Talk:Second Intifada/Archive Al-Aqsa and Second Intifada discussions

message: Compiling the votes opinions. Please correct me if I made a mistake. 
:Humus sapiens titled this section "Survey results". His first phrase in the section was "Compiling the votes." There was no vote and no survey. No one was asked to make a definitive vote after substantial discussion. People's views at various times were assessed by Humus sapiens and categorized below. No one was asked to vote if they supported other solutions such as supporting this title: "Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada)". People may have changed their minds later on. People may not have followed the discussion. This section is just an exercise of Humus sapiens. --Timeshifter 21:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be considered deceptive to indicate a poll when none existed. This is just a compilation of yours, Humus. Some people may have since changed their mind after the extended discussion. --Timeshifter 13:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He clearly indicated that it's his compilation, and asked for corrections. Don't be a dick. <<-armon->> 14:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was not clear. He said "Compiling the votes". There were no votes. Please stop the personal attacks and incivility. Please read the wikipedia guidelines on those 2 topics. If it continues, I may report you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Timeshifter 14:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK don't take my advice. <<-armon->> 14:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't pay much attention to insults anymore. The wikipedia guidelines provide a better way to deal with them: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - --Timeshifter 14:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Threating your opponents is not helpful. I don't see anything "deceptive" about honestly compiling results of the above survey/poll/vote/discussion for future reference. Meanwhile, I am changing the section title from ===Poll results=== to ===Survey results=== in good faith. ?Humus sapiens ??? 20:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He called me a dick twice. Why are you allowing him to do that? You should be taking him to the incident board yourself, since you are an admin. What you are doing with your tally could be considered deceptive because there was no vote and no survey questionnaire. So people may have changed their minds since they wrote their previous comments. People change their minds after discussion. --Timeshifter 21:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A proposal to rename was announced and I honestly summarized the results of an informal survey for future reference. I invite anyone to audit/comment/correct the results. Change-of-minds are welcome. So far looks like the proposal has more supporters than objectors. ?Humus sapiens ??? 22:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People may not have returned to the talk page since their initial comments. --Timeshifter 09:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Surveys, votes, straw polls, etc. are routinely done in WP. ?Humus sapiens ??? 19:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is none of those. None of these people were asked to make a final vote of support or object to the move. You wrote at the top of this section "compiling the votes". There was no vote. --Timeshifter 21:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's the right word: Voices? Sentiments? Views? Opinions? As I said, feel free to correct me, but I insist that no deception was intended. ?Humus sapiens ??? 21:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comment at the top of this section. --Timeshifter 21:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: An admin using the word "disruption" to describe relevant comments is another form of intimidation on your part. --Timeshifter 11:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey results

message: From Wikipedia:Naming conventions:
:This page in a nutshell: Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
From Wikipedia:Naming conflict#Identification of common names using external references:
Identification of common names using external references.
A number of methods can be used to identify which of a pair (or more) conflicting names is the most prevalent in English.
* The Google test. Using Google's advanced search option, search for each conflicting name and confine the results to pages written in English; also exclude the word "Wikipedia" (as we want to see what other people are using, not our own usage). Note which is the most commonly used term.
* International organisations. Search for the conflicting names on the websites of organisations such as the United Nations, NATO, OSCE, IMF, etc.
* Major English-language media outlets. Use Google News and, where possible, the archives of major outlets such as BBC News and CNN to identify common usages. Some media organisations have established style guides covering naming issues, which can provide useful guidance (e.g. The Guardian's style guide says use Ukraine, not the Ukraine).
* Reference works. Check other encyclopedias. If there is general agreement on the use of a name (as there often will be), that is usually a good sign of the name being the preferred term in English.
* Geographic name servers. Check geographic name servers such as the NGIA GNS server at http://gnswww.nga.mil/geonames/GNS/index.jsp .
From: Wikipedia:Naming conflict:
:Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is.
---
So there are some wikipedia guidelines. I haven't looked yet at the other methods in the above list. Such as Google News, encyclopedias, UN, BBC, CNN, Guardian style guide, etc.. --Timeshifter 02:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A naming conflict can arise on Wikipedia when contributors have difficulty agreeing on what to call a topic or a geopolitical/ethnic entity. These generally arise out of a misunderstanding of the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.
That is the first sentence in the article, and explains much of the conflict in naming this article. --Timeshifter 14:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Names can sometimes be controversial because of perceived negative political connotations, historical conflicts or territorial disputes. However, Wikipedia does not take sides in a political controversy or determine what is something or someone's true, proper name. What this encyclopedia does, rather, is to describe the controversy. --Timeshifter 14:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some wikipedia guidance

