. A quick look on Google finds that there are plenty of reliable sources that use the term "uprising" to describe the Second Intifada. So I think the solution is simply to put those sources into the article. Gatoclass (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We have not digressed. If a number of the editors consider a term to be POV -- as is the case --, then it is very likely that such a term is POV. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested compromise (#2): does anyone have an alternative which includes neither "uprising" nor "wave of violence"? ← Michael Safyan (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've already looked into that, and if I'd been able to find an alternative term which I thought might suit, I would have proposed it.
 * I really think this has to come down to what reliable sources say, and since we have plenty of RS's which utilize the term, I see no reason for us to equivocate here. I am quite amenable though, to having the "wave of violence" or something similar employed alongside it. Gatoclass (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I object to the use of the term "uprising", unless it appears in quotes or with some form of explicit attribution (e.g. "According to ..." or "so-and-so considers it to be ..."). We can drop the term "wave of violence." That doesn't matter. I think it is essential, however, that Wikipedia not endorse the Palestinian viewpoint that the Second Intifada amounted to an uprising. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My point, Michael, is that this is not simply a "Palestinian viewpoint". It's a term that is in widespread use for the Second Intifada, not only by independent media, but frequently by Jewish/Israeli media as well. Gatoclass (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am open to looking at the sources which you have found. However, I strongly suspect that the term "uprising" appears as a translation of "Intifada", and not as an explanation of the nature of the Second Intifada. Also, I would like to add that Jewish/Israeli media is not necessarily pro-Israel. For example, finding the use of the term "uprising" to describe the Second Intifada on the website of Brit Tzedek v'Shalom does not necessarily mean that the term "uprising" as a descriptor of the Second Intifada meets the standards of WP:NPOV. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources using "uprising"
In response to Michael's request:


 * 1) "the Israeli press misreported the outbreak of the second Palestinian uprising" - authored by profs from the Department of Psychology at Tel Aviv University.
 * 2) onset of the second Palestinian uprising in late September 2000 - by a professor of economics in Sweden.
 * 3) since the start of the second Palestinian uprising, or Intifada - CIDA draft paper
 * 4) As far back as October 2000 at the outset of the Palestinian uprising - Tanya Reinhart in Journal of Palestine Studies
 * 5) The second Palestinian uprising has put an end to the notion, common in Israel... - James Ron in the journal of Middle East Policy.

Do you need more? Because there are tonnes and tonnes.  T i a m u t talk 09:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Can you find one that uses "uprising" outside of the phrase "second Palestinian uprising"? I would argue that the use of "uprising" in this context is merely a translation of "Intifada." If, however, you can find a source which says that the Second Intifada "is an uprising", "amounts to an uprising", "consisted of an uprising", etc., then that source would be of interest. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is WP:OR to suggest these are mere translations. Nevertheless, I will indulge your request:


 * 1) Menachem Klein writes: "Thus when the final status talks at the Camp David Summit of 2000 ended with no breakthrough, the ground for an uprising was well-prepared."
 * 2) Ilan Pappe writes: "An uprising that spilled over into Israel itself, the second intifada led the Palestinian minority there to call for the deZionization of the Jewish state..."
 * 3) Hafex and Hatfield in "Studies in Conflict and Terrorism" write: "In September 2000, Palestinians embarked on an uprising, commonly referred to as Al- Aqsa intifada. This uprising ..."
 * 4) Lori Allen, in "History and Memory" writes: "First, it was an uprising by a stateless people against multiple power regimes ... during this uprising, which is sometimes referred to as the Al-Aqsa intifada...."
 * 5) A view from lesbians in Israel "The al-Aqsa Intifada is an uprising in thought and cognition.The Israeli-Palestinians are now reclaiming their present..."

More still?  T i a m u t talk —Preceding comment was added at 09:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Can you convince me that these sources are reliable and neutral?
 * Menachem Klein and Ilan Pappe are "post-Zionists" and are generally considered to be biased, anti-Israel sources.
 * Senator Hatfield has been described by Israel advocacy groups as "no friend of Israel."
 * Dr. Lori A Allen has been, and admits to having been, accused of "writing one-sided propaganda" against Israel.
 * That leaves only "A View from Lesbians in Israel", for which the main topic is not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and which can hardly be considered "mainstream."
 * Michael Safyan (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, allow me to remind you that the mainstream news organizations BBC and Associated Press have described the Second Intifada as a "wave of violence." ← Michael Safyan (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What I'll note is that you used a strawman argument to dismiss the first set of sources I provided you (i.e. based on your WP:OR interpretation that they were merely translating the term) and that you've used accusations of bias to disqualify the second set of sources. As to your second point, polemical descriptions like "wave of violence" don't belong in the introduction. Per WP:NPOV, if you want to include them in the body, they should be attributed directly to the authors, something you are most welcome to do.  T i a m u t talk 15:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you mean argumentum ad hominem, not strawman. However, it is not argumentum ad hominem when the issue in question is the supposed authority or neutrality of the sources and not the validity or accuracy of the argument (after all, if we were to discuss the accuracy or validity of the argument, this would become "original research"). Furthermore, I would like to point out that the same applies to the polemical term "uprising," which also requires attribution. I am not insisting that we use "wave of violence"; rather, I am pointing out that "wave of violence" is a far less controversial term than "uprising," and if you object to "wave of violence," then you should be willing to understand our objections to "uprising" (when unquoted and lacking attribution). ← Michael Safyan (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, actually, I did mean strawman argument. You interpreted the first set of sources as being a translation of the term, even though that's not clear. But even if they were translations, since the name of the event in question is "Second Intifada", and because "Intifada" means uprising (no one disputes this anywhere), it is perfectly logical to describe this as the second Palestinian uprising. While you claim that "wave of violence" is a "far less controversial term" than uprising, it's not. It is definitely polemical (as I said above) and does indeed require attribution. You will note that throughout this lengthy discussion, I haven't made any attempts to remove it. (Even though it violates WP:NPOV, I am trying to seek WP:CONSENSUS). "Uprising", however, being a translation of the word, doesn't need attribution at all. It's the meaning of the term in question. So yes, you are using a strawman argument. And no, I don't understand your objections to translating the article's name and including it in the introduction. Sorry, but that's how I see it.  T i a m u t talk 00:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct in that no one disputes that "Intifada" means "uprising." However, this means that "uprising" does not require attribution in that context (i.e. as a translation of "Intifada"). When the Second Intifada is described as an uprising, it is then that attribution is required. This is because "uprising" assigns a particular meaning or interpretation to the violence which characterized the Second Intifada. The phrase "wave of violence," on the other hand, merely implies that violence took place at distinct moments in time over a long duration of time; it does not seek to interpret the cause of violence, the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the violence, who can be blamed for perpetrating the violence, etc. Your attempts to reach consensus are appreciated. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent after edit conflict - reply to Tiamut) It may be polemical to describe the intifada as just a "wave of violence" but one can hardly ignore the fact that violence has been its most obvious characteristic.

As to Michael's interpretation of reliable sources' use of the term as "translations", I think that is clearly a tendentious interpretation. If an RS calls something an "uprising" without qualification, then they are clearly labelling it as such. Given the ubiquity of the term, I think what Michael really needs to do is come up with some reliable and independent sources that deny the intifada is an uprising, and my guess is that he'll have some trouble doing that. Gatoclass (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't deny that the second intifada has involved the use of violent tactics, but it has also involved non-violent tactics. I really find "wave of violence" incredibly soap-opera like. Perhaps we could write something like, "The second intifada refers to the second Palestinian uprising. The tactics adopted by Palestinians ranged from mass protests and general strikes, as in the first intifada, to the mounting of deadly suicide bombing attacks on civilians within Israel. The Israeli response ranged from the use of extra-judicial assasinations targeting militants to collective punishment of the Palestinian civilian population." I'm not committed to this exact wording, but what I'm trying to suggest is the avoidance of the use of the word "violence" in favor of describing the range of tactics used by both sides. My reasoning for this is that "violence" or "wave of violence" doesn't tell us much actually and ignores the non-violent aspects of the uprising.  T i a m u t talk 02:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe not that exact wording Tiamut but definitely in the ballpark. Wave of violence was inserted over objections that it was POV. The Al Aqsa Intifada is commonly referred to as an uprising, as Tiamut has demonstrated (despite some obtuse counter-arguments). Wikipedia is about verifiability NOT opinions. Delad (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is about verifiability, but it is also about neutrality. If there is a more objective phrasing, that phrasing ought to be used. I am not convinced that describing the Second Intifada as an "uprising," a term which I and a number of other editors have found objectionable and POV, adds anything to the article or is the most accurate or objective description.  ← Michael Safyan (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not have to cater to your sensitivities or the sensitivities of other editors. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should therefore list the facts that are verifiable which are pertinent to the subject in a comprehensible, easy to read style. You don't like 'uprising' and neither do some other editors, that is unfortunate. But the facts are that this is how 'intifada' is represented. Not only that but 'intifada' is, arguably, an uprising against Israeli occupation. As for the (biased) list of opinions arguing against the use of 'uprising', I really don't care for a study of the etymology of the word 'intifada' here. Yes, 'intifada' is a word originally unconnected with violence or retaliation but that is one of the fascinating things about language, its mutability. Your decision to choose to ignore my objections to 'wave of violence' without engaging in discussion is indicative of your style of editing. I am considering ignoring your objections likewise. Delad (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please clarify your position, Delad? I am a bit confused. I thought that your argument was based, in part, on the concerns of yourself (and the editors with whom you agree) that the phrase "wave of violence" is POV. So... I am having difficulty understanding why those concerns trump the concerns of myself (and of the editors with whom I agree) who find "uprising" to be equally objectionable.


