Talk:Second Intifada

[edit] Mediation

The informal mediation, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-18 Second Intifada, in this matter is now open. Please propose versions of the contested wording at User:MBisanz/MEDCAB-P. Follow the rules of that page. Then present discussion in the below sections as to why you believe a particular version is the best version. At this time, I'd ask the parties not to address each other's comments, that will come once a number of individuals have had a chance to present why they think a certain wording is better than another wording.

[edit] Discussion

[edit] User Statement 1

I believe proposal #1 is the best, because:

• It uses neither "uprising" (unquoted) nor "wave of violence" (unquoted), phrases considered to be POV by various parties.
• It nevertheless explains that "Intifada" means "uprising".
• It emphasizes the non-literal, yet more common, "uprising" translation over the literal "shaking-off" translation.
• It summarizes Palestinian and Israeli interpretations of the Second Intifada in the first sentence.
• It gives the periodization of the First and Second Intifadas in the first sentence.
• It removes the unnecessary "is the name of" in describing Al-Aqsa Mosque.
• It removes the possibility of debate regarding the order in which Temple Mount and Haram al-Sharif should appear.

Michael Safyan ^(talk) 02:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with proposal #2 because it uses the term "uprising" in an unquoted fashion (primary objection), it is redundant ("is the name of" instead of "is"), and it repeats material which would occur later on in the text. I very strongly disagree with proposal #3, because it is grammatically incorrect ("within of" is not a valid phrase), it is redundant ("is used to describe" instead of simply "is"), and it incorrectly explains the Israeli viewpoint (it is violence directed against civilians, not against "statehood," which makes it a terrorist campaign). ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 20:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - proposal #3, User:MBisanz/MEDCAB-P#Proposal_3 - was reformatted [1] since this comment was made. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I still fail to see the merit in proposal #3. Proposal #3 remains verbose and does not otherwise enhance the article. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 04:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, what on earth are you doing? No offense, but you are behaving like Ralph Nader to the Democratic party. Is it your intention to ensure that the POV phrase "uprising" is added in an unquoted form to the text? Please throw your weight behind proposal #1 or proposal #2. Thanks. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 04:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael,

Suggestion 1 uses: "struggle for national liberation against foreign occupation and by many Israelis to be a terrorist campaign" is unbalanced to the Israeli victims of this war campaign and to the Israeli perspective. If Palestinians' perspective is presented with (1) struggle, (2) liberation, (3) foreign occupation; then the Israeli perspective deserve something more worthy, starting with (1) terrorist campaign and continued with something additional from the Israeli perspective, such as (2) Funded with foreign aid money. European Union+Saudi Arabia & Iraq, (3) Guided by Yasser Arafat [2][3][4]. The second point has always been the official Israeli position on every international news broadcast and clearly has as much room as the "foreign occupation" perspective.

• (GIDEON MEIR, ISRAELI FOREIGN MINISTRY) MEIR: The decision right now is to isolate Yasser Arafat. This what the Israeli government decided. The Israeli defense forces are getting the orders from the Israeli government. We are a democracy.
  HEMMER: What does it mean "isolate?" Define that word for us.
  MEIR: Isolate, from what I understand is, that Yasser Arafat will not be able to instruct his terrorist organization to activate more terror against innocent Israelis.
  HEMMER: Are you saying that Yasser Arafat is responsible for ordering attacks on Israelis directly?
  MEIR: The answer to your question is yes. [5]

In any event, I completely reject the second version.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've added a 4th version [6] - open to suggestions on it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on User Statement 1

[edit] User Statement 2

I believe proposal #2 is preferable since:

• It defines the subject of the article in the first sentence. While some editors have claimed "uprising" is POV, they have provided no evidence that would support this assertion. Uprisings can be violent or non-violent, pre-planned or spontaneous, and a review of reliable, scholarly sources from across a wide spectrum indicate that the term is widely used to refer to and define the Second Intifada.
• The second sentence outlines both the majority viewpoints held by Palestinians and Israelis respectively on what the Second Intifada is. It gives equal weight to both viewpoints and should ally the concerns of those editors who objected to "uprising" as POV by prominently highlighting the Israeli viewpoint (which is, after all, a minority viewpoint in the worldwide scheme of things.)
• The next paragraph discusses the Palestinian name used for the Second Intifada in more detail, explaining that the more accurate translation of "Intifada" is "shaking off", while noting that the term is widely translated as "uprising". It also mentions the First Intifada by way of contrast.
• The third paragraph provides an overview of the different names and views held by Israelis, giving ample space to the different Israeli POVs on the event thus providing balance to the explanation focusing on Palestinian views which precedes it.Tiamut^talk 08:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Besides proposal #2, #1 comes very close to something I can live with. In fact, if the first sentence reads as does that of proposal #2, I can accept the rest of the text pretty much as is. It should be noted that the rest of the material in proposal #2 (on Israeli names for the Intifada) is repeated further down in the intro in what would follow what is represented in #1. The major issue for me (and I believe for Nishidani from what I can gather from his comments) is that because "uprising" is a non-controversial definition of what the Second Intifada was which defines the subject at hand that this should be stated in an unambiguous voice (and this, based on the review of the sources). Proposal #3 is largely unacceptable to me because it uses the word "violence" without qualification and in a hazy context. Tiamut^talk 18:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on User Statement 2

[edit] User Statement 3

I support 2 because much of the debate seems to circle around the ostensible POV of 'uprising', whereas in English it is the normal, and most neutral, term to describe this kind of phenomenon in the scholarly literature. I have not cited from sources that are declaratively pro-Palestinian (Tanya Reinhart p.14, for example)

• (1)Ritchie Ovendale, The Second Palestinian Uprising ch.15 of his The Origin of the Arab-Israeli Wars, (1984) 4th revised ed. Pearson Education, Edinburgh 2004 pp.301-327

• (2) David Bukay,The Al-Aqsa Uprising, Chapter 5 pp.87-113. in Shlomo Sharan (eds.) Israel and the Post-Zionists: A Nation at Risk, Sussex Academic Press, Brighten 2003

• (3) Joshua Ruebner, Clyde Mark,Kenneth Katzman, Alfred Prados, The Current Palestinian Uprising: Al-Aqsa Intifadah, ch.1 of Edgar S.Marshall (ed.) Israel:Current Issues and Historical Background, Nova Science Publishers, New York 2002 pp.1-20

• (4) Tami Amanda Jacoby, Bridging the Barrier:Israeli Unilateral Disengagement, (she is at University of Manitoba, Canada), Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot and Burlington 2007 writes:'Israeli-Palestinian relations deteriorated greatly with the onset of the second Palestinian uprising.’ p.102 (While the first Palestinian Uprising was considered a largely spontaneous outburst putting Palestinian youth, shabab, armed with stones, grenades and Molotov cocktails against the formidable, but constrained, force of the Israeli military within the Occupied Territories, the second Palestinian Uprising was led by organized and well-trained Islamist organisations such as the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), the Islamic Jihad, and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades (the military branch of Fatah), which target civilians in Israelui urban metropolis centers using the /principal weapon of the suicide bomber,pp.102-3.

