Misplaced Pages

Talk:Second Intifada: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:16, 10 April 2007 editTimeshifter (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers50,343 edits →Survey results← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:27, 19 December 2024 edit undoRainsage (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,869 edits →Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 December 2024 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{WikiProjectNotice|Arab-Israeli conflict}}
{{Talk header}}
{{WPMILHIST
{{controversial}}
|class = B}}
{{Calm}}
{{infoboxneeded|Infobox Military Unit}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{controversial}}
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=High}}
{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=Top}}
{{Calm talk}}
{{WikiProject Military history|Middle-Eastern-task-force=yes
|class = B
<!-- B-Class checklist -->
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->
|B-Class-1= yes
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
|B-Class-2= yes
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
|B-Class-3= yes
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
|B-Class-4= yes
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
|B-Class-5= yes|Post-Cold-War=yes}}
{{WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=High}}
}}
{{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}
{{Press
| subject = article
| author = Omer Benjakob
| title = The Second Intifada Still Rages on Misplaced Pages
| org = ]
| url = https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-the-second-intifada-still-rages-on-wikipedia-1.9201705?lts=1601639306928
| date = 2020-10-01
| quote = Beyond documenting the intifada itself as it happened, the article also documented something no less important: the battle over the narrative of the ]. This skirmish proved pivotal to Misplaced Pages’s own history.
| archiveurl =
| archivedate =
| accessdate = 2020-10-02
}}


{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{archive box|], ], ], ]}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 125K
|counter = 10
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 2
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Second Intifada/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{old move|date=13 May 2021|from=Al-Aqsa Intifada|destination=Second Intifada|result=moved|link=Special:Permalink/1024251775#Requested move 13 May 2021}}
{{Archive box|auto=yes |search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=3 |units=months |index=/Archive index |
* ]
* ]
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
__TOC__ __TOC__
== Disengagement plan ==


== Number of suicide bombings ==
What's wrong with just saying "West Bank"? It appears to be the more commonly used term. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 05:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
{{Edit extended-protected|Second Intifada|answered=yes}}
In the second paragraph of the article, there is the following sentence: "The suicide bombings carried out by Palestinian assailants became one of the more prominent features of the Second Intifada and mainly targeted Israeli civilians, contrasting with the relatively less violent nature of the ], which took place between 1987 and 1993."


I think this should be:
== "Samaria" ==


"The '''146''' suicide bombings carried out by Palestinian assailants became one of the more prominent features of the Second Intifada and mainly targeted Israeli civilians, contrasting with the relatively less violent nature of the ], which took place between 1987 and 1993."
There's been several reverts back and forth about the use of Samaria in sentence about the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from four settlement outposts in the northern West Bank. Samaria is the name of the biblical area roughly comprising the northern West Bank (the area around Nablus, or Shekhem as some people like to call it). It is also part of the name of an administrative region claimed by Israel recognized by nobody else. I think Samaria deserves mention in the article about the West Bank, but not in any article that the northern West Bank is mentioned in. Misplaced Pages is not a forum for pushing the Israeli point of view (through multiple reverts), but should use language understood by AND agreed upon by the World community, that is as neutral as possible. --] 08:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
:I just saw this thread, but as I said in my edit summary, this has nothing to do with the modern Israeli state, its administrative divisions, or any politics. ] is a geographic term describing a specific region within the northern West Bank. I think that people are being confused by reference to ], which ''is'' an Israeli administrative area and political term. Cheers, <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 05:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
:: Hi Tewfik, ] is also the name of a geographic area, however, just like Samaria, it can also refer to a political area. Part of the geographic region Palestine is the modern-day State of Israel, and the geographic region Samaria is roughly equivalent to the modern-day northern West Bank. So if an article is talking about pre-1948 Palestine, I would use Palestine, otherwise Israel it is. Same with Judea and Samaria. If it's about biblical history, then Judea and Samaria it is. In the 21st century, the West Bank (and maybe in the 22nd century a real State of Palestine). --] 08:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
:Yes, ] refers to a geographic area, and so does ] - neither currently refer to a political area. As I said above, I fear that you are confused with ], which is a political term/Israeli administrative area. Samaria refers to the northern part of the West Bank north of Jerusalem, and is not an exclusively Israeli/Jewish term. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 16:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


The number of suicide bombings is mentioned in sources that are already on that sentence.
== Proposal to rename ==


See:
I propose to rename this article into more neutral "Second Intifada".
The only reason to call it "Al-Aqsa Intifada" is a POV linking Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount with Palestinian violence. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 22:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


"Since the outbreak of the second intifada in late September 2000 until today, there were approximately 146 suicide attacks, and more than 389 suicide attacks have been foiled" in Schweitzer, Y. (2010). "The rise and fall of suicide bombings in the second Intifada". Strategic Assessment. 13 (3): 39–48.
:I concur. If there are several popular names, the more neutral term is most appropriate. Plus, "Second Intifada" gets more google hits than "Al-Aqsa Intifada". --]<sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 22:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Similar figures are also quoted in other reputable sources. The number of attempted suicide attacks may also be relevant, but that number is likely more open to debate. The sources I have checked generally show approximately 140-50 suicide bombings and approximately 350-450 attempts. It depends a bit on whether you count each sucide bomber separately or each attack separately since some attacks had more than. 1 bomber. But the numbers in the existing sources conform to this range.
:I concur as well, though I suppose we should make sure there's the appropriate redirect and "also known as..." in the introduction. --] 22:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


In any case, I think putting a number such as 146 or range such as 140-150 is necessary to describe the frequency of these attacks during this time period which was a major feature of the intifada and characterized the Israeli POV of the period.
:I agree, the fact that "Second intifada" is both more neutral and more common should make the renaming almost automatic.- ] | ] 23:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