 * Additionally, as I understand it, you are arguing that we should look at the sources. Right? What I have been arguing is this: whether the Second Intifada did or did not constitute an uprising is subjective, and Wikipedia should, therefore, neither endorse nor refute the claim that the Second Intifada was fundamentally an uprising. I have provided sources which show that there is a point-of-view which claims that the Second Intifada was not an uprising. Hence either claim is POV. I have also provided sources from the mainstream news media from both the political left (BBC) and the political right (Associated Press), which use the phrase "wave of violence." If the sources, so you argue, are important, why do you dismiss these? Your arguments go both ways. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet another compromise proposal: If I place "wave of violence" in quotes and reference the BBC and Associated Press articles, would that be satisfactory? ← Michael Safyan (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I think that would just look silly. Gatoclass (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: per Tiamut I think we should have "uprising" as it is the most common and mainstream translation of "intifada".Bless sins (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

(Biased) Sources Which Deny That The Second Intifada Was An Uprising
Michael Safyan (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Israel's Security: The Hard-Learned Lessons on the Middle East Quarterly
 * "Between September 1993 and September 2000, the Middle East was the setting for a great historical experiment: the effort to negotiate a final resolution of the decades-old conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. The experiment failed, and disastrously so. Oslo diplomacy—which takes its name from the site of the original back-channel negotiations between Israeli academics and Palestinian officials—came to a standstill with the collapse of the Camp David summit in July 2000. Soon thereafter, one side, the Palestinian, opted to replace negotiations with war, launched under the misnomer of a popular uprising (intifada)." (emphasis added)
 * For The Record by The Jerusalem Fund
 * "One of the early stages of nonviolent mobilizations is grappling with the question “what should we call it?” “What do we name this action?” The word intifada came from student struggles during the 1980s against Israeli Military Orders 854 and 947, considered by the Palestinians to be an assault on their academic freedom. The students chose a deliberately, specifically, linguistically nonviolent word with no connotations of retaliation or vengeance. They chose intifada, meaning shaking off. (In this sense, the term “second intifada” is a complete misnomer.)" (emphasis added)
 * Oxonian Society March 12, 2003 on Embassy of Israel, Washington DC
 * "But it [the Second Intifada] is a misnomer because intifada suggests popular uprising, and this is not the case. We're talking about a top-down very well orchestrated and planned campaign of terror, initiated, supported, inspired, directed, I would say, by Arafat and the leadership around him." (emphasis added).
 * The Great 'Intifada' Deception by Gerald M. Steinberg
 * "...the use of the "al-Aksa intifada" label is deliberately misleading. The word "intifada" creates the false impression of a popular uprising based on mass demonstrations, and diverts attention from terrorist bombs and snipers hiding behind children. The current violence is very different from the broad Palestinian uprising that broke out (without the aid of Arafat) at the end of 1988, but the propagandists seek to gain dividends by this association." (emphasis added)
 * Well, I said I thought you'd have trouble finding independent sources which question the usage of the term and I think you've proved my point :) Gatoclass (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously there are no reliable sources which deny that it is an uprising, because to endorse or refute the claim that it is an uprising is purely subjective, which is the point I was trying to make. See my earlier comments. By the same token, can you find me an independent, reliable source which denies that the Second Intifada was a wave of violence? ← Michael Safyan (talk) 06:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No it's not "purely subjective". If it's referred to as an "uprising" by reliable sources, then to all intents and purposes that's what it is.
 * What you and your sources appear to be objecting to is the notion that it was a popular uprising - that is, something spontaneous. And I think that's a legitimate POV. But the Warsaw Uprising wasn't spontaneous either, it was an event long in the planning.
 * Just because an uprising is not spontaneous does not mean it is not an uprising. Gatoclass (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we have consensus yet to change "wave of violence" to "uprising"? Did anyone like the proposal to describe the tactics used by Israelis and Palestinians in the introduction that I had provided above?  T i a m u t talk 10:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in responding. No, consensus has not been reached. I think that Gatoclass raises a valid point for some of the articles above. However, for others, the objection is that the term "uprising" is euphemistic. I am still waiting for sources which deny that the Second Intifada consisted of a wave of violence. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As I've said a number of times before, "wave of violence" is polemical and imparts nothing in the way of information regarding the tactics used. Given that "uprising" is a translation of "intifada" and the term is used by many more reliable sources than "wave of violence", it should be included in the the first paragraph of the introduction. In order to address your concerns that the reader should be aware that violence was used in the intifada by both parties, I have proposed that we described the tactics employed by both sides in detail. For example, we can write: "The second intifada refers to the second Palestinian uprising. The tactics adopted by Palestinians ranged from mass protests and general strikes, as in the first intifada, to the mounting of deadly suicide bombing attacks and Qassam rocket fire on civilians within Israel. The Israeli response ranged from the use of extra-judicial assasinations targeting militants to mass arrests and collective punishment of the Palestinian civilian population." The wording can be tweaked, but do you see what I'm getting at?  T i a m u t talk 10:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you are getting at; however, my reservations about such a list still stand. I would like to offer a compromise, though, on "uprising." If you want to use the phrase ", or the second Palestinian uprising, " then I have no objection. I do, however, object to "refers to the second Palestinian uprising" or "is the second Palestinian uprising". This is because the former phrasing imparts a translation whereas the latter phrasings impart an interpretation. Also, the former phrasing has more sources than the latter phrasings. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A good introduction, me thinks. The inclusion of the words 'range from' explicitly indicate that it isn't a comprehensive list while at the same time it includes some of the most reported on forms of protest/punishment/violence used by both sides. I know User:Michael Safyan objects to the concept of a list. That is why he ignored my original objections to including 'wave of violence' in the text. What specifically about Tiamut's list do you, M. Safyan, object to? Delad (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiamut's list is subjective (in that it uses emotive diction) and is biased (in that the use of such diction is skewed in favor of the Palestinian side and in that the list of Palestinian tactics includes non-violent elements whereas the list of Israeli tactics consists of exclusively violent elements). ← Michael Safyan (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The tactics adopted by Palestinians ranged from mass protests and general strikes, as in the first intifada, to the mounting of deadly suicide bombing attacks and Qassam rocket fire on civilians within Israel. The Israeli response ranged from the use of extra-judicial assasinations targeting militants to mass arrests and collective punishment of the Palestinian civilian population.
 * Tiamut's Proposed List
 * Comments on the Proposed List
 * Object
 * Reasons:
 * The use of the word "range" gives the impression that there is a lower and upper bound. Readers expect that the items are ordered in some way. The use of "mass protests and general strikes" as the lower bound for Palestinian tactics and "Qassam rocket fire on civilians within Israel" as an upper bound for Palestinian tactics suggests that the items are ordered from least-violent to most-violent. The use of "extra-judicial assassinations" as the lower bound for Israeli tactics, therefore, suggests that this was the least-violent Israeli response (i.e. that all Israeli responses were violent). For the list to even pretend to be balanced, non-violent Israeli responses -- such as the construction of Israel's Security Barrier, the creation of checkpoints, and establishing curfews -- ought to be included in the list.
 * The entire list of Israeli tactics uses emotive wording. For example, "collective punishment" is not an objective term. Some of the actions Israel has undertaken have been described as such, but the phrase -- itself -- does not objectively describe what Israel has undertaken. A more objective phrasing would be "cutting off fuel supplies to Gaza, an action described as 'collective punishment' by (insert source here)".
 * Your criticism that the list lacks a non-violent Israeli action seems to be valid. As for emotive language; are the terms 'extrajudicial assasination' (how about 'extrajudicial execution'?), 'mass arrests' and 'collective punishment' emotive by themselves or do you believe they are emotive because they are associated with Israeli actions or because Israel's actions fail to fall within these defined terms? Or are you saying that when these terms are used they must always be in the context of who has made these assertions? I'm presuming that these are the terms are speaking of when you refer to subjective diction. Surely if the terms are okay by themselves and are applied to Israel's actions by respected, independent NGO's and the UN then the issue of it being emotive is more of a personal issue? Delad (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Or are you saying that when these terms are used they must always be in the context of who has made these assertions?"
 * Correct. Statements which are interpretive (such as "collective punishment") rather than descriptive (e.g. cutting off fuel) always require attribution. The same obviously applies for interpretations of Palestinian actions. For example, it is fine to say that these are considered to be terrorism by Israel and the U.S.; however, to describe it as terrorism without attribution is not permitted. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It was my understanding that 'collective punishment' is a term which is defined under the Geneva Conventions (IV) and, as a result, is limited in interpretation. Terrorism, on the other hand, has many interpretations (100 according to the wikipedia article) and is, therefore, interpretive. Delad (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of the critique made by Michael is fair. So here's an alternate proposal:
 * Some of the critique made by Michael is fair. So here's an alternate proposal:

The tactics adopted by Palestinians ranged from mass protests and general strikes, as in the first intifada, to the mounting of suicide bombing attacks and the firing of Qassam rockets into residential areas within Israel. The Israeli response ranged from mass arrests and increased restrictions on movement, via the use of checkpoints and the construction of the Israeli West Bank barrier, to extra-judicial assassinations targeting militants.


 * Note I removed "on civilians" and replaced it with "into residential areas" because I realized it's presumptuous to assume that the Qassams are intended to target civilians and that I removed "deadly" before "suicide bombing" since it's polemical and redundant. As to the opinions regarding these actions (i.e. that some view them as "terrorism" and most view them as "collective punishment") I think that can be covered in the body, or alternatively by a follow-up paragraph in the introduction whose wording we can collaborate on. Comments, feedback, alterations?  T i a m u t talk 00:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On a side note, I do agree with Delad that collective punishment has a rather clear meaning under international law and Israel's actions have been characterized as such by the international community. But I don't mind leaving that discussion to a second paragraph or the body of the article.  T i a m u t talk 00:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Mostly Called in Israel vs. Among Israelis At Large
Timeshifter's Version:
 * but among Israelis at large, the Intifada is generally referred to as al-Aqsa Intifada.

Jaakobou's Version:
 * but the Intifada is mostly called al-Aqsa Intifada in Israel.


 * Comments
 * Sources? Both versions require a source. These two versions do not mean the same thing; the first refers to the population (i.e. the majority of Israelis use the term "al-Aksa Intifada") whereas the second refers to the location (i.e. in most places in Israel "al-Aksa Intifada" is more commonly used). ← Michael Safyan (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree sources would be nice here. The difference between the two versions is however negligible in my opinion.  T i a m u t talk 12:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Those Who vs. A Minority of Israelis
Timeshifter's Version:
 * It is also called the Oslo War (מלחמת אוסלו) among a minority of Israelis who consider it to be the result of concessions made by Israel following the Oslo Accords

Jaakobou's Version:
 * It is also called the Oslo War (מלחמת אוסלו) by those who consider it a result of concessions made by Israel following the Oslo Accords


 * Comments
 * Object to Timeshifter's Version: Both versions imply that those who use the term "Oslo War" do so because they believe that the Second Intifada resulted from concessions made by Israel following the Oslo Accords. However, Timeshifter's version makes an unsourced assertion -- which also happens to be ambiguous -- about Israelis. It is ambiguous, because it could imply that:
 * An unknown percentage of Israelis believe that the Second Intifada resulted from concessions made by Israel following the Oslo Accords, but less than 50% of Israelis use the term "Oslo War" which reflects this opinion.
 * Less than 50% of Israelis believe that the Second Intifada resulted from concessions made by Israel following the Oslo Accords, and some percentage of this 50% use the term "Oslo War" which reflects that opinion.
 * I find Timeshifter's version to be objectionable due to its ambiguity and lack of sourcing. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources in Jaakabou's version (Itamar Rabinovich, Devin Sper and Binyamin Elon) appear to be all Israelis. Whether or not they represent the minority or majority view, I can't say.Bless sins (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed "minority" here because while it is clear that Israelis who use the term use it because they think the intifada was a result of Israeli concessions in Oslo, it is not clear how many use the term. I think Michael Safyan's objection to the version which makes a conclusion about how many people use the term, rather than the version that limits itself to describing the sources used, is well-founded.  T i a m u t talk 13:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How about this instead:

It is also called the Oslo War (מלחמת אוסלו) by Israelis who consider it to be the result of concessions made by Israel following the Oslo Accords. ?  T i a m u t talk 13:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perfect. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Commanders
Shouldn't we add Mahmoud Tawalbe, Zakaria Zubeidi and other regional commanders into the commanders list for the Palestinians instead of Mahmoud Abbas and the heads of organizations who really did not strategize any plans or were on the battlegrounds? --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you add information about these men to the body of the article? Possibly the section under tactics might benefit from a more detailed explanation as to the groups anbd individuals involved in the different activities undertaken. Then we can add them to the infobox.  T i a m u t talk 13:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Weasal word tag
Someone placed a weasal word tag on the phrase describing Netanyahu's government as "right-wing". This characterization comes directly from an article by Serge Schemann in the New York Times (footnote no. 6 in the present version of the article) which states: "...construction that was frozen under the former Labor Government has resumed under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing coalition." See this link. When such usage of the term is common is mainstream media, and we have reliable sources attesting to its use, can it be considered a weasel word? Your feedback on what to do to resolve this issue is appreciated.  T i a m u t talk 18:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like it was put there by an anon IP. I'm guessing it was meant to imply the Netanyahu government was fascist or something. So I've removed it. Gatoclass (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I put the tag there, because "right-wing" and "left-wing" are value judgements. Absent a source, the phrase is a weasel word. However, now that Tiamut has provided the source, I will place a reference tag next to the use of the phrase. Thank you for the source, Tiamut. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Settlements
Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu and Barak refrained from building new settlements although the Oslo agreements stipulated no such ban. The total construction during 1993-2000 did not amount the pre-Oslo two year 1991-92 total. 80.179.192.75 (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please provide a source for that? The sources we have indicate otherwise.  T i a m u t talk 12:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You may check the pro-Palestinian Peace Now figures for settlement construction. The intifada was organized to distract public attention from PA corruption. 80.179.192.75 (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you're going to have to be more spefici than that. Can you provide a link or the name of a book and the page number? We need something concrete.  T i a m u t talk 10:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Peace Now Housing Units Before Oslo: 1991-92 13,960, After Oslo: 1994-95 3,840 1996-1997 3,570. 80.179.192.75 (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, you need to provide a link or the name and date of the publication. I tried to find the information you posted. The source I found says the opposite of what you claim: "According to the Jewish Group Peace Now, which monitors settlement building, “When the Oslo agreements (1993) were signed there were 32,750 housing units in the settlements. Since the signing of the Oslo agreements 20,371 housing units had been constructed, representing an increase of 62% in settlement housing units by the year 2000, between 1994 and 1997, road paving was begun on 139.6 km of road and 159.2 was completed.” [5]" You can see the information in this link here. I can find no source that claims that settlement activity decreased after Oslo, but many say it increased. So please stop changing the text to read what you want it to say. Instead, do some homework, post the links here and let's judge the sources against one another. Okay?  T i a m u t talk 15:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

These are the Peace Now figures. You may check their accuracy with all your other sources. 80.179.192.75 (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link. **http://www.fmep.org/settlement_info/stats_data/settlement_activity_construction/israeli_residential_construction_1990-1998.html  80.179.192.75 (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Thanks for the link. It documents raw data on settlement construction. From my reading, it shows an increase after Oslo, in line with what the other sources cited in the article currently say. Do you have a source that says there was a decrease? Because this one doesn't.  T i a m u t talk 10:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The link precisely confirms the Peace Now figures that I have posted. Housing Units Before Oslo: 1991-92 13,960, After Oslo: 1994-95 3,840 1996-1997 3,570. 80.179.192.75 (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the raw statistics in that link say by my reading. Almost all indicate an increase. Further, it states at the bottom that "figures exclude significant construction in Greater Jerusalem and along the Green Line." In the article, we also have the Surin ref which explcitly states that settlement activity increased after Oslo. I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than this source which doesn't say what you think it says.  T i a m u t talk 04:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Central Bureau of Statistics

Period Judea, Samaria And Gaza Area Total, Public Sector Original Data Number

1991-Q1 540.0 1991-Q2 1,650.0

1991-Q3 2,460.0 1991-Q4 2,030.0 1992-Q1 1,340.0 1992-Q2 2,210.0 1992-Q3 1,230.0 1992-Q4 220.0 1993-Q1 160.0 1993-Q2 30.0 1993-Q3 70.0 1993-Q4 180.0 1994-Q1 100.0 1994-Q2 40.0

1994-Q3 140.0 1994-Q4 320.0 1995-Q1 1,149.0

1995-Q2 583.0

1995-Q3 83.0

1995-Q4 150.0 1996-Q1 231.0 1996-Q2 429.0 1996-Q3 211.0 1996-Q4 290.0 1997-Q1 167.0 1997-Q2 257.0 1997-Q3 320.0 1997-Q4 468.0 1998-Q1 813.0 1998-Q2 527.0 1998-Q3 372.0 1998-Q4 283.0 1999-Q1 360.0 1999-Q2 500.0 1999-Q3 684.0 1999-Q4 486.0 2000-Q1 653.0 2000-Q2 839.0 2000-Q3 732.0 2000-Q4 671.0 80.179.192.75 (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

the title
The name Intifada is wrong, it should be written Intifadha; "ض" is "Dh" and "د" is "D". radiant guy (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this might be one of those cases where the common name in English is a mis-transliteration, and it's too late to correct it. Generally, Wikipedia focuses on staying in-line with the sources it cites, rather than being strictly "correct" on our own judgment. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 16:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Leading paragraph
The current discussion of the leading paragraph has been getting a bit crowded, in terms of space. Can we move this discussion here? ← Michael Safyan (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed versions
The Second Intifada, also known as the al-Aqsa Intifada (انتفاضة الأقصى, Intifāḍat El Aqṣa or Intifāḍat Al Aqṣa; אינתיפאדת אל אקצה (or hyphenated אינתיפאדת אל-אקצה), Intifādat El-Aqtzah) refers to the second Palestinian uprising which began in September 2000.
 * Version 1

"Intifada" (also spelled Intifadah) is an Arabic word that literally translates into English as "shaking off" and "Al-Aqsa" is the name of a prominent mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem. Many Palestinians consider the Intifada to be a war of national liberation against foreign occupation, whereas many Israelis consider it to be a terrorist campaign.

The tactics adopted by Palestinians ranged from mass protests and general strikes, as in the First Intifada, to the mounting of suicide bombing attacks and the firing of Qassam rockets into residential areas within Israel. The Israeli response ranged from mass arrests and increased restrictions on movement - via the use of checkpoints and the construction of the Israeli West Bank barrier - to extra-judicial assassinations targeting militants.

The Second Intifada, also known as the al-Aqsa Intifada (انتفاضة الأقصى, Intifāḍat El Aqṣa or Intifāḍat Al Aqṣa; אינתיפאדת אל אקצה (or hyphenated אינתיפאדת אל-אקצה), Intifādat El-Aqtzah) is the most recent major wave of violence between Palestinians and Israelis. It began in September 2000, seven years after the end of the First Intifada.
 * Version 2

"Intifada" (also spelled Intifadah) is an Arabic word for "uprising", which literally translates into English as "shaking off". "Al-Aqsa" is the name of a prominent mosque on the Temple Mount (known to Arabs and Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif). Many Palestinians consider the Intifada to be a war of national liberation against foreign occupation, whereas many Israelis consider it to be a terrorist campaign.

The Second Intifada, or second Palestinian uprising, also known as the al-Aqsa Intifada (انتفاضة الأقصى, Intifāḍat El Aqṣa or Intifāḍat Al Aqṣa; אינתיפאדת אל אקצה (or hyphenated אינתיפאדת אל-אקצה), Intifādat El-Aqtzah) began in September 2000, seven years after the end of the First Intifada.
 * Version 3

"Intifada" (also spelled Intifadah) is an Arabic word for "uprising", which literally translates into English as "shaking off". "Al-Aqsa" is the name of a prominent mosque on the Temple Mount (known to Arabs and Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif). Many Palestinians consider the Intifada to be a war of national liberation against foreign occupation, whereas many Israelis consider it to be a terrorist campaign.

Palestinian and Israeli tactics during the Second Intifada varied and consisted of both non-violent and violent actions. Non-violent Palestinian tactics included mass protests and general strikes; non-violent Israeli tactics included creating checkpoints and erecting the West Bank Barrier. Violent Palestinian tactics included suicide bombings within Israel and the launching of Qassam/Katyusha-Grad rockets into Israeli residential areas; violent Israeli tactics included militarily invading Palestinian territory, shelling sources of rocket fire located in Palestinian residential areas, and assassinating members of groups which it deems to be terrorist organizations.

Discussion of proposed versions
You have again ignored my objections to the use of the word "uprising" in this context. Please see the discussion above. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 03:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. I did that on purpose actually. I don't agree with your position and neither does anyone else here. Intifada actually translates as "shaking off". Multiple reliable English sources nevertheless call the intifada an "uprising", so your claim that they do that simply because it's a translation is unconvincing. Since we are discussing options, I put the option in place that responds to some of the concerns you've raised but not others. Please add the proposal you would like to see instead. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 13:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record Michael, I append some examples, mainly from conservative academists and analysts, who consider, by their usage, that the term is neutral and unobjectionable.


 * David Bukay ‘The Leftist Media and the Al-Aqsa Uprising.’ in pp.87f-113 of Shlomo Sharan (ed.), Israel and the Post-Zionists: A Nation at Risk, Sussex Academic Press, Brighton, Portland 2003


 * ‘The Palestinians called the new uprising the 'Al Aqsa Intifada', a name inflaming religious passions.’ Barry M.Rubin, Judith Colp Rubin, Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography, Oxford University Press 2003 p.205


 * ‘The Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades first appeared in September 2000, shortly after the Palestinian uprising began.’ Anthony H Cordesman, Arab-Israeli Forces in an Era of Asymmetric Wars, Praeger, Security International, Greenwood Publishers, Westport 2006 p.316


