text:
Talk:Second Intifada/Archive 8

WP:NOR based on primary sources
Timeshifter, why do you continue to add primary sources that nowhere discuss when the second intifada started? Please quote the sources saying "The second intifada started on September 28th", or something very similar. They don't, as far as I can tell, because there were completely unaware that an intifada was about to start. Jayjg (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jay, the BBC, New York Times et al sources Timeshifter's adding and you're deleting discuss events commonly understood by secondary sources to constitute the beginning of the second intifada.

 * Policy doesn't forbid the use of primary sources; it cautions against using them for original research.--G-Dett (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, these sources are being used to support the claim that "Some view the start to be the September 28 2000 riots and injuries soon after Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount/Al-Haram As-Sharif." However, none of them support that claim; indeed, they don't even refer to it. See WP:SYNTH. Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Telling me to "see" a policy I know well, as if the violation of said policy were self-evident instead of something you need to demonstrate, is an example of begging the question. Notice that I don't simply tell you to "see begging the question."

 * SYNTH deals with attempts to advance a "novel conclusion." There's no novel conclusion here, no SYNTH, no OR.--G-Dett (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources don't support the claim, which is that "Some view the start to be the September 28 2000 riots etc.", but give the appearance of doing so. Either they're WP:SYNTH, or an abuse of WP:V, or irrelevant. Take your pick. Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Jayjg. You deleted references for the BBC, CNN, and New York Times. Are you aware of IPCOLL?

 * You left in the reference for the BBC timeline of the Al-Aqsa Intifada that starts with the September 28 2000 riots at the Temple Mount. So there was one reference that specifically mentioned the Al-Aqsa Intifada. The other references provide more info on the events in question.

 * Please self-revert and stop the tendentious editing via bogus use of guidelines. We can read them too, you know. The other references are descriptions of the events.

 * I discussed this previously at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. You did not address the issue I raised there. The same issue I am raising here. References for events are allowed and encouraged. This tendentious editing on your part needs to stop. -Timeshifter (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed my comments above. Please show where these sources support the claim that "Some view the start to be the September 28 2000 riots", because that is what they are being used to support. A relevant quote would be helpful; I wasn't able to find any, and doubt any can be found. I did leave in a reference that actually mentions the Sept 28 riots in connection with the second intifada, but even that's dubious, since the timeline doesn't actually state that the intifada started then. If you want to use those sources to support a discussion of the Sept 28th riots, that's one thing, but they're not being used for that. Please abide by WP:SYNTH and WP:V. Jayjg (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Please see my many previous messages to you here and elsewhere concerning this point. I left an official notice of WP:ARBPIA on your talk page. See Palestine-Israel enforcement --Timeshifter (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I have revoked the warning. Timeshifter is not an administrator and is involved, which violate both of the conditions in ARBPIA on who can leave those warnings.  Any other uninvolved administrator can review the situation and re-issue if they believe it's warranted, but at this time I don't believe it is.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply to jpgordon below. Also, uninvolved admin PhilKnight left a warning message to Jayjg on his talk page concerning WP:ARBPIA. Please see this diff: . Can an admin please log that warning at WP:ARBPIA? --Timeshifter (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Timeshifter, I don't believe you have actually addressed the issue at hand yet, and I strongly question your tactic of labeling my edits "tendentious" and then "officially notifying" me that they are. I could just as easily (and, I believe, with greater justification), do the same to you. Instead, I have asked in a number of areas for third party opinions on this. In the interim, rather than referring me to previous comments, could you address the specific issues I have raised? Jayjg (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

 * (a) The warning was inappropriate; Timeshifter did not have standing to make it, and it should be ignored and not restored. (b) Jayjg is correct on the simple matter of sourcing; if a source says "the second intifada began on Sept. 28", we can use it; the word "intifada" has to be there. Otherwise it's WP:SYNTH. No big deal there, just the way Wikipedia works. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * jpgordon. There was discussion from admins at Template talk:Palestine-Israel enforcement. The admins HG and PhilKnight agreed on the removal of "This notice is only effective if given by an administrator..." from the warning template: Template:Palestine-Israel enforcement - Palestine-Israel enforcement. If this is incorrect, then can some clarity be provided on the talk page and on the template. It is not clear at WP:ARBPIA either. Who decides this when even the admins disagree? I see from your user page that you are an arbitrator. WP:ARBPIA only says: "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines."
 * As for sourcing for events and opinions please see the next talk subsection. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

 * JPGordon, would you apply the same to, say, the 9-11 attacks? No use of contemporaneous news reports whatsoever for that article, unless they use the phrase "9-11 attacks"?

 * Jay, Timeshifter is not providing these sources as examples of people "claiming" things; he's providing material on the events people make claims about.

 * At any rate, all of this is sourced to the nines in excellent secondary sources, so the material can easily be replaced. In the meantime, I can't for the life of me understand the edit-warring, or these references to SYN and NOR, given that no novel conclusions or arguments are being advanced, and no contentious material being inserted.  I'd call it an overly technical or pettifogging argument, except that even technically speaking it seems to be wrong.--G-Dett (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The analogy with the 9-11 attacks isn't particularly strong. The 9-11 attacks are a well-defined set of events; in contrast, the Second intifada was a lengthy period whose beginning is disputed and whose end is unclear - is it over now or not? If one wanted to use sources discussing the events of Sept 28 to actually, well, discuss the events of Sept 28, that would be one thing. But if, as is being done here, they are brought to assert the argument that the intifada started on Sept 28 - and even worse, that these sources are themselves asserting that the intifada started on Sept 28 - well, that's quite another thing. Hardly "overly technical or pettifogging" - on the contrary, WP:SYNTH, and verging on abuse of WP:V, claiming the sources support a point that they do not support. That's actually pretty serious stuff, at least as far as Wikipedia goes. Jayjg (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No one's "claiming the sources support a point they do not support"; that's a serious misreading of the text. Please see my point to you above.--G-Dett (talk) 11:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just so straightforward. Wikipedia cannot say the second intifada started on a particular date unless we have a reliable source saying the second intifada started on that date. We may not independently come to that conclusion by describing events that happened on that date that were intifada-like. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

 * The Al-Aqsa Intifada broke out on September 28, 2000... in Tolerance in the Twenty-first Century (2006), by Gerson Moreno-Riaño
 * ...the Intifada erupted on September 28, 2000... in The Spectrum of Islamist Movements by Ḍiyāʼ Rashwān et al.
 * Page 193 of The Case for Democracy (2004) by Anatoly Shcharansky, Ron Dermer states : On September 28, 2000, a day when Israelis were celebrating the Jewish New Year, the second "intifada" began.
 * On September 28, thousands of Palestinians mark the first anniversary of the second Intifada. in Israel, the Impossible Land (2003) by Jean-Christophe Attias, Esther Benbassa.  T i a m u t talk 17:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

 * jpgordon. Concerning Second Intifada the BBC timeline reference specifically uses the name "Al-Aqsa Intifada". The title of that BBC article is "Al-Aqsa Intifada timeline". The additional references from the BBC, CNN, and the New York Times (that Jayjg has repeatedly removed) describe the events. To claim that an article section is only about opinions on events, or only about narrating events, is a straw man argument in my opinion. Please see the next talk section. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Jpgordon, there are scores of reliable secondary sources saying the 2nd intifada began on the 28th. Pretty much all the secondary sources mention the events of the 28th; some say the events of the 29th mark the true beginning of the 2nd intifada, while others say it began with the events of the 28th.  There is meanwhile no daylight among reliable secondary sources that the events of the 28th are relevant to the beginning of the 2nd intifada.  And there is not even any explicit dispute between RSs (that I am aware of) about whether it began the 28th or 29th; just a difference of wording and rhetorical emphasis.  The active dispute is between Wikipedia editors, not RSs.  We can put in twenty-five secondary sources about the events of the 28th in place of Timeshifter's two primary ones, if that pleases you and Jay.  But as I explained to Jay above, Timeshifter's sources are not being presented as examples of "claims" about the beginning of the intifada; rather, they are simply excellent sources on events that (a) a great many RSs designate as marking the beginning of the intifada, and (b) virtually all sources agree are relevant to the beginning of the intifada.  There's been no original research here, no synthesis whatsoever; the primary sources have been used with care, per Wikipedia policy.--G-Dett (talk) 11:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * G-Dett, you can "explain" all you like, but the fact is that Timeshifter's sources are being presented as examples of support for the claim that "the second intifada started on September 28th". He may or may not intend that to be the case, but it doesn't really matter, because that is what they are doing nonetheless. If he wants to use the sources to support various descriptions of the events of September 28, that's quite another thing, but WP:SYNTH precludes them being used in this way, to support this point. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't understood why you persist in this misconception, but the problem is dawning on me. Timeshifter's sentence reads:
 * "Some view the start to be the September 28 2000 riots and injuries soon after Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount/Al-Haram As-Sharif.[2][3][4][5][6]"
 * You're saying that the only way to read the footnotes here is as support for the verb clause "Some view..." If one's basic notion of source-based writing is as a form of contentious litigation, then I can see how it might seem that way.  But actually these are just footnotes for the "September 28 2000 riots and injuries" referred to in the predicate.  This is absolutely standard practice in source-based writing.  This basic misunderstanding on your part is the root of the present impasse.--G-Dett (talk) 04:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * a) Which of the sources states that the second intifada started with the "September 28th riots and injuries"? It appears that the sources are being elided to produce a synthesis. b) In any event, if there is any issue, it is not with a "basic understanding on [my] part", but with the structure and content of the sentence. Regardless, do not personalize the issue with the sentence in this way. c) The sentence If one's basic notion of source-based writing is as a form of contentious litigation etc. is an uncivil insult. Please desist from abusing this Talk: page in that way. d) Comment only on article content; do not speculate about me, attribute anything to me, or refer to me further in any way. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Events and opinions
This concerns Second Intifada and Jayjg's repeated removal of BBC, CNN, and New York Times references. See the diff of the most recent removal:. See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.