• (5)‘The Palestinians called the new uprising the 'al-Aqsa Intifada', a name inflaming religious passions.’ Barry Rubin, Judith Colp Rubin, Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography, Oxford University Press, 203 p.205

• (6) ‘The Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades first appeared in September 2000, Shortly after the Palestinian uprising began.’ Anthony H. Cordesman, Arab-israeli Military Forces in an Era of Asymmetric Wars, Praeger Security International, Westport, Connecticut, London and Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington DC,p.316

• (7) Loren D. Lybarger,Identity and Religion in Palestine: Ther struggle between Islamism and Secularism in the Opccupied Territories, Princeton University Press, Princeton, Oxford 2007, p.196 writes: ‘From the very beginning of the occupation, Palestinians mounted various types of resistance, ranging from different modes of nonviolent non-cooperation (e.g.tax refusal, commercial strikes, boycotts, sit-ins, demonstrations, prison hunger strikes) to violent insurgency. In Gaza, there were three major outbreaks of mass uprising and armed revolt; the period immediately following the 1967 war, the first Uprising of the late 1980s and early 1990s, and the most recent al-Aqsa Intifada, which began at the end of 2000. In each instance, Israel had to shift from bureaucratic modes of control to overt direct repression. The use of violent repression was usually successful. In the early 1970s, army units under the direction of Ariel Sharon effectively smashed Palestinian guerilla activity with house-to-house searches, mass arrest campaigns, bulldfozing camp homes to creat wide boulevards for easy access by tanks and other heaby armaments, and so on. Many of these same tactics were employed twenty years later with the outbreak of the first Intifada,. Israel has responded to the much more violent al-Aqsa Uprising by using overwhelming force: Apache attack helicopters, fighter-bomber jets, wholesale demolution of homes, especially in Gaza’s Rafah refugee camp, mass arrests, assassinations, and so on.

• (8) ‘Since the onset of the second Palestinian uprising, the al-Aqsa intifada, in September 2000, children’s participation in war has taken a darker turn.’David M.Rosen, Armies of the Young: Child Soldiers in War and Terrorism, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey and London, 2005 p.92

• (9)Rex Brynen, ‘Permeability Revisited: Reflections on the Regional repercussions of the al-Aqsa Intifada,’ in Bassel F.Salloukh, Rex Brynen,(eds.) , Persistent Permeability? Regionalism, Localism, and Globalization in the Middle East, Ashgate Publishers, Aldershot and Burlington 2004, chapter 7 pp.125-148 ch.7: ‘In late September 2000, a new intifada – the ‘al-Aqsa intifada’- erupted in the occupied Palestinian territories. By the end of 2002, almost 2000 Palestinians (and over 600) Israelis were dead. A World Bank assessment of the first twenty-seven months of the uprising put the costs at $950 million in damage to Palestinian infrastructure as a result of Israeli military action; $3.2 billion in lost investment and $5.2 billion in lost national income (mainly due to curfews and closures).’ p.125Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to User:MBisanz's request, I think I have listed already, earlier in the discussion, the results one can obtain by examining the O.E.D. For simplicity's sake I will repeat what I remarked earlier. It is established that, in the academic literature, 'uprising' is standard, a point which was challenged by User:Michael Safyan and several others. Faced with this challenge, I came up with authoritative sources. Can it be replaced? Well, it could but only because of some unexplained scruple which would have Wiki substitute a standard term for some other non-standard term, and a decision to use language here that is not current in very many sources would be highly questionable. As to replacing the word, I have already remarked that uprising appears to be the most neutral term:-

'Check the OED 20 volume edition. 2nd edition vol.19 pp.312-313 ad loc. and one will immediately perceive that its use is historically the most neutral term for describing an event like the intifada. The word was predominantly used of (1) resurrection (2) getting up from one’s bed (3) getting up from one’s knees (4) the rising of a woman from her confinement (5) picking oneself up after a fall (6) advancement in place or power and (8) coming into existence and only (7) as ‘a popular rising against authority or for some common purpose’. Any other available term in the English language rebellion, insurgency, insurrection, revolution, revolt, jacquerie. will colour the facts with strong emotive language'.

Secondly, of the several quoted sources I have adduced to underline the normality of uprising for describing the phenomenon, I would remark particularly on the statements by Ovendale, Anthony Cordesman and Rex Brynen. Cordesman is a conservative analyst of distinction.Ovendale is a distinguished historian of international relations whose book is noted for its balance. Brynen himself is one of the major experts on the region, with a very impressive record of publishing including a monograph on the PLO's Lebanese years (that is by no means tender), and a comparativist historian of these movements. When 'right', 'centre' and 'left' (useless designations) concur on language, I think it only proper to acquiescence in their shared, and standard usage.

My major disagreement is with those who contest this one word. Versions 1 and 2 can be sorted out in a just merging, but I would insist that whatever version we settle on must contain the word 'uprising'. It should never have been the subject of contentiousness, and that is why I side with Tiamut's version.Nishidani (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the emended 3rd version, I don't think it worth consideration, since the effort there to cog the text hysterically is self-evident. The uprisings occur because a huge part of the Palestinian population has suffered variously from relentless dispossession, destruction of property (a typical daily example of how the system operates can be read here http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/971504.html), harassment, starvation, arrest and wounding while under military occupation for 4 decades, on their own land, as that has been determined by international law. Terror begets terror, until all attempts at establishing a causal logic assigning unilateral blame become meaningless Nishidani (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on User Statement 3

[edit] User Statement 4

I have created a new proposal based off proposal 2, where I rearranged the sentences slightly, and I hope might satisfy some of the concern about the "uprising" wording. Yahel Guhan 00:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions about the mediation

[edit] Discussion and comment on user statements and proposals

[edit] SteveCrossin

So I've asked co-mediator SteveCrossin to handle the second part of this mediation. I'm starting to run out of ideas and think his taking a more active role might help things. MBisanz ^talk 02:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from SteveCrossin

As requested by MBisanz, and after a lot of consideration, and, as the fact remains that I actually am co-mediating this case with MBisanz, even though I have not spoken on the talk page at all, I feel it's time for me to weigh in.

