Talk:Second Intifada

El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
 This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Military history WikiProject     (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces:
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
Middle Eastern military history task force
WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.
WikiProject Human rights      (Rated B-Class)
Human rights portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute.
Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Second Intifada article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Al-Aqsa and Second Intifada discussions.
Casualty discussions.

Contents


[edit] More Unbalance - This Article is Disgustingly POV

Now the lead paragraph states that the Second Intifada was triggered by Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, using an Israeli government source to support it, despite the fact that other Israeli government sources (e.g. [1]) contradict this claim. The source which was introduced belongs in the section on Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, and the narrative that the Second Intifada began with Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount should certainly be mentioned; however, it does not belong in the lead paragraph, and it should not be mentioned to the exclusion of other narratives. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Michael, until you show some interest in reading the substantial academic literature, as opposed to internet-googled pages by partisans in a propaganda war, making remarks like this is pointless. I agree that the page is hopelessly POV, precisely however because poor sourcing threads its way through much of it. Government documents are political primary documents, and not, as Wikipedia requests, quality secondary sources by qualified analysts or researchers. Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
"Government documents are political primary documents, and not, as Wikipedia requests, quality secondary sources by qualified analysts or researchers." Precisely. Which is why neither document ought to appear in the lead. At the very least, if this statement is to remain, it should be alternatively sourced. However, either way, there should be some sort of qualification which indicates that there are dissenting points-of-view which do not agree that Ariel Sharon's visit triggered the Second Intifada. As it stands, the lead is misleading in that it implies that there is 100% agreement that Ariel Sharon's visit was responsible for the Second Intifada and that even the Israeli government agrees with this view. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I think you will find 20 academic sources to 1 for Sharon's walk as the key incident triggering or precipitating the second uprising. I can find, after looking for several months, only one tiny note in one respectable book, remarking on Sergeant Biri, and that merely notes his death, and not that as a key event in the intifada's outbreak. One must distinguish the walk, after which 1900 Palestinians were shot dead or wounded in 5 days, from any isolated event preceding that walk which may or may not have suggested an uprising was in the air, but there is no shadow of a doubt that after the walk and the mass shootings, the Intifada or uprising as we know it broke out into a chronic state of bitter revolt and repression. Perhaps you should get some book sources (they exist) that specifically challenge the Sharon walk as trigger consensus? That would facilitate a discussion useful for clarifying our differences.Nishidani (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, the Sharon visit is cited as a primary cause of the Intifada in most analysis. Of course it is not possible to state that it definitively was the trigger (no chain of causation is ever that simple, nor would it be possible to ever extract sufficient evidence even if it were the case), but I'd be opposed to cutting that out of the lead altogether simply because a government website says it's not the case. --Nickhh (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The intro uses the word "triggered". I think that is accurate. It does not say "caused" the Intifada. I think the cause of the continuation of the violence for years was the failure of the Taba Summit in January 2001. There are reliable sources for this, I believe. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Every major source I know of agrees that the visit triggered the uprising. The causes were manifold, but that was the tipping point. Government declarations are not of much use except in understanding a political position. Secondary sources should everywhere be the main sources for any wiki historical narration, and by this I mean preferably books. Nishidani (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
My language was a little sloppy in my first sentence. In saying "primary cause" I was trying to suggest "immediate cause", ie the trigger/catalyst, rather than "main cause". The causes go much deeper of course than one man taking a stroll, even if to a problematic and symbolic place. As I said, in my view, the current "triggered" wording is more or less OK, and seems to be the standard analysis. --Nickhh (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please review the findings of the Mitchell report:

The Sharon visit did not cause the "Al-Aqsa Intifada." But it was poorly timed and the provocative effect should have been foreseen; indeed it was foreseen by those who urged that the visit be prohibited.[2]

Please also review the December 2000 statement by Imad Falouji, the PA Communications Minister at the time, where he states that the Intifada

was carefully planned since the return of the President (Yasser Arafat) from Camp David negotiations.("PA: Intifada Was Planned", The Jewish Week, (2000-12-20).)

