Talk:Second Intifada

Timeline

This image should be changed given that the Intifada obviously did not end in 2006. The Squicks (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If it obviously did not end in 2006, then when did it end? Or, if you believe that the Second Intifada/al-Aqsa Intifada phase of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has not yet ended, under what criteria would you use to judge if that phase had ended? --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 09:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Al Durra "supposedly killed"

User:Benjil has been changing the caption to the Muhammad al Durrah photo, claiming in their edit summaries that the addition of the qualification "supposedly" is justified in the light of the latest verdict in an ongoing French libel case brought by France 2 against Philippe Karsenty. This is a) a simplistic interpretation of the court verdict; b) original research in that it is one editor's interpretation of the court ruling; and c) hardly proper language for an encyclopedia, in that "supposedly" is usually said with a knowing wink to the effect that "it's not true, you know". Please note there has been a huge debate about this at the main Al Durra talk page, and editors might be better off reviewing that (if they can cope with it) before spreading the dispute elsewhere. Thanks. --Nickhh (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Nickhh that edit-warring about this is not the right way to proceed. I have cautioned Benjil, and ask all editors to cease reverts, and instead engage in discussion about this issue, either here or at Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah. Everyone is welcome to change the text of other editors, but no more reverts. Thanks, Elonka 01:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The verdict of the court says that Karsenty presented a "coherent body of evidence," although the hoax could not be definitively proven. There is no "original research" here, but maybe you don't understand French. This just means that the hoax theory is legitimate. It could be wrong, I have no idea about what really happened there. Some talks of an investigation commission to clear this issue out once and for all. So, the article should indicate the view that the Al Durra incident could be a hoax like there has been many others staged by the Palestinians during the Second Intifada. Benjil (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of ways that a compromise change could be made. For example, everything following "12-year-old Palestinian Muhammad al-Durrah [who] became an icon of the Palestinian uprising in 2000" could be dropped. Or "controversies continue" without a description, could be added - since the controversies include more than merely whether he was killed in the crossfire or not. Another compromise could include that he was "reported killed." Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree , and have implemented this suggestion, to match the one in the Muhammad al Durrah article. NoCal100 (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

IronDuke's removal of Casualties section of talk page

I believe User:IronDuke may have violated WP:TALK. If he does not return the talk comments of User:Kermanshahi, User:Michael Safyan, and User:Tundrabuggy I may report him to WP:ANI. This is a courtesy warning.

Wikipedia is not censored. See WP:CENSOR. Nothing in WP:TALK. WP:BLP, WP:SOAP, or WP:CIVIL were violated by the comments IronDuke removed in my opinion. Common sense may have been violated but that is not a crime yet on Wikipedia. :) Here is the diff of IronDuke's removal of their comments: [1]. His edit comment was "removing the thread per WP:BLP and WP:SOAP."

The discussion was on topic because the issue of how to break down the casualty numbers has been discussed many times before. Therefore it is not a violation of WP:SOAP. The language may be very strong, but that is their opinion on the issues. Neither person insulted the other, nor were uncivil towards each other. I saw no WP:BLP problem concerning specific people. Therefore, I believe IronDuke may have violated WP:TALK in removing their comments.

Discussions on the talk pages of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict articles can get very heated with frequent general characterizations of the armed militants on one "side" or the other as being largely "terrorists" or "murderers" or "state terrorists" or "scum settler-colonialists" or other highly inflammatory generalizations. People have a right to their opinions on talk pages.

Articles are a different story. We must follow WP:NPOV in articles. I see some discussion on User talk:IronDuke questioning IronDuke's use of the word "terrorist" in articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The language employed was not “very strong.” Use of the word “scum” to refer to a group of people was ludicrously over the top, and violated WP:BLP in an obvious way – and no, it didn’t refer to a specific person, but specific persons. (And there were other examples of really bad language).

I can’t, by the way, “violate” WP: TALK. It’s a guideline, and specifically allows for exceptions. Core policy would be one of those exceptions. You want to take this to ANI? Please be my very special guest. I’d welcome other comments in re your having violated WP:BLP. People have a right to their opinions, they do not have the right to post hate-filled rants on talk pages.

Yes, I have discussed use of the word "terrorist." And...? IronDuke 00:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Like most guidelines there are exceptions to WP:TALK. I don't see how this is one though. You censored a talk page - plain and simple.

Show me in WP:BLP where use of the word "terrorist" or "scum" on a talk page in describing a large part of a group of people or armed militants is a violation of WP:BLP. If it is, then we need to go back and remove hundreds, if not tens of thousands, of comments on talk pages. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You honestly think that the BLP page recapitulates every conceivable slur? Calling any group "scum" on any WP page is never okay, or "criminal," when not convicted of any crime. (And when did I say anything about "terrorist" in this context?) If you point me to any other instances of the use of the word scum on a talk page referring to a person or persons, I will happily remove it. I didn't "censor" anything: I upheld policy (and common sense). You don't have to help me do this, but I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't stand in the way. IronDuke 00:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If it is a single word you think is particularly offensive, then strike out, or remove the word. Don't remove the whole multi-person thread. I can see how calling many on one "side" of an armed conflict "scum" is pretty insulting. But calling many on one side of an armed conflict "terrorists" or "state terrorists" is far worse in my mind. Calling many on one side as civilian-killing murderers is far worse than calling them insulting names. You seem less concerned about this.

