Talk:Second Intifada/Archive Al-Aqsa and Second Intifada discussions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A request has been made of the Mediation Cabal for mediation on this page.

Please do not remove this notice until the issue is resolved. Preloaded case page

Proposal to rename

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. ?Humus sapiens ??? 22:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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". --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur as well, though I suppose we should make sure there's the appropriate redirect and "also known as..." in the introduction. --Leifern 22:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the fact that "Second intifada" is both more neutral and more common should make the renaming almost automatic.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The "official" name is Al-Aqsa Intifada, and not the Second Intifada. It is not a POV, just a name. Similar names include the 'Yom Kippur War' (not the Fourth Arab-Israeli War) or the 'Boston Tea Party' (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). --Fjmustak 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 Yom Kippur War or Boston Tea Party. ?Humus sapiens ??? 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. TewfikTalk 00:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The section that starts with "On September 27, Sgt. David Biri was killed;[11]" 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). --Fjmustak 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". ?Humus sapiens ??? 02:29, 28 March 2007 (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. --Fjmustak 08:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
User:Fjmustak, 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 Fellahs who refused accept compensation after the land they were working on was sold to zionist organization by Arab Effendis 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 Fatwa of the Farkhi brothers to avenge the assasination of their brother Haim Farkhi in Akko. Jaakobou 18:05, 6 April 2007 (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 1920 Palestine riots, Jaffa riots, 1929 Palestine riots, 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine. 3) Your argument works against your POV. ?Humus sapiens ??? 10:53, 28 March 2007 (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 --Rjecina

I strongly support renaming the article. Al-Aqsa Intifada is a POV title, and, incidentally, is a name that I have read only on Wikipedia. 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. 6SJ7 05:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.35.11.39 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 29 March 2007.

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 Temple Mount for the exclusionary Noble Sanctuary on this page further strengthen that argument, and I highly suggest that you review the oft-cited WP:Neutral point of view policy, which I admit is not as easy as it sounds. Cheers, TewfikTalk 03:06, 30 March 2007 (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. Oneworld25 18:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The Second Intifada is more common on Google, and has been used on all sides, including by al-Jazeera. [1] 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. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2007 (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 Yom Kippur War 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 ynetnews: [2]. A lot more examples are needed, and this discussion hasn't even begun. Sanguinalis 01:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • "Second Intifada" is more common on Google, as well as Google Scholar -compare this and this. 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. <<-armon->> 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. <<-armon->> 06:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Now try the google scholar search again, using advanced scholar search with exact phrase "in the title of the article".
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? --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 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. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 14:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
A search on allintitle: "al Aqsa intifada" actually returns 69 articles. <<-armon->> 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. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 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. <<-armon->> 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.
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. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 15:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
OK but then look at this search on "2nd intifada". This turns up an additional 36,500. <<-armon->> 00:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I support "Second Intifada." I think it's more accurate and less POV. IronDuke 15:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Google phrase searches:

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

Google Scholar phrase searches. In titles only:

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. --Timeshifter 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? ?Humus sapiens ??? 03:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

About the "Yom Kippur War". 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. --Timeshifter 01:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War is by far the most common name in English. Please look in the talk archive. ?Humus sapiens ??? 03:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I support the rename to "Second Intifada", the "Al-Aqsa" title is a somewhat propagandish term. Jaakobou 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.Bless sins 01:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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

It doesn't matter what bias exactly. It is a POV to link Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount with Palestinian violence. ?Humus sapiens ??? 09:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia tries to keep an NPOV tone, and to balance all the POVs by expressing all significant POVs. At the same time Wikipedia 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. --Timeshifter 09:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't see anyone disputing the need to have Al-Aqsa Intifada as a redirect, so "if they can't find the article" does not apply. ?Humus sapiens ??? 10:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
That might work. But it is against wikipedia policy. The same would be true for the Yom Kippur War also. Are you willing to redirect it to the non-POV, neutral, "1973 Arab-Israeli War". Currently 1973 Arab-Israeli War redirects to "Yom Kippur War". --Timeshifter 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. --Timeshifter 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 WP:NPOV. ?Humus sapiens ??? 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". --Timeshifter 06:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
The answer is at the end of the next section. ?Humus sapiens ??? 06:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey results

Compiling the votes opinions. Please correct me if I made a mistake.

Humus sapiens titled this section "Survey results". His first phrase in the section was "Compiling the votes." There was no vote and no survey. No one was asked to make a definitive vote after substantial discussion. People's views at various times were assessed by Humus sapiens and categorized below. No one was asked to vote if they supported other solutions such as supporting this title: "Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada)". People may have changed their minds later on. People may not have followed the discussion. This section is just an exercise of Humus sapiens. --Timeshifter 21:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Supporting the move
  1. ?Humus sapiens ??? 22:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. --Leifern 22:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. TewfikTalk 00:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. 6SJ7 05:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. <<-armon->> 06:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. IronDuke 15:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Jaakobou 13:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Proabivouac 23:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Doright 05:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC) I support the move to Second Intifada
  13. Michael Safyan 05:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Objecting the move
  1. --Fjmustak 23:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. 06:00, 28 March 2007 --Rjecina
  3. Oneworld25 18:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Sanguinalis 01:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 14:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. --Timeshifter 01:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. I don't see a vote by User:Bless sins: he showed up only after KazakhPol moved the article, but I am sure he would vote to keep the POV name. ?Humus sapiens ??? 08:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Not counting: 65.35.11.39|06:31, 29 March 2007 - anon IPs are not qualified to vote. ?Humus sapiens ??? 08:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Aminz 00:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC) I don't know things in details but a after a quick search I found this quote: "It is common to describe the beginning of the intidada al-Aqsa as sparked by the visit of Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount/Haram esh Sharif.", Dark Times, Dire Decisions: Jews and Communism Oxford University Press. If one can show me academic scholars (experts) who dispute this common view, I would change my vote.
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. --Timeshifter 13:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
He clearly indicated that it's his compilation, and asked for corrections. Don't be a dick. <<-armon->> 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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Timeshifter 14:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
OK don't take my advice. <<-armon->> 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: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - --Timeshifter 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=== in good faith. ?Humus sapiens ??? 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. --Timeshifter 21:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
A proposal to rename was announced and I honestly summarized the results of an informal survey for future reference. I invite anyone to audit/comment/correct the results. Change-of-minds are welcome. So far looks like the proposal has more supporters than objectors. ?Humus sapiens ??? 22:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
People may not have returned to the talk page since their initial comments. --Timeshifter 09:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Surveys, votes, straw polls, etc. are routinely done in WP. ?Humus sapiens ??? 19:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
This is none of those. None of these people were asked to make a final vote of support or object to the move. You wrote at the top of this section "compiling the votes". There was no vote. --Timeshifter 21:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
What's the right word: Voices? Sentiments? Views? Opinions? As I said, feel free to correct me, but I insist that no deception was intended. ?Humus sapiens ??? 21:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
See my comment at the top of this section. --Timeshifter 21:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

(lshift) I've changed "votes" to "opinions" in hope this will stop the disruption. ?Humus sapiens ??? 00:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

An admin using the word "disruption" to describe relevant comments is another form of intimidation on your part. --Timeshifter 11:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The title is POV. Those holding pro-Israel views call it "Arafat's War" while those with pro-Palestinian views call it "Al-Aksa Intifada." The name "Al-Aksa Intifada" suggests that it started with the visit of Ariel Sharon to Al-Aksa Mosque, which this article itself acknowledges is the subject of dispute. The name "Second Intifada," other than the use of the term "Intifada" -- which some might argue gives a pro-Palestinian twist to it -- does not endorse one periodization of the events over the other. Therefore, I think that the article's title should be changed.

Furthermore, a google search should not determine which title to use. The title should be based on the semantics and neutrality alone. That Al-Jazeera uses "Al-Aksa Intifada" is irrelevant and only corrobarates my claim that the term reflects the pro-Palestinian viewpoint. -- Michael Safyan 05:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Some wikipedia guidance

From Wikipedia:Naming conventions:

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 Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Identification of common names using external references:

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 advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Wikipedia" (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 United Nations, NATO, OSCE, IMF, etc.
  • Major English-language media outlets. Use Google News and, where possible, the archives of major outlets such as BBC News and CNN to identify common usages. Some media organisations have established style guides covering naming issues, which can provide useful guidance (e.g. The Guardian'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: Wikipedia:Naming conflict:

Bear in mind that Wikipedia 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.. --Timeshifter 02:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

From: Wikipedia:Naming conflict:

A naming conflict can arise on Wikipedia when contributors have difficulty agreeing on what to call a topic or a geopolitical/ethnic entity. These generally arise out of a misunderstanding of the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.

That is the first sentence in the article, and explains much of the conflict in naming this article. --Timeshifter 14:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

From another section of Wikipedia:Naming conflict:

Names can sometimes be controversial because of perceived negative political connotations, historical conflicts or territorial disputes. However, Wikipedia does not take sides in a political controversy or determine what is something or someone's true, proper name. What this encyclopedia does, rather, is to describe the controversy. --Timeshifter 14:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Google title searches

Google phrase searches limited to the phrase in article titles:

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. --Timeshifter 06:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Al-Aqsa intifada is the name used amongst scholars, we should stick to that.Bless sins 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 this link inthe google search.
Google searches should not dictate wiki content.Bless sins 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. --Timeshifter 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. --Timeshifter 02:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Al-Aqsa intifada" is used by BBC,[3] CNN, [4].A "second intifada" search on CNN shows nothing useful,[5], same with BBC. [6]. Can anyone show how "second intifada" is more notable?Bless sins 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. ?Humus sapiens ??? 01:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions 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 type of POV 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.Bless sins 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.Bless sins 01:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. Another attempt by User:Bless sins to pretend upholding WP guidelines while trying to elbow in his POV. Of course Al-Aqsa is specific to a religion and of course the idea that Sharon's visit initiated the violence is propagandist POV. ?Humus sapiens ??? 02:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate if you minded WP:Civil. You are free to attack my arguments, but no personal attacks against me. Please just answer to my objections. Yom Kippur is also specific to a religion, yet we use Yom Kippur war, thous others refer to it as the Ramadan war, and it can be neutrally referred to as the October war. Bless sins 02:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
LOL. Bless sins, you'll need to work hard to regain good faith. Unlike Yom Kippur War, which is by far the common English-language name, the name Al-Aqsa Intifada did not gain advantage compared to Second Intifada, despite all the propaganda. ?Humus sapiens ??? 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?Bless sins 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. Isarig 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: Ynet news, Political Science professor at Tel Aviv University Haaretz? Even a very anti-Arab piece uses the term [7]Bless sins 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. Isarig 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. --Timeshifter 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"?Bless sins 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". WP is an encyclopedia. Given that both names are widely used, we should choose a neutral one. ?Humus sapiens ??? 09:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia tries to keep an NPOV tone, and to balance all the POVs by expressing all significant POVs. At the same time Wikipedia 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. --Timeshifter 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. ?Humus sapiens ??? 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. --Timeshifter 13:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Crossposting extensive paragraphs does make this discussion hard to follow. In any event, a Google test does not trump WP:NPOV. 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. TewfikTalk 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 "Al Aqsa Intifada" and "Yom Kippur War". 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? Wikipedia 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. WP:NPOV 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. Wikipedia does not tell people how to think or believe. --Timeshifter 05:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment My edit summary "Google test über WP:NPOV?" made no mention of you, nor did it abuse you or anyone else. Furthermore, there is nothing "rude and uncivil" about my edit. Your incivil comments, spurious accusations, and constant attempts to intimidate editors with whom you don't agree create an environment inimical to productive collaboration, and I highly suggest that you reevaluate your style. TewfikTalk 03:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Please take your grievances regarding "Yom Kippur" in the title to Talk:Yom Kippur War (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. ?Humus sapiens ??? 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." --Timeshifter 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:

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. ?Humus sapiens ??? 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. --Timeshifter 08:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. 1. Humus Sapiens, and other have failed to show how "Al-aqsa intifada" is POV, as defined by WP:NPOV.

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

WP:NPOV then goes on to define bias. 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?

  1. 2. Consider the follwoing rules, outlined by wiki policies:
  • ""'article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize..."WP:Naming
  • "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."Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Article_names_2

Clearly, we should use names most commonly used in the English speaking world. Thus we should look towards popular media outlets, like CNN, BBC, New York Times etc. I have already shown hwo these outlets give preference to "Al-Aqsa intifada" over "Seocnd intifada".Bless sins 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). ?Humus sapiens ??? 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 Yom Kippur War. 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: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Timeshifter 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. ?Humus sapiens ??? 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:
Actually, they don't give preference to "al-Aqsa intifada"
NYT -overwhelming preference for "Second"
Results 1 - 3 of 3 from www.nytimes.com for "Al-Aqsa intifada".
Results 1 - 10 of about 230 from www.nytimes.com for "second intifada".
CNN -slight preference here for "al-Aqsa"
Results 1 - 10 of about 20 from www.cnn.com for "al-Aqsa intifada"
Results 1 - 10 of about 14 from www.cnn.com for "second intifada"
BBC -bit more than double for "Second"
Results 1 - 10 of about 69 from news.bbc.co.uk for "al-Aqsa intifada"
Results 1 - 10 of about 161 from news.bbc.co.uk for "second intifada"
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"
Results 1 - 10 of about 112 from english.aljazeera.net for "al-Aqsa intifada"
Results 1 - 10 of about 49 from english.aljazeera.net for "second intifada"
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". <<-armon->> 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. --Timeshifter 06:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that both names are widely used, we should choose a NPOV one. ?Humus sapiens ??? 08:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Al-Aqsa Intifada" is far more widely used by writers worldwide in the title of web pages:

Yes, there is a lot of anti-Israel propaganda on the web. It doesn't mean we should promote POV. ?Humus sapiens ??? 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. --Timeshifter 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. <<-armon->> 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. --Timeshifter 13:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
...most commonly used name per WP:RS. Cousin Ernie's blog doesn't count. <<-armon->> 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. --Timeshifter 14:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Gtest among "all types of pages" is meaningless. OTOH, books do not favor the name "al-aqsa". ?Humus sapiens ??? 19:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not meaningless. And as I pointed out in other sections here Google Scholars book title searches favors al-Aqsa Intifada. --Timeshifter 20:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
With margin 62 vs. 68? LOL. ?Humus sapiens ??? 21:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
As I have said repeatedly they are about equally popular names in most searches. Except for searches of titles in all the web where "al-Aqsa Intifada" is overwhelmingly more popular. --Timeshifter 21:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Amazon search

Here is a search among a bit more scholarly sources:

  • "al-aqsa intifada" [8]: 351 results
  • "second intifada" [9]: 652 results

Questions? ?Humus sapiens ??? 21:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth looking at those results for "second intifada". The books in question hardly consist of Israeli apologia. <<-armon->> 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. --Timeshifter 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. ?Humus sapiens ??? 07:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines have priority. "Al-Aqsa Intifada" is far more widely used by writers worldwide in the title of web pages:

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. ?Humus sapiens ??? 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. --Timeshifter 13:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Google Scholar

Google Scholar phrase searches. In titles only:

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. --Timeshifter 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. ?Humus sapiens ??? 07:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Al-Aqsa Intifada" is far more widely used by writers worldwide in the title of web pages:

Yawn. The same lame argument repeated does not make it more convincing. ?Humus sapiens ??? 10:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Your lame argument repeated does not override the wikipedia guidelines. --Timeshifter 13:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Google books

Did we forget google books? Here:

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 Argumentum ad Googlum. Why Getting a Million Hits on Google Doesn't Prove Anything. ?Humus sapiens ??? 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". --Timeshifter 13:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Except that WP:NPOV is policy not a guideline and you haven't made a case for the non-neutral term over the neutral one. <<-armon->> 13:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions 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. --Timeshifter 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. <<-armon->> 14:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Overwhelming common use:

You might as well keep posting that, as it's the only search which gives you the desired result. <<-armon->> 14:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
There have been several. See the previous discussion. --Timeshifter 14:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hold on.... in the above search, "al-aqsa intifada" taps out at 131 and "second intifada" gets 257. This is even with "al-aqsa intifada" being inflated by WP mirrors. <<-armon->> 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 --Timeshifter 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. <<-armon->> 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 --Timeshifter 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. ?Humus sapiens ??? 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. --Timeshifter 21:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
See WP:SOAPBOX and don't intimidate those who do not share your POV. Since it's been proven that both names are widely used, there is no reason other than POV to insist on "al-Aqsa Intifada" rather than NPOV "Second Intifada". Your intimidation attempts are bordering on WP:HARASSMENT, since I did not use any admin function here. ?Humus sapiens ??? 22:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Accusing someone of breaking the SOAPBOX guideline during a content discussion is just more of your personal attacks. This time with the weight behind it of your being an admin. And you yet again simplify your rebuttal by an attack implying that the only reason to support one name is POV. Something I have refuted many times already in this discussion. Implying that I am POV-pushing. And my latest proposal before you replied was to use both names. See the last section. I am not an admin. So I do not have the power to intimidate anyone here. You are doing the intimidation by constant personal attacks under the color of adminship. --Timeshifter 22:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
We disagree. You chose to make it personal and attack me as an admin, which is totally irrelevant here, because no admin action was taken. I am asking you to please stop this WP:HARASSMENT. ?Humus sapiens ??? 19:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I reported you to the incident board because you were attacking my character and others with insinuations, defamations and personal attacks. Who is harassing who? The fact that you are an admin is a secondary consideration. I am not reporting you because you are an admin. But the fact that you are an admin is not irrelevant at all. --Timeshifter 20:56, 11 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:

I could go on...--Timeshifter 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. ?Humus sapiens ??? 20:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Take it there. ?Humus sapiens ??? 19:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Stop the intimidation. And I give you permission to take it there. It is a good idea. Anybody can feel free to use it. --Timeshifter 20:51, 11 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 Wikipedia talk pages for the naming guidelines. --Timeshifter 21:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be against it, because the name "Al-Aqsa Intifada" is not neutral. POV + NPOV = POV. And I don't think we would lose any reader: redirs are widely used. E.g. my google search for "Second+Intifada" produces WP as the 1st link. ?Humus sapiens ??? 23:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
By itself, the name "Al-Aqsa Intifada" is neutral. It expresses the starting point of the conflict. As Kirby pointed out, too. Others imply POV from that name. But the name itself is neutral. Just like the Yom Kippur War expresses the starting point of the war. Others imply POV from that name.
The name for this article should be Second (Al-Aqsa) Intifada. Because if Al-Aqsa is not in the title, then in a few months (after Google re-indexes the page), searches for Al-Aqsa Intifada will be less likely to find the wikipedia page near the top of the google results. That is how it works. I know. I am a webmaster. I have a lot of experience in titling pages over years. --Timeshifter 09:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Your POV. Google search for "Second+Intifada" produces WP as the 1st link, so redir works just fine.?Humus sapiens ??? 20:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Google is not the only search engine. It is much smarter than most, and has the computing power to associate multiple names. See the sections farther down where this is discussed. By the way, it is not a redirect. --Timeshifter 20:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Report made to incident board concerning Humus sapiens

Please see: WP:ANI#Admin Humus sapiens and his personal attacks, insinuations, and defamations.