As I see it, the debate seems very clear and simple, so excuse me if I've oversimplified the debate. It appears editors are arguing that the term “uprising” is POV, that it is not neutral. The counter argument argues that “uprising” is not POV, and that it is a neutral term used by scholars and experts in the field, as well as its mention in a wide range of publications.

The policies and guidelines are very clear. First and foremost, Wikipedia isn't the place to carry out your personal agenda, or to push a particular point of view. We're writing the English Wikipedia. A world-wide, free encyclopedia. This, as i see it, is a highly controversial dispute, but really should be a simple one. I've read the whole dispute, and in all honesty, 2-3 page responses haven't been easy to follow, neither has the incessant nit picking at tiny details. The dispute, as I see it, is very simple. Is the use of “uprising” in violation of our neutral point of view policy, and, in extension, whether it adds undue weight to a particular viewpoint?

Simply put, the parties supporting the use of the word uprising need to give reliable sources as to why “uprising” is not POV in this context. Then, the parties opposed need to give sources showing that uprising is POV in this context. Additionally, if you feel the word uprising adds undue weight, as in, lopsides the article, state why. And, add sources. Personal opinions, however how elaborate, is not a source, and personal opinions generally can be given very little weight, as opposed to reliable sources.

Once we've got that far, then we will re-begin negotiating on the wording of the lead section in the article, namely, the section under dispute. This may extend the mediation, but I feel we would all rather this be resolved here, and not higher up in the Dispute resolution chain..

Keep your comments concise. As MBisanz has aforementioned, extensive 3 page essays, is a struggle to read. Be as straight to the point as possible.

That's all for now, I'll wait for responses first. Regards, Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 08:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Responses

Uprising is NPOV

In response to Steve Crossin's request for (more) sources (do note however, that Nishidani has already provided many here and there are dozens on the talk page as well), here are some more:

• Thomas S. Leonard's Encyclopedia of the Developing World (2006)
  • "…the Al-Aqsa intifada differed from its predecessor in a number ways. First, this uprising used terror – especially suicide bombings - as its primary tactic."
  • "As was the case in the first intifada, the Israeli response to the second uprising was again severe."

• James L. Gelvin's The Israel-Palestine Conflict: 100 years of war (2005)
  • "Al-Aqsa intifada: Uprising against the Israeli occupation that broke out in 2000 after Ariel Sharon visited the site on which the Al-Aqsa mosque stands."

• Russel E. Lucas' Institutions and the Politics of Survival in Jordan (2005)
  • "The Al-Aqsa intifada began, and the uprising threatened to engulf the region..."
  • "As with the prior Palestinian uprising, the Jordanian regime treaded cautiously between placating domestic anger at Israeli repression, and a spillover of the rage of Palestinians in Jordan."

• Gershon Shafir and Yoav Peled's Being Israeli: The Dynamics of Multiple Citizenship (2002)
  • "The Al-Aksa Intifada, as the second uprising is called, was not only more surprising to most Israelis, but also more disappointing than the first."
  • "Within the first fourteen weeks of the uprising, 301 non-citizen Palestinians, 43 Israeli Jews, and 13 citizen Palestinians were killed and numerous wounded."

• Mordechai Bar-On's A Neverending Conflict: A Guide to Israeli Military History (2004)
  • "The renewed Palestinian uprising soon acquired the name 'Intifada II' or 'Intifadat al Aqsa' (named after the old mosque on the Temple Mount where it began). Unlike the first intifada, which was characterized mostly by civil disobedience and low-level street violence, the second intifada soon became more lethal." Tiamut^talk 14:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Steve Crossin You write:

Simply put, the parties supporting the use of the word uprising need to give reliable sources as to why “uprising” is not POV in this context. Then, the parties opposed need to give sources showing that uprising is POV in this context.

I have given exhaustively above a small selection of page references to the reliable sources, i.e., academic literature on Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, which use 'uprising' as though it were normative terminology. I will repost part of it here for quick reference. Note that the academics whose books are cited come from all sides of the political spectrum.

• (1)Ritchie Ovendale, The Second Palestinian Uprising ch.15 of his The Origin of the Arab-Israeli Wars, (1984) 4th revised ed. Pearson Education, Edinburgh 2004 pp.301-327

• (2) David Bukay,The Al-Aqsa Uprising, Chapter 5 pp.87-113. in Shlomo Sharan (eds.) Israel and the Post-Zionists: A Nation at Risk, Sussex Academic Press, Brighten 2003

• (3) Joshua Ruebner, Clyde Mark,Kenneth Katzman, Alfred Prados, The Current Palestinian Uprising: Al-Aqsa Intifadah, ch.1 of Edgar S.Marshall (ed.) Israel:Current Issues and Historical Background, Nova Science Publishers, New York 2002 pp.1-20

• (4) Tami Amanda Jacoby, Bridging the Barrier:Israeli Unilateral Disengagement, (she is at University of Manitoba, Canada), Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot and Burlington 2007 writes:'Israeli-Palestinian relations deteriorated greatly with the onset of the second Palestinian uprising.’ p.102 (While the first Palestinian Uprising was considered a largely spontaneous outburst putting Palestinian youth, shabab, armed with stones, grenades and Molotov cocktails against the formidable, but constrained, force of the Israeli military within the Occupied Territories, the second Palestinian Uprising was led by organized and well-trained Islamist organisations such as the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), the Islamic Jihad, and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades (the military branch of Fatah), which target civilians in Israelui urban metropolis centers using the /principal weapon of the suicide bomber,pp.102-3.

