Talk:2014 Jerusalem unrest

Merge Discussion

"Urban Intifada" is a more common term. --Midrashah (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Merged --Midrashah (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Palestinians killed or wounded by Israelis

We all know that pro-Israel elements on Wikipedia are notorious for writing up articles on each and every single Israeli killed or wounded, and the links here are no exception. Does anyone know of a comprehensive list of Palestinians killed or wounded by the IDF and the "settlers"? One prominent one I can think of is that 5 year old girl who was run over and killed by a "settler", but there have been at least several other deaths under suspicious circumstances so far.

74.12.53.251 (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This article addresses the intifada (uprising) of Palestinians, which in my opinion, is naturally geared toward Palestinian actions, therefore it's expected to note killings, attacks, etc. that were committed by Palestinians. The term intifada, at least in the West, sort of connotates that Israel is on the defensive; there's no opposing term for Israel's part. Maybe something like Israeli Occupation, or Israeli Settlement, or even Hebronisation. Those articles *may* be a better fit for Israel's atrocities.

As far as a list goes, I'm not sure but you can start with the category links at the bottom of the page. Obviously, you're welcome to make a list, and add any *relevant* information here as well. As an example, if the 5-year old girl you mentioned was seen as a catalyst for retaliation by Palestinians and has been referenced as a part of the intifada then adding cited information to this article would be greatly welcomed.

A relatively simple way to make this article less biased is to go through the references at the bottom of the article and see what you can find regarding the chain of events leading up to specific attacks. eg. "Yehuda Glick previously said that Al Aqsa should be moved to Mecca, and Arabs are goofs" or whatever lead to the assassination attempt. In my experience, most of the good articles on these types of events give a bit of backstory at least, especially Al Jazeera and Haaretz.

It may be true that there's a certain Zionist or Israeli bias on Wikipedia. Point is, if you don't like what you see, fix it, if you don't see what you want, make it. Maybe start with an account ;) sudopeople 17:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good idea. Created this account for that sake.

I know Ma'an and Al-Akhbar have reports on the five year old who was "accidently" run over, but I believe there are other similar events and other sources documenting them. The kyle 3 (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I just found a pretty lengthy list of casualties, though I'm sure it's not 100% complete. List_of_Israeli_strikes_and_Palestinian_casualties_in_the_2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict Again, I want to stress that in relationship to *this* article, anything added should be relevant to "intifada" or in some way linked to events here. sudopeople 18:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe that's just in regard to the Palestinian casualties from the conflict in Gaza this past summer. I don't think there's anything related to the "Silent Intifada" on that page. The kyle 3 (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that was mostly just to point out that there are lists out there, and you can make them, not specifically relevant to this article.

If you read through the First and Second Intifada articles you should get a good picture for the back and forth escalation that's so depictive of the conflict in general. From the Second:

"On September 29, 2000, the day after Sharon's visit, following Friday prayers, large riots broke out around the Old City of Jerusalem. After Palestinians on the Temple Mount threw rocks over the Western Wall at Jewish worshipers, Israeli police fired rubber-coated steel bullets, killing four Palestinian youths. [...] In the days that followed, demonstrations erupted all over the West Bank and Gaza."

FYI, I indented your reply for you, see Wikipedia:Tutorial/Talk_pages#Indenting and if you keep your signatures on the same line, your paragraphs are more apparent. sudopeople 21:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@The kyle 3: Regarding your latest revision adding the death of Einas Khalil. I wasn't able to determine first hand, what direct effect her death had on the current conflict, specifically what the media is calling the silent intifada. You'll need to explain (and cite!) that link or other relevance it you expect your edit to stay. sudopeople 22:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that may have been a bit of a brain fart on my end, and also in feeling exasperated when it comes to people writing entire articles on the death of one "settler" and essentially ignoring the multitude of Palestinians killed and wounded by the IDF and the "settlers" in the West Bank. Einas Khalil's death may not be appropriate here, although I suspect that Palestinians run over by "settlers" is going to play a part in the rationale of Hamas endorsing the use of vehicles as weapons, especially when the intended targets are IDF or aggressively anti-Palestinian "settlers".

I would absolutely be down for creating a page for "Palestinians killed or wounded by settlers" or something like that, and Khalil's death would of course fit in there. The kyle 3 (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's completely irrelevant. Just that fact that you're frustrated with events like this describes a very real outlook on the situation. If you can show that Palestinian actions are affected by the supposedly accidental hit-and-run, and the others occurring around the same time, I think that would be a very relevant part of the conversation, and would be welcomed in this article. I think you were on to something. sudopeople 21:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Some Likudnik removed it. I'm going to add it again in a little bit, along with any other examples of Palestinians killed or wounded by Israeli forces and others that're either directly related to or potentially related to the situation in Jerusalem. The kyle 3 (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@The kyle 3: Wikipedia isn't a place to argue over your political view points. It's a place for facts. You seem to think this is the only article on Wikipedia that addresses the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I told you you're going to have to CITE the death of Einas' relevance to the Silent Intifada or it would be removed. If you cannot find the incident's relevance to this article, you need to look elsewhere on Wikipedia for a proper place. Re-adding the text would fall under what Wikipedia calls Edit Warring and it has consequences, eg. you can be banned. People here are generally going to be appreciative of your contributions, so please don't let this deter you, but there are certain rules in place to prevent the very bias you're speaking of. sudopeople 17:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Article title

Both the First Intifada and the Second Intifada articles are spelled with a capital I. When I google "silent intifada" it seems pretty split on what articles are calling it. Does anyone have any thoughts on how to title this article? Its not official so maybe lower case is appropriate, just not sure since were the other two really any more official of a name or just what it became known as? - Galatz (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Since I didn't hear anything I decided {{WP:BEBOLD]] and to move it for consistency. - Galatz (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Galatz: I was thinking the same thing for the last couple of weeks but never thought to look here. Thanks very much! sudopeople 23:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Removed links to "Terrorism in Israel" and "List of Palestinian terrorist attacks"

I'm sure that one can debate up and down about individual events such as the vehicular attacks that have occurred, as well as who is and isn't a legitimate target in the context of some of the targets being IDF or Border Police, or to what the attacks were a reaction to-- but this "Silent Intifada" as a whole is something that can't be simply written off as "terrorism" or anything like that, and so I removed the tags referring to "terror" or "terrorism" because it's inaccurate to categorize this event as such.

70.48.47.83 (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's a contentious word. In general I probably agree with you, especially regarding "List of Palestinian terrorist attacks". FYI, the type of edit you made is likely to be reversed when done anonymously. If you're going to make a habit of contributing to controversial topics, I recommend creating an account. sudopeople 17:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll create one now, actually.