What Jayjg is claiming is that when an article section mentions both events, and opinions concerning the events, then all the references describing and sourcing the actual events must be removed.

Such as the BBC, CNN, and New York Times references describing the September 28 and onwards events surrounding Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount in 2000

Only sources backing up the opinions on the events are allowed according to Jayjg. Such as the opinions concerning when the Second Intifada started.

If it were required, then many articles might have to be doubled in size. Every event would have to be described twice in the article. Once for opinion sections concerning the meaning and overall timing of the events, and once for narrative descriptions of the events.

If necessary I will repeat the article section on the Temple Mount events later in the article, and will remove all the opinions, and leave only the narrative description of the events. There is a section in the article about Sharon's visit but it misses some of the details in the other section I am talking about in the beginning of the article.

So all kinds of duplication in the article will have to occur to meet Jayjg's personal interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines. Many people think this duplication is ridiculous, and no guideline says this duplication is what is required.

Also, it pushes the mainstream media references farther down the page. Readers are forced to read opinions without concurrent reference to narration of the facts. So they can't make up their own mind. That is against WP:NPOV since it limits access to all the relevant info.

It is a straw man argument to say that references describing events are being used to back up opinions concerning those events. That is not what I and others are saying. Article sections are often about both events and opinions concerning those events.

Jayjg is misrepresenting what I am using those BBC, CNN, and New York Times references for. I have stated many times what I am using those references for. So I don't appreciate this distortion of what I am saying. Jayjg keeps repeating his misrepresentations about what I am doing. Jayjg has never replied to what I am actually saying. This is classic straw man argumentation.

From Straw man:

 * ...the straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:

 * 1. Person A has position X.

 * 2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y.

I have never said that the BBC, CNN, and New York Times references were being used to back up the opinion that the Second Intifada started on Sept 28, 2000.

I have repeatedly said that the references were to source and describe the events themselves. Not to back up opinions on the meaning or place of those events in a greater overview or timeline.

This misrepresentation is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK.

From WP:CIVIL:

Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors

From WP:TALK:

Do not misrepresent other people: The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Timeshifter, your comment is not only entirely inaccurate, but is about an editor, not about article content. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Nothing in my comments on this talk page have violated No personal attacks. Show me in my comments, and show me the specific part of WP:NPA that I have violated. Your constant WP:NPA accusations without basis is itself a violation of WP:NPA. From WP:NPA: "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack. (See also: Engaging in incivility)." --Timeshifter (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally the best way to handle these situations is to separate the comments by venue. If there are comments about an editor, then place those comments (preferably with diffs) on the editor's talkpage, or on an admin talkpage/noticeboard.  That way the article talkpage can be reserved for discussion of the article itself. --Elonka 20:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayjg's removal of BBC, CNN and NYT sources is justified per WP:NOR policy because they don't directly and explicitly talk about start of the Second Intifada. As I understand the policy, they can be used to describe Temple Mount events but only if connection between Temple Mount events and the Second Intifada is established by other reliable sources and even then only in limited fashion per WP:UNDUE. -- Vision Thing -- 12:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's possible they could be used to support a description of the events that day, but they certainly can't be used to support the claim that the intifada started that day, and that's exactly what they're doing. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The connection is established by countless excellent reliable secondary sources. Jay's posts have from the beginning implied otherwise, creating an enormous amount of confusion, especially among editors new to this page.--G-Dett (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Literally tonnes of secondary sources make this connection. I listed a number of them way above. G-Dett makes this point as well, and points out that in that broader context, the use of primary sources here by Timeshifter is appropriate. Have you reviewed the section above Talk:Second Intifada? It's all there, the list of secondary sources and repeat of this argument from about a week ago. I thought it was over, but Jayjg seems to be ignoring that those secondary sources have also been provided and that Timsehifter's use of the primary sources here is in fact correct.  T i a m u t talk 12:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake. The link I gave was to another discussion about the million bullets shot in the first few days by the IDF. But I will gladly provide a list of secondary sources that make the claim. A simple google book search brings up tonnes of entries. Do we really need to see them here though? Is anyone sriously doubting that this is case for some scholars?  T i a m u t talk 12:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Vision Thing. Please see WP:RS. I can repeat my point many times if necessary. You are not addressing my point. From: WP:Reliable sources: "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press."

 * Even if many more references are provided for the timeline opinion, we still need the mainstream media sources describing the events. Otherwise people don't get a full picture of both the events and the opinions. See WP:NPOV. You cite WP:NOR, but I am not writing in original research into the article. None.

 * WP:NPOV addresses my point (emphasis added).

 * A balanced selection of sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. When discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

 * From the beginning of WP:NPOV: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

 * See also: NPOV tutorial

 * See diff: . Jayjg removed the CNN, BBC, and New York Times references with this edit summary:
 * "none of these sources mention the second intifada. If the Biri stuff goes because of NOR, then this certainly does."

 * I did not remove any Sgt. David Biri info or references. In fact, I am the one that added them the last time. Gatoclass did not remove the Biri info from the article text. Gatoclass edited a reference for Biri. The reference itself remains. See this diff:

 * The Biri references include references for describing the Biri attack itself, and other references that express the opinion that the Biri attack on September 27 was the beginning of the Second Intifada.

 * I note that Jayjg did not remove the Biri references that only described the attack, but did not give any opinion on when the Second Intifada started. For example; the Jerusalem Post article. See my last version of the article to follow the reference links before Gatoclass edited them: ::http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Intifada&oldid=252673117 --Timeshifter (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Timeshifter, rather than quoting sections that are entirely irrelevant to the situation here, it would make more sense if you reviewed WP:SYNTH, particularly this section:
 * "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research."
 * Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Uh, there’s seems to be some misapprehension here about naming conventions in history. When Hitler invaded Poland, with the Danzig gambit, and Britain declared war on Sept 3, newspapers around the world did not declare ‘The Second World War has broken out’ any more than, in 1914, newspapers declared that ‘the First World War’ had broken out. These naming conventions are retroactive, but in no way invalidate contemporary testimony using another set of terms (War breaks out).  That the Temple Mount riots al-Aqsa events  became known as the al Aqsa intifada some time later does not mean that contemporary reports of those events that speak of an outbreak of hostilities aren't usable, unless they anticipate the later, accepted term.  or can they. This is extremely weird, and is only found in Wikipedia.

 * Let's look at the three notes Jayjg has wikilawyered out.

 * Note 2 Al-Aqsa Intifada timeline

 * "The second Palestinian intifada or uprising broke out at the end of September 2000 and is named after the Jerusalem mosque complex where the violence began. Frustrations that years of the negotiation had failed to deliver a Palestinian state were intensified by the collapse of the Camp David summit in July 2000. Ariel Sharon, then the leader of Israel's opposition, paid a visit to the site in East Jerusalem known to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif, and to Jews as Temple Mount, which houses the al-Aqsa mosque - and frustration boiled over into violence"

 * This explicitly fits all conditions, even Jayjg's

 * Note 3 reads

 * '2000: 'Provocative' mosque visit sparks riots. Palestinians and Israeli police have clashed in the worst violence for several years at Jerusalem's holiest site, the compound around Al-Aqsa mosque.

 * This would appear to back Jayjg’s point. since there is no overt ref. naturally enough to the subsequent Al-Aqsa intifada. But only if you don't read the context byline. The context byline under this remark thoroughly supports Timeshifter. It reads:-

 * "'Following Friday prayers the next day violence again broke out throughout Jerusalem and the West Bank. It was the beginning of a wave of rioting which escalated into what is now known as the second Palestinian intifada (uprising), or sometimes the Al Aqsa intifada. By the end of the first year, more than 800 people had died. Critics say Mr Sharon knew the visit would trigger the ensuing violence and gambled on the Israeli public turning to a tough leader like him who would know how to handle it firmly.'"

 * Note 4

 * Again read down the page, where Deborah Sontag says.

 * "His visit set off a dynamic of confrontation that, with funerals being scheduled for the Palestinian victims who will be viewed as martyrs, has now taken on a life of its own.'"

