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