70.48.47.83 (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Propose a title change

The term "silent intifada" seems to be mostly coming from the pro-occupation media and the articles discussing this "silent intifada" seem to leave out mention of Israeli attacks, mobs, in Jerusalem. Not only is the current title partisan it is also not the most popular description for the subject. I feel, and google tells me, that simply "Jerusalem unrest" is the most popular, and neutral, description for the current events. So I propose that someone moves the article to "Jerusalem unrest". Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

If anything, my guess is it will eventually be called the Third Intifada. It's already been said, and it seems to be gaining ground currently. Haaretz has claimed it's been called the Children's Intifada and the Firecracker Intifada. If you notice my latest edits to the article, some extremist Hamas and Fatah members are calling it the 'car intifada' even. I think time will tell what it will be called, and we'll probably have to wait for some encompassing works to be written on the subject before getting a clear picture on the term. This article is sort of at the "news" stage for now...but if history is any indicator, the "silent intifada" could very well be the beginning of the Loud Intifada.

"Jerusalem unrest" could sum up the news articles for the last 65 years (at the time) so that's completely out of the picture in my mind. Maybe Silent Intifada isn't the most popular term but it's the most popular *specific* term for the concept. I wouldn't worry too much about the term for now. This article will evolve immensely as events unfold and terms come in and out of popular use.sudopeople 21:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Intifada is the term the Palestinians use for their uprising. Hamas has many times called for another intifada. I thinks its the best term for it since its what both sides are really calling it. - Galatz (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Time will tell.ShulMaven (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Everyone, watch out for any edits this user might make. He's a Likudnik who takes the ridiculous Netanyahu line and compares Hamas to IS, amongst other things. The kyle 3 (talk) 12:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Silent and otherwise (responding to conversation on 2014 Jerusalem synagogue massacre

anti-Israel political activists and pundits have been predicting and calling for a third intifada for years

the term Silent Intifada originated summer 2014 on the Israeli right, as a political POV term pushing the idea that the government, media were ignoring an uptick in violent attacks on Israelis

presently, the term intifada is being pushed both by anti-Israel types who want to see one. By Zionists arguing that Abbas and Hamas are inciting one. And by Israelis who want the government to clamp down really hard on the stone-throwers and knife wielders.

What I do not see is responsible journalists or policy analysts calling this an intifada.ShulMaven (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Removing section

Removing section on death of Enias Khalil, a tragic traffic accident in which a child was hit by a car and died.[1] ShulMaven (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Right, can't have anything that makes your "settlers" look bad, can we? The kyle 3 (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@The kyle 3: I marked the section as possibly irrelevant last week. I also gave you time to find and cite the relevance to this article. Until such time as you can substantiate your claim that Einas' death is part of the Silent Intifada, it will remain off this page. Please refrain from interjecting your political views on Wikipedia. Your post above is considered WP:Vandalism (specifically Talk page vandalism "[...] comments constituting [...] harassment or a personal attack.") and it has consequences.sudopeople 17:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"Please refrain from interjecting your political views on Wikipedia". You would think that there would be an across-the-board ban for all Israeli/pro-Israeli users on this site, then. Certainly for "ShulMaven", at any rate.

These people seem to think that they can disregard or make excuses for every Palestinian death at the hands of Israel or Israelis and then write biographies on every Israeli who dies or gets injured. It's pathetic. The kyle 3 (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The article should be NPOV. It shoudn't be about disregarding arguments. There are tons of articles on Wikipedia that show details arguments from both sides. This article is about a specific series of incidents making up an infitada. No death of a civilian is good, but not every death belongs in this article - Galatz (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@The kyle 3: You agreed that the Einas' section wasn't necessarily relevant when you said, "Yes, that may have been a bit of a brain fart on my end" - I then encouraged you to hang with it and back up your claim. Since you couldn't (or wouldn't) try to do so, I'm not sure why you're so upset that it was removed when that's exactly what I told you would happen. You've both agreed that your section didn't fit and simultaneously condemned ShulMaven for removing it.

I think you might benefit from familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's mission. Like Islam, Wikipedia also has Five Pillars. sudopeople 18:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@The kyle 3: Wikipedia does not ban editors on the basis of ethnicity or nationality. If you want to contribute to an "encyclopedia" that does not allow Israelis (or indeed any of us Jews) to edit, maybe Metapedia would be more your cup of tea.Blackmetalskinhead (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You're going to have to aim higher if you want to accuse me of "bigotry". The "you said something mean about people who happen to be Jews, that means he's a Nazi/WS!" is pretty old and tired and stale at this point. The kyle 3 (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hamas' and PA's use of the term "Third Intifada"

Regarding @TzviMichelsohn:'s latest edits, saying Hamas and PA have called for a "Third Intifada" is misleading, as is the The Guardian headline referenced. The article would be much better off if we aimed for 100% accuracy in summarizing Hamas and PA statements made in July. I think a much more accurate statement would be as follows:

Hamas and the Palestinian Authority prescribed "a day of rage" after two Palestinians were killed in late July riots. The Telegraph reported this as a call for the start of the Third Intifada.

Notice the similar Fatah statement that calls for a day of rage in a subsection Assassination attempt on Yehuda Glick where it's more apt. Hamas nor the PA have used the terms Silent or Third Intifada with regard to recent events and shouldn't be given lead section relevance. sudopeople 00:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Agreed. While this MAY in the future be known as the "Third Intifada", only time will tell. As it stands, there has as yet been no official call for a new intifada from Hamas or Fatah (or any other PLO/PA factions). If and when this happens, the article's title can of course be changed, as well as the lede.Blackmetalskinhead (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you sudopeople and Blackmetalskinhead. The Telegraph states: "Hamas leaders, both in Gaza and abroad, have called for the start of the third intifada - or Palestinian uprising - after violent riots with live fire erupted throughout Jerusalem and the West Bank last night."

I agree that this has not yet become a actual Third Intifada (even though numerous media outlets, including Al Minotor had described it as that) . That's why this page is still called Silent Intifada. At the same time, there are reports (as quoted abouve from the Telegraph) that Hamas has called for a Third Intifada. Marwan Barghouti has also called for a Third Intifada see here.

I therefore propose changing the paragraph to read: "As of November 2014, calls for a Third Intifada have come from Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. Marwan Barghouti, a leader of both the First and Second Intifada has also made calls for a Third Intifada. In recent weeks, Israeli and Palestinian leaders have accused one another of incitement."

Please share your thoughts. Thanks. TM (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@TzviMichelsohn: Again, The Guardian is misleading its readers. A couple leaders called for "a day of rage". That is in no way a call for an intifada on the level of the first two. I'm amazed you're ok with being told this, let alone spreading the notion to the masses via the world's largest encyclopedia. It's as absurd as the revert I just did claiming Arafat was a Christian after the Washington Post "said so". sudopeople 17:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you sudopeople. I realize what you are saying. How does this sound: "As of November 2014, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority called for "a day of rage" against Israel after two Palestinians were killed. The Telegraph reported this as a call for the start of the Third Intifada. Marwan Barghouti, a leader of both the First and Second Intifada has also made calls for a Third Intifada." TM (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

@TzviMichelsohn: That's much more accurate. I still don't think it belongs in the lead, but I don't really care that much right now to be honest. Go for it! sudopeople 18:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. TM (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing, TM! sudopeople 18:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Jerusalem screwdriver attack as part of the Silent Intifada