See also:
:: The "official" name is Al-Aqsa Intifada, and not the Second Intifada. It is not a POV, just a name. Similar names include the ']' (not the Fourth Arab-Israeli War) or the ']' (not the 1773 American protest). The link between Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount (Al-Aqsa) and the Palestinian uprising is a fact, and not a POV. They both started on the same day. Whether Sharon's visit was the reason for the outbreak of the uprising or was the last straw that broke the Palestinians' backs (or even an excuse used by those bloodthirsty Palestinians to murder Israelis) is really irrelevant. The BBC Timeline in the Links section calls it Al-Aqsa Intifada, and then goes on to ''describe'' it as the second Palestinian intifada (small s and small i). --] 23:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
::: That is the POV I was talking about. There is no ''"official" name'', and as it's been noted out by MPerel, "Al-Aqsa Intifada" is not even the prevalent name - unlike ] or ]. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 00:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
"The link between Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount (Al-Aqsa) and the Palestinian uprising is a fact": considering that the article devotes a whole section to discussing the multiple POVs on the chronology, the title shouldn't be the place to press one of them over the others. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 00:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Sela-Shayovitz, R. (2007). "Suicide bombers in Israel: Their motivations, characteristics, and prior activity in terrorist organizations". International Journal of Conflict and Violence. 1 (2): 163.
: The section that starts with "On September 27, Sgt. David Biri was killed;" is a sneaky way to trivialize Sharon's visit and delink it from the intifada. An intifada is an uprising. A singular killing incident is hardly an uprising. The major violence started after Sharon 'stormed' the Temple Mount complex. The Palestinians are the ones who dubbed it as such, as they are the ones that were uprising. As to the 'googling' of "Second Intifada" and "Al-Aqsa Intifada", the results are very close, and the "second intifada" ones could be inflated for two reasons: 1- Google is not case sensitive, and the second intifada (as in the second Matrix movie) is just saying that there was an original event called the "Intifada". 2- There is only one way to write "second" (it's not a transliteration). --] 02:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
:: Thank you for confirming that 1) the name reflects solely Palestinian POV, 2) hostilities began before Sharon's visit (which BTW, was dignified, and not 'stormed'), and 3) there is no reason to use POV title because "the results are very close". ←] <sup>]]</sup> 02:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Brym, R. J.; Araj, B. (1 June 2006). "Suicide Bombing as Strategy and Interaction: The Case of the Second Intifada". Social Forces. 84 (4): 1969. doi:10.1353/sof.2006.0081. ISSN 0037-7732. S2CID 146180585. ] (]) 12:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
::: 1) It's a Palestinian event with a Palestinian name. 2) hostilities began in 1948 (and before) when Jewish gangs terrorized Palestine, but that doesn't mean the intifada started back then (I will keep the comment about the dignified part to myself). 3) The "results are very close" comment was only meant to shed some light as to why 'googling' in this case is not really indicative. --] 08:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 09:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)


== Revert ==
:::::''']''', I request you keep a balanced representation here or at least make an attempt to learn the subject that you're speaking of. In your mentioning of these gangs which "terrorised Palestine", you've left out the "locals" who came in from outside in order to mooch off the Jewish economy by theft and looting or the local peasantry ]s who refused accept compensation after the land they were working on was sold to zionist organization by Arab ]s and went on to terrorize Jewish communities by a multitude of tactics (usually by random shooting and killing and extorting "protection" money) despite not having any ownership rights to the land they were occupying (or the nearby area). Thefts and attacks by Arabs existed long before 1920 and before parts of the Jewish community organized any retribution - I'm sure that you know retribution is considered the proper way in Arabic society, esp. in those days so don't go on like the standard pseudo-historian revisionists who "blame the jews" for a situation that was caused mostly by Arab theft from their own people.
:::::Here's a retribution example: the retubition attempt backed up by an official ] of the Farkhi brothers to avenge the assasination of their brother ] in Akko. ] 18:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


{{Re|PeleYoetz}} Kindly explain and why, exactly, they are not improvements (any of them). ] (]) 18:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:::: 1) Exploding buses, pizzerias and discos inside Israel is not merely "a Palestinian event". 2) You wrote: "hostilities began in 1948 (and before) when Jewish gangs..." - Nonsense: see ], ], ], ]. 3) Your argument works against your POV. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 10:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


:{{ping|PeleYoetz}} Not sure how reducing and summarizing the lede into genuinely four-well composed paragraphs, and improving the chronology of the lede is not an improvement? ] (]) 22:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Sorry Humus sapiens. For everybody Al-Aqsa Intifada has started after Sharon visit not before. Sorry to say but nobody notice 1 dead civilian or soldier in Israel region. Only in Israel and maybe in U.S. people think that this intifada has started earlier. For Israel is normal to blame other side and for U.S I will only say that 20-25 % of population support Israel in anything because God has given this land to Israel (Polls say that not I) 06:00, 28 March 2007 --]
:If you make another revert before discussing these reverts, or make further reverts on other pages without discussion I will topic ban you from ARBPIA. ] (]) 19:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|ScottishFinnishRadish}} PeleYoetz has continued editing while avoiding this talk page despite your warnings. Important to note that their that they are seemingly refusing to discuss is disruptive as it had indiscriminately mass reverted dozens of good faith edits and improvements made to the lede. ] (]) 08:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2024 ==
I strongly support renaming the article. Al-Aqsa Intifada is a POV title, and, incidentally, is a name that I have read only on Misplaced Pages. The relationship between Sharon's visit and the uprising is a matter of historical debate. This should be (and is) represented in the article; the debate should not be decided, in favor of anti-Israel propaganda, in the title. "Second Intifada" is neutral. ] 05:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


{{Edit extended-protected|Second Intifada|answered=yes}}
The title is not POV. It is simply the name of the conflict, get over it. No one complains about calling it the Yom Kippur War, so why should people complain about this being called the al-Aqsa Intifada? We don't complain about calling it the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict when Lebanon itself wasn't even fighting, and if we do, if we're not going to change it, we might as well leave this one alone as well. There will never be a neutral term for any subject this politically and emotionally charged. If we change it to the "Second Intifada," then we will be ignoring the prominent link between the uprising and Sharon's visit to the Noble Sanctuary and offend someone. There is never a neutral term for anything regarding history. It has all been renditioned and renamed to fit someone else's status quo. If we don't complain about anti-Semitic being only leveled for Jews and not Arabs as well, we shouldn't nitpick the name of this article. {{unsigned|65.35.11.39|06:31, 29 March 2007}}
The use of the term "Combatant" is frequently used in the article and it should read "terrorist".
:You are correct that "Second Intifada" doesn't assert the point of view that Sharon started it, which is exactly the point. I think that the rest of your examples and your consistent substitution of the neutral ] for the exclusionary ] on this page further strengthen that argument, and I highly suggest that you review the oft-cited ] policy, which I admit is not as easy as it sounds. Cheers, <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 03:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
A Combatant is a members of an armed force who operate according to the laws and customs of war. Combatants are commanded by a person in charge of their subordinates, wear a distinctive sign, and carry their arms openly.