Feel free to comment there. --Timeshifter 22:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Intimidating your opponent in content dispute. Nice. ?Humus sapiens ??? 22:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
See my reply there at the incident board, and higher up in the section titled "Google books". I see by your last statement that you believe the best defense is a good offense. Rather than deal with the substance of my complaint, you just escalate the attack, and claim intimidation. Nice. You are the admin, not me. You have the power to intimidate. --Timeshifter 23:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense, you simply do not understand how WP works: see WP:ADMIN if you are so interested, but this is a wrong place to discuss that, especially since no admin function was used here. Please try to stick to the argument, not the person making it. ?Humus sapiens ??? 23:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Please follow your own advice. "Please try to stick to the argument, not the person making it." Admins should know and practice this. That is why I filed an incident report concerning you, an admin. Admins should be prime examples of sticking to what people say, not their character. Editors have no right to attack the character of other editors. Admins intimidate other editors when they attack their character. Because they are admins. There are many examples of admins abusing their authority, and editors soon learn this. So attacks on character by admins scare away other editors, even if the editor in question is not intimidated. --Timeshifter 09:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
See Psychological projection. ?Humus sapiens ??? 20:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. I quote you: "Your intimidation attempts are bordering on WP:HARASSMENT"--Timeshifter 20:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait, how is Al-Aqsa Intifada a POV title?

It can be called anything, it doesn't change what actually happened. Maybe Sharon's visit caused the violence. Maybe it didn't. But what does that have to do with the title? --Kirß????Ti?éØ 23:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Glad you've asked. "Al-Aqsa Intifada" supports POV that Sharon's visit initiated the Palestinian violence. It is a legitimate POV, but given that the "Second Intifada" is a neutral name and is used as widely if not more so, why stick with POV name? ?Humus sapiens ??? 23:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Wait, how does the name express a POV notion? I don't mean to be silly, but the title is Al-Aqsa Intifada, not Al-Aqsa Intifada (by the way, Sharon's visit started the violence).--Kirß????Ti?éØ 23:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
You, Kirby, are correct. One has to ask how is there a POV in the name? There might be POV in how the name is interpreted. So are we now going to decide names by reading the minds of those using the names, and determining what percentage of them have various POVs? If most people interpret the name as just a timing indicator for the start of the conflict, and others interpret the name to mean that Sharon is evil, and others interpret the name to mean that Palestinians evilly exploited the Sharon visit, and others .... and so on. Then do we violate the wikipedia naming policy and not use the most popular names anymore for articles? WP:NPOV is met inside the article itself by presenting all significant POVs from reliable sources. --Timeshifter 12:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to answer by asking: why the name "Al-Aqsa Intifada"? ?Humus sapiens ??? 23:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. I'm not up to date on the discussion. But you said that the title "Al-Aqsa Intifada" is POV; and I want to know how.--Kirß????Ti?éØ 00:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Did you read the article? ?Humus sapiens ??? 00:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course I did. I understand that there is some dispute (on Wikipedia, at least) as to whether or not Sharon's visit sparked the fighting. But I don't see how "Al-Aqsa intifada" takes a POV.--Kirß????Ti?éØ 00:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, this becomes circular. There is no dispute that the name "Al-Aqsa Intifada" supports the POV that it was Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount that initiated the Palestinian violence. If you think there is such a dispute, please point us to it. Even though Sharon did not enter the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the POV is to present the visit as a "provocation" that justified Palestinian violence that followed. ?Humus sapiens ??? 00:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Then why is there a dispute over the title of the article, as well as a protection against moves? I could care less about the "provocation" issue.--Kirß????Ti?éØ 00:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
By itself, the name "Al-Aqsa Intifada" is neutral. It expresses the starting point of the conflict. As you, Kirby, pointed out. Others imply POV from that name. But the name itself is neutral. Just like the Yom Kippur War expresses the starting point of the war. Others imply POV from that name. --Timeshifter 09:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Your POV. ?Humus sapiens ??? 20:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
My POV is that there is no POV in the name itself. It is a name of convenience because it is based on the starting point of the conflict. People have all kinds of POVs about the conflict itself. But no POV is expressed by the name itself. --Timeshifter 21:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Obviously you must have the last word. See the next section. ?Humus sapiens ??? 00:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion : second (Al-Aqsa) intifada

How is this? --Aminz 01:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, that makes it look like there was first (Al-Aqsa) intifada. ?Humus sapiens ??? 01:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. --Timeshifter 10:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada) How's that?--Kirß????Ti?éØ 01:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively: Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada) (Oslo War). That was a joke. Seriously, what is wrong with Second Intifada, with Al-Aqsa Intifada as a redir and a prominent mention in the lead? ?Humus sapiens ??? 01:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with it. All I wanted to know was the reasoning for not having Al-Aqsa Intifada. Question answered. I'm outa here.--Kirß????Ti?éØ 04:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The name for this article should be Second (Al-Aqsa) Intifada. Because if Al-Aqsa is not in the title, then in a few months (after Google re-indexes the page), searches for Al-Aqsa Intifada will be less likely to find the wikipedia page near the top of the google results. That is how it works. I know. I am a webmaster. I have a lot of experience in titling pages over years. --Timeshifter 10:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

<reset> Humus, if you could show me academic scholars who share the other POV, I would agree with your suggested move. For me, the view of experts are important. --Aminz 06:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

And as always, the experts' POV is the same as yours. ?Humus sapiens ??? 08:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Reality has a liberal bias. =P --Kirß????Ti?éØ 08:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I honestly don't know what academics really think. I did a quick search and found out the common opinion. There might be notable minority academic opinions. I honestly don't know. If true, I support moving of this page to "Second Intifada". In general I think the article would benefit from such source. It is generally better to attribute POVs to academic scholars rather than the Israeli sources. --Aminz 08:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Google Scholar and CNN favor Al-Aqsa intifada in their titles. See the search links higher up. Many news sites and websites use both names. Google results for the overall web are about even for both names. Google title searches overwhelmingly favor Al-Aqsa intifada. Other news media favor "Second Intifada" or just "Intifada". BBC favors just "Intifada" in their titles. They are all popular names. Second (Al-Aqsa) Intifada is an obvious solution. --Timeshifter 10:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
So when did the First (Al-Aqsa) Intifada took place? ?Humus sapiens ??? 20:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You are thinking of it being titled as "Second Al-Aqsa Intifada". But if you can make this mistake, so can others.
So this is better: Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada). See the section farther down concerning this title. --Timeshifter 20:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
To counter POV (Al-Aqsa Intifada), we will have to include (Oslo War). ?Humus sapiens ??? 21:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no POV in the name alone. It is just the name for the starting point of this intifada. Just like the Yom Kippur War name is for the starting point of that war. The Oslo War is not nearly as popular a name as the other 2. Wikipedia naming conventions require using the most popular name. Since they are equally popular names this title will work fine: Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada).--Timeshifter 21:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
"There is no POV in the name alone." - Yeah right, this reminds me an announcement "remember there is no sex in our country". ?Humus sapiens ??? 00:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
How is there a POV in the name? There might be POV in how the name is interpreted. So are we now going to decide names by reading the minds of those using the names, and determining what percentage of them have various POVs? If most people interpret the name as just a timing indicator for the start of the conflict, and others interpret the name to mean that Sharon is evil, and others interpret the name to mean that Palestinians evilly exploited the Sharon visit, and others .... and so on. --Timeshifter 12:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The common view

Humus sapiens, regarding this diff [10]. Please note the following:

1. Original quote: "It is common to describe the beginning of the intidada al-Aqsa as sparked by the visit of Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount/Haram esh Sharif."

2. per Wikipedia:Attribution policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true: any reader should be able to verify that material added to Wikipedia has been published by a reliable source. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments."

So, please self-revert. Thanks --Aminz 08:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The (uncommon) claim is totally unsupported by the mfa citation, or... history. El_C 09:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
What Communism has to do with this? What makes Dan Diner and Jonathan Frankel "experts"? "However" is WP:WTA. Could you give us wider context for that quote, please. Too many questions. ?Humus sapiens ??? 20:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
What indeed. Can you stay on topic, please? El_C 20:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Humus sapiens, it is best to first ask for more information on the talk page before removing the quotes. Here is more information on the topic:
1. Authors: "Dan Diner, Professor of History at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and director of the Simon-Dubnow Institute for Jewish History and Culture at the University of Leipzig."- "Jonathan Frankel is the Tamara and Saveli Grinberg Professor Emeritus of Russian Studies and Professor Emeritus at the Avraham Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry at The Hebrew University"
2. The publication is published by Oxford University Press meaning that it is peer-reviewed.
3. The full quote is: "The aura surrounding Jerusalem may be timeless, but the city is not. It lives in a present that is dynamic and intensly political. It is common to describe the beginning of the intifada al-Aqsa as sparked by the visit of Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount/Haram esh Sharif. Most of the violence has occured outside of Jerusalem, but the city has felt its impact even beyond those incidents that have occured within its boundaries. The mood of Jews and Arabs in the city has changed from the hope of mid- and late 1990s to the despair and mutual distrust of today. Israeli authoritis have shifted from permissive accommodation to the repression of Palestinian national activities...." --Aminz 21:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, so they make a claim, and there are other claims as well. We list those competing claims in the corresponding section. Why push all this the intro? ?Humus sapiens ??? 00:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, I reiterate my question (and ask that you answer directly), how does that mfa citation back up the claim it is footnoted to? El_C 00:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
El C, I don't know whether your Q. is for me (I did not write that part), but the phrase "On September 27, Sgt. David Biri was killed;[14] some Israeli sources view this as the start of the Intifada.[15]" seems to be properly ref'd. ?Humus sapiens ??? 00:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Which citation mentions David Biri's death vis.a.vis. the timing, specificlly? El_C 00:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The timing of ...? ?Humus sapiens ??? 01:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Timing, impetus, or whatever, for the "the start of the Intifada." El_C 01:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, now I understand your question. According to M.G. Bard [11]:

“The Sharon visit did not cause the ‘Al-Aksa Intifada.’” — Conclusion of the Mitchell Report, (May 4, 2001)

The violence started before Sharon's September 28, 2000, visit to the Temple Mount. The day before, for example, an Israeli soldier was killed at the Netzarim Junction. The next day in the West Bank city of Kalkilya, a Palestinian police officer working with Israeli police on a joint patrol opened fire and killed his Israeli counterpart.

This is our ref 15. If you think our text inadequately reflects the ref, let's work to reword it. Again, I am not the author but I'd be happy to collaborate. ?Humus sapiens ??? 01:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I realize now that the mfa ref just cited Biri's death, fair enough and sorry for the confusion (communism, though?). But where does the JVL ref mention him, was my question. Thx. El_C 02:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
<edit conflict> The first sentence says: "The Sharon visit did not cause the ‘Al-Aksa Intifada.’"; Sharon's visit might have been only one factor. This does not on face contradict the other POV that the Intifada was sparked by the visit. The next sentence says: "The violence started before Sharon's September 28, 2000, visit to the Temple Mount." Had that previous violence the form of the further violence? Is that called "Al-Aksa Intifada"? --Aminz 02:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

<reset> Humus, my quote not only mentions its points but also says that: "It is common to describe the beginning of the intidada al-Aqsa as sparked by the visit of Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount/Haram esh Sharif." It shows that it is the common POV. Therefore it should come first. Minor views can be mentioned afterwards. And it makes quite sense to write in the intro how what this article is about started per WP:Lead.

Lastly, Humus sapiens, you have not yet provided any academic source for the claim that Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount didn't initiate the Intifada. People, especially those who are (emotionally) involved in the conflict, can say a lot of things (not for scholarly purposes). Please find a peer-reviewed scholarly source to back up the other POV. Thanks --Aminz 01:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe he was referring to the Mitchell Report. TewfikTalk 03:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It's true that Sharon's visit is the common explanation, but in fairness, we cannot ignore the PNA Communications Minister's admission that the 2nd intifada was planned in advance of it. I wish there was more information about this, but at this point, it does merit inclusion. El_C 07:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
El C, it is a common explanation for the start of Intifada not necessarily for its cause. Here is a quote from a reliable source (Armies of the young: Child Soldiers in War and Terrorism, p.119, By David M. Rosen,Professor of Anthropology, Becton College of Arts and Sciences. Affiliated Professor, University of Haifa):
"

On September 28, Sharon, then leader of the Israeli opposition party, visited the Temple Mount, which is adjacent to two Moslem holy sites, the al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock. Sharon did not enter the Moslem holy sites, but most Palestinians regard his visit as the "cause" of the al-Aqsa intifada. Palestinian officials, however acknowledge that a new intifada had been planned long in advance of Sharon's visit in order to use violence to pressure Israel at the negotiating table.

"
Another quote by historian Ilan Pappé explains more about what happened(A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples, p.265):
"

The second intifada has raged since October 2000. It spilled over into Israel itself, where the old frustration of the Palestinian minority burst out in solidarity with the Palestinians killed in the confrontations that followed the visit of the opposition leader, Ariel Sharon, to Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem. Unarmed Palestinians went out to protest against the Sharon visit and the humiliating offer made by Barak at Camp David and were met by fully equipped Israeli border police. Thirteen Israeli Palestinian citizens were shot dead by the police and, despite an honest inquiry by an official commission headed by the Supreme Court Judge Theodore Or, the fences between the two communities were not mended. In twenty-first century, a new assertive young generation of Palestinians, redefining their community as a national one and demanding that Israel be made into a state for all its citizens, faced an ever more ethnocentric, sometimes racist, Jewish majority, for whom removing the Palestinian minority if things got out of hand was a serious possibility. After the deaths of Sharon's visit, the Palestinian resentment took another form: old and new Palestinian militias, representing every known group or faction in Palestinian politics, began to operate with a dangerous unity of purpose and action. Whether they were called the Martyrs of al-Aqsa or Izz al-Din Battalions, whether they were communists or Islamists, they took up suicide bombing as the sole way of ending occupation. The Israeli retaliation was even more severe than in the past, culminating in the destruction of the Jenin refugee camp, with the death of scores of Palestinians, in April 2002. This followed the indiscriminate killing of 30 Jews at a Passover meal in Netanya a few days earlier. The social and economic fabric of Palestinian society was destroyed in the process, while the personal security of Israelis and their relatively high standard of living was eroded in an unprecedented way.

I got a question myself. Why most of the sources are written by scholars living in Israel? --Aminz 08:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"Second (Al-Aqsa) Intifada" versus "Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada)"

On further reflection I believe "Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada)" is better. People tend to Google search for "Second Intifada" or "Al-Aqsa Intifada" or just "Intifada". With and without quotes around the search terms.

So the wikipedia page will be more likely to be high up in the Google results if both complete phrases are in the title. Google scores a page higher when it finds search terms adjacent to each other in the page, and especially in the title.

Also, if people do a Google title search (with quotes around the search phrase), then the wikipedia page titled "Second (Al-Aqsa) Intifada" will not be found at all in most cases. Because people will tend to search for "second intifada" or al-aqsa intifada" in many cases. --Timeshifter 15:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, one would redirect to the other. If we're going to include paranthetical labels that acknowledge points of view, we should also include Oslo War in the paranthesis. Becomes unwieldy. --Leifern 18:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's just follow the Hebrew wiki's lead: ????? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ????? — in the Israeli Right, some refer to it as "Oslo War". El_C 20:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
RE: Second versus Al-Aqsa, yes, one should redirect to the other — I'm again inclined to follow the Hebrew wiki on this (the latter). El_C 20:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Google is smart enough to know about redirects. Google search for NPOV title "Second+Intifada" produces this WP article as the first link. I don't think parens is a good idea, but if (Al-Aqsa Intifada) should be included, then (Oslo War) should be as well. ?Humus sapiens ??? 20:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Google is not the only search engine. Search engines look at the title. If it is not in the title, then it is not in the URL, and there is nothing to redirect. You are thinking of internal wikipedia links that redirect. Search engines do not pay attention to those, because they arrive at the correct web page with the current URL and title. Search engines only index the current page with the current title and current URL. Someone searching for Al-Aqsa Intifada may not find the wikipedia page near the top of search results over time as search engines re-spider the page. Which they do on a regular basis.