I simply don't see the relevance to the Silent Intifada. They don't appear to be directly linked, nor is the incident particularly notable amongst the others. I'd like to remind everyone that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list. sudopeople 00:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A civilian Jew stabbed by a Palestinian in Jerusalem, for no other reason than being a Jew in Jerusalem. How is that not a part of the increased violence in Jerusalem? Galastel (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It's completely dishonest to pretend that "the only reason he was stabbed is because he's a Jew!". This stabbing has everything to do with the unfolding situation in Jerusalem, which is of course largely the responsibility of the Likud government and the expansionist "settlers", more then anything else. I understand that you'd like to make accusations of "hateful anti-Semitism" whenever possible, but that doesn't jive with reality. The kyle 3 (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep. as part of this list of the attacks with non-weapons (cars, knives, axes - not bombs) that make a pattern this year of not-quite-intifada.ShulMaven (talk) 11:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it your intention, Galastel (talk · contribs), ShulMaven (talk · contribs) to list every possible attack, however incidental, from July 2014 onward? Maybe you should create a new article for your purposes: The complete and utterly comprehensive list of Israeli deaths and injuries from July 2014 in minutia (with or without mention of being associated with any sort of intifada)

Because here, we cite our sources linking the attacks to a new intifada, and we've avoided the dozens of less notable attacks. sudopeople 17:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You would argue, then that an attack on a synagogue, and the murder of four men at prayer, with eight more wounded, an event that was a top story in news sources as varied as CNN, BBC, Al-Jazeera, and all Israeli newspapers, is not noteworthy? The prominent place the attack received in the news worldwide speaks against you.Galastel (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Galastel: It's like you didn't at all read what I said. Find us a reputable source that uses the words "screwdriver" and "intifada" and the screwdriver attack will start to have merit on this page. sudopeople 23:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Here CNN makes the comparison [2] - Galatz (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Sudopeople: I'm sorry, I had my mind on the synagogue massacre when I wrote this. You're quite right, I didn't answer your claim. Many Israeli newspapers have made the connection you're looking for. However, I consider the CNN source Galatz gives better, as its neutrality can hardly be disputed. Galastel (talk) 06:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Man, I looked and looked for a connection. That's hilarious CNN had it. Thanks Galatz (talk · contribs). Anyway, it's a pretty loose connection in my opinion ("The recent violence sparks fears of an intifada" This doesn't even necessarily include the screwdriver attack, just events like it) and it obviously does nothing for the attack's notability. The way I envision the "Notable incidents" section, events should perpetuate and especially fuel the fire. It's not likely that Hamas or the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade armed the culprit with a household item, and I doubt many Israelis even batted an eye. For me to shut up, I need someone to explain why getting shanked with a screwdriver is a terrorist attack or otherwise interesting in an encyclopedia article about a "mass revolt". sudopeople 17:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The whole of the article is WP:OR unless each of the specific incidents are linked to articles where they are respectively instanced as part of a third intifada.Nishidani (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian includes this attack in their timeline of Israeli-Palastinian violence. TM (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Notable incidents section

We right now are at 11 "notable" incidents in the article. Its basically become all the article is. I think we need to come up with a consensus of what makes it notable. If you go under the assumption this goes on for years like other intifadas are we going to have a section there for every attack? In my opinion if it isn't notable to have its own article on wikipedia it probably doesn't need to be in a notable incidents section, because it clearly wasn't notable. Perhaps most of the other ones could all be summarized in one paragraph. - Galatz (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I second this proposal. A consensus determined definition of "notable incidents" is precisely what's needed. sudopeople 19:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, horrifyingly, it may now be appropriate to start an article parallel to List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. If so, it should be started before material is deleted from this page. In fact, I am puzzled to know why there is no article called List of Israeli civilian casualties in the First Intifada.ShulMaven (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sort of puzzled myself as to why there isn't a comprehensive list of Palestinians murdered by armed elements of the Israeli state or by aggressive/expansionist non-state actors who seemingly have the full backing of and collude with the Israeli state. I understand your intent to try and write a novel every time an Israeli dies, while the same time disregarding/writing off any Palestinian deaths, that's implicit in your suggestion of creating a separate article for the Israeli dead and wounded in the "Silent Intifada", but it seems to me that it would be pretty redundant or a waste of time at best considering that this page here already exists. The kyle 3 (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@ShulMaven: You seem hell bent on collecting every drop of spilled Israeli blood, but who am I to stop you? At the very least, you'd better cite their connection to the "silent intifada" if you're going to label your bucket as such. sudopeople 20:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many such lists, parameters are set by date. Lists such as List of attacks against Israeli civilians before 1967 are useful, so is List of Israeli price tag attacks. Personal attacks are not useful.ShulMaven (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

One list that would be useful in the way of providing context to the ongoing events would be a "list of Palestinians killed by Israelis in the West Bank in 2014", albeit of course with a far more succinct title for the page then that one.

What "personal attacks" do you think you're being subjected to? All I see is a statement that seems to sum you up pretty accurately in terms of how you've been talking. The kyle 3 (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I would imagine that the lack of List of Israeli civilian casualties in the First Intifada mainly has to do with timing. The internet was not popular at the time and wikipedia did not exist. It would probably be nearly impossible to go through records in order to create a list. Although a List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Silent Intifada will unfortunately probably be needed, it may be a little early for it. - Galatz (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It has pretty much become a list of all incidents. I would support summarizing each incident to a couple of lines. Maybe have a timeline that lists all of the incidents?VR _talk 03:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think as a start, a "notable incident" should probably have its own article. I don't think this is a perfect solution, but I think it's useful criteria to base notability on. sudopeople 17:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This section just keeps on growing, we are now up to 13. Most of these incidents most people would not consider notable. I suggest a few things.

1)Remove any item that does not have its own wikipedia article. Thats was this section was originally and its gotten out of control since.
2)If people wish to they can attempt to create a casualties page as ShulMaven suggested (both Israeli and Palestinian).
3)Shrink this section down to just a quick list or a template at the bottom

This article has turned into just a list of attacks rather than what it really is, and someone coming here for information will get overloaded. Thoughts? - Galatz (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I have attempted to start this process of integration/improvement with my edits to last paragraph of history section yesterday, and today's edits on the sad suicide of the Palestinian bus driver. However, I do not feel that the list should be removed until/unless we can get a list page up to which this page can link. Reason is that at present the list in itself, and even though it is long, provides a narrative chronicle of the events that seem to some to be a unified trend, even an intifada.ShulMaven (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason to wait for your list. The events listed will be in the edit history in perpetuity. The point of discussion now is the condensing of the Notable incidents section.

@Galatz: Are you able to condense the section as you've described? sudopeople 20:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I am able and willing to make the changes to here as discussed however I want to make sure we have a consensus to ensure we are working within the 1RR rules - Galatz (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the change Galatz proposes. One exception: the assassination attempt on Yehuda Glick doesn't have its own article, but it does have a big section in the article about Yehuda Glick. Don't know why there's no link to it from the section about the assassination attempt here. It should. And it's quite noteworthy. So it shouldn't be deleted. Not sure though how much detail needs to be here, rather than in the Yehuda Glick article. I'll leave that to more experienced Wikipedians. Galastel (talk) 20:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Galatz: It might be worthwhile to initiate a poll. I would stress that the point is not to "remove" but to condense. All notable articles currently Wikilinked will be included in the new format.