"Suicide bombers" the main characteristic of the 2nd intifada is not in accordance with any law or custom of war. Its savagery and terrorism. Please correct. ] (]) 16:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree with those who are against renaming the article. It is widely referred to in the press and in popular discourse as the Al-Aqsa Intifada and I do not think the name is POV. ] 18:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
:{{not done}}:<!-- Template:EEp --> Misplaced Pages has ]. This is not an indication of condoning "terrorist" activities, but of neutrality, and avoidance of passing judgment, affirming or denying. Please debate the merit of this policy at ], not here. ] (]) 17:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)


== Opening paragraph ==
*The Second Intifada is more common on Google, and has been used on all sides, including by al-Jazeera. It's also the more neutral term, because there's a POV that says the Sharon visit was just an excuse for an uprising that was about to begin anyway. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 11:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


The last two references at the opening paragraph are odd and tackle a side aspect of this article, the quotes seem to exist to promote a certain point of view, so why is this still here? ] (]) 12:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I am opposed to renaming this article. The only thing that should be considered in settling this dispute, is which name is the most common. Not which name some editors think is more neutral, not who started the conflict, not whether Sharon's visit is or is not the cause of the conflict, but what is the more common name, in the English speaking world. That is how the naming dispute over ] was settled, and that's how we should settle this one also. So far, the evidence that has been provided to support "Second Intifada" being the more common name consists of: a count of Googe hits, and one article (in al-Jazeera) which refers to the conflict as "second Intifada". Fjmustak has provided good reasons why counting Google hits is not strong evidence that "second Intifada" is more common than "al-Aqsa Intfada" as the ''name'' of the conflict. As to Slim Virgin's example from al-Jazeera, here is an example the other way from ]: . A lot more examples are needed, and this discussion hasn't even begun. ] 01:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


:The cause of the intifada and the scale of the repression when it was still a nonviolent uprising are side aspects? ] (]) 23:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
*"Second Intifada" is more common on Google, as well as Google Scholar -compare and . It's clear that there is no "official" name so given that "Second Intifada" is more common and avoids POV, this is the title WP should use. ] 06:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC) The hits are close enough though, that we also need to make sure there's the appropriate redirect and "also known as al-Aqsa Intfada" in the introduction, as per Leifern. ] 06:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
::I am referring to the sources of:
::: Opportunity, Culture and Agency: Influences on Fatah and Hamas Strategic Action during the Second Intifada
::: A Globalized Conflict: European Anti-Jewish Violence during the Second Intifada
::They are out of place and were recently inserted to highlight some quotes in them that do not directly relate to the Second Intifada as a whole. ] (]) 09:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 December 2024 ==
::Now try the google scholar search again, using with exact phrase "in the title of the article".


{{edit extended-protected|Second Intifada|answered=yes}}
::* : 1,340 articles last time I checked.
“occupation” should be taken out as not everybody sees it that way, so it is biased. ] (]) 09:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::* : 59 articles
: Not done. edit requests should be uncontroversial ] (]) 06:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

::So if when we are talking about the '''name''' of the article, rather than whether the words "second intifada" might have occurred somewhere in the article, it seems that scholars choose to use "al Aqsa intifada" over "second intifada" at a ratio of about 23:1 - from my own observation it's rare to hear the phrase "second intifada", which is why I was surprised to see people suggest that it was more common - more common on blogs maybe? --] <small>(] | ])</small> 14:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

:::I just edited my own post as I'd transposed two digits when copying from google - although it doesn't make a big difference - it's still a 23:1 ratio of articles in favour of "al Aqsa intifada". In case there was any doubt, I oppose the proposal to rename the article. --] <small>(] | ])</small> 14:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

::: actually returns 69 articles. ] 15:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

::::Sorry, my mistake, looks like I copied from the wrong window or something. So 69 vs about 59 - much closer than I would have expected. --] <small>(] | ])</small> 15:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::Well given the closeness in results, and that it's only the title search where "al Aqsa" beats "second", as well as "al Aqsa" being in quotes in some of the titles, I'm going to stick with renaming. In a case like this, the more NPOV title should be used. If "al Aqsa" does become the standard name, it's not like we can't change it back later. ] 15:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::Yes, but the title is what matters - otherwise some random text in the article, or even a footnote like "sometimes known as the second intifada" would hold just as much weight as the title. Yet another search for what it's worth - regular google this time... and this discussion is about the "name" or "title" of this article.

::::::* : about 32,000
::::::* : about 1,140

::::::I hope I got the copy/paste right that time - hopefully someone will check again. Once again, "al Aqsa intifada" has the greater numbers, although as I remarked before, even searching for results by title, there could be a lot of blogs and other minor entries in those numbers, which I think we might be able to agree, shouldn't hold quite as much weight as a scholarly article or a report on a major international news service such as from the BBC, Reuters, AP or AFP. --] <small>(] | ])</small> 15:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::::OK but then look at this search on . This turns up an additional 36,500. ] 00:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

:I support "Second Intifada." I think it's more accurate and less POV. <font color="green">]</font> 15:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Google phrase searches:
*266,000 results: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22al-aqsa+intifada%22 al-aqsa+intifada
*18,200 results: http://www.google.com/search?q=%222nd+intifada%22 2nd+intifada
*322,000 results: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22second+intifada%22 second+intifada

The wikipedia guidelines lean toward the Google scholar results for title searches, I believe.

Google Scholar phrase searches. In titles only:
*68 results. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=allintitle%3A++%22al+Aqsa+intifada%22 al+Aqsa+intifada
*4 results. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=allintitle%3A++%222nd+intifada%22 2nd+intifada
*58 results. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=allintitle%3A++%22second+intifada%22 second+intifada

So that means Al-Aqsa Intifada should probably be used. The main (non-title) google searches are pretty close. Maybe later the Google scholar results will change. Maybe not. But for now Al-Aqsa Intifada is the more popular name in Google Scholar title searches. So I believe the guidelines indicate it should be used. It can be changed later if the results change. --] 01:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

: The numbers 62 vs. 68 don't mean much (especially in the light of other ghit test), and given that "Al-Aqsa Intifada" implies very strong POV, I still think the title should change to a less POV, of course with proper redirects, mentioning other names, etc.
: To summarize, I still haven't seen any serious objection: 1) ghit is inconclusive at best, 2) POV is not serious, and 3) revenge for "Yom Kippur War" is laughable. Did I miss something? ←] <sup>]]</sup> 03:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

About the "]". I assume it is the main name for that war since it is the name used for the wikipedia title. But according to the wikipedia article it is also called the Ramadan War, October War, 1973 Arab-Israeli War, and the Fourth Arab-Israeli War. I assume the editors and admins working on that page had similar discussions concerning the name. --] 01:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