 * ‘Israel has responded to the much more violent al-Aqsa Uprising by using overwhelming force: Apache attack helicopters, fighter-bomber jets, wholesale demolition of homes, especially in Gaza’s Rafah refugee camps, mass arrests, assassinations, and so on.’ Loren D. Lybarger, Identity and Religion in Palestine: The Struggle between Islamism and Secularism in the Occupied Territories, Princeton University Press 2007 p.196 Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes. This is a translation, not an interpretation, though. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Did no one read above, where I said '''I have no objection to using "uprising" as a translation; the phrase ", or the second Palestinian uprising," is ok, since it imparts a translation. **HOWEVER**, I strongly object to "is the second Palestinian uprising" or "refers to the second Palestinian uprising" since that imparts an interpretation and also has fewer sources supporting that usage'''? ← Michael Safyan (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Michael SafyanI've been distracted from closely following some pages: spring planting has me outside most hours. My apologies for not grasping your point. ButI'm afraid you are wrong. Uprising is an exquisitely neutral descriptive term, precisely because its use involves no 'interpretation'. Compare the various inflammatory or partisan uses instinct in synonyms like 'revolt', 'insurgency', 'rebellion', 'insurrection', etc. You can use 'waves of violence' only if you are describing the interaction of Palestinians and IDF actions (the latter's massive expenditure of ammunition over the first weeks was notorious). Otherwise it is unacceptable to describe only one side, since it violates NPOV. Secondly, it does not 'translate' intifada: it describes that 'event' with the most neutral Englsh word available. All the other terms imply an 'interpretation', or POV, to English ears. (2) I'm also sure that the phrasing you object to is quite normal English. It is frequently encountered in the quality literature aspiring to an incisive, but not tendentious, analysis of these things. Take Ritchie Ovendale's Origins of the Arab-Israeli Wars, not the first edition (1984) of course but the 4th.updated edition (Pearson, 2004) which he revised to include more recent events. He dedicates a whole chapter (ch.15) to the al-Aqsa intifada, with the title, 'The Second Palestinian Uprising’ (pp.301-327). There's no questioning Ovendale's credentials. He has written splendid accounts of international diplomacy, Middle East, etc.  Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to have agree with Nishidani here (and Gatoclass, Delad, Bless Sins and others who have pointed out the same thing over the last three months that we have discussing this one issue. I have been very very patient during this time, delaing primarily with MicaehlSafyan's objections alone (HumusSapiens appeared for a while and then left the debate, so I don't know where he stands know). We have gone through a mutlitude of sources from all sides of the debate that call the Second Intifada a Palestinian uprising. WP:CONSENSUS does not require us not to move forward with editing an article simply because one editor "objects" to a piece of information that multiple reliable sources support the use of. I am going to restore the change to the first sentence alone. We can discuss the details of the paragraph that follow. I expect that the change will stick, given that there are no sources that dispute the use of the term uprising. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 22:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As a member of WP:IPCOLL, I am committed to a 1-revert policy and will therefore not revert the recent change. However, I am deeply disturbed by the amount of pro-Palestinian POV content in this article, including the use of "uprising" as not merely a translation but also a description of the Second Intifada. Since I am clearly outnumbered, I see no point in continuing this discussion. Rather, I will seek mediation. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Tiamut. I agree with your recent edit except for one place, where I think Michael is correct, and that his preference for the phrasing:'most recent major wave of violence between Palestinians and Israelis. ' That 'between' is perfectly neutral, since the 'wave of violence' is ascribed to the interaction between two parties, without assigning any one side blame. It is purely descriptive. If there is a problem it lies in the attribution of the violence to the respective 'peoples' as opposed to institutionalized or semi-institutionalized forces (IDF, Al-Aqsa brigades, etc.) I deeply object to that kind of collective blaming, of Israelis or Palestinians, who are mostly the objects of a war between two strategies adopted by the relevant powers that be. Nishidani (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus
Who cares? The change has already been made. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I care. And I devoted three months of discussion to the issue without changing "wave of violence" to "uprising", so don't please pretened as though this process has been somehow cut short.  T i a m u t talk 23:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Is it objective to describe the Second Intifada as an uprising, not only in name, but also in deed?
''Please see the different versions here.


 * No: If it were the case, then the sentence "Many Palestinians consider the Intifada to be a war of national liberation against foreign occupation, whereas many Israelis consider it to be a terrorist campaign" would be incorrect. Uprising connotes justification and, even if it didn't, the viewpoint that the Second Intifada was an uprising (against Israeli occupation) is a Palestinian point-of-view. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No, because while many assert that it was a spontaneous uprising, just as many (including Palestinians) claim that it was a planned operation. When there is such a dispute, the most that can be stated is that 'the intifada is claimed by some to be a spontaneous uprising'. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 23:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC) This user was informed of this RfC by Michael Safyan.


 * Yes. This is a ridiculous, petty discussion. We all have better things to do than go back to the old ways. I thought things had improved since the creation of WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. It was an uprising that was both spontaneous and prepared for. Since elements on both sides are always prepared to fight. That does not discount those who rose up spontaneously too. Not everyone would be in on any possible plans for an uprising. Uprisings can be both planned and spontaneous. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes Uprising is the term used by the vast of majority of sources (Palestinian, Israeli and other) listed throughout this talk page over the course of three months of discussion on this issue. (Please review the talk page sections above to see just how many sources we have reviewed on this subject.) A "popular uprising" might be controversial since it implies spontaneity (which some sources dispute), but a plain "uprising" is universally agreed upon by the scholarly and mainstream sources listed above. An uprising can also be violent and/or non-violent.  T i a m u t talk 23:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, what Israeli "vast majority" are you speaking of? here's a Hebrew source using the word combination 'terror war' מלחמת הטרור to describe the "Intifada".  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  02:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Response Jaakobou, please review the many many sources above. Your one source in Hebrew does not outweigh the mutliple English-language sources above, many of which are by Israelis. Fringe minority viewpoints that the intifada was not an "uprising" should not derail what the vast majority of reliable, scholarly sources say.  T i a m u t talk 02:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Response last I checked, Hebrew was the official language in Israel and for every source you bring, I'm certain I can bring two so your personal 'Fringe' theory is WP:OR. Please also review that one's uprising is another's terror campaign and therefore we cannot use the term equivocally but rather must apply a compromise such as "militant" is applied to "suicidal terrorists"/"resistance fighters".  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  02:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Response Even if you could bring two Israeli Hebrew-language sources for every one I and others have provided above, that would prove absolutely nothing. Israel is one country out of 192 in the world. We write encyclopedias from a "worlwide perspective" and not an Israeli one. Nevertheless, there are ample examples above of Israeli sources who do in fact use the term uprising, along with the rest of the world. T i a m u t talk 02:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * continued - Israeli voices of all types exist since it's a full fledged democracy, thus the point of being able of finding certain Israeli opinions is moot. The "worlwide perspective" is under contention. Some believe it to be a "wave of terror" and others believe it to be a "holy resistance". Terminology that is acceptable as "Neutral to both sides" is what we should use, as is the case with terrorists, whom most of the world views as such, but are given the benefit of the wiki NPOV doubt.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes Uprising is not a Palestinian POV, look at the sources. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to set new standards based on fringe and/or minority views. The argument that it wasn't entirely spontaneous is, given the context supplied by Timeshifter and Tiamut, without merit. Uprising is the term used by the vast majority of sources.Delad (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No A "people's uprising" is the meaning of the term, and the Second Intifada was a directed propaganda and terror campaign of attacks and offenses aimed almost exclusively at civilians. This is not an 'uprising' but an attempted genocide and direct attack on the Jewish statehood. Calling the attempt to eliminate the Jewish state an 'uprising' is a clear POV Arab-Palestinian narrative rather than a neutral descriptive. We can and should explain the meanning of the Arabic term, but certainly not treat it as though that it the definitive description of the events... since that point is in clear contention.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  02:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC) This user was informed of this RfC by Michael Safyan.


 * No It is 100% POV. The exact tenor of the violence, what caused it and what can stop it, are hotly debated. "Uprising" would be wholly inappropriate here. IronDuke  02:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Question The scholarly sources cited above use the term "uprising" and discuss the range of actions, both violent and non-violent, that took place within that context. So how exactly does using the term "uprising" prejudice the outcome of the issues you have raised?  T i a m u t talk 02:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Answer The sources you provide above are largely partisan, or simply bizarre. I actually like Safyan's suggestion above, and move that we replace "uprising" with "wave of violence." It is, after all, a (possibly entirely justified) wave of violence, is it not? IronDuke  02:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Response Well that's a rather simplistic and dismissive point of view to take, though you are entitled to it. The section of sources provided by Nishidani here may however, have escaped your notice and that of others. As for your suggestion, you might want to review the sections above wherein mutliple editors find "wave of violence" to be polemical, POV, and not nearly as common a description as "uprising". Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 04:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Response The editors who claim that the phrase "wave of violence" is POV have failed to provide sources which claim that the phrase is POV. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Response A source is not required to conclude that it is POV. The phrase denotes that all actions that took place under the rubric of the Second intifada were violent and therefore ignores the non-violent aspects (such as general strikes and protests). Hence, it is POV. Further, it is simply not as common as "uprising", as the extensive review of the sources over the last three months demonstrates.  T i a m u t talk 04:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Response Why does "wave of violence" imply that all actions were violent? At the beach, you will observe calm between the crashing of the waves. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A "wave of violence" implies one continuous wave and ignores the periods of calm or the non-violent actions. More importantly, an examination of the reliable sources above show that is it clearly not as common as "uprising". T i a m u t talk 12:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes Internationally reliable sources objectively term it as such, largely because the world diplomatic community considers the Palestinian Territories as occupied, even though more Zion-ish Israels consider them ‘disputed’.  It is the difference between Medīnat Yisrā'el and Eretz Yisrael, it is the difference some see as: “While we view Eretz Yisrael as sacred, the sanctity of Jewish life takes precedence over the sanctity of Jewish land”.<CCAR, Miami Platform, 1997>   CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: When you say "term it as such", do you mean in name or in deed? What sources lead you to this conclusion? ← Michael Safyan (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Attempted Reply:Well, how about this from the NYT, it was the first I found and didnt bother looking past the first few paras. Naturally, "term it as such" were my words, maybe 'describe' and 'the event' might have been better.  I would have been happier if you had picked up on the "world diplomatic community considers the Palestinian Territories as occupied" and considered neutrally the significance of that, and how Wikipedia might present the Second Intifada with a NPOV.  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 08:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Question/Response What does Israel's occupation have to do with the Second Intifada being an uprising? I am not suggesting that Israel's presence in the West Bank and formerly in Gaza is/was not an occupation. Rather, I think it is problematic to describe terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians as an attack against the occupying power. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (Response from Nishidani)Israel is an Occupying Power legally. That Palestinian terrorists have targeted Israeli civilians does not alter the fact that Israel is an Occupying Power of the area where most of those terrorists hail from. I'm not the only one to think it deeply problematic to describe a consistent campaign of indescriminate bombings in which on average half the victims are innocent civilians, house demolitions, land theft, property theft (if you follow the reports in Haaretz on incursions, most occupied houses have all their valuables stolen or wrecked by snipers), targeted assassinations against elected political leaders, seizure of titled land for illegal settlement, simply a 'response' to unilateral terrorism. Unfortunately Michael, both sides use terror. And historically, (though I strongly disagree with this statement), a highly pro-Zionist conservative writer like Paul Johnson can write that the answer to the question as to how Israel was founded against all odds in 1948 'lies in yet another Jewish contribution to the shape of the modern world, the scientific use of terror to break the will of liberal rulers'. (A History of the Jews, 1987). Livni, Olmert, Natanyahu, Begun, Shamir and so many others come from families who, or they directly militated in, organisations that use indiscriminate terror against civilians, as they attacked what they considered, on the IRA paradigm, to be an occupying power. This did play a crucial role in the breaking of British resolve, and the creation of the state of Israel, and historians, outside of Wiki rules, have no problems calling a spade a spade. Good historians even say, I don't necessarily agree, that this set the example for the PLO. Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Michael, I really don’t know how to fully answer your question, since I am not motivated as a Palestinian might be. Concerning your “What does Israel's occupation have to do with the Second Intifada being an uprising?”  Let me guess that, all things being equal, the world diplomatic community tends to speak for the world as it hopes it might/should be; UN 242 is the basis of the “peace process” and that is therefore “land for peace.”  Given that, I suspect that 30 years of occupation, after the broadly defined basis of peace has been accepted and still no significant improvement, a fair-minded person should somewhat understand why the subjugated might want to rise up against the situation.  I will note that it took the First Intifada to get any movement toward peace in the first place (mostly in the absence of the PLO).
 * This is not to minimize the loss and suffering of the Israelis, which has been considerably worse than in the First Intifada. I can absolutely understand why you believe your ‘editor’s choice’ phrasing is the correct one, but I do not believe it is the NPOV one. If it were so, then Wiki would describe the intifada strictly on the basis of the results you see and claim, rather that giving any credence as to the internationally recognized (therefore legitimate) motivations that caused these results.
 * You “think it is problematic to describe terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians as an attack against the occupying power.” I think you fail to see that it is also Palestinian civilians dying in terrifying (but not terrorist) circumstances.  The ‘occupier’ is Israel, civilian or not, just as the ‘occupied’ are Palestinian, civilian or not.  It is called asymmetric warfare; I do not support their methods, but they have few choices left.  CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply It is not Wikipedia policy to state "the internationally recognized" opinion, no matter how legitimate or illegitimate, without proper attribution. Regardless, when you say "editor's choice phrasing", are you referring to "wave of violence" or to what I have recently proposed, below? ← Michael Safyan (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes The implicit assumption that "uprising connotes justification" (or spontaneity)  is false and strange; since when?  Is there dictionary which says this?  It's about as neutral a word as one can find - my OED says "an insurrection; a popular rising against authority or for some common purpose" and doesn't mention any connotations.  What do no's think of synonyms like rebellion, insurgence, insurrection, revolt...? The word just doesn't mean or connote what Michael thinks it does. That it is the near- universally used description - that almost no source  sees any problem, as far as I know,  no one with a reputation for neutrality - should weigh heavily. The status of the territories is not really relevant. Often - maybe even usually - an uprising is within the borders of a state. 4.234.15.150 (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No because "uprising" is a POV term in this instance because the Intifadas are another set of full scale battles or wars in the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict which is a sub-set of the Arab-Israeli conflict which in turn had been a subset of the Cold War (see Origins of the Cold War) which was a result of World War II (1939-1945) that resulted from World War I (1914-1918) during which time the British defeated and expelled the Ottoman Empire from most of the Middle East and that resulted in the creation of the British Mandate of Palestine (1920-1948) and in 1948 when the State of Israel was created it was attacked by all the Arab states and when they failed to destroy Israel, Egypt under President Nasser formed the PLO in 1964 to continue to wage war against the Jewish state. Therefore, there is no "uprising" as such, just battles and wars in which civilian populations are deployed as agent provocateurs, decoys in guerrilla warfare supported by outside powers, formerly the USSR, and in the past Egypt and Iraq, and presently mostly Iran and Syria, who train, arm, and indoctrinate and urge on both the civilian population and those who volunteer for suicide attacks or are armed and trained to use sophisticated weapons like rockets and improvised explosive devices that make it clear that this is a war and not a simple "uprising". Wikipedia should not become a pawn in the manipulation of the media and mass information outlets by any side to further their own POV goals and aims in any way. IZAK (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC) This user was informed of this RfC by Michael Safyan.