Search engines look at the words between the title tags in the header area at the top of the HTML. The title is one of the most important things concerning how search engines rank their search results. Here is an example of the title tags of a page I happen to be reading now:

<head><title>White House considers war overseer - Yahoo! News</title></head>
From this page:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070411/ap_on_go_pr_wh/white_house_war_overseer

The info in the title tag is several lines long in many web pages. Of course with wikipedia we can not do that because the title is in the URL also. We do not need all the names for this conflict in the title. 2 are much more popular than the others. 4 words is not too long for a wikipedia title. Wikipedia naming conventions require using the popular name. There are 2 equally popular names for this conflict. The vast majority of hits to wikipedia come from search engines.--Timeshifter 20:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Somehow it works fine with other articles and redirs. This is not your personal website and we are not hunting for web hits. ?Humus sapiens ??? 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You don't understand redirects and search engines. This is not your personal website, and you don't make the rules such as the wikipedia policies and guidelines concerning naming. Those naming rules are obviously made so that people find the wikipedia articles. Otherwise, wikipedia would not always use the most popular names. Especially when the most popular names may not be the most politically correct. --Timeshifter 21:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Redirs to all other articles work fine, and this one will work fine as well. There is nothing special about it, other than POV by some WP editors. ?Humus sapiens ??? 00:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Redirects aren't the problem, nor the solution. In fact they have nothing to do with the issue of search engines and wikipedia naming policy. Accusing me of POV-pushing is a personal attack. --Timeshifter 12:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Technical concerns about search engines and Wikipedia should be directed to the developers. They have no weight in determining content, especially where neutrality is a question. TewfikTalk 01:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The issue has nothing to do with the wikipedia developers. It has to do with wikipedia naming policy. As to neutrality, one has to ask how is there a POV in the name, Al-Aqsa Intifada? There might be POV in how the name is interpreted. So are we now going to decide names by reading the minds of those using the names, and determining what percentage of them have various POVs? If most people interpret the name as just a timing indicator for the start of the conflict, and others interpret the name to mean that Sharon is evil, and others interpret the name to mean that Palestinians evilly exploited the Sharon visit, and others .... and so on. Then do we violate the wikipedia naming policy and not use the most popular names anymore for articles? WP:NPOV is met inside the article itself by presenting all significant POVs from reliable sources. --Timeshifter 12:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It is just like the name, Yom Kippur War. It is a name based on the timing of the beginning of that war. There are many POVs as to how that name is interpreted. --Timeshifter 12:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The title is inherently POV, because it implies that it was a specific Israeli "provocation" that started the unrest. This is at best disputed, at worst racist - I don't believe the Palestinians are more likely to start a war over Sharon and an entourage walking on Mount Moriah than Christians would if an imam crossed St. Peter's Square, or Muslims destroyed a synagogue in Gaza or Joseph's Tomb in Nablus/Schechem. --Leifern 13:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
"Implies" is not the same as POV. What is generally agreed is that the conflict started approximately around the time of the Sharon visit in the Al-Aqsa Mosque area. Similarly, the name of the Yom Kippur War is based on the fact that the war started on the Yom Kippur holiday.
From the article in the section titled "2000".
Al-Aqsa Intifada#2000
"On September 27, Sgt. David Biri was killed;[14] some Israeli sources view this as the start of the Intifada.[15] Others view Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount/Al-Haram Al-Sharif mosque on September 28 as the initiating event.[16][17] While 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.[18][19]" --Timeshifter 16:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
First of all, "Yom Kippur" refers to a particular event, "Al-Aqsa" refers to a place. Following your logic, it would be called the Al-Aqsa intifada because it took place at or near Mount Moriah, which it clearly didn't. Second, the derivation of the name you present is nothing but original research, on much weaker foundation for calling it the Oslo war, or what it really was "Arafat's attempt at distracting his people from his diplomatic failings by starting a war." Second intifada avoids this issue altogether. --Leifern 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yom Kippur refers to a yearly holiday. Al-Aqsa refers to a place associated with a visit by Sharon. Neither name by itself designates a year. They are both just shorthand for a specific conflict. Like names for most wars and conflicts. They are both the most popular names. Neither are original research since many reliable sources use those names. --Timeshifter 20:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Yom Kippur War has it's own page and should be discussed there. Back to our subject: Sharon did not visit al-Aqsa, so you'll have to come up with a better explanation. ?Humus sapiens ??? 21:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Please stop the intimidation about relevant comparisons to the Yom Kippur War. From Al-Aqsa Mosque: "the whole area of the Noble Sanctuary is considered Al-Aqsa Mosque according to Islamic law." From Temple Mount: "The Temple Mount (Hebrew: ??? ????????? Har haBáyit), also known as The Noble Sanctuary." From Al-Aqsa Intifada: "On September 28, the Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon, with a Likud party delegation, and surrounded by hundreds of Israeli riot police, visited the mosque compound of the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem. The compound is the holiest site in Judaism, and the third holiest site in Islam for the majority of Muslims."--Timeshifter 23:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming my words. Since the visit was presented as a provocation, "Al-Aqsa" was used as a rallying cry. But this is just one propagandistic POV. Since both names are widely used, given a choice between POV "Al-Aqsa" and NPOV "Second", we should choose the latter, with the former as a redirect. ?Humus sapiens ??? 23:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming that you imply a POV from your interpretation of the name "Al-Aqsa Intifada." I dont interpret the name the same way. I look at the conflict as a simmering situation that exploded around the time of the Sharon visit. But as the article points out there was violence the day before. And some believe the reaction the day after was the beginning of the real escalation. The only certain thing is that of the timing. It occurred within one day of the Al-Aqsa Mosque area visit. So that makes it a reasonable non-POV name to use for the conflict. Personally, I think it was the Israeli overreaction that was the match that set things off. But that is just my 2 cents. The situation was set to explode due to the failure of Camp David. Once the Israelis killed so many demonstrators (most of them armed only with rocks) the course was set. Again, just my 2 cents.
From 2000 Camp David Summit:
The next day [after Sharon visit to the Temple Mount], September 29, 2000, a stone-throwing demonstration by a Palestinian crowd broke out of control and Israeli police opened fire and killed 4 of the protesters [1]. From this point, an escalation in violence culminated in an uprising called the al-Aqsa Intifada, which continues to this day (see Shattered Dreams, Charles Enderlin). There were running street battles in the West Bank and Gaza, and many were killed [2]. There was also rioting by Arab-Israelis, and some of them were killed.
BBC and other links can be followed in the wikipedia article.
On October 8 the BBC reported on the death toll up to that point, "At least 80 people, most of them Palestinians, have been killed during the unrest."
'Excessive' Israeli force condemned. BBC. Oct. 8, 2000. --Timeshifter 02:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Confirming that he implies a POV from his interpretation of "al-Aqsa Intifada"? If it is just a random grouping of words, than why were those words selected? "al-Aqsa" refers to a specific episode in the violence and frames it in that context. TewfikTalk 02:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
No it doesn't. It is just the generally-agreed-upon starting point of the conflict. There were several further escalating stages of conflict in the week afterward. Blame can be laid on all sides as to who added gasoline to the fire at various points in that escalation. I think all sides were to blame. --Timeshifter 11:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Where "Blame can be laid" or what you (or any of us) "think" doesn't matter: please review WP:NOR. WP is an encyclopedia, please avoid original research and WP:WEASEL language. ?Humus sapiens ??? 21:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Please avoid original research when you try to read people's minds as to what is "implied" by the name "al-Aqsa Intifada". Please stop trying to weasel in your interpretations of what "al-Aqsa Intifada" means concerning who is to blame. We all have our different opinions. But opinions and implications do not belong in the article itself. As illustrated on the talk page you and I and others have different opinions as to who is to blame. And I only mentioned my opinions in order to illustrate the point that YOU can't determine the implications of the name "al-Aqsa Intifada". --Timeshifter 22:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposed move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move debate was no consensus to move. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

See also #Proposal to rename above. To recap: both names are widely used (A9 books: [12] vs. [13], Google books: [14] vs. [15], Google scholar: [16] vs. [17]+[18], Google web phrase: [19] vs. [20]+[21], Google web allintitle: [22] vs. [23]), but Al-Aqsa is a POV name implying that it was Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount that caused Palestinian violence. An alternative would be Oslo War, but it is also a POV and is much less popular. The neutral Second Intifada title doesn't carry any such POV connotations. ?Humus sapiens ??? 21:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose: per the Hebrew and Arab Wikipedias. El_C 22:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    • First, this is Enlgish WP. Second, since when WP is a RS? ?Humus sapiens ??? 22:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • support: the name "al-aqsa" implies that the riots were over "protecting al aqsa from the zionists"example (btw, he was caught spreading libel on arab magazines) rather than many other posibilities, such as riots due to rage against settlers or incursions (due to terror/resistance activity) and other such posibilities - supporting the a;-aqsa title actually implies/promotes the POV that the palestinians cannot make any agreement with israel because they do not recognize it's sovriency over "historical" palestine. Jaakobou 09:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move to "Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada)"

[Later note: This section is about a different suggested move from the one discussed in the above talk section.] --Timeshifter 08:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that even the old review of the opinion of editors before most of the discussion showed that opinions were divided concerning the 2 names. So after further discussion I suggest that we change the title to "Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada)". That way most editors will see their preferred name in the title. "Al Aqsa Intifada" is not a POV name. It is just shorthand for the generally-agreed-upon approximate starting point of the conflict. Various implications are in peoples' minds. I don't assign blame because of the timing. To believe that others who accept the Al-Aqsa Intifada name have a certain POV is also just an assumption. And the wikipedia naming policies require that the most popular names be used. See the section higher up on those policies.

From Al-Aqsa Mosque: "the whole area of the Noble Sanctuary is considered Al-Aqsa Mosque according to Islamic law." From Temple Mount: "The Temple Mount (Hebrew: ??? ????????? Har haBáyit), also known as The Noble Sanctuary." From Al-Aqsa Intifada: "On September 28, the Israeli opposition leader Ariel Sharon, with a Likud party delegation, and surrounded by hundreds of Israeli riot police, visited the mosque compound of the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem. The compound is the holiest site in Judaism, and the third holiest site in Islam for the majority of Muslims."

From Al-Aqsa Intifada: "On September 27, Sgt. David Biri was killed;[14] some Israeli sources view this as the start of the Intifada.[15] Others view Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount/Al-Haram Al-Sharif mosque on September 28 as the initiating event.[16][17] While 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.[18][19]"

It does not matter that both sides were prepared for an escalation of conflict. It is obvious that a serious conflict began around the time of the Sharon visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque area. Blame can be argued and assigned and distributed. But the name "Al-Aqsa Intifada" is not a POV name. I don't have a POV as to blame. It is a complex issue. --Timeshifter 23:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that both names are widely used, renaming the article into neutral Second Intifada (rather than rallying cry - and therefore POV - "al-Aqsa") would solve all the issues. Of course "al-Aqsa Initifada" should be a redirect and should be prominently mentioned in the first line. Nothing "complex" about it, this is normally done for thousands of WP articles. ?Humus sapiens ??? 00:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Yom Kippur War is also a rallying cry. It also is a neutral name since it is the starting point of that war. The POVs only come when some people choose to interpret things in a POV way. It is not normal to violate wikipedia guidelines such as the wikipedia naming policy to use the most popular names. Since you agree that both names are widely used, then the logical solution is "Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada)". We can use a redirect for "Oslo War". Very few web pages use that name in a title. Around 191 web pages. See:
http://www.google.com/search?q=allintitle%3A+%22oslo+war%22
Versus around 40,000 for "Al-Aqsa Intifada" in titles.
And around 1000 for "Second Intifada" in titles.
To reflect this disparity maybe we should title the wikipedia page
"Al-Aqsa Intifada (Second Intifada)", putting the most popular name first. --Timeshifter 01:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
28,700 of those hits for "Al-Aqsa Intifada" are from one source -numerous pages on various Palestinian Authority websites. <<-armon->> 13:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
It is true that Moslem religious authorities have designated the entire plaza as a holy site, but it is not true that it is all considered the al-Aqsa mosque. The al-Aqsa mosque is a particular structure. I don't know how the area is referred to in vernacular Arabic, but we are here to be precise. --Leifern 00:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The references for "the whole area of the Noble Sanctuary is considered Al-Aqsa Mosque according to Islamic law" in the wikipedia article on Al-Aqsa Mosque are:
1. Ibn Taymiyah, A Great Compilation of Fatwa, Vol2, page 62.
2. Palestinian Encyclopedia Volume 4, pp. 203. --Timeshifter 01:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
That line is preceded by "Al-Aqsa Mosque commonly refers to the southern congregational mosque that is part of the complex of religious buildings...", and a that is what the entry primarily deals with, while Temple Mount has its own separate entry. Regardless of how which understanding we adopt, that is still representative of a specific position, while "Second Intifada" is equally common and represents no position. The variations of parentheses are not in line with WP naming conventions. TewfikTalk 02:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
There are parentheses in many wikipedia article names. What you said does not change this fact: "the whole area of the Noble Sanctuary is considered Al-Aqsa Mosque according to Islamic law." --Timeshifter 12:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
In previous section you deny that al-Aqsa has had any relevance to the events the followed, and in this section you insist that Sharon violated the holiness of al-Aqsa. You cannot have it both ways. ?Humus sapiens ??? 21:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
You can not create false straw men and then knock them down. I only said that the Sharon visit to the al-Aqsa area was the approximate starting point of the conflict. Just like the Yom Kippur War name is based on the day the war started. As to what exactly caused the conflict to escalate it could be a number of things, or a combination of things. The Sharon visit, or the reaction to the visit by the Palestinians, or the reactions of the Israelis to the rioting, or the lynching of the two Israeli reservists in Ramallah, and so on. All that is just speculation. But the generally-agreed-upon starting point is the Sharon visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque area.--Timeshifter 22:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Support move to Al-Aqsa Intifada (Second Intifada)--Kirß????Ti?éØ 22:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to make a fictitious POV argument for almost any article title in Wikipedia:
  • Six-Day War - does this imply that Arabs are inferior to Jews since they can easily be defeated in six days? Is this a POV title? Should we change the name of the article?
  • Yom Kippur War - does this imply Arabs were sneaky and underhanded by attacking on a Jewish holiday? Should we change the name of the article?
  • al-Aqsa Intifada - does this imply that the mosque itself was the cause, or was Sharon's visit was the cause? Either way - should we change the name of the article?
Or maybe those are simply the commonly used names (in English) and let's just leave them all as they are? I am old enough to remember the the 1970s and not once do I recall the name Yom Kippur War being used. Yet it seems to be the name used now - just as al-Aqsa Intifada is the name commonly used (as any title search will show). Let's just accept reality and move on. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 13:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine if an equally popular name not tied to any position (ie Second Intifada) didn't exist. That its use is of an equal order of magnitude as "al Aqsa Intifada" is made plain by the combined results of the title searches of Google Scholar (68:62 (58+4)), Google Books (519:558), and the queries of major news providers, which makes further reference to plain Google title searches seem somewhat puzzling. That the position opposing a move to "Second Intifada" has integrated it into its counter proposals ("Al-Aqsa Intifada (Second Intifada)" etc.) suggests that it appreciates these points to some extent. I hope that we can soon resolve this discussion, TewfikTalk 07:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Xagent86's comment. I think is should also be pointed out that there's been 34 years for "Yom Kippur War" to gel as a name. We don't have that degree of historical hindsight here. <<-armon->> 00:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If any name becomes unquestioningly more popular, then we will deal with it then. This is the wikipedia naming policy. To use the most common name. --Timeshifter 01:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Given comparable numbers, we should give preference to a less POV title. Also, let's remember that google web search is prone to google bombs, and news media may prefer a shorter title for space considerations. ?Humus sapiens ??? 11:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Google bombs do not apply to searches for either name. Read the Google bombs page more carefully. News media will use whatever name they want. News media will not feel constrained to use both names. --Timeshifter 13:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't realize my opponent speaks for news media. I admit I don't know how google bomb work. I also admit I don't know why non-scholarly title search on the web produces such result. But that is irrelevant. What is relevant: as an encyclopedia, WP should stick with more scholarly (and incidentally, less prone to web activism) searches, like amazon books, google books and g-scholar. Given comparable numbers for scholarly searches, we should give preference to a less POV title. BTW, I'd like my opponents to acknowledge the fact that both names are widely used. ?Humus sapiens ??? 00:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Why did you put out info you did not understand? It explains many of your previous comments on this page. Why do you categorize people as your "opponents"? Do you really think the news media feels constrained to ask permission of you, me, or wikipedia about using various names for the conflict? Do you bother to read what I have said before asking if I "acknowledge the fact that both names are widely used"? You make lots of rhetorical points. But many of them do not logically follow. --Timeshifter 01:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Ignoring non-sequitur. Do you acknowledge the fact that both names are widely used? It's a yes or no question. ?Humus sapiens ??? 04:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Have you read all my previous comments on this page? It's a yes or no question. --Timeshifter 16:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
If you read my previous comments, the answer is clear. Some consider it rude to ask questions that have already been repeatedly answered. --Timeshifter 18:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • support for the name "Second Intifada (al-aqsa)" - the title "al-aqsa" is a political term which implies that the riots were over "protecting al aqsa from the zionists"example (btw, he was caught spreading libel on arab magazines) rather than many other posibilities, such as riots due to rage against settlers or incursions (due to terror/resistance activity) and other such posibilities - supporting the al-aqsa title to lead the article actually implies/promotes the POV that the palestinians cannot make any agreement with israel because they do not recognize it's sovriency over any part of "historical" palestine. Jaakobou 09:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You wrote that it is "a political term which implies". Names can imply many things. It could just be looked at as a convenient marker for the approximate beginning of the conflict. --Timeshifter 16:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
All those implications are POV, ansd are easily avoided if we use simple, unambiguous, and widely used Second Intifada. I still haven't seen any good reason not to use it. ?Humus sapiens ??? 22:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Implications don't count. I see no reason not to use both: "Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada)" --Timeshifter 22:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, you are ready to post any nonsense, as long as you have the last word. NPOV + POV = POV. Still, no good reason was offered not to use the NPOV title. You'll have to try harder. ?Humus sapiens ??? 23:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, you are ready to post any nonsense, as long as you have the last word. You'll have to try harder.--Timeshifter 03:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The fact that "Al-Aqsa" intifada is more commonly used in the Englsih speaking world, is more than enough reason.Bless sins 14:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong. Even though ghits is not a reliable test, search among scholarly sources (amazon books, google books, google scholar) shows approximate parity between the two titles. What we see on the non-scholarly web is propaganda POV. Certain WP users insist on using the current POV title, still unable to offer a good reason not to use the NPOV title Second Intifada. ?Humus sapiens ??? 22:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Repetition does not make it true. In most cases it is propaganda POV only in your mind. Because it is you who is implying the POV. Some people may imply a POV by the name. Others look at it as a convenient marker of the approximate beginning of the conflict. As I do. Why do you refuse to compromise? We can use both names. They are similar in their level of popularity. --Timeshifter 23:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course it is POV used for propaganda, even you admitted it earlier on this very page: "Others exploited it for propaganda". Now you are trying to deny it because you cannot come up with a better excuse to use the POV title, while offering no good reason not to use the NPOV title Second Intifada. Also, there is no reason to complicate the matter and use both, because POV + NPOV = POV. But since both titles (as you admitted in the last post) "are similar in their level of popularity", we should use the NPOV one, preserve a redirect and prominently mention the alternative in the first line, as is done in thousands of other WP articles, and move on. ?Humus sapiens ??? 00:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand you (i.e., Timeshifter) to say that Al-Aqsa is not inherently POV because you "look at it as a convenient marker of the approximate beginning of the conflict." Can you explain how? What is the convenience? Is this like calling WWI, the Sarajevo War because that was "the approximate beginning" of WWI?" Sarajevo is where the assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand occurred. So why is it called WW1 instead of the Sarajevo War or the Ferdinand War? Yet, some will argue that the Jewish visit to the Temple Mount was cynically used by Arafat as a pretext to launch the war. Therefore a better NPOV argument can be made (as absurd as it is) for calling WW1 the Sarajevo War than for calling this the Al-Aqsa War. Doright 00:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Ever heard of the Yom Kippur War? --Timeshifter 09:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Timeshifter, Yes. I see you have chosen to not answer the direct question. I think my work is done here.Doright 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
In the interests of clarity I replaced "you" with Timeshifter, since that seems to be who Doright is addressing, especially as he supported the move. As this is ongoing discussion with new voices, we should let them be heard before taking any action. TewfikTalk 05:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Tewfik, thank you for the clarification. Indeed, I am addressing Timeshifter. There was an edit conflict when I tried to post my question and Humus beat me to the punch getting his comment just prior to mine. I, of course look forward to Timeshifter's reply. Doright 08:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wars are called by many names by various combatants and non-combatants. Some names change over time. English Wikipedia uses the current most-popular name used by English speakers. Just because some people imply a POV from a name does not mean the name is inherently POV. Other people may not imply a POV from the name. And even if the name is POV that does not mean wikipedia can not use the name. In fact wikipedia insists on using the most popular name, regardless of the POV of the name. See the section on wikipedia naming policies higher up on this talk page. It is the section called "Some wikipedia guidance." --Timeshifter 08:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, do you plan on answering my above question regarding your claim that it is "convenient?" Otherwise, this wikipedian will be inclined to conclude that I've wasted my time reading your comments.Doright 09:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I have answered it many times on this talk page. Please read the whole talk page again. You may have wasted your time by not paying attention while you were reading the talk page. --Timeshifter 04:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Timeshifter, Your failure to directly answer the simple follup-up question to your claim demonstrates to my satisfaction that you are not seeking consensus. Therefore, I now have to agree with the other editors' conclusions regarding the futility of continuing pseudo-discussion. Doright 04:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Your continuing refusal to read and understand my previous comments "demonstrates to my satisfaction that you are not seeking consensus. Therefore, I now have to agree with the other editors' conclusions regarding the futility of continuing pseudo-discussion." --Timeshifter 04:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly where did you answer the question? Please provide the diff. Doright 04:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep looking. You will find it. --Timeshifter 09:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Admin: "closing requested move--no consensus to move"

An admin closed the requested move of Al-Aqsa Intifada to Second Intifada at Wikipedia:Requested moves with the edit summary "removing closed discussion". See this diff.