And you still haven't shown me anything on WP:BLP that backs up what you are saying. WP:BLP has to do with specific people. There may be something that applies in WP:CIVIL. But if there is, then it is not being enforced concerning the widespread use of the word "terrorist" on article talk pages to categorize large groups of people. This occurs in many topic areas, and not just in the area of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.

From Wikipedia:CIVIL#Removal of uncivil comments: "Only in the most serious of circumstances should an editor replace or edit a comment made by another editor. Only in the event of something that can cause actual damage in the real world should this be the first step (i.e., disclosing the name, address or phone number of an opponent). In the event of rudeness or incivility on the part of an editor, it is appropriate to discuss the offending words with that editor, and to request that editor to change that specific wording. Should removing a comment be necessary, or you wish to remove your own uncivil comments, any of the following suggestions may be applied: ..." --Timeshifter (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I support IronDuke's deletion of the casualties section. The banner {{Template:notaforum}} on the top of the page warns that comments not pertaining to the improvement of the article can (and will) be deleted. The deletion of the discussion is perfectly in line with this warning as well as the policies of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP. Thank you, IronDuke, for removing the section. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 00:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a vote. So you don't have to support or oppose. The discussion was on-topic; therefore it was not a violation of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP. You commented in the thread, and you did not say the thread was off-topic during the discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael doesn't have to support or oppose, but it happens that he supports what I did (and I appreciate it). And he did indeed say it was a violation of WP:SOAP, which was correct. For that reason, removing the post was totally okay. But the egregious BLP vios were reason enough to do so as well -- there were a number of specific phrases he used which were bad, "scum" was merely the worst. Could it be edited to excise all the offending parts? Maybe, though it would be hard to follow -- I have no interest in doing so, as the post was essentially a rant to begin with. And I have no idea why you keep bringing up the word "terrorist." What does that have to do with me? If you're suggesting the classic "Well, if you hate X, why are you not combatting Y?" then there's no reply necessary: I don't have to fix everything on WP all at once to have the right to fix one specific thing. IronDuke 01:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have asked you several times to show specifically what parts of the guideline pages were violated. You have yet to show anything. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page." IronDuke 02:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly." IronDuke 02:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"Talk pages are used to make decisions about article contents. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even permanently removed…" IronDuke 02:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you have a good source for calling people "scum?" Love to see it. IronDuke 02:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page."

• "living person" is singular.

Re: "Our articles must not serve primarily to mock or disparage their subjects, whether directly or indirectly."

• "article"

Nothing in the above unsourced quotes allows editors to wholesale remove an on-topic discussion from a talk page.

Re: "Did you have a good source for calling people 'scum?' Love to see it."

• Next time do as the guideline says and ask the editor to strike it out. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Things will be simpler if you just read the policy in question. IronDuke 23:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read the guidelines and policies. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Timeshifter, while I realize that this is not a vote, I believe my input is of substantial weight here, given that at least half of the comments deleted were my own. As for the claim that I did not say that the thread was off-topic; to the contrary, in my last comment I said exactly that. I think it is best that we drop this matter, unless Kermanshahi or Tundrabuggy -- the other two individuals who commented in the now deleted thread -- insist that their comments were wrongfully deleted and should be restored. Otherwise, further argument on this matter is to no one's benefit and certainly not to the benefit of the article. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 02:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the version with the Casualties section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Intifada&oldid=229585188

You did not say the thread was off-topic. You said: "Since this discussion page is not a forum and since this discussion is bordering on soapboxing (both my comments and your comments), I am now ending this discussion."

That is your opinion, but others disagree. Even if there is soapboxing that does not mean the subject is off-topic. Anybody can claim soapboxing when someone provides a ton of references, and then delete the references and the thread. Convenient. So you have to follow the method in Wikipedia:CIVIL#Removal of uncivil comments. Because you may be wrong. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have already spent more time on this thread than I like, so this will be my last post here. Firstly, you got me; I never used the phrase "off topic" or "off-topic" verbatim. I don't think that really matters. When I said that "this is not a forum", I said it because the discussion had nothing to do with improving the article (i.e. off topic). I believe I am more familiar with what I said and with the intentions behind what I said, than you are. Secondly, there is nothing "convenient" or "inconvenient" to it. If, Kermanshahi or Tundrabuggy wants the material restored, then it can be restored. Alternatively, new and on-topic sections may be created to discuss 1.) the inclusion of a sentence/paragraph/section on incidents or allegations of incidents in which Israelis living in settlement communities have carried out acts of violence against their Palestinian neighbors and 2.) whether sources such as IMEMC meet the criteria of WP:RS. IMHO, these were the only on-topic components of the deleted section. If none of the participants in the deleted discussion object to its deletion, then why waste time arguing about the deletion? The only purpose I can see is to report IronDuke to WP:ANI (possibly pertaining to your argument with him/her over the use of the word "terrorist"?). In short, only the participants in the deleted discussion have any right to object to or concur with the section's deletion. If none object, then the subject is dropped; if one objects, then the material is restored -- possibly with offensive or uncivil material crossed out with a strike-through. May reason and sanity win the day. Signing out on this topic/subject, Michael Safyan ^(talk) 04:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Please strike your comment "May reason and sanity win the day." It violates WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK. Please stop the gamesmanship.