 * Isn't this vetting of opinion invalid procedurally? Michael canvassed for outside editors who generally share his view to come in and comment. That is stacking the vote.Nishidani (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it is, and furthermore it completely defeats the purpose of an RFC, which is supposed to be a method of attracting non-involved parties to the discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see the discussion here. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Setting aside many other considerations, there is evidently a deep linguistic divide here, that reflects, in part, the different language environments of the posters. We are dealing with the English language. I repeat for those who are not native users, or whose use of the language is influenced by a Hebrew-language environment which has a set and semi-regulated euphemistic vocabulary for IDF actions, and a pronounced tilt to cogging the linguistic dice against Palestinians when their activities are described (Wiki is thick with this problem, this is only the tip of the iceberg). This dissonance between how the Hebrew-language press and its English versions explain events, and the terminology current in both the Western press or Western-language academic works has been documented. For a quick glimpse at the problem see Yonatan Mendel, 'Never Write "Murder" or "Palestine",’ Counterpunch, March 12, 2008. Mendel worked on User:Jaakobou's beloved newspaper Walla! Before going to Oxford University, so don’t come back with silly remarks about Counterpunch as a reliable source. I myself, for one, have often noted that editors who, to me, appear to be acting with grave obtusity, that looks to all intents like malicious stalling, actually are convinced on linguistic grounds that they are right. Reviewing these disputes, I can see that they are indeed sincerely convinced of their position, but that their position can only be explained to a non-Israeli/non-Jewish outsider whose mother-tongue is English, by recourse to the hypothesis that they are thinking in terms of the Israeli/Hebrew press environment’s use of terms, through which they read English terms. They are misreading as POV, very frequently, what is standard usage in English, simply because the contested word is not the one selected for a given context in Jewish/Hebrew or Israeli Anglophone linguistic culture.
 * Response I am a native English speaker and am not Israeli. How, then, do you suggest that I am "thinking in terms of the Israeli/Hebrew press environment's use of terms"? P.S.: I cannot even passably order a meal in Hebrew, let alone read a Hebrew newspaper. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Response. Well, what's the problem with 'uprising'? My remarks were directed at people I know who support your position here but are not native speakers of English. I have read that word a thousand times in Western historiography on such recert things as the Gwangju Uprising in South Korea (1980) against the military clique and peasant uprisings against the shogunal authorities in Japanese history (ikki 一揆). In historiography, Michael, it is a standard term for this kind of phenomena. I gather people's real objection is that it was, yes, popular, but not 'spontaneous'. It was both, as are most uprisings. When thousands of people rise up in violent protest, that is the most neutral way of calling the 'event'.Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Uprising is a good example. I note several editors, whose mother language is not English, but who show considerable fluency and compositional correctness, chipping in to back Michael’s take on this word. User:Jaakobou for one, I'm afraid, should refrain from commenting since he evidently does not have the required fluency in English required to make a call on a problem of this kind (as opposed to Hebrew etc). I believe he is sincere, but this is a textual question of usage and native Sprachgefühl, and he lacks this. User:Michael Safyan is, finally, thoroughly, thoroughly wrong: User:Tiamut is spot-on. Check the OED 20 volume edition. 2nd edition vol.19 pp.312-313 ad loc. and one will immediately perceive that its use is historically the most neutral term for describing an event like the intifada. The word was predominantly used of (1) resurrection (2) getting up from one’s bed (3) getting up from one’s knees (4) the rising of a woman from her confinement (5) picking oneself up after a fall (6) advancement in place or power and  (8) coming into existence  and only (7) as ‘a popular rising against authority or for some common purpose’.  Any other available term in the English language ‘’rebellion’’ ‘’insurgency’’, ‘’insurrection’’, ‘’revolution’’, ‘’revolt’’,  ‘’jacquerie’’ will colour the facts with strong emotive language. I’m sorry, but it must be repeated. To question ‘uprising’ as POV is only proof that the person who does so shows either bad faith (and I see no evidence of that) or is not totally at home in the nuances of English usage, which is, in my view, the case here. Thirdly, the term is widely used by academics in the literature describing the Second Intifada. We are not here to concoct terms we as editors prefer via consensus (which Michael, unusually, abused by formally canvassing around for non-involved editors with a record as pro-Israeli editors (nothing reprensible in this last regard. We all have a bias)). We are obliged to defer to English usage, and this frigging around with the language in the way many of you have done, to describe the most neutral word available as ‘POV’, is a patent nonsense, excusable only as a reflection of incomplete mastery or insouciance to the best linguistic authority on standard usage. You are not authorities on usage, gentlemen, the OED is, and this is a global encyclopedia not does not cater to regional slanting of proper usage in describing the world we all live in. Nishidani (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Response The terms "rebellion", "insurgency", "insurrection", etc. are all synonyms for "uprising." However, my position is that neither "uprising", nor its synonyms, ought to be used -- except as a translation or with attribution -- to describe the Second Intifada. As an aside, "insurgency" is probably the most neutral of the synonyms. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Response Well, you don't understand English sufficiently, I'm afraid. That is shown by your gloss that 'biblical' means 'unhistorical', on the other page, as I will show there. (For native speakers, 'biblical' has never born this meaning). Just as 'uprising' is a neutral descriptive term, and insurgency is not because insurgency implies an uprising against (duly) constituted authority, and Israel does not follow its legal obligations as an occupying power according to numerous international judgements of law. Secondly I have given you an example from Ovendale, a scholar of international standing who heads a chapter on Al-Aqsa with the wording 'uprising'. You need ascription? Ask me how many academic works fits your requirements for proof, and I will undertaker to fill the bill. Otherwise, stop wasting time on contesting the meaning of words that are authoritatively defined by impeccable sources. I'm sorry to be frank, but it appears to me now that you are wilfully engaged in obstructionism. Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Votes like this are futile. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and encyclopedic content is not established by doing a headcount. We need to stick to what reliable sources have to say, and stop trying to determine content based upon personal views. Gatoclass (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No: Uprising suggests a correctness; which is POV. Itzse (talk) 19:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Look, either document this sense of uprising, or keep out of the argument, and read Humpty Dumpty on how to use words for consolation. All such declarations are doing is underlining the number of people in here who do not understand standard and historical English usage, and are as useless as tits on a bull, since bull is what all this chitchat on uprising is about.Nishidani (talk) 21:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Response: Uprising: an act or instance of rising up; especially : a usually localized act of popular violence in defiance usually of an established government. Please note the "act of popular violence" in the "especially" (i.e. predominant usage/connotation) section of the definition. That the Second Intifada was popular/spontaneous is hotly contested, has been denied by Israeli ambassadors and by both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian analysts. Furthermore, "uprising" connotes justified resistance against oppression, hence the term is POV and was deemed euphemistic by Israel advocates . ← Michael Safyan (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Profoundly wrong again. I gave you the complete historic OED survey of the word, what do you do? cite Merriam-Webster's one liner, and then throw highly partisan advocacy sources whereas I have provided a neutral source so far (Ovendale). You have nowhere shown that 'uprising' connotes justified resistance, (what is unjustified resistance against oppression, by the way?). You appear not to understand the weight of that usually. and what follows. The Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories cannot be taken to be one of 'established government'. The ICJ noted that Israel is defined as 'the Occupying Power', which is not in the territories an 'established government':
 * "'The territories situated between the Green Line (see paragraph 72 above) and the former eastern boundary of Palestine under the Mandate were occupied by Israel in 1967 during the armed conflict between Israel and Jordan. Under customary international law, these were therefore occupied territories in which 'Israel had the status of occupying Power. Subsequent events in these territories, as described in paragraphs 75 to 77 above, have done nothing to alter this situation.(78)"