Please also review WP:NPOV. Whether or not the Sharon visit triggered the 2nd intifada is disputed, therefore we don't state one viewpoint as fact, and particular not in the first paragraph. Jayjg (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, one cannot correct a statement that fundamentally violates WP:NPOV by adding another source. Since the cause of the intifada is disputed, one cannot simply put one POV in the lede. The discussion of cause will have to wait for a more nuanced discussion in the article itself. Jayjg (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank the Lord that you've finally understood this principle. It could have saved us all a lot of time over at the Hamas page when everyone was discussing the "best known for suicide bombings .." phrasing in the lead a while back, and I and others were having to point out that there was no consensus for this among the sources, even among those being posted supposedly in support of it. Although as it happens here there seems to be more of a consensus - the argument is not that the visit caused the intifada, but that it provided a trigger or spark. Even Mitchell acknowledges this when it says "the provocative effect should have been foreseen", equally the fact that there may have been some pre-planning (and I make no judgement here on the accuracy of those reports) does not mean that the visit, and perhaps more significantly the Palestinian casualties that followed in the surrounding protests, was not the final trigger. Having said all that, it probably would be better to simply say the Intifada followed the visit, and then note that most analysis treats it as a key factor in triggering the violence. Which is kind of where the text is now by the look of it.--Nickhh (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Um, except for the fact that you weren't actually able to find sources that said they were best known for anything else, despite repeated requests you do so. Please make more accurate statements and analogies in the future. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I seem to recall finding plenty of sources that said for example that Hamas used to be best known, or was only best known in the West for suicide bombings, mostly among the very sources that were being used to supposedly back the misleading and unqualified text that was in the lead. That's all that was needed to show that the wording was taking more out of the sources than was there. But never mind, that was a different debate of course, even if the problem of triumphalist but misleading source-stacking and cherry-picking crops up with alarming regularity on I-P pages. I'll continue to make wholly accurate analogies when I see it happening. Thanks. --Nickhh (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Do you recall finding any sources saying they were best known for anything else? As for making wholly accurate analogies, I welcome them, and eagerly look forward to your first. Let me know when you make it. Jayjg (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually no, but that was never the point, as I've tried to point out twice now. As for your second and third sentences, please comment on content not contributors (copyright, surely). And make some sense while you're doing it, surely more important? --Nickhh (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Except that that actually was the point, as was pointed out then, and now. There were no sources explicitly contradicting the claim that Hamas was best known for suicide bombings, but there are sources explicitly contradicting the claim that the Second Intifada was caused by the Sharon visit; thus the analogy fails, and quite badly. Regarding the rest of your statement, Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I think what Nickhh is getting at is that "contradiction" needn't take the form "Hamas is best known for X" (where X is something other than suicide bombings), and that sources (including those used for that article) indeed provide contradiction of another, equally valid sort. Regarding this article, the debate as I understand it was never over whether the Sharon visit "caused" the second intifada, which is a strawman, but rather whether it "triggered" it, or in Michael Safyan's synonymous formulation, "precipitated" it, which is not seriously disputed.--G-Dett (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
"The Sharon visit did not cause the "Al-Aqsa Intifada." From the Mitchell Report. Can't really get any clearer than that. Also not sure what Hamas has to do with this, or why someone would bring up an argument that failed badly there as some sort of "analogy" here. <Shrug.> IronDuke 04:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
IronDuke, who are you arguing with? Did you read the comment of mine that you're "responding" to? Which editor(s) on this page, and which real-life reliable source(s), argue that the Sharon visit caused the second Intifada? For the life of me, I don't know who you're talking to or what you're trying to tell them.--G-Dett (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I thought we'd all been rather clear about the point, never mind. Maybe people really don't read what their interlocutors say here before posting their own observations and body gestures. Nor for example was I trying to bring in a "failed" argument from the Hamas page - in fact I was merely asserting the simple policy requirement which says that WP text should match up with what sources say and avoid going beyond whatever consensus might be in those sources, or giving undue weight to some interpretations over others. I was actually agreeing with what Jayjg was saying about that as a matter of basic principle (it's hard to disagree with it of course). I did however then make the point that in my view that general principle had not been followed or applied properly on the Hamas page, that's all. I acknowledged it was a separate debate, but I thought the comparison was fair, and raised legitimate, broader issues about consistency. Nowhere did I try to suggest that the details of that debate were relevant to this issue. --Nickhh (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh G-d, it appears IronDuke has gone ahead and inserted this strawman into the article. Here is the fuller context of what he's quoting from the Mitchell Report, the bolded part representing what he's elided:

The Sharon visit did not cause the "Al-Aqsa Intifada." But it was poorly timed and the provocative effect should have been foreseen; indeed it was foreseen by those who urged that the visit be prohibited. More significant were the events that followed: the decision of the Israeli police on September 29 to use lethal means against the Palestinian demonstrators; and the subsequent failure, as noted above, of either party to exercise restraint.

And this is indeed the overwhelming consensus. The Sharon visit was a provocation that triggered (not "caused") the second intifada; it was the "match that lit the powder keg" as a million journalists would go on to write.