The admin also removed the move banners from the top of this talk page, and put the section here called "Requested move" and the following section called "Requested move to "Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada)" in a light green background color. He put the following message at the top of the "Requested move" section: "The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposed move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. The result of the move debate was no consensus to move."

See this diff. The admin's edit summary here was "closing requested move--no consensus to move"

Tewfik reverted this admin's actions, and made a new comment in the section that was not supposed to be modified. See this diff. --Timeshifter 08:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not a problem though since the admin mistakenly put the light green background color around 2 sections instead of just the one section concerning the closed move. My suggested move to "Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada)" was never actually entered at Wikipedia:Requested moves. So it is OK to continue discussion in that section. --Timeshifter 08:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, often consensus is unachievable in proposals related to Jews and Israel: somehow these topics tend to attract POV pushers who will insist on their POV against any sensible argument. Still, we wikipedians should do what is right (according to WP policies), rather be held hostage to disruptions. Akhilleus, thank you for your attempt to help, but here we have such a case. Status quo promotes propagandist POV. As the discussion above clearly shows, no good reason was given not to use a widely used and NPOV title Second Intifada. ?Humus sapiens ??? 11:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
"somehow these topics tend to attract POV pushers who will insist on their POV against any sensible argument. Still, we wikipedians should do what is right (according to WP policies), rather be held hostage to disruptions." - This looks like it is bordering a personal attack. --Aminz 11:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Shall I make another incident report similar to this one:
WP:ANI#Admin Humus sapiens and his personal attacks, insinuations, and defamations.--Timeshifter 04:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
As I said above, my position is that Intifada's cause was not neccessarily the visit of Sharon but what we know as Alaqsa Intifada started with the visit of sharon. Do you have an academic reliable source disputing this? If so, I will change my position. --Aminz 11:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
There was no official declaration, therefore there is no official "start". And this is not what is being discussed here. We are discussing the title that promotes a propagandist POV: that Sharon "provoked" the hostilities that followed. It is a legitimate POV, but there are other legitimate POVs as well, e.g. Oslo War. OTOH, the title Second Intifada avoids any such POV connotations altogether and is widely used. So unless a good reason for POV title Al-Aqsa Intifada is given, it should become a redirect. ?Humus sapiens ??? 12:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Humus sapiens, I need reliable sources to believe that some academic scholars are opposing the usage of Al-Aqsa Intifada. I also understand that I have one voice here but at the same time I don't like it to be classified as a "disrupter".
You mentioned that some oppose the idea of Sharon "provoking" the hostilities that followed. I believe it did provoke but it was not the only cause of Intifada. Sharon's visit sparked the Intifada. And why do I believe in that? Only because a Professor of History (Dan Diner) says: "It is common to describe the beginning of the intidada al-Aqsa as sparked by the visit of Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount/Haram esh Sharif."
Now, you believe that the common description is POV. Well, it might be. But I need a professor of history, or a professor of middle eastern studies to tell me that it is misleading to refer to second Intifada as Al-aqsa Intifada.
What bothers me most is the pattern I am seeing. First the title wants to become Second Intifada, then we have the sentence: "On September 27, Sgt. David Biri was killed;[14] some Israeli sources view this as the start of the Intifada.[15] Others view Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount/Al-Haram Al-Sharif mosque on September 28 as the initiating event."
This sentence places the "common description" (as historian Dan Diner said) of Sharon's visit as the secondary in importance.
I believe the article has to clearly acknowledge the common view, and then later qualifies it with the POV of minority. --Aminz 22:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. --Timeshifter 04:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
It can hardly be classified as "the" 'common description' when one of the two parties (Israel), as well as the US's Mitchell Report have taken a different position. Lucky for us, the ideal of the title not taking either position can be implemented since the neutral wording "Second Intifada" is of equal prominence as the current title. TewfikTalk 00:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The Mitchell Report does not take a different position. --Timeshifter 04:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Tewfik, please quote your sources. Thanks --Aminz 04:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
"The Sharon visit did not cause the ‘Al-Aksa Intifada.’" — Conclusion of the Mitchell Report, (May 4, 2001) [24]. ?Humus sapiens ??? 10:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I repeat myself:"my position is that Intifada's cause was not neccessarily the visit of Sharon but what we know as Alaqsa Intifada sparked with the visit of sharon." --Aminz 00:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Some sources think it was sparked by Oslo process, or by failure of negotiations in July 2000, or by Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000, etc. The term Second Intifada doesn't carry any such POV associations. ?Humus sapiens ??? 10:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
So you have proved Aminz's point that many people do not believe that the Sharon visit caused the Al-Aqsa Intifada. The Al-Aqsa area visit was just the event that led to the demonstrations of the following days. If there had been no lethal response from the Israelis there may never have been an Al-Aqsa Intifada. But this is all speculation. What matters is that Al-Aqsa Intifada is a common name, and that the Sharon visit marks the approximate time of the escalation into a lethal conflict.--Timeshifter 12:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Mitchell Report quotes

"Sharm El-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee Report". The George J. Mitchell (et al) report. April 30, 2001.


GOI stands for "government of Israel."

Quotes begin:

"From the perspective of the PLO, Israel responded to the disturbances with excessive and illegal use of deadly force against demonstrators; behavior which, in the PLO’s view, reflected Israel’s contempt for the lives and safety of Palestinians. For Palestinians, the widely seen images of Muhammad al-Durrah in Gaza on September 30, shot as he huddled behind his father, reinforced that perception. ...
"In their submissions, the parties traded allegations about the motivation and degree of control exercised by the other. However, we were provided with no persuasive evidence that the Sharon visit was anything other than an internal political act; neither were we provided with persuasive evidence that the PA planned the uprising.
"Accordingly, we have no basis on which to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the PA to initiate a campaign of violence at the first opportunity; or to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the GOI to respond with lethal force.
"However, there is also no evidence on which to conclude that the PA made a consistent effort to contain the demonstrations and control the violence once it began; or that the GOI made a consistent effort to use non-lethal means to control demonstrations of unarmed Palestinians. Amid rising anger, fear, and mistrust, each side assumed the worst about the other and acted accordingly.
"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."

So the Mitchell Report uses the name Al-Aqsa Intifada, and it does not imply that the Sharon visit caused the conflict. It was merely the trigger for the demonstrations that followed. The real conflict started, as in many conflicts, when excessive, and sometimes deadly force was used. Such as the Bloody Sunday massacre in Ireland, or the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles after police use of hugely-excessive force was allowed to go unpunished by the jury. So, Humus sapiens is wrong in all aspects. --Timeshifter 11:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the conflict started when Arafat realized that he would have to give up being a revolutionary if he actually closed peace for his people. Had nothing to do with Sharon or "excessive force." Are we really to believe that Palestinians, as a people, have such poor impulse control that they'll start a monumentally self-destructive war over a perceived slight? That would be racist, pure and simple. --Leifern 19:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
No, according to the Mitchell Report, deadly violence began from the Israeli side first. I quote again: "More significant were the events that followed: the decision of the Israeli police on September 29 to use lethal means against the Palestinian demonstrators." See the 2000 Camp David Summit article for the obvious reasons why the Palestinians refused an imposed humiliating settlement. "Barak offered to form a Palestinian State initially on 73% of the West Bank (that is 27% less than the Green Line borders) and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10 to 25 years the West Bank area would expand to 90-91% (94% excluding greater Jerusalem).[2][3][4]" The Palestinians did not acquiesce to yet more of their land being stolen from them. Just like the American Indians in my land did not easily acquiesce to being conquered. But the Palestinians are still standing, and that really bothers the fundamentalist, right wing of Israeli politics. So some of them snapped and used deadly force against rock-throwing demonstraters. On October 8 the BBC reported on the death toll up to that point, "At least 80 people, most of them Palestinians, have been killed during the unrest." [11] --Timeshifter 05:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Humus, what do you think of the name "Bloody Sunday" or Yom Kippur War? They are both the common names for the events they name. And wikipedia lists around 18 uses of the name Bloody Sunday. So many editors and admins must have discussed those names. And the name must have been approved by the wikipedia naming policies. Maybe, you as an admin, should more thoroughly study those policies, and come to understand why such names, whether POV or not, are acceptable to wikipedia naming policies. Maybe you should seek to change those policies on the talk page for those policies rather than try to impose your own policies here. Maybe you should not be an admin if you can't follow wikipedia policies. --Timeshifter 11:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone who believes that Yom Kippur started the war? Or that the Sunday occurred because it was bloody? You're not making any sense. And Timeshifter, maybe you shouldn't be an editor if you can't differentiate between reality and your own opinion. --Leifern 19:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Wimpy personal attacks concern me little. I declare victory yet again for the wikipedia guidelines. See my previous discussion for the answers to all your misinformation. --Timeshifter 05:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
You have never presented a convincing argument against using a widely used and a neutral title Second Intifada - neutral becuase it does not carry any POV propagandist connotations - so your "declaration of victory" is hollow and childish. WP is not a battleground. ?Humus sapiens ??? 10:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
"Childish?" Your wimpy personal attacks concern me little. I declare victory yet again for the wikipedia guidelines. See my previous discussion for the answers to all your misinformation.--Timeshifter 12:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

OK so what do other encyclopedias call it?

Encarta doesn't have 2 separate articles, but Intifada is divided between First and Second, and it's stated that the second is also know as the Al-Aqsa Intifada. This also suggests to me that we should do the same. Title the article "Second Intifada", redirect Al-Aqsa Intifada, and state that it's also know as Al-Aqsa in the first sentence. <<-armon->> 05:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The Encarta article covers both intifadas, so its title is just "Intifada." In the article itself it states:
  • "This intifada is known as the Al Aqsa intifada, after the holy Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem."
So it actually makes the case that we should keep the current name.
The fact that Encarta names intifada 2 after "holy Al Aqsa Mosque" only shows that it is a POV source. WP has NPOV policy and we can avoid these connotations by using neutral title Second Intifada. If you want to push POV, join Encarta. ?Humus sapiens ??? 10:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah right, anybody and any source that disagrees with the Humus naming policy is POV. Maybe Encarta has decided to use the most common name. Just like wikipedia does. Maybe you should enforce all the wikipedia policies and not just the ones you like. Aren't admins required to do that? --Timeshifter 11:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

How about using the Encarta menu name: "Al Aqsa intifada, the second intifada"

In the column to the left of the Encarta article discussed in the previous section there is an Encarta menu titled "Al Aqsa intifada, the second intifada". I like this name best of all, so far. There are no parentheses, and both names are used. "Second intifada" is not a good article title by itself. It is too generic. The name "Intifada" is used for other struggles outside the Palestinian territories. So "Al Aqsa Intifada" is a more specific name.

By the way, the Encarta article gives this review note at the end:

  • "Reviewed By: Kenneth W. Stein, B.A., M.A., Ph.D.. Professor of Middle Eastern History, Political Science, and Israel Studies, Emory University. Author of Heroic Diplomacy." --Timeshifter 07:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
This again proves that Second Intifada is a widely used title. I don't know what policies Encarta has, but WP has NPOV. No need for POV "Al Aqsa Intifada" in the title, but OK as a redirect, along with another POV: "Oslo War". ?Humus sapiens ??? 10:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Please enforce the wikipedia policies. Your policies don't rule here. Wikipedia policies rule here. --Timeshifter 11:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you're really grasping for straws here. First, "Second intifada" is in no conceivable way "too generic", and secondly, the article lists two intifadas, First and Second. The fact they also state that the second is also known as the "Al Aqsa Intifada" we already know. If Humus is calling Encarta a POV source, I don't know if I agree (I'd have to see more evidence) but I do note that we beat them in depth of coverage, and we do have NPOV as a core policy. Valid objections to "Al Aqsa Intifada" being POV title have been raised, which no one actually disputes. Because of that, and the fact that "Second Intifada" is as widely used, and that it's not a term simply used by apologists for the Israeli side, I really don't understand the objection to it. <<-armon->> 11:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
You are the one grasping for straws here. You brought up the Encarta article to begin with. All your other points have been discussed numerous times. There is an obvious propaganda battle going on concerning the name of the conflict, and the blaming for the conflict. Wikipedia does not take sides. It just uses the common names, and moves on. As you should. Just follow the wikipedia naming policies. Or try changing those policies on the talk page for those policy articles. --Timeshifter 05:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
If there is an obvious propaganda battle going on, in what way do you think "Second Intifada" constitutes "propaganda" or advances a POV? <<-armon->> 07:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Trying to say that "Al-Aqsa Intifada" implies a certain POV is propaganda. And it is a straw man argument anyway. See my next comment farther down. --Timeshifter 07:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but you didn't answer the question here. In what way do you think the term "Second Intifada" constitutes "propaganda" or advances a POV? Simply making assertions about the presumed motivations of other editors, is beside the point. <<-armon->> 22:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I did not say editors had any motivations. I am not assuming bad faith. I am saying that implying a POV from the name Al-Aqsa Intifada is a stretch. No matter who does it, and for whatever reason. --Timeshifter 23:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Please answer the question. I was asking about "Second Intifada". If you choose to dismiss the objections to "Al-Aqsa Intifada", fine, but others have raised the objection. I am attempting to establish if "Second Intifada" suffers from similar objections. <<-armon->> 00:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It is irrelevant. The wikipedia naming policies require using the most common name. See the section on wikipedia guidance. --Timeshifter 01:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, your pointing to the naming policy is what's irrelevant because we don't have a clear "winner" for what's most popular. We have more-or-less a tie between one which embeds a POV, and one which is simply descriptive. In this case, WP's core policy of NPOV would suggest that "Second" is the better choice. <<-armon->> 05:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
No POV is "embedded". Both names are simply descriptive. One describes the approximate starting point of the conflict timewise, but not necessarily as to cause. WP's naming policy does not conflict with WP:NPOV. See the wikipedia guidelines section higher up. The simple solution is to name it Al Aqsa intifada, the second intifada. If the name causes people to ponder how the Sharon visit fits in, then to change the name is an obvious political POV through omission. Wikipedia describes controversies. It does not censor them. --Timeshifter 06:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I still haven't received a satisfactory response as to how "Al Aqsa Intifada" is a POV title. Armon, please don't say "which no one actually disputes", when there are clearly many people who dispute your accusation that a name carries a POV.--Kirby?time 06:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Start here and read on down. If it hasn't been explained to your satisfaction, OK you're an exception. Do you think a name can't carry a POV? <<-armon->> 07:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I suggest you, armon, read from that section down. It will answer your questions and straw man arguments. It does not matter whether a name carries a POV - even just an implied POV. Neither POV matters according to wikipedia naming policies. See the section higher up titled "Some wikipedia guidance". --Timeshifter 07:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
OK to make sure I understand correctly. You admit "Al-Aqsa Intifada" carries a POV, but your position is that it's irrelevant? Right? <<-armon->> 09:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. The name "Al-Aqsa Intifada" does not carry a POV. Some people IMPLY a POV. Even if the common name for this, or any conflict, was a POV, it would not matter to Wikipedia. Wikipedia naming policies require using the most common name, regardless of POV. --Timeshifter 10:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Except that the evidence according to RSs shows that "Al-Aqsa" and "Second" to be roughly co-equal. This means that the POV in "Al-Aqsa" does become an issue. <<-armon->> 22:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC) \
No POV, no problem. Even if POV, no problem. Best solution is to use both names so as not to break the wikipedia policies: "Al Aqsa intifada, the second intifada". See the section higher up that has wikipedia guidance. I added some more info from the wikipedia policy pages on naming. Here is some of it:
As has been pointed out before, "splitting the baby" is a bad idea if we have a neutral title which is just as popular, and we do. <<-armon->> 00:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The wikipedia naming policies require using the most popular name, regardless of POV. See the latest additions to the section higher up that has wikipedia guidance. --Timeshifter 01:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

From: Wikipedia:Naming conflict:

A naming conflict can arise on Wikipedia when contributors have difficulty agreeing on what to call a topic or a geopolitical/ethnic entity. These generally arise out of a misunderstanding of the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.

That is the first sentence in the article, and explains much of the conflict in naming this article.

From another section of Wikipedia:Naming conflict:

Names can sometimes be controversial because of perceived negative political connotations, historical conflicts or territorial disputes. However, Wikipedia does not take sides in a political controversy or determine what is something or someone's true, proper name. What this encyclopedia does, rather, is to describe the controversy.