Also, this thread may have been read by others besides the participants. The references and reasoning are possibly useful to the article and to other readers beside the participants who wrote the thread. Therefore, I object to the deletion of the Casualties section. People can't read your mind. So you have to justify deletion with specific references to the Wikipedia guidelines. Otherwise, any editor can delete anything on talk pages. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So why is calling the settlers (which have violently driven innocent people from their land and are now illegally living on it) scum, considered to be "to strong language" but calling the heroes of Palestine and Lebanon such as Kintar, Nasrallah and Yassin "terrorists" is perfectly normal. Wikipedia is not supposed to be some pro-Zionist website but it is supposed to be neutral. If I (or anyone else) had said this in the article (which I didn't...) I agree it should have been deleted, but this is the talkpage. <personal attack removed>> The section should be re-added as soon as possible! Kermanshahi (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Kermanshahi, the language you used wasn't "strong." It was entirely, absolutely unacceptable, and I hope you refactor all odious comments. Just say to yourself, "What would I find offesnive if someone said about me?" I'll also add that you've just flagrantly violated WP:NPA by implying that I might be an Israeli, and that therefore I am acting in an improper manner. You are certainly allowed to say that I am acting in an improper manner, but you may not use my (real or perceived) ethnicity against me, any more than I could say Kermanshahi is acting improperly because he is Iranian. Both statements are deeply offensive. So, please refactor your remarks to strike that portion.

I'm also past the point of mystified about all these "terrorist" points being made. If you have a problem with people using that word on talk pages to describe BLP's, please go to those pages and object. That has nothing to do with calling a specific group of people "scum" and "criminals," nor does it excuse the essentially soap-boxing nature of the post as a whole. Kermanshahi, if you have points to make, please do so without calling anyone (on or off-wiki) names. I don't think that's too much to ask. IronDuke 02:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Come off the soapbox, Iron Duke. You are soapboxing with hyperbole like "entirely, absolutely unacceptable". Saying that you may be a supporter of Israel does NOT imply that you are "acting in an improper manner." Please ease up on all the self-righteous, forum-style BS hyperbole. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Your remarks are uncivil, Timeshifter. Also, you appear not to have read WP:SOAP; I advise you to do so if that is the case. IronDuke 22:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of a truce (at least on Wikipedia) can you agree to strike out "scum" from your comments? As in scum. There is an icon in the toolbar to do so. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I just got a little angry at the moment due to all these things the settlers are doing. Kermanshahi (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Casualties (restored)

NOTE: The following discussion has been restored (with alterations, see discussion above) from this diff:

The caualty figure of 723 Israeli civilians killed gives completely the wrong impression as it includes 236 settlers, these scum are not real civilians and they're sertainly not innocent either. These settlers are only counted as "civilians" because they are not members of the military, they are as much of civilians as Palestinian millitants who fire rockets into Israel, fight with IDF and do suicide bombings are, these are not members of military either... So far 47 Palestinian civilians have been <killed>. These people are occupying Palestinian land, over 30% of it being private property and daily there are reports of settler attacks against Palestinians where they kill, beat up, stab, ect. Palestinians and even many cases where they seize more land, these guys are actually launching proper invasions. These <people> should sertainly not be counted as civilians, the 723 Israeli civilians killed should cahnge to: 487 Israeli civilians killed, 236 Israeli settlers killed.

Another thing that has to be done is the removal of "577 Palestinians killed by Palestinians" which brings the total figure up to 5322 from 4745. The clashes between different Palestinian factions against each other is not part of their intifada/uprising against Israel but these are conflicts of their own, most notably the Hamas-Fatah Conflict. Kermanshahi 07:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Kermanshahi, I am deeply disappointed by your comment. Let us suppose -- and this is a major supposition -- that all settlements involve stolen land. That would make settlers thieves. Are you really suggesting that theft is tantamount to murder? Should the penalty for theft be the same as the penalty for murder? Not only that, but a large number of settlements were established using land which was willingly bought and sold. Many Israelis who live in the "settlements" do so, not for political reasons, but simply because they cannot afford to live anywhere else. My cousins, who wouldn't even hurt a fly, live in a community outside of Jerusalem, which is technically a settlement since it is in the West Bank. There is no comparison between "settlers" in general and "militants" (i.e. terrorists) who intentionally murder civilians. Perhaps your only exposure to settlers has been to the radical and violent kind. That would be indeed sad, and I am sorry if that has been the case. That said, the vast majority of settlers -- by virtue of the fact that they do not engage in violence and combat -- are civilians.