Thanks for point that out Galastel (talk · contribs). I may get started on that today...if I have time. sudopeople 20:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Funny I was going to suggest the same thing about Glick - Galatz (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

On second though, it does have its own section Yehuda_Glick#Assassination_attempt. Probably won't be starting that up today. sudopeople 20:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

There is probably a need for a separate article on the Attempted assassination of Yehuda Glick. Reason is that it is unfair to the man for his personal page to be overwhelmed by material on the assassination attempt. ShulMaven (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

What the article is truly short on IMHO is material about what is going on within Palestinian Arab society in Est Jerusalem. Perhaps because the coverage is not as good. Perhaps because things like rumors, mood, and politics are harder to source. But for whatever reasons, the article seems to me not too long, but too short.ShulMaven (talk) 20:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

There is some info on MEMRI. [Here], for example. I won't have time to do anything with it today, but you can go over it, if you like.Galastel (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that "MEMRI" is at all a good source, either in terms of facts, or objectivity, when it comes to this issue in particular. I would say that, in terms of "material about what is going on in Palestinian Arab society" (and Shully wants to pretend that he doesn't know, I guess), you would have to find something far more objective/impartial as anything put out by MEMRI about Palestinians should be taken with a grain of salt, to say the least. The kyle 3 (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Bus Driver - propose section title change

Naming the section "Palestinian bus driver hanged" suggests it is beyond doubt that the driver was hanged. However, like it says in the section, "Israeli police conducted an autopsy and stated that the hanging was a suicide." So it is not at all clear that the driver was hanged, and not hung himself, and thus the title constitutes POV. I agree that the hanging is relevant to the intifada story, as Palestinians hurried to demand revenge for the supposed hanging, but the title should reflect the ambiguity of what actually happened. Would "Palestinian driver found hanged" be grammatically correct?

This section needs to be reworded for sure. The initial sentence should include that it was an apparent suicide. The way the entire thing is written right now appears to be a POV. - Galatz (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it should remain how it is. Israeli police are notorious for not prosecuting or otherwise covering for the crimes of the "settlers" and the ultra-Zionists especially. The family and friends of the man have gone on record saying that the dead man in question was not unhappy and showed no signs of being obviously suicidal, and there have been at least references from where I've read of his body exhibiting bruising and other damage that's supposed to be consistent with being beaten. Suicide cases who end up hanging themselves usually do not beat themselves around the arms and other parts of their body, as far as I'm aware. The kyle 3 (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Galastel: Thanks for noticing this and proposing a change. I think you're absolutely correct. Your wording: "Palestinian driver found hanged" doesn't quite seem right for this article though. CNN has a great headline, "Controversy over death of Palestinian bus driver" which I think would work very well for this subject and place in this article. PS, you forgot to sign your comment!! sudopeople 18:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It was a suicide. see today's papers. Added.ShulMaven (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Proposing that the bus driver's suicide be removed as a section in the list (I have already added it to the history seciton) because it was not an action (like a knife attack or anti-riot action by police) It was a personal tragedy, a rumor. As a suicide it is sad, not hardly notable enough for a separate section, even though thousands did believe the rumor and turn out for the funeral. if it is kept as a seciton, it would need ot be about the rumor, not the sad but personal tragedy. Suicides are rarely notable. Rumors, only if they have consequences.ShulMaven (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, @Sudopeople:! Used the title you suggested. It does sound better. And I'll try not to forget to sign next time. :)

@ShulMaven:, which newspapers? The Israeli ones never doubted it was a suicide, like the police said and the autopsy confirmed. If you think about it, it doesn't even take some political interest to claim it was murder rather than suicide. Natural shock and disbelief are enough. And with tension as high as it is, there's little wonder that such a rumour would spread fast.

I agree with you about focusing on the rumours rather than the personal tragedy. This rumour certainly had consequences, so it is noteworthy. Don't know if it deserves a section, or if the mention in the history is enough. Galastel (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope. That is the Israeli police story, which no editor should, as two have above, underwrite as the ascertained truth. The Palestinian expert present at the autopsy, a notable figure also because he was called in for the Khdeir autopsy, said the indications clearly showed criminal murder as the cause. So per NPOV, and for the fact that a very extensive number of events associated with attacks on Palestinians in the time-frame is so far studiously omitted, this, to begin with, must be located with all the other incidents. . Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• story is [3] and [4] here. ShulMaven (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I recommend against forming your opinion based on headlines alone. Both of those articles say that a doctor said that another doctor said. That's called hearsay. sudopeople 21:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The articles say that at the autopsy both coroners (One Israeli and the other a Palestinian chosen by the family of the deceased) agreed that there was no indication of anything other than suicide. No foul play. However, the Palestinian physician is now refusing to repeat his opinion because of fear of the consequences. He has my total sympathy. Reporting in Wikipedia that forces within Palestinian society are manufacturing a controversy is responsible thing to do. Pretending that the autopsy results are uncertain merely feeds the disinformation campaign. We owe it to good men like this silenced doctor to relate facts.ShulMaven (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the articles say that the (Israeli) director said that a (Palestinian) doctor said he agreed. Do you see the problem of "this person said that this person said that this person said"? Again, this type of account comprises hearsay.

"the Palestinian physician is now refusing to repeat his opinion because of fear of the consequences" - this is your interpretation, a total construction of the events in your mind.

I find your ability to discern facts disheartening. sudopeople 22:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that people refuse to believe the autopsy and pathology report carried out by Israeli medics after discovered the drivers body. These reports all unequivocally rule out any foul play and point to suicide. For the record, let's remember that it was these same reports that were carried out by Israel, and believed, in wake of the Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir. TM (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The Abu Khdeir case was an exceptional one in the sense that they couldn't have possibly lied about the cause of death in any way-- something like "the deceased drank gasoline and then set himself on fire" wouldn't be accepted by anyone at all. Otherwise, I wouldn't put it past them to lie about this sort of thing, if it meant getting an Israeli Jew off the hook-- especially when it comes to the ongoing situation in Jerusalem. I say this because Israel has set a precedent when it comes to all things in terms of any kind of interaction between Israelis in the Palestinian territories and the Palestinians themselves; and they're clearly not interested in treating the Palestinians at all fairly in any of those interactions or altercations or incidents. The kyle 3 (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

OR tag on History section

A user has put an OR tag on the History section, claiming that since not all sources call this the "silent intifada", the section constituted original research. Well, yes, of course. That is the problem. No one is quite certain whether this is an intifada, and people are calling it all sorts of things. I'm not claiming that "silent intifada" is a perfect title. Only that it is reasonable to put chronicles and analyisis of what is going on in this article, no matter wwhat the author calls it, as long it is clear that the event under discussion is part of the months long unrest, riots and violent attack.ShulMaven (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is the problem with articles like this. The best references are those that refer to some sort of an intifada in them. Otherwise it does fit the definition of OR. - Galatz (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, that is exactly what WP:NOR tells us to avoid. If event Y is being referred to in a reliable source as being part of a Third Intifada, or a Silent Intifada, that would be OK. But we as Wikipedia editors should not engage in novel interpretations of sources making claims about certain events to be be part of purported "Silent Intifada". Now, if you would want to convert this article to a list, to have a central point to gather a list of events that took place in a particular location and a particular time period, sure, go ahead, but as it stand now it is a NOR violation. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Case in point. The lede's first sentence:

The Silent intifada (or Urban Intifada)

References

From the five sources used to support that sentence, only one of them refer to a "Silent Intifada". This article is a mess, and violates multiple content policies. I moving the NOR tags from the section to the article's header. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: You've gone from attempting to delete Arab Winter to WP:Disruptive editing (marking every section as WP:OR) here. This article is well cited; you too have the capability to cite it better. For some reason your toolbelt only seems to carry destructive tools. sudopeople 23:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, stop the nonsense. This is not about citing, as the sentence is cited. But it is SYNTH, as the sourced used do not refer to a "Silent Intifada". Look, I may rub you the wrong way, which I could understand. But please address the concerns expressed rather than use ad hominems to dismiss my comments. Any material that is unsourced, poorly sourced, or that engages in NOR will be deleted. The burden is on you if your want to keep it. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, last time I checked this article is about Silent Intifada. If you want to discuss Arab Winter there is a talk page for that. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

My involvement here is to link your WP:Disruptive editing at Arab Winter to Silent Intifada.

A huge amount of the sources here do exactly what you're requesting. If you carefully review my edit history, you'll see my quest to link the term "intifada" with events listed in this article. This very talk page includes me requesting better sources from people, specifically in Talk:Silent_Intifada#Jerusalem_screwdriver_attack_as_part_of_the_Silent_Intifada. As such, this article has improved. Arguing with me in spite of the fact that we fundamentally agree demonstrates that you're here to WP:WIKIHOUND. sudopeople 23:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that the one disrupting a collaborative process is you. My interest is in getting articles to comply with our core policies. See also WP:OWN. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the four cites listed above which do not refer to "Silent Intifada". - Cwobeel (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

39 of the references cited mention the term "intifada" - I see room for improvement (as I've advocated for over the last few weeks here) but I don't see motivation for marking everything WP:OR. This type of WP:Disruptive editing is fallout from Talk:Arab Winter that's followed me here. To point out the connection, Cwobeel (talk · contribs) begun his very first edits to Silent Intifada (21:20, 19 November 2014‎) shortly following my reversion of his 12000+ character deletion (18:15, 19 November 2014‎). It's clear that Cwobeel (talk · contribs) didn't come to Silent intifada to build an encyclopedia.

I'd like to thank Cwobeel (talk · contribs) for pointing out the lede's shortcomings - I'll be fixing those immediately - but I'd like to suggest that we embrace a more constructive approach to improving articles. sudopeople 00:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a better approach. Thank you. Now, please explain why these sources have been re-added, when the sources do not refer to the subject of this article. After all, this is not an article on Intifada, but on Silent Intifada. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that the over sourcing of that short sentence with unrelated sources, gives the impression that the term "Silent Intifada" is widely adopted, when it seems that it is a WP:RECENTISM. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't have time to comb through your tens of thousands character deletions. Your edits lately have been incredibly destructive to content that a multitude of WP:GOODFAITH editors have worked hard to cultivate. sudopeople 01:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I have tagged the offending sources with {{Failed verification}}. That tag exist for a reason, which applies here. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

RECENTISM

WP:RECENTISM at its best:

Even if this new, low-budget Palestinian uprising assumes a different name each week — car intifada, knife intifada, urban intifada, silent intifada, post-intifada — the rage behind it has been on a steady rise.[5]

- Cwobeel (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

More Original research

It is a politically-charged term used by certain Israeli politicians and news media outlets to imply that the government and news media are not paying sufficient attention to the frequent attacks on civilians.

References

The sources provided do not support the text, another example of original research. This is a real problem with this article, as much of it is novel synthesis of sources that has not been published in reliable sources as presented. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

This whole article is a coatrack for listing Israeli victims of recent violence. The problem as Cwobeel notes, is that the title ostensibly refers to a phenomenon whose existence is not yet ascertained. Many of the referenced articles cite Israeli police and Shin Beit and political authorities saying a third (call it 'silent', whatever) intifada hasn't erupted. We have simply a WP:SYNTH of selected elements in the intricate line of incidents siungling out Palestinian acts of violence against Israel while extensive land expropriations, declarations of villagers to move elsewhere, house demolitions, shootings by settlers, uprooting of Arfab olive groves, mosque-torchings, war in Gaza, vendetta killings, and dozens of instances of police shooting into crowds since June have taken place (at the time no rumours of a 3rd intifada accomkpanied these reports, because the violence was Israeli and they don't do 'intifadas). I have endeavoured to edit the article to fix this imbalance, but it is basically uneditable without violating WP:OR, because each edit must refer to a source that links the incident to an ostensible 'third intifada' which does not officially exist. That just plays into the hands of careless journalists. I think the article should be deleted, since its purpose is obvious (these articles are almost nmever deleted: a 'swarming' effect at the vote guarantees that). Please note Galatz that Time Magazine mentioned the killing of Orwah Hammad, 14, in an article that mentions rumours of a third intifada. You didn't check. You just erased one of the few instances where a Palestinian victim of violence was mentioned, proof if ever that there is a push in here to coatrack an Israeli victim article for hasbara ends. (Ilene Prusher, Infant’s Killing in Jerusalem Reignites Talk of a New Intifada Time Magazine 26 October 2014)Nishidani (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I see your point and agree with your assessment. Not only NOR violation, but also NPOV violation to boot. Maybe changing the article name to reflect the content may be a way out of this mess? - Cwobeel (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

As I wrote in the note when I wrote it that none of the sources references mentioned it. That time article was not mentioned. I did a google search but did not come across that article. Upon reading it however it talks about an Intifada in Jerusalem and mentions this as an aside of violence happening outside of Jerusalem. It does not directly tie the two together. - Galatz (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Please join the conversation about the article's name and content below. In the meantime I have tagged it with {{POV}}, until this is resolved. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

t took me 5 seconds. Now you say iut is an 'aside'. For most editors of this article, most acts of violence, land expropriation (1,000 acres near Bethlehem; pouring petrol down a kid's throat to then torch him: kidnapping attempts; the Beitunia killings, the shooting dead of a 'security threat' on the Gaza border, an identifiably young (10 years old boy) by the IDF for walking within 300 metres of Israel's border; checkpoints;settler stoning incidents; anti-Arab riots in Jerusalem, Haifa and Jaffa (no Palestinian labourers near Jewish kindergartens; the interruption of the economically vital olive harvest; the successive declarations of more ethnically exclusive housing developments; the loud-mouthed incitement to take our share of the Temple Mount; the restoration of ethi8cally distinct buslines out of Israel into the occupied territories to satisfy the settler constituency; 517 children dead in Gaza, among 1,500 civilians; etc.etc.etc.,

'For months, scenes like these have unfolded across the West Bank. Since July at least 17 Palestinians have been killed — several of them young unarmed teens shot in clashes with Israeli forces. In Jerusalem a series of deadly knife attacks and hit-and-run car attacks have killed at least 11 Israelis, including a baby, a border policeman and a soldier.The car attacks and stabbings occurred at an alarmingly high frequency, prompting media speculation about a new intifada, or uprising against Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Some have already labeled it the third intifada.'Dalia Hatuqa, Jerusalem attacks unlikely to portend a third Palestinian intifada Al-Jazeera 18 November 2014

Such things are simply 'asides' in the important narrative? that every now and then some elements among those people go haywire or berserk at the legislated immkeseration they have been successively driven into for some decades, and seek revenge. Wikipedia is not Ynet, or the New York Times, so if you want the article to be balanced, it must obligatorily be so defined that it covers all significant incidents of violence since mid-year. Define it as you like, but a background section is required that notes all incidents involving all violence on-going as the lead-up to recent events. The title is a clear case of WP:Crystal ball, assuming that future scholarship will define a set of events in the way street rumours in some quarters now do.Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed/ What is puzzling to me is that if this is an article on the "silent intifada" or the "third intifada", we can't omit the background and context in which these events took place. After all, there is no fire without some fuel. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

silent what?