Duke, I'm happy you're no longer writing that the Mitchell Report found that the PA had "planned" the second intifada, since the report explicitly says it found no "persuasive evidence" of that. But if your previous edit was simply false, your current selective presentation is still misleading, addressing itself to what is in 2008 a strawman argument. If the lead is going to cite the Mitchell Report saying the Sharon visit wasn't the cause – and I don't know why it should, since no one thinks or says this – then it's going to have to also cite it saying it was a relevant provocation, since that is the main point, on which there is virtually universal consensus.--G-Dett (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ditto that thought; if the ref is used, it should be the whole thought expressed. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 07:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
And now the para just reads slightly oddly. It now has text suggesting that the visit was not the cause, with no preceding text ever having asserted that it was (naturally, as per various comments above). --Nickhh (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah OK. While we've all been wittering away, others have gone and done some tidying up. Hopefully all sorted. I'm sure it's better to simply say that the first major clashes followed the visit, and we can leave any detailed debate about triggers and causes until later on. --Nickhh (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Start of the Second Intifada

Reliable secondary sources indicate that the Second intifada began on September 29th, after prayers, and the day after Sharon's visit. Please stop using primary sources (newspaper reports) to insert the original research that the Second intifada began on the 28th. The articles in question don't claim the intifada started on the 28th; indeed, how could they, since they didn't even have a name for what was happening, or any idea that serious violence would break out the next day, and continue for years? Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg. You removed referenced text, and 4 quality references. See this diff: [3]

You removed absolute and reliable proof that the rioting started on Thursday September 28, 2000, the day of the Sharon visit. See WP:Reliable sources#News organizations. The BBC, CNN, and the New York Times are high-quality reliable sources. You deleted most of this:

Notes

2. ^ a b c d BBC ON THIS DAY | 28 | 2000: 'Provocative' mosque visit sparks riots. September 28, 2000. BBC. "Palestinians and Israeli police have clashed in the worst violence for several years at Jerusalem's holiest site, the compound around Al-Aqsa mosque. The violence began after a highly controversial tour of the mosque compound early this morning by hardline Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon. ... Soon after Mr Sharon left the site, the angry demonstrations outside erupted into violence. Israeli police fired tear gas and rubber-coated metal bullets, while protesters hurled stones and other missiles. Police said 25 of their men were hurt by missiles thrown by Palestinians, but only one was taken to hospital. Israel Radio reported at least three Palestinians were wounded by rubber bullets. ... Following Friday [Sept 29, 2000] prayers the next day violence again broke out throughout Jerusalem and the West Bank."

3. ^ a b "Battle at Jerusalem Holy Site Leaves 4 Dead and 200 Hurt", New York Times (September 30, 2000). . "This morning, both sides started out tense, after clashes on Thursday [Sept 28, 2000] provoked by Mr. Sharon's visit."

4. ^ a b "Israeli troops, Palestinians clash after Sharon visits Jerusalem sacred site", CNN (September 28, 2000). . "A visit by Likud Party leader Ariel Sharon to the site known as the Temple Mount by Jews sparked a clash on Thursday [Sept 28, 2000] between stone-throwing Palestinians and Israeli troops, who fired tear gas and rubber bullets into the crowd. ... Also Thursday [Sept 28, 2000], an Israeli soldier critically injured in a bomb attack on an army convoy in the Gaza Strip died of his wounds." --Timeshifter (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Jay's point is that the second intifada wasn't the second intifada until it came to be known that way. It's a valid point. If later sources do not date the second intifada to the 28th, then Jay's point stands. Is it indeed the case that the consensus of later sources is that the 2nd intifada started on the 29th?--G-Dett (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's a source that isn't really reliable, but might be considered as such by some: "When the intifada started on the 29th of September, many injured Palestinians were sent to hospitals."[4] Jayjg (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Sources:
BBC: [5]
New York Times: [6]
CNN: [7]
Those sources reference this: 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.
There is nothing there in that sentence that talks about when the Second Intifada began. So no claim is made. In fact farther down in the article there are various sourced opinions on when the Second Intifada started. The BBC, CNN, and the New York Times are references for the Sept 28, 2008 riot and injuries the same day as the Sharon visit. Jayjg is talking about referencing opinions on when the Second Intifada began. I am referencing events.
Rather than Jayjg continuing to delete the sourced info on the events another solution is to move the various sourced opinions higher up in the article concerning when the Second Intifada began. Clearly delineate events from opinions. See the current version edited last by Jayjg [8] and this section: Second Intifada#2000. It says
On September 27, Sgt. David Biri was killed;[21] some Israeli sources view this as the start of the Intifada.[22] Others view Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount/Al-Haram As-Sharif on September 28 as the initiating event.[23][24] Finally, others believe it started a day later, due to the introduction of police and military presence the day following Sharon's visit, the day of prayers.[25][26] Still others believe that it started with the video of Jamal and Muhammad al-Durrah being shot on September 30.[citation needed] Most mainstream media outlets have taken the view that the Sharon visit was the spark that triggered the rioting at the start of the Second Intifada.[27][28][29][23]
It could be changed to include the September 28 riots and injuries, and opinions on whether the Sept 28 riots and injuries were considered to be the start of the Second Intifada by some sources. Events - opinions - events - opinions. We only need to separate the two.
This is clearly incorrect in the current Jayjg version in the intro: "the first major clashes occurred on September 29, 2000, the day after a controversial visit by then Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount" --Timeshifter (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
This topic here is getting me sidetracked from the main topic I am discussing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#A dispute on Second Intifada. So rather than duplicate discussion I will discuss the topic of my interest there. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I can see nothing wrong with what you're trying to do. It is deeply partisan of us to claim "the first major clashes occurred ... day after a controversial visit" as if there have to be multiple Palestinian deaths before a clash becomes major. An NPOV lead would say (or at least "refer to the belief") that it was Sharon's visit that triggered the violence. The NYT tells us that that is what "all arabs" believe.
However, serious observers of this article will be more puzzled that there's no mention of the 1,300,000 bullets fired by Israeli forces in the first few days of the Intifada - and the claim (eg in the same 2004 Israeli newspaper article) that this was "not a war on terror, but on the Palestinian people" and "first three months ... Israeli casualties was low ... IDF proudly cited the large number of Palestinian casualties".
Then there's no mention of the well-attested theory that Sharon's visit was a deliberate provocation to de-rail the final Israel-Palestine agreement (2000 Camp David, 2000 Taba, 2001 Geneva Accords, 2002 Road Map), which would, according to virtually all commentators, lead inevitably to the withdrawal of all settlements on the West Bank. PRtalk 13:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Please stop soapboxing, PR. Jayjg (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any soapboxing. All the issues PR covered are relevant to the discussion about what should be covered by the article. Part of PR's comment though should be discussed in a separate talk section though in my opinion. I am going to copy that part to another talk section, and everyone can comment on it there. That way this talk section here can stay more focussed. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Blather about an unsourced conspiracy theory is soapboxing. Jayjg (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Strange, very strange. Going through the secondary sources, I'm finding that – contra Jay's implications – there's no consensus at all that the 2nd intifada began on the 29th. Some say the 29th, some say the 28th. Absent some compelling reason not to, I think the article lead should mention the clashes on the 28th. Explicit wording about when exactly the "second intifada began" can easily be avoided.--G-Dett (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No mention