As for Palestinians killed by Palestinians,... it is difficult to define exactly what the Second Intifada is. In fact, this was the very nature of an editing dispute in which I was engaged above. Some might describe the Second Intifada as consisting solely of the Israeli-Palestinian violence starting either with 1.) Arafat's return from Camp David, 2.) the day before Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, 3.) Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, or 4.) the day after Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount. Others would describe the Second Intifada as the period in which the violence occurred, including all events during that period, not just the Israeli-Palestinian violence. There is no consensus (not talking about Wikipedia) regarding the definition of the Second Intifada, and the listing of Palestinian-Palestinian kills/murders is consistent with the latter definition. If for no other reason, the data should be included, since the total casualty data is provided by B'Tselem, and knowing the number of Palestinian-Palestinian kills and that it has been included in the total, is necessary for understanding the casualty figure.

It saddens me that you are so angry, that you would compare ordinary people -- with a handful of bad apples, of course -- with those who intentionally maim and kill, and that you would see their deaths as just. In the future, I hope you will realize that you are not the only one touched by this conflict, and that there is much suffering on both sides. Perhaps, then, you will be more considerate of the feelings of others and with your words.

← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 11:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Almost daily there are reports of settler attacks on Palestinians, here are some examples: Palestinian: Soldiers looked on as settlers assaulted me (July 6), Israeli police have arrested two Jewish settlers suspected of involvement in the beating of a Palestinian man (July 7), Settlers launch third round of homemade rockets at Palestinian villages (July 7), Israeli settlers fire crude rockets into West Bank Palestinian villages (July 9), Israeli settlers and army invade Ush Ghrab camp in Beit Sahour (July 11), Jewish settler arrested for firing rocket (July 13), Israeli settlers invade park in Beit Sahour, assault IMEMC Staff (July 14), Israeli settlers fire homemade rocket at West Bank villages (July 21), Jewish settlers fire rockets at Palestinian villages (July 21), Israeli settlers attack a house in Nablus City (July 23), Palestinian house set ablaze by settlers (July 28), Israeli settlers attack Burin village southern Nablus (July 28), Settlers attack, wound, two Palestinian workers near Jerusalem (July 28), The Israeli army and settlers attack a house in Jerusalem (July 30), Israeli settlers invade Osh Ghrab Public Park in Beit Sahour (July 30). You see these guys are even fireing rockets into Palestinian villages just like Hamas does to Sderot! As you see every day there are reports about settler attacks on Palestinians, eithe beating them up or actually killing them, cause as we know since the beginning of the war nearly 50 Palestinians have been murdered by the settlers. These settlers have violently expelled Palestinians from their lands and their homes to build their settlements there and eventhough not all the settlers actually take part in this "combat" (the Palestinians attacked and whose lands are stolen are civilians, they can't put up much of a fight), they are more or less responsable for it as they are the ones living on these stolen lands. Now what do you expect the Palestinians to do to these people who have violently taken their land away from them? Ofcourse they will attack them. Also I hear from other Israelis (other is not a reference to me but to settlers, I am Iranian) tha the settlers are all extremists and not like normal Israelis. Putting these in the same class as other civilians gives a wrong impression to people who see the figures and also I assume that those 236 killed includes many settlers who have been involved in these attacks. Kermanshahi (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What these individuals did is horrible, and I am glad they are being prosecuted for these crimes. That does not mean, however, that their actions are representative of the "settler" population as a whole. It would be no more accurate to say that all or even a majority of Palestinians are terrorists, than it would be to say that all or even the majority of "settlers" engage in this reprehensible behavior. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 06:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Since this discussion page is not a forum and since this discussion is bordering on soapboxing (both my comments and your comments), I am now ending this discussion. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 06:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to question if some of the sources used in Kermanshahi's list are all considered reliable sources? My reasoning is that there is a lot of propaganda in the Arab press in relation to these things and quite a bit of evidence that some such episodes are not actually factual. Perhaps there should be (if there isn't already) a list of sources within the I/P conflict area that are essentially "certified" as being factual -- or I should rather say -- reliable? Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that is really an issue here? Some of the reports are from sites like ynetnews.com and BBC news and if we copy and paste the article titles into google we can find the same (or very similar) reports on Haaretz, the Jerusalem Post and a number of International non Arab news sources. For example:Israeli settlers attack a house in Nablus City site:jpost.com. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 08:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

So let's get back to subject, we have to mention in the infobox that of the 723 Israeli civilians killed, 236 are settlers. Kermanshahi (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, we do not. Firstly, you have failed to provide ample evidence to support these numbers. Secondly, you have failed to prove the relevance of these individuals being "settlers." Please note that anecdotal "evidence" is not sufficient. Please keep in mind that those who were killed while in combat -- whether they were presently in the military or not -- were excluded from the list of civilians. Furthermore, please keep in mind that some of these so-called "settlers" who were violently murdered in terrorist attacks include women and young children. It is disgusting that you are suggesting that a pregnant woman and her four young children, a five year-old girl, and a nine month-old girl -- all of them murdered in Palestinian terror attacks -- be dismissed as "settlers" and treated as perpetrators rather than victims. I am very deeply offended by what you have said. More than I can express. Again, please give greater consideration to your words and how they can affect others. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 15:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't have a problem with listing "236 Israeli settlers killed" as part of the "civilian" Israelis killed. The number is from our current source for casualty numbers http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Casualties.asp

As for classifying all settlers as combatants, then we would have to classify all Palestinians as combatants. People already do that anyway in their own minds. We don't need to slant the article either way. We have to respect WP:NPOV by putting out the info on both viewpoints in the form of X says Y. From reliable sources of course. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Links to reliable sources discussions.