 * I.e. Sharon’s visit triggered a dynamic of confrontation that later reporters historians call the al-Aqsa intifada.

 * Note 5 A visit by Likud Party leader Ariel Sharon to the site known as the Temple Mount by Jews sparked a clash.

 * Well let's be fair. Note refs 2,3,4 meet all conditions since they describe Sharon's visit explicitly as a beginning to the violence we now call the Al-Aqsa intifada. Jayjg has got one out of 4 right. Note 5 is unnecessary.Nishidani (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nishidani, when you start a section with the phrase "Let's look at the three notes Jayjg has wikilawyered out", you are not only entirely inaccurate, but you are also violating the WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL policies. As for your highlighted sections, they only serve to prove my point; none of the state that the intifada began on the 28th (as, of course, they could not, since they had no idea an intifada had just recently started), and therefore cannot be used as evidence that the source believes second intifada began on the 28th. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the exposition, Nishidani. Note 5 (CNN) may not be necessary for referencing the opinions, but it is necessary for referencing and describing the events on which the opinions are based. Please see my comment higher up that quotes WP:NPOV on this. Partial quote: "include the facts on which competing opinions are based." And from WP:RS concerning events: "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, ..." --Timeshifter (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's unclear to me why you keep trying to frame this as a WP:RS issue, when it's a WP:SYNTH issue. The objection is not to CNN's reliability as a source, but rather to the use to which it is being put; that is, to support the claim that the intifada started on the 28th. As an example, would you find it acceptable if I included in the article the statement "Some sources believe the intifada began on September 27, 2000", and cited it to this CNN article, which describes the attacks on the 27th? Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent summary of the current manufactured impasse, both of you. Part of the problem here is that new editors (responding from various noticeboards) are accepting Jay's framing of the dispute, which is misleading.  To wit, they're accepting (a) that secondary sources agree the events of the 28th weren't part of the second intifada (which is false), (b) that Timeshifter's primary sources don't place the events of the 28th in the context of the second intifada (in fact they do, per Nishidani), and (c) that Timeshifter's primary sources pretend to support the "claim" that the second intifada began on the 28th (in fact, as Timeshifter has tirelessly reiterated, they present "the facts on which competing opinions are based").  I too initially accepted these elements of Jay's false framing, until I actually inspected the sources (primary and secondary).--G-Dett (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I still don't see that the sources support the contention they're meant to support (yes, I read the bolded stuff above, which seems to confirm Jay's point). It seems as though people want to make the connection here that Sharon's visit led, inexorably, to the SI, but the sources don't back that up. I know that's been the offical line, but I also think it's heavily disputed. Let's by all means discuss the controversy within the article, but not present one side as fact. Fair? IronDuke  01:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, G-Dett, my "framing" of the dispute is exactly what the dispute is about. When Timeshifter's sources are cited at the end of a sentence that begins "Some view the start to be the September 28 2000 riots etc.", they cannot do anything except pretend to support the claim that the second intifada began on the 28th. Your attempts to assert this is a "false framing" fail miserably in the face of English grammar, logic, and WP:V. If you want to bring sources that support such a claim, then they need to actually make the claim. For example, when the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee states "We were particularly interested in the section on the Occupied Territories: East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in light of the extreme brutality with which Israel has responded to the uprising against its military rule which began on September 27, 2000," they are specifically stating that the uprising began on September 27, 2000. That is the kind of source that must be used to support the contrasting claim that the uprising began on September 28, not just a newspaper report from the day that describes the events of the 28th. Jayjg (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayjg. Please see the talk section farther down: . See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)What your argument ignores is that there are secondary sources that support the view that the Second Intifada began on 28 September. I posted them above, but here you go again: What G-Dett and others on this page have been trying to point out is that Timeshifter's use of primary sources here is in line with Wiki policies precisely because there are reliable secondary sources that make that claim explicitly. Is there anybody there is hear that?  T i a m u t talk 02:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Al-Aqsa Intifada broke out on September 28, 2000... in Tolerance in the Twenty-first Century (2006), by Gerson Moreno-Riaño
 * ...the Intifada erupted on September 28, 2000... in The Spectrum of Islamist Movements by Ḍiyāʼ Rashwān et al.
 * Page 193 of The Case for Democracy (2004) by Anatoly Shcharansky, Ron Dermer states : On September 28, 2000, a day when Israelis were celebrating the Jewish New Year, the second "intifada" began.
 * On September 28, thousands of Palestinians mark the first anniversary of the second Intifada. in Israel, the Impossible Land (2003) by Jean-Christophe Attias, Esther Benbassa.
 * What I have been pointing out is that, because there are reliable secondary sources claiming the intifada started on the 28th, one could argue that those sources could be used in this article (views differ on that point). However, one cannot use them to actually support the claim that the intifada started on the 28th, which is what they were doing. No Wikipedia policies support that view, and WP:V and WP:SYNTH specifically forbid it. On the other hand, the sources you have brought (aside from the last, which is a bit ambiguous), are perfectly fine to support the sentence in question. Jayjg (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Footnotes can support any part of a sentence – verb clause, predicate, whatever. Tiamut's secondary sources (and there are many, many more) support the verb clause (the part about commentators' "views") while Timeshifter's primary sources provide information on the events alluded to in the predicate of the sentence (the events said commentators are talking about).  Both kinds of annotation are totally legit, indeed standard practice for source-based writing, whether in formal scholarship or on Wikipedia.  All of this about SYNTH is a complete red herring, resulting from either a misreading of this one sentence due to tunnel-vision focus on he-said-she-said controversy, or a general unfamiliarity with standard annotative practice.--G-Dett (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * a) Which of the sources connect the "verb clause" with the "predicate of the sentence"? b) The sentence due to tunnel-vision focus on he-said-she-said controversy, or a general unfamiliarity with standard annotative practice is an uncivil insult. Please desist from abusing this Talk: page in that way. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal was intended, and certainly not an attack (!). All of us can be prone to tunnel-vision focus on controversy on these contentious pages; it can become difficult to step back and see this through the eyes of an ordinary reader.  I've been genuinely puzzled for quite a while now as to why multiple editors (not only you) were reading contemporaneous news reports in footnotes as possible support for long-view historical claims, but I don't think the ordinary reader would make this mistake.

 * As for which sources connect the verb clause to the predicate, well those would be Tiamut's. Sources making this connection are so numerous and ubiquitous that I assumed you were familiar with them, which is why all the talk of SYNTH and "novel conclusions" was so baffling to me.  It might have made this all a bit more painless if you'd just said 'hey, that sentence needs some secondary sources as well as the primary ones.'--G-Dett (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to quote and use the "numerous and ubiquitous" sources "making this connection". And it wouldn't have made it more painless, since only the secondary sources should be used. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett seems to be admitting that there is a violation of SYNTH in this article. But I do not see the problem - Jayjg agrees that there are sources that appropriatesly support the claims being made, so why not just use those sources and move on? If there are sources that support a claim that everyone agrees on, why waste time continuing a disagreement that has just been solved? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm "admitting" that this SYNTH thing has been a crazy red herring. There was never any "novel conclusion" – the great bulk of secondary sources on the intifada discuss the events of the 28th; some specify the 29th as the official beginning and some specify the 28th, and the difference is by and large rhetorical (i.e. it's not an active dispute among RSs the way it seems to be for Wikipedians).  The endless discussion above focuses on the admissibility of primary sources for the events of the 28th, which was a ridiculous distraction.  If people need sources who explicitly designate the events of the 28th as part of the intifada, there are Tiamut's and scores of others; instead they've been focusing on the inadmissibility of Timeshifter's sources, how they constitute a "fairly serious" violation of policy, etc., which was and is balderdash.