: Yom Kippur War is by far the most common name in English. Please look in the talk archive. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 03:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

:I support the rename to "Second Intifada", the "Al-Aqsa" title is a somewhat propagandish term. ] 13:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
::Most people would recognize "Al-aqsa intifada" over "second intifada" given the BBC and CNN (two of the most popular media in the English speaking world) used the former term over the latter. See my edits below.] 01:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Many users consider teh name "Al-Aqsa intifada" to be "POV". Can someone point out the ] "Al-Aqsa intifada" exhibits? Israeli, Palestinian, Arab, Western, rich and poor sources seem to use both terms.] 01:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

: It doesn't matter what bias <u>exactly</u>. It is a POV to link Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount with Palestinian violence. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 09:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

::Misplaced Pages tries to keep an NPOV tone, and to balance all the POVs by expressing all significant POVs. At the same time Misplaced Pages has decided it can not force people to use less-popular, less-POV names. It has to use the popular names because that is how people look up the names in search engines. Most hits on most websites come from search engines. I know this because I am the webmaster for a website, and my stats tell me how people come to my website. So wikipedia uses the admittedly-POV popular names in article titles, and then uses an NPOV tone in the article, so that readers come to understand all the POVs, including the name of the article. It is common to see the name of an article called "highly disputed" in the first paragraph of a wikipedia article. So many readers come away from a wikipedia article with a better NPOV overview than before they read the article. But if they can't find the article then they do not get this overview from wikipedia. --] 09:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

::: I didn't see anyone disputing the need to have ] as a redirect, so "if they can't find the article" does not apply. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 10:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

::::That might work. But it is against wikipedia policy. The same would be true for the ] also. Are you willing to redirect it to the non-POV, neutral, "1973 Arab-Israeli War". Currently ] redirects to "Yom Kippur War". --] 13:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::On further reflection I see that the redirect would not solve the search engine problem. People will be searching for "Al-Aqsa Intifada" and will not find a wikipedia article with that title. Because the article will be titled "Second Intifada." That is a good reason to maintain the current wikipedia policies that say we should use the most popular name. --] 17:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::: I don't think so: search engines are quite sophisticated these days. Given the choice between 2 widely used titles you chose a POV one, insisting that a NPOV title "is against wikipedia policy". Please review ]. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 05:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::::I am fairly good at using search engines. I have written a lot about it in various places. An article title is very important in how high up a particular article shows up in search engine results. "Al-Aqsa Intifada" is much more popular in article titles than is "Second Intifada." I am not choosing anything. I am following wikipedia guidelines. See the talk sections here titled "Some wikipedia guidance" and "Google title searches". --] 06:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::::: The answer is at the end of the next section. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 06:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

===Survey results===
Compiling the votes. Please correct me if I made a mistake.

;Supporting the move:
#←] <sup>]]</sup> 22:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
#--]<sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 22:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
#--] 22:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
#] | ] 23:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
#<font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 00:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
#] 05:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
#] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 11:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
#] 06:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
#<font color="green">]</font> 15:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
#] 13:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

;Objecting the move:
#--] 23:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
#06:00, 28 March 2007 --]
#] 18:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
#] 01:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
#--] <small>(] | ])</small> 14:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
#--] 01:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
#I don't see a vote by ]: he showed up only ''after'' KazakhPol moved the article, but I am sure he would vote to keep the POV name. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 08:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
*Not counting: 65.35.11.39|06:31, 29 March 2007 - anon IPs are not qualified to vote. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 08:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

::'''It could be considered deceptive to indicate a poll when none existed. This is just a compilation of yours, Humus. Some people may have since changed their mind after the extended discussion.''' --] 13:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
:::He clearly indicated that it's ''his'' compilation, and asked for corrections. Don't be a dick. ] 14:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
::::He was not clear. He said "Compiling the votes". There were no votes. Please stop the personal attacks and incivility. Please read the wikipedia guidelines on those 2 topics. If it continues, I may report you to ]. --] 14:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::OK don't take my advice. ] 14:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::I don't pay much attention to insults anymore. The wikipedia guidelines provide a better way to deal with them: ] - --] 14:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::: Threating your opponents is not helpful. I don't see anything "deceptive" about honestly compiling results of the above survey/poll/vote/discussion for future reference. Meanwhile, I am changing the section title from ===Poll results=== to ===Survey results=== ]. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 20:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::::He called me a dick twice. Why are you allowing him to do that? You should be taking him to the incident board yourself, since you are an admin. What you are doing with your tally could be considered deceptive because there was no vote and no survey questionnaire. So people may have changed their minds since they wrote their previous comments. People change their minds after discussion. --] 21:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

==Some wikipedia guidance==

From ]:

:This page in a nutshell: Generally, article naming should prefer '''what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize,''' with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

From ]:

'''Identification of common names using external references.'''

A number of methods can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English.
* '''The Google test'''. Using Google's , search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Misplaced Pages" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage). Note which is the most commonly used term.
* '''International organisations'''. Search for the conflicting names on the websites of organisations such as the ], ], ], ], etc.
* '''Major English-language media outlets'''. Use and, where possible, the archives of major outlets such as and to identify common usages. Some media organisations have established style guides covering naming issues, which can provide useful guidance (e.g. ]'s style guide says use ''Ukraine'', not ''the Ukraine'').
* '''Reference works'''. Check other encyclopedias. If there is general agreement on the use of a name (as there often will be), that is usually a good sign of the name being the preferred term in English.
* '''Geographic name servers'''. Check geographic name servers such as the NGIA GNS server at http://gnswww.nga.mil/geonames/GNS/index.jsp .

From: ]

:Bear in mind that Misplaced Pages is descriptive, not prescriptive. '''We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.'''