The problem with the current title is that it is not very descriptive. Once it is explained what is meant by "silent" then one can relate to it, but not before. Something more descriptive would be "2014 Arab violence against Israelis", or perhaps "November 2014 Palestinian violence against Israel", etc. Tkuvho (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

That is a good idea but may result in a POV fork, as that may mean that we should have an article "2014 Israel actions against Palestinians". For NPOV and as per the comment above by Nishidani, we should have an article that presents the current cycle of violence by both sides. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Right, we should mention the Israeli violence against the Jamals who got killed by bullets in a cold-blooded action reported by CNN to have occurred in a mosque. However, you didn't address my main concern. Tkuvho (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what your main concern is. If it is the name of the article, sure we can do that per your proposal, but that will mean a POV fork. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

2014 Arab violence against Israelis , or perhaps November 2014 Palestinian violence against Israel. There is a policy called WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not a website dedicated to framing some ethnic narrative, something numerous articles violate by focusing unilaterally on the 'violence' of one side in a two-sided conflict. Such proposals indicate, clearly, the intent of this article's major editors I guess, but we are supposed to inform our readers, not to inflame or persuade them to sympathise with either side's grievances.Nishidani (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Both of these proposals makes this article a POV fork. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Galatz: your deletion [6] is questionable. These acts are part of the background in the conflict. Why deleting them? If this is an article about an Intifada, don;t you think our readers would want to know what fuels it? - Cwobeel (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want this in a background section, you still need to find an RS that links them. This was however not in the background section, this was in the section about notable incidents during the intifada. If it can't be tied to the intifada than how is it a notable incident during it? - Galatz (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

One source: Palestinian Mohammed Sunuqrut, 16, was fatally shot with a sponge tipped bullet while police were attempting to disperse a protest in East Jerusalem. and another source: The military said it would investigate the shooting, which occurred amid other clashes in Arab areas in and around Jerusalem in which several people were lightly injured. Are these events not related to acts of violence in Jerusalem? How can that be OR? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Because OR is when you draw lines that are not in the source. There has been violence and protests in Jerusalem forever. Unless you can find an RS that ties it to this, you are drawing your own conclusions that it relates to this and not something else. - Galatz (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

There have been upsurges for weeks/months of killings, shootings, assaults, from 1967 to 1987, 2005-2014 that are never classified as intifadas, and the present period is, as yet, in that sense, not anomalous. That anh intifadais taking place is denied by numerous sources, and yet editors are writing it up as an intifada, while, paradox of paradox, refusing to cite anything in that wave of violence that does not fit into the Israeli victim template. In intifadas both sides kill each other, and all events falling within the ambit of the declared intifada are symptomatic of that uprising, by definition. So Cwobeel's point is perfectly legitimate. Nishidani (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR describes OR in the first sentence as The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. If no RS has stated that this is part of the intifada than its OR. No matter how strongly you believe its related to the events, OR is still OR. - Galatz (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

If in the same article discussing one event, and that article is accepted as RS, material in the article referring to contiguous or related events, material considered by its author relevant to the context, can be also added. Since the author makes the connection, editors may also. Got it? Nishidani (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You are very vague here on what you are referring to since its in response to me stating what the rule is, but I am assuming you are referring to the Time article posted before. The magazine clearly mentions it in the same article as the silent intifada, however they seem to refer to it as a separate instance of violence unrelated to it. Lets say it does have a correlation, what basis is there for this to be considered notable? Not every little instance belongs in the main article, thats why things like List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada exist. Create one for this if you need to record every little thing. - Galatz (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Proposal for Notable section

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

The U. S. Congressional Research Service foresaw immediately after the outbreak of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict that the conflict might engage the Obama Administration in a search for means to avoid a spillover into what they imagined could develop into a third intifada. By early September a notable uptick in attacks was correlated by Israeli security sources with the aftermath of the Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir and Israel's Operation Protective Edge on the Gaza Strip,

*2014 Jerusalem tractor attack - On 4 August 2014, an Arab drove an excavator type of tractor out of a construction site, injuring several pedestrians and killing one man before ramming the tractor into a public bus.

*October 2014 Jerusalem vehicular attack - On 22 October, a Palestinian rammed his car into a group of passengers waiting at the Ammunition Hill Light Rail station. The attack left two dead, including a 3-month old baby, and seven injured. A brief uptick in Arab rioting followed.

*Assassination attempt on Yehuda Glick - On 30 October 2014, the activist Yehuda Glick was the subject of an assassination attempt. The main suspect was later shot and killed by police who claim he was resisting arrest.

*November 2014 Jerusalem vehicular attack - On 5 November 2014, Ibrahim al-Akri, drove a van at high speed into a crowd of people waiting at the Shimon HaTzadik light rail station in the Arzei HaBira neighborhood of Jerusalem. The attack left two people dead and thirteen wounded.

*Killing of Sergeant Almog Shiloni - On Monday, 10 November 2014, Almog Shiloni, age 20, was stabbed at the Haganah Railway Station in Tel Aviv, after a struggle with a Palestinian who attempted to grab his weapon. Abu Khashiyeh was chased and eventually taken into custody by Israeli police.

*2014 Alon Shvut stabbing attack - On Monday, 10 November 2014, Maher al-Hashlamun stabbed three Israelis at the entrance to the settlement of Alon Shvut in Gush Etzion, killing a Dalia Lemkus (26) and wounding two others.

*2014 Jerusalem synagogue massacre - On 18 November, two Palestinian men entered a synagogue in Har Nof neighborhood in Jerusalem, opened fire on the worshippers, and attacked them with axes. Five men were killed, and 7 wounded, four of them in serious condition. Both attackers were killed by police at the scene.