Note: The following comment was copied from the previous talk section:

However, serious observers of this article will be more puzzled that there's no mention of the 1,300,000 bullets fired by Israeli forces in the first few days of the Intifada - and the claim (eg in the same 2004 Israeli newspaper article) that this was "not a war on terror, but on the Palestinian people" and "first three months ... Israeli casualties was low ... IDF proudly cited the large number of Palestinian casualties".
Then there's no mention of the well-attested theory that Sharon's visit was a deliberate provocation to de-rail the final Israel-Palestine agreement (2000 Camp David, 2000 Taba, 2001 Geneva Accords, 2002 Road Map), which would, according to virtually all commentators, lead inevitably to the withdrawal of all settlements on the West Bank. PRtalk 13:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a relevant comment that deserves a separate talk section. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Why would a single newspaper article and an unsourced conspiracy theory deserve to be mentioned even once, much less twice? Jayjg (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not just any newspaper. It is Haaretz. June 29, 2004. "More than a million bullets". By Reuven Pedatzur.
"This also explains why over a million bullets were fired in the first few days, even though there was no operational or professional justification. The intent was to score a winning blow against the Palestinians, and especially against their consciousness. This was not a war on terror, but on the Palestinian people. IDF commanders projected their viewpoint regarding Arafat's intentions onto the entire Palestinian society."
The theory about the Sharon visit is not a conspiracy theory. In my readings I have found it to be a common opinion held by many people worldwide. Even by some Israelis. I can't cite any sources offhand though. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
It is a single article in a newspaper with a small circulation of approximately 65,000, about the same as the Cedar Rapids Gazette. As for the rest, it's bad enough that PR fills talks pages with ridiculous conspiracy theories and soapboxing, please don't compound the problem. Jayjg (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Enough of the personal attacks on PR, Jay, and enough soapboxing about "ridiculous conspiracy theories." Your comparison of Haaretz to the Cedar Rapids Gazette as sources for an article on the Second Intifada betrays a profound lack of understanding of Wikipedia in general, and WP:RS in particular.--G-Dett (talk) 02:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Ha'aretz has a circulation almost exactly the same as the Cedar Rapids Gazette, exactly as I said. As for your admonition that should cease my "attacks" on PR followed by a sentence that contains a straw man attack on me, the irony is delicious. Jayjg (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Jay, of course Ha'aretz has a circulation almost exactly the same as the Cedar Rapids Gazette, but that factoid does not have the significance you believed it had when you typed it. I'm relieved that you're sufficiently embarrassed by your argument that you're now retreating from it, denying having made it, and merely repeating your barebones – and utterly meaningless – factoid; but in the meantime do everyone a favor and use "attack," "strawman," and "conspiracy theory" according to their accepted definitions.--G-Dett (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
G-Dett, is it possible for you to make comments that are not filled with straw man claims or personal attacks? Just musing out loud more than anything else, really, as I don't imagine you'll be able to respond without more of the same. Jayjg (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Israel only has a population of around 7 million people. From:Haaretz:
Haaretz (Hebrew: הארץ‎, "The land", referring to the Land of Israel), founded in 1918, is Israel's oldest daily newspaper. ... Haaretz's readership includes Israel's middle and upper classes, intellectuals, academics, and professionals. It has a wide following amongst the Israeli intelligentsia and government leaders,[6][7][8] and Encyclopædia Britannica describes it as Israel's most influential newspaper.[9]
The opinions concerning the motivations of combatants (such as Sharon) are commonly found in Wikipedia articles on military conflicts. To get more info please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
You have singularly failed to respond to my points; it's single newspaper article, in a small circulation newspaper. The fact that the newspaper claims, and perhaps even has, an influence disproportionate with its circulation, is not relevant to those points. As for the conspiracy theory, it's still entirely unsourced. Please don't waste any more space on the Talk: page mentioning it unless you find multiple reliable sources for it, per WP:FRINGE. Jayjg (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
He's right, guys. Haaretz isn't a very good source for notable discussion of the Israel-Palestine conflict. It's about at the level of the New Republic or the Cedar Rapids Gazette. The New York Times and the National Enquirer are better, each with a circulation of about a million. Better than any of these is USA Today, with a circulation of 2.5 million. Better still would be People magazine and TV Guide. These would be optimal.
And PR, don't even think of adding anything from so-called "scholarly journals," with their wacky ideas and tiny circulations.--G-Dett (talk) 03:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Oddly enough, G-Dett, I never actually made any of the arguments that you are making on my behalf. That's why your statements, including this one, regularly fall into the category of straw man arguments. Jayjg (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Oddly enough, you did make that argument, but we may all breathe a sigh of relief that you're now retreating from it.--G-Dett (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Predicably, the arguments you invent on my behalf are not the ones I actually make, though I don't imagine you'll have the grace or honesty to admit as much. You certainly never have before. But please, feel free to invent arguments for me, and then mock them; since they are your arguments, not mine, you are, in reality, only mocking yourself. Jayjg (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll have the grace to admit anything, true or untrue, dizzying and incomprehensible as whatever nonsense you care to type, so long as you'll commit to no longer derailing discussion by (a) pretending that the reliability and notability of sources are a function of their circulation runs, and (b) impugning the weight and relevance of Haaretz as a source for articles on the I/P conflict.