 * Governance by a military authority, particularly one like the IDF that repeatedly uses a policy divergent from the official policy of the Israeli government in Israel in discretionary actions on the West Bank (endlessly documented) cannot be described as 'established government'. Though not binding international legal decisions on this like that of the ICJ in 2004 do not call Israel's manner of administration of the conquered areas one of 'established government', because the governance of such areas falls under a different set of arrangements in international law (military occupation of foreign territory) to those regarding established civil government. International conventions allow, for example, resistance (they do not allow for murder and any other number of sanguinary acts by either side). 'Established governments' in international law do not carry out 'selective, targeted assassinations' of leaders of an administered territory, etc.etc. This is not, to repeat, a question of established government, which implies a detailed panoply of civil rights and neutrality as regards the application of laws to all subject 'citizens', and not the intensely ethnic discrimination characteristic of IDF policing and Israeli administration there.Nishidani (talk) 08:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I note that you still haven't replied to my request for the number of academic books you think necessary to justify by attribution the use of uprising. I will have no problem in giving you 10 academic sources, if that is what will convince you to desist from thinking in a purely Israeli-partisan interpretation of the English language.Nishidani (talk) 08:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see my response, above, to CasualObserver'48. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. I don't quite get this debate (and not because I'm stupid). The intifada is by definition an uprising, and as shown above the majority of sources appear to describe it as such.  I think we're going a bit too far down the road of flagging up a distinction between the definition of the word, and what the word refers to. Uprising is a pretty neutral word as far as I can see.  Furthermore, to describe it instead as the "wave of violence" is nonsensical because it suggests a) that all the actions taken as part of the intifada were violent; and b) that the only acts of violence are coming from the Palestinian side. --Nickhh (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Really, sometimes these articles are almost funny in how dysfunctional they are. What's the problem? IN particular, why would anyone object to "uprising" as an overall descriptor just because many individuals and groups participating in the uprising use terrorist methods? Sheesh. Relata refero (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No How politically whitewashed is this going to get? I think Itzse describes it best. Uprising suggests a correctness; which is POV. There is much wrong with Tiamut's version. First, her version denys that it was violent. Second, it is full of original research, and third, it gives the impression of justification, as it gives undue weight to one single view.  Yahel  Guhan  20:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Do try and read other people's opinions before stating your own.
 * In this case, you do not substantiate the claim that "uprising suggests a correctness" - if I am reading "a correctness" -er - correctly; you do not note the fact that "uprisings" are hardly ever non-violent, so your objection on those grounds is spurious; and you don't substantiate your claims of undue weight (how? where? both are mentioned equally!); and this "impression" of justification requires a few words as well. When I read the version by Tiamut, I noticed the word response hitting me over the head. That looks to me like the justification is running the other way. Relata refero (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point, Relata. The article should use "Palestinian tactics"-"Israeli tactics" and not "Palestinian tactics"-"Israel's response". Thanks for pointing that out. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yahel Guhan, my version does not deny the uprising was violent. It includes a paragraph on tactics that describes two the most violent tactics used by Palestinians (i.e. suicide bombings a Qassam rocket fire). I prefer not to not tell the reader what is and is not violent, but show them the material, and let them decide for themselves. Some would argue that the Israeli "responses" were violent, and would want to add that adjective to describe them too. Instead of getting into that mess, I've avoided it by simply providing examples of the tactics used, based on the sourced material in the article. I am open to changing the wording in that paragraph, but I don't see how any of you comments apply to a sentence that simply states: The Second Intifada refers to the second Palestinian uprising which began in September 2000. Mountains out of molehills here, people.  T i a m u t talk 20:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have problems with the word "uprising," as I have said before. Uprising is the Palestinian POV. Stating that Intifada is arabic for uprising is enough in my opinion. Maybe "wave of violence" is a POV as well, but so is "uprising".  Yahel  Guhan  20:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but the reliable sources covered above are not Palestinian ones and they all use "uprising". The Mitchell Report also uses "uprising" three times. Is Senator Mitchell a representative of the Palestinian POV? No, I don't think so and neither are Ovendale and the other scholars cited in the mutliple sections on this subject which we covered in the three months prior to the opening of this RfC. RfC's are not ways to bring partisans to a vote, they are ways for uninvolved editors to offer their opinions on how certain issue should be decided using Wikipedia guidelines and policies as the basis of their examination. WP:NPOV and WP:RS are met by using the word "uprising" since the vast majority of scholarly sources use that term. As I have said elsewhere, the strong opposition in some Israeli quarters to describing the intifada as "uprising" is a fringe minority viewpoint (at best, a significant minority viewpoint) that is already represented in the intro in the line "Many Israelis view it as a terror campaign". Further material on this viewpoint can be added to the body of the article, but it should not prevent us from using "uprising" in the lead.  T i a m u t talk 17:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: surely this encyclopedia should ignore, on issues relating to the use of English language, the views of any editor who claims that "uprising suggests a correctness", or indeed any editor who backs that claim as being the "best" description. I mean I'm sorry, but this is getting absurd. --Nickhh (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we don't ignore opinions we don't agree with in an attempt to discredit them. I'd like to ignore every politically motivated/bias comment, but that isn't an option now, is it.  Yahel  Guhan  20:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not about ignoring opinions we don't agree with. It's about people editing to their strengths, rather than their weaknesses.  Someone who uses the phrase "uprising suggests a correctness" evidently has poor English language skills, as shown both by the erroneous point they are trying to make, and by the clumsy phrasing they are using to express that point.  I would expect any contributions I might make to French wikipedia, or to English language articles about complex technical issues which I don't understand, to be treated with exactly the same scepticism. Editing on Israeli-Palestinian issues is hard enough, without having to engage in endless talk page debates (have you seen how long this section is?!) about the meaning of one word with people who do not understand what that word means. --Nickhh (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

What is neutral?
Sorry, what phrasing are you suggesting which you would consider "neutral"? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The Second Intifada, also known as the al-Aqsa Intifada (انتفاضة الأقصى, Intifāḍat El Aqṣa or Intifāḍat Al Aqṣa; אינתיפאדת אל אקצה (or hyphenated אינתיפאדת אל-אקצה), Intifādat El-Aqtzah) refers to the second Palestinian uprising which began in September 2000.  T i a m u t talk 15:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Michael Safyan, what is your proposed phrasing? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The Second Intifada, also known as the al-Aqsa Intifada (انتفاضة الأقصى, Intifāḍat El Aqṣa or Intifāḍat Al Aqṣa; אינתיפאדת אל אקצה (or hyphenated אינתיפאדת אל-אקצה), Intifādat El-Aqtzah) is the most recent major wave of violence between Palestinians and Israelis. It began in September 2000, seven years after the end of the First Intifada. Michael Safyan (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be equally satisfied with the following, and using Tiamut's list of tactics:

The Second Intifada, also known as the al-Aqsa Intifada (انتفاضة الأقصى, Intifāḍat El Aqṣa or Intifāḍat Al Aqṣa; אינתיפאדת אל אקצה (or hyphenated אינתיפאדת אל-אקצה), Intifādat El-Aqtzah) began in September 2000. Michael Safyan (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate your attempts at compromise and your finally having finally dropped the wholly inappropriate "wave of violence" material, this sentence doesn't actually say anything. i.e. it doesn't define the subject.
 * The Second Intifada is a Palestinian uprising. It has used both violent and non-violent tactics. There is disagreement as to whether it was spontaneous or pre-planned, but uprisings can involve prior preparations and the text I am proposing does not say "popular uprising" or "spontaneous uprising" because 1) that is not what the majority of the sources use and it would therefore be POV to do so.
 * Whether the increased Palestinian activity challenging Israeli rule, and by way of extension, the Israeli reaction to that increased activity was justified or not is irrelevant to the use of the term uprising. In other words, using uprising does not bestow any legitimacy on the actions undertaken. Could we please just use what the overwhelmingly majority of reliable sources use and move on?  T i a m u t talk 03:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why does the sentence need to say anything? The following sentences explain that "Intifada" means "uprising", that Palestinians view it as a war of national liberation against foreign occupation, and that Israelis regard it as a terror campaign. What more needs to be said? To be sure, we could combine the sentences to make them more streamlined. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Arguing over semantics accoomplishes very little for either side. Neither one of you seems to have grasped how these articles need to work. There is no reason any article at Wikipedia should reflect a range of points from two different sides. The reason that Israeli-Palestinian articles have been able to do so is because both sides have grasped the essential need to allow articles to state basic concerns, owing to the validity of concerns on both sides. What you are both doing is coming dangerously close to get our entire approach shut down by Wikipedia. There is no reason to fight over a word. just accept it and move on. Later in the article, we can exporess the full range of our concerns, re the orchestrated and pre-arranged nature of the Seond Intifada. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * How about: "the Second Intifada was a wave of armed conflict"? Just a suggestion. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposals
The Second Intifada or al-Aqsa Intifada (انتفاضة الأقصى, Intifāḍat El Aqṣa or Intifāḍat Al Aqṣa; אינתיפאדת אל אקצה (or hyphenated אינתיפאדת אל-אקצה), Intifādat El-Aqtzah), which began in September 2000 and has yet to be officially ended, is part of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and is considered by many Palestinians to be a struggle for national liberation against foreign occupation and by many Israelis to be a terrorist campaign. The First Intifada took place from 1987 to 1993. "Intifada" (also spelled Intifadah), which literally translates into English as "shaking off", is an Arabic word for "uprising." "Al-Aqsa" is a prominent mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem.

Palestinian tactics...