---

So there are some wikipedia guidelines. I haven't looked yet at the other methods in the above list. Such as Google News, encyclopedias, UN, BBC, CNN, Guardian style guide, etc.. --] 02:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

==Google title searches==

'''Google phrase searches limited to the phrase in article titles:'''
*'''761 results.''' http://www.google.com/search?q=allintitle%3A+%22second+intifada%22 '''"second intifada"'''
*25 results. http://www.google.com/search?q=allintitle%3A+%222nd+intifada%22 "2nd intifada"
*'''39,500 results.''' http://www.google.com/search?q=allintitle%3A+%22al-aqsa+intifada%22 '''"al-aqsa intifada"'''

It seems that people title it the Al-Aqsa Intifada, but use "second intifada" inside articles. Probably because most English speakers have a hard time constantly writing, and spelling correctly, "Al-Aqsa." If I were writing a web page on this intifada, I would try to title it by the most distinctive name. Then I would say that it was the second intifada in the Palestinian territories. Then I would continue with "second intifada" in the article because it is easier, and does not require capital letters. --] 06:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

:Al-Aqsa intifada is the name used amongst scholars, we should stick to that.] 01:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
:There could be several reasons for the google search giving higher results to "second intifada".
:*It is likely that when searching for "second intifada" the word "second" may be used in a minor or irrelevent context. E.g there could be a sentence like "''During the '''intifada''', the '''second''' attack on...''".
:*Some hits don't have the word "second". Consider in.
:Google searches should not dictate wiki content.] 01:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

::See the URLs I used for Google searches. I used phrase searches. See also the previous 2 sections of the talk page. The definitive searches are the Google title searches for phrases. '''39,500 results.''' That is '''far more results for "Al-Aqsa Intifada" title search results than for "Second Intifada" title search results.''' You have to put quotes around the phrase in your google searches. To only get results for the phrase found in titles you have to put '''allintitle:''' in front of the phrase with a space in between it and the phrase. Click the Google shortcut URLs at the beginning of this section to see. --] 02:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Google searches for the phrases in all parts of pages come out with around the same amount of results. BBC uses "Al-Aqsa Intifada" or just "Intifada". Title searches in Google Scholars lean slightly toward "Al-Aqsa Intifada". See the previous talk sections for the URLs to click to see the current results. --] 02:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Al-Aqsa intifada" is used by BBC, CNN, .A "second intifada" search on CNN shows nothing useful,, same with BBC. . Can anyone show how "second intifada" is more notable?] 01:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

:: "Google searches should not dictate wiki content." - sure they should not. Also the propagandist POV that Sharon's visit initiated the violence should not dictate the article title, and sensationalist news agencies should not as well. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 01:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
:::] states "''Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize''". Thus a name used by popular media in the English speaking world should be given preference, as most English speakers would easily recognize it. Also, can you specify what ] does the title "Al-Aqsa intifada" exhibit? The term is used by both Palestinians and Israelis, Arabs and Westerners, activists and professionals. "Al-aqsa intifida" is not specific to a race, religion, nationality, profession or class.] 01:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from changing the name to back to "Second intifada" as you've not yet achieved concensus on talk, and "Al-Aqsa intifada" is a long-standing name.] 01:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

:::: Yawn. Another attempt by ] to pretend upholding WP guidelines while trying to elbow in his POV. Of course ] is specific to a religion and of course the idea that Sharon's visit initiated the violence is propagandist POV. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 02:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

::::: I would appreciate if you minded ]. You are free to attack my arguments, but ]. Please just answer to my objections. ] is also specific to a religion, yet we use ], thous others refer to it as the ], and it can be neutrally referred to as the ]. ] 02:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::: LOL. Bless sins, you'll need to work hard to regain good faith. Unlike ], which is by far the common English-language name, the name ] did not gain advantage compared to ], despite all the propaganda. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 02:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Please, don't make ''me'' the subject matter, rather my arguments. Answer my objections: towards whom is "Al-Aqsa intifada" biased? Why do the most popular English media prefer "Al-Aqsa intifada" over "second intifada"? What reason do you have for "second intifada", except google seraches that are irrelevent?] 02:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Your question has been answered repeatedly. Once again: "Al-Aqsa intifada" is biased toward the POV that the violence began as a grass-roots response to Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, vs. the POV that this was a calculated outbreak of violence , pre-planned by the Palestinian leadership months in advance, and unleashed under the pretext of the visit. ] 02:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm assuming you believe the POV is anti-Israeli as it appears to blame Sharon (it doesn't). But why do the following Israeli sources use the term: , ? Even a very anti-Arab piece uses the term ] 02:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
::::::::::You assume too much. You asked why it is POV, and I explained it to you. Israeli sources are not beyond using POV descriptions. ] 03:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Humus sapiens. I will take this to the incident boards if you insist in changing the name to a less popular name according to Google title searches. This is in violation of the wikipedia guidelines for naming articles. You are an admin, and you must follow wikipedia guidelines. I don't personally care either way what the conflict is named. But the wikipedia guidelines demand we use the most popular name. And please stop your personal attacks on Bless sins. --] 02:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


:I have shown how popular sources (in the English speaking world) prefer "Al-aqsa intifada". Can Humus Sapiens show any source comaparable in popularity to the BBC and CNN that prefers "Second intifada" over "Al-Aqsa intifada"?] 03:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

:: Both BBC and CNN were noted for being non-neutral in the AIC, but this is a wrong place to discuss it. Also, news media may have other considerations: al-Aqsa is shorter and snappier (read sensationalist, POV) than bland (read NPOV) "second". ]. Given that both names are widely used, we should choose a neutral one. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 09:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages tries to keep an NPOV tone, and to balance all the POVs by expressing all significant POVs. At the same time Misplaced Pages has decided it can not force people to use less-popular, less-POV names. It has to use the popular names because that is how people look up the names in search engines. Most hits on most websites come from search engines. I know this because I am the webmaster for a website, and my stats tell me how people come to my website. So wikipedia uses the admittedly-POV popular names in article titles, and then uses an NPOV tone in the article, so that readers come to understand all the POVs, including the name of the article. It is common to see the name of an article called "highly disputed" in the first paragraph of a wikipedia article. So many readers come away from a wikipedia article with a better NPOV overview than before they read the article. But if they can't find the article then they do not get this overview from wikipedia. --] 10:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

: You already said this above (and I responded). Please do not cross-post long paragraphs to different sections/talk pages. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 10:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

::There is no rule against it. You repeated similar arguments in 2 places. So I used the same reply. I posted twice before you replied. --] 13:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
:Crossposting extensive paragraphs does make this discussion hard to follow. In any event, a ] does not trump ]. In this case where the two terms' notability are of equal orders of magnitude, the one lacking a strong POV is the one that policy demands. <font style="color:#22AA00;">''']'''</font><font style="color:#888888;"><sup>]</sup></font> 22:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

::See section higher up called "Some wikipedia guidance." Also read the sections after it. Please read the preceding discussion before parachuting in on talk pages. It is rude and uncivil to blindly support your friends without first reading the discussion. You have done this on other talk pages too. Also, please avoid abusive edit summaries. "al Aqsa Intifada" is much more popular in titles of articles. I don't care what the conflict is called. But religious fanatics have popularized the conflict names "]" and "]". Both are religious names, and people look up those names more often in Google and other search engines, because those names have been more popularized and sensationalized.

