I can understand the argument that Timeshifter's second version contains too much detail for the lead.  But what was wrong with his first version?  I don't think the charge of original research holds; yes, there are contemporary news reports, technically primary sources, but policy doesn't forbid the use of primary sources, it just warns that it's easy to use them for original research.  In this case they aren't used that way.  There are plenty of secondary sources that cite those same events as the beginning of the second intifada; there's no OR.

The problem with Jay's version is that even though it acknowledges a dispute about which day the second intifada, it then weighs in on that dispute – thereby violating NPOV – by leaving out the events of the 28th and saying "major clashes" didn't occur until the 29th.

TS's first version is concise, accurate, carefully and neutrally phrased with regards to the dispute, and free of original research.