--G-Dett (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Beer! You just can't stop yourself from presenting your own arguments as mine, can you? OK, now, I rate the likelihood of your next comment again containing further straw man arguments as 90%, and the odds of it containing personal attacks as 85%. Go for it! Jayjg (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I can't stop myself from assuming some modicum of good faith from you, which in this instance meant assuming that you believed your factoid about the Cedar Rapids Gazette had some significance, and that a source's reliability and notability were somehow a function of its print run. You're now saying you meant so such thing, but you won't say what the hell your factoid was in fact supposed to mean. What I gather from all this balderdash is that you like to imply fallacious arguments and hope they'll pass undetected, but if G-d forbid the nonsense is detected as nonsense, you'll disown it, and disown any ordinary interpretation of your meaning as a "strawman" – after all, all you said is that Haaretz has the same print run as the Cedar Rapids Gazette, and fellow editors are to blame for any interpretation of that bare, utterly meaningless factoid.
Normally when a person claims to have been strawmanned, they are able, willing, and eager to clarify what their actual meaning was, and exactly how that meaning got distorted. How striking that you never are.--G-Dett (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Beer, and beer! I win on both counts. You just can't stop yourself from presenting your own arguments as mine, can you? OK, I now predict the likelihood of your next statement containing further straw man arguments as 95%, and the odds of it containing personal attacks as 90%. Go for it! Jayjg (talk) 04:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
A lot of pushing here, but someone seems to be loudly pushing on a string. The Cedar Rapids Gazette might be small, as is Haaretz in the overall scheme of things, but in their own geographic areas, especially when something big happens nearby, they are respected valid sources. That is true whether it is reporting on Iowa caucuses, or 'the bulldozer' on Temple Mount. When, prior to Sharon, had such a high Israeli political 'visited' that location, especially considering the looming Israeli elections at that time. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
It's still a single source, though. Please review WP:UNDUE. Jayjg (talk) 03:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, in reference to the million plus bullets fired by Israeli forces in the first few days of the Intifada - your original point was: "Why would a single newspaper article ... deserve to be mentioned even once, much less twice?" Then: "It is a single article in a newspaper with a small circulation of approximately 65,000..." That was later amended to: "it's single newspaper article, in a small circulation newspaper. The fact that the newspaper claims, and perhaps even has, an influence disproportionate with its circulation, is not relevant to those points."
It is definitely not soapboxing to bring up this point about the million plus bullets fired by Israeli forces in the first few days of the Intifada. And the motivations behind that. The article discusses various sources. It is a starting point. It needs to be fleshed out, and then mentioned in the Wikipedia article if additional reliable sources can be found. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Did you read my previous comment? Please review WP:UNDUE. P.S. My point has never been "amended", as it required no amendments. Jayjg (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I quoted you. Call your additional comments amending, enlarging, elaborating, clarifying, whatever. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you quoted me making the exact same argument multiple times. Jayjg (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, G-Dett wrote: "Your comparison of Haaretz to the Cedar Rapids Gazette as sources for an article on the Second Intifada betrays a profound lack of understanding of Wikipedia in general, and WP:RS in particular." Jayjg, how is that a straw man argument? --Timeshifter (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that was a personal attack and a straw man argument. Did I claim anywhere that Haaretz was not a RS? Or, rather, did I point out that material in question violated WP:UNDUE? No need to answer, it was the latter. Jayjg (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
No, you didn't say it "was not a RS," nor is anyone here saying you said that – there's an actual strawman for you, should you ever wish to understand that term or use it correctly – you just pretended that Israel's newspaper of record is of limited consequence because of its limited print run, and to emphasize your ridiculous argument – which was too intrinsically ridiculous to ever require or be improved upon by a strawman version – you likened it to the Cedar Rapid Gazette.--G-Dett (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Beer! That's three times I've won! You just can't stop yourself from presenting your own arguments as mine, can you? Nor can you stop yourself from attacking me! O.K., I predict the likelihood of your next statement containing further straw man arguments as 98%, and the odds of it containing personal attacks as 95%. Now, I know those are extremely high percentages, so in theory it should be easy for you to win this round, but given your perfect track record so far, I still feel confident. Go for it! Jayjg (talk) 04:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I predict that your next fragrant beer-belch will be as witless and degrading as your last three, and that it won't include an actual clarification of the Cedar-Rapids-Gazette comment that you claim was turned into a strawman.--G-Dett (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Beer and beer! I knew you wouldn't let me down! O.K., for the next round, I now predict the likelihood of your next statement to me containing further straw man arguments as 90%, and the odds of it containing personal attacks as 85%. And as a bonus, if you actually manage to respond to me without any strawmen arguments or personal attacks, then I'll actually respond to the substance of whatever point it is you're trying to make. It's now four to two for me. Go for it! Jayjg (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
You've already "actually responded," and it's told me what there is to know about your thinking on this subject, not to mention your general quality of mind. I can't imagine what you're proposing to add now, short of actually vomiting on me.--G-Dett (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Beer! Another personal attack! 7 to 2 for me now! Jayjg (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