message: Here is a search among a bit more scholarly sources:
* "al-aqsa intifada" : 351 results
* "second intifada" : 652 results
Questions? ?Humus sapiens ??? 21:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also worth looking at those results for "second intifada". The books in question hardly consist of Israeli apologia. <<-armon->> 00:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That is why web search is not considered reliable. This WP article is not a website competing for google hits. Given that both names are widely used, we should choose an NPOV one. ?Humus sapiens ??? 07:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I already responded to that more than once. I don't know why the same discussion gets duplicated over several sections. I guess to confuse the reader. Next time, use more bold font please. ?Humus sapiens ??? 10:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you keep repeating the same argument all over the talk page, then don't be surprised that people respond to your arguments. I try to be creative in my replies, but the wikipedia guideline is simple. So it may sound repetitive to you. --Timeshifter 13:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amazon search 

message: Google Scholar phrase searches. In titles only:
* 68 results. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=allintitle%3A++%22al+Aqsa+intifada%22 al+Aqsa+intifada
* 4 results. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=allintitle%3A++%222nd+intifada%22 2nd+intifada
* 58 results. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=allintitle%3A++%22second+intifada%22 second+intifada
So when Google title searches are done for books or web pages, there are more results for "Al Aqsa Intifada". Far more for web pages. --Timeshifter 06:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been through this. 68 vs. 62 is not a conclusive result. Given that both names are widely used, we should choose an NPOV one. ?Humus sapiens ??? 07:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yawn. The same lame argument repeated does not make it more convincing. ?Humus sapiens ??? 10:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Your lame argument repeated does not override the wikipedia guidelines. --Timeshifter 13:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Scholar 

message: I found these with the Google title search. Humus sapiens says there are a lot of anti-Israel sites in the results from that search. What about these web pages with "al-Aqsa Intifada" in the title of the page:
*http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/aksagraph.html 
*http://christianactionforisrael.org/isreport/novdec00/fromoslo.html 
I could go on...--Timeshifter 16:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Big deal, some websites sometimes use POV terminology. It doesn't follow that we should do the same when there is a choice between POV & NPOV. ?Humus sapiens ??? 20:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Take it there. ?Humus sapiens ??? 19:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop the intimidation. And I give you permission to take it there. It is a good idea. Anybody can feel free to use it. --Timeshifter 20:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Are these anti-Israel sites?

message: Please see:
WP:ANI#Admin Humus sapiens and his personal attacks, insinuations, and defamations. 
Feel free to comment there. --Timeshifter 22:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Intimidating your opponent in content dispute. Nice. ?Humus sapiens ??? 22:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my reply there at the incident board, and higher up in the section titled "Google books". I see by your last statement that you believe the best defense is a good offense. Rather than deal with the substance of my complaint, you just escalate the attack, and claim intimidation. Nice. You are the admin, not me. You have the power to intimidate. --Timeshifter 23:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nonsense, you simply do not understand how WP works: see WP:ADMIN if you are so interested, but this is a  wrong place to discuss that, especially since no admin function was used here. Please try to stick to the argument, not the person making it. ?Humus sapiens ??? 23:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please follow your own advice. "Please try to stick to the argument, not the person making it." Admins should know and practice this. That is why I filed an incident report concerning you, an admin. Admins should be prime examples of sticking to what people say, not their character. Editors have no right to attack the character of other editors. Admins intimidate other editors when they attack their character. Because they are admins. There are many examples of admins abusing their authority, and editors soon learn this. So attacks on character by admins scare away other editors, even if the editor in question is not intimidated. --Timeshifter 09:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Psychological projection. ?Humus sapiens ??? 20:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. I quote you: "Your intimidation attempts are bordering on WP:HARASSMENT"--Timeshifter 20:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Report made to incident board concerning Humus sapiens