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

References

Translation:Palestinians, though suffering a far higher higher casualty rate, are not notable because they gain less attention in Ynet, Haaretz,The Times of Israel, and of course The New York Times, and thus since sources in Israel prioritize Israeli Jewish victims, these must be showcased. Boy, that's as cynical an explicitly formulated push to break WP:NPOV as I've seen in several years. It's a no-goer, of course, since 'Silent Intifada' just means all events noted in RS now and in the long future for this phase are automatically entitled to inclusion, and editorial attempts to frame them out of the 'notable' section break with commonsense and policy by legislating a selective bias that is already present in the overwhelmingly Israelocentric sources on which the article is based.Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I see where you're coming from but I don't think anyone is trying to "frame them out" - we're working to form consensus on "notability"... What grounds would you base notability on? sudopeople 20:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Nishidani: First what is the basis for you saying many more Palestinians? More Jews have died than Palestinians in all items that have been listed here. Second, I am using Wikipedia's definition of notable on Wikipedia. What is stopping you from making articles about these instances that you believe are notable? Third an RS is an RS, no one says only Israel related sources can be used. Use Al Jazeera its an RS. NYT is known for its anti Israel bias so to use them there goes against your point. Fourth, as I said above, I am not saying they don't belong on wikipedia, I am saying they don't meet the definition of notable. - Galatz (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh come off it. They don't meet your definition of notable. yawn.Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I didnt realize I was the author of WP:GNG - Galatz (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

This is how wikipedia describes notable. Like I said I am not saying it doesn't have a place on wikipedia, I just don't think its notable.

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online and do not have to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Galatz (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

POVFORK

Can you guys spell POVFORK? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

What are you considering of what has been suggested to be a WP:POVFORK? What I am suggesting is to follow the secondary page format that was used previously. Very often during the Israeli/Palestinian conflict there are sub pages that just incidents. Its following standard practice not a POVFORK. - Galatz (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It is a POV fork as it presents only one side of the events, namely the attacks of Palestinians on Israelis. If this article describes a purported "Silent Intifada", we need to describe all related events. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Full disclosure here about your characterization of "Pro-Palestinian" editors: I am Jewish, lived in Israel for two decades, fought in two wars. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you are over generalizing. I am not saying we need to exclude one side of the attacks from this article. If the Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir happened now it would belong in this section. It didn't though, so it shouldn't be excluded. Nothing in the other direction has happened that meets WP:GNG. I am a Jewish Zionist, but check my edit history, I try and be as NPOV as possible. I very often go through and reword sentences to remove the POV. I am not looking to make this article pro-Israel, I am looking to make it not filled with irrelevant information.

What I suggest about creating a Palestinian article is based on there being List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. Its not a POVFORK, its creating a separate article for the stuff that fills up the main article. - Galatz (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

As an aside no one mentioned that I removed other Jewish articles too. I removed the screwdriver attack because it didn't meet the criteria mentioned above. I am treating both sides equally. The screwdriver attack belongs in a life of casualties article, not the main one. - Galatz (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: Would you please elaborate on your quip? It's not clear what you're advocating regarding the Notable incidents section of the article. sudopeople 21:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Let me try again. If this article was a list of Palestinian attacks on Israelis, it will be OK. But this article is about something called "Silent Initifada", specifically the violence in Jerusalem, and as such we ought to include any and all events reported in RS about these events, including the ones that were deleted by Galatz. Otherwise, my view is this is a POV fork. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

If we are to follow WP:SUMMARY, then my argument will be valid as well. Listing all relevant articles and events with summaries. But I see that what some of you are arguing for an arbitraty criteria that only events that have a separate article should be included. That is the issue for me, as that is not an NPOV representation of these events. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thats fine, thats why this was a proposal brought to talk to try and get a consensus. Do you have other criteria that you think better suits it? Wikipedia is not a news source, so it doesn't need to have every single event mentioned listed on it, especially on the main article. I am open for any other suggestions on how to summarize it, but right now the article is a mess, and I am trying to work with everyone to clean it up. - Galatz (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

A simple criteria would be to list chronologically all violent events in Jerusalem since the kidnapping on June 2014, regardless who were the perpetrators or the victims, that have been reported in reliable sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

From what I've seen Galatz (talk · contribs) removed section(s) that weren't well sourced. That's completely unrelated to them being notable. I'm not arguing for anything specifically, only that we reach consensus on what "Notable incidents" means. In the last couple of weeks, all manner of events have been added and removed, and the list is growing long. No need to turn this section into a POV dispute; we're just talking about how to fix the growing list. sudopeople 23:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want a list of attacks that have occurred since June then create List of Palestinian—Israeli attacks in 2014, but thats not what this article is. - Galatz (talk) 23:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

No. What I want is to list all violent events related to the so called "Silent Intifada", and that includes retaliatory attacks from both sides. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

For example, we need to include the murder of local teenager Mohammed Abu Khdeir by Jewish extremists, which incited riots associated with the subject of this article, and the killing of of Mohammed Sunuqru which also sparked violence in East Jerusalem. Source [7] - Cwobeel (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Like I said if you want to create a list then create a list. This is an article not a list - Galatz (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The section in the article called "Notable incidents"

@Cwobeel: I think forking the list as you've suggested is a great idea. That way when you're done with it, we can summarize it here on the main article. That's perfect. sudopeople 17:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Before I do that I would want to see if there is agreement. This is the proposal:

1. Create 2014 Palestinian—Israeli attacks in Jerusalem
2. Move all the content in the "Notable incidents" there
3. Add other events to 2014 Palestinian—Israeli attacks in Jerusalem
4. Summarize 2014 Palestinian—Israeli attacks in Jerusalem here per WP:SUMMARY

- Cwobeel (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014 consistent with List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2011. For sure I would look in for consistency. - Galatz (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. I was going to mention that it's not just in Jerusalem. There was an attack a few weeks ago on soldiers outside of Hebron (al-Arroub?) linked to it if I remember correctly, more recently the "silent intifada" has been mentioned in Bethlehem as well [8] although nothing particularly notable IMO. Some other attacks may have been linked to a palestinian girl's death in a West Bank settlement.[9] etc. etc. sudopeople 17:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

'List of' is unnecessarily restrictive. I support Cwobeel's proposal but I don't think one need raise a separation barrier on notable and not notable, which is an intrusion of an adventitious discrimination. What the press notes, is there because it is notable. Nishidani (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Criteria for Notable

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

We will use the criteria in WP:SUMMARY. Basically a summary of the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

We should probably rename the section. A summary will naturally include the most notable events, but I suppose the word is rubbing people the wrong way.

