This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
October 2000 protests in Israel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi again Amoruso. While it is your POV is that all the demonstrations were "violent", others (including myself) disagree. There was a general strike, many non-violent demonstrations, etc., that characterized the vast majority of the protests that took place in those few days in October. To use the word violent, without attribution to a specific source, and to characterize all the protest actions as such, is misleading and POV.
We have been through this before. Describing actions - like throwing Molotovs, or blocking streets or shooting unarmed demonstrators - as they are is sufficient. We do not need to append judgemental descriptives, like "violent". The reader can decide for themselves what is violent and what is not after being exposed to the facts. By all means cite and source the instances that you view as violent, but you don't need to tell the reader that they were. They are smart enough to make those judgements on their own. Tiamut 15:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm attempted to npov the article a bit and remove irrelevant material and false information. Violent terrorism/intifada is not soldiarity protests, sorry. Disturbance in the temple mount doesn't equal intifada in east jerusalem, most are israeli residents/citizens and the real problems didn't happen there, but anyway... I removed some of the OR too. Amoruso 23:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tiamut,
I understand your desire to remove the word 'riot' from the title due to implications that it may have, but the title as it stands doesn't make very much sense (I for one have heard of several variations on the name, none of which was simply "October 2000"). I'm moving it to "October 2000 events (Israel)" in accordance to what is a popular name ( He Wiki, [1], [2], Or Commission, [the Ar entry has very little detail]), though in my searches I've found that '"October 2000 events" Israel' and '"October 2000 riots" Israel' are both of the same order of magnitude, and thus the name change warrants further discussion. On a different point, a lot of the background which you added is disputed, and in any event covered at length in al-Aqsa Intifada, and so it shouldn't really be included here. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 06:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't add the section that deals with cause/timing vis-a-vis Sharon and the Intifada. As I've noted several times, that is a complicated topic that is dealt with at length in the main article, and a short synthesis that favours one point of view based on one source while ignoring the wider discussion (both in the article and the Talk which led to it) is in a sense forking, and I'm sure you don't mean to do that. It seems fair enough to refer to the stated cause (reaction to the violence in Jerusalem) while directing interested readers to Prior events.
If you agree that the original charges you made of me may not be accurate, then I would appreciate if you could say as much for the record, and if not, then I would equally appreciate if you could clarify based on my questions above so that I could have a better understanding of what you think I did wrong. Tewfik Talk 16:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
With respect Tewfik, on the whole, most of your additions were not directly sourced and contained POV language. See the difference between my version and yours here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=October_2000_events_%28Israel%29&diff=109525614&oldid=109521906
Also, while I requested on the talk page to be given some space to develop the article, you just jumped right in. You erased huge chunks of the background section that provide proper context regarding how these events are directly related to al-Aqsa intifada. You also re-inserted the word “violent” or "violence" twice into the intro after I had already removed it. I believe we've had discussions before about just describing events, rather than appending the word "violent".
And the 13th victim who was not an Arab citizen was “shot by police” in my formulation, which was backed by a source (He is a Palestinian from Gaza). You changed it, somehow assuming that I meant this person was the Jewish victim of stone-throwers. Having never heard of that Jewish victim’s death being associated with October 2000 events, I didn’t understand what you were doing. I assumed you had simply erased the death of the Palestinian from Gaza. (You only provided a link later on in the article to another wiki article where I checked the sources there and then properly references them and included them here.) It was this, combined with the insertion of “violent” twice, and the denuding of the article of any context that I took to be POV pushing.
In general, all of you edits, including the most recent ones, attempt to place the responsibility for the events of October on Arab citizens themselves, and downplay the excessive force used by police and the historical and present-day context of occupation and discrimination that gives rise to these protests. 13 Arabs were killed in October, along with one Jew. The state killed the 13 Arabs, and the Arabs killed the one Jew. The violence of the state towards the Arabs was greater than the violence of the Arabs towards the state. Stop blaming the victim. Stop trying to make the excessive force seem justified. There is no justification for killing civilians, even those armed with rocks. The Israelis proved themselves capable of non-violent crowd control measures against rowdy and chaotic crowds during the disengagement. The Jews that threw acid, paint, stones and other debris at the security forces were not shot and killed. No live ammunition was used. Not even rubber bullets. Events have a context. We have a duty to represent it. Tiamut 17:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
On this last topic, of the two PDFs that you added to the beginning of the entry, neither deals with background. In the first case, I believe you misunderstood what the word "tension" was modifying (not that I disagree with the conclusion, but then what does it really add). The second one, "the only protestors to be killed by the police have been Arabs" is very much inappropriate, since aside from coming from a POV source that says it outside of context ('the only protesters to shoot at police' type claims), it also has no direct bearing on the background other than to express general frustration with the Israeli police. Tewfik Talk 18:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tewfik. With all due respect, you are obfuscating the issues. The paragraph you took issue with on the al-Aqsa intifada has not been readded. After adding mention of theintifada itself, I compromised and let the additional explanation go. The other paragraph that you deleted provided context for police relations with Arab citizens. It's fully relevant, the sources are WP:RS and I don't agree with your explanation regarding their irrelevance. I have repeatedly asked you (here and at the Al-Aqsa page) to please retain text whose sources you find questionable and add a fact needed citation so as to allow me to find replacements for contentious sources. You just deleting my work. Note that I do not do the same for what I assumed what unsourced information from. I simply aded fact needed citations. This is a very civilised way of editing that respets the hard work of others that I wish you would adopt. Tiamut 11:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
And you restored the "civil disobedience" to being the result of escalation. I specifically addressed this point in my last edit-summary. The civil-disobedience would have been the beginning, which escalated to rock-throwing, firebombing, and live fire.
Could someone please explain to me why we need to have the Hebrew and English versions of the OR Commision report in the external links section? I deleted the Hebrew and replaced it with the English but someone put the Hebrew Version back. Why?
I wrote the statement above but forgot to sign -- Oneworld25 18:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That would be Tewfik. From what I understand, the Hebrew is the full version of the report, the English is a summary. The full version is not available in English. I would prefer it not be used since there is no way to translate the entire text, which is quite substantive and it is used as a source here but not directly quoted. Tiamut 18:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Jaakobou, this edit doesn't make any sense. Muhammed al-Durrah is already wikilinked in the article and people can read the controversy section in that article without it being highlighted by you in a WP:UNDUE fashion. I also don't understand your edit summary. How does adding videotaping have anything to do with who killed him? Please do not make this edit again. Tiamut 02:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry guys but I don't see how it's at all relevant here. Developments questioning what was portrayed came long after the time of the shooting itself and they are in no way representative of a majority viewpoint. It's totally WP:UNDUE to make mention of this here and it's unrelated to the context in which Durra is discussed here. Tiamut 19:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. You, and now Armon ( talk · contribs) who has inserted the word "alleged" before the killing of Muhammed al-Durrah are ignoring that there is a source provided for this information in article and it states:
But what pulled Palestinians out onto the streets of their villages was televised murder -- relayed again and again on Arab TV -- of 12--year old Mohamed Al-Dorra at the Netzarim junction in Gaza after 45 minutes of continuous Israeli army fire. And what put rocks into their hands was the lethal response of the Israeli police, for whom there has never been a Green Line as far "their" Palestinians are concerned.
You can't change the text to read whatever you want it to. This is sourced information from an article on the causes behind the outbreak of the intifada on both sides of the green line. Stop ignoring WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. This isn't your own private blog. It's an encyclopedia. Keep conspiracy theories about Durrah's death to the page on him. His name is wikilinked in this article and people can read about those inane theories there if they want to. This is not the place for it. Tiamut 23:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) I agree wholeheartedly with Tiamat here. The constant metastasizing of the al-Durrah conspiracy theory across every Wikipedia page about the Intifada has got to stop. It's incredibly petulant to demand that NPOV requires we say he was "allegedly" killed (since some sources dispute the killing) while saying that there was "a crossfire" even though a much heavier weight of reliable sources say that there was no fire from the Palestinian side during the period of al-Durrah's killing. The subsequent conspiracy theories have absolutely no relevance to understanding the October 2000 events, and there's no reason to elaborate on every detail. There are essentially no reliable sources which dispute that a child named Mohamed al-Dura received lethal gunshot wounds while being filmed, which is the point here. Whether the shots came from Israelis or Palestinians is not relevant to understanding why Palestinians were shocked and outraged by the footage. < eleland/ talk edits> 17:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Since the tape shows the shooting of
Muhammed al-Durrah, but not his death, I recommend changing:
Demonstrations from among the Arab communities throughout northern Israel followed, becoming more widespread after television viewers watched the death of 12-year-old Muhammad al-Dura, shot at Netzarim Junction on 30 September in the Gaza Strip.
To:
Demonstrations from among the Arab communities throughout northern Israel followed, becoming more widespread after the shooting of 11-12 year old Muhammad al-Durrah at the Netzarim Junction on September 30 in the Gaza Strip.
Michael Safyan ( talk) 08:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why we should give any credence to the conspiracy theories surrounding Durra's death, but if "shooting" will put an end to the disagreement, I'm willing to accept it for now. Can I suggest we add "televised" before "shooting" or some other set of words since the important information here is how people reacted to the reports of Durra's death? Tiamut 16:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Since no one has objected to the proposed change, thus far, I am going to apply it. ← Michael Safyan ( talk) 03:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Version A: Demonstrations from among the Arab communities throughout northern Israel followed, becoming more widespread after the televised shooting of 11-12 year old Muhammad al-Durrah at the Netzarim Junction on September 30 in the Gaza Strip [1] [2] [3] [4].
Version B: Demonstrations from among the Arab communities throughout northern Israel followed, becoming more widespread after repeated airings of news footage showing the apparent death (attributed to Israeli forces) of 12 year-old Muhammad al-Durrah reported to have been caught during a crossfire between Israeli forces and Palestinian militia. [5] [3] [4]
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) Cite error: The named reference "Carvajal" was defined multiple times with different content (see the
help page).
With respect, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 14:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
article seems to be missing info from this link: [8]. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 11:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
English Wikipedia articles should reference English sources. See WP:RSUE. ← Michael Safyan ( talk) 08:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
This reference seemed broken and I was unable to corroborate the material. Considering the material was not overly a stretch, I've only removed the dead link and added a {{ cn}} tag. [10]
The dead material:
If anyone finds a reliable replacement, that would be good. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 11:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I was the one who added the Lexis-Nexis Link. Though I accessed it through the Lexis-Nexis database the story was from the AP wire. Since Lexis Nexis is only a subscription only service, I don't know how I can provide a "live-link" that can be verified. Let me know how I can help.-- Oneworld25 ( talk) 23:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I've done some checking and this person doesn't appear to be anything more than a left-wing activist, let alone a real and reliable, neutral authority of events.
Therefore, I've removed the following and added {{ cn}} tags where the information seemed reasonable.
Regardless if the information is correct or not, the link to an opinion piece at a self-published politically motivated magazine is not good practice, putting it mildly. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 00:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC) typo's 05:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a totally anti-consensus edit, with shades of BLP, intended to game the system. Efrat was likely a much better source than others we're seeing edit-warred into many other articles. PR talk 21:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The opening paragraph of this article refers to Sharon's "visit to the Elharam Elsharif, the Moslem holy site in Jerusalem." I consider this to be POV, since uninformed readers may not know that Al-Haram ash-Sharif is also known as the Temple Mount, and it is not only a Muslim holy site but is in fact the holiest site in Judaism, being the place where the Jewish Temple is believed to have been located. This is a shocking lack of relevant information. As written, it seems like Ariel Sharon (a Jew) deliberately provoked the Muslim population of Israel by visiting an exclusively Muslim holy site, but the site is in fact holy to both Islam and Judaism, meaning that the riots followed a Jew visiting the holiest Jewish site that happens to also be holy to Muslims. The first paragraph therefore needs some editing. I am therefore editing the first paragraph of the article to reflect the holiness of the Temple Mount to both Jews and Muslims in order to elucidate the actions of Ariel Sharon and the reactions of the Palestinians. 155.41.14.104 ( talk) 22:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The AHRA and the AAD are NGO advocate groups and are not reliable sources to make contentious claims. I aim to remove these sources and the content that they support. Ankh. Morpork 11:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
This source is not notable, and even with attribution, it cannot make contentious third party claims. Ankh. Morpork 12:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Nishidani, I will not go into all of your current changes based on one source only (Dan Rabinowitz). As for your radical change of Lede based on the same source, I return it to its previous version, and then one may add other RS as well. -- Igorp_lj ( talk) 23:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
events of October 2000 included hundreds of incidents spread out over two weeks. They are seared in the collective Israeli memory as a series of conflicts between Arab demonstrators, who in some cases numbered in the thousands, and the police. But there is another aspect to those difficult days that has been erased over the years from the awareness of Israeli Jews: the riots initiated by Jews against mosques, Arab-owned businesses, residences and Arab passersby, in mixed cities and elsewhere. The blurred memory of those incidents is particularly worrisome because of the fact that the Or Commission devoted an entire chapter to those events, describing them in detail
The result of the move request was: Move to October 2000 riots b uidh e 20:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
October 2000 events →
October 2000 riots – There were
many events in October 2000, not only this one. Another option, ALT move:
October 2000 riots in Israel.
94.179.168.56 (
talk) 18:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed the above RfC about the title, the present title is clearly unacceptable; it is a 100% pro-Israeli government name.
I suggest "October 2000 demonstrations", or "October 2000 in Israel/Palestine" Huldra ( talk) 23:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
October 2000 riots →
October 2000 protests in Israel
October 2000 protests – Old title is POV; not what, say, the people of Nazareth would call it,
Huldra (
talk) 23:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
October 2000 protests in Israel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hi again Amoruso. While it is your POV is that all the demonstrations were "violent", others (including myself) disagree. There was a general strike, many non-violent demonstrations, etc., that characterized the vast majority of the protests that took place in those few days in October. To use the word violent, without attribution to a specific source, and to characterize all the protest actions as such, is misleading and POV.
We have been through this before. Describing actions - like throwing Molotovs, or blocking streets or shooting unarmed demonstrators - as they are is sufficient. We do not need to append judgemental descriptives, like "violent". The reader can decide for themselves what is violent and what is not after being exposed to the facts. By all means cite and source the instances that you view as violent, but you don't need to tell the reader that they were. They are smart enough to make those judgements on their own. Tiamut 15:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm attempted to npov the article a bit and remove irrelevant material and false information. Violent terrorism/intifada is not soldiarity protests, sorry. Disturbance in the temple mount doesn't equal intifada in east jerusalem, most are israeli residents/citizens and the real problems didn't happen there, but anyway... I removed some of the OR too. Amoruso 23:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tiamut,
I understand your desire to remove the word 'riot' from the title due to implications that it may have, but the title as it stands doesn't make very much sense (I for one have heard of several variations on the name, none of which was simply "October 2000"). I'm moving it to "October 2000 events (Israel)" in accordance to what is a popular name ( He Wiki, [1], [2], Or Commission, [the Ar entry has very little detail]), though in my searches I've found that '"October 2000 events" Israel' and '"October 2000 riots" Israel' are both of the same order of magnitude, and thus the name change warrants further discussion. On a different point, a lot of the background which you added is disputed, and in any event covered at length in al-Aqsa Intifada, and so it shouldn't really be included here. Cheers, Tewfik Talk 06:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't add the section that deals with cause/timing vis-a-vis Sharon and the Intifada. As I've noted several times, that is a complicated topic that is dealt with at length in the main article, and a short synthesis that favours one point of view based on one source while ignoring the wider discussion (both in the article and the Talk which led to it) is in a sense forking, and I'm sure you don't mean to do that. It seems fair enough to refer to the stated cause (reaction to the violence in Jerusalem) while directing interested readers to Prior events.
If you agree that the original charges you made of me may not be accurate, then I would appreciate if you could say as much for the record, and if not, then I would equally appreciate if you could clarify based on my questions above so that I could have a better understanding of what you think I did wrong. Tewfik Talk 16:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
With respect Tewfik, on the whole, most of your additions were not directly sourced and contained POV language. See the difference between my version and yours here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=October_2000_events_%28Israel%29&diff=109525614&oldid=109521906
Also, while I requested on the talk page to be given some space to develop the article, you just jumped right in. You erased huge chunks of the background section that provide proper context regarding how these events are directly related to al-Aqsa intifada. You also re-inserted the word “violent” or "violence" twice into the intro after I had already removed it. I believe we've had discussions before about just describing events, rather than appending the word "violent".
And the 13th victim who was not an Arab citizen was “shot by police” in my formulation, which was backed by a source (He is a Palestinian from Gaza). You changed it, somehow assuming that I meant this person was the Jewish victim of stone-throwers. Having never heard of that Jewish victim’s death being associated with October 2000 events, I didn’t understand what you were doing. I assumed you had simply erased the death of the Palestinian from Gaza. (You only provided a link later on in the article to another wiki article where I checked the sources there and then properly references them and included them here.) It was this, combined with the insertion of “violent” twice, and the denuding of the article of any context that I took to be POV pushing.
In general, all of you edits, including the most recent ones, attempt to place the responsibility for the events of October on Arab citizens themselves, and downplay the excessive force used by police and the historical and present-day context of occupation and discrimination that gives rise to these protests. 13 Arabs were killed in October, along with one Jew. The state killed the 13 Arabs, and the Arabs killed the one Jew. The violence of the state towards the Arabs was greater than the violence of the Arabs towards the state. Stop blaming the victim. Stop trying to make the excessive force seem justified. There is no justification for killing civilians, even those armed with rocks. The Israelis proved themselves capable of non-violent crowd control measures against rowdy and chaotic crowds during the disengagement. The Jews that threw acid, paint, stones and other debris at the security forces were not shot and killed. No live ammunition was used. Not even rubber bullets. Events have a context. We have a duty to represent it. Tiamut 17:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
On this last topic, of the two PDFs that you added to the beginning of the entry, neither deals with background. In the first case, I believe you misunderstood what the word "tension" was modifying (not that I disagree with the conclusion, but then what does it really add). The second one, "the only protestors to be killed by the police have been Arabs" is very much inappropriate, since aside from coming from a POV source that says it outside of context ('the only protesters to shoot at police' type claims), it also has no direct bearing on the background other than to express general frustration with the Israeli police. Tewfik Talk 18:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tewfik. With all due respect, you are obfuscating the issues. The paragraph you took issue with on the al-Aqsa intifada has not been readded. After adding mention of theintifada itself, I compromised and let the additional explanation go. The other paragraph that you deleted provided context for police relations with Arab citizens. It's fully relevant, the sources are WP:RS and I don't agree with your explanation regarding their irrelevance. I have repeatedly asked you (here and at the Al-Aqsa page) to please retain text whose sources you find questionable and add a fact needed citation so as to allow me to find replacements for contentious sources. You just deleting my work. Note that I do not do the same for what I assumed what unsourced information from. I simply aded fact needed citations. This is a very civilised way of editing that respets the hard work of others that I wish you would adopt. Tiamut 11:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
And you restored the "civil disobedience" to being the result of escalation. I specifically addressed this point in my last edit-summary. The civil-disobedience would have been the beginning, which escalated to rock-throwing, firebombing, and live fire.
Could someone please explain to me why we need to have the Hebrew and English versions of the OR Commision report in the external links section? I deleted the Hebrew and replaced it with the English but someone put the Hebrew Version back. Why?
I wrote the statement above but forgot to sign -- Oneworld25 18:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That would be Tewfik. From what I understand, the Hebrew is the full version of the report, the English is a summary. The full version is not available in English. I would prefer it not be used since there is no way to translate the entire text, which is quite substantive and it is used as a source here but not directly quoted. Tiamut 18:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Jaakobou, this edit doesn't make any sense. Muhammed al-Durrah is already wikilinked in the article and people can read the controversy section in that article without it being highlighted by you in a WP:UNDUE fashion. I also don't understand your edit summary. How does adding videotaping have anything to do with who killed him? Please do not make this edit again. Tiamut 02:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry guys but I don't see how it's at all relevant here. Developments questioning what was portrayed came long after the time of the shooting itself and they are in no way representative of a majority viewpoint. It's totally WP:UNDUE to make mention of this here and it's unrelated to the context in which Durra is discussed here. Tiamut 19:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. You, and now Armon ( talk · contribs) who has inserted the word "alleged" before the killing of Muhammed al-Durrah are ignoring that there is a source provided for this information in article and it states:
But what pulled Palestinians out onto the streets of their villages was televised murder -- relayed again and again on Arab TV -- of 12--year old Mohamed Al-Dorra at the Netzarim junction in Gaza after 45 minutes of continuous Israeli army fire. And what put rocks into their hands was the lethal response of the Israeli police, for whom there has never been a Green Line as far "their" Palestinians are concerned.
You can't change the text to read whatever you want it to. This is sourced information from an article on the causes behind the outbreak of the intifada on both sides of the green line. Stop ignoring WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. This isn't your own private blog. It's an encyclopedia. Keep conspiracy theories about Durrah's death to the page on him. His name is wikilinked in this article and people can read about those inane theories there if they want to. This is not the place for it. Tiamut 23:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) I agree wholeheartedly with Tiamat here. The constant metastasizing of the al-Durrah conspiracy theory across every Wikipedia page about the Intifada has got to stop. It's incredibly petulant to demand that NPOV requires we say he was "allegedly" killed (since some sources dispute the killing) while saying that there was "a crossfire" even though a much heavier weight of reliable sources say that there was no fire from the Palestinian side during the period of al-Durrah's killing. The subsequent conspiracy theories have absolutely no relevance to understanding the October 2000 events, and there's no reason to elaborate on every detail. There are essentially no reliable sources which dispute that a child named Mohamed al-Dura received lethal gunshot wounds while being filmed, which is the point here. Whether the shots came from Israelis or Palestinians is not relevant to understanding why Palestinians were shocked and outraged by the footage. < eleland/ talk edits> 17:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Since the tape shows the shooting of
Muhammed al-Durrah, but not his death, I recommend changing:
Demonstrations from among the Arab communities throughout northern Israel followed, becoming more widespread after television viewers watched the death of 12-year-old Muhammad al-Dura, shot at Netzarim Junction on 30 September in the Gaza Strip.
To:
Demonstrations from among the Arab communities throughout northern Israel followed, becoming more widespread after the shooting of 11-12 year old Muhammad al-Durrah at the Netzarim Junction on September 30 in the Gaza Strip.
Michael Safyan ( talk) 08:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why we should give any credence to the conspiracy theories surrounding Durra's death, but if "shooting" will put an end to the disagreement, I'm willing to accept it for now. Can I suggest we add "televised" before "shooting" or some other set of words since the important information here is how people reacted to the reports of Durra's death? Tiamut 16:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Since no one has objected to the proposed change, thus far, I am going to apply it. ← Michael Safyan ( talk) 03:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Version A: Demonstrations from among the Arab communities throughout northern Israel followed, becoming more widespread after the televised shooting of 11-12 year old Muhammad al-Durrah at the Netzarim Junction on September 30 in the Gaza Strip [1] [2] [3] [4].
Version B: Demonstrations from among the Arab communities throughout northern Israel followed, becoming more widespread after repeated airings of news footage showing the apparent death (attributed to Israeli forces) of 12 year-old Muhammad al-Durrah reported to have been caught during a crossfire between Israeli forces and Palestinian militia. [5] [3] [4]
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) Cite error: The named reference "Carvajal" was defined multiple times with different content (see the
help page).
With respect, Jaakobou Chalk Talk 14:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
article seems to be missing info from this link: [8]. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 11:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
English Wikipedia articles should reference English sources. See WP:RSUE. ← Michael Safyan ( talk) 08:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
This reference seemed broken and I was unable to corroborate the material. Considering the material was not overly a stretch, I've only removed the dead link and added a {{ cn}} tag. [10]
The dead material:
If anyone finds a reliable replacement, that would be good. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 11:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I was the one who added the Lexis-Nexis Link. Though I accessed it through the Lexis-Nexis database the story was from the AP wire. Since Lexis Nexis is only a subscription only service, I don't know how I can provide a "live-link" that can be verified. Let me know how I can help.-- Oneworld25 ( talk) 23:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I've done some checking and this person doesn't appear to be anything more than a left-wing activist, let alone a real and reliable, neutral authority of events.
Therefore, I've removed the following and added {{ cn}} tags where the information seemed reasonable.
Regardless if the information is correct or not, the link to an opinion piece at a self-published politically motivated magazine is not good practice, putting it mildly. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 00:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC) typo's 05:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a totally anti-consensus edit, with shades of BLP, intended to game the system. Efrat was likely a much better source than others we're seeing edit-warred into many other articles. PR talk 21:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The opening paragraph of this article refers to Sharon's "visit to the Elharam Elsharif, the Moslem holy site in Jerusalem." I consider this to be POV, since uninformed readers may not know that Al-Haram ash-Sharif is also known as the Temple Mount, and it is not only a Muslim holy site but is in fact the holiest site in Judaism, being the place where the Jewish Temple is believed to have been located. This is a shocking lack of relevant information. As written, it seems like Ariel Sharon (a Jew) deliberately provoked the Muslim population of Israel by visiting an exclusively Muslim holy site, but the site is in fact holy to both Islam and Judaism, meaning that the riots followed a Jew visiting the holiest Jewish site that happens to also be holy to Muslims. The first paragraph therefore needs some editing. I am therefore editing the first paragraph of the article to reflect the holiness of the Temple Mount to both Jews and Muslims in order to elucidate the actions of Ariel Sharon and the reactions of the Palestinians. 155.41.14.104 ( talk) 22:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
The AHRA and the AAD are NGO advocate groups and are not reliable sources to make contentious claims. I aim to remove these sources and the content that they support. Ankh. Morpork 11:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
This source is not notable, and even with attribution, it cannot make contentious third party claims. Ankh. Morpork 12:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Nishidani, I will not go into all of your current changes based on one source only (Dan Rabinowitz). As for your radical change of Lede based on the same source, I return it to its previous version, and then one may add other RS as well. -- Igorp_lj ( talk) 23:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
events of October 2000 included hundreds of incidents spread out over two weeks. They are seared in the collective Israeli memory as a series of conflicts between Arab demonstrators, who in some cases numbered in the thousands, and the police. But there is another aspect to those difficult days that has been erased over the years from the awareness of Israeli Jews: the riots initiated by Jews against mosques, Arab-owned businesses, residences and Arab passersby, in mixed cities and elsewhere. The blurred memory of those incidents is particularly worrisome because of the fact that the Or Commission devoted an entire chapter to those events, describing them in detail
The result of the move request was: Move to October 2000 riots b uidh e 20:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
October 2000 events →
October 2000 riots – There were
many events in October 2000, not only this one. Another option, ALT move:
October 2000 riots in Israel.
94.179.168.56 (
talk) 18:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed the above RfC about the title, the present title is clearly unacceptable; it is a 100% pro-Israeli government name.
I suggest "October 2000 demonstrations", or "October 2000 in Israel/Palestine" Huldra ( talk) 23:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. —usernamekiran (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
October 2000 riots →
October 2000 protests in Israel
October 2000 protests – Old title is POV; not what, say, the people of Nazareth would call it,
Huldra (
talk) 23:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)