message: It can be called anything, it doesn't change what actually happened. Maybe Sharon's visit caused the violence. Maybe it didn't. But what does that have to do with the title? --Kirß????Ti?éØ 23:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you've asked. "Al-Aqsa Intifada" supports POV that Sharon's visit initiated the Palestinian violence. It is a legitimate POV, but given that the "Second Intifada" is a neutral name and is used as widely if not more so, why stick with POV name? ?Humus sapiens ??? 23:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait, how does the name express a POV notion? I don't mean to be silly, but the title is Al-Aqsa Intifada, not Al-Aqsa Intifada (by the way, Sharon's visit started the violence).--Kirß????Ti?éØ 23:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You, Kirby, are correct. One has to ask how is there a POV in the name? There might be POV in how the name is interpreted. So are we now going to decide names by reading the minds of those using the names, and determining what percentage of them have various POVs? If most people interpret the name as just a timing indicator for the start of the conflict, and others interpret the name to mean that Sharon is evil, and others interpret the name to mean that Palestinians evilly exploited the Sharon visit, and others .... and so on. Then do we violate the wikipedia naming policy and not use the most popular names anymore for articles? WP:NPOV is met inside the article itself by presenting all significant POVs from reliable sources. --Timeshifter 12:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'll try to answer by asking: why the name "Al-Aqsa Intifada"? ?Humus sapiens ??? 23:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. I'm not up to date on the discussion. But you said that the title "Al-Aqsa Intifada" is POV; and I want to know how.--Kirß????Ti?éØ 00:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm. Did you read the article? ?Humus sapiens ??? 00:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I did. I understand that there is some dispute (on Wikipedia, at least) as to whether or not Sharon's visit sparked the fighting. But I don't see how "Al-Aqsa intifada" takes a POV.--Kirß????Ti?éØ 00:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, this becomes circular. There is no dispute that the name "Al-Aqsa Intifada" supports the POV that it was Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount that initiated the Palestinian violence. If you think there is such a dispute, please point us to it. Even though Sharon did not enter the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the POV is to present the visit as a "provocation" that justified Palestinian violence that followed. ?Humus sapiens ??? 00:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why is there a dispute over the title of the article, as well as a protection against moves? I could care less about the "provocation" issue.--Kirß????Ti?éØ 00:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By itself, the name "Al-Aqsa Intifada" is neutral. It expresses the starting point of the conflict. As you, Kirby, pointed out. Others imply POV from that name. But the name itself is neutral. Just like the Yom Kippur War expresses the starting point of the war. Others imply POV from that name. --Timeshifter 09:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your POV. ?Humus sapiens ??? 20:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My POV is that there is no POV in the name itself. It is a name of convenience because it is based on the starting point of the conflict. People have all kinds of POVs about the conflict itself. But no POV is expressed by the name itself. --Timeshifter 21:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obviously you must have the last word. See the next section. ?Humus sapiens ??? 00:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wait, how is Al-Aqsa Intifada a POV title? 

message: "Sharm El-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee Report". The George J. Mitchell (et al) report. April 30, 2001.
*http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rpt/3060.htm
GOI stands for "government of Israel."
Quotes begin:
:"From the perspective of the PLO, Israel responded to the disturbances with excessive and illegal use of deadly force against demonstrators; behavior which, in the PLO’s view, reflected Israel’s contempt for the lives and safety of Palestinians. For Palestinians, the widely seen images of Muhammad al-Durrah in Gaza on September 30, shot as he huddled behind his father, reinforced that perception. ... 
:"In their submissions, the parties traded allegations about the motivation and degree of control exercised by the other. However, we were provided with no persuasive evidence that the Sharon visit was anything other than an internal political act; neither were we provided with persuasive evidence that the PA planned the uprising.
:"Accordingly, we have no basis on which to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the PA to initiate a campaign of violence at the first opportunity; or to conclude that there was a deliberate plan by the GOI to respond with lethal force.
:"However, there is also no evidence on which to conclude that the PA made a consistent effort to contain the demonstrations and control the violence once it began; or that the GOI made a consistent effort to use non-lethal means to control demonstrations of unarmed Palestinians. Amid rising anger, fear, and mistrust, each side assumed the worst about the other and acted accordingly.
:"The Sharon visit did not cause the 'Al-Aqsa Intifada.' But it was poorly timed and the provocative effect should have been foreseen; indeed it was foreseen by those who urged that the visit be prohibited. More significant were the events that followed: the decision of the Israeli police on September 29 to use lethal means against the Palestinian demonstrators; and the subsequent failure, as noted above, of either party to exercise restraint."
So the Mitchell Report uses the name Al-Aqsa Intifada, and it does not imply that the Sharon visit caused the conflict. It was merely the trigger for the demonstrations that followed. The real conflict started, as in many conflicts, when excessive, and sometimes deadly force was used. Such as the Bloody Sunday massacre in Ireland, or the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles after police use of hugely-excessive force was allowed to go unpunished by the jury. So, Humus sapiens is wrong in all aspects. --Timeshifter 11:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the conflict started when Arafat realized that he would have to give up being a revolutionary if he actually closed peace for his people. Had nothing to do with Sharon or "excessive force." Are we really to believe that Palestinians, as a people, have such poor impulse control that they'll start a monumentally self-destructive war over a perceived slight? That would be racist, pure and simple. --Leifern 19:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, according to the Mitchell Report, deadly violence began from the Israeli side first. I quote again: "More significant were the events that followed: the decision of the Israeli police on September 29 to use lethal means against the Palestinian demonstrators." See the 2000 Camp David Summit article for the obvious reasons why the Palestinians refused an imposed humiliating settlement. "Barak offered to form a Palestinian State initially on 73% of the West Bank (that is 27% less than the Green Line borders) and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10 to 25 years the West Bank area would expand to 90-91% (94% excluding greater Jerusalem).[2][3][4]" The Palestinians did not acquiesce to yet more of their land being stolen from them. Just like the American Indians in my land did not easily acquiesce to being conquered. But the Palestinians are still standing, and that really bothers the fundamentalist, right wing of Israeli politics. So some of them snapped and used deadly force against rock-throwing demonstraters. On October 8 the BBC reported on the death toll up to that point, "At least 80 people, most of them Palestinians, have been killed during the unrest." [11] --Timeshifter 05:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there anyone who believes that Yom Kippur started the war? Or that the Sunday occurred because it was bloody? You're not making any sense. And Timeshifter, maybe you shouldn't be an editor if you can't differentiate between reality and your own opinion. --Leifern 19:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wimpy personal attacks concern me little. I declare victory yet again for the wikipedia guidelines. See my previous discussion for the answers to all your misinformation. --Timeshifter 05:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have never presented a convincing argument against using a widely used and a neutral title Second Intifada - neutral becuase it does not carry any POV propagandist connotations - so your "declaration of victory" is hollow and childish. WP is not a battleground. ?Humus sapiens ??? 10:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Childish?" Your wimpy personal attacks concern me little. I declare victory yet again for the wikipedia guidelines. See my previous discussion for the answers to all your misinformation.--Timeshifter 12:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mitchell Report quotes