::Shall we get rid of all religious names in wikipedia? Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia of what is, not what we think it should be. We could completely sanitize wikipedia into complete political correctness, but then far fewer people will read it and learn of other viewpoints. ] does not mean we censor viewpoints. It means we express all significant viewpoints using reliable sources. Then we let readers come to their own conclusions and syntheses of those viewpoints. Misplaced Pages does not tell people how to think or believe. --] 05:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

::: Please take your grievances regarding "Yom Kippur" in the title to ] (I suggest read the archive first) and don't make this a tit-for-tat case. Also, this is not an appropriate place to reform WP. We are discussing the renaming of one particular article. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 06:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

::::I am not trying to change the wikipedia guidelines. You are. You are trying to rename a wikipedia article to a less popular name. See the results at the beginning of this talk section. See the wikipedia guidelines in the talk section here titled "Some wikipedia guidance." --] 06:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are those results from a few days ago:

'''Google phrase searches limited to the phrase in article titles:'''
*'''761 results.''' http://www.google.com/search?q=allintitle%3A+%22second+intifada%22 '''"second intifada"'''
*25 results. http://www.google.com/search?q=allintitle%3A+%222nd+intifada%22 "2nd intifada"
*'''39,500 results.''' http://www.google.com/search?q=allintitle%3A+%22al-aqsa+intifada%22 '''"al-aqsa intifada"''' --] 06:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

: We already discussed this. Repeating the same argument doesn't make it more convincing. Unlike a personal website or a news agency, a serious encyclopedia should not be driven by chasing ghits or attracting readers by sensationalist POV propaganda. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 06:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

::I agree that your repetition of the same argument does not make it more convincing. We can agree to disagree. --] 08:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

#1. Humus Sapiens, and other have failed to show how "Al-aqsa intifada" is POV, as defined by ].

WP:NPOV says "''All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without ].''"

WP:NPOV then goes on to define ]. It categorizes it in 10 categories (class, gender, political etc.)
Humus Sapiens, can you tell me which of the categories does "Al-Aqsa intifada" fits in? In other other words, '''whose''' bias does "Al-Aqsa intifada" present? Palestinian? Jewish? Middle class?

#2. Consider the follwoing rules, outlined by wiki policies:

*""'article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize...''"]
*"''The most common use of a name takes precedence;''"
*"''Wikipedians should not seek to determine who is "right" or "wrong", nor to attempt to impose a particular name for POV reasons''."]

Clearly, we should use names most commonly used in the English speaking world. Thus we should look towards popular media outlets, like ], ], ] etc. I have already shown hwo these outlets give preference to "Al-Aqsa intifada" over "Seocnd intifada".] 12:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

: These outlets are news agencies, non-scholarly and sensationalist. They are driven by other considerations. We shouldn't be. Ghit is not a reliable measure, and you cannot discard it when it doesn't serve your political agenda and then embrace it when it does. You keep quoting NPOV and keep pushing POV. Of course "al-Aqsa" was put there for propaganda reasons, your insistence only confirms that fact (as if we needed another confirmation). ←] <sup>]]</sup> 21:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

::::I am not a propagandist. I only point out the obvious. That some people honestly took offense to the Sharon visit to Al Aqsa, and some people exploited it in a propagandist way. Either way the name for the war has stuck. Same is true for the name for the ]. People took offense at the attack starting on that day. Others exploited it for propaganda. As an admin you should stop your personal attacks, smears, insinuations, and incivility. If you do not stop I will report you to this incident board: ]. --] 06:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

::::: I was responding to Bless sins, with whom I had some earlier experience. We are all equal here, and if I abused my admin status, please either point out where or report it. Also, we are not discussing Yom Kippur here, if you want to talk about it, do it at its talk page.
::::: Back to our subject: you just confirmed that "al-Aqsa" in the title is a POV exploited for propaganda. Given that both names are widely used, we should choose a NPOV one. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 08:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

::::::I asked you before to stop your personal attacks on Bless sins. You wrote to him: "Of course 'al-Aqsa' was put there for propaganda reasons, your insistence only confirms that fact (as if we needed another confirmation)." Bless sins is not a propagandist. Neither am I. Stop the personal attacks. The dispute resolution process requires that some attempts at discussion occur before reporting to incident boards.
:::::::'''"Al-Aqsa Intifada" is far more widely used by writers worldwide in the title of web pages:'''
:::::::*'''39,500 results.''' http://www.google.com/search?q=allintitle%3A+%22al-aqsa+intifada%22 '''"al-aqsa intifada"''' --] 10:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

::Actually, they '''don't''' give preference to "al-Aqsa intifada"
::NYT -overwhelming preference for "Second"
::.
::.
::CNN -slight preference here for "al-Aqsa"
::
::
::BBC -bit more than double for "Second"
::
::
::I also tried http://english.aljazeera.net/. I expected them to prefer "al-Aqsa intifada" and they did, but not by the margin I expected...-bit more than double for "al-Aqsa"
::
::
::Again, as "al-Aqsa" possesses an embedded POV, I think it's clear at this point that the article should be titled "Second Intifada". It does need to be clearly stated in the opening that it's also known as the "al-Aqsa intifada". ] 00:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your search results showed some favoring one name, and some favoring the other name. None of the searches are title searches. --] 06:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

: Given that both names are widely used, we should choose a NPOV one. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 08:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

'''"Al-Aqsa Intifada" is far more widely used by writers worldwide in the title of web pages:'''
*'''39,500 results.''' http://www.google.com/search?q=allintitle%3A+%22al-aqsa+intifada%22 '''"al-aqsa intifada"''' --] 10:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

: Yes, there is a lot of anti-Israel propaganda on the web. It doesn't mean we should promote POV. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 10:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Yeah right. 39,500 web pages are all anti-Israel. I am not anti-Israel and I prefer the name "al-Aqsa Intifada." Because it describes the flashpoint of an already simmering conflict about to explode. I really tire of your personal attacks, insinuations, smears, slanders, and incivility, Humus sapiens. --] 13:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

::Agree with Hummus. A title search on the Internet as a whole is irrelevant. The only merit in limiting the search to titles may have been when using google scholar where (hopefully) we can assume reliable sources, and that was inconclusive. I really don't see the justification for using the POV term. ] 10:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