 * You're right about the way forward – add Tiamut's sources and move on. But enough of this nonsense of removing sources that don't use the phrase "second intifada."--G-Dett (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Could I suggest we all read and reread Danny Dor, Intifada Hits the Headlines: How the Israeli Press Misreported the Outbreak of the Second Palestinian Uprising,Indiana University Press, 2004 esp.pp.18-34. Since we are talking about press coverage, and secondary sources, this is a very good secondary source on press coverage of precisely those days, and should inform this article. Indeed I think we should add it, with Pressman and various other sources, to a select reading list of high quality sources as required reading for all editors. Nishidani (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

 * This sounds very constructive. Still, in reply to G-Dett, I think if a source does not say "second intifada" we cannot use it to make claims about the second intifadah.  Perhaps we can use it to make claims about other issues relevant to this article, but SYNTH is SYNTH.  The force of NOR rests on a very simple premise: if the connection you think is so obvious that you can combine different sources to make a connection neither source makes explicitly, then somewhere out there there must be a source that does make the connection explicitly and that is the source Wikipedia should use.  If it is so difficult to find that source, I would suggest that the connection you think is so obvious is not so obvious.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you really mean this, Slrubenstein, you've got your work all cut out for you. The article is chock-a-block with sources that don't say "second intifada."--G-Dett (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is not whether they use the explicit phrase "second intifada", but whether or not they support the claim that it began on the 28th. "El Aksa intifada", "second Palestinian uprising", or similarly explicit constructions would also be acceptable. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out above, the objection looks casuistic, in that events are named often retroactively (WW2, Tet Offensive,etc.etc.). It is overlooked here, and in a good part of the literature, that Sharon's visit occurred on the 28th., which was Erev Rosh Hashanah, and the riots on Rosh Hashanah. Through to Sunday, in the very heart of the Jewish New Year, Israeli newspapers suspended print runs, the first news reports only coming out on newstands on Monday October 2. I, and I hope others, will look into the issue of when the actual term 'Al-Aqsa Intifada' was first employed. Just for the record, there is an ideological tension here, that is explicitly touched on in the secondary literature. I.e. an early official Israeli government-IDF assertion, reflected, as Dor shows, intensively in the Hebrew press for months, that detached Sharon's visit from what they called 'Palestinian violence' in these days, as if the latter were long preplanned, and the conjuncture mere coincidence or pretextual, and the other POV, that the two were intimately connected. The quality secondary sources tend to back the latter POV, i.e. that there was no preplanning, the outbreak spontaneous, and related to extreme frustrations that were in the air from September 13,(note below) heightened by the Sabra-Shatila commemoration, and then Sharon's walk. Arafat actually visit Ehud Barak's home on the 25th., and both announced significant progress had been made, a statement suggestive of a mutual aim to lower tensions.

 * Both POVs should be included of course, but I sense that something of this tension is audible in the present disagreement.

 * note Sa’eb Erekat expressed confidence that an agreement would be signed by September 13, Ma’ariv July 26, 2000 p.6 cited Gadi Wolfsfeld, Media and the Path to Peace, Cambridge University Press, 2004 p.203 n.7. I think Timeshifter expressed interest in this.Nishidani (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

 * More constructive and thoughtful comments. If the tension is in the secondary literature it certainly should be included here.  I agree that some connections only become clear with the passage of time - but this is another reason for us to adhere stringently to NOR and SYNTH - if you think this is casuistry, I beg to differ.  Another point of the whole NOR policy is to prevent turning Wikipedia into a venue for publishing original research.  "Original" in this case means our own interpretations of the relationship between Sharon's "stroll" and the 2nd Intifadah.  It may well be that you or I or some other editor has reached the obvious conclusion which, for a variety of reasons, has not yet been published in reliable secondary sources e.g. articles in history journals, poli sci journals, M.E. Studies journals, books published by academic presses ... and it may well turn out that there will soon appear a vast number of such articles making exactly the connections we have already made in our minds.  The point remains, this is an encyclopedia and not a blog.  It is not a venue for us to forward our own interpretations - any of our own interpretations - no matter how right they may be.  We have to and really should restrict ourselves to publishing based on established scholarship.  By definition such scholarship takes a while to come out, to be produced.  That is in part because people need the time to analyze and process the data and you iknow what, sometimes they reach counter-intuitive conclusions or conclusions contrary to those first suggested in newspapers.  But we consider that scholarship to be more reliable and significant, and this is what an encyclopedia is all about, presenting significant views from reliable sources.  If the connection is real and meaningful, and important, it will eventually come out in a reliable source.  If it has not yet, we should wait for it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The connection has come out in hundreds of reliable sources. The question is whether a news report that came out before the name "second intifada" was codified can be used.  It is the same question they seem blissfully ignorant of over at 9-11 attacks, where no one is maintaining that news reports of jumbo jets flying into the World Trade Center violate SYNTH if they don't contain the phrase "9-11 attacks."--G-Dett (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The way I was trained, it is very, very bad scholarship to retroactively assign to primary sources meanings they did not have when they first came out. That process may actually occur in popular discourses and itself may be a worthy object of scholarly investigation, but should not be practed by researchers themselves.  Writing an encyclopedia article, I think we should hold ourselves to this academic standard especially when it is already called for by our own policy.  The result would be a more nuanced article on how facts take shape and are interpreted and reinterpreted over time. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Slrubenstein, I don't understand this post. Can you clarify?  No one is talking about retroactively assigning meanings to primary sources.  Also, I don't understand the connection to academic scholarship.  Scholars are encouraged to use primary sources, do syntheses, and so on.  I don't see any resemblance between our policy and academic standards on this score.--G-Dett (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the Second Intifada is not a "thing" in the same way a particular star, sheep or stone is; like any social phenomena, it is as much a way of thinking about a series of events as it is any concrete event itself. What I just said is a view most social scientists would hold concerning all sorts of things including the Enlightenment and the Rennaissence or World War II.  You are saying that there exist a number of sources that pertain to stuff relevant to this article, but that were produced before there was general agreement to talk about these and other events as parts of "the second intifadah."  This fact is significant and should not be obscured by clamiing that the authors of these sources were writing about the Second Intifadah.  It is possible that when they wrote no one thought there was a Second Intifadah.  Or when they wrote, some people were claiming there was a Second Intifadah but the claim was highly controversial, or not generally held.  Or there may be other reasons.  I am just saying that if a source does not claim to be about the Second Intifadah, we cannot use it to support any claims about the Second Intifadah, that would biolate NOR.  Now, if a scholar or any other clearly proponent of a notable, significant published in a reliable source claims about the Second Intifadah referring to these primary sources (as you seem to be suggesting has happened) we can of course use those secondary sources referring to the second intifadah.  Our NOR policy allows that!  But it has to be published already, we cannot do it ourselves.  If a source does not refer to the second intifadah for whatever reason, we cannot claim it is about the second intifadah, that violates NOR.  A reliable source voicing a significant view has to do it, we cannot. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

 * The few of us arguing in here, have collectively something like several tens of thousands of edits to our (dis)credit, and still cannot agree on the simplest rule of all, which customarily we have all been observing for several years. And this is perplexing.

 * Wikipedia:'On September 1, 1939, Adolf Hitler launched his invasion of Poland and World War II broke out.'

 * No one worries over this, though the dates for WW2's beginning vary by several years. Since the US was not a belligerent on that date, nor the USSR, nor Japan, nor Italy, nor France, it did not break out for them. No one on September 1, reporting events, said 'World War 2' has broken out. It hadn't, yet virtually all historians would find statements like this unproblematical. Sir Martin Gilbert puts it this way:

 * "'When yet another war began on I September 1939 it was between two States only, Germany and Poland. It was this German-Polish war, spreading slowly, and only becoming truly global more than two years later, that is known as the Second World War.'(A History of the Twentieth Century, vol.2 1998 p.263"

 * I.e. despite equivocations arising from technical complexity, the war we now call WW2, but not then, broke out with a German attack on Poland on September 1, which formed the conditio sine qua non of the roll of events that attack precipitated. In I/P areas, one finesses everything as per rules, without ever actually writing anything of substance. It is basically becoming an area to refine one's abilities to engage in technical challenges, by the looks of it.

 * The absurdity of what is going on here, this maniacal hairsplitting, arises from, as I said, an ideological sensitivity over Sharon's walk, between those who would distinguish it from the intifada, and those who think it crucial to that intifada's origins. Almost all historical sources of repute identify the events of 28-29th as the beginning of the Second Intifada: If one wrote,
 * "'The second intifada broke out at the end of September, 2000. On the 28th of that month, Ariel Sharon made a controversial visit to the Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa mosque, which was protested in loco by Muslims. On the following day, after prayers, rioting occurred, and, following its suppression, in which 4 demonstrators were shot and 200 injured, a wave of violent protest and repression spread throughout the rest of the West Bank and Gaza, in a movement that took its name from the mosque, and became known as the Al-Aqsa intifada,'"
 * that would fit all concerns. The several sources Timeshifter is using can be used to report the event as it was echoed in major foreign papers at the time, and other, secondary sources footnoted to clarify the dispute about the precise dates (27,28,29).Nishidani (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, don't you agree that encyclopedias should educate? Don't you agree that education involves overcoming ignorance or misconception? If you do not agree with these I do not know why you wish to help write an encyclopedia. If you do, I do not know why you consider me to be hairsplitting. If there is a consensus among notable historians that WWII did not break out with Hitler's invasion of Poland, we ought to say so. If there is a notable view in secondary sources that WWII did break out on Sept 1 1939, we should report that! Same with the second intifadah: secondary sources that refer to Sharon's Rosh HaShanah walk as triggering the outbreak of the second intifadah should be used to support the view that Sharon's Rosh HaShanah walk was the trigger for the second intifadah. Sources that do not make this claim shoud not be used to support it. This is not hair-splitting, this is basic common sense, and our policy! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing different parts of sentences
A solution for sourcing events, and opinions on those events, in the same sentence.

I see now that Jayjg may have a technical point (a very small technical point) about the placement of references in sentences. I don't think Jayjg though can find any guideline that says that sources listed at the end of a sentence can only support one part of a sentence but not another part of a sentence.