So to choose between the 2 names might be construed as taking sides. Best solution is to use both names: "Al Aqsa intifada, the second intifada". --Timeshifter 23:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

What "side" is "Second Intifada" supposed to be taking? I'd agree we might be construed as taking sides if the choice was between "Al Aqsa intifada" and "Oslo War". <<-armon->> 00:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You are making a choice that denies using the most common name. This is a violation of the wikipedia naming policies. See the section higher up on wikipedia guidance.--Timeshifter 01:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The evidence doesn't back up your assertion that "Al Aqsa" is the most common name. You are still avoiding answering the question. <<-armon->> 05:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Al-Aqsa Intifada is slightly more popular. Answered all your questions numerous times. You just aren't hearing it. The simple solution is to name it Al Aqsa intifada, the second intifada. If the name causes people to ponder how the Sharon visit fits in, then to delete the Al-Aqsa name is an obvious political POV through omission. Wikipedia describes controversies. It does not censor them. --Timeshifter 06:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Has any one who supports the move (to "Second intifada") gone out to check what popular sources in the English speaking world say about the topic? For example the New York Times, BBC, CNN, Time (magazine) are sources used by millions. WP:Naming conventions says that we use "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize".Bless sins 22:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, for some of those you listed. See previous discussion. --Timeshifter 00:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, based on your willingness to adopt something along the lines of "Al Aqsa intifada, the second intifada", can you clarify whether you think that al-Aqsa Intifada is only slightly more popular and in the same order of magnitude as Second Intifada? TewfikTalk 07:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Summary of the last month talks

OK, summarizing one month (~160kB) of discussion:

  • The most popular title - the numbers among scholarly sources show that both titles are widely used. Non-scholarly sources are irrelevant in a serious encyclopedia. ?Humus sapiens ??? 23:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, though overall popularity is not completely irrelevant. --Timeshifter 04:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The neutral Second Intifada is as widely popular title as POV Al-Aqsa. ?Humus sapiens ??? 07:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, non-POV Al-Aqsa Intifada is much more popular in general wikipedia title searches. --Timeshifter 10:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
What do Wikipedia title searches have to do with anything. We established that they are of equal orders of magnitude in scholarship, literature, and newsmedia.TewfikTalk
Humus sapiens used the phrase "widely popular title". I replied. --Timeshifter 09:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Non-scholarly sources are irrelevant in a serious encyclopedia. ?Humus sapiens ??? 21:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Naming conventions:
"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." --Timeshifter 08:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirects don't work - they work just fine for thousands upon thousands of WP articles. ?Humus sapiens ??? 23:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Missed the point yet again. Search engine redirects are not the same as Wikipedia redirects. Google redirects only work some of the time with some names. Other search engines are not as powerful as google which has the massive computing power to associate names. --Timeshifter 04:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Computer power is cheap, and there is caching involved, and most importantly, it works in thousands of other articles. Your POV is duly noted. ?Humus sapiens ??? 07:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The name POV was not discussed. Just technical workings of wikipedia and Google. Google's massive computing infrastructure is not cheap. Name association by search engines does not always work. It works more often with Google because it has a massive infrastructure and very advanced searching algorithms. --Timeshifter 10:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
No part of Wikipedia naming policy requires us to at all cater to any such technical problems if they existed. We are only interested in content, and leave that for the developers. TewfikTalk 04:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Humus sapiens brought up the redirect discussion again. I replied. --Timeshifter 09:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Timeshifter, it was you who brought it up here in the first place. Indeed, technical problems should be discussed with developers. There are thousands of redirects in WP, but you brought this issue into this discussion only to push your POV. In this section I summarized your failed arguments. ?Humus sapiens ??? 21:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Already answered many times previously. --Timeshifter 08:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "Al-Aqsa" doesn't carry any POV - of course it does. See Denial ?Humus sapiens ??? 23:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
No it does not. It is simply a marker of the approximate time of the beginning of the escalation of the conflict. All sides are to blame for the conflict. There is only a POV if the name blames one side for the conflict. It took a week of killing and counterkilling AFTER the Al-Aqsa visit to entrench the conflict.
That is POV we are talking about. The title Second Intifada doesn't carry that POV. ?Humus sapiens ??? 07:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not a POV since no side is blamed by the name. --Timeshifter 10:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, whose POV does Al-Aqsa intifada carry? Israelis use the word as much as Palestinians.Bless sins 22:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it explicitly blames it on someone or not. The position that it started at al-Aqsa mosque is what the Israelis dispute. TewfikTalk 04:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. Wikipedia naming policy requires using the most common name regardless. And the name "Al-Aqsa Intifada" does not indicate that it started at the Al-Aqsa mosque. It is just shorthand for the approximate beginning of the conflict. It could just as easily be claimed to start the following days during the riots and Israeli killings of rioters. --Timeshifter 09:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Yawn. Your POV. ?Humus sapiens ??? 21:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. We all have different POV interpretations of the name. Therefore it has no set inherent POV. --Timeshifter 08:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • "Al-Aqsa" does carry POV, but what POV exactly - it's not a mystery, search for "provocation" on this page.?Humus sapiens ??? 23:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
See above reply. Also, it is a POV to remove that popular name. Because it hinders people from thinking about the week of killing and counterkilling AFTER the Al-Aqsa visit that was the cause of the entrenchment of the conflict. The name does not place blame. --Timeshifter 04:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
NPOV is our core policy. Given wide popularity of both titles, we should chose a less POV one, Second Intifada. ?Humus sapiens ??? 07:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
"Al-Aqsa Intifada" name is not POV. --Timeshifter 10:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not our job to ensure people think about "the week of killing and counterkilling" TewfikTalk 04:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

It is our job to use the most common name as explained by the wikipedia naming policy. You think that POV matters in a name. It does not. But if it did matter, we should keep "Al-Aqsa Intifada" because to deny its use is also an act of POV-favoring. --Timeshifter 09:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
What POV is favoured? TewfikTalk 18:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Yawn. Your POV. ?Humus sapiens ??? 21:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
We should keep "Al-Aqsa Intifada" because to deny its use is an act of POV-favoring. --Timeshifter 08:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Personal attacks and intimidation - this doesn't work out here. ?Humus sapiens ??? 23:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Glad you have stopped. Thank you. --Timeshifter 04:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I was talking about yours. ?Humus sapiens ??? 07:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I filed the incident report: WP:ANI#Admin Humus sapiens and his personal attacks, insinuations, and defamations. --Timeshifter 10:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
And the community ignored your accusation. TewfikTalk 04:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Some acted like they ignored it, but they still replied. Others respected the allegations of my character being attacked. --Timeshifter 09:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Nobody can discredit you more that you do it yourself. ?Humus sapiens ??? 21:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
More incivility in violation of wikipedia guidelines. Yet another character attack on your part. --Timeshifter 08:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Having the last word - I have to hand it down to Timeshifter. Even if it took simply rearranging the words of his opponent, he stomped his mouse the last in almost every section. ?Humus sapiens ??? 23:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Tewfik and you had the last word until I replied now. --Timeshifter 04:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In a month, we haven't seen any serious argument against the neutral and widely used title Second Intifada. So I think we should ask an uninvolved admin to lift the protection and proceed with the rename. ?Humus sapiens ??? 23:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Even with your own analysis of who favored choosing one name over the other, it was split fairly evenly among editors as to which name to use. And that was before much of the discussion. Especially the discussion about the most logical choice: "Al-Aqsa Intifada, the second intifada" --Timeshifter 04:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
A pretty one-sided summary. --Aminz 23:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The Humus sapiens summary is one-sided. It is also inaccurate. --Timeshifter 04:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the suggestion that we use Al Aqsa intifada, the second intifada, while it doesn't conform with naming convention, is indicative of a recognition that Second Intifada is a proper name for this entry. I agree with you, Humus, that it is time to bring in someone else to effect change. Hopefully, Aminz, they will able to decide how one-sided it is. TewfikTalk 23:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Al-Aqsa Intifada, the second intifada" is not against naming conventions. --Timeshifter 04:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Still, no serious argument was offered against the neutral and widely used title Second Intifada. ?Humus sapiens ??? 07:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It is a slightly less common name. --Timeshifter 10:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Bringing a neutral party is always a good idea, particularly when the discussion is locked. Each of us can write a paragraph explaining our position. --Aminz 23:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The above summary (Timeshifter broke it line-by-line) can be considered as 'splaining of my position. ?Humus sapiens ??? 07:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we not all agree that "Al-Aqsa Intifada, the second intifada" is better than just "Al-Aqsa Intifada" alone? Can we not change to that name for now? After mediation there may be other possibilities. --Timeshifter 04:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How is it better? ?Humus sapiens ??? 07:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It meets the wikipedia naming conventions. --Timeshifter 10:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It is conventional to use commas or parenthesis for disambiguation, not for inability to decide between two names. TewfikTalk 04:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Names use commas and parentheses for many reasons, not just the ones you indicate. --Timeshifter 09:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Then add "Oslo War" to it as well. ?Humus sapiens ??? 21:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not a common name. --Timeshifter 08:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • unlock and rename. I've yet to see any objection to "Second Intifada" which isn't "I like 'Al-Aqsa Intifada' better". They're both more-or-less equally popular, yet one doesn't suffer from the POV issues. "Second Intifada" is simply descriptive, so that's what we should use. <<-armon->> 04:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"Al-Aqsa Intifada" is simply descriptive, and it is a slightly more common name.--Timeshifter 09:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
It's highly debatable that "Al-Aqsa" is more popular according to RSs. This is why I characterized their popularity as more-or-less equal. <<-armon->> 22:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Naming conventions:
"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." --Timeshifter 08:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Simply clogging the talk page with noise won't work. I challenge my opponents to come up with a good reason not to use the undisputedly neutral and widely used title Second Intifada. ?Humus sapiens ??? 21:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
See my comment above yours quoting from Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Second Intifada is a more ambiguous name. "Al-Aqsa Intifada" is a more specific name. --Timeshifter 08:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I've asked myself. I think we can safely assume that there are no objections to "Second Intifada" in terms of neutrality. <<-armon->> 22:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
"Al-Aqsa Intifada" is also a neutral name. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Neutrality does not matter anyway in naming. --Timeshifter 08:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Timeshifter's primary response to that has been that "al-Aqsa Intifada" is more popular, though he agrees that as far as scholarship, literature, and news media, they are of equal orders of magnitude, which is why he's made the suggestion that we use a formulation like "al-Aqsa Intifada, Second Intifada", argumentum ad infinitum. So there is reason not to use "Second Intifada". TewfikTalk 22:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I want to use both names in the title. Simple solution. --Timeshifter 08:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we are repeating the same thing over and over again. We should figure out a better way to proceed.--Aminz 08:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's see some reasonableness for a change. ?Humus sapiens ??? 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
As in those who disagree with Humus sapiens are unreasonable? Another roundabout Humus sapiens personal attack. It is true though that we should figure out a better way to proceed. --Timeshifter 23:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Timeshifter, your homework was to explain why you object a neutral and widely used title Second Intifada. ?Humus sapiens ??? 08:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Similar renaming discussions

There is another discussion about changing the name of an article. See: Talk:Allegations of Israeli apartheid - Also a merge discussion there.

I believe my "no" vote there in an unofficial straw poll about changing the name and merging the article to a more vague name (Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories) is relevant here too. That straw poll asked for reasons, too.

  1. No. This ends up being (whatever the motives of the participants) another deletion, hiding, masking, or burying of an aspect of alleged Israeli human rights violations in the Palestinian territories. See also the related info at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab-Israeli conflict. This article is a long breakout article from Allegations of apartheid. That article has survived a recent "article for deletion" (AFD) review. We need MORE articles on human rights violations, not less. Human rights violations by all sides. We need specific breakout articles for each of the many sides in conflicts in many nations and territories. See also: Portal:Human rights and Category:Human rights for ideas. There is way too much material in this article to merge it with another article. Why does Human rights in the Palestinian territories redirect to Human rights in the Palestinian National Authority? Why is there no separate page titled something like "Human rights under Israeli occupation"? Tewfik and Beit Or repeatedly deleted a long article on Israeli human rights violations. The admin Jayjg improperly backed them up. See Talk:Allegations against Israel of war crimes during the Al-Aqsa Intifada for more info. The article survived an AFD. The closing AFD admin wrote: "No consensus. Keep, with strong encouragement to merge with Al-Aqsa Intifada on the basis of Wikipedia:Content forking." Someone deleted the article. I restored the article and tried changing the name to the more accurate name Alleged human rights violations by Israel during Al-Aqsa Intifada. It was again deleted. Jayjg backed up the deletion and again redirected the new page name to al-Aqsa Intifada without any OK from normal wikipedia merge procedures. See: Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. It says not to abruptly delete pages as part of a merge if the deletion is likely to be contested. Contested deletions require an "article for deletion" (AFD) discussion. The article was never merged. It is too long to merge. The original page is archived here. I did not write that page, but I now think the page is broad enough to become an article with this name: Human rights under Israeli occupation. The original page needs a lot of work. In the archived page I have started converting the links to reference links. The page could be a linked breakout article from this small article section: Human rights in Israel#Israel's record: human rights in the occupied territories. This Allegations of Israeli apartheid should be a link from the new breakout article, too. Another improper "AFD keep, merge, and delete" tactic facilitated by the admin Jayjg was recently stopped concerning this article: United States military aid to Israel. See the talk page for the relevant links to the deletion discussions, reviews, and incident reports for improper admin action: Talk:United States military aid to Israel. --Timeshifter 08:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. No Al-Aqsa Intifada is more widely used than Second Intifada. While Second Intifada could be added to the title, as suggested by Timeshifter as a compromise position, Al-Aqsa Intifada should not be removed from the title, since it is more widely used and recognized. Tiamut 07:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Tiamut, please see the discussion above where we compare scholarly sources (scholar.google.com, books.google.com, a9.com): the numbers are close - even inflated with WP clones. Non-scholarly sources do not matter for an encyclopedia. Please present a serious objection to a neutral and widely used title Second Intifada. ?Humus sapiens ??? 08:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I did both read the arguments above and present a "serious objection". That you fail to acknowledge that is unsurprising given your strident opposition to the current title. It would be nice however, if you would not assume ignorance on the part of fellow editors who disagree with your position or try to diminish the relevance of their comments or the deep consideration that we have given to this issue. Tiamut 09:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, your arguments work better against you than for you: I rely on books and websites considered scholarly; I acknowledge that you chose to rely on non-scholarly sources. You chose a personal attack, instead of facing the facts and argument at hand. The pretense of "deep consideration" next to Timeshifter's POV "muting criticism of Israel" is laughable. Still no serious objection to a neutral and widely used title Second Intifada. ?Humus sapiens ??? 09:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
As I stated above, I am aware of the discussion above, have deeply considered the issue and have concluded that I do not agree with your position that "Second Intifada" is any more widely used or more neutral than "Al-Aqsa Intifada". You yourself concede that among scholarly sources, there is parity in the use of the term and among popular sources, Al-Aqsa is more widely used. Additionally, IMHO there is no POV inherent in the titling of the article by its current name - that's simply your interpretation. And while you are entitled to that interpretation, others are entitled to disagree - preferably without having their position ridiculed or dismissed as superficial in its reasoning. There is no point to your editorializing on the votes of others who disagree with you, unless your aim is to initimidate others with opposing views. Tiamut 10:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Many of these renaming attempts (no matter the motive) end up muting criticism of Israel. Even vaguely interpreted criticism from vague interpretations of an innocuous name such as Al-Aqsa Intifada.

I would oppose similar renaming attempts of other pages dealing with human rights violations by Palestinians. I clarified the section on Palestinian violations of human rights of other Palestinians during the Al-Aqsa Intifada. I did not mute the criticism. I just laid out the sourced info, and let readers come to their own conclusions about the info and the sources. See: al-Aqsa Intifada#Casualties

Let us use the most common names as specified by wikipedia guidelines and stop trying to manipulate wikipedia to achieve spin control. --Timeshifter 09:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Timeshifter, this is a wrong place to air your off-topic grievances and political rants. Please review WP:TALK, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, WP:NOT#BLOG, and WP:NOT#FORUM. It is no surprise that all you do here is stalling the discussion and pushing political POV. ?Humus sapiens ??? 23:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
None of those apply. All of my comments in this section were relevant. They were not political rants. Calling them political rants is just another Humus sapiens personal attack. Disagreeing with someone is not "stalling the discussion." If that were true then you are stalling the discussion by disagreeing with me. It is better to agree to disagree. Let us leave it at that. That is the civil polite thing to do. --Timeshifter 23:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course we disagree. First, WP:TALK does apply on WP talk pages, but your bloggery does not. Second, after more than a month, you are still unable to present any objection to a neutral and widely used title Second Intifada. ?Humus sapiens ??? 00:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
None of the wikipedia guideline violations you allude to apply to my comments. Describing my relevant discussion on article talk pages as "bloggery" is just another form of personal attack. --Timeshifter 10:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
No Timeshifter, telling other editors to "stop trying to manipulate wikipedia to achieve spin control" and accusing them of "muting criticism of Israel" is not okay. How is anyone "muting criticism of Israel" here?! Considering your replication of pages of policies on Talk, it would do you well not violate core principles such as "assume good faith". TewfikTalk 15:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Spin control is exactly the effect of trying to use another name. Whether it was intended or not. WP:AGF says: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary...." It goes on. Lots of caveats. After being repeatedly personally attacked on this page by Humus sapiens, I am having difficulty assuming good faith. --Timeshifter 16:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
No one on AN/I thought that there were personal attacks on you, and that should be sufficient to drop that. Likewise, saying other users are conducting "spin control" violates AGF no matter how right you might think you are. The accusation doesn't even make sense - what "spin" could anyone possibly be trying to "manipulate" here? TewfikTalk 17:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Only one of those who replied said there were no personal attacks. The rest of those who replied did not comment on whether there were personal attacks or not. They said it was a content dispute. I don't disagree with that. But there were also personal attacks. So they handled it diplomatically, probably since it was a fellow admin being accused of personal attacks. I observed that soon after the incident report was filed many more editors and admins visited this talk page here, and that many commented against changing the name of the article. I also noted that Humus eased up on the personal attacks temporarily. It does not violate AGF to say that the effect of changing the name is spin control. It is a fact. The motivations do not matter, and I don't need to make an assumption of bad faith to make that conclusion. --Timeshifter 20:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, no one agreed with your charge of personal attacks. And if you are going to make multiple accusations of "spin control" and "manipulation", then I'd like to understand what that manipulation is, because as far as I can tell neither Humus nor anyone else is engaging is such behaviour, and as such I see no valid reason for suspending AGF. TewfikTalk 20:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I have explained it several times now. Sorry that you don't get it. --Timeshifter 22:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
No, you said: the effect of changing the name is spin control. It is a fact. The motivations do not matter... If you are going to make multiple accusations of "spin control" and "manipulation", then I'd like to understand what that manipulation is, otherwise AGF still applies. TewfikTalk 22:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Try reading all my comments again on this talk page. Then ask again. --Timeshifter 22:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I cannot find it. Please just answer it here. TewfikTalk 22:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
No. 8 minutes is not enough time to read the whole talk page again. After finishing your assignment there will be a quiz. --Timeshifter 22:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Lets try this again: what is the "spin control" or "manipulation" is there in "trying to use another name" that you believe allows you to suspend AGF? TewfikTalk 02:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there is any problem using Second intifada for the title, with "The Second Intifada (also called the al-Aqsa Intifada) began..." at the start, and a redirect on al-Aqsa Intifada (see epinephrine/adrenaline for similar circular argumentation), but I am disturbed by the current level of POV control of article names. It seems the endless Israel POV war must even be fought on the subconscious level (and compare and contrast this widely used name with the neologism Pallywood) --Coroebus 13:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It is just as logical to use "Al-Aqsa Intifada" as the article title, and then "(also called the The Second Intifada)" in the first sentence of the article. That is why an objective standard should be used. That standard is the wikipedia naming policies. It says to use the most common name, regardless of POV. As you point out, Pallywood is obviously a POV name, but it has become a common name. I assume the article with that name passed a deletion review. Did it? If the name has been used enough, especially in some mainstream media, it moves beyond being just a neologism, and it then is acceptable to use the name as an article title in Wikipedia. --Timeshifter 20:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually Pallywood has survived one AfD as no consensus. It is a derogatory neologism that is not widely used, and certainly not in reputable sources (i.e. stuff other than partisan blogs, like newspapers) but it was kept because of a large and vocal group of like minded editors wanting to keep it. Contrast that with a name that is commonly used by mainstream media sources and in academia (al-Aqsa intifada, which as far as I can tell is only POV if you have a bizarre minority view of the causes of the intifada) and you get an idea of the double standards on show (see Humus sapiens below). Obviously al-Aqsa intifada is just as logical as Second intifada, I'm just pointing out that it doesn't really matter, and sometimes it is easier just to let these POV pushers get their own way when the consequences are as minor as they are here (although just wait until they start deleting all reference to the 'al-Aqsa intifada' and try and rewrite the causes as I spelled out below). --Coroebus 09:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm also very uncomfortable with the section that says "On September 27, Sgt. David Biri was killed;[14] some Israeli sources view this as the start of the Intifada.[15] Others view Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount/Al-Haram Al-Sharif mosque on September 28 as the initiating event.[16][17] While 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.[18][19]" which would seem to be an extension of the standpoint that motivates the attempted name change. As always there seems to be an attempt to draw an equivalence between a minority (often Israeli) view, here represented by a link to the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise Jewish Virtual Library article Myths & Facts Online The “al-Aksa Intifada” by Mitchell G. Bard which expounds the view that "Imad Faluji, the Palestinian Authority Communications Minister, admitted months after Sharon's visit that the violence had been planned in July, far in advance of Sharon's "provocation." "It [the uprising] had been planned since Chairman Arafat's return from Camp David, when he turned the tables on the former US president and rejected the American conditions....The violence started before Sharon's September 28, 2000, visit to the Temple Mount. The day before, for example, an Israeli soldier was killed at the Netzarim Junction. The next day in the West Bank city of Kalkilya, a Palestinian police officer working with Israeli police on a joint patrol opened fire and killed his Israeli counterpart." Yet mainstream media do report the second intifada as following the Temple Mount visit (e.g. [25], [26]), and while the Bard article quotes aprovingly the Mitchell report saying “The Sharon visit did not cause the ‘Al-Aksa Intifada.’” the full text reads "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." which directly contradicts the Bard position that it was planned and the idea that it started before the visit, rather it takes a more nuanced view that while the Temple Mount visit was provocative later events served to catalyse the intifada. This section should begin with the mainstream view that the intifada started with the temple mount visit, and then the more nuanced interpretation, and only then give the poorly sourced minority view, none of this 'some Israelis (minority view)...others (everybody else)' format. I look forward to the deluge of blog posts and partisan Israeli websites to support the opposite view. --Coroebus 13:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Well said. --Timeshifter 20:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
No one said that the text is perfect. The question we are discussing here is the title. For too long, this article was titled in a POV manner. More people see the title "al-Aqsa" as POV than those who claim to not noticing any POV. Politicizing the issue by alluding to "provocation", or using WP to fight against "muting criticism of Israel", "Spin control", etc. only makes the POV more obvious. After a few weeks of discussion, no serious objection was presented to a neutral and widely used title Second Intifada. ?Humus sapiens ??? 22:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure there was. You just seem to ignore/dismiss all arguments against "Second Intifada". (Pssst it was the fact that "al-Aqsa intifada" is used more widely in the English speaking world).Bless sins 23:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
In the world of blog and propaganda maybe, but not among scholarly sources. Since there are attempts to drown the discussion in exuberant trolling, let me reiterate that still no serious objection to a neutral and widely used title Second Intifada was presented. ?Humus sapiens ??? 00:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
For the record, Timeshifter still refuses to explain why he suspends AGF with accusations of "spin control" and "manipulation", and instead replied with this gross violation of civility: "No. 8 minutes is not enough time to read the whole talk page again. After finishing your assignment there will be a quiz". TewfikTalk 00:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Could we stay on topic here? In reviewing the discussion above, one can see that by google scholar count, al-Aqsa beat out Second, by google book count Second beat out al-Aqsa, and by Google search al-Aqsa absolutely trounced Second. al-Aqsa is far more widely used and therefore per Wikipedia naming policy should be in the title for this article. That some find it to be a POV title is strange and unfortunate to me. It was a Palestinian uprising and accordingly it has a Palestinian name. Should a guy named Mohammed have an article entitled Mo so that anti-Muslims are not offended? Tiamut 01:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've been trying to get an answer pertaining to this topic from Timeshifter. I know that you would agree that AGF and civility are important. As for popularity, it has been demonstrated that both scholarship, literature, and newsmedia have them represented in equal orders of magnitude. A regular Google test is only good as an initial test to see whether notability for a term exists (no one is arguing that al-Aqsa Intifada is not a notable term), but it doesn't discriminate between reliable sources and blogs and such (like the Google searches for "Palestinian terrorism", 220,000 vs "Palestinian political violence", ~4,000). TewfikTalk 02:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, in scholarly circles al-Aqsa is as prevalent as Second Intifada, more by one count and less by another, as you point out in that diff. The google search for al-Aqsa Intifada though is hundreds of times that for Second Intifada, quite a large discrepancy. As a Palestinian uprising, it has a Palestinian name. It's funny to me that people here who believe that the Intifada was pre-planned by the Palestinian Authority don't want call it what they call it. Further, upon review, the Palestinian political violence article seems to be aptly named since it puts attacks against military targets and those against civilians in the same article. Attacks against military targets by a vastly underarmed popular militia made up of people under occupation are generally not considered terrorism. Tiamut 02:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, propaganda websites and blogs use "Al-Aqsa". But WP should rely on scholarly sources and common sense to uphold our core policy, NPOV. The insistence to use POV title by a few users - pushing "criticism of Israel" everywhere they go - only underscores the simple fact: so far no serious objection to a neutral and widely used title Second Intifada was presented. ?Humus sapiens ??? 01:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The drive to change the title from al-Aqsa Intifada, the term widely used even in scholarly circles (see discussion above) by a few users - pushing for Israel everywhere they go - only underscores the simple fact: so far no serious objection to a neutral and widely used title al-Aqsa Intifada. Is this kind of discourse really helpful? Tiamut 01:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
No, because you are wrong. al-Aqsa carries certain POV connotations, but Second does not. User:Timeshifter already tried parroting, it didn't work. The more you (plural) push POV, the more obvious it becomes. ?Humus sapiens ??? 01:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It was a Palestinian uprising. In deference to reality, the media and scholars have recognized that it has a Palestinian name. What's so hard to understand here? Tiamut 02:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course "Al-Aqsa Intifada" is "a Palestinian name" and therefore it reflects a pro-Palestinian POV. The proposal is to switch from a POV title to just as popular NPOV title - as it's been shown, the neutral title "Second Intifada" is used as widely among scholarly sources. I would understand opposition to title Oslo War. But what is wrong with the title "Second Intifada"? Other than not being pro-Palestinian POV, that is. ?Humus sapiens ??? 04:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It was a Palestinian uprising. Helloooooo....--Timeshifter 07:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
What kind of logic is this? WP policies are (or should be) the same for all, even for Palestinians. ?Humus sapiens ??? 08:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Surely you aren't the same Humus sapiens that voted to keep the minority partisan neologism "Pallywood" as the title of an article? --Coroebus 07:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, this is not the game of "gotcha". Please don't change the subject. Please explain your objections (if any) to a neutral and widely used title Second Intifada. So far we've seen none. Thank you. ?Humus sapiens ??? 08:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
He did not change the subject. You are just trying to intimidate another editor. His logic was flawless. Wikipedia is keeping a title (Pallywood) that uses an obviously POV name because that name is common. Al-Aqsa Intifada is not even POV. It just has an Arab word in the title. I guess Arab words used in English titles are assumed to be POV by some editors.--Timeshifter 09:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I've already outlined my position. I'm just pointing out the extreme double standards inherent in yours. --Coroebus 09:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Ignoring personal attacks and off topic. Back to our subject: Still no objections was presented to a neutral and widely used title Second Intifada. ?Humus sapiens ??? 09:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Not really off topic since it suggests partisan political motivations on your part, care to justify the disparity between your positions on each article? --Coroebus 09:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Please stop the disruption. Wrong place for personal vendettas or unrelated grievances. ?Humus sapiens ??? 09:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
So I take it you are not prepared to justify your double standards? --Coroebus 09:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut summation for the benefit of Humus Sapiens

Since Humus Sapiens seems to have trouble acknowledging the objections to his proposal to change the title of the page, I thought it would be helpful to include the main points raised by those opposed to the move. Tiamut 01:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The "official" name is Al-Aqsa Intifada, and not the Second Intifada. It is not a POV, just a name. Similar names include the 'Yom Kippur War' (not the Fourth Arab-Israeli War) or the 'Boston Tea Party' (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). --Fjmustak 23:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Google Scholar phrase searches. In titles only:

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. --Timeshifter 06:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"Al-Aqsa Intifada" is far more widely used by writers worldwide in the title of web pages:

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

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

WP:NPOV then goes on to define bias. 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?

  1. 2. Consider the follwoing rules, outlined by wiki policies:
  • ""'article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize..."WP:Naming
  • "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."Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Article_names_2

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

I still haven't received a satisfactory response as to how "Al Aqsa Intifada" is a POV title. Armon, please don't say "which no one actually disputes", when there are clearly many people who dispute your accusation that a name carries a POV.--Kirby?time 06:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

:It is possible to make a fictitious POV argument for almost any article title in Wikipedia:

  • Six-Day War - does this imply that Arabs are inferior to Jews since they can easily be defeated in six days? Is this a POV title? Should we change the name of the article?
  • Yom Kippur War - does this imply Arabs were sneaky and underhanded by attacking on a Jewish holiday? Should we change the name of the article?
  • al-Aqsa Intifada - does this imply that the mosque itself was the cause, or was Sharon's visit was the cause? Either way - should we change the name of the article?
Or maybe those are simply the commonly used names (in English) and let's just leave them all as they are? I am old enough to remember the the 1970s and not once do I recall the name Yom Kippur War being used. Yet it seems to be the name used now - just as al-Aqsa Intifada is the name commonly used (as any title search will show). Let's just accept reality and move on. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 13:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

::::: Humus sapiens, I need reliable sources to believe that some academic scholars are opposing the usage of Al-Aqsa Intifada. I also understand that I have one voice here but at the same time I don't like it to be classified as a "disrupter".

You mentioned that some oppose the idea of Sharon "provoking" the hostilities that followed. I believe it did provoke but it was not the only cause of Intifada. Sharon's visit sparked the Intifada. And why do I believe in that? Only because a Professor of History (Dan Diner) says: "It is common to describe the beginning of the intidada al-Aqsa as sparked by the visit of Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount/Haram esh Sharif."
Now, you believe that the common description is POV. Well, it might be. But I need a professor of history, or a professor of middle eastern studies to tell me that it is misleading to refer to second Intifada as Al-aqsa Intifada.
What bothers me most is the pattern I am seeing. First the title wants to become Second Intifada, then we have the sentence: "On September 27, Sgt. David Biri was killed;[14] some Israeli sources view this as the start of the Intifada.[15] Others view Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount/Al-Haram Al-Sharif mosque on September 28 as the initiating event."
This sentence places the "common description" (as historian Dan Diner said) of Sharon's visit as the secondary in importance.
I believe the article has to clearly acknowledge the common view, and then later qualifies it with the POV of minority. --Aminz 22:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Could we stay on topic here? In reviewing the discussion above, one can see that by google scholar count, al-Aqsa beat out Second, by google book count Second beat out al-Aqsa, and by Google search al-Aqsa absolutely trounced Second. al-Aqsa is far more widely used and therefore per Wikipedia naming policy should be in the title for this article. That some find it to be a POV title is strange and unfortunate to me. It was a Palestinian uprising and accordingly it has a Palestinian name. Should a guy named Mohammed have an article entitled Mo so that anti-Muslims are not offended? Tiamut 01:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

220 kB section break

As if the talk page was not long enough, Tiamut decided to copy/paste one side of old arguments - with refutations conveniently omitted. Once again: other than not carrying a pro-Palestinian POV, still not a single serious objection to a neutral and widely used title Second Intifada. ?Humus sapiens ??? 09:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, despite being presented the objections of seven editors in an easy compact readable fasion, Humus Sapiens refuses to acknowledge that several serious objections have been raised to his proposal to change the name of this article. If he spent less time repeating the same tired argument and more time actually reading and considering people's comments and concerns that stand in opposition to his own, perhaps we could make some progress. Tiamut 10:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
They were already refuted weeks ago. Anything else? ?Humus sapiens ??? 10:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I gave you the views of seven different editors, most of whom point to Wiki policy when describing their opposition to your proposal. Where were these arguments refuted? Are you referring to these posts?:

Yawn. Another attempt by User:Bless sins to pretend upholding WP guidelines while trying to elbow in his POV. Of course Al-Aqsa is specific to a religion and of course the idea that Sharon's visit initiated the violence is propagandist POV. ?Humus sapiens ??? 02:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Yawn. The same lame argument repeated does not make it more convincing. ?Humus sapiens ??? 10:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Yawn. Your POV. ?Humus sapiens ??? 21:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you keep repeating that there is "not a single serious objection" to your proposal and not be aware of how your comments might be interpreted as rude and dismissive? Tiamut 10:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Funnily enough even the Israeli government seems content to use it, e.g. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs Historical Highlights (timeline) "Al-Aqsa intifada (renewed violence) breaks out." Rabbi Michael Melchior, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: "Since the start of the so-called "Al-Aqsa Intifada", the Palestinian resort to violence..." The Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism: "These incidents, which were termed the 'Al-Aqsa Intifada'" --Coroebus 10:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Even the Hebrew Wikipedia names the article "intifada al-Aqsa". ??? ??? (Abu Ali) 10:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Of course they do. That is its name. As I said above, most media and scholars have deferred to the reality that a Palestinian uprising quite unsuprisingly has a Palestinian name. To recognize this is not to be POV, but rather honest. Tiamut 11:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Tiamut: taking comments out of context is a wrong way to conduct a discussion. ?Humus sapiens ??? 10:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You created a similar summary section, Humus. --Timeshifter 11:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
A lie. I did not take comments out of context. ?Humus sapiens ??? 22:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Coroebus: true, the govt. of Israel sometimes is not free of pro-Palestinian POV. Of course Israel haters never acknowledge this, but what do you expect from them, honesty? ?Humus sapiens ??? 10:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe you, Humus, should be reported to WP:ANI for your possible personal attack implying that Coroebus is an "Israel hater". Or were you referring to the government of Israel as "Israel haters"?--Timeshifter 11:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think he was calling me Israel hating, and even if he was he shouldn't be reported for anything. --Coroebus 11:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right. He was calling the rest of us who disagree with his position "Israel-haters". It's nice of you to try to diffuse the situation, but I don't think it's acceptable for him to keep making these off-point editorials that impugn the creidibility of his "opponents" as he put it above. Tiamut 11:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I was not talking about you. ?Humus sapiens ??? 22:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Abu Ali: this is English WP. ?Humus sapiens ??? 10:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
This is the height of ridiculousness on your part, Humus. If Hebrew wikipedia is using "intifada al-Aqsa" then why shouldn't English wikipedia use it?--Timeshifter 11:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Because these are two different languages. ?Humus sapiens ??? 22:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Humus Sapiens. To ignore requests for a little self-reflection when presented with evidence of how your commentary might be perceived as offensive by your fellow editors might also considered rude and evasive. Further, you "refutation" of Coroebus' point is OR interpretation on your part. As for your last point, we have already covered this - al-Aqsa is far more widely used in the English language sources reviewed too. Tiamut 11:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
We should base the encyclopedia on scholarly sources, not blogs and propaganda websites. While it is flattering to receive so much attention, I wish you'd focus on the arguments rather than a person who makes them. ?Humus sapiens ??? 22:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack to amass evidence that points out how you are mischaracterizing the debate in your comments by ignoring the serious objections of seven editors and the totality of the evidence presented that shows that al-Aqsa Intifada is more widely used than Second Intifada. It is addressed to you personally, because you are the one who keeps repeating over and over, in bold no less, the falsehood that not a "single serious objection" has been raised. Tiamut 09:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Conflict Names and POV