• (5)‘The Palestinians called the new uprising the 'al-Aqsa Intifada', a name inflaming religious passions.’ Barry Rubin, Judith Colp Rubin, Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography, Oxford University Press, 203 p.205

• (6) ‘The Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades first appeared in September 2000, Shortly after the Palestinian uprising began.’ Anthony H. Cordesman, Arab-israeli Military Forces in an Era of Asymmetric Wars, Praeger Security International, Westport, Connecticut, London and Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington DC,p.316

• (7) Loren D. Lybarger,Identity and Religion in Palestine: Ther struggle between Islamism and Secularism in the Opccupied Territories, Princeton University Press, Princeton, Oxford 2007, p.196 writes: ‘From the very beginning of the occupation, Palestinians mounted various types of resistance, ranging from different modes of nonviolent non-cooperation (e.g.tax refusal, commercial strikes, boycotts, sit-ins, demonstrations, prison hunger strikes) to violent insurgency. In Gaza, there were three major outbreaks of mass uprising and armed revolt; the period immediately following the 1967 war, the first Uprising of the late 1980s and early 1990s, and the most recent al-Aqsa Intifada, which began at the end of 2000. In each instance, Israel had to shift from bureaucratic modes of control to overt direct repression. The use of violent repression was usually successful. In the early 1970s, army units under the direction of Ariel Sharon effectively smashed Palestinian guerilla activity with house-to-house searches, mass arrest campaigns, bulldfozing camp homes to creat wide boulevards for easy access by tanks and other heaby armaments, and so on. Many of these same tactics were employed twenty years later with the outbreak of the first Intifada,. Israel has responded to the much more violent al-Aqsa Uprising by using overwhelming force: Apache attack helicopters, fighter-bomber jets, wholesale demolution of homes, especially in Gaza’s Rafah refugee camp, mass arrests, assassinations, and so on.

• (8) ‘Since the onset of the second Palestinian uprising, the al-Aqsa intifada, in September 2000, children’s participation in war has taken a darker turn.’David M.Rosen, Armies of the Young: Child Soldiers in War and Terrorism, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey and London, 2005 p.92

• (9)Rex Brynen, ‘Permeability Revisited: Reflections on the Regional repercussions of the al-Aqsa Intifada,’ in Bassel F.Salloukh, Rex Brynen,(eds.) , Persistent Permeability? Regionalism, Localism, and Globalization in the Middle East, Ashgate Publishers, Aldershot and Burlington 2004, chapter 7 pp.125-148 ch.7: ‘In late September 2000, a new intifada – the ‘al-Aqsa intifada’- erupted in the occupied Palestinian territories. By the end of 2002, almost 2000 Palestinians (and over 600) Israelis were dead. A World Bank assessment of the first twenty-seven months of the uprising put the costs at $950 million in damage to Palestinian infrastructure as a result of Israeli military action; $3.2 billion in lost investment and $5.2 billion in lost national income (mainly due to curfews and closures).’ p.125Nishidani (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC) reposted now by Nishidani (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Michael admits he has no evidence for his counter-contentions, but has deductive arguments (that are, in my view, personal, illogical and inferential rather than evidential). My extensive arguments apparently bore, being bookish, and book-sourced. Therefore, I can only ask, at this point, why Wiki articles (all with extensive sourcing) so abundantly use the word 'uprising' to describes all kinds of insurrection, revolt, rebellion, in their titles, leads, or bodies of the text, but this word must be denied to a revolt by Palestinians, especially one which is described as the second in a series of Palestinian uprisings? Particularly when no expert in the field finds the usage exceptional? Nota Bene:

'The First Intifada (1987 - 1993) refers to the first mass Palestinian uprising against Israeli rule in the occupied territories.' (Wiki entry for Ist Intifada, unchallenged)

If that Intifada is the first in a series, why on earth is the second in the series to be denied the same descriptive term, i.e. 'uprising'? This obstructive refusal to countenance the obvious standard term defies logic, usage, comon sense, historical intelligence, every known principle in the armory of narrative writing.

Why is the standard vocabulary in English for describing such events, to which no other ethnic group writing the history of their own or neighbouring countries or of subject peoples, seems to take exception, to be denied Palestinians? Checking the talk pages of the following arbitrarily selected articles in Wiki, I have found no one raising questions about the POV character of the word ‘uprising’. It has, to my knowledge, only been challenged here. by editors who have consistently failed, and occasionally admitted to failing to, find evidence for their personal conjectures about the connotations of English usage.

Regards Nishidani (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Nishidani's links appear to be full of differnt article names for the 'uprising title he'd given them. Sample: [[Sa'dah conflict|Yemen Uprising 2004]] which leads to an article called Sa'dah conflict. A big difference between this Yemen article and the Second Intifada, is that (a) this was a fight between a local cleric and the higher administration, and (b) I don't see any mention of terror attacks directed at civilians as was the standard practice of the Second Intifada war effort. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Reply to Jaakobou. I think the intelligent thing to do before making a comment on my links would be to read closely the remarks which preface them. I.e.

    I can only ask, at this point, why Wiki articles (all with extensive sourcing) so abundantly use the word uprising to describe all kinds of insurrection, revolt, rebellion, in their titles, leads, or bodies of the text, but this word must be denied as valid in describing a revolt by Palestinians'

  • I have linked to pages where uprising is therefore used in the title, the lead or the text. As to the second point, Israel has been frequently accused of indiscriminate violence on unarmed civilians by authoritative organisations, violence often involving their death, for two decades, the decades of the Intifada. The kill rate has varied from 30 to 1, 10 to 1 to 4 to 1 (Palestinians vs.Israelis) depending on what slice of time you take. For myself (and for many outside specialist observers), terror is a common denominator of both sides, and I do not think the fact that ferocious assaults were made by kamikaze bombers against Israeli citizens in the second Intifada (while Israeli has used frequent indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas in Gaza) ipso facto mean that it wasn't therefore an 'uprising'. As the Mau Mau Uprising, which you are probably too young to recall, shows, many uprisings have terroristic elements, many subject populations read as 'terror' what their ruling states consider 'law and order', many uprisings are put down by state terror. Read every article I've linked, get back to me with a general theory that demonstrates the uniqueness of the Al-Aqsa Intifada, a uniqueness which thus would conceptually disqualify it from coming under the generic rubric of an 'uprising'. Do that and we may finally have an argument against uprising for the prosecution instead of a highly subjective set of personal and rather waffly objections, based on regional exceptionalism to historical sociology.Nishidani (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • Since the amiable Jaakobou is collecting on User:PhilKnight's page a growing record of my 'soapboxing' slurs for an eventual request to have me banned from Wiki, I'd better just drop a reference in to indicate that, as ever, when I write in here, I write with a specific book in mind. My remarks on terror refer to, esp., the following passage (which could help improve the article by the way)