But to satisfy Jayjg's personal interpretation of imaginary guidelines I will source each part of sentences in this article that he feels he owns. This may make sentences more difficult to read though. Because sentences will be broken up in mid-sentence in multiple places by numbered references. What say ye, O great Jayjg, the former arbitrator ? --Timeshifter (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I say that your comment is remarkably uncivil. Perhaps you'd like to re-factor it. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see Elonka's comment higher up about taking civility complaints to user talk pages. I struck through my sarcastic remark about your greatness. You need to strike through the many times you were more uncivil on this talk page. Such as calling an editor's comment "blather." --Timeshifter (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I say that if you can't see why the beginning of that same paragraph is also remarkably uncivil, then more's the pity. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Jayjg's personal interpretation of imaginary guidelines" is a true statement in my mind. I am commenting on this article, and the Wikipedia guidelines in reference to this article. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that you believe it to be true is irrelevant. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, your frequent WP:NPA accusations without basis is itself a violation of WP:NPA. From WP:NPA: "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack. (See also "taunting" and "accusations": Engaging in incivility). --Timeshifter (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Do not deliberately assert false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors, and please comment on content, not on the contributor. If you have any proposed article content changes that you feel you can make in a civil way, without referring to other editors, then please propose them. Thanks. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see my previous replies. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And - albeit not on this page - referring to a "pro-Palestinian crowd", as here. Yuk, these hordes. --Nickhh (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not on an article Talk: page, and neither naming nor directed to any individuals. Analogies work better when they're, you know, analogous. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did I say anything about "article talk pages" or, you know, "analogies"? I was merely flagging up another dubious comment of yours which appears to belie your frequent blatherings (sic) about WP:NPA. And I always assumed a crowd was by definition composed of individuals - or was your intention to deny the members of the "pro-Palestinian crowd" their individuality? Even I didn't think you were quite going that far. And I would add that while I don't understand quite what you mean by that phrase, I am very sure about to whom you are referring when you use it, as I'm sure are you. --Nickhh (talk) 10:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Did you have any changes you wanted to make to article content? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well actually 100s. But discussing article changes was not the purpose of my comment, not least because any I might make would no doubt be reverted by the "pro-Israeli crowd" (see how unpleasant that phrasing sounds now?) Hence my edit summary "off topic, admittedly". --Nickhh (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please use your comments to discuss proposed article changes. Thanks. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Are sources used an example of WP:SYNTH or not?
Note: Since the RfC template was buried in one of the above threads, I have moved it down here to its own section, to make it easier for outside parties to comment. --Elonka 18:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Comment. No one, absolutely no one, is disagreeing with Jayjg that opinions about events have to be attributed and sourced. Opinions such as when the Second Intifada started. There was no attempt at synthesis of published material in order to advance a position (WP:SYNTH). The problem is one of placement of references in the text. Please see higher up on this talk page. There were separate sources for both the event, and for the opinion about the event. The BBC, CNN, and New York Times references that Jayjg removed  were used as reliable sources for the events themselves. NOT about the meaning of those events. They were necessary sources for the events, and Jayjg should not have removed the references. WP:NPOV addresses my point: "A balanced selection of sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. When discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints." --Timeshifter (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the issue is with the use of primary sources to support a claim about the start date of the second intifada, a date on which various sources disagree. The sources in question do not give any opinion on when the second intifada began. Your claim that they were "necessary sources for the events" is not credible, given that they were actually used to support the claim that the intifada started on the 28th, which was the actual subject of the both sentence in question, and the paragraph in which it was found. Although you keep trying to frame this as a WP:RS or WP:NPOV issue, those are actually irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is a WP:SYNTH problem. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Here again is the diff of your removal of the sources: . You not only removed references, you removed info on the riots and injuries on September 28, the day of Ariel Sharon's visit. I immediately stated on the talk page that those references were for the events in this sentence. "As reported by the mainstream media (BBC, New York Times, CNN, etc.) the first major riot with injuries occurred on September 28, 2000, soon after a controversial visit earlier in the day by then Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount, a site held sacred by both Jews and Muslims." The references were placed after that sentence. The references were not for the sentence before it: "The beginning date of the Second Intifada is disputed." There were multiple revisions of the article after that, and they added more info on each of the dates in question. In a later version  each particular date had references about it being the beginning of the Second Intifada. There were 2 references for the opinion that the September 28 events were the beginning of the Intifada. You left those in. But you again removed the same references from the BBC, CNN, and the New York Times describing the September 28 events . Some of those removed references also described events of the following days. Jayjg, you have not addressed this: , nor have you addressed the WP:NPOV concerns in my first comment in this talk section. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment (from an involved user) there is nothing going on here, other than an immensely tendentious attempt to prevent this article being written to policy - and even damage it so much as to stop anyone reading it. I see no evidence there is any "dispute" in the RS about the exact start date (+ or - 24 hours at most) of the Intifada - what I see is a completely artificial "controversy" inserted at the beginning of the article in order to confuse readers. I'm not sure of the proper weight needed for the real story (eg even Israeli sources speak of "a war on the Palestinian people") but it's absurd that all such evidence is being edit-warred out. PRtalk 19:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am baffled as to why those sources were removed. --Ito Biteme (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Basic Reading List Organized by Theme
Press Reportage -Pp.18-34 deal with the reportage of events in the immediate aftermath of the 28-29 incidents.
 * (1)Danny Dor, Intifada Hits the Headlines: How the Israeli Press Misreported the Outbreak of the Second Palestinian Uprising,Indiana University Press, 2004
 * (2)Gadi Wolfsfeld, Media and the Path to Peace, Cambridge University Press, 2004 pp.180ff, esp. 203-231

Theories concerning the lead up to the Intifada
 * (2) Jeremy Pressman, The Second Intifada: Backgrounds and Causes of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs) 16:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The ADC ref
The article is now trying to assert that the Sept.27 date (Sergeant Biri by implication) is backed by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. True the Feb 2000 letter mentions that date. But one letter does not represent a committee's formal opinion. It may even be an error. However the language used by whoever made this edit suggests this is the ADC's official position. It isn't. Do a search and you will quickly find that the ADC in other documents refers to the 28 September date as the start, for example, at

September 28, 2001 One Year into the Second Intifada

Which apart from the anniversary date, reads.

'The al-Aqsa Intifada was triggered by the provocative visit of Ariel Sharon, who has since become Israels Prime Minister, to al-Haram al-Sharif.'

I have elided it. Nishidani (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that doesn't seem to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:V. The source says:
 * "'We were particularly interested in the section on the Occupied Territories: East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in light of the extreme brutality with which Israel has responded to the uprising against its military rule which began on September 27, 2000.' 'ADC Responds to New State Department Report on Israel and the Intifada', American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 26 February, 2001."
 * You're insisting that we prefer the other American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee document to this one? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm not insisting on anything. I simply noted that the remark:
 * "'Some sources, including the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and Jewish Agency for Israel, view the start of the uprising as September 27, 2000'"
 * is stating that the ADC views the start of the intifada as beginning on the 27th of September, using one early document on its site, whereas many others on that site state the 28th. In English, this verb in the present tense (views) with the subject ADC, plainly attributes to that organization a position it clearly does not espouse in many other documents it publishes. As I showed, a year after, the ADF definitely pinned down the Intifada's beginning as the 28th. of September, not the 27th. From my checking I haven't found them repeating since late 2001 the single statement elicited to produce the impression that the ADC thought it began on the 27th. In other documents, they affirm the 28th. as their position. That is their anniversary date for the event, not the 27th. Views is clearly wrong. You might have said, once viewed, but that would only complicate the text. There are several other considerations here. Has anyone examined date times difference due to time zone differences (I get this constantly in emails from around the world, which arrived dated a day before or after the date in my time zone, depending on the hour they were written?). In any case, if you wish to use the ADC for this, you'd better come up with several documents from its site which confirm this, so far, internally anomalous dating. Either that or remark that the ADC is in two minds about when it began. This can of course become a huge footnote to the page. Nishidani (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I should add that I regard all agenda-driven, political sources, esp. of a highly generalized kind, as inappropriate for establishing a contentious historical date, as per my remarks below, and therefore consider none of these sources valid, per a strict reading of WP:RS, a position you yourself often vigorously support elsewhere. I'm in no haste to remove the edit you made, but it will have to go, unless you can find proper historical sources for the contention. Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Still, it would seem strange that you would remove the source simply because elsewhere the same website gives a different date. WP:NPOV would seem to demand that it be included, regardless of your theories regarding this usage versus others. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:RS would seem to demand that a source that says two different things be excluded from our references. Still, wonders never cease. PRtalk 19:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, wonders do never cease... I actually happen to agree with PalestineRemembered on this one; with rare exception, a self-contradicting source is not appropriate for Wikipedia. An exception would be in the case where the contradiction may be attributed to a typo or other minor error and where it is clear what version the source intended, based on a high ratio of one version to the other, in which case it would be appropriate to cite the version which appears in the higher proportion and not the other version. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources for 27th September
I did a search long ago for an historian of the Intifada who mentions Serg.Biri's death on the 27th as marking the beginning of the Intifada. I found only Antony Cordesman, among specialists, citing him in a list of deaths from terrorism for the year 2000. Even Cordesman, an acknowledged authority, did not write that his death marked the beginning of the al-Aqsa intifada. (2)The previous section on Sergeant Biri in any case had to be removed since it was a blatant violation of WP:SYNTH.