Michael Safyan (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * sounds ok to me. However, I would like to hear others' opinions. Tiamut, what do you think of this suggested text? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have mutliple problems with this text, some of which also apply to my proposed version. First off, "war of national liberation" should be changed to "struggle for national liberation". That's a more accurate description of the Palestinian POV and encompasses non-violent tactics such as demonstrations and general strikes. Second, both the Israeli and Palestinian POVs described here should be prefaced by "Most", since not all Palestinians and Israelis view the situation as described.
 * Third, and most significantly as regards this particular proposal, by failing to define the subject as a Palestinian uprising and relegating uprising to being a mere translation of intifada, we are misleading the reader. As the sources above establish, "uprising" is used by the majority of the scholars on the subject. It is not simply a Palestinian POV or translation of the Arabic word intifada and the text should reflect that. (See the Mitchell Report for example, where the word "uprising" is used by Senator Mitchell three times to refer to the second Intifada - and thanks to for pointing that out).
 * I therefore stand by my proposal (with the modifications to the sentences on the Israeli and Palestinian POVs as outlined above) for now, though I remain open to discussing other options.  T i a m u t talk 10:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your point about using "most" is well taken, and I have no problem with modifying the text from "war of national liberation" to "struggle for national liberation"; I have now made these modifications to my original proposal. However, my objection to this use of uprising still stands, and so I strongly object to the version which you have proposed. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that, however, as I explained here, the idea that we should ignore that the vast majority of reliable sources use the word "uprising" simply because a minority viewpoint holds that it is a euphemism for a "war of terror" doesn't cut it. I am all for compromise. I am not however for denying our readers a simple, basic fact about the Second Intifada; i.e. that is was a Palestinian uprising. Violent at times yes, non-violent at others, yes, justified, not justified, frankly irrelevant to the application of the term. It was an uprising. It would be covered as such in Israeli-Palestinian conflict 101. We can include information in the body that explains the Israeli POV you seem to be expressing further, but we shouldn't let that POV stop us from using the most common term to describe the subject at hand.  T i a m u t talk 19:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, my current proposal, with the modifications as outlined above and changes that would restore part of wording of the tactics paragraph which has since been changed by Michael Safyan without discussion, would read as follows:

The Second Intifada, also known as the al-Aqsa Intifada (انتفاضة الأقصى, Intifāḍat El Aqṣa or Intifāḍat Al Aqṣa; אינתיפאדת אל אקצה (or hyphenated אינתיפאדת אל-אקצה), Intifādat El-Aqtzah) refers to the second Palestinian uprising which began in September 2000. "Intifada" (also spelled Intifadah) is an Arabic word for "uprising", which literally translates into English as "shaking off". "Al-Aqsa" is the name of a prominent mosque on the Temple Mount (known to Arabs and Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif). Many Palestinians consider the Intifada to be a struggle for national liberation against foreign occupation, whereas many Israelis consider it to be a terrorist campaign. The tactics adopted by Palestinians ranged from mass protests and general strikes, as in the First Intifada, to the mounting of suicide bombing attacks and the firing of Qassam rockets into residential areas within Israel. Israeli tactics ranged from increased restrictions on movement via the use of checkpoints and the construction of the Israeli West Bank barrier, to mass arrests and extra-judicial assassinations targeting militants.  T i a m u t talk 11:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly object to Tiamut's suggestion, and add the following suggestion to Michael's version, otherwise no go.
 * and by Israelis to be an Islam inspired terrorist campaign targeting innocent Israeli civilians with indoctrinated suicide bombers.
 * Explanation: Israelis sees them as innocent, Palestinians see them as fair game due to what they call Zionist occupation of Palestine. We currently have 7 words that are Palestinian-Arab narrative ("war/struggle of national liberation against foreign occupation") and only 2 for Israeli terror victims ("terrorist campaign"). My suggestion gives the shop goers, pizza eaters, disco dancing teens, coffee shop drinking, and pubs going victims a far more proper 10:7 ratio. ("Islam inspired terrorist campaign targeting innocent civilians indoctrinated suicide bombers") I completely reject the "scholars use 'uprising'" claim as scholars use "terrorist" as a descriptive and don't use either "struggle" or "militant" to describe attacks on innocent civilians.
 * --  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  11:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I have to disagree. Accusations of indoctrination and perspectives which consider the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be a religious, rather than, national conflict do not belong in the lead paragraph, especially given that the latter perspective is uncommon in published sources. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I disagree. There is no reason to be intentionally permitting an impasse to occur with one of the most credible editors from the Palestinian community at Wikipedia. Figure out a compromise which meets Tiamut halfway, and let's go with it. we are starting to overlook how Wikipedia works. there is really no reason for this continual contention with an editor who has a proven track record.


 * I am making a simple point here. it is not always valid for a talk page to degenerate into continual arguing. I know it happens sometimes; that does not mean you can permit it here without comment. There is really no reason for there to be two camps here without any mutual agreement. tiamut may have a different viewpoint, but she will accept any valid facts we choose to add, with valid sources. let's accept some of her text, and move on to make the article as a whole more balanced.


 * Furthermore, I vote we include "uprising" at this point. It is the term in use, based simply on the fact that it is the literal translation of "intifada". I see some problems with it; but we can address that by adding text and material of our own further down. The way things work here is for both sides to add text which adequately reflects their concerns. It doesn't matter how sure you are that the other person really is wrong; at some point, Wikipedia is about finding mutual solutions. if editors on a particular side never budge, we will get nowhere. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a democracy and consensus is based on WP:NPOV rather than a one sided narrative. Israeli (both Jewish and Arab) lives and rights deserve to live in a terror free environment and the whitewashing current language may fit al-Jazeera and the Independent but not is not wikipedia NPOV. If you consider "resistance" and "struggle" to be a "good faith compromise suggestion" than I have a completely different perspective -- I find those suggestions insulting advocacy. The Arab world, Islam inspired cultural structure is the main cause of the Arab-Palestinian 91 year racist terror campaign against the Jewish-Palestinians. The 2000 campaign was instigated, not by the common man seeking freedom from his oppressive job within the green line, but rather by an indoctrinated public looking for killing as many Jews Israelis as possible. If you want to mention the Palestinian narratives for | why "it's ok" to killing innocent pizza eating Jews (and Arabs), you should also include that Israelis view it exactly as what it is... as a racist campaign to clear the middle east of Jews and their history that calls it's Arab victims "martyrs for the cause". The ongoing de-legitimization here is disgusting... we don't use "terrorists" because we don't want (god forbid) to pander to the Israeli perspective, and we also don't use "uprising", because that is clearly a POV narrative on it's own. If you want to use 'uprising' and 'struggle', then it is only of equal value to give the appropriate weight to the true victims of this Arab war crime campaign.


 * To remind my suggested version was a 10:7 ratio for the victim perspective of the attacks in contrast with the aggressor Saudi funded use of Palestinian children as human bombs. Clearly a neutral suggestion to anyone who considers Israeli people (both Jewish and Arab) as human beings rather than a legitimate target.


 * The Israelis see the attack as, an Islam inspired, Arab terrorist campaign targeting innocent Israeli civilians with indoctrinated suicide bombers. -- and either we list down both perspectives, or neither of them.


 * I suggest we follow wiki policies and list both POVs down rather than only the Palestinian-Arab.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  14:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC) rephrase to tone down possibly offensive language.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  16:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree about how to move forward. Especially for the intro, surely the wording that many Israelis view it as a terrorist campaign covers the issue and that POV in enough detail?  We shouldn't remove the "many" qualification as it implies all Israelis see it with one voice.  Adding the "Islam-inspired" and "indoctrinated suicide bombers" is simply OTT for the lead, and borderline OR (even if a source can and would be found someone in an online editorial).  Otherwise we could start adding "after 40 years of military occupation and repression" as well. Keep it simple, clear and so that the wording covers significant points of view.  In any event I can see plenty of material in the later paragraphs of the introduction talking about the "Oslo war" and highlighting the fact that some Israelis blame Arafat for starting the violence. As an outside observer, I simply don't see the alleged bias here. --Nickhh (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ps: Jaakobou, please calm down a little, and please also stop presenting your POV (that the Intifada is simply all about killing Jews) on talk pages as it were absolute and uncontroversial fact. Plenty of people more knowledgeable than you disagree. --Nickhh (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Nickhh,
 * Not all Arabs speak with one voice either... what's your point?
 * I'm merely presenting a perspective that editors here have been ignoring and this is not my own POV but rather a fairly mainstream one; Let me know if you need citations.
 * NPOV requires an equal presentation of both perspectives, and not a 7:2 presentation in favor of the violent terrorist narrative (which is not even agreed upon by the Arab world).
 * Please avoid personal attacks that violate recent Arbcom Decorum principals.
 * --  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  15:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jaakobou, umm, we need to slow down a bit. everyone here has a POV. everyone here has their red lines. it's not really the right time to start saying that we demand the other side retract all its demands so that we can add the version which we consider NPOV--in our opinion, of course. the fact is, we are right in many ways, and much of the mianstream version is wrong; but we need to follow the procedures which can lead to positive resolutions at Wikipedia.


 * has anyone here ben watching how we reach resolution here? I mean, has anyone been paying attention here? have you noticed there are two diametrically-opposed viewpoints here? and each has learned to accept some of the basic concerns of the other, to reach some mutual resolution? I hope others have noticed that as a proper method, as well. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sm8900,
 * My compromise it that I'm accepting a presentation of the Palestinian mythological POV of "national Palestinian struggle" despite the obvious non-combatant targets (both Jews and Arabs) and the people running the show. However, the disillusioned perspective has it's place in there also.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  15:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, right now we're at an impasse. deadlock. Concetration on numerical parity doesn't get us anywhere. neuither does a complete disavowal of any prior working connection with our fellow editors and colleagues of Palestinian affiliation. The way I get things done here is I usually agree to a short-term version based on whatever version can hold, then i incrementally add facts and material which is fair to a more balanced view. doing so allows me to hear others' concerns, but to also enlighten them as to my own concerns. I suggest we do that here as well. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We're not playing a zero sum game here but NPOV requires mainstream POVs to be equally considered and represented. If 'Palestinian affiliation' editors wish their own "struggle" terminology implemented into articles, then that comes hand in hand with an equal presentations from the 'Israeli affiliation' who view children suicide bombers attacking other humans civilians (regardless of origin) with religious zeal after Saudi funded indoctrination; as a violent war crime campaign on both Palestinian-Arabs, and Israelis (Jewish, Arab or other).  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  15:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Jaakobou,


 * The Palestinians believe the only reason there was violence in the Second intifada was due to a spontaneous wave of anger over Israeli checkpoints, curfews and settlements. They do not agree it was in any way due to a relentless concerted barrage of rhetoric from the Araft regime to incite and inflame feelings of ill-will. That's what they believe. i know it's irrational. What do you expect? they're Palestinians. Exactly why are curretnly stoking and igniting a war here? Why are you expecting rationality and logic on Israel's behalf? Why are you trying to dig in your heels and demand acquiescence to a more balanced version on a set of terms? Get the article unlocked, then we can gradually add more materials over the course of time. is this the first time these issues have arisen for you? haven't you been here a while? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sm8900,
 * I'm aware of the Palestinian POVs and did not object to their inclusion.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  16:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposals, continued
In response to concerns regarding the need for more on the Israeli viewpoint in the intro (it;s already there but lower down), I propose we reformulate the existing text, moving the Israeli names for the intifada up to be placed directly after the explanation of intifada's Arabic meanings. This would have the text read as follows:

The Second Intifada, also known as the al-Aqsa Intifada (انتفاضة الأقصى, Intifāḍat El Aqṣa or Intifāḍat Al Aqṣa; אינתיפאדת אל אקצה (or hyphenated אינתיפאדת אל-אקצה), Intifādat El-Aqtzah) refers to the second Palestinian uprising which began in September 2000. "Intifada" (also spelled Intifadah) is an Arabic word for "uprising", which literally translates into English as "shaking off". "Al-Aqsa" is the name of a prominent mosque on the Temple Mount (known to Arabs and Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif). Many Palestinians consider the Intifada to be a struggle for national liberation against foreign occupation, whereas many Israelis consider it to be a terrorist campaign.