:::It is not irrelevant because it shows what the vast majority of people worldwide use to title the conflict. The wikipedia guidelines require using the most commonly used name for an event. --] 13:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
::::...most commonly used name per ]. Cousin Ernie's blog doesn't count. ] 13:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::39,500 web pages will have all types of pages. Read the wikipedia guidelines on names in the relevant section on this talk page. --] 14:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

== Amazon search ==

Here is a search among a bit more scholarly sources:
* "al-aqsa intifada" : 351 results
* "second intifada" : 652 results
Questions? ←] <sup>]]</sup> 21:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

:It's also worth looking at those results for "second intifada". The hardly consist of Israeli apologia. ] 00:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The searches are not title searches. I could not find a way to do title searches at Amazon. When one does title searches at Google Scholar, "Al Aqsa Intifada" has more results. --] 06:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

: That is why web search is not considered reliable. This WP article is not a website competing for google hits. Given that both names are widely used, we should choose an NPOV one. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 07:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages guidelines have priority. '''"Al-Aqsa Intifada" is far more widely used by writers worldwide in the title of web pages:'''
*'''39,500 results.''' http://www.google.com/search?q=allintitle%3A+%22al-aqsa+intifada%22 '''"al-aqsa intifada"'''. --] 10:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

: I already responded to that more than once. I don't know why the same discussion gets duplicated over several sections. I guess to confuse the reader. Next time, use more bold font please. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 10:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

::If you keep repeating the same argument all over the talk page, then don't be surprised that people respond to your arguments. I try to be creative in my replies, but the wikipedia guideline is simple. So it may sound repetitive to you. --] 13:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

== Google Scholar ==

Google Scholar phrase searches. In titles only:

* 68 results. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=allintitle%3A++%22al+Aqsa+intifada%22 al+Aqsa+intifada
* 4 results. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=allintitle%3A++%222nd+intifada%22 2nd+intifada
* 58 results. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=allintitle%3A++%22second+intifada%22 second+intifada

So when Google title searches are done for books or web pages, there are more results for "Al Aqsa Intifada". Far more for web pages. --] 06:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

: We've been through this. 68 vs. 62 is not a conclusive result. Given that both names are widely used, we should choose an NPOV one. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 07:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

'''"Al-Aqsa Intifada" is far more widely used by writers worldwide in the title of web pages:'''
*'''39,500 results.''' http://www.google.com/search?q=allintitle%3A+%22al-aqsa+intifada%22 '''"al-aqsa intifada"'''. --] 10:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

: Yawn. The same lame argument repeated does not make it more convincing. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 10:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

::Exactly. Your lame argument repeated does not override the wikipedia guidelines. --] 13:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

==Google books==
Did we forget google books? Here:
* : 519
* : 558
I think a serious encyclopedia would choose a NPOV title widely used in books rather than a POV one prevalent among websites of questionable quality. See also . ←] <sup>]]</sup> 11:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

:Thanks for the Google Books results. Those results show yet again that "al-Aqsa Intifada" is a popular name. That result, combined with the overwhelming popularity of "al-Aqsa Intifada" in titles of 39,500 pages on the web (of all types of quality), indicate that fulfilling the wikipedia guidelines means keeping the name "al-Aqsa Intifada". --] 13:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
::Except that ] is policy not a guideline and you haven't made a case for the non-neutral term over the neutral one. ] 13:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

:::] is a policy, not a guideline. I have also made the case that "al-Aqsa Intifada" is not necessarily a propaganda term. The al-Aqsa events were the flashpoint for an already simmering situation. One could argue back and forth about its relative importance, but the fact remains that it was the starting point timewise. Same is true for the Yom Kippur War. It is not necessarily a propaganda name. It also marks the starting point of that war. Yet the names of both conflicts are religious names that have also been exploited for propaganda. In any case wikipedia does not rule out using propaganda names for article titles. Because that is what people use to describe certain events. Read the policy. It is clear. See the section higher up on wikipedia guidelines. --] 14:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
::::The Yom Kippur War is not the issue here, and even if the naming conventions do not rule out using "propaganda names", they are only to be used when there is an overwhelming common use. This has not been shown. The results are clearly inconclusive for either, therefore the default should be to the more NPOV term. ] 14:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Overwhelming common use:
*'''Google phrase searches limited to the phrase in article titles:'''
*'''761 results.''' http://www.google.com/search?q=allintitle%3A+%22second+intifada%22 '''"second intifada"'''
*25 results. http://www.google.com/search?q=allintitle%3A+%222nd+intifada%22 "2nd intifada"
*'''39,500 results.''' http://www.google.com/search?q=allintitle%3A+%22al-aqsa+intifada%22 '''"al-aqsa intifada"''' - --] 14:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
:You might as well keep posting that, as it's the only search which gives you the desired result. ] 14:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

::There have been several. See the previous discussion. --] 14:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Hold on.... in the above search, and . This is even with "al-aqsa intifada" being inflated by WP mirrors. ] 14:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

:Your link URL is incorrect due to additional terms. Compare these URLs:
:http://www.google.com/search?q=allintitle:+%22al-aqsa+intifada%22&hl=en&pwst=1&start=130&sa=N - Your URL.
:http://www.google.com/search?q=allintitle%3A+%22al-aqsa+intifada%22 - My URL.
:Better yet, you can go to google.com, http://www.google.com, and search after pasting this into the form:
:'''allintitle: "al-aqsa intifada"'''
:Then you will see the correct result of around 40,000. Here is the link to the page about advanced Google search operators such as allintitle:
:http://www.google.com/intl/en/help/operators.html --] 15:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
::It's the same search, I just checked the unique results. It was 131 not 40,000. That result is busted. ] 16:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Click the link:
:::http://www.google.com/search?q=allintitle%3A+%22al-aqsa+intifada%22 - My URL. Around 40,000 results. I think I see the problem with your URL. It is made to only show one page from each site. Some sites have many pages with "al-Aqsa Intifada" in the title. Some sites are archive sites of articles from many publications. Such as findarticles.com --] 16:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

:::: The search results show that both "al-Aqsa Intifada" and "Second Intifada" are widely used, scholarly sources seems to prefer the latter and no one would challenge its neutrality. The only reason to insist on using the POV title "al-Aqsa Intifada" is to push the POV that the Palestinian violence was a response to Sharon's visit. That may be a POV pushed by PLO, Fatah, Hamas, by a bunch of websites and by certain WP editors, but it doesn't mean WP should espouse it. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 20:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

