Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-20 Al-Aqsa Intifada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mediation Cabal
2007-05-20 Al-Aqsa Intifada
Article al-Aqsa Intifada
Status Closed
Requestor TewfikTalk 04:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Parties User:Humus Sapiens, User:Timeshifter, User:Tewfik, User:Armon, User:Tiamut, User:Michael Safyan
Mediator(s) -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 20:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment Closing case



Contents

[edit] Request Information

A request to rename the entry from al-Aqsa Intifada to Second Intifada. TewfikTalk 04:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who are the involved parties?

[edit] What's going on?

All parties agree that Second Intifada is neutral. One group believes al-Aqsa Intifada represents a specific position, while one group rejects that it represents any position. The former group (to which I belong) believes that both titles are used equally in literature, scholarly works, and the news-media, while the latter group points to the vastly higher results for al-Aqsa Intifada in the title of web pages. TewfikTalk 04:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What would you like to change about that?

I believe that the discussion has reached a deadlock, and that only an uninvolved mediator can bridge the gaps between the two sides. TewfikTalk 04:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Views

  • Tiamut: Because "al-Aqsa Intifada" is the most widely used name, per my understanding of Wikipedia naming conventions, it should be the article's name. As a compromise position, I am not opposed to adding the second most widely used name, "Second Intifada" in parathenses.
  • Humus sapiens: The links provided by User:Tewfik demonstrate that scholarly sources use Al-Aqsa Intifada as widely as the Second Intifada. For a serious encyclopedia, non-scholarly sources are irrelevant, see Argumentum ad Googlum. Why Getting a Million Hits on Google Doesn't Prove Anything. As for alternative names, in this case Al-Aqsa Intifada, Oslo War, Arafat's War, Rosh Hashana Arab Assault: they should be Wikipedia:Redirects and should be prominently mentioned in the intro. Adding alt. names to the title is a bad practice, per Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Article names: "A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name. This is required by the MediaWiki software on which Wikipedia runs. However, multiple synonyms can be used for a term". Another consideration: WP:TITLE#Use English words: "Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form." ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Timeshifter: I support Tiamut's views. See my reasons outlined in the discussion section. I have looked at the naming guidelines and policies, and their talk pages, in detail, including the ones linked to by Humus sapiens, and I see no guideline that blocks using "Al-Aqsa Intifada" alone, or both names together. The POV implications of a name do not matter. Rule #1 for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) states, "If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view." Religious words in the name of a war are frequently controversial. See Yom Kippur War. That is also a name based on the starting point of a war. Note that both Arabic and Hebrew Wikipedias named their article as Al-Aqsa Intifada. I support this more definitive name that incorporates the 2 most common names in English: "Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada)". The two names have similar levels of use in English. Clarifying terms are frequently used in wikipedia article names. See Cold war (general term) and John Hanson (disambiguation) and World War III (Left Behind). No other names for this conflict are close to these two in frequency of use. Like the word 'intifada',[1] the word 'Al-Aqsa' is now used in English.[2][3] See Al-Aqsa Mosque and al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. I have heard "al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades" mentioned many times in the media. Are we going to change their name in wikipedia to "Second Intifada Martyrs' Brigades"? That is ridiculous. This group was named after the Al-Aqsa Intifada. See: [4] [5] [6] --Timeshifter 16:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Tewfik: al-Aqsa Intifada has various connotations, all somehow linking to Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount. It seems that everyone agrees that Second Intifada is neutral (since it is being suggested within the other position's suggestion), and that it lacks any connotations. They both appear within equal orders of magnitude in literature, scholarly works, and the news-media. In a case of two equally notable names, the neutral one should be used. TewfikTalk 02:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Abnn my reasoning why it should renamed "Al-Aqsa Intifada" is as follows:
    1. The event in question was a Palestinian uprising.
    2. The Palestinians officially called their latest uprising the "Al-Aqsa Intifada" (an Arabic name.) (These official Palestinian government updates/reports on the Al-Aqsa Intifada started almost immediately after the uprising started, see this update from October 1 2000.)
    3. The event subsection of WP:TITLE says that ""If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view"
    4. For me, the phrase "second intifada" is a sensible but derivative referent similar how some refer to George W Bush as simply the "43rd President." Even though we can refer to George W Bush as the 43rd President, his real name is still George W Bush.
    5. Conclusions: we should use the real Palestinian name for their uprising, not engage in revision because some individuals don't like what is implies. This case isn't unique, the Palestinians have lots of names that have unfavorable implications to some, such as the Palestine Liberation Organization, whose name strongly implies that Palestine is in need of liberation from something or other. --Abnn 02:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Michael Safyan I think it should be renamed Second Intifada because all parties agree that the name does not convey POV whereas some of us, myself included, believe that "Al-Aksa Intifada" conveys POV. If "Al-Aksa Intifada" is truly more widespread than "Second Intifada" as Tiamut claims, however, I am willing to compromise with the title Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada), although I still believe it conveys POV. ← Michael Safyan 02:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • <<-armon->> -My position is pretty much exactly the same as Tewfik's and Humus'. One minor difference is that I would deprecate the names other than "Al Aqsa" in the intro in order to make clear that it's pretty much co-equal with "Second". <<-armon->> 00:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • User:Aminz - I am both concerned with the title and content of this article. Dan Diner a Professor of History says: "It is common to describe the beginning of the intidada al-Aqsa as sparked by the visit of Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount/Haram esh Sharif."- Please note that Diner says that Intifada is called Aqsa not because sharon's visit caused the Intifada, but because it sparked it. Now, this is just the title. What bothers me most is the pattern I am seeing. First the title wants to become Second Intifada, then we have the sentence: "On September 27, Sgt. David Biri was killed;[14] some Israeli sources view this as the start of the Intifada.[15] Others view Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount/Al-Haram Al-Sharif mosque on September 28 as the initiating event." This sentence places the "common description" (as historian Dan Diner said) of Sharon's visit as the secondary in importance. --Aminz 06:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I am reading all the talk pages over in detail right now, but I would like each person to summarize their personal position in this discussion, along with signing their name, please.

  • GofG: Mediator, neutral
  • Please see this section on the article talk page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Aqsa_Intifada#Religious_names
It pretty well summarizes my current position on the issue. --Timeshifter 16:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
That's fine, but I'm looking for basically one sentence, which could be placed here. If I were you, I might say, for instance: I believe we should have the title changed to Al-Aqsa Intifada (Second Palestinian Intifada) as this name provides enough information for the reader to know what it is about, or something of the sort. What I'm really looking for is a concise list of all the views, in bullet form. GofG ||| Talk
I am happy with whatever Tiamut is happy with. Tiamut is Arab-Israeli and so her opinion is very valuable to this discussion. I am just an American who only in the last few years has become more knowledgeable on the topics of Arab-Israeli relations, etc.. I think it would cause a lot of problems to do away with the wikipedia naming guidelines/policies of using the most common names - in order to avoid controversy. Wikipedia describes controversies. It doesn't avoid them. This is a special case in that both names are almost equally popular. So I think that to be fair, both names should be in the title. Al-Aqsa Intifada (Second Palestinian Intifada) or Al-Aqsa Intifada (Second Intifada). The order can be reversed. That is fine by me, too. --Timeshifter 10:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Order reversed: Second Palestinian Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada) or Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada).--Timeshifter 10:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I would second Timshifter's latest proposal as outlined in the link she/he provided to the article talk page. I would also like to provide a link to a summary I prepared of the views/arguments of those opposing the proposed name change [7]. I am not against both names as a compromise position (never have been), but am strongly against deleting Al-Aqsa from the title when it is the most commonly used name. As I have said before, it is rather unsuprising that a Palestinian uprising would have a Palestinian name. Tiamut 16:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
He. :) --Timeshifter 10:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
So, your position would be accurately said as I would like having Al-Aqsa in the title, and would not mind using both Al-Aqsa Intifada and Second Intifada in the title? GofG ||| Talk 18:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, is that a serious question? Tiamut 18:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry if that came off abruptly, it's just that my position is not based on my "like" or "dislike" of the term al-Aqsa Intifada. My position more specifically is that Because "al-Aqsa Intifada" is the most widely used name, per my understanding of Wikipedia naming conventions, it should be the article's name. As a compromise position, I am not opposed to adding the second most widely used name, "Second Intifada" in parathenses. Tiamut 19:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It actually was less serious and more of an example of what kind of summary I was talking about :) I wasn't suggesting that was your actual view. Sorry if I came off as... I'm not completely sure what that could be called, but eh. GofG ||| Talk 00:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Sorry for misunderstanding. It would be nice to hear people's actual voices in these kinds of discussions. Sometimes the tonality is everything. :) Tiamut 22:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • By having "Al-Aqsa" in the title, WP takes a POV that Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, the most sacred Jewish site, was a provocation. This is not a common POV. On the other hand, the title Second Intifada is as widely used by scholarly sources and doesn't carry any POV. Since WP:NPOV is our core policy, we should stick to NPOV title. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
While there is some dispute over whether Sharon's visit was a provocation or the provocation that caused the al-Aqsa Intifada to erupt, there is little to no dispute that the first protests and killings that inaugurated the intifada began there the day following his visit. The title Al-Aqsa Intifada makes no claims regarding the contributory weight of Sharon's visit. If the title was the "Sharon's provocative visit to Al-Aqsa Intifada" or the "Sharon defiles al-Aqsa Intifada" I could understand Humus Sapiens objections over inherent POV. As it is however, this seems to be projection of concerns regarding an unrelated debate over how much weight to give to Sharon's visit as a catalyst or cause in sparking the Al-Aqsa Intifada. What is not in dispute is that events at al-Aqsa, and not just Sharon's visit, but also the protests and shootings after Friday prayers the day following, were the beginning of the Al-Aqsa intifada. See these links: Globalsecurity.org Amnesty International and BBC's Timeline of events. Tiamut 11:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming my words: "Al-Aqsa" implies POV, the question is only "how much weight to give". OTOH, the neutral title Second Intifada is as widely used by scholarly sources and does not imply any such POV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The term Al-Aqsa implies no more POV that the name Yom Kippur War. And you can site many sources on either side, for example the BBC uses the term Al-Aqsa here: Al-Aqsa Intifada timeline. --Abnn 05:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding scholarly use, "Al-Aqsa Intifada" results in +1300 hits in Google Scholar [8] including many from Jewish Israeli universities. --Abnn 05:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Google Scholar: "Second Intifada" results in 1,850. <<-armon->> 07:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Google Scholar: "Second Palestinian Intifada" results in 255 more.
Google Scholar: "2nd Intifada" results in another 24. <<-armon->> 07:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Despite that timeline page, BBC uses "Second Intifada" about twice as much -see below. Also, Google Scholar returns 1,850 for "Second Intifada" and 24 more for "2nd Intifada" Here is evidence reprinted from the talk page which actually compared each:

NYT -overwhelming preference for "Second"
Results 1 - 3 of 3 from www.nytimes.com for "Al-Aqsa intifada".
Results 1 - 10 of about 230 from www.nytimes.com for "second intifada".
CNN -slight preference here for "al-Aqsa"
Results 1 - 10 of about 20 from www.cnn.com for "al-Aqsa intifada"
Results 1 - 10 of about 14 from www.cnn.com for "second intifada"
BBC -bit more than double for "Second"
Results 1 - 10 of about 69 from news.bbc.co.uk for "al-Aqsa intifada"
Results 1 - 10 of about 161 from news.bbc.co.uk for "second intifada"
I also tried http://english.aljazeera.net/. I expected them to prefer "al-Aqsa intifada" and they did, but not by the margin I expected...-bit more than double for "al-Aqsa"
Results 1 - 10 of about 112 from english.aljazeera.net for "al-Aqsa intifada"
Results 1 - 10 of about 49 from english.aljazeera.net for "second intifada"

There's is a clear "winner" according to al Jazeera, but it's actually an Arabic-speaking source and not necessarily the the most "neutral source" for our purposes. <<-armon->> 06:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, there is a myth here that the term "Second Intifada" is neutral, it isn't. To use it is to buy into the Israeli position that there was no provocation for the intifada (see this article that describes why some feel that the name Al-Aqsa Intifada shouldn't be used http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf19a.html), it was just Palestinians being violent. Also, this was a Palestinian uprising and in that sense, should we be using the name they gave to their uprising rather that trying to rename it to something that pleases their political opponents communication frames? Just because the name is one way or the other doesn't validate the cause of it one way or the other, but it seems strange that here on Wikipedia, the Palestinians can't even name their own uprisings, rather they are force to "rename" them to fit the preferred frames of their political opponents. --Abnn 06:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, this is a different issue. As far as I know this is the first claim of bias made about "Second". Ironically, I consider this to be an admission that "al-Aqsa intifada" stems from the Arab/Palestinian view, and that editors opposing the move are doing so simply because it's their favoured POV. <<-armon->> 06:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC) To clarify, I don't see how labeling it "Second" implies any of the things you are claiming it does. Sources critical of Israel use "Second" as well, -as a brief review of the results on Google books or Google Scholar will show. <<-armon->> 06:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It's a Palestinian event and they named it. We use Israel's military operation names for their military operations, see Category:Military_operations_of_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict. I see it as symmetry to allow for each side to name their own events. You seem to want to name everything based on how Israel wants it to be named, a motivation which I can understand, but I don't have to agree with. Many Israelis say there are no Palestinians, they are just Jordanians but that doesn't mean we have to rename the article on the Palestinian people to be Jordanian people. I do not support the denial of Palestinian history, which is what I feel this rename attempt is about. --Abnn 17:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how exploding buses, discos and pizzerias inside Israel is "a Palestinian event". So far your best argument is that the word "second" does not carry enough pro-Palestinian POV. Please review WP:NPOV and WP:TITLE. As for political grievances, take them elsewhere. ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand your objection to the argument. Everything points to it being a Palestinian uprising/revolt (what "intifada" translates to) and the Palestinians (including the official representatives such as Arafat) and the news media called it the "Al-Aqsa Intifada." Your counter argument seems to be suggesting that in fact it wasn't Palestinians behind the intifada, but if not the Palestinians who then? It doesn't matter that its general effects were bad all around (I personally feel the intifada was highly detrimental to the Palestinians themselves) but it doesn't change the fact that it had a specific name that was given to it by those who initiated it and sustained it. --Abnn 20:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no question who is "behind the intifada". The question is, why the side perpetrating the violence gets to pick the name for it? If there is such a policy, let's see it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It isn't so much as the side perpetrating the violence gets to pick the name because as you know more Palestinians died at the hands of Israeli actions that the number of Israelis who died at the hands of Palestinians. This article is about a Palestinian intifada, and it should use their name, just articles about the Israeli military actions use the names given to those actions by the Israeli military. --Abnn 23:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
IOW, no such policy. Please try to stay on topic. I think we all can agree that we are talking about tragic events, so let's not turn this into a WP:SOAPBOX. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The Al-Aqsa Intifada was genuinely Palestinian and it is appropriate to use the Palestinian name for it. --Abnn 01:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Your POV, not supported by both WP policies and practice. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, you refer one to WP:TITLE. Under rule #1 for the naming conventions for events, which states "If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view", it appears that the proper name Al-Aqsa Intifada is clearly the correct one. --Abnn 20:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Since the hostilities in question do not have "a particular common name", that rule does not apply. As a compromise, I agree to use Arabic word "intifada" in the title. Here we are discussing a choice of adjective between undisputably neutral "second" and non-neutral "al-Aqsa". ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
It is called the Al-Aqsa Intifada, although the hostilities are broken down by NPOV names such as "suicide bombings" and so forth. Also you say that it is "undisputably neutral", which I dispute, it isn't neutral rather the term "Second Intifada" is an attempt to decontextualize the Palestinian intifada away from context that some Israelis dispute. Your claims that it is "undisputably neutral" is not true, but rather a convenient construction that you are attempting to use in order to force your preferred interpretation onto Palestinian history while circumventing rational analysis of the facts at hand and existing precedents. --Abnn 23:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I should say that I don't have a problem with the use of the term "second intifada" as a referent for the "Al-Aqsa Intifada", it is a handy term when talking about the first and second intifada and their distinctions. Maybe if you aren't that familiar with the Palestinian perspective and experience you will use informal terms to refer to the Al-Aqsa Intifada, sort of how some people say that George W Bush is the "43 President" or "Bush Junior" or diminutive or re-contextualized terms, but the proper Wikipedia article on the Al-Aqsa Intifada should use the proper name of that intifada. --Abnn 00:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, when you lack an actual argument, and simply want your pov to be given primacy, I guess attacking the motives of other editors is as good as it gets. <<-armon->> 00:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I removed one erroneous sentence from my above statement, but other than that I think the argument is quite sound. We should be using the real name of the intifada. The name you want to use is a mix of English and Arabic, which clearly demonstrates that it is derivative referent mainly for the English press, while the original is the all Arabic "Al-Aqsa Intifada." --Abnn 00:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
By your logic, we need to rename the article First Intifada into "War of the stones". You do not dispute that "second" is neutral, what you dispute is that it is too neutral, not expressing enough "Palestinian perspective". Changing comments after they've been responded to is a bad practice because it makes your opponent's comments look out of context. Please restore the text. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I only get 48 hits for "War of the stones" in Google thus I don't think it is at all comparable to the current situation. It was a Palestinian intifada and we should use the proper Palestinian name for it as per the events subsection of WP:TITLE (which you referred me to earlier.) It's that simple really. (Also, you can quote or diff my removed and erroneous comment if you would like to focus on it.) --Abnn 01:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, but it was "the real name of the intifada. The name you want to use is a mix of English and Arabic, which clearly demonstrates that it is derivative referent mainly for the English press". ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This line of argument is a complete non-starter. First, this is English, not Arabic, WP, secondly, the English language is probably best described as a creole -we borrow words from all sorts of languages and (fortunately) we have nothing like the Académie française to "fix it". The mixing of Arabic and English in this case, was never a problem according to RSs. In fact, "intifada" appears in English dictionaries. It's now English, ex Arabic. <<-armon->> 05:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I have outlined formally my argument in the views section and I think it is very strong. It was a distinctly Palestinian uprising and they called it Al-Aqsa Intifada (link goes to official PNA website) and we should use its real name when referring to it. The phrase "second intifada" is accurate and popular but it is a simplification of its real name like how some people refer to George W Bush as "43", even though it isn't his real name. We should use the real name of the event per WP:TITLE's section on events even if to some it has POV connotations. As I said above many Palestinian names have POV connotations because of how they view their situation, for example the Palestine Liberation Organization strongly implies that Palestine is in need of liberation from... well... something. --Abnn 05:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Apples and oranges. Organizations can name themselves whatever they like, historical events, on the other hand, are "named" by reliable sources (like historians) not participants. In this case, we have 2 names which are used more or less equally, but we (WP) have an additional core policy, that of NPOV. We are not to take sides if there is neutral alternative -and there is. Therefore the choice is simple, "Second Intifada". <<-armon->> 06:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The Palestinians uprising has a proper name, Al-Aqsa Intifada, as the wide usage of the name and the official publications of the Palestinian National Authority makes clear. You claim that we must rely on reliable sources, and I agree. The name Al-Aqsa is in wide usage by scholars and newspapers of record (even if you don't accept the PNA and the Israeli government websites as an RS). You claim that it violates NPOV, but in response to this I say tough bananas, the event naming conventions subsection of WP:TITLE makes clear that "If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view." --Abnn 06:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

OK well firstly, you haven't establised that "Al-Aqsa Intifada" is the "particular common name for the event", because you can't, the evidence doesn't support this. Secondly, you must have missed the guideline at Wikipedia:Naming_conflict which states:
====Descriptive names====
Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications.
For instance, what do we call the controversy over Qur'an handling at Guantanamo Bay? The article is located at Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005. Note that the title makes no statement about who is the (more) guilty party: it does not "give away" that conclusion; in fact the article itself draws no conclusion. Similarly, the article on the September 11, 2001 attacks does not assign responsibility for the attacks in the article name. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid for further advice on potentially controversial terminology. <<-armon->> 06:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if uninvolved parties are welcome to comment here, and if not the mediator may remove this. I have two comments and two brief points. First, I think Abnn's argument that preference should be given to the Palestinian name for their own uprising has self-evident merit, per Yom Kippur War, Operation Grapes of Wrath, etc. Secondly, I'm not convinced there is much of a POV-debate about the naming here, except on Wikipedia. Some say the Temple Mount episode "triggered" the intifada, some say it was a mere pretext for a planned wave of Palestinian violence, and many avoid the question poetically by saying that it was "the match that lit the powder keg" (the metaphor of choice in the Western press). I do not follow Humus Sapiens' reasoning that the name "Al-Aqsa intifada" prejudices this question; the events are linked iconically, regardless of the question of causality. No one thinks the casus belli of the Yom Kippur War was the Jewish holiday itself. At any rate, I really don't think there's any evidence that the two different names track POV in the way that has been suggested on this page. There is a strong pro-Palestinian narrative that deemphasizes the importance of the Sharon visit and its aftermath (by arguing that the real causes lie in the betrayal of Oslo, the failure of Camp David 2000 due to American-Israeli negotiating, the continued occupation, etc.), just as there is a strong pro-Israel narrative that emphasizes it (the intifada began with Palestinians hurling rocks down upon Jewish worshippers, etc.). I myself use the term "second intifada," and I suppose it reflects my view of the inevitability of these uprisings as long as the occupation continues – that there will be a third, a fourth, etc. In fact when I first caught wind of this discussion, I was looking for the usual POV-polarization and was consequently puzzled until I read Abnn's sensible posts. I'm reasonably well-versed in this conflict and one hears both terms, often from the same source (as borne out by the various search data provided above). If the question is not hotly debated outside of Wikipedia, and both terms have roughly comparable currency, and don't track POV in any regular, recognized or predictable way, then Abnn's reasoned preference carries even greater weight, per Wikipedia precedent as he's presented it. Now to the brief observations, of which the involved parties can make what they will:

  1. Not to send everybody back to Google, but "intifada" is sometimes spelled "intifadah" in English.
  2. The Beirut Daily Star gives ~25,000 hits for "Al-Aqsa intifada" and ~15,000 hits for "second intifada." The Daily Star circulates with the International Herald Tribune in many countries (and carries the IHT on its masthead – not sure if the New York Times Co. has an ownership stake), and is probably the most internationally prestigious English-language print daily from the Arab world. It is certainly the most cited in the Western press. Its daily digest of regional newspapers includes the Hebrew press, and its op-ed page regularly features op-eds from America, Britain, France, and Israel. In turn many of its journalists, columnists, and editors (notably Nicholas Blandford, Rami Khouri, and Michael Young) are regularly featured in the British and American press, especially the New York Times. It is not state-owned, and unlike Al-Jazeera has never to my knowledge been seen by the Western press as sensational or biased (in the Arab world however, it is often seen as unduly influenced by American neoliberalism/neoconservatism and the Lebanese elite). It seems degrading to be listing the Daily Star's virtues as a function of its embrace by Western audiences, but since potential bias is the question here this seems inescapably relevant.--G-Dett 19:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all the useful sourced info and perspectives. Besides illuminating this naming discussion much of it could be added to the article. --Timeshifter 03:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll defer to the mediator to decide whether the previous rhetoric belongs here or not. Again, I am ignoring the bait. Back the subject: "the question of causality" that pops up with "Al-Aqsa" in the title, simply does not arise with neutral and widely used word "second". ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't bait. I don't think the word "Al-Aqsa" implies causality, and I don't think it tracks POV in the way you've suggested. Many sources use them interchangeably. Here for example is an obviously pro-Palestinian account that uses both but clearly favors "second intifada," and clearly doesn't place much causal emphasis on the Sharon visit.[9] And then there's this from Tel Aviv University's Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies, also uses both but favors "Al-Aqsa intifada." [10] Then there's this from Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum, which is about as pro-Israel as you can get; it uses "Al-Aqsa intifada" exclusively.[11] I haven't hunted down or cherry-picked these; they're from the first page of Google results I got from typing in both terms. I just think the POV- and causality-related theories are mistaken.--G-Dett 23:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Source addressing the issue: While the Palestinians have officially labeled their three-year campaign of terror against Israel the “Al-Aqsa Intifada,” after the Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount, where the violence first began, this is not a term that Israelis could accept without accepting the Palestinian version of events as well. Philologos, The Thousand Days’ War, The Forward, July 11, 2003. <<-armon->> 00:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
That's very interesting and relevant; I just wonder whether it's a widely held view of the POV-significance of the names. On the face of it, your essay seems rather idiosyncratic. Here's the section that follows what you've quoted, which muses over possible alternative names: "And yet — perhaps because Israelis, unlike Palestinians, do not have a single version of these events — they have not come up with a term of their own. Many became accustomed to speaking of “the intifada,” or “the second intifada,” to distinguish it from the violence of 1987-1993; many others used Hebrew locutions like ha-matsav, “the situation,” or even ha-balagan, “the mess.” Yet one can hardly conceive of future historians writing about the Palestinian terror of 2000-2003, and the Israeli response to it, as “The Situation” or “The Mess.” “The Thousand Days’ War” seems more serviceable." Hmmmm. Should this article be called "The Thousand Days' War"?
By contrast, here's a story from Ynet News, very pro-Israel, tracing the intifada to Al-Aqsa-related incitement and naming it accordingly: "The incitement continued right through into the 1990s, when in 1997, Yasser Arafat declared: "I am ringing the bell of danger to warn against the Jewish plan to build the Temple of Solomon in the place where today stands Al Aqsa Mosque, after removing the mosque. Similar incitement flooded the airwaves of the Palestinian Authority following Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount in September 2000, launching what has now become known as the al-Aqsa Intifada."[12] --G-Dett 00:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
"...what has now become known as" is clearly equivocation and you are depending on inferences. Neither this, or the other cites you gave, actually address the issue. No, it shouldn't be called “The Thousand Days’ War”, the name didn't "take", and it's gone past 1000 days. <<-armon->> 00:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Articles that "address the issue," i.e., where the author shares an opinion about which term he or she prefers and why, are interesting and all but can be merely idiosyncratic, as in the case of the one you provided.--G-Dett 03:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Which is why I don't support the “The Thousand Days’ War” (this was the opinion) -on the other hand, there's no reason to believe that the tension reported about the name isn't real -(i.e. a fact), and it's from a RS. In any case, reliable sources which address the issue are always better than inferences and OR. <<-armon->> 12:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
It's an old op-ed which doesn't "report" anything, but rather expresses the idiosyncratic view of its author. If you want to show that "Al-Aqsa intifada" presents POV-problems in the wide world outside of this talk page, you'll need more evidence than this, especially when every indication is that the terms are used interchangeably by most sources, and don't track POV in any predictable way. Similarly, your claim that "Al-Aqsa intifada" implies a casus belli has been asserted but not supported, and to my mind it defies common sense, because both sides agree that the Sharon visit merely occasioned an intifada whose causes lay elsewhere – that elsewhere being the subject of dispute (entrenched occupation vs. Palestinian rejectionism). In the meantime, arguments have been put forth for the retention of the current title, which you've failed to acknowledge or address. Tiamut is quite right that if you move to close mediation, the title stays.--G-Dett 15:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I now see why Humus didn't want to engage with you. You're taking up too much space here with this sort of rhetorical flailing around. If you want to establish that an RS is an "idiosyncratic view", you need to provide evidence from RSs which address the issue -not proof by assertion. You need to specify precisely what arguments haven't been addressed -because I must have missed them. OTOH, you need explain why our encyclopedia, which has NPOV as core policy, would use a title more POV than the other encyclopedias. Or a different title from theirs, period -see WP:REDFLAG. Finally, absent the ability to address these issues, "Al-Aqsa" doesn't "win by default" -at this point, it clearly has an uphill battle. <<-armon->> 00:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I won't take the ad hominem bait. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, you're fallaciously applying WP:RS and WP:NOR to talk page debate about the appropriateness of titles. Original research in a discussion like this is not only permissible but necessary (hence all the Google Scholar search results). Asking why I propose to use a title "more POV than the other encyclopedia" begs the question; the very thing we're debating is if the title issue introduces POV at all. The evidence we've seen doesn't support this idea. While opinions expressed in reliable sources can obviously be quoted/cited in mainspace, per WP:RS, the notion that a titling debate is settled by a position argued in an op-ed is wrong. The notion that a Wikipedia titling debate is settled by Britannica – though not as off the wall a notion as the last – is also wrong. The argument that remains to be addressed is Abnn's. Why would we not use the Palestinian term for a Palestinian event, per Wikipedia precedent (Yom Kippur War, Operation Grapes of Wrath, etc.)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by G-Dett (talk • contribs) 19:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Good point about the alternate spelling of "intifadah" though. Of course it did send me back to google to check "second intifadah".
First hit, Encyclopædia Britannica Online's article: Israel: The second intifadah.
Updated Google results using "intifadah":
about 11,600 for "second intifadah"
about 564 for "Al Aqsa intifadah"
Given that Encyclopædia Britannica calls it "second", and also Encarta's Intifada article -I think the matter's closed. <<-armon->> 01:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually both call it both, interchangeably, reinforcing my sense that the supposed POV-related and causality issues are a red herring. Here's how Encarta's article begins: "In the summer of 2000 a U.S.-sponsored Israeli-Palestinian summit at Camp David, Maryland, failed to produce a comprehensive peace agreement. The failure helped spark the outbreak of a second intifada, in September 2000. This intifada is known as the Al Aqsa intifada, after the holy Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem." It should be fine to keep our title as it is, though maybe we should change the lead. I don't agree with the premise that when in doubt we should follow Britannica and Encarta's lead, but in this case Encarta's lead is more informative as well as more WP:NPOV. --G-Dett 03:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
We'd better note the alternate spelling of "intifadah" in the appropriate articles and update the redirects though. <<-armon->> 01:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Good idea.--G-Dett 11:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, ignore the red flags and argue about Encarta's being more WP:NPOV than Encyclopædia Britannica all you like -but it's just your opinion and it's completely beside the point. The salient point is what other encyclopedias title it. Now, EB, the "gold standard", titles it "second intifadah" and Encarta's section on that intifada is titled "Second Intifada". Digging into the text to support a title Encarta didn't title it isn't going to work. I honestly can't see how there's a valid argument against "Second" left. I move we rename the article and close this mediation as settled. <<-armon->> 11:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I fully disagree. Further, I don't see how you can even claim that there has been a mediation here. All we have done is continue the argument we had on the article's talk page. With respect, the mediator has done practically nothing at all in the way of mediation. Per Wiki policy, if a change does not enjoy consensus, it does not happen. If you want to close the mediation, that's fine with me. But you cannot move the page because there is no consensus for such a move. Tiamut 12:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
When it's a either/or type choice, we have to settle it somehow. The evidence for "Al Aqsa" just isn't there, and subsequently the arguments for "Al Aqsa" are weak. What are we supposed to do then? Consensus doesn't mean unanimity. <<-armon->> 12:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not "either/or". That is the whole problem in the Middle East in my opinion. Almost everybody inside and outside the region trying to "win" in "either/or" non-discussions. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Global perspective for some alternatives. What real discussion is actually occurring here on this talk page or in the Middle East? I know this is not a political forum, but this wikipedia discussion mirrors the impasse in the larger discussions. People should be NEGOTIATING with people they disagree with, and not just talking to people they agree with on their project pages or in the non-cyber world. Is not "Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada)" an IMPROVEMENT???? Can we not agree to change the name to that first? Then move on to further discussion? --Timeshifter 22:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Article names: "A Wikipedia article must have one definitive name. This is required by the MediaWiki software on which Wikipedia runs. However, multiple synonyms can be used for a term". Per Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Descriptive names: "Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications." Your proposal violates both. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Your are incorrect. My suggested title "Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada)" is a definitive name. Wikipedia only chooses a name when none exist. POV implications do not matter when a name exists. Wikipedia uses the most common name regardless of POV implications. As pointed out many times already, rule #1 for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) states, "If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view". --Timeshifter 19:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
And "Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada)" is actually a MORE definitive name. --Timeshifter 19:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You aren't quoting from the appropriate page. With regards to the names of historical events, which this is, the policy reads: "If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view." There is no doubt that it is named the Al-Aqsa Intifada. --Abnn 00:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The scholarly sources prove you wrong. There is no "particular common name for the event". I made a compromise on using "intifada(h)" as a noun. We already talked about this, let's move on. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with you, there is a common name for the al-Aqsa Intifada and it is backed up with extensive usage through out all major media sources and via scholarly publications. You are free to dismiss my findings and logic as irrelavant to yourself but I think my concerns are valid. --Abnn 01:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Your problem is not with me, but with facts. Above, you showed that 1,300 links support your opinion, but failed to acknowledge that 1,850 links disprove it. So much for "findings and logic". ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Evidence has been provided to support the name as Al-Aqsa, contrary to your opinion on the matter. And in the case of continuing disagreement over what to do by a number of editors, the default name (as in the name currently in place) is what stays in place. You have to build consensus for the changes you wish to introduce. It's a long and tedious process sometimes (believe me, I know), but that's the way it works here. Tiamut 12:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Your (or my) opinion is not evidence -we need to be clear on that. Other encyclopedias title it "Second", what evidence do you have to refute that? If they'd titled it "Al-Aqsa" how sympathetic would you be to the opinions that it be called "Second"? Here is your problem. <<-armon->> 15:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay guys, I apologize for the extreme delay. I've been reading everything so far, but have been unable to post for personal reasons. I'll go through the list and respond: Humus, anyone can join in. Tiamut, again, sorry that I haven't been here. I'll be more active now. GofG ||| Talk 18:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What we have here is a Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Proper_nouns. In that section it lists three criterion, and says "To determine the balance of these criteria, editors may find it useful to construct a table like the following:"

Criterion Option:Al-Aqsa Intifada Option: Second Intifada
1. Most commonly used name in English 0 1
2. Current undisputed official name of entity 1 0
3. Current self-identifying name of entity 1 0
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.

Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Proper_nouns then goes on to say that "The option that has the highest overall score should be used as the article name. In case of equal scores, criterion 1 takes precedence, except for conflicting scientific names, in which case the (most) undisputed (of the) "official" name(s) is best used (see above)." From the above table it appears to me that Al-Aqsa Intifada has 2 points while Second Intifada has one. --Abnn 01:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the most commonly used name in English varies depending on the specifics of the search done with various search tools. Such as searching all web pages, versus searching Google Scholar, versus title searches, etc..--Timeshifter 19:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
We are not discussing proper noun here, so this does not apply. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You are incorrect again, Humus. See: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_noun
"A proper noun is a noun that has the first letter capitalised. Names of places and people are proper nouns."--Timeshifter 19:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Another thing, on the same page, there is this very relevant example:
"Suppose that the people of the fictional country of Maputa oppose the use of the term "Cabindan" as a self-identification by another ethnic group. The Cabindans use the term in a descriptive sense: that is what they call themselves. The Maputans oppose this usage because they believe that the Cabindans have no moral or historical right to use the term. They take a prescriptive approach, arguing that this usage should not be allowed.
Wikipedia should not attempt to say which side is right or wrong. However, the fact that the Cabindans call themselves Cabindans is objectively true – both sides can agree that this does in fact happen. By contrast, the claim that the Cabindans have no moral right to that name is purely subjective. It is not a question that Wikipedia can, or should, decide.
In this instance, therefore, using the term "Cabindans" does not conflict with the NPOV policy. It would be a purely objective description of what the Cabindans call themselves. On the other hand, not using the term because of Maputan objections would not conform with a NPOV, as it would defer to the subjective Maputan POV."
I believe this above example is completely applicable to the case at hand. We have the self-identification of the Palestinians's uprising as Al-Aqsa Intifada, and we have others objecting to the Palestinians' chosen name because they don't like what it implies. --Abnn 01:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought we already agreed (at least you failed to respond) that calling this complex conflict/war a "Palestinian event" is a POV unsupported by both WP policies and practice. I don't see how "Dealing with self-identifying terms" would apply here. ←Humus sapiens ну? 02:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I think it is very much a Palestinian event and have said so repeatedly without exception. --Abnn 21:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Humus, you're saying this isn't a Palestinian uprising?--G-Dett 14:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Sanguinalis wrote elsewhere in reference to a Palestinian National Authority site:
"Found this on the October 9, 2000 update: 'In an unprecedented fascist action since the beginning of Alaqsa popular uprising (Intifada), a number of Jewish settlers attacked the house of Esam Jouda from Om Alsafa village, Ramalla, where they brutally murdered Esam Jouda, smashed his skull and burned his body in front of his wife and crying little children.' So you are right, the Palestinians invented the name."
Emphasis added. See this diff.
Here is the link to the October 9, 2000 article:
http://www.pnic.gov.ps/arabic/quds/eng/news/2000/2000_10/e_update_09.html --Timeshifter 19:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] May 28

Thanks for confirming again that "al-Aqsa" naming is a PLO propaganda. As Armon properly noted above, "historical events, on the other hand, are "named" by reliable sources (like historians) not participants." Given that we are discussing a choice between the POV title "Al-Aqsa Intifada" and NPOV title "Second Intifada", both widely used, there is no reason for WP to deviate from our core policy, WP:NPOV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

To Abnn, judgeing from that chart you posted, you seem to have conceded that "Second" is the most common English name, but that the PA has named it "Alaqsa". If that's the case, I don't understand your logic, because you seem to be arguing for a name which isn't the most common, but does have a POV in the sense that one side named it so. I don't see how "Alaqsa" therefore meets policy at all, the only valid argument for a POV name over a NPOV one, is if it's indisputably the most common English name. <<-armon->> 13:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the chart scoring the way I see it:
Criterion Option:Al-Aqsa Intifada Option: Second Intifada
1. Most commonly used name in English 0 0
2. Current undisputed official name of entity 1 0
3. Current self-identifying name of entity 1 0
1 point = yes, 0 points = no. Add totals to get final scores.

I need to read more on the guideline page where this chart came from. --Timeshifter 14:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Abnn's logic is simply the logic of Wikipedia:Naming conflict. Perhaps Timeshifter's point totals are more accurate. But if Armon finds the logic itself faulty, it would make more sense for him to take it up with the editors of that page.
In the meantime, no serious effort has been made on this page to it has not been convincingly demonstrated on this page that the current title presents POV issues. Armon has found a veryThe dated, odd, and idiosyncratic op-ed in the Forward, which he mistakenly believes brought by Armon does not settles the issue. HumusSapiens on the other hand has not bothered to adduced any evidence at all for the claim., beyond his own powerful convictions endlessly reiterated.--G-Dett 14:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see a chart as presented by a "Second Intifada" case, or maybe a response as to why the chart might not be as important. Also, G-Dett, stay cool, please. GofG ||| Talk 14:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
My apologies, GofG (and Armon and Humus). I have struck out phrases and rewritten the statement above. It was unacceptably heated in tone, but I stand by the essential content. --G-Dett 15:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
OK but I haven't seen a response to the fact that two other encyclopedias title it "Second Intifada". I'm guessing Abnn gave "Second" the tick because of that fact. <<-armon->> 00:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps that's why Abnn gave it the tick; he can say. To me it seems neither here nor there. Wikipedia has no policy (so far as I know) of following Britannica's lead when in doubt, and I think that's a good thing.--G-Dett 15:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My response to the chart:

  1. I agree that they are used equally, and so neither is more common than the other.
  2. I don't see how it could have an undisputed official name. At best it has an official Palestinian name, but I don't see why one side has any monopoly on naming.
  3. Its a historic phenomena, not a people, organisation, or other self-identifying entity.

TewfikTalk 16:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

So how would you have the chart read then? GofG ||| Talk 16:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The evidence presented above shows that there is no single "Current undisputed official name of entity". We are dealing with the title for a complex - at least 2 sided - conflict, so "Current self-identifying name of entity" does not apply. The applicable guideline is Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Descriptive names: "Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications." The title First Intifada works fine, and so far no serious objection was presented to a NPOV title Second Intifada. Not conveying enough POV is not a serious objection. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


This is how I see a chart of the options:

Criterion Option: Al-Aqsa Intifada Option: Second Intifada
1. Most commonly used title in other encyclopedias. 0 1
2. Official name of conflict by one side of the conflict 1 0
3. Most NPOV -due in part to #2 0 1
4. Most commonly used name in English in general among RSs -admittedly not a big preference, but one nonetheless 0 1

I think the solution is to title the article "Second Intifada" but state that it is also known as the "Al-Aqsa Intifada", and that is regarded as the "official" name by the Palestinians. This should be prominent in the first sentences. <<-armon->> 01:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Abnn's chart and the criteria within it are provided by Wikipedia's naming conventions guideline for disputes like this. Armon's chart and the criteria within it have been created ad hoc for this occasion, drawing a ring around the dart and calling it a bullseye.--G-Dett 14:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree. I believe that similar to my comments above, Armon was recognising that two of the three criteria don't apply, and that the issue is rather deciding between two equally notable names based on the criterion of neutrality. In that sense, GofG, I would generally agree with the idea behind armon's chart. TewfikTalk 19:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] May 31

A number of issues seem pertinent:

  1. The main objection to the Al-Aqsa Intifada title is that there are POV connotations. But as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) states, and I have quoted from before, "If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view." Thus it puzzles me why a number of editors continue to harp on this point.
  2. Armon's claim that Encarta's article on Intifada supports using the term "Second Intifada" is very misleading and is based on a superficial reading of the article's contents. First off, the article is entitled "Intifada" and it merely contains two sections entitled respectively "First Intifada" and "Second Intifada." Encarta makes clear in the text that the section headers were chosen as contextual/distinguishing referents as the second sentence from the section entitled "Second Intifada" makes clear:
    "This intifada is known as the Al Aqsa intifada, after the holy Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. Like the first intifada, the Al Aqsa intifada was characterized by Palestinian attacks on Israelis followed by strong Israeli military responses." (from Encarta's "Intifada" article)
  3. Armon is right that the general Israeli-Palestinian conflict is two-sided but he is wrong to suggest that neither side owns the intifadas. The Intifadas are Palestinian, and there is no doubt about that. Here is how Encarta describes them in the lead of its "Intifada" article:
    "Intifada (Arabic for 'throwing off,' as a dog throws off fleas), uprising by Palestinians against Israeli rule in the West Bank and Gaza Strip territories. Palestinian discontent has resulted in two separate uprisings since 1987. Both were attempts to liberate portions of Palestine from Israeli control through a combination of force and negotiations. These uprisings have involved a series of demonstrations, strikes, riots, and violence against Israelis, their settlements, and their institutions."
It is very incorrect to think that the Israeli military actions are part of the intifada itself, rather they are considered to be responses to the intifada and Palestinian actions in general (read my first quote of Encarta above to see how that article makes this distinct clear.) These Israeli responses have their own distinct names, such as Operation Defensive Shield, a military action that occurred in response to the Al-Aqsa Intifada. --Abnn 01:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Besides the Encarta reference above, Britannica Concise Encyclopedia's article on "Intifada" also makes it clear that the late 2000 uprising had the name "Aqsa Intifadah":

"A breakdown in further negotiations in late 2000 led to another outburst of violence, which quickly became known as the Aqsa intifadah, named for the Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, where the fighting began."[13]

--Abnn 05:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Q: Is the term "Al-Aqsa Intifada" consistently misused on Wikipedia?

Looking at some of the existing articles, I now notice that in Wikipedia, many pages are using the term Al-Aqsa Intifada as if it was the name of a two-sided battle. For example, the Israeli military operation Operation Defensive Shield is described on the campaign info box as being "Part of the Al-Aqsa Intifada." This observation explains to me now why Armon above was arguing that from his perspective the Al-Aqsa Intifada was a two-sided affair. But it wasn't.

It is the terminology in the article "Operation Defensive Shield" that is incorrect, Israeli military operations are very much NOT part of the Palestinian uprising known as the Al-Aqsa Intifada, but rather are "responses" to it (nb: I am using the term "responses" in a loose sense.)

It may be that some of the users commenting in this mediation have become confused by the current misuse of terminology on Wikipedia and thus are trying in vain to address an issue (the NPOVing of the name "Al-Aqsa Intifada") that isn't actually the cause of the problem, instead of trying to rename the Palestinian intifada and claim that it was two-sided, we should make it clear that Israeli military actions are not at all "part of" the intifada but are "responses" to it. I am not sure on the exact terminology we should be using, but I think that I am on to something here in that our current terminology usages leave a lot to be desired and this fundamental confusion is likely the reason this mediation isn't making much progress. --Abnn 02:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, even if we were to rename "Al-Aqsa Intifada" to "Second Intifada", it still wouldn't be proper to think of the intifada as two-sided. Operation Defensive Shield will never be "part of" the most recent Palestinian intifada no matter what name we use for it. It is this fundamental confusion, which results largely from Wikipedia's current incorrect usage of the term "Al-Aqsa Intifada", that we must address not the term itself. --Abnn 02:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I admit that I was very excited upon receiving your message, and I understand why you thought this might be a breakthrough, but ultimately, I don't think it changes very much. Point by point response:
  1. The reason people keep harping on this is that we believe that we've established equal notability based on encyclopaedic sources such as scholarly works, literature, and news-media. It is only because they are used equally that POV then becomes a factor; that is that all things being equal, we should use the neutral of two choices.
  2. You may well be right about the encyclopaedias, but it doesn't change very much in light of the general parity I mentioned above.
  3. The Israeli involvement in the intifada need not be military operations in response, but the integral role they played as the targets of its violence. Those shot at and blown up are at least equal partners with the militants and suicide bombers who attacked them.
So, at least in my eyes, I think we're still back to the basics. TewfikTalk 03:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Your third point is interesting. In the phrase "Israeli involvement in the intifada need not be military operations in response" you used the term "involvement", but are you sure you are using that term correctly? Here is the dictionary definition:
Involvement: 1. The act or fact of participating: participation, sharing. [14]
Your use of the word "involvement" immediately makes me think of the role played by some Israeli Arabs in the Al-Aqsa Intifada. I would suggest that the word you want to use is affected:
Affected: 1. Acted upon, influenced, or changed. [15]
It is undeniable that many Israelis were significantly affected by the Palestinian uprising. But being affected (acted upon, influenced, or changed) by the uprising and/or responding to the uprising, is not the same thing as being "part of" the uprising itself. There was a larger two-sided battle here, but the Al-Aqsa Intifada was only one side, the Palestinian side. --Abnn 05:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Abnn: if there was a common name for the conflict in question, it would be easy to prove and there would not be "harping" for weeks. Moreover, people would not propose combination titles like Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada). The name may be common for the PLO/PNA/Hamas, but, as scholarly sources show, is not commonly accepted among reliable sources. Therefore, the applicable guideline is Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Descriptive names.
Regarding what you think is misuse of "Al-Aqsa Intifada": this is a new argument. I sympathize with your position, but find it idiosyncratic. Usually sources do include Israeli responses as a part of the conflict. Please clarify where you are going with this: by your logic, it seems that Israeli responses do not belong in the article. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
It's rather amazing the you, Humus sapiens, would use the commitment of editors to achieving consensus by proposing compromise positions, as evidence of the weakness of their position. Such comments encourage people to entrench in their respective positions, rather than move towards agreement. It's little wonder there is no progress here (and the wider world where these events play out). Tiamut 14:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Can we please limit comments to content rather than contributors? TewfikTalk 05:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ad Hominem attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Don't commit them. GofG ||| Talk 19:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

I'll take it. GofG ||| Talk 14:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Procedural issues

I am not in the position to tell the mediator how to proceed, but perhaps it would be helpful to see that failed arguments do not resurface again and again, otherwise I suspect we will keep going in circles. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ironic, ... truly ironic. :) --Timeshifter 02:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

GofG, please call for help. I don't want to accuse anyone, but I wanted to check personally this scholar google stuff:
Search for "al aqsa intifada" in title: [16]
result: 69
Search for "al aqsa intifadah" in title: [17]
result: 1
Search for "second intifada" in title: [18]
result: 60
Search for "second intifadah" in title: [19]
result: 0
Search for "2nd intifada" in title: [20]
result: 5
Search for "2nd intifadah" in title: [21]
result: 0

Now, just google:
Search for "al aqsa intifada" in title: [22]
result: 28300
Search for "al aqsa intifadah" in title: [23]
result: 24
Search for "second intifada" in title: [24]
result: 486
Search for "second intifadah" in title: [25]
result: 5
Search for "2nd intifada" in title: [26]
result: 17
Search for "2nd intifadah" in title: [27]
result: 0

It seems that scholars slightly prefer "al aqsa intifada" in titles.
It seems that internet community overwhelmingly prefers "al aqsa intifada" in titles.
I believe we can just skip any argument pretending google has been twicked to support palestinian causes.
I also believe that pretending Palestinian propagandists would be so much more efficient than Israeli ones is not worth considering.
Unless you are a declared opponent of an uprising ( meaning you have quite a strong POV :-) ) it is usual to retain the name from the uprising POV when describing it.
We are used to name French resistants and not "terrorist" as the Nazis would do. We call guerrilleros in Chiapas "Zapatistas" and not "Subersives" as does Mexican government. We say "Prague Spring" and not "Prague insurrection",... Delnogal 17:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative notes