I can understand the argument that Timeshifters second version contains too much detail for the lead  But what was wrong with his first version  I dont think the charge of original research holds yes there are contemporary news reports technically primary sources but policy doesnt forbid the use of primary sources it just warns that its easy to use them for original research  In this case they arent used that way  There are plenty of secondary sources that cite those same events as the beginning of the second intifada theres no OR  The problem with Jays 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 th and saying major clashes didnt occur until the th  TSs first version is concise accurate carefully and neutrally phrased with regards to the dispute and free of original research