‘The object of terrorism is to terrorize, and it was doing the trick. During the first three months of the second intifada, about three-quarters of all 'incidents' recorded by the Israel Defense Forces pit Israeli soldiers against unarmed Palestinian civilians, and since the outbreak of the second intifada, about three Palestinians have died for every Israeli: Of the approximately four thousand deaths attributable to the second intifada, three thousand were Palestinian and over five hundred of these were Palestinian children under the age of eighteen. These numbers, and the Palestinian grievances that sparked the second intifada in the first place, were drowned out by the horror roused by the terrorist outrages.’ James L. Gelvin, The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War, Cambridge University Press 2005 pp.243-4 I.e. we are all hugely focused on Israeli civilian deaths in the aftermath, and have forgotten the huge number of Palestinian civilian deaths, both before and after. Nishidani (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Uprising is POV

There are a wide variety of perspectives on the Second Intifada. Here are a few:

• Arafat's Grand Strategy by Efraim Karsh on the Middle East Quarterly:

"In September 2000, only about two percent of the West Bank's population lived in areas where Israel had complete control. By no conceivable stretching of words could the violence be described as a popular uprising against foreign occupation. This 'popular uprising' was launched and choreographed by the leadership—and above all, by Yasir Arafat." (emphasis added).

• Israel's Comments on the Mitchell Report by the MFA:

"This [the Second Intifada] has not been a civilian uprising but rather an ongoing situation in which Israeli forces are coming under intensive live-fire attack." (emphasis added)

NOTE: Israel consistently and officially denies that the Second Intifada constitutes/constituted an uprising.

• Rashomon in the Middle East: Clashing Narratives, Images, and Frames in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict by Arie M. Kacowicz (pg 352)

"... the official Israeli version of the second intifada is fairly straightforward: This was a terrorist war pre-planned and premeditated by Chairman Arafat as a result of a strategic Palestinian decision to use violence – rather than negotiations – as the primary instrument of advancing their political cause." (emphasis added)

NOTE: Again, the Israeli official perspective is that the Second Intifada is/was a "terrorist war", not an "uprising".

• Israel's unexpected victory over terrorism by Yossi Klein Halevi and Michael B. Oren:

"Rather than calling the terrorism assault a war , Israelis reflexively adopted the misleading Palestinian term intifada — implying an unarmed civilian uprising against an armed occupation." (emphasis added)

• The Second Intifada by MEDEA:

"Whereas the first Intifada was characterised by mass civil mobilisation, the present Intifada is an insurrection that rests upon the participation of a minority, even though it has the support from the majority." (em. added)

NOTE: This article uses the more neutral term "insurrection", which is synonymous with "uprising", but which does not connote legitimacy or lack thereof.

• Exiled Hamas leader warns third uprising in 6 months, blaming Israel for delay on prisoner swap by the People's Daily:

"The second intifada, also called the al-Aqsa intifada, is the wave of violence that began in September 2000." (emphasis added)

• The Second Intifada: Background and Causes of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict by Jeremy Pressman

"In the first section of the article, I critique existing explanations for the [second] intifada that blame Arafat and Sharon for the violent outbreak." (em. added)

"Many Israelis, including former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, contend that Arafat and the Palestinians planned and executed a violent uprising ...." (em. added)

NOTE: Although the author does use the term "uprising", he modifies it with the word "violent" -- a compromise I would be willing to make. The author also uses the word "outbreak", also modifying it with "violent".

Michael, then clearly you have not read Perelman's paper. He uses the word 'uprising' several times without an adjective. See below.

• Poll Shows Most Palestinians Favor Violence Over Talks by the New York Times

"'The anger that this poll is registering is about equal to that at the very height of the second intifada,' Mr. Shikaki said, referring to the years just after 2000 when suicide attacks on Israel and Israeli strikes on Palestinian forces reached new heights. 'I am very worried about what is coming.'" (em. added)

NOTE: NYT doesn't even bother to label it as an "uprising", "insurrection", "wave of violence", "outbreak", etc.; rather, they merely describe the events which transpired and allow the reader to come to his/her own conclusions.

Interestingly, there are some Palestinian sources which deny that the Second Intifada is/was an uprising:

• Twenty Years Ago—The Intifada by Michael Warschawski on AIC:

"I put 'first Intifada' in quotations, because I strongly deny that there was a second one! In fact, what is usually described as 'The Second Intifada' is exactly the opposite of the first one. While the Intifada was a Palestinian initiative, an anti-colonial uprising, the so-called Second Intifada is an Israeli offensive , planned for a long time by the Israeli military in order to reconquer what had been gained by the Intifada. The 'Second Intifada' is not an Intifada, but an 'anti-Intifada.' " (em. added)

• Interview with Dimitri Diliani on Just Vision:

"It’s not an intifada, but rather a war that is being waged against us. We call it an intifada, but that’s incorrect. They are shooting at us with missiles and airplanes. The people are not engaged in a revolt. They are unhappy, angry, and hurt. If you compare the period between 1987 and 1992 to the period that we are currently living, you’ll understand why they’ve led to different outcomes." (em. added)

Despite my self-imposed ban due to lapse in a week, since this is going to arbitration, I should just note that the several tidbits of material added by Michael fail to provide any evidence for his thesis. They mainly interpret the intifada as not a popular uprising: they do not specifically make a case to deny that it was an uprising. Secondly Michael, and this is not the first time you have done this, you clearly have not read the very sources you now adduce in support of your private thesis. The one quality paper you adduce, that of Jeremy Pressman, The Second Intifada: Background and Causes of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, is a very astute technical analysis by a Jewish expert on conflict which systematically dismisses most of the newspapery editorializing effluvia in the wiki article we are editing, and the several articles from Israeli official or pro-official sources which you cite here. Wiki should privilege quality sources, and this is the only one you have brought to bear on the subject, and, ironically, it undoes the points made by the propaganda sources from Karsh to Israeli government sources. For Perelman the Al-Aqsa uprising arose from a failure of the Oslo accords to cater to widespread popular palestinian discontent for autonomy in the occupied territories. It had a popular base. To conclude, you have yet to provide us with a skerrick of evidence that the word 'uprising' standard in academic works on the Al-Aqsa intifada is viewed by the literature as POV. All you provide is Israeli government sources that challenge the scholarly interpretation of that intifada as 'popular'. This is immaterial. That the uprising later developed into operations by specialist guerillas, and lost its original mass mobilisation is explained in the literature (which I will cite in the article) by the fact that in the Ist five days alone Israeli troops shot and wounded 1900 protestors. It was this change in IDF tactics, from the earlier breaking of legs and widespread physical bashings in the first intifada, to the actual shooting at public crowds in the 2nd intifada, which played some significant role in the development of the secretive and violent terror tactics some months later. This however does not alter specialist historian consensus that the Al-Aqsa intifada was what we call an 'uprising'. Read Perelman beyond the first page.Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, Nishidani writes:

If everyone calls an 'orange' an orange, one is not entitled to challenge the description and say 'I want proof it is an orange'. No proof can be forthcoming, because usage establishes that that word is the customary term for the fruit. This is high school level philosophical common sense

However, if it is patently obvious that an orange is an orange, then there is no need to state it explicitly. In fact, adding a sentence such as "this particular orange is an orange...", it makes one wonder why such a statement has been added explicitly! Is it possible that there are those who deny that the orange is an orange? Is there something about this orange which makes it difficult to identify as such? If the events of the Second Intifada are truly suggestive of an uprising, then the readers do not need to be told that it is an uprising; they will conclude this for themselves. If, however, the events are not suggestive of an uprising, and the belief that it is an uprising is purely subjective, then stating that it is an uprising as if it were objective is a violation of WP:NPOV and constitutes nothing short of framing. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 19:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the only article on conflict in Wikipedia I am familiar with, and I have read some 142 articles dealing with conflicts here using 'uprising', where the use of this word has been questioned. You are virtually the only person in Wikipedia who finds it problematical. The onus of proof is on you, not on those who, in line with the best academic opinion on revolutions, uprisings, revolts or whatever, refer to the Al-Aqsa intifada habitually (see above) as an uprising. You have a peculiar interpretation of this word which has no backing in English dictionaries, based on inferences from Websters, inferences you can find no academic backing for. Are you familiar with Begin's biography? He describes his closet armed insurrection against the British as an 'uprising' in 1944-7 (Menachem Begin, The Revolt, 1951 p.378). Begin could in short imagine his rebellion against the British occupation of Mandatory Palestine as an 'uprising', violent, terroristic, elitist and indeed unpopular. But God forbid if anyone should dare to describe the Al-Aqsa intifada as an 'uprising' against the Israeli occupation. It cannot be, your argument goes, because the movement was 'violent, terroristic, elitist and unpopular'. The discrimination you make is very close to reflecting an ethnic prejudice, unwittingly my friend. What Begin did can be called without historical quibbling an 'uprising', but if exactly the same tactics are used by Arabs against an Israeli occupation, then, Arabs being Arabs, some other word must be found. Please reconsider your opposition, which is based on conviction, but contradicts everything we know academically on the subject.Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

On the mediation page, Timeshifter writes:

From my cursory examination of the talk page since then, I believe a compromise may be to express all views and who holds them. I read one interesting comment that the various elements of the Israeli media have some unique and widely divergent views on the issue. I don't think Wikipedia should be deciding what is the 'right view' or the 'average worldview'. Nor should wikipedia choose between the Israeli view, the UN view, the US view, the European view, the various Palestinian viewpoints, the Hamas viewpoint, the Fatah viewpoint, the non-aligned nations' view, the Western view, the variety of Arab nations' views, the non-Western view, etc... I think the spin that various elements worldwide put on the Second Intifada is very important, and should be thoroughly explained. For a similar example see: Positions on Jerusalem. This is a change in position on my part because I did not understand just how fierce the differences of opinion were on these issues. I still do not see a contradiction between 'waves of violence' and 'uprising'. But my viewpoint is just one among many, and I now see that the whole conflict continues partly because there is such a fierce spin battle going on worldwide in the media that goes back all the way to the crusades and before.

I wholeheartedly agree with Timeshifter on this point -- that "the spin that various elements worldwide put on the Second Intifada is very important, and should be thoroughly explained". All interpretations, ranging from the extreme Palestinian view to the extreme Israeli view, should be mentioned. If Wikipedia elevates one of these views as the "correct" one, it merely biases the reader. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 19:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Again you are confusing the proper use of language with the proper interpretation of an historical phenomenon. Since the interpretation of the nature of the Al-Aqsa intifada is controversial, you think the usual word in the literature to gloss intifada, namely 'uprising' is controversial. On the first point you are right. No one challenges that various interpretations exist. Your error lies in the latter inference, in transferring to the word 'uprising'(itself near universal a term in descriptive writing of conflict, popular or secretive, violent or Gandhian), the controversial character of the interpretations of the intifada. An elementary mistake.Nishidani (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Hmm, these are some interesting proposals. Personally, I prefer wording closer to Proposal 1 or Proposal 2. I find proposal 3 to be a tad short and lacking in context. I have a couple of questions.

1. Are there citations to support statements other than the name Oslo War already in the article? Nishidani, you give several citations in your comments. Does anyone disagree with the use or interpretation of these or any other citations provided so far.
2. Since we've now defined the versions, could each party comment under their original statement what they disagree with in the two versions they do not support (and probably did not author, I'm not checking the MEDCAB-P history for the express reason of not associating a version with an author)? This would also be the time and place to address other issues like WP:UNDUE or WP:NOR. MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Good, we're making progress here, we're basically down to the word "uprising" in the first sentence of proposal 1. Could each participant list any and all acceptable words in addition to "uprising" that they feel could replace it in the first sentence? Alternatively, could you give me your best, most mainstream/neutral source for the wording of it as "uprising". MBisanz ^talk 19:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - proposal #3, User:MBisanz/MEDCAB-P#Proposal_3 - was reformatted [7] since this comment was made. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've added a 4th version [8] - open to suggestions on it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Everyone involved, please calm down for a second, and take a step back from the page. I don't like 5 paragraph responses or deeply threaded comment sections. So I want, a five-line max answer, below this section, from each party on other words besides uprising they like. If you prefer uprising, just note that, since I see some prefer it per sources like OED. MBisanz ^talk 17:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• • User:MBisanz. If you have detected the slightest sign of overheated and intemperate argument in my remarks, please underline them. I wrote those remarks with urbane tolerance, despite my private belief that this argument should never have even arisen under normal conditions of either academic or wiki editing. I was addressing my argument singularly to User:Michael Safyan because he has held this page up for several months on an 'antic' discrimination that is against Wiki rules (he is asking editors to prove that the word 'uprising', widely used of the second Intifada in impeccably sourced journalistic and academic reports, is an appropriate designation for what all the world nonetheless calls the Al-Aqsa Uprising). I.e. he is contesting the right of editors in Wiki to refer to its pages standard terminology in highly reliable sources.