So, I examine with interest the latest reinsertion of that (fringe theory), which appears far better documented.

 * "Some sources such as the Jewish Agency for Israel, view the start of the uprising as September 27, 2000."

 * To establish a date for an historical event or phenomenon, I presume we are asked to seek for quality sources. Jayjg tirelessly insists that qualified experts on any issue are the only ones acceptable for controversial statements. David Shulman, Israel's, and one of the world's foremost experts on Indian and Dravidian languages, fluent in Hebrew (a chair at the Hebrew university) and Arabic, with years of field experience as a peace activist on the West Bank, could, in his view, not be accepted as a source for incidents on the West Bank, because he was not an area specialist on settlements (See Israeli Settlements, here, here, and here). This antic purism, exemplifying the undoubted commitment to the highest and most scrupulous observance of wiki rules on reliable sources, has disappeared here. Witness the sources now employed to establish the 27th of September as the start of the al-Aqsa uprising. One might also compare Jayjg's refusal of Chomsky as an historian on IP articles where he remarks:
 * "The reason why contentious historical claims by non-historians are excluded is because they are non-historians, not because they are anti-Israeli."
 * Since this is a contentious historical claim, therefore, his edit here violates his own principles on wikipedia and I/P editing. It thus arouses the suspicion that 'er urteilt nach dem jedesmaligen Aggregatzustand seiner Empfindungen' (Lichtenberg, Sudelbücher, Insel Verlag, 1984 p.386), i.e. using rules arbitrarily according to his feelings about the context and the interests to be defended, from case to case, context-bound rigourism or laxity as opposed to austere, impartial application of an identical rule over all articles. To illustrate:-

 * "(note 2 =41 above) Lakstein, Dror, Blumenfeld, Amir, Israeli Army Casualties in the Second Palestinian Uprising', Military Medicine'', May 2005"

 * Since when in historical writing, let alone wikipedia, is a paper on the statistical breakdown by two doctors of types of wound suffered by soldiers in repressing an uprising to be regarded as a reliable source for the quite distinct issue of when that uprising began. The two doctors are not historians. Military medicine is not an RS for a controversial historical question of this kind.

 * (note 3 = 42 above) Ronnie Caplane,'Christians, Jews 'stand for Israel' at Tisha B'Av service', ''the Jewish news weekly of northern California,’ Friday July 26, 2002

 * Who is Ronnie Caplane. Has he an historian's degree? What is a regional Jewish newspaper of north California doing here as a source for a controversial thesis on historical dating?

 * (note 4 = 43 above) Global Jewish Agenda, Vol. 1, No. 40, November 9, 2000.

 * This is scraping the barrel, and I would like to be directed to an RS discussion which vindicates the bizarre idea that 'Global Jewish Agenda' is RS on issues of historical controversy.

 * The al Aqsa intifada, to repeat for the enth time, has been studied by scholarship intensively for almost a decade. Dozens, if not hundreds, of books by quality university presses deal exclusively or in part with its history, dynamics, politics, sociology and statistics. If 27th of September is to be considered a serious proposal, we need an historical source of quality by an historian of standing that says that. Gossip, medico statistics, and regional newspapers are absolutely unreliable, by Jayjg's own frequently repeated testimony, that RS on specific questions requires qualified experts with relevant knowledge.Nishidani (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with this topic, but your argument sounds convincing to me, Nishidani. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 01:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Responding to Nishidani's comment:
 * Oddly enough, no objections have been raised to Timeshifter's insertion of starting date claims, even though none of his sources are historians.
 * Your claim regarding "fringe theories" is, in its entirety, an unsourced theory itself. Any arguments based on that premise are therefore faulty. Please review begging the question.
 * I've added more sources, including one that specifically notes that different dates are given for the start of the intifada.
 * Paragraphs that begin with "Jayjg tirelessly insists that..." and go on to bring up ten month old editing disputes about entirely unrelated issues are inappropriate. Comment on content, not on the contributor.
 * Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, your frequent WP:NPA accusations without basis is itself a violation of WP:NPA. From WP:NPA: "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack. (See also "taunting" and "accusations": Engaging in incivility). --Timeshifter (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, no. Phrases that begin with "Jayjg tirelessly insists that..." and go on to bring up ten month old editing disputes about entirely unrelated issues are inappropriate comments about contributors, not content. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The statement looks like a compliment to me: "Jayjg tirelessly insists that qualified experts on any issue are the only ones acceptable for controversial statements." The previous editing disputes are directly related to this editing dispute. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The ten-month old dispute was unrelated, and the statement wasn't intended as a compliment, as you well know. Please do not deliberately assert false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors. Thanks. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't read Nishidani's mind, and you can't read mine. I still read the statement as a compliment. Nishidani then goes on and points out that he believes you are using double standards in how you apply your requirement to use qualified experts as sources. He gives previous examples from the past. So the previous disputes are directly related. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. He uses the phrase of means of alleging double standards on my part, as you have just admitted, and he brought irrelevant disputes unrelated to this article or topic from 10 months earlier. The comments were about contributors, not content. Please do not deliberately assert false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors. Thanks. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Double standards concerning use of guidelines in relation to this article. You frequently discuss guidelines. Neither is blocked by WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL. Please stop making up new guidelines. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Did you have any suggested changes to article content? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, all of Nishidani's suggestions. I have already made many suggestions. I will make more as needed. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

 * So let's delete the allegations with unreliable sources.Wineflow (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Belligerents
Do a people really wage a war? Shouldn't it be the Palestinian National Authority or the Palestine Liberation Organation? I don't know much about this subject but I was just wondering.Supergeek1694 (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Ramallah-lynch01.jpg
The image File:Ramallah-lynch01.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

 * File:PIJ emblem.png
 * File:Fateh-logo.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --10:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Overview"
There are quite a few uncited or otherwise inappropriate claim in this section.

"The suicide bombs were also Israel's official reason for building the West Bank barrier that served to carve up and annex more Palestinian land and damage further its economy" This article is not the place to discuss the wall.

"Israel also resorted to punitive home demolitions, destroying shops because they operated without the permits it refused to grant." Needs cite.

"Israel also carried out mass arrests, and assassinated militant and political leaders (often also causing civilian casualties)." Wording implies that political leaders with no militant ties were killed; this claim needs cite.

"Shelling, machine-gun fire and bulldozers were used as weapons in populated areas, houses were commandeered and human shields employed as hostages during raids against suspected militants." Needs cite.

"Settlers also helped attack Palestinians and uproot olive trees in order to damage the Palestinian economy." Needs cite. Also, implies that these actions were official actions of IDF.

"If a settler was attacked, disproportionate actions were carried out to punish the civilian population for that. Often land was seized and civilian infrastructure destroyed." Need cites.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heqwm2 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Second Intifada has ended
I would like to start a discussion to mark an end date of the Second Intifada as December 26, 2008. The day before the start of operation Cast Lead or the Israel-Gaza war. My reasons: Number one: the Hamas leader stated on the first day of the air campaign that a Third Intifada has started against Israel with their assault on Gaza. Number two: we have already separated the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza war in the campaignbox of the Arab-Israeli conflict separately from the Second Intifada and the rest of the Arab-Israeli wars. Number three: the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza war has been seen by the international comunity as separate from the Secon Intifada. Number four: There has not been any mayor fighting in the West Bank for years now, all of the fighting is concentrated in the Gaza Strip, and it is not anymore between Israel and the Palestinians, but between the Israelis and Hamas exclusivly, almost the whole of Fatah has stoped fighting Israel and advocated peacefull demonstrations against Israeli occupation and not violence. The Second Intifada is over, the Israel-Gaza conflict is now in progress.BobaFett85 (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not the business of editors to decide, we should report what the reliable sources say about it. But you could help with the many important improvements needed in this article - for instance, Israeli sources (in 2006) spoke of "an action that Israeli police and security forces described as a war on the Palestinian people". Or mention that in the first three-and-a-half months Israel had killed 84 Palestinian children while not a single Israeli child died. In fact, not one Israeli died in that time. Or quote Israeli newspaper Haaretz telling us "the IDF proudly cited the large number of Palestinian casualties as evidence of the military victory and the correctness of the policy of massive use of force". PRtalk 14:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are talking about not the business of editors to decide. This has been said by politicians and world leaders and not by me and it is pure and simple logic. There wasn't any declaration of the end of the First Intifada when it started, people simple decided that it ended when there was no more mayor fighting, like now in this case. And I don't know why are you mentioning the Palestinian children or whatever, that was not the theme of this discussion I started, your obviously pro-Palestinian, and anti-Israeli, your nickname says so also, and so I can not talk to you. Wikipedia is a place for neutral editors. So who will be talking about the end date of the Intifada and not about how many children died or didn't. If you want to talk about children start a discussion on it in another section.BobaFett85 (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * BobaFett85, please assume good faith and provide cites, not OR. Alastairward (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Check these links  for confirmation that when the Israel-Gaza war started that they were talking about a third intifada, so that would mean the second has ended. One reference states that the intifada ended back in October 2004 and one other that it may have ended way back in 2003. If nobody objects in the next 24 hours I will make the necesary changes.BobaFett85 (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, at least in Israel, the common feeling is that the Second Intifada ended somewhere between the death of Arafat in november 2004 and the disengagement from Gaza in August 2005. This is also the time that terror attacks were more or less stopped and economic growth went back to 5% a year. And the fact is Palestinians threats of a "third intifada" indicate that the second one is over. The first intifada also did not have a clear end date. The day of the Oslo Agreement signature is usually used as its end day, but it was also over already for a long time. Maybe the Annapolis Agreement date should be use here ? Benjil (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