PR, I think your proposed edit is not seriously disputed, and it should be fine to put it in.--G-Dett (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's seriously disputed, since it's an obvious violation of WP:UNDUE. More importantly, and to my chagrin, I believe I have lost this round. Now, I could argue that your comment wasn't a direct response to me, so it doesn't fall within the parameters of the game, and it's quite clear that the "not seriously disputed" statement is really just an indirect attack on me, but I'm feeling magnanimous, and will award you the round anyway. O.K., I now predict the likelihood of your next statement containing further straw man arguments as 90%, and the odds of it containing personal attacks as 85%. I know I've lowered the percentages, but I feel it's only fair, given that your most recent comment actually was free of straw men arguments, and only indirectly attacked me. It's three to one for me. Go for it! Jayjg (talk) 04:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-arbitrary section break

I don't see a problem as long as the original source for the number of bullets fired in the first few days of the Intifada is named. As for the reasons for why that many were fired, WP:RS requires clarity on the source of those opinions. Haaretz names the sources for those opinions. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
That seems fine.--G-Dett (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Darn! I lose this round too, though it's hardly a proper test if you don't actually respond to me. O.K., for the next round, I now predict the likelihood of your next statement to me containing further straw man arguments as 80%, and the odds of it containing personal attacks as 75%. I know I've added a new condition, but you're not really playing if you aren't addressing me, so it's not unfair. Go for it! Jayjg (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Haaretz also mentions a June 11, 2004 article: "The key to the mystery that is at the core of the important argument between former Military Intelligence commanders may be found in an anecdote told by former MI head Amos Malka to Akiva Eldar (Haaretz, June 11)". --Timeshifter (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Did you have a chance to review WP:UNDUE? Apparently only one article, in one small circulation newspaper, saw fit to print this fairly sensational claim. Please focus on elements of the intifada that have been more widely discussed. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Former Military Intelligence commanders on the record. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
In Israel's newspaper of record. (For editors new to this page, Jay is arguing that Israel's most influential newspaper, which he compares to the Cedar Rapids Gazette, is of limited weight and significance because of the size of its print run.)
Beer! You have yet again presented a straw man argument on my behalf. I win this round, so it's now five to two in my favor. Care to try again? Jayjg (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
It is a single article in a newspaper with a small circulation of approximately 65,000, about the same as the Cedar Rapids Gazette. As for the rest... etc. etc. You are a moron, Jay.--G-Dett (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Beer! Another personal attack! 8 to 2 for me now! Jayjg (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what point you're trying to make. Do you have a second source mentioning the million bullets? Jayjg (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Of course you're not sure what point he's making, lucid as it is; you've been too busy playing drinking games, shouting belligerently, and making a general ass of yourself.--G-Dett (talk) 12:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Beer! Another personal attack. I win this round too! That's six to two for me. Care to play again? Jayjg (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
If "playing" means enduring another of your beery, rancid eructations, I don't see that I have a choice. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, even witless oafs and consummate morons.--G-Dett (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Beer! Another personal attack! 9 to 2 for me now! Jayjg (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you all please just stop for a moment and read the above discussion to see just how inane it has become? Jayjg, you have yet to explain how WP:UNDUE is appplicable here. Haaretz is an unimpeachable source by our WP:RS standards. The other editors concerned here want to see that one sentence mentioned in a Haaretz article mentioned here. It is not undue to do that. In fact, it is what we do at Wikipedia - i.e. use reliable sources to write articles. There is nothing in WP:RS or WP:UNDUE that says if something is reported by only one source that we cannot use that material here. If you like, the info can be attributed to Haaretz or the military spokesman directly, but it's certainly relevant to this article and its not being repeated elsewhere is no reason to disallow its inclusion. Tiamuttalk 13:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Further, this material is indeed repeated elsewhere, making this entire discussion moot. See Lorenzo Veracini's Israel and Settler Society (2006), on page 154, where he repeats the same claim regarding the 1,300,000 bullets fired in the first few days of the Second Intifada. Also, Cheryl Rubenburg, in The Palestinians (2003) quoting Ma'ariv on page 354, writes of about 1 million bullets used in the first few days (700,000 in the West Bank and 300,000 in Gaza). Also, in Counterinsurgency in Modern Warfare] on page 279, the 1.3 million bullets figure in given again, quoting two articles in Haaretz, including the one cited here and another by Akiva Eldar. Noam Chomsky also writes of the million bullets fired in Hegemony Or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance (2004) on page 181, as does Clayton Swisher on page 387 of The Truth about Camp David (2004), and Yoram Peri in Generals in the Cabinet Room (2006). So besides the one Haaretz article listed above, we have another Haaretz article and one from Ma'ariv and about six different published scholarly works that say that anywhere between 1 million and 1.3 million bullets were fired by the IDF in the first few days of the Second Intifada. There are about a dozen more listed in Google Books. I rest my case. Tiamuttalk 13:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Tiamut. Can you expand on the bullet info added by Nudve here?: Second Intifada#Sharon visits the Temple Mount. More references, reasons, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I have a source citing Maariv reporter Ben Caspit as saying that during the first month, the Israeli Central Command fired 850,000 bullets, so I suppose the numbers add up. However, the current insertion of this info is weird. First of all, I don't think it belongs in the lead. Second, there's unnecessary commentary injected on the way. -- Nudve (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Nudve. Thanks for adding the info on the number of bullets to this section: Second Intifada#Sharon visits the Temple Mount. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above comments by Nudve regarding inappropriateness for the lead, and unnecessary commentary injected on the way. Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
That's interesting. It doesn't seem like the numbers add up, because the Central Command was the main participating unit in the Intifada, so it seems strange that if it fired less than a million bullets in the first month, the entire army somehow fired over a million in the first few days. However, 1,300,000 bullets isn't that much anyway, it only looks like a lot, therefore from what I can see, its insertion anywhere in the article is just made for sensationalism and not to add anything substantiative to the article. Inserting this factoid into the lead section not only does that, but also seriously violates WP:UNDUE, as Jayjg correctly noted, because the lead should summarize the article and a small factoid published by only one source (no matter how reliable) clearly does not belong. Like in many other article, it seems here that certain editors believe that WP:V somehow automatically overrides WP:NPOV, which could not be further from the truth. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Ynhockey. You have a conflict of interest, since you are in the IDF, and secondly you are allowing your own personal and rather puerile 'military' judgements to influence the assessment of Reliable Sources. Your sense of what administrative obligations entail and oblige you to do has been suspended, by the looks of it. You don't even, as a member of the IDF, understand the obscene implications, as a serving soldier writing of another people under your army's military occupation, of avowing that

'1,300,000 bullets isn't that much anyway'::Ynhockey.

For the record, your own military authorities were astonished by how much firepower their officers unleashed on the Palestinians.