As for the individual attacks by various settlers, they can, of course be written about in the article just as the various attacks by Palestinians are. We let people make up their own minds. We discuss the rocket attacks by Israeli settlers along with those by Palestinians. Wikipedia does not take sides. We describe the carnage done by both sides. That is the nature of war. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You wrote that the "number is from our current source for casualty numbers"; however, nowhere does the term "settler" appear on the page. In fact, the way this is indicated on the page, it seems that the number of "236" indicates Israeli civilians who were killed, while in the West Bank or Gaza, by Palestinians. This figure could include Israelis passing through these areas who do not live there. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 19:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. If someone wants to go through all the individual listings there and count the number, then we could have a number for settlers. Or we could just list it the way B'Tselem does. We could break it down as 487 Israeli civilians killed in Israel, and 236 Israeli civilians killed in the Palestinian territories. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The figure might include a few Israelis killed while in the West Bank or Gaza but majority of them are most definetly settlers. As a matter of fact all these people are known by name and how they were killed so we can count exactly how many of them were settlers (a number that undoubtedly exceeds 200). Also you must note that there is not a single part of the article that even mentions the violence by settlers against Palestinians. Not to forget the rocket attacks, OK it's true they are on much smaller amounths than the rocket attacks by Hamas on Israel but they are still worth mentioning considering they are being done and with intent to kill civilians. Kermanshahi (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is some sourced info:

Israeli settlement#Settlements, Palestinians, and human rights - There can be found some info on violence that occurred before and during the Second Intifada. Violence (both from and against the settlers) during the Second Intifada could be summarized in the article here. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget what they say: "Auschwitz teaches us that we cannot remain indifferent, that we cannot look the other way when atrocities take place, that we must always be ready to speak out against evil no matter where it takes place and no matter who the victims are." - Miles Lerman, Chairperson, United States Holocaust Memorial Council (1995) PR^talk 21:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would we remember that particular quote here? IronDuke 23:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Kermanshahi, if you want to add a section about attacks, carried out without permission of the military, by Israelis living in the West Bank and Gaza on Palestinian civilians, you may do so. Provided, of course, that the section cites reliable sources (that would, therefore, exclude Maan News and IMEMC which are partisan Palestinian sources. Preferably, Xinhua would be avoided, as well, in favor of BBC, CNN, New York Times, International Herald Tribune, Reuters, Haaretz, YNet, etc. ). I object, however, to categorizing the victims of Palestinian terrorism as "settler" and "not settler" on the grounds that this categorization attempts to generalize the behavior of so-called "settlers" as a whole and attempts to demonize an entire population so that it seems that they deserved to be murdered. How would you like it if the Palestinian casualties were broken down to "sympathizes with terrorists" vs. "not sympathizes with terrorists"? According to polls conducted by the Pew Research Center, 70% of Palestinians "believe that suicide bombings against civilians can be often or sometimes justified" [2]. That said, it would be both insensitive and unencyclopedic to divide the casualty figures according to how they answered the poll question, even if sufficient data were available for such a breakdown. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 00:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Military history articles on Wikipedia break down the combatants by all kinds of characteristics. See the military history project. It is common to break down the casualties by all kinds of characteristics too. It is also common to analyze the degree of "collateral damage" and the attitudes of the combatants towards it. The Israelis have killed more civilians than the Palestinians. Those are the facts. Wikipedia just puts out the facts without slanting it. See WP:NPOV. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Military history articles break down combatants by all kinds of characteristics; however, these characteristics are deemed relevant. One would not see, for example, a breakdown of casualty figures by the color of their hair. Also, I would like to remind you that it is possible to introduce bias, even with just "the facts". For example, Israel has killed more civilians in total but fewer by percentage; that is the number of Palestinian civilian casualties divided by the total number of Palestinian casualties is smaller than the number of Israeli civilian casualties divided by the total number of Israeli casualties. The mentioning of some facts and not others, in addition to the way facts are presented, can bias the presentation. Applying this to the current discusion,... there are numerous ways to interpret the information; "Israelis living in settlements bear the brunt of Palestinian terror attacks" (the settlements isolate the rest of Israeli society from much of these brutal attacks) or "Palestinian militants target Israeli settlers, not ordinary Israelis" (these "militants" have made an ethical choice to target this "guilty" population while sparing the innocent, and there would be fewer attacks without the presence of this "guilty" population). Do you see how this can be presented in multiple ways? I suppose the exact way the information is presented on the B'Tselem page is ok; however, I fail to see how the added complexity would benefit the article or the reader experience. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 02:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Demonising an entire population? Well it isn't as if these people had no choice. They themsefles went there and violently took land away from defenceless Palestinians building their houses on it, it's not like they're innocent or something... When they do this Palestinian fighters will ofcourse retaliate by trying to kill them and get the land back for their people. There is a difference between innocent people who were just killed in their houses or in a bus, ect. by suicide bombers and people who have forcefully stolen land and were killed occupying it. Kermanshahi (talk) 09:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Could we please restore some balance to this page?