• • Since Michael is thoroughly determined to insist on what should never, never be insisted on, that customary academic usage be held hostage until a specific, explicit justification of its descriptive adequacy to those events be uncovered, I have taken the trouble to delineate (1) why his approach is methodologically flawed (2) why his refusal to accept 'uprising' for an Arab uprising, because it reminds him personally of the Jewish Warsaw uprising, is ethnocentric and (3) why the use of that term comprehends a very wide range of distinctive revolts in the historical literature in a neutral fashion. For the details, see above. Taking an effort to address questions that should never have arisen in the first place is not a sign of intemperance but, rather, of exceptional patience. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou's preffered version, In the "battle" over 'uprising' vs 'terror campaign', I prefer the latter since it's far more accurate considering the elements involved (Yasser Arafat, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, European Union - see sources above). However, I do believe that it would be fair to give equal presentation to both the "resistance against occupation" (main Palestinian) perspective and also the main Israeli perspective. I've tried to keep it simpler in my 2nd suggestion and made sure to reference everything in a clean and clear manner. In my suggestion (version 4), each side is given 3 points for their position - which is more than fair to the Palestinian/Arab side, getting the "land theft" perspective in the lead despite far heavier land theft during the (forced) Jewish exodus from Arab lands. I'm open to suggestions, but I completely object the direct Intifada='uprising' translation.. unless there's some other type of equal value compromise that doesn't give a "moral right" (to blow up Israeli civilians) feel to the Article's presentation... version 2, doesn't quite cover this as it gives a 3:1 importance to Palestinian claims.
p.s. MBisanz, I apologize that it's a tad over 5 rows, but certainly no where near the 19,000 chars above (that use a borderline anti-semitic source, no less). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

JaakobouA word of advice. I think it would be proper to withdraw or cross out that remark attributing to me the use of what you call a 'borderline antisemitic source'. If Norman Finkelstein incorrectly cited Haaretz, by all means challenge his source, which is Haaretz. Otherwise, you throwing around this kind of cheap and slanderous innuendo looks very much as though you are endeavouring to tar me with the same brush, (Nishidani uses 'borderline antisemitic sources', and therefore is a borderline antisemite) as several of your colleagues have tried to do in the past. Nishidani (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are worried about the implications of using cheap and slanderous sources then why not cut back on it? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Nishidani, he wasn't attributing you to being an antisemite. He was saying that Finkelstein is a borderline antisemite. He is certianly anything but a reliable source for the topic. He probably could have stated that in a better way then he did, but I think this point is valid, and correct, and it certianly isn't a personal attack on you. I don't know what issues you had with Jaakobou in the past, but I think it would be better for the sake of progress if you try not comment on his alleged behaviour here, as that will accomplish nothihng, but rather the arguement. Since Haaretz is the source in question, we should be focusing on what Haaretz said, not Finkelstein's interpritation of what Haaretz said, because as I said already, Finkelstein is not a reliable source. Do you have anything to say reguarding his arguement? Becasue it seems right now you have a lot more to say about Jaakobou. Yahel Guhan 00:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I was enjoying the discussion Safyan and Nishidani were having. It is quite enlightening and while i wished to argue some fo the points Nishidani made, I find his/her eloquence and erudition covered more points than i could have. He has responded to Safyan's arguments point by point and issue by issue in an articulate manner. He is far from hyperventilating, obstreperous or belligerent. Baseless accusations that he is using 'borderline anti-semitic' or non-reliable sources aren't really helping us here either. If you take issue with his sources than you had better bring something to the table other than "i don't like his sources". Delad (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Baseless accusations? Finkelstein is notable for being a strongly radical anti-Zionist. He isn't notable for being a highly scholarly reliable source, and shouldn't be used as one. What makes him "reliable"? Absolutely nothing. Numerous scholars have stated his notability and alleged scholarship is based on his radical political views, that he gets the historical facts incorrect, and misrepresents the work of scholars in quoting them. His supporters are generally those who hold his views. (See Norman Finkelstein#Praise and criticism of Finkelstein's scholarship) He should not be used as evidence to base anything upon, accept something directly quoted to himself, and he certainly should not be used as a reliable source for a quote from Haaretz. There are much better sources to be used, like Haaretz itself, and not with a bias unreliable interpretation/translation of what they said. Of all sources, Finkelstein is not one that should be picked to make any judgment over the lead. Perhaps I was a little harsh with my end comment to Nishidani. For that I will apologize. Still, I think we need to stop discussing each other’s behavior, because I think that is not helping resolve this dispute either. Yahel Guhan 03:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou, User:Yahel Guhan You both will have checked the net, and you both will have discovered that reliable sources independent of Finkelstein have cited the same evidence from Haaretz. So what is the point of trying here, disingenuously, to prevaricate on the fact that this was printed by Haaretz? It ony takes two minutes to get the full text, and this time, I am reluctant to do your work for you. 151.49.85.6 (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Nishidani (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(this last post, minusmy handle, I noted when it went up, could not be corrected. Screams echoed from the dining room, that I was urgently required to sit down to lunch with guests. I couldn't unblock my computer, which refused to give me the full page to edit, and thus had lunch, and came back to sign the statement, only to notice User:Jaakobou had erased it as 'anonymous' and a violation of some rule in Wiki. In any case it was not anonymous. Any IP check would have shown that it was identical to mine. Apologies for any misunderstanding.Nishidani (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