message: Please change the name of this article. To claim that the name is POV is POV. If some people want -or a have a possible propensity- to infer that a certain community is being blamed for something by the presence of particular words in the title of this article then that is unfortunate. However, for anyone to change the name on such a presumption and exclude the reference to Al-Aqsa sounds a little like rewriting history (I'm sure it's not intentional). The idea to have both names included is by far the better idea. I fail to see why this idea hasn't been accepted (at least for the sake of compromise). Saying POV + NPOV = POV = nonsense (sorry for the strong language), explication can illuminate the issue for any concerned reader. Furthermore, as both names are favoured, with 'al-aqsa' winning the popular vote (of title searches), to deny either is insulting the intelligence of wikipedia readers (I'm sure not by design) by denying them the chance to make up their own minds, that's not your job. The remote possibility that the weight Wikipedia gives to a name may influence future reference also obliges the inclusion of both names. I haven't intended to insult or denigrate anybody or their opinions, most of all those I disagree with  Delad 15:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should choose one name (Al-Aqsa Intifada) or the other (Second Intifada).  Putting both names in the title sounds wishy-washy, and would set a bad precedent for Wikipedia.  Article titles should consist of one definitive name, not a comma separated list of alternative names. Of course the other name will be displayed prominently in the introduction no matter which one we choose for the title. Sanguinalis 01:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many wikipedia titles where additional info is added beyond the main name. Just look at all the disambiguation pages for people, etc.. Where additional info such as "(actor)" or "(writer)" or "(politician)" or similar clarifications are added. There are not too many conflict names with 2 similarly-popular names. So this will not be a big deal. --Timeshifter 01:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the word Intifada is ambiguous, we would call the article Second Palestinian Intifada.  But I don't think ambiguity is the key issue here.  What you and Delad are proposing for this article is something quite different from disambiguation titles like So-and-So (actor).  You are proposing to resolve a naming dispute by putting together two titles, each of which, separately, would stand on its own.  Do you know of any other cases in Wikipeida where a naming dispute has been resolved in that way? Sanguinalis 02:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know. But how many examples are there where 2 names have similar popularity? If we want to use both names in the title, we can. There is no wikipedia guideline against it. --Timeshifter 03:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusive name change 

message: Shouldn't  appear at the top of the article since the name is disputed ("Second Intifada" instead of "Al-Aksa Intifada" or "Arafat's War")? -- Michael Safyan 07:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Dispute 