When I came across this page, there was not a single photo of a suicide bombing, which - in terms of the infliction of casualties - was the number one tactic used by Palestinian combatants. However, for some reason, there were TWO photos of Israeli bulldozers - which (although iconic) account for a very small fraction of casualties on the Palestinian side. I therefore included a photo of a suicide bombing outside Hadera, in Israel.

The photos of this article (or lack thereof) give the impression that this article is being used to bring weight to one side's position against another's, and therefore violate the NPOV. Can we please change this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finlaggen (talk • contribs) 18:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What a coincidence, I came here to say the exact same thing. Finlaggen, I completely agree. There are serious issues of balance with regard to the images in this article. The images of Israeli weaponry should be balanced with images of Palestinian weaponry. Similarly, the image of Al-Durrah, a Palestinian victim, should be balanced with an image of an Israeli victim. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 05:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to ask, where are the articles that declare Saddam Hussein was paying up to $25K to the families of Palastenian martyrs (Suicide bombers)? There isn't even a mention of this in the entire article. Is that because it's not considered a truth or what? Just asking! (Crisales (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

There are serious issues of balance with regard to every written section.

One could start by eliminating

'On September 27, Sgt. David Biri was killed;[14] some Israeli sources view this as the start of the Intifada.[15]'

'Some sources', turn out to be a private opinion of Michael Bard, for which there appears to be no independent backing (though he is not fringe, this is an extreme fringe viewpoint of one). It is patently ridiculous, as is patently POV the framing of the initial outbreak by citing two Israeli victims, Biri the day before Sharon's walk, and concluding the paragraph with the shooting of Yosef Tabeja. Message, unintended nor not: 'Over a week, 1900 odd Palestinians, none with identifiable names, an anonymous mob of folks, were wounded or killed, but 'they' started it with killing David Biri, and finished the period by murdering Yosef Tabeja.Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless this can be justified, I'll remove both within a few days.Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It already is justified. The killing of the Israeli soldier the day before Sharon's visit -- as well as the killing of the Israeli policeman by the Palestinian policeman the day of the visit, which isn't even mentioned in the article -- are relevant regardless of whether they are viewed as actually being "part" of the intifada. This definitely should not be removed, and should in fact be expanded to include a better description of the killing of Biri and to include the other incident. As for viewing these incidents as "the start of the intifada", the statement is appropriately qualified with the words "some Israeli sources say", and it is sourced. It is an opinion and is sourced as such. Personally I wouldn't have a problem if you want to change "say" to "claim", although some others might disagree and it might "violate" some "guideline" somewhere. But the material in question definitely should not be removed. 6SJ7 (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, this viewpoint is indeed notable. One should keep in mind that as Executive Director of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, Mitchell Bard's statements represent far more than his own opinion. Furthermore, you will find statements to the same effect on the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) website. Hence this viewpoint is the "official" Israeli viewpoint. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 16:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither of you has addressed the problem. Young people speak of weasel words, 'some' referenced by a single remark by Mitchel Bard, an economist with a Phd in polscience employed in advocacy, is not adequate for justifying what is a fringe view. The academic literature that has seriously analysed this phenomenon does not cite with any frequency this kind of personal judgement by Bard. Michael tells me I'll find 'statements to the same effect' at the MFa website. Well, it's not my job, Michael, to do your homework and justify 'some'. Produce these references from MFA that back Bard's remark, and we'll see.

A statement by the Israeli Ambassador to the UN to the UN Security Council, found on the MFA website, explicitly mentions the Sept 27th slaying in connection with the start of the Second Intifada. In addition to mentioning the September 27th killing, the statement offers September 13th as an alternative start date to the violence of the Second Intifada ([3]):

"...The events of last few days represent the latest and most severe developments in a wave of violence that has been building in recent weeks. Though some are inclined to assign exclusive responsibility to Israel for these acts of provocation, the present Palestinian escalation dates back to well before the Temple Mount disturbances, when, on 13 September, stones and Molotov cocktails were thrown at Israeli positions in the vicinity of the Netzarim junction in the Gaza Strip. This was followed by a number of increasingly violent incidents, including the killing of an Israeli soldier by a roadside bomb near Netzarim on September 27..."

Another excerpt from the MFA website agrees with Mitchell Bard's characterization of the Second Intifada as having started when Yassir Arafat walked out on peace negotiations at Camp David ([4]):

"The wave of terrorism that began in September 2000 is the direct result of a strategic Palestinian decision to use violence - rather than negotiation - as the primary means to advance their agenda. Despite Palestinian claims to the contrary, Israel's so-called "occupation" of the territories is not the true cause of the terrorism, as negotiations could have peacefully resolved all aspects of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict well before the violence started."

"When the wave of violence and terrorism began in September 2000, the Palestinians originally claimed that it was a spontaneous reaction to the visit of then-opposition leader Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount. However, later statements by Palestinian leaders in the Arab-language media contradicted this assertion. Neither did the report issued by the Mitchell Committee, composed of American and European leaders, give support to the earlier Palestinian claim. Consequently, Palestinian spokespersons changed their tactics and instead began to assert that the violence was a response to Israel's "occupation" of the West Bank and Gaza."