:::::Some of the Palestinian violence WAS caused by Sharon's visit. Also, the visit was a flashpoint for an already tense situation after the failure of the 2000 Camp David summit. To deny all this is just POV-pushing and fantasy on your part. Stop trying to rewrite history. We editors are WAY too sophisticated here at wikipedia for that primitive spin control. Admins should maintain a more neutral stance in my opinion. If you can't set aside your POV, then I suggest you resign as an admin. I really tire of your continuous personal attacks, insinuations, subtle smears, and not-so-subtle slanders. --] 21:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

==Are these anti-Israel sites?==

I found these with the Google title search. Humus sapiens says there are a lot of anti-Israel sites in the results from that search. What about these web pages with "al-Aqsa Intifada" in the title of the page:
*http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/aksagraph.html
*http://christianactionforisrael.org/isreport/novdec00/fromoslo.html

I could go on...--] 16:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

: Big deal, some websites sometimes use POV terminology. It doesn't follow that we should do the same when there is a choice between POV & NPOV. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 20:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should use my idea (below in the next section) for the ] page too. It would cause more readers to go there. Title it "Yom Kippur War (1973 Arab-Israeli War)". --] 21:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

==What about "Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada)" as a title?==

I have seen many wikipedia names with clarifying info in the title in parentheses. Now that I see that most of the title results are from only a few sites, it has become clear to me that both names are about the same in popularity.

So if we want to educate the most people, then we need to make this WP:NPOV article accessible to the most readers. That occurs when both names are in the title. So when people search for either name they see the wikipedia article near the top. Otherwise we may lose half the readers because they do not see the article in the Google results. Most hits to articles come from search engines. Mostly Google. That is what is true on my website. So I always try to put the multiple names and keywords in the title of articles.

I am going to ask about this at the Misplaced Pages talk pages for the naming guidelines. --] 21:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:27, 19 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Second Intifada article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconIsrael High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconPalestine Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Middle East / Post-Cold War
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
Taskforce icon
Post-Cold War task force
WikiProject iconIsrael Palestine Collaboration
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, a collaborative, bipartisan effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. For guidelines and a participants list see the project page. See also {{Palestine-Israel enforcement}}, the ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanctions, the log of blocks and bans, and Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars. You can discuss the project at its talk page.Israel Palestine CollaborationWikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationTemplate:WikiProject Israel Palestine CollaborationIsrael Palestine Collaboration
WikiProject iconHuman rights High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:

On 13 May 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Al-Aqsa Intifada to Second Intifada. The result of the discussion was moved.

Archives
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Number of suicide bombings

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the second paragraph of the article, there is the following sentence: "The suicide bombings carried out by Palestinian assailants became one of the more prominent features of the Second Intifada and mainly targeted Israeli civilians, contrasting with the relatively less violent nature of the First Intifada, which took place between 1987 and 1993."

I think this should be:

"The 146 suicide bombings carried out by Palestinian assailants became one of the more prominent features of the Second Intifada and mainly targeted Israeli civilians, contrasting with the relatively less violent nature of the First Intifada, which took place between 1987 and 1993."

The number of suicide bombings is mentioned in sources that are already on that sentence.

See:

"Since the outbreak of the second intifada in late September 2000 until today, there were approximately 146 suicide attacks, and more than 389 suicide attacks have been foiled" in Schweitzer, Y. (2010). "The rise and fall of suicide bombings in the second Intifada". Strategic Assessment. 13 (3): 39–48.

Similar figures are also quoted in other reputable sources. The number of attempted suicide attacks may also be relevant, but that number is likely more open to debate. The sources I have checked generally show approximately 140-50 suicide bombings and approximately 350-450 attempts. It depends a bit on whether you count each sucide bomber separately or each attack separately since some attacks had more than. 1 bomber. But the numbers in the existing sources conform to this range.

In any case, I think putting a number such as 146 or range such as 140-150 is necessary to describe the frequency of these attacks during this time period which was a major feature of the intifada and characterized the Israeli POV of the period.

See also:

Sela-Shayovitz, R. (2007). "Suicide bombers in Israel: Their motivations, characteristics, and prior activity in terrorist organizations". International Journal of Conflict and Violence. 1 (2): 163.

Brym, R. J.; Araj, B. (1 June 2006). "Suicide Bombing as Strategy and Interaction: The Case of the Second Intifada". Social Forces. 84 (4): 1969. doi:10.1353/sof.2006.0081. ISSN 0037-7732. S2CID 146180585. AskYourselfWhy (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Bunnypranav (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Revert

@PeleYoetz: Kindly explain these reverts and why, exactly, they are not improvements (any of them). Selfstudier (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@PeleYoetz: Not sure how reducing and summarizing the lede into genuinely four-well composed paragraphs, and improving the chronology of the lede is not an improvement? Makeandtoss (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
If you make another revert before discussing these reverts, or make further reverts on other pages without discussion I will topic ban you from ARBPIA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish: PeleYoetz has continued editing while avoiding this talk page despite your warnings. Important to note that their revert that they are seemingly refusing to discuss is disruptive as it had indiscriminately mass reverted dozens of good faith edits and improvements made to the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The use of the term "Combatant" is frequently used in the article and it should read "terrorist". A Combatant is a members of an armed force who operate according to the laws and customs of war. Combatants are commanded by a person in charge of their subordinates, wear a distinctive sign, and carry their arms openly.

"Suicide bombers" the main characteristic of the 2nd intifada is not in accordance with any law or custom of war. Its savagery and terrorism. Please correct. 159.250.158.135 (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Misplaced Pages has a policy of not calling people or groups "terrorist". This is not an indication of condoning "terrorist" activities, but of neutrality, and avoidance of passing judgment, affirming or denying. Please debate the merit of this policy at WT:Words to avoid, not here. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

The last two references at the opening paragraph are odd and tackle a side aspect of this article, the quotes seem to exist to promote a certain point of view, so why is this still here? Makeandtoss (talk) 12:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The cause of the intifada and the scale of the repression when it was still a nonviolent uprising are side aspects? DMH223344 (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I am referring to the sources of:
: Opportunity, Culture and Agency: Influences on Fatah and Hamas Strategic Action during the Second Intifada
: A Globalized Conflict: European Anti-Jewish Violence during the Second Intifada
They are out of place and were recently inserted to highlight some quotes in them that do not directly relate to the Second Intifada as a whole. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 December 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

“occupation” should be taken out as not everybody sees it that way, so it is biased. 2600:1001:B032:1AE3:5C4E:61DC:DC8:4D00 (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Not done. edit requests should be uncontroversial Rainsage (talk) 06:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: