Talk:2014 Jerusalem unrest/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Merge Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Palestinians killed or wounded by Israelis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removing section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jerusalem screwdriver attack as part of the Silent Intifada

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OR tag on History section

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

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

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

Case in point. The lede's first sentence:

The Silent intifada (or Urban Intifada)

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bus Driver - propose section title change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notable incidents section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECENTISM

WP:RECENTISM at its best:

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

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

Propose a title change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More Original research

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article title

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

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

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

post-intifada

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

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