So shall we remove the Gaza War section? Imad marie (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

External link cleanup
Per Wikipedia: External Links, I believe the section needs a heavy cleaning. Opinions? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent insertion
I've moved this recent insertion by User:Liftarn to the Talk: section: "Israeli forced was given orders like 'fire at anything that moved' that resulted in several civilian casualties. For killing an unarmed child an IDF officer could be fined up to 100 or 200 shekel (about 25-50 USD)." This is one source, making one allegation - there's no indication that it was common, rather than unique. In addition, the allegation of regarding the fines distorts the source, and again places WP:UNDUE weight on the material. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

B'Tselem chart
removed graph based on B'Tselem info as its presence is POV -- DO NOT REINSERT WITHOUT CONSENSUS

Hello. Sorry to shout in the section heading but I know from prior experience that some of the editors on this page are very aggressive about reverting changes they don't like.

I removed the graph because it is based on B'Tselem info and there is a great deal of criticism of the way that B'Tselem classifies Palestinian combatants and/or non-combatants. For example, it appears that B'Tselem classifies as non-combatants Palestinians who were throwing stones, acting as human shields, or cutting security fences at the time they were killed. A graph is a summary of evidence and the first place most people will look at, and by basing a graph only on B'Tselem's info, we are privileging their viewpoints over that of others, which is non-NPOV. In the absence of agreement over how to define combatants vs. non-combatants, it's better not to include any graph -- the textual info includes everything necessary. This is consistent with the fact that the summary page at the top doesn't list Palestinian combatants vs. non-combatants, but simply states that the breakdown is disputed, and refers the reader to the text. Benwing (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I removed the talk section heading and moved it to the top of your comment. WP:TALK says to keep article talk page headings neutral. The chart and the casualty section were discussed many times and kept after long discussion. The B'Tselem chart is not the only chart in the casualty section.

 * If you want to add more referenced info to the casualty section, then feel free. Be bold. See WP:1RR. But you shouldn't delete other referenced info that already reached consensus. Did you know that this topic area is under the sanctions of WP:ARBPIA? Please see also: WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

changing default?
Considering less than 5% of the barrier is wall, would it not be more accurate to include the fence pictures instead, or simply illustrations as seen in comparable articles: Wall (Western Sahara), Turkmen-Uzbekistan barrier, Saudi-Yemen barrier, Iran-Pakistan barrier, etc...Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Israeli State
Has no one here noticed that Wikipedia has claimed in the first section that the "Palestinian" Authority recognized the Israeli State when it has not done so??? That it still refuses to admit Israeli's right to exist? Please check every major newspaper since Obama's attempts at negotiation began. Angella —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Arafat, speaking for the PLO, recognized Israel as early as 1988. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

End of Intifada
Why this article does not consider that the Second Intifada ended in February 2005? Good references (as this one) show that point. Also the Intifada's end can be seen with the dramatic decrease of Israeli casualties since that period.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A steep decrease in attacks and casualties is clearly evident in 2006 and from then onwards. That leaves a fairly difinitive cap to the Second Intifada ending during 2006. Jackflacket (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

 * I would say that the Intifada ended in 2003 or maybe symbolically in november 2004 when Arafat died. Maybe in August 2005 with the disengagement. In 2006 the Intifada had ended for some times. The number of casualties is not in itself enough. More Israelis died during the "peace process" years of 1993-2000 than during the First Intifada. The question is about the "popular uprising" and the guerrilla and the first one ended in 2001 and the second one in 2003 or 2004. Benjil (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

 * "Symbolically it may have ended in 2004 after Arafat's death but I would probably put it at 2005 at the earliest. Sometime between 2005-2007 but we should definitely get a date down for this. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

 * The casualties articles end it in 2004. As an Israeli, I can tell that *for us* it ended around 2003-2004 - economic growth came back and fewer terror attacks than before the Intifada and even less than in 1993-2000. In 2007 it was something of the past for sure. I think the disengagement changed drastically the situation and is a break that can't be put aside. So 2004 or 2005 seem to be the best dates. Benjil (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to give an end date/year for the Second Intifada then we should give 2005/early 2005 as from those who believe it can be defined in a fairly specific time frame 2005 is given as the year of its ending far more than any other year. The only other year I've seen occassionally given is 2004, I certainly see no justification for marking it as 2006 (as it is now) or December 2008 (as it has been previously). I think some people are misunderstanding the meaning of 'intifada', it means a spontaneous popular uprising not just violence, so pointing to violence from 2006 onwards and saying 'look the intifada was still continuing' is wrong because the violence was not in the context of a general uprising like the violence from September 2000 to early 2005 was. There was also a lot of violence from 1993-1999 but nobody says the First Intifada was still continuing then because those were independent events.

"[The second] intifada [from 2000 to 2005] was launched by the Palestinians, who enjoyed the propaganda benefit of underdog status." (Benny Morris)

"In contrast to the second intifada of 2000-2005... This rhetoric echoes that of the second intifada (2000-2005)"

"The Second Intifada, 2000 to 2005, failed, because it turned quickly to armed violence and brought the wrath of the Israeli army fully onto Palestinian civilians.)"

"The Second Intifada, also known as the al-Aqsa Intifada, is considered to have been between 2000 and early 2005."

"It is estimated by Human Rights Watch that between 2000 and 2005 the Second Intifada has cost the lives of nearly three thousand Palestinians - including six hundred children – and around nine hundred Israelis."

"In January 2005, Mahmoud Abbas was elected President of the PNA and met with Sharon at Sharm-el-Sheikh in February 2005. Both sides announced an end to the violence. The Israeli parliament approved the disengagement plan during the same month. In March 2005, militant groups agreed to a tahideyah (lull in the fighting). While not a full truce, this was considered major progress and some have argued that it marked the end of the Al-Aqsa Intifada... The Al-Aqsa Intifada never officially ended and it is debatable whether the events after February 2005 should be considered part of the uprising or as independent events."

Kadaveri (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk)

I think that the Second Intifada was a particular form of generalized violence, characterized by mass protests, Palestinian Authority's collaboration with militant groups and suicide bombings... all of this almost ended completely in late 2004 or 2005. However, a different form of violence took place between 2006 and 2008, whose major leading role was the Gaza–Israel conflict after disengagement plan, characterized by the Qassam rockets. I'm not saying there wasn't violence in the 2005-2008 period (until Gaza war broke out), but I think the Intifada deserves (from an academic point of view) to be separated from the rest of the daily violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.--<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

 * If it ended in 2005, as the states, why do we have casualty information up until nearly the start of 2009? Shouldn't we stick with one or the other? Sol (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Main Image
Can we find some sort of "neutral" type image for the first image placed on the page? The picture of the West Bank Barrier was neither neutral nor indicative of the conflict since it only began to be constructed well into the Intifada. The current picture of stone-throwing children does not seem particularly indicative of this particularly conflict, nor is it a very good picture. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Image has been updated. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Casualties by month?
Is there any way to get a graph or timeline of deaths/wounded by month? It would help show the course of the intifada as well as be a good bit of support for the "End of the Intifada" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

 * List of people killed by month between 2000 and 2010 according to B'Tselem:

Palestinians and foreigners killed by Israelis in Israel and the Palestinian territories:

Israelis and foreigners killed by Palestinians in Israel and the Palestinian territories:

is very clear that Israeli casualties decreased dramatically from 2005, although, since 2006, Israel-Gaza conflict increased.--AndresHerutJaim (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Body count is already specified in the casualty section. Enumerating each month isn't necessary. What we really need to do is start evaluating casualties by age, gender, and perhaps even social status. This is a more accurate and precise way for readers to understand civilian/combatant ratio. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia so it should be giving a summary of casualities, not exhaustive lists of raw data. I think totals, with maybe numbers during peak months would be enough. If there exists a graph of these figures that may be useful. Ashmoo (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"Oslo War"
Who uses this name? Is it used by any notable author?--<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