'It later emerged that in the first days of the intifada the IDF fired missiles of various types and no less than one million rounds of ammunition in the territories. Officers in Central Command said this was an astronomical figure that testified to what happened in the field.' Yoram Peri, Generals in the Cabinet Room: How the Military Shapes Israeli Policy, US Institute of Peace Press, 2006 p.99.Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, I'm surprised to see you here, I thought you "indefinitely blocked" yourself. Anyway, Israel, much like Switzerland, is a country with a compulsory draft and reserve duty, so most citizens end up serving in the army. Ynhockey has no more "conflict of interest" than any other Israeli. Now, please stop soapboxing, and Comment on content, not on the contributor. Jayjg (talk) 02:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Jayjg - please can you spell that out - are you saying that pointing a gun (or being a member of a group that points guns) at members of one party to a "dispute" does not indicate CoI when writing an article about it? PRtalk 13:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani's point (lost on you, since your time is apparently better to devoted to playing drinking games is in the second part of her his statement. That is, that IDF officials themselves found the number of bullets to be unusually high (meaning, even if one takes one's identity as an IDF soldier into account as constitutive of some sort of bias, an individual such as this was able to see the number as obsence) and that its results were translated into the high casualty figures seen on the field of action (providing a rebuttal to the argument by Canadian Monkey and Nudve above regarding relevancy). Please spend less time playing virtual university drinking games and more reading what other editors provide you in the way of scholarly sources. Thanks. Tiamuttalk 02:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't read past the words "Lost on you". Comment on content, not on the contributor. Care to try again? Jayjg (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I have stricken the offending portion. Please give a substative reply. Tiamuttalk 04:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Nishidani has yet to strike the offending portions of his reply; I didn't bother reading past the word "puerile". Jayjg (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there's any reason for Nishidani to strike anything - whereas I can see a clear need for an experienced administrator to tell us the current state of policy on Conflicts of Interest. PRtalk 13:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Nor do I think – with all respect for Tiamut's graciousness – that there's any reason to believe that editors who have refused to participate seriously in discussion will suddenly alter course when their whimsical personal demands are met.--G-Dett (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Ynhockey, Nishidani, and Tiamut. You all make some good points. I think the level of firepower used on demonstrators, rioters, and casual bystanders caught in the fire is implied by the number of deaths and injuries in the first 5 days. That is mentioned in the first couple paragraphs of the article.
I think the details, numbers, and opinions concerning the weaponry and munitions used merits a more nuanced, sourced description farther down in the article. It is too complex to be in the lead section in my opinion. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that by "the first month" they meant September, and since the riots broke near the end of that month, it does make sense. BTW, their conclusion is that either the soldiers were firing "just for the noise" or were poor marksmen. Anyway, there seems to be consensus that the lead is not the right place for this, so I'll just add it to the relevant section. -- Nudve (talk) 07:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bullet info and reasons in article

Thanks to Nudve for adding some bullet info to the article. See Second Intifada#Sharon visits the Temple Mount. Please add more info. I don't know if Nudve and Tiamut saw my recent request farther up on this talk page to add more info and reference links. Also, some of the sourced opinions from military people, etc. as to why so many bullets were fired in the first few days. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Timeshifter, I only noticed that request just now. I'll try to get around to it in the coming days. Been sidetracked pursuing a DYK milestone (just a few away from 25 right now). Good suggestion and as the sources are listed above, anyone interested in beating me to it, is welcome to give it a stab before I do. Happy editing. Tiamuttalk 17:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Second paragraph of intro

Please see this diff: [9]

It shows the 2 versions below.

[edit] Timeshifter version

"Intifada" (also transliterated Intifadah) is an Arabic word that literally translates into English as "shaking off". "Al-Aqsa" is the name of a prominent mosque, built on Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem. Then Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon made a controversial visit September 28, 2008 to the Temple Mount, a site held sacred by both Jews and Muslims. Rioting with injuries occurred that day at the Temple Mount soon after he left. Major clashes with deaths occurred elsewhere the next day.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] In the first five days after the visit, Israeli police and security forces killed 47 Palestinians and wounded 1885.[8]

[edit] Jayjg version

"Intifada" (also transliterated Intifadah) is an Arabic word that literally translates into English as "shaking off". "Al-Aqsa" is the name of a prominent mosque, built on Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem. The beginning date of the Second Intifada is disputed, but the first major clashes occurred on September 29, 2000, the day after a controversial visit by then Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount, a site held sacred by both Jews and Muslims.[5][6][7] In the first five days after the visit, Israeli police and security forces killed 47 Palestinians and wounded 1885.[8]

[edit] Discussion

The lead section should not try to include all elements of an article. That is impossible. Jayjg returned an unnecessary element of complex opinion into the lead section: "The beginning date of the Second Intifada is disputed."

It merits a separate, more-nuanced, description and sourcing farther down in the article. There is already a section in the article for that. Since some people believe that the Second Intifada started with events happening before Sharon's visit, then not mentioning those other events in the lead section biases the article in some peoples minds.

Removing "The beginning date of the Second Intifada i