message: Hey guys: of all the details you could have argued about in the article, concerning facts and viewpoints, did you really fill this giant space of the talk page for THE ARTICLE'S TITLE??!!!!
I will not even write more about this. --Fancytales 20:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well as you might have read above, I have no objection to renaming it to Second intifada, but what I object to is that it is part of the same chain of faulty reasoning that attempts to rewrite the history of the origins of the intifada and give equal weight to what some tiny minority of oddballs call it.  This bad reasoning has to be resisted here, or it will creep into every part of the article - although looking at the rest of Arab-Israeli articles I think this may well be inevitable. --Coroebus 20:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Fancytales, I think you are correct that the name isn't that important.  Feel free to contribute.  Many of the key articles on the conflict are constantly being rewriting and thus I do feel that in part, it isn't the best use of my time to make effortful contributions to them, but you are free to.  Francytales, you may find it rewarding to join WikiProject Palestine were there is a concerted effort to improve the content of Palestine-related articles.  It may be more productive to contribute broadly to the project than to one specific contentious article.  Also it is important to keep in mind, it is best to not get exciting about things.  --Abnn 20:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ARE YOU ALL CRAZY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

message: Hi Armon. Please do not move this page to the title you believe is less POV. Mediation on this subject did not generate consensus, therefore your unilateral move is disruptive. If you would like to re-open mediation or discussion, please do so on the talk page. Thank you. Tiamat 15:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Common English name, per WP:MOS. The "mediation" was all about POV-pushing by partisans. I've been WP:BOLD and simply implemented the MOS. Jayjg (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I finally moved it. The objectors had well over a month to address the issue, and to form a good argument why we shouldn't use the less POV title other encyclopedias use. There was nothing, and more editors favoured "Second" anyway. <<-armon->> 16:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Is that what the mediation determined? Or is that just you WP:OR interpretation of the discussion? Where there is no consensus, isn't more appropriate to maintain the default name? Or propose a compromise, as some have done above? Tiamat 16:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The mediation was a farce, with entrenched partisans simply insisting on their own POV. I'm going with WP:MOS. Jayjg (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? As I explained to you on your talk page, where I invited to explain you bold move  (a comment you deleted, as you do usually when I try to leave notices there for you), it is bad form for an administrator to ignore that mediation did not garner consensus and impose their view of what the proper title should be. This encyclopedia belongs to the Wikipedia community and decisions are made based on consensus. If you do not have consensus for this page move, you don't get to move it. Period. Tiamat 16:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't a party to that failed mediation. It's good form for an administrator to take WP:BOLD and obviously correct action in the face of partisan intransigence and violations of the WP:MOS. Jayjg (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The intransigence you're displaying in the face of the RS evidence is why the mediation never had a chance. Please be reasonable and drop it. <<-armon->> 16:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me? I'm not the one moving the page after mediation failed to reach consensus for such a move. The correct way to reopen discussion on this issue would be to post here asking people to revisit the mediation page to revive the discussion or posting a summary here of what common ground, if any, was mapped out in mediation, with a view on how to proceed from there. Coming here and unilaterally changing the title after everything we have gone through is not the way to gain supporters for that move. Neither is accusing them of being responsible for the failure of the mediation by ascribing adjectives like "intransigent" to their behaviour. Tiamat 16:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that if there was no consensus the page should not be moved. So now I cast my vote. This title "Second intifada" is better known and I am for it. And I give you my reasons: In second intifada not only Al-Aqsa took part, but the other parties like Hamas and Hezbollah too. And who started it? Someone named Said I believe who once belonged to Arafat party and later changed sides. Maybe this settles the score for consensus? greg park avenue 16:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the next sections please. You have the timeline wrong. The "al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade" was named after the "Al-Aqsa Intifada". Not the other way around.--Timeshifter 00:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's an academic subject, like who started this fight first, related to kindergarten, and it always remains me of kindergarten when I hear news from Israel. Concerning name of this article, why not make both valid and redirect one to the other? We don't want to create martyrs on Wikipedia, do we? greg park avenue 21:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Where a clear, widely-used English name/word exists for something, we prefer it on English Wikipedia. I think it's just that simple. POV, pro or anti anything, doesn't enter into it (e.g., Deutschland). Also, and I'm afraid it's a bit of a flaw in Wiki procedure, not having consensus doesn't preclude a move here; otherwise, the new "default" of Second Intifada would somehow be sacrosanct, and no one opposed could move it. IronDuke 23:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move - again?

message: - --Timeshifter 03:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to cooperate. Starting with the title of the article