Among Israelis at large, the Intifada is generally referred to as al-Aqsa Intifada. It is also called the Oslo War (מלחמת אוסלו) by Israelis who consider it to be the result of concessions made by Israel following the Oslo Accords,  and Arafat's War, after the late Palestinian leader whom some blame for starting it. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) codenamed the events (prior to their outbreak) אירועי גאות ושפל ("Ebb and Tide events") and this remained an internal codename used by the Israeli Security Forces.

Both Israelis and Palestinians have blamed each other for the failure of the Oslo peace process and for the conditions which led to the outbreak of the Second Intifada. The tactics adopted by Palestinians in the Second Intifada have ranged from mass protests and general strikes, as in the First Intifada, to the mounting of suicide bombing attacks and the firing of Qassam rockets into residential areas within Israel. Israeli tactics have ranged from increased restrictions on movement via the use of checkpoints and the construction of the Israeli West Bank barrier, to mass arrests and extra-judicial assassinations targeting militants.

[The last two paragraphs in the intro would read as they do now].  T i a m u t talk 15:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not bad. could you please move the sentence about the IDF to the bottom of the second paragraph, to follow the text about the Israeli public at large? thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I moved it as you requested. That meant I had to move the line on the failure of the Oslo Accords to the beginning of the next paragraph and add something on the Second Intifada as well there as a seqgueway. What do you think now?  T i a m u t talk 20:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This all looks good, and I like your even-handedness, but...hmmm, this is interesting; segues like that are positive, but actually say little. better to find a brief phrasing which alludes to the basic narratives/grievances on both sides, I think. i'll let it stand for now, (and would accept it in the article, hypothetically) until i think of something slightly better. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * here is a new proposal, based on Tiamut's proposal above. this would replace the paragraph beginning "Both israelis and Palestinains," and would go from there:


 * Israelis claim that the Second Intifada was a preplanned campaign of violence, stemming from continual anti-Israel incitement, and concealed preparations for war. Palestinians claim it was a spontaneous upswelling of discontent, which occurred only due to popular discontent with Israeli violations of Palestinian rights.


 * Both sides agree that The Second Intifada began with outbreaks of conflict by Palestinians, which they claimed were in response to numerous Israeli provocations encroachments . During the Second Intifada conflict between the two sides occurred in various forms. Some actions took a political form, such as Palestinian actions such as mass protests and general strikes, as in the First Intifada.


 * The Second Intifada included many forms of violent conflict between the two sides. Palestinian actions included the mounting of suicide bombing attacks and the firing of Qassam rockets into residential areas within Israel. Israeli actions included increased restrictions on Palestinian movement via the use of checkpoints and the construction of the Israeli West Bank barrier, and mass arrests. It also included extra-judicial assassinations targeting militants, including some from groups which openly espoused the destruction of Israel. These entailed airstrikes and other attacks which sometimes occurred near civilian areas, thus resulting in civilian casualties creating a further issue of contention.


 * above is my proposed revised version. I don't expect immediate agreement or disagreement, but we can use this as a basis for discussion. hypothetically, I would be willing to accept Timaut's previous suggested version as the one to use in the article right now, and i would be willing to allow discussion to proceed on which parts of my version to adopt. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Tiamut, I appreciate your attempts at compromise, but this new version does not really address my concerns while at the same time hampering the flow of the text. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Michael, what do you think of my altered version? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * added more, above. trying to be fair here. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I dislike your proposal. I think there is confusion as to what I seek in the article. I am not looking for "more on the Israeli viewpoint in the intro" nor am I seeking to balance Palestinian POV with Israeli POV. What I am seeking is an article which has no POV, altogether. That is, an article which states objective fact, only, and which states -- with attribution -- the claims of the parties where the facts are in dispute. I don't think it is accurate to state that both parties "agree that the Second Intifada was begun by Palestinians' acts of conflict" nor do I think it is appropriate to use the phrase "creating a further issue of contention" rather than "resulting in civilian casualties". Additionally, your proposed version does not use a consistent tense (e.g. "Israelis claimed...Palestinians claim..."). ← Michael Safyan (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your points do have merit. Please feel free to change the text of my proposal if you choose, or to add your own. I may adopt some myself. thanks. thanks.--Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion

 * Dear Tiamut/Sm8900,
 * I can't see how this addresses the 'uprising' editorial conflict. Please explain to me how it did.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  16:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * there's no conflict and there's nothing left to argue about. please go back to drafting revisions so that we can work this out, and get this article unlocked and resolved. we're moving this brigade out; this position is no longer tenable. get your backpack and meet us in front of the barracks in 10 minutes. new orders will be issued on the way to the next drop point. thank you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see how you can claim that Michael Safyan, Ynhockey, Jaakobou, IronDuke, IZAK, Itzse, and Yahel Guhan's concerns show no conflict.
 * I'd also request more civility in discourse. Thank you.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  16:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. Point taken. I was joking slightly (obviously). Not trying to be counter-productive, just slightly adding a small note of wryness. thanks. I will step aside now, since obviously I don't have much more to add to this discussion. If there is truly a conflict here, obviously I'm not one to discuss it, since I don't see much conflict here. I will allow discussion to proceed; obviously if there are many editors on both sides who feel there is a conflict, resolution will not occur quickly. so I'll step aside and allow others to get a sense of who espouses which view of this issue and this discussion. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am genuinely at a loss to understand what the problem is Jaakobou. Intifada is usually translated or referred to as "uprising" in the English speaking world, a word which brings no moral judgement or sense of approval, ethical high ground or whatever with it.  The lead as proposed above then presents pretty broadly the main alternative viewpoints of Israelis and Palestinians.  It also makes specific reference to "suicide bombings" and Qassam attacks on civilian areas, and to the blame some Israelis assign to the Oslo accords and to Arafat for what happened.  I don't see how much more NPOV and balanced this could get.  Jaakobou, if you want a viewpoint going in which refers to Muslim Arabs being warped, racist genocidalists who simply want to murder Jews and drive them into the sea, then the balance to that is the view which sees Jews as bloodsuckers in a conspiracy to take over the world, starting with an area that runs from the Nile to the Euphrates. Both are fringe, extremist viewpoints, and I apologise for having to even refer to them here, but it wasn't me who started down this road. And your comment about civility in discourse made me laugh, especially in the light of recent events. As usual even people more sympathetic to your POV are asking you to tone down your behaviour and act in a more constructive manner.  One day all this may sink in. --Nickhh (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nickhh,
 * I'm highly offended by what you suggest and your phrasing. To be frank, I don't see how we can collaborate if you continue to warp my words and make personal attacks.


 * Dear Tiamut, to repeat my question,
 * I can't see how your suggestion addresses the 'uprising' editorial conflict raised by other editors. Please explain to me how it did.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  17:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jaakobou, the answer to your question can be found here.  T i a m u t talk 17:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You're still missing the point. American documents also use the word "terrorist" and "terrorism" and are not considered wiki neutral for any Israeli-Palestinian related descriptives... it would seem that you are suggesting we take their word on what suits you and reject it on what doesn't.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  22:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jaakobou, is there a more neutral term for "uprising", because there are more neutral terms for "terrorism". Also, I'm not basing my entire argument on the Mitchell Report. We have reviewed tens of sources over the last three months. Most use "uprising" without any difficulty or qualification. I think Wikipedia can too.  T i a m u t talk 23:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I and other established editors view things differently.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  14:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As you wish.  T i a m u t talk 15:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What are the objections, other than that it does not describe the Second Intifada as an "uprising" (unquoted), to the version which I have proposed? ← Michael Safyan (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Michael Safyan, I appreciate your attempts at compromise, but your version does not really address my concerns and those of many others here regarding the unqualified use of "uprising" being wholly uncontroversial to the vast majority of the world as established by numerous reliable sources. It is after all the subject at hand. Had there been no Palestinian uprising, there would be no article. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 23:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Tiamut, repetition of personal conviction phrases like Had there been no Palestinian uprising after it's clear that the term is contested are not helpful and I request, since you oppose the Israeli perspective terms, "terror campaign" and "civilian targeted insurgency", that you cut down on the personal conviction advocacy (soapboxing) in this matter unless you wish everyone to use these terms as a personal conviction norm. Thank you.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  14:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jaakobou, 1) please stop bolding my name, it comes off as though you are shouting; 2) please read WP:SOAP. There are tens of reliable scholarly sources above that use the word uprising without qualification, and to suggest that I must qualify my use of the term in order to avoid "advocacy" is quite unfounded. At Wikipedia, we compose articles using reliable sources and we aim for WP:NPOV which means representing all significant viewpoints on a subject fairly. That the Second Intifada was an uprising is a significant majority viewpoint, held by many Israelis, Palestinians and other "neutral" parties, as was established by our three-month review of the sources above (which you may have missed, since I notice that you were largely absent during that time - so please do review it). That Israelis view it as a terror campaign is a significant minority viewpoint that is already represented in the lead. That Palestinian view it as a struggle for national liberation is also attributed to them in the lead. I think the lead is fairly balanced; however, there is always room for more discussion since not all editors agree with this assessment. As a result, I have posted request for MedCab. Since you are a primary party to this dispute, it might be best for us to advise them to postpone proceedings until such time as you can participate. That is unless you would prefer that we begin without you and that you join as the debate unfolds. You can let Steve know how you would liek us to proceed. I would prefer though if for the duration of this week, we could keep our distance from one another to allow both of our tempers to simmer down. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 15:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest that due to the impasse we seem to have reached that we make a request for mediation. Would others agree to take part in such a process?  T i a m u t talk 23:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Good idea. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mediation seems inevitable at this point. Delad (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. feel free to use Medcab or Medcomm. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have filed with Medcab. All those wanting to participate are encouraged to so, though I suppose (I'm not sure) we must wait for the case to be accepted. Thanks.  T i a m u t talk 00:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Should some of us keep working on some proposed text? I hope to keep doing so. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * By all means continue posting suggested drafts, solutions, compromises here. There is nothing inherently wrong with more discussion.  T i a m u t talk 15:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Header image in infobox
I removed the image until we could discuss it. MathKnight added it March 22, 2007. See this diff:

I appreciate the effort in making this image. I suggest some changes first, though, before we use the image. I suggest removing the flags. They just take up space. Also, I suggest substituting, or adding in, a Palestinian casualty photo if the Israeli casualty photo is kept as part of the image collage.

It is also possible to use 6 images. I have seen many other infoboxes in military history articles. They use a variety of formats for header image collages. It is possible to get advice too from the military history wikiproject. See the banner at the top of the talk page and WikiProject Military history/Middle Eastern military history task force. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)