• Summary of events  ?

sudopeople 20:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

There is very useful guidance at WP:SUMMARY. I'd encourage you to read the guideline in toto. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I read the majority of it, thanks. I've begun summarizing, starting with recent events since they're fresh in my mind. I've also shot some comments in there as a bit of a guideline for what's needed. sudopeople 22:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

post-intifada

It's not widely used, and it's not so much a name; it's more of a timeframe. Thoughts on removing it from the alt. names? sudopeople 20:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll remove it for now. Please voice your concerns here if you see reason to restore it. sudopeople 17:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Summarizing in "Incidents" section

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

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

Background section cleanup

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

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

in the immediate wake

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

Or it was an obvious typo. sudopeople 18:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of underlying factors

Moved punditry and speculation about causes and possible underlying factors to won section. Certainly there are causes, but with little agreement about what they are the did not belong in the 2nd paragraph of the lede. Nor did it seem to make sense to mix them in among events.ShulMaven (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's make more of an effort to find a more suitable title. Even "incipient intifada" seems better than a silent one. Some editors have been arguing that "silent" is a commonly used term but I take it you disagree? Tkuvho (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

"silent" was the term in common use in Israeli media in October. I currently see all sorts of modifiers used with intifada. But what I mostly see is assertions that there should be an intifada, assertions that this is an intifada, discussions of whether this is an intifada, and denials that this is an intifada. I'm waiting for the conversation to settle in two ways. i.e., we need some consensus in the media on whether this is an intifada. Then, if it is so deemed, we can follow media consensus on what to call it.ShulMaven (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk) is right that the article needs a better name. incipient intifada doesn't work, because we don't have a crystal ball. How about something NPOV , NPOV, that is, on the question of whether this is or is not an incipient intifada. Something along the lines of 2014 sectarian violence in Israel and the West Bank Let's try to brainstorm.ShulMaven (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

How about redirecting this to List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014 ? Since everybody seems to agree there is no official intifada yet, that's the appropriate target. An additional benefit is that it makes the silly punditry irrelevant. Tkuvho (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. Aside form the actual incidents, So much of what is on the page is punditry, speculation and special pleading.ShulMaven (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

What did the US congressional research service foresee?

here is all I found in the report: Whether and how to intercede to end the conflict and avoid spillover into third countries or a third Palestinian intifada (uprising). This seems to be a far cry from the claim in the current version of the page that the said service foresaw an intifada. This seems to be an instance of outright misrepresentation. Tkuvho (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It says no such thing:

The U.S. Congressional Research Service foresaw, immediately after the outbreak of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, that the conflict might engage the Obama Administration in a search for means to avoid a spillover into what could become a Third Intifada

You might change 'foresaw' with 'imagined', 'projected as a possibility'. The obvious sense is that the research office laid out prognostications or outlined possible implications for American policy, when the war broke out: should be intercede, how, should be avoid, and how, possible collateral spillovers into the region; how and should be act if a third intifada emerges from the ashes of the war. All political analysts assist politicians in projecting the possible collateral outcomes of a given even, and to prepare for them, and Jim Zanetti's group foresaw the possibility that an intifada might occur (as I think many other articles at the time stated)Nishidani (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

As you User:Nishidani seem to acknowledge the verb "foresee" is a misrepresentation of what the research service wrote in their report. Adding a lot of additional verbiage between "foreseeing" and "intifada" does not change the fact that the page currently does not represent their report accurately. Tkuvho (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

No. You misconstrued the sentence,(as you misread my reply) which was, at least for average readers, somewhat complex. To foresee a possibility is not to predict an event. If you have having trouble with how I construed the source, you should exercise your right to offer an alternative construction for our perusal here. Lemme see how you'd like to rephrase it.Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, attaching this kind of significance to the mention of "intifada" in the report would involve checking whether or not they include this kind of vague phrase after every single conflict in the area. Tkuvho (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

No, there is no obligation to do that, and what you imagine here is an invitation to WP:OR. We have a source? its meaning is paraphrased, and with that, our remit finishes.Nishidani (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I precisely challenge the accuracy of your paraphrase. The mention of intifada is far more speculative than the paraphrase makes it appear, and also it is mentioned among a great variety of other possibilities. Describing this is "foreseeing", even with much additional verbiage before "intifada", is inaccurate. Tkuvho (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

(ce)We have a text. I paraphrased it. You challenge my paraphrase. I can't see any point to your nitpicking because Whether and how to avoid spillover ... or a third Palestinian intifada,' obviously envisions an intifada as a forseeable possibility. So.

No one doubts the text is RS, that it alludes to the possibility of a future intifada in the wake of the outbreak of war in Gaza. So, rather than repeat yourself, offer your version of how this relevant text should be paraphrased. Be practical.Nishidani (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Here it goes:

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

Note that the "conflict" being referred to here is not some nebulous "incipient intifada" but rather last summer's miniwar. In this sense, these recommendations (whether and how to intercede to end the conflict, etc.) are perfectly irrelevant, the conflict in question having ended. Tkuvho (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You beat me to the gun by 5 seconds. I note only that you don't want this text mentioned. It is an analysis of the Gaza war (mini war =2,200 dead?) Your evaluation of irrelevancy is, I believe, wholly subjective. Zanotti'0s analysis for Congress evaluates the background, motives, and possible political issues arising from that war, one of which is spillover in the region, and avoiding a 'third Palestinian intifada'. The 'third Palestinian intifada' is in the source, a very high quality one, and this rightly justifies its inclusion in the article. The only objection I can see so far is not policy-based, except in terms of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, I like it, User:Nishidani. I think we agree it is a high quality source. I just don't like the way you misrepresented it. Tkuvho (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

propose redirecting page

It is proposed to redirect this weirdly speculative page to List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014. Tkuvho (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

At present, the first half of that article is a wild string of unsupported allegations. ShulMaven (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I see, I didn't look at it carefully. So it's not much better than this one. What do you propose? Tkuvho (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Improving one or both. A Herculean task, given the amount of special pleading and grandstanding that is being inserted.ShulMaven (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tkuvho: No. This article is well supported. Try reading through some of the sources. Every one of them in the Incidents section (that I just rewrote, and am continuing to improve) includes the word intifada in reference to a new, third, silent or otherwise. You don't just get to say it's weird and redirect it. You back up your statements, just like the article has. If you find a couple references that could use improvement, I'd be happy to find you 10 more that substantiate it, or *gasp* you could even improve them yourself. 18:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Proposed deletion of Terminology and precedents section

This review of 1st and 2nd intifadas is unnecessary. Lede links to each of the intifadas, where all of this is available.ShulMaven (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a weird section but it shows the reader why current events may end up being a third intifada. I suggest keeping it and renaming and improving it. sudopeople 18:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Think of the reader. A good summary and background is always useful. Needs improvement? Sure. All articles do. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Arutz Sheva

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

Arutz Sheva is no less POV than Maan News.--190.17.194.157 (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I therefore presume you are unfamiliar with Ma'an News Agency. Ma'an has been funded by the Dutch, British (UK Department for International Development ) and Danish governments, by the EU and UNESCO, as well as several other groups, and is now 50% self-funded. Arutz Sheva is based in Beit El, i.e. Palestinian territory. Ma'an is based in Palestine as well, since it is Palestinian, and robbed no one to get there. Arutz Sheva was an outlaw radio, retroactively amnestied for its infractions of the law, till that law was cancelled by the Israeli Supreme Court. I believe it still operates without a licence. Ma'an News Agency's English reports are drafted without hysterical language, and tend to dry reportage. Arutz Sheva is a mouthpiece for settler fanatics, immigrants who like cheap housing even if it means evicting 'natives' with title, and for journalistic hacks no mainstream Israeli paper would publish, and defends deliquency. Ma'an registers in relatively neutral language what happens on its terrain when the deliquents rampage. Ma'an translates into Hebrew; Arutz S into Russian, its main readereship. This is how Ma'an reported the Har Nof synagogue attack. is how Arutz Sheva, in one of many articles, tended to spin the murder of Mohammad Abu Khdeir. One is journalism, the other is tabloid innuendo-mongering.Nishidani (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)