"This claim ignores events both before and after 1967 (when Israel came into control of the territories during a war of self-defense) that prove that the "occupation" is not the true cause of Palestinian terrorism. Not only did Palestinian terrorism precede Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza; it has often hit brutally at those moments, as in 1994-1996, when the peace process was making the greatest progress. The history of Palestinian terrorism makes it abundantly clear that the terrorists are not opposing Israel's presence in the territories they are opposed to making any kind of peace with Israel."

"Indeed, the current wave of terrorism began shortly after intense high-level negotiations were conducted to find a permanent resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In July 2000, a Middle East peace summit was held at Camp David, hosted by U.S. President Bill Clinton and attended by Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat and Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Barak. During the summit, Israel expressed its willingness to make far-reaching and unprecedented compromises in order to arrive at a workable, enduring agreement. However, Yasser Arafat chose to break off the negotiations without even offering any proposals of his own. Consequently, the summit adjourned with President Clinton placing the blame for its failure squarely at Arafat's feet."

Both Mitchell G. Bard and the MFA agree that the Second Intifada began when Yassir Arafat walked out on the peace negotiations at Camp David. Indeed, this is the "official" Israeli position (indeed the publication "The Second Intifada: Background and Causes of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" by Jeremy Pressman confirms that this is indeed the Israeli "Conventional Wisdom"). Both offer alternative start dates for the violence of the Second Intifada (not necessarily the same as the start date for the Second Intifada), and both mention the Sept 27th murder of Sgt. Biri (although neither mention Sgt. Biri by name) as one such start date. Since Sgt. David Biri is the only victim of the Second Intifada listed on Sept 27th, though, it is safe to assume that he is the one being referenced. Having now "done my homework", I reiterate that the viewpoint has been expressed by official Israeli sources and conclude that this viewpoint is, indeed, notable. QED. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 22:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

6SJ7. If you think an article on an historical phenomenon of this complexity requires that we expand on Biri's death, then you lack perspective. That is an open invitation to cram in details of innumerable Palestinian casualties, giving names, referring to village monuments to many groups of people killed among that people in the leadup etc.

Generally, if you wish to write a quality article, you should work with books. These official statements, and points of view by government-connected officials or spokesmen of both sides have scant relevance to historical judgement, which has more of an investment in the principles underwriting Wiki, NPOV. There are polemical or sided accounts even there, but serious scholars would not accept that a Biri or whoever is a factor in this, any more than one or two people killed on the eve of the 1948 war were significant for the precipitation of events. If Biri is in, then any one of a number of Palestinians killed before Sharon's visit are also in, which would be inappropriate.

Neither of you can explain to me why the 1900 dead and wounded Palestinians are anonymous statistics bracketed strategically between the names of two specific Israelis who also died. One used to learn to sight this kind of elementary poving of a representation of 'facts' in the first semester of any University course in history. It is just not on.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, you are entitled to your opinion, but you should not remove the material in question. 6SJ7 (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

We are all entitled to our opinions, entitled to edit as we see fit. Unlike many I prefer to discuss my proposals at length, where they are forseeably 'controversial' (this one is commonsensical), on the talk page before proceeding. If I cannot obtain an intelligent reply based on wiki criteria, and general standards of quality composition, I proceed to edit with the same liberty that guided whoever, without consensus, made the poor edit I perceive, and object to. Remember this is a B-grade article, and it is not a comfortable feeling to fiddle around with mediocre pages. One is obliged to make an effort to bring it at least up to GA snuff Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the fact that you are discussing your proposals before editing the article. That being said, you received a lengthy, detailed and intelligent reply from at least 2 editors who oppose your proposal. You may disagree with them, but please don't insult them by suggesting, or insinuating, that their well thought-out response is not an "intelligent reply", or using condescending language. It is clear that your proposed change has no consensus. Please work on this page to obtain such a consensus, and be reminded that this page is within the scope of the ArbCom I-P sanctions. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, please respect WP:NPOV, which allows for multiple opinions. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I am still waiting for someone to supply me, not with multiple 'opinions' but multiple Reliable Sources, on an event which has been intensively studied, which says Sergeant Biri's death marked the beginning of the Second Intifada.Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

June 19, 2008 Gaza Truce

Maybe someone could email B'Tselem and ask them to post a page of casualties through June 19, 2008. I think that the Intifada may be over with the Gaza Truce. I don't know. Maybe someone can tell me what other reliable sources think of this, and cite that info in the article.