OK here's an article worth reading about the tensions regarding the name of this intifada as well as some other wars in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Thousand Days’ War. <<-armon->> 12:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that was the most convincing argument for it being POV that I've seen (i.e. an actual source saying it rather than Humus sapiens), I'm still not sure, it is only one person's opinion, and I'm still worried about what the whole argument represents (i.e. the 'alternative history' view of causation), but convincing me won't do you any good anyway, as I'm agnostic on the title. --Coroebus 17:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
That 2003 article from The Jewish Daily was suggesting "The Thousand Days’ War" as a name back then when there was a ceasefire at exactly 1000 days after the Al-Aqsa visit. "Between its outbreak on September 28, 2000 and the onset of the cease-fire on June 30, 2003, 'The Thousand Days’ War' really did, rather remarkably, last exactly 1,000 days, which makes it a name that is difficult to resist. And it is especially difficult because there has been until now, on the Israeli side, no satisfactory alternative."
This further illustrates the point that almost everyone acknowledges that period around the September 28, 2000 Al-Aqsa visit as the approximate starting time of the intifada. Therefore it has become the most common name worldwide. Just like the Yom Kippur War has over time become the most common name for that conflict. The names are a snapshot of some facet of the circumstances surrounding the beginning of the conflicts. --Timeshifter 12:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting it be called the "The Thousand Days’ War", it doesn't appear to have gotten any traction. However it's been suggested that Humus' statement that "Al-Aqsa Intifada" carries POV is somehow "just his opinion". It's not. See here:
While the Palestinians have officially labeled their three-year campaign of terror against Israel the “Al-Aqsa Intifada,” after the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount, where the violence first began, this is not a term that Israelis could accept without accepting the Palestinian version of events as well.
WP:NPOV requires us not to take sides -as much as you or others might like to. When we have a neutral alternative which is just as popular among published RSs, we should use it. I would have thought this would be no problem and I really don't understand the objections to "Second Intifada" unless it's simply a case that some would like their POV to be given primacy. <<-armon->> 22:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
By the logic underpinning your arugment, Yom Kippur war should be entitled October war. The same article that you are using now from The Jewish Daily, written four years ago, as the sole basis for your argument, says October war is the more neutral formation. Further, as Coroboes pointed out above, Israeli officials now use al-Aqsa Intifada regularly. So even though al-Aqsa Intifada is more widely used among Palestinians, Israelis and English-language scholarly and popular sources, we should use Second Intifada because it's more neutral ... but when it comes to other WP articles like Yom Kippur war we can go with the name preferred by Israelis because it is more widely used. Which is it? And again, why is the fact that a Palestinian uprising has a Palestinian name so hard for people to understand? Tiamut 22:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
If October war and Yom Kippur war were equal in RSs, I'm sure we'd have a big argument there as well. If that were the case, I'd probably side with "October war" over Yom Kippur or Ramadan War -but it's not. You may not like the fact that it's entitled "Yom Kippur war", but that's a different issue and one which there is 30+ years of hindsight in order to settle the issue. In 30 years or less, maybe "al-Aqsa Intifada" will achieve the same ubiquity -we can always change it back when it does. <<-armon->> 01:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
al-Aqsa Intifada is already more widely used and ubiquitious than Second Intifada, among Israelis and Palestinians alike, as the evidence presented throughout this page establishes. My point in raising the Yom Kippur title is to show that Wikipedia practice allows for the use of names that might be viewed as POV by some, when the name is widely used. I don't see why it should be any different in this case. Again, that a Palestinian uprising has a Palestinian name is both appropriate and unsuprising. Tiamut 09:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So Timeshifter, are you ready to explain what "spin" Humus is trying to "manipulate" with the namechange that absolves you of AGF? TewfikTalk 17:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I have answered your questions numerous times. When you come up with a new one, I may reply. --Timeshifter 18:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I asked the question, you have made many replies that either discuss other things or explain why you need not answer.[27][28][29][30][31] If I am wrong, then just quote the line where you indeed answered what "spin" Humus is trying to "manipulate" with the namechange that voids AGF, and you'll be vindicated for all to see. TewfikTalk 21:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Tewfik, what's the point of this interrogation? It doesn't seem related at all to the article discussion. If you think Timeshifter and Humus Sapiens could benefit from mediation, propose that on their talk pages or at the ANI noticeboard. Don't do it here. The diffs you provided by the way, make the question you are asking moot. Tiamut 23:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Possible word of the day for contemplation by Tewfik: "apoplectic". --Timeshifter 23:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Tiamut, I think Tewfik's point is that Timeshifter is not addressing the issue -as the above comment shows. <<-armon->> 01:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the comments above?

Spin control is exactly the effect of trying to use another name. Whether it was intended or not. WP:AGF says: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary...." It goes on. Lots of caveats. After being repeatedly personally attacked on this page by Humus sapiens, I am having difficulty assuming good faith. --Timeshifter 16:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Or this part of one of the diffs Tewfik provided?

It does not violate AGF to say that the effect of changing the name is spin control. It is a fact. The motivations do not matter, and I don't need to make an assumption of bad faith to make that conclusion.

I believe that Timeshifter has answered these questions, over and over again. You may not agree with his/her conclusions, but people should just drop it. The talk page is not the place for this discussion. I'm sorry to continue this discussion here, but I'm hoping this will put an end to it. Like I said, if mediation is needed or you want to take this up on one another's talk pages, go ahead. But it does nothing to further the discussion at hand regarding the name change. Tiamut 09:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Or you could drop it. Proof by assertion isn't very convincing. <<-armon->> 12:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Or you could drop it, Armon. --Timeshifter 15:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

And yet none of those statements explains what the "spin control" Timeshifter sees in Humus' 'manipulation' is. To rephrase, what "agenda" is being forwarded by renaming al-Aqsa Intifada to Second Intifada, a name you admit is neutral? TewfikTalk 03:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I support the name Al-Aqsa Intifada. --Abnn 15:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Inclusive name change

Please change the name of this article. To claim that the name is POV is POV. If some people want -or a have a possible propensity- to infer that a certain community is being blamed for something by the presence of particular words in the title of this article then that is unfortunate. However, for anyone to change the name on such a presumption and exclude the reference to Al-Aqsa sounds a little like rewriting history (I'm sure it's not intentional). The idea to have both names included is by far the better idea. I fail to see why this idea hasn't been accepted (at least for the sake of compromise). Saying POV + NPOV = POV = nonsense (sorry for the strong language), explication can illuminate the issue for any concerned reader. Furthermore, as both names are favoured, with 'al-aqsa' winning the popular vote (of title searches), to deny either is insulting the intelligence of wikipedia readers (I'm sure not by design) by denying them the chance to make up their own minds, that's not your job. The remote possibility that the weight Wikipedia gives to a name may influence future reference also obliges the inclusion of both names. I haven't intended to insult or denigrate anybody or their opinions, most of all those I disagree with Delad 15:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should choose one name (Al-Aqsa Intifada) or the other (Second Intifada). Putting both names in the title sounds wishy-washy, and would set a bad precedent for Wikipedia. Article titles should consist of one definitive name, not a comma separated list of alternative names. Of course the other name will be displayed prominently in the introduction no matter which one we choose for the title. Sanguinalis 01:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
There are many wikipedia titles where additional info is added beyond the main name. Just look at all the disambiguation pages for people, etc.. Where additional info such as "(actor)" or "(writer)" or "(politician)" or similar clarifications are added. There are not too many conflict names with 2 similarly-popular names. So this will not be a big deal. --Timeshifter 01:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
If the word Intifada is ambiguous, we would call the article Second Palestinian Intifada. But I don't think ambiguity is the key issue here. What you and Delad are proposing for this article is something quite different from disambiguation titles like So-and-So (actor). You are proposing to resolve a naming dispute by putting together two titles, each of which, separately, would stand on its own. Do you know of any other cases in Wikipeida where a naming dispute has been resolved in that way? Sanguinalis 02:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not know. But how many examples are there where 2 names have similar popularity? If we want to use both names in the title, we can. There is no wikipedia guideline against it. --Timeshifter 03:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Shouldn't {{POV-name}} appear at the top of the article since the name is disputed ("Second Intifada" instead of "Al-Aksa Intifada" or "Arafat's War")? -- Michael Safyan 07:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Religious names

Until I studied the issues in more detail I did not know that the Yom Kippur War referred to the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. I still sometimes mistakenly think it refers to the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, also called the 6-Day War. I get confused by that name too. Previously I always thought of those 2 wars by their dates and their participants.

I had heard of the first Intifada, but I did not really have a name in my head at first for the Palestinian uprising in this century.

I am neither Jewish nor Moslem. My spiritual beliefs can not be easily classified. So I, like most people not close to the conflicts in some way, did not know the religious names of the wars at first.

So I suggest we put more info in the titles.

I suggest

Yom Kippur War (1973 Arab-Israeli War)

Al-Aqsa Intifada (Second Palestinian Intifada)

That way we follow the wikipedia guideline to use the most common name, and we also help out those not familiar with those names.

I don't think it is a good idea to radically change the wikipedia naming guidelines/policies because then we are inventing names, and that is not encyclopedic.

Wikipedia should remain a neutral encyclopedic cataloger of what IS, not what should be. It is more WP:NPOV neutral to use the common names and then put all the various significant, sourced viewpoints about the names and issues in the article. --Timeshifter 12:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

A person seeing the names Yom Kippur War and Al-Aqsa Intifada for the first time will have little clue what they are about. If they know (or learn) that Yom Kippur is a Jewish holiday they will think it has something to do with the war. If they know (or learn) that Al-Aqsa is a mosque on the Temple Mount, or is the area around the mosque, then they will think that it has something to do with the war.

I see no POV in either name. One has to make further interpretations to arrive at a POV. So the names themselves are not POV. Even if one assumes certain POV interpretations, that still does not disqualify a name according to current wikipedia naming policies/guidelines. See the section higher up titled #Some wikipedia guidance.

I point all this out to show that the meaning or POV of a religious name is not self-evident to many people. --Timeshifter 15:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that the article should display the most common, non-POV name, and then contain an acknowledgment of the other names applied and who applies them. For example, I believe this article should be renamed "Second Intifada" (can you really think of another second Intifada other than the Palestian one? Isn't that redundant?), and I think it should begin with:
The Second Intifada, also termed Al-Aksa Intifada and Arafat's War by those attributing it to Ariel Sharon's
visit to Al-Aksa Mosque one the one hand and to Yasser Arafat's violent exhortations on the other, began in the year 2000
after the failed Camp David Accords. The exact start date remains disputed as reflected by its multiple titles. Even the very nature the Second
Intifada is the subject of much dispute. Israelis view the Second Intifada as a large number of unprovoked Palestinian terrorist attacks in Israel
followed by defensive Israeli actions, ending only with the erection of Israel's Security Barrier. Palestinians view the Second Intifada as an
offensive and incendiary visit by Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount followed by a massive Palestinian uprising in response to Israeli oppression. 
...

-- Michael Safyan 23:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Basing an argument on the presumption that those who term it the Al-Aqsa Intifada attribute the cause of the intifada to Ariel Sharon's visit to the same mosque sounds like OR. Also, ethnocentrism (intended or not) is no excuse to deny the history of intifadas in the middle east. Or maybe I don't understand what you're trying to say. Delad 04:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it OR, but a quick read of the relevant bits of the Mitchell report would also reveal it to be untrue. --Coroebus 09:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not denying the history of intifadas in the Middle East; note the capitalization of Intifada, though. The First and Second Palestinian Intifadas are so well-known, that it does not require that one insert "Palestinian." It simply seems redundant. If there are other intifadas, the article can contain a link to the disambiguation page. -- Michael Safyan 21:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't oppose renaming the article to Second Intifada, but I totally disagree with Michael's proposed introduction. First, "Arafat's War" is used only by a tiny minority of commentators and should not be given such a prominent place in the introduction. Second, we should not be speculating as to who uses which name or why, we should just list the two commonly used names and leave it at that. Third, the statement about how Palestinians view the Second Intifada is wrong. They don't view it primarily as an offensive visit by Ariel Sharon, but borne from the frustration of 30+ years of occupation and oppression. Sanguinalis 10:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I like your idea of using "Second Palestinian Intifada" more and more. Of course I also want "Al-Aqsa Intifada" in the title too. The order does not matter to me. Al-Aqsa Intifada (Second Palestinian Intifada) or Second Palestinian Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada). See this BBC timeline title and the first sentence in it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3677206.stm --Timeshifter 14:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I think both "Arafat's War" and "Al-Aksa Intifada" should appear or neither should appear. We can remove this absurd disagreement by simply mentioning neither, renaming the article "Second Intifada" or "The Second Intifada" (with a link to a disambiguation page for other second intifadas), and simply redirect "Arafat's War" and "Al-Aksa Intifada" to the resulting page. -- Michael Safyan 21:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
"See this BBC timeline title and the first sentence in it" ? The first line is POV in that it favors the periodization in which violence allegedly began at Al-Aksa Mosque over the periodization in which the violence began the day before with the sniping of an Israeli by a Palestinian, or the periodization which attributes the start of the Second Intifada to Arafat's return from the 2000 Camp David Accords. -- Michael Safyan 21:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, I will contend that the BBC demonstrates a very clear pro-Palestinian bias;
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3389697,00.html
https://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/UK_Journalists_Union_Votes_to_Boycott_Israel.asp
http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=12
http://blog.camera.org/archives/2007/03/bbc_inadvertently_acknowledges.html
-- Michael Safyan 21:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly the kind of mission creep I wanted to avoid. Now the new partisan-warrior argument is that not only must the article be renamed Second intifada but no longer can the widely (if not the most widely) used name be included in the article unless a tiny minority name is given equal prominence. --Coroebus 21:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to mentioning the alternative names "Arafat's War" and "Al-Aksa Intifada" in the opening paragraph of article itself, not in the title. Neither "Arafat's War" nor "Al-Aksa Intifada" should appear in the title as both convey POV. Arguing on the basis of google is absurd, as google will include both academic as well as non-academic articles. Furthermore, pro-Israel sources using "Arafat's War" might also include the title "Al-Aksa Intifada," preceding it with the keywords "so-called" or "ill-named" in order to indicate an objection to that title. -- Michael Safyan 22:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I would advise against calling others "partisan warriors" as everyone in this discussion is partisan. After all, what brought you as an editor to this page in the first place? By acknowledging my own personal biases, I am better able to state the facts in an objective manner, and I urge you to do the same. Allow me to restate the above in a non-POV manner:
          The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, Honest Reporting, and other pro-Israel media 
          watchdog organizations have accused the BBC of demonstrating a pro-Palestinian bias. Other pro-Israel individuals 
          and organizations have also alleged that the BBC and other prominent media organizations favor the Palestinians. 
          These organizations and individuals base their claims on a number of factors including the content of the news 
          reports, the kidnapping and lack of freedom of reporters, and -- in the case of media organizations in the U.K. 
          -- on a boycott of Israel by the U.K.'s National Union of Journalists.
          
          See Also: Media Coverage of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict.
-- Michael Safyan 22:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand exactly what you were saying, that is what I objected to. I am hardly arguing on the basis of google, I am simply pointing out that hardly anyone ever uses the expression "Arafat's war", so it is emphatically not like "Al-Aqsa Intifada". This is just mission creep, a few years down the line this article will be called "Arafat's war" and report how Arafat and his crack team of lizard people planned the whole thing. Incidentally, see above for Israeli government uses of "Al-Aqsa intifada", although I think that was dismissed earlier as false consciousness or something. --Coroebus 08:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Let us assume that a greater number of academic publications use the term "Al-Aksa Intifada" than the term "Arafat's War" (this seems quite difficult to prove objectively). How disparate must the number of publications using "Al-Aksa Intifada" on the one hand and the number of publications using "Arafat's War" on the other be in order to render the title "Arafat's War" proportionately insignificant? If 100 articles use "Al-Aksa Intifada" and 90 publications use "Arafat's War," do we arbitrarily put the cutoff at exactly 100 and include only the name "Al-Aksa Intifada"? Where and how do we draw the line? Since "Al-Aksa Intifada" conveys a particular POV, it seems most logical to me to include the most prominent name conveying the opposite POV. ? Michael Safyan 17:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Although I do not think it appropriate for Wikipedia nor do I consider it objective, I am willing to compromise with the title Second Intifada (Al-Aksa Intifada) if it will bring an end to this absurd dispute. ? Michael Safyan 17:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
How about 6 (most of which refer to the same book) versus over 1,000? "Arafat's war" is beyond even 9/11 denialist in its marginality, you are not trying to enforce NPOV, you are promotoing one POV through attempting to give it undue weight. --Coroebus 18:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I have a distinctly different take on this. It was a Palestinian intifada and they get to name their own uprising. It's no different that Israeli military operations, which we use Israel's names for, see Category:Military_operations_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict. I view using the name Second Intifada as overly generic. It's like insisting that in an article about a terrorist attack one not use the names of the victims, since that is POV but rather we refer to victims only by as numbered people such as person #1 and person #2. Yes, you can argue that terms like "person #1" is more neutral than their name, because their name reflects their personal POV, but it is nonsensical because because a person has the right to name themselves and have that name used. To deny a person the ability to use their own name is not only excessively neutral but it has a dehumanizing effect, which in this case where we are dealing with the name of a Palestinian uprising, I believe this overly neutral name is similar to an attempt to deny Palestinians their own history. --Abnn 17:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the Palestinians invented the name Al-Aqsa Intifada. The intifada broke out spontaneously; the name came later, and may have originated from or at least been propagated by the news media. I mean, it's not like a group of Palestinians held a press conference and announced the launching of the intifada like a military operation. As to letting Palestinians write their own history, you may want to reflect on the title that Ramzy Baroud, born in Gaza and fiercely dedicated to the Palestinian cause, has given his latest book: The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle. Sanguinalis 02:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually there is right here on the PNA State Information service: Al-Aqsa Intifada. They began issuing reports and updates almost immediately after the intifada started all under the name "Al-Aqsa Intifada". See this update issued October 1 2000: [32]. --Abnn 02:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
An interesting source! Still, the title of these web pages may have been added after the fact. The text of the October 1 update doesn't contain the word "intifada". Some of the early dispatches use the phrase "Al-Aqsa battle", meaning specifically the fighting in the vicinity of the mosque I'm pretty sure. I'm actually neutral on whether the title of this article should be changed or not. I see your point of view, but I do not agree that using a title other than Al-Aqsa Intfida is dehumanizing. Sanguinalis 01:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Found this on the October 9, 2000 update: "In an unprecedented fascist action since the beginning of Alaqsa popular uprising (Intifada), a number of Jewish settlers attacked the house of Esam Jouda from Om Alsafa village, Ramalla, where they brutally murdered Esam Jouda, smashed his skull and burned his body in front of his wife and crying little children. " So you are right, the Palestinians invented the name. Sanguinalis 02:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello dear all, I understand from the whole discussion I've read here, that many participants are emotionally and personally involved with the events related to this intifada. I myself have a strong POV on this topic, as I am genuinely convinced that the people having the most casualties, the shortest lifespan, the harshest economic difficulties are usually the victims of a conflict. This is why I won't express myself on the choice of a title but rather suggest the following:
- Current participants withdraw from the discussion
- Not involved( in the intifada ) admin and editors take over the discussion. At this point, I'm afraid that to be eligible they have to be neither Muslim, nor Jew, nor Christian, nor resident of Israel and occupied territories, nor US citizen, nor European. Perhaps a hinduist Indian, a buddhist Tibetan and an animist Rwanda citizen would be the most suitable trio.
I am quite disappointed to note that indestructible walls of bad faith are even built here. Perhaps WP is already a fallen utopia. Delnogal 01:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

ARE YOU ALL CRAZY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey guys: of all the details you could have argued about in the article, concerning facts and viewpoints, did you really fill this giant space of the talk page for THE ARTICLE'S TITLE??!!!! I will not even write more about this. --Fancytales 20:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well as you might have read above, I have no objection to renaming it to Second intifada, but what I object to is that it is part of the same chain of faulty reasoning that attempts to rewrite the history of the origins of the intifada and give equal weight to what some tiny minority of oddballs call it. This bad reasoning has to be resisted here, or it will creep into every part of the article - although looking at the rest of Arab-Israeli articles I think this may well be inevitable. --Coroebus 20:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Fancytales, I think you are correct that the name isn't that important. Feel free to contribute. Many of the key articles on the conflict are constantly being rewriting and thus I do feel that in part, it isn't the best use of my time to make effortful contributions to them, but you are free to. Francytales, you may find it rewarding to join WikiProject Palestine were there is a concerted effort to improve the content of Palestine-related articles. It may be more productive to contribute broadly to the project than to one specific contentious article. Also it is important to keep in mind, it is best to not get exciting about things. --Abnn 20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif

I think an important point to note in this article is that in Sharon's speech, he proclaimed that Israel would never give up the Mount. This provoked a lot of riots, in which Palestinian demonstrators were fired on by Israeli soldiers. The deaths of these Palestinians set off the cycle of violence known as the second Intifada. (Source: Bickerton, Ian J. and Klausner, Carla L. A History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict 5th Edition, p330. Pearson Education Inc. 2007.)

(Sorry if someone noted this earlier, I didn't see it)

Page move - again?

Hi Armon. Please do not move this page to the title you believe is less POV. Mediation on this subject did not generate consensus, therefore your unilateral move is disruptive. If you would like to re-open mediation or discussion, please do so on the talk page. Thank you. Tiamat 15:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Common English name, per WP:MOS. The "mediation" was all about POV-pushing by partisans. I've been WP:BOLD and simply implemented the MOS. Jayjg (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
That's why I finally moved it. The objectors had well over a month to address the issue, and to form a good argument why we shouldn't use the less POV title other encyclopedias use. There was nothing, and more editors favoured "Second" anyway. <<-armon->> 16:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Is that what the mediation determined? Or is that just you WP:OR interpretation of the discussion? Where there is no consensus, isn't more appropriate to maintain the default name? Or propose a compromise, as some have done above? Tiamat 16:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The mediation was a farce, with entrenched partisans simply insisting on their own POV. I'm going with WP:MOS. Jayjg (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Really? As I explained to you on your talk page, where I invited to explain you bold move [33] (a comment you deleted, as you do usually when I try to leave notices there for you), it is bad form for an administrator to ignore that mediation did not garner consensus and impose their view of what the proper title should be. This encyclopedia belongs to the Wikipedia community and decisions are made based on consensus. If you do not have consensus for this page move, you don't get to move it. Period. Tiamat 16:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't a party to that failed mediation. It's good form for an administrator to take WP:BOLD and obviously correct action in the face of partisan intransigence and violations of the WP:MOS. Jayjg (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The intransigence you're displaying in the face of the RS evidence is why the mediation never had a chance. Please be reasonable and drop it. <<-armon->> 16:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? I'm not the one moving the page after mediation failed to reach consensus for such a move. The correct way to reopen discussion on this issue would be to post here asking people to revisit the mediation page to revive the discussion or posting a summary here of what common ground, if any, was mapped out in mediation, with a view on how to proceed from there. Coming here and unilaterally changing the title after everything we have gone through is not the way to gain supporters for that move. Neither is accusing them of being responsible for the failure of the mediation by ascribing adjectives like "intransigent" to their behaviour. Tiamat 16:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that if there was no consensus the page should not be moved. So now I cast my vote. This title "Second intifada" is better known and I am for it. And I give you my reasons: In second intifada not only Al-Aqsa took part, but the other parties like Hamas and Hezbollah too. And who started it? Someone named Said I believe who once belonged to Arafat party and later changed sides. Maybe this settles the score for consensus? greg park avenue 16:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
See the next sections please. You have the timeline wrong. The "al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade" was named after the "Al-Aqsa Intifada". Not the other way around.--Timeshifter 00:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it's an academic subject, like who started this fight first, related to kindergarten, and it always remains me of kindergarten when I hear news from Israel. Concerning name of this article, why not make both valid and redirect one to the other? We don't want to create martyrs on Wikipedia, do we? greg park avenue 21:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This article was under POV title way too long, and the move is long overdue. ?Humus sapiens ??? 21:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Where a clear, widely-used English name/word exists for something, we prefer it on English Wikipedia. I think it's just that simple. POV, pro or anti anything, doesn't enter into it (e.g., Deutschland). Also, and I'm afraid it's a bit of a flaw in Wiki procedure, not having consensus doesn't preclude a move here; otherwise, the new "default" of Second Intifada would somehow be sacrosanct, and no one opposed could move it. IronDuke 23:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI discussion about page renames

Please see:

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admins Jayjg and Humus sapiens rename Al-Aqsa Intifada without consensus. --Timeshifter 23:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I followed the advice at WP:ANI today, and the recommendation given there to use WP:IAR. Please see:
Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My edit summary: "Per today's WP:ANI discussion, please see WP:IAR. This common sense compromise, discussed previously, improves and maintains content, and is clear." --Timeshifter 00:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Reverted. While I appreciate your boldness, I really do think this is the appropriate name. It may be commonly known as that in the Islamic world, but it's a bit more common to use second intifada here. It's also more NPOV. Though internet sources are using multiple sources, such notable sources as Al-jazeera are calling it the intifada. I'm posting this comment on the talk page as well. The Evil Spartan 00:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) "it's a bit more common to use second intifada here." You are incorrect. See the previous discussions and mediation that I linked to below and at WP:ANI. What do you have against "Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada"? And I don't believe you are an admin, so what gives you any more authority than me or anybody else on this issue? And even admins have to try to follow the rules. WP:IAR is a last resort. Which I used with probably more justification than most others, since I have participated in the previous discussions. See:

Al-Aqsa Intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Second Intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see the page histories here and here. Admins Jayjg and Humus sapiens have repeatedly renamed the page today without consensus.

An earlier admin closed the requested move of Al-Aqsa Intifada to Second Intifada at Wikipedia:Requested moves with the edit summary "removing closed discussion". See this diff. The same admin then archived that discussion. See this diff. The admin's edit summary was "closing requested move--no consensus to move"

Then there was a mediation attempt at

There was no consensus to rename the page. There has never been a consensus to move the page. --Timeshifter 00:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada). Why not compromise?

Why don't we just end this? By compromising. By using:

Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)--Timeshifter 00:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, please see this NPR page:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4510714
"al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade":
"Al Aqsa Brigade - Also known as the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, it is a secret armed group which sprang from within Fatah, the leading Palestinian political movement. Formed after the beginning of the second intifada in September 2000 and named for the famed mosque in the center of old Jerusalem where the intifada began, it has claimed responsibility for many bombings and armed attacks on Israeli settlers and soldiers. Its exact leadership and relation to Fatah remains unclear."
We frequently hear of this Palestinian group in the Western media. The name "al Aqsa" is common now in English, and it is necessary in the name of this page if people are to understand the conflict, and the roots of names like "al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade". --Timeshifter 00:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Here we go again. Timeshifter, your arguments failed on this page and at the mediation. Regarding your link: 1) NPR is not a scholarly source. 2) You are quoting "Al Aqsa Brigade" entry - please review the title of this article. 3) The "Intifada" entry says: "The second intifada began in late September 2000, after comprehensive peace talks at Camp David failed the previous summer. The second intifada has grown into Israel's longest war." ?Humus sapiens ??? 01:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
No, it was your arguments that failed nearly every time. Please see this respected page:
Middle East Glossary : Learn About : Palestinian-Israeli Conflict : AFSC:
http://www.afsc.org/israel-palestine/learn/glossary.htm
"AL-AQSA INTIFADA - Palestinian Uprising, sometimes called the second intifada, which began in September 2000 immediately after a visit by Ariel Sharon, with one thousand armed escorts to the HARAM AL-SHARIF area in East Jerusalem."
Why don't you hardly ever compromise? --Timeshifter 03:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the compromise version. It includes both widely used names.Bless sins 01:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an entirely sensible compromise. Good luck convincing the other side. CJCurrie 04:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not a compromise, but rather another attempt to push the same POV. We've been through this. Per Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Descriptive names: "Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications." Per Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Article names: "A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name. This is required by the MediaWiki software on which Wikipedia runs. However, multiple synonyms can be used for a term". And per WP:TITLE#Use English words: "Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form." The title First Intifada works fine and the title Second Intifada works just as great. ?Humus sapiens ??? 09:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Note that both Arabic and Hebrew Wikipedias named the article "The Al Aksa Intifada" ??? ??? (Abu Ali) 13:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I have looked at the naming guidelines and policies, and their talk pages, in detail, including the ones linked to by Humus sapiens, and I see no guideline that blocks using "Al-Aqsa Intifada" alone, or both names together. The POV implications of a name do not matter. Rule #1 for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) states, "If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view." Religious words in the name of a war are frequently controversial. See Yom Kippur War. That is also a name based on the starting point of a war. Note that both Arabic and Hebrew Wikipedias named the article "The Al Aksa Intifada". I support this more definitive name that incorporates the 2 most common names in English: "Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada)". The two names have similar levels of use in English. Clarifying terms are frequently used in wikipedia article names. See Cold war (general term) and John Hanson (disambiguation) and World War III (Left Behind). No other names for this conflict are close to these two in frequency of use. Like the word 'intifada',[34] the word 'Al-Aqsa' is now used in English.[35][36] See Al-Aqsa Mosque and al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. I have heard "al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades" mentioned many times in the media. Are we going to change their name in wikipedia to "Second Intifada Martyrs' Brigades"? That is ridiculous. This group was named after the Al-Aqsa Intifada. See: [37] [38] [39]--Timeshifter 16:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

While I believe Al-Aqsa Intifada should be the actual name, since it is the most common name, unless we are referring to non academics. However the compromise seems perfectly valid as well. I have not really seen any reason for why it is dismissed outright either. Timeshifter also brings up a valid point regarding Naming Conventions. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this times and times again. Parentheses are used throughout WP to disambiguate the title. Here, the title Second intifada does not need a disambiguation. All that "(Al-Aqsa Intifada)" adds is POV, something to avoid. However, if there is a wish to have a weird title like that, then let's add another one for balance: Oslo War. ?Humus sapiens ??? 20:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
See WP:N ??? ??? (Abu Ali) 21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
See WP:NCON. ?Humus sapiens ??? 21:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
"Oslo War" is not notable enough. See the WP:N page that Abu Ali pointed out. It is not nearly as notable, or used, as the 2 most common names: Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada). WP:NCON says: "A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage: ... Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)." Al-Aqsa Intifada is the Palestinian name for their uprising. Just like the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades named their group after that uprising. You are trying to rewrite history. I am trying to be reasonable since the 2 names are similarly popular. Why can't you be reasonable more often instead of so militant? --Timeshifter 01:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
That's not a "compromise", that's POV pushing. Per Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Descriptive names: "Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications." Per Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Article names: "A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name. This is required by the MediaWiki software on which Wikipedia runs. However, multiple synonyms can be used for a term". ?Humus sapiens ??? 08:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada) is one very definitive name. In fact, it is more definitive than any other name. Name a more definitive name please... The guidelines I quoted have precedence over the ones you quoted. And you quoted guidelines out of context. That is typical of you. Here is one you quoted only partially: Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Article names. The quote in context:

Descriptive names. Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications.

For instance, what do we call the controversy over Qur'an handling at Guantanamo Bay? The article is located at Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005. Note that the title makes no statement about who is the (more) guilty party: it does not "give away" that conclusion; in fact the article itself draws no conclusion. Similarly, the article on the September 11, 2001 attacks does not assign responsibility for the attacks in the article name. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid for further advice on potentially controversial terminology.

--Timeshifter 17:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada) are two names for the same conflict. Putting them together does not make 2 into 1. ?Humus sapiens ??? 23:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I just felt like stating my amusement from the "fashionability" of naming militant groups in the arab societies, back in the 1800s groups would be called based on ottoman power linguistic structures, in the 1900s, they would be called based on pan-arab structures, and now at the end of the 20th century and start of the 21st, all militants suddenly want to be "al-aqsa", "al islam", "etc."... just look to the dughmush hamulah who kidnapped allen johnston using a fashionable name so they will look more respectable than what they are, a family clan full of criminals. personally, i think we should not lend a hand to this funny phenomenon. JaakobouChalk Talk 09:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You do not need to go back to the 1800s. Even at the outbreak of the 1st Intifada, Hamas had not been established, and all the leadership factions called for a secular democratic state. Since then the Islamists have become much stronger and the left much weaker and this is reflected in the names given to events. Like you, I am not happy about this. But on Wikipedia we need to describe things as they are, not as I would like them to be. Good luck with today's general strike. ??? ??? (Abu Ali) 09:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I object to the renaming. The original was fine. El_C 01:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Time to cooperate. Starting with the title of the article

Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - --Timeshifter 03:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I made the above comment in reply to a now-deleted section. Armon deleted that section of his. I still stand by my comment. Do not delete it. See WP:TALK.

Here is the diff of the deletions by Armon of his comments and mine. In that diff one sees that Armon deleted comments of mine found in 2 different sections. --Timeshifter 04:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yom Kippur War

1967 Arab-Israeli War

1973 Arab-Israeli War

Yom Kippur War

Six-Day War

Even I mix up the above wars. I mix up the years with the descriptive names.

Many average people can not associate the name "Yom Kippur War" with a year, and oftentimes even a nation.

Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada) helps people nail down the conflict.

I think 2001 Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada) is even better.

When it ends we can add that year too:

2001-2007 Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada)

We are wikipedia. We can choose by consensus to adjust the naming conventions.

It makes a lot more sense in categories to have the year of the war in the titles of the war.

Compare:

Wikipedia category: Category:Arab-Israeli conflict

Commons category: commons:Category:Arab-Israeli conflict

Click them both and look at the subcategories. The commons uses years often in the category names. Makes it a lot easier to find stuff.

We should suggest all this at the Village Pump. --Timeshifter 17:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What's your argument here? Beit Or 19:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Who knows, but the fact that Yom Kippur War can be regarded as an Israeli POV title has been a central reason for insisting on the Palestinian POV here -despite the fact that other encyclopedias title it simply as "Second Intifada". <<-armon->> 21:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually I think I missed his point here. He wants to include dates and parenthesis in the names of wars. I suppose we would then get something like late 1930s-1945 World War II (Second World War). Pass. <<-armon->> 21:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding "Even I mix up..." - dilettante musicians mix up musical notes, dilettante mathematician mix up formulas, and dilettante historians mix up historical events. ?Humus sapiens ??? 23:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
And dilettante admins have nothing but assertion and repetition. Versus dialog. --Timeshifter 18:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
According to wikipedia it doesn't matter if "Yom Kippur War" is a POV title. It is a common name for the war as is shown in web searches. But that is because a large part of those most interested in the war are Jewish. And so on the web they use "Yom Kippur" as part of the title since the war started on the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur. Totally logical. But most people in the English-speaking world are not Jewish. So the name does not mean a lot to most English-speaking people.
Same is true for Al-Aqsa Intifada and even Second Intifada. Intifada and Al-Aqsa are Arabic words.Al-Aqsa Mosque is part of the Moslem religion. A large part of those most interested in the war are Arabic and/or Moslem. And so on the web they use Al-Aqsa Intifada since the flash point for the war (planned or not) was the Sharon visit to the area around the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and the ensuing riots and deaths in the following days. But most people in the English-speaking world are not also Arabic speakers, nor are they Moslem. So the name does not mean a lot to most English-speaking people.
Most polls show that most English-speaking people (especially Americans) are fairly clueless about geography and history. Especially outside their own nations. I am American, so I have the right to point this out about my fellow Americans.
Wikipedia says to use the common name for articles. But the common name may only mean something to a small percentage of English-speaking people. So "common name" is sort of a misnomer.
That is why I think we should make the names clearer by adding more info to the name. It would help greatly in categories, and in educating my fellow Americans. They understand years and names like 1973 Arab-Israeli War. That would actually be much more commonly understood. 1973 Arab-Israeli War (Yom Kippur War) would be even better. I am being pragmatic, not ideological about all this. --Timeshifter 22:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The scheme Title X (Title Y) directly contradicts Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Article names: "A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name. This is required by the MediaWiki software on which Wikipedia runs. However, multiple synonyms can be used for a term". Try to peddle it someplace else. And please spare us of soapboxing. ?Humus sapiens ??? 23:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Already answered you higher up. Please stop the incivility. See WP:CIVIL. I have reported you to WP:ANI for it before. --Timeshifter 18:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Attempts to rename Yom Kippur war (and there have been several) have failed abysmally because, of course, "Yom Kippur war" is by far the most common name in English for that war. Just as "Second intifada" is the most common English name for the Second intifada. Jayjg (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Could you provide some evidence for your assertion that "Second intifada" is the most common English name? ??? ??? (Abu Ali) 05:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Some Hamas leaders did threat last year, that they would start the Third Initfada against Israel. However, in the German WP, f.ex., the 2nd intifada (Zweite Intifada) has ended in February 2005 (Meeting at Sharm el-Sheik). --213.155.231.26 14:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Sharm El-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee Report". The George J. Mitchell (et al) report. April 30, 2001.
  2. ^ "Fierce clashes in Gaza and West Bank". BBC. Oct. 2, 2000.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Intifada/Archive_Al-Aqsa_and_Second_Intifada_discussions&oldid=1136234259"