Well it seems like we can all live with version 1 or 2, except the word "uprising". I'd like to suggestion a slashie compromise. Instead od just using a term like "uprising", "campaign of terror", etc, use two terms linked by a slashie. So it would read uprising/x. I ran a search and have listed the following proposed second words:

insurrection, outbreak, rebellion, revolt, revolution, riot, upheaval, convulsion, outcry, tumult, turbulence, power play, usurpation, coup, disorder, insurgency, rising, sedition, disobedience, resistance

Any comments? MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the input, MBisanz. I would prefer that we not go this route, because it would attempt to balance one point-of-view with another, rather than simply stating facts in neutral terms. However, if others prefer this option, here is my reaction to the words provided:

• insurrection: This is denotationally the same as "uprising", but connotationally different. Thus it does not truly balance "uprising".
• outbreak: This is fine if put in the phrase "outbreak of violence" or "violent outbreak".
• rebellion: This is denotationally the same as "uprising", but connotationally different. Thus it does not truly balance "uprising".
• revolt: This is similar to "uprising" and does not express the Israeli viewpoint, and thus is pointless to use.
• revolution: This is simply inaccurate. There was a lot of violence, but otherwise very little change.
• riot: This is simply inaccurate. While riots took place, the Second Intifada consists of more than just a riot.
• upheaval: This is fine if put in the phrase "violent upheaval", otherwise it does not balance viewpoints.
• convulsion: This is inaccurate for the same reason as "riot" is inaccurate. There were convulsions, not just a convulsion.
• outcry: This does not express the Israeli viewpoint, and thus does not balance the Palestinian POV. And even were this the Israeli POV, this is an emotive term, and therefore should not appear in Wikipedia.
• tumult: This is inaccurate for the same reason as "riot". It also strikes me as rather euphemistic.
• turbulence: This is severely euphemistic.
• power play: This is inaccurate, because, although violence was exchanged, there was very little threat to Israel's political power, only to its civilian population.
• usurpation: This is inaccurate.
• coup: This is likewise inaccurate.
• disorder: This sounds like an illness rather than a historical event. Does not balance POVs. Euphemistic.
• insurgency: This is denotationally the same as "uprising", but connotationally different. Thus it does not truly balance "uprising".
• rising: This is an uncommon usage of "rising", and does not balance POVs.
• sedition: This is inaccurate; like revolt, it assumes that the Palestinian Authority or the Palestinian people owed allegiance to Israel.
• disobedience: See comments for "sedition".
• resistance: This is, by far, the preferred pro-Palestinian term, and therefore does not balance the points of view.

I have given the above response in the event that we take this route. However, I again remind you, that I think that attempting to balance one POV with another POV would set a poor precedent for how to adhere to WP:NPOV, and I prefer that we not take this route. ← Michael Safyan ^(talk) 03:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Note - I liked the latest suggestions on version 5 and changed my proposal 4 utilizing parts of it and toning down the intro from 3:3 to 2:2. I'm thinking a mix between my MEDCAB-P#Proposal_4 and suggestion 5 could definitely work for me. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The crux is simple,that version one and two can be melded consensually is not doubted by their two authors, who have done the most work on this section. All other suggestions are less than helpful. The only point remaining, therefore, is 'uprising'.

I don't see any margin for compromise, because there is a principle at stake, which Michael is challenging. To compromise is to admit a dangerous precedent in the rules govering the editorial framework. Let me summarize.

(a)'Uprising' is challenged as a POV Palestinian partisan term. User:Michael Safyan has argued that it is POV and not adequate denotatively or connotatively to the phenomenon of the Al-Aqsa Intifada.

It has been shown that

• (a) it is not a partisan term, since authoritative scholars of all political and ethnic persuasions use it as a normal, standard descriptive term for the Al-Aqsa Intifada.
• (b) that Michael's request for authoritative proof that the Al-Aqsa Intifada 'constitutes an uprising' is invalid. If everyone calls an 'orange' an orange, one is not entitled to challenge the description and say 'I want proof it is an orange'. No proof can be forthcoming, because usage establishes that that word is the customary term for the fruit. This is high school level philosophical common sense.
• (c) That Michael admits that the gravamen of his charge, on the denotative and connotative meanings of 'uprising', lacks a reliable source. This means he is pushing a personal view in the face of established usage. He cannot source his statements, whereas his interlocutors can source their counter-statements.
• (d) That Michael's attempt to substitute deductive logic for evidential proof is philosophically and linguistically untenable. As shown, connotations cannot be derived technically from a denotation by deductive logic.
• (e) Contrariwise, it has been shown that connotations are derived from empirical evidence for usage, and that in both journalism and at the highest level of academic analysis, 'uprising' is a neutral term inclusive of insurrections, sanguinary or not, against constituted political authority or not, all over the world, and throughout history.
• (f) It emerges that Michael personally dislikes the word 'uprising' because it makes, for him, an implicit parallel between the tragedy of his own group ('the Warsaw Uprising') and the culpable waves of violence, as he sees it, of a people, the Palestinians, against that group. This has been countered by the fact that (i) the analogy whose propriety he denies has been made (several times) within Israel, by senior strategists (ii) the use of a generic term used to describe comprehensively many kinds of rebellion does not, ipso facto, establish a perfect congruity of analogy or identity between the disparate phenomena that come under that term. I.e. 'war' is a generic term. 'The American war of Independence' is not analogical to 'Hitler's war' by virtue of the fact that both events are denoted as 'wars'.
• In fine, In Wikipedia, terminological proprieties are established by best usage, as determined by consulting reliable sources, and if the reliable sources widely concur in accepting, for example, 'uprising' as an adequate denotation of the second Intifada, it is not a right of individual editors, with no formal grounding in the scholarship, to challenge that scholarly consensus. Michael has run very close to WP:OR in his attempt to undermine standard usage by making a series of deductions from Merriam-Webster on what he conceives to be the connotations of 'uprising'. His construal of this word flies manifestly in the fact of textual conventions in academic sources. His opposition therefore, while understandable in personal terms, is not grounded in concrete evidence on usage required for determining the appropriate language for articles. To compromise on this is to allow that what is a personal or mistakenly 'pro-Israeli' POV objection to English usage may undo what the English historiographical conventions governing the analysis of this conflict take as self-evident. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, requiring neutral language, and must not become a vehicle for redefining, in Orwellian ways, the customary meanings of words, and passing them off for bearing connotations they do not, demonstrably, bear, simply because a partisan viewpoint insists on misinterpreting the language as prejudicial to its interests. Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)