Here are some useful links:

• http://www.google.com/search?q=Gaza+Truce
• http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/994774.html --Timeshifter (talk) 14:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Image caption for Image:AlDurrah2.jpg

User:NoCal100 is changing the longterm stable image caption for Muhammad al-Durrah - Image:AlDurrah2.jpg without getting requested consensus. See: [5] and [6]

One of his edit summaries is "make caption consistent with the one at Muhammad al-Durrah - it is disputed if he is dead at all". --Timeshifter (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You are refereed to the most recent discussion on this topic, where the latest contributors were in favor of shortening the caption, dropping everything after that statement that says this is an iconic scene. See [7] and [8]. It seems the consensus is the opposite of what you claim. NoCal100 (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Not everything is discussed on this talk page. The image caption was stable for a long time before you changed it. The talk section that you refer to was ignored by most people after the image caption stabilized. Are you aware of this?: Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration#ArbCom authorizes discretionary sanctions. It is up to you to convince others before insisting on controversial changes. Anybody can make minor changes. Be bold. But once reverted you should discuss things here, instead of putting back controversial info. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I am discussing things here. I am pointing you to the most recent discussion in this page, which indicates a preference for the shorter caption, which is also used for this image elsewhere on Wikipedia. If you want to make a case for your version, let's hear it. NoCal100 (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The text runs:

'12-year-old Palestinian Muhammad al-Durrah became an icon of the Palestinian uprising in 2000 when he was killed on September 30, 2008 after being caught in a crossfire. Controversies continue over whether Palestinians or the Israeli Defense Forces killed him.'

Some suggestions have been made for shortening it. Thje date 2008 is a mistake, I will correct it. The name is linked, and the curious reader can use this to go to the details on that page. Nishidani (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest

'Muhammad al-Durrah, a Palestinian boy, became an icon of the uprising when he died after being caught in crossfire on September 30, 2000.'

The controversies and language of the other page should not be repeated here. The link in the name will clarify the controversy and its details. It is not controversial to say he died, unless some extraordinary case of him being hidden for eight years becomes part of the hoax hypothesis. Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The hoax hypothesis, in some versions of it, does hold that he was not killed. The recent French trial explicitly stated (what has been obvious for all for quite some time), that the iconic scene does not show him being killed. Thus, a better caption would be the one currently in the Al Durrah article, which states this is an iconic scene, who shot it, but refrains from stating that he is dead, which is not an uncontroversial fact. NoCal100 (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately NoCal is right - some versions of this bizarre claim do indeed suggest that, like Elvis, he has been alive all these years. And, as you say Nishidani, therefore kept hidden from the world somehow, while 101 people from the Palestinian territories to Jordan, including all his relatives and various medical personnel (and possibly even the King of Jordan) have kept quiet about the role they played in all this and what they know about this cover-up. NoCal is on less sure ground when they endeavour to explain for the rest of us what the French court ruled. As for the text suggested, I'd be fine with it, although think it should more explicitly say he "was killed" rather than simply died. Someone shot him, even if it's not clear who it was. --Nickhh (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If NoCal wants to source the Mohammad al-Durrah page, an edit to leave in the air any innuendo that he may not have died, he'd better start by rereading line 1, i.e. Mohammad al-Durrah (1988-2000). Nishidani (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. You may not be aware that one editor tried to remove the date of death a couple of months ago, precisely because of their belief in the hoax theory. I kid you not. --Nickhh (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

About that page as opposed to what is on it, I can believe anything! It has 'iconic' status for what can happen in wiki when commonsense editing is overrun by the hermeneutics of suspicion.Nishidani (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

To say that he wasn't killed is ridiculous. From Muhammad al-Durrah:

An ambulance took the boy and his father to the nearby Shifa hospital in Gaza, where Muhammad was pronounced dead on arrival.[42] There were conflicting reports on the injuries sustained by the two. Muhammad was reported to have been shot four times,[43] though other reports stated that the pathologist had identified three injuries: two lethal wounds to the chest and a "relatively harmless" leg injury.[44] His father spoke of Muhammad being struck in the knee and back.[39] Although no autopsy was performed, doctors who examined the boy's body said that he had been shot from the front in the upper abdomen and the injury to his back that his father had seen was in fact an exit wound.[45] The deaths of al-Durrah, an ambulance driver and a Palestinian policeman were first reported by Shifa hospital;[26] a further thirty people, including six Palestinian policemen, were reported injured in the gun battle at the junction.[46] Muhammad was buried before sundown, in accordance with Muslim tradition, in an emotional public funeral at the Bureij camp in which his body was displayed wrapped in a Palestinian flag.[19] The funeral was attended by thousands of mourners and was televised to millions more.[44]

As long as the image caption does not specify who killed him, then it is an accurate image caption. "Crossfire" and "killed" are the accurate terms to use in the image caption. Those are the key terms that have long been in this image caption. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think one need refer in the caption to the controversies, but only because I don't think the average reader is stupid, clicks on links, and, in general, in articles, as opposed to talk pages where I garrule, I prefer terseness.Nishidani (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

How about this: 12-year-old Palestinian Muhammad al-Durrah became an icon of the Palestinian uprising in 2000 when he was killed on September 30, 2000 in a crossfire between Palestinians and the Israeli Defense Forces. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

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. [9]) 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.[10]

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)

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: [11]

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."[12] Jayjg ^(talk) 03:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources:

BBC: [13]

New York Times: [14]

CNN: [15]

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 [16] 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. PR^talk 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)

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. PR^talk 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 two 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 odds, but given your perfect track record so far, I still feel confident. Go for it! Jayjg ^(talk) 04:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)