"victory"
Here are the sources used to support the assertion made that Israel "won" the intifada: If you really want to say that Israel "won" the intifada you will need better sources than these. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 23:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A columnist, not reliable for facts, only for attributed opinions
 * JCPA - unreliable for facts, only for attributed opinions
 * An article copied from FrontPageMag - unreliable, full stop.
 * Position paper - only reliable for attributed opinions
 * A thesis submitted to the by an IDF officer US Army War College - only reliable for an attributed view
 * And now an editorial by Charles Krauthamer has been added. None of these sources are reliable for facts, they can be used for attributed opinions. No response has been given here for days regarding the poor sources used. I am once again removing that material and request that users actually use the talk page for their reverts. A revert without a word in the edit summary or on this page approaches being vandalism and as at the least tendentious editing. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 16:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Nab. I've just added an additional seven sources that support the edit for a total of twelve. All the sources are easily verifiable per WP:V and they include notables like historian Michael Oren as well as publications from Sussex Academic Press and The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Concerning the latter, Vice President Al Gore referred to it as "Washington's most respected center for studies on the Middle East." Also, concerning this source, though it was written by Colonel Ofek Bouchriss who is indeed an IDF officer, the project supervisor was Dr. Wallace A. Terrill, a fact that you conveniently omitted. Best,--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jiu. Most of your new sources (I see six, not seven, could you point out what I missed so I can review it?) suffer the same faults as the old ones, that is they are (mostly) a collection of op-eds or advocacy sites used to source what we say is a fact. In the meantime I request that you remove every source except for the last as none of them are reliable for statements of fact. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 2nd Intifada forgotten op-ed, reliable for attributed opinion, not fact
 * WINEP reliable for attributed opinion, not fact. Would you like me to start citing B'tselem or Peace Now, both of which have been praised by heads of states, for unattributed fact?
 * Letting the IDF win op-ed, reliable for attributed opinion, not fact
 * JWR op-ed, reliable for attributed opinion, not fact
 * What has happened during the al-Aqsa intifada? Palestinefacts.org is an unreliable source, see here
 * A reliable source, but this is what it says:"Years of terror and high casualties spawned a vicious cycle of response and counter-response that impacted heavily on the Israeli and Palestinian societies, both of which have grown tired of the price exacted from them. Israel emerged victorious from the militaary confrontrantion with the Palestinians, but became increasingly cognizant of the limitations of its power, namely, that force was no alternative to a political arrangement."The intifada was not simply a military confrontation, and to say that Israel is "militarily victorious" in the intifida is not the same as saying that Israel was victorious in the military confrontations that were a part of the intifada. Id like a source that more directly supports the claim.
 * I've removed PalestineFacts as a source per your concerns. I understand your point concerning tactical vs political success. Let me ask you a question. Would you consider Israel's 1948 war a military victory in Israel's favor, even though the outcome resulted in still more conflict? Of course Israel won that war and no one can seriously argue otherwise. My point is that the military is entrusted to do its job in the field of battle and it's up to the politicians to sort it all out. But the inescapable fact remains that the brute statistics of war pointed to an IDF victory. The PA suffered lots more casualties and most of its operatives were either killed, captured or accepted an amnesty in exchage for giving up. The war brought the PA economy to near collapse and it lost territory that it had gained through Oslo and subsequent accords. By contrast, terrorism in Israel dropped to virtually zero and the economy is booming. So who do you think came out the winner?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What happened in 1948 after the Israeli declaration of independence, meaning its armed confrontation with Egypt, Syria, ..., was very clearly a "war" (not so much for what happened before May) that we can say there was a military victor. I dont understand how an uprising of a people can have a similar outcome. Yes, there were military confrontations in the intifada, but the intifada itself was not a military confrontation. But back to the point; all but the last of the sources used are not reliable for statements of fact, which "Israeli military victory" in the infobox is. Can you at least remove those sources, then we can focus on what the actually reliable sources say and how that information should be included? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 18:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed it.--Ezzex (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The Second Intifada is marked as being the most militant confrontation until today. To claim that there were only some military confrontations is to ignore the escalation of the Israeli army fighting multiple militant organizations, not just dealing with kids throwing stones. --Shuki (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Second Intifada was a partially a public uprising and partially a guerilla war. While the public uprising goes on, the guerilla war was mostly supressed in Operation Defensive Shield. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. The infifade where a bloody clonflict years after 2002.--Ezzex (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wrote "mostly supressed", not just "supressed. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This has for some reason teetered off the tracks. My problem with this is the sources. All the ones cited except the last source are only reliable for attributed opinions, not facts. The last doesnt seem to support the bald statement of "Israeli military victory". While we discuss what the last source does support and how that should be included, can the other sources, which are unreliable for statements of fact, be removed? I dont think I should have to ask more than once that an article from FrontPageMag be removed. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 02:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A decent argument can be made that the Second Intifada <U>initially</U> started as a popular uprising (though equally strong arguments can be posited to the contrary) but it quickly evolved into a difficult counterinsurgency campaign involving the PA "police" forces, Force-17, al-Qassam Brigades, Jihad Islami, PRC, Tanzim and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. These entities were well equipped and adopted methods typical of asymmetrical warfare. In the interest of furthering discussion on the matter, (which I welcome because I think these dialogues are important) I will remove the FPM source. In addition, would language like, "tactical victory," which is narrower in scope, be satisfactory?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How about we narrow it down to what sources are acceptable and then see what they support and figure out a phrasing from that. Ive said the last book added is fine, do you dispute any of my notes for the other sources listed? Which of them do you think is reliable for statements of fact? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see an opportunity here to wrap things up nicely both here and in the Gaza War. At Gaza war, I can self-revert that edit I put in the lead that you didn't approve of and here, I can remove some additional sources and just change it to "tactical" victory. Would this all encompassing compromise be acceptable?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We cant bargain like that, we do what we think is right on each individual article. Each decision needs to be made on the merits of each individual argument. I dont know what I think about "tactical victory" yet, Id like to see some sources that come closer to saying that. I am wary of calling this simply a military confrontation; I am not opposed to something saying that in the military confrontations that took place during the intifada Israel was successful militarily. How that translates to giving a "victory" in the intifada as a whole I dont quite accept. Lets get the sources worked out and go from there. Ill look for sources myself, you do the same, but in the meantime I have problems with the sources currently cited. Do you dispute my notes for those sources? If not, would you remove them? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 04:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I'm trying to reach out here and you slap my hand away on each occasion. Please have a look at the following.

 * Years of Rage Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz, 1 January 2010

 * Losing faith in the intifada Laura King, LA Times, 28 September 2004

 * From Jenin to Falluja Jackson Diehl, Washingpost 27 Sept 2004

Please note that the latter two articles were written in 2004 and violence has dropped even more considerably since then. Please also note that the article quotes Palestinians, politicians and fighters, who acknowledge defeat.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Calling this an Israeli victory is very subjective and I think it makes this article quite POV, especially since most sources used to supposedly verify this claim are either Israeli or very pro-Israeli. The Palestinians actually gained ground in the second intifada, just think of the Israeli military withdrawl and settlement evacuation in Gaza, which went from Israeli occupation to the control of these same groups which fought Israel during the second intifada and supposedly lost. Also, Israel gained nothing out of this war, infact they were only forced to make concessions and it was a PR disaster. So how was it a victory? Kermanshahi (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion in infobox: Israeli military victory! This is a conclution made by some members her based on a few questionable sourses. I find it questionable than some her interprent this as it is a consensus among scolars, historians og journalists about the outcome. Shouldn't it be more of a consensus before a conclution is made? --Ezzex (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the original comment - characterizing an "uprising" which hasn't really resulted in tangible gains militarily for either side as a victory - for either side! - seems odd. Also, the list of sources are entirely Israeli, European, or American. No al-Jazeera or any other source based in an area not allied with the Israeli government - it's a biased list of sources even if the phrase "Israeli Military Victory" reflects those sources accurately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yossi Tabaji, 2000-09-29
The article currently reads:

 * The starting date of the Second Intifada is disputed. Some sources record the start of the uprising as September 27, 2000, "when a Palestinian security officer on a joint patrol with Israeli forces turned his firearm on his Israeli counterpart and murdered him"

However, I think this refers to Yossi Tabaji, who was killed on the 29th, not the 27th. Not sure how best to fix this part of the article; have put in a rather clumsy fix. The 27th was when David Biri  was killed by a roadside bomb. ciphergoth (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Wrong picture?
At first glance the picture from Mercaz HaRav massacre would seem to me to be out of place. The article states that the revolt was over by 2004. Why is there a picture of something that happened in 2008? Padres Hana (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Update infobox montage
I agree. The infobox montage should be redone without that massacre or replaced. With all the incidents during the Intifada, I'm sure there are more pictures within the generally accepted Intifada time range to replace the Mercaz HaRav massacre. -Temporal User (Talk) 00:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

KIA?
Also Ahmed Yasin (K.I.A.), Abdel Rantissi (K.I.A.) is very odd. I take KIA to mean killed in action. Is this a joke? Sheikh Yasin couldn't even feed himself. Padres Hana (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Second Intifada/Archive 8