Talk:October 2000 protests in Israel

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, the Hebrew is the full summary. Its not ideal, but as both myself and Tiamut can read that language, and as we can find third-parties to verify translation, I don't see it as a terrible thing. TewfikTalk 22:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you translate the section in question Tewfik? I don't read Hebrew. Tiamut 19:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you a Palestinian? Itzse (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why are there Hebrew Language Links

message: :per this diff: 
====Presentation of versions====
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 Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura? by James Fallows“Three Bullets and a Dead Child” by Esther Schapira (German TV).
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.'Who Shot Mohammed al-Dura?' by James Fallows, The Atlantic Monthly“Three Bullets and a Dead Child” by Esther Schapira (German TV)'The mysteries and passions of an iconic video frame' by Doreen Carvajal, International Herald Tribune, Monday, February 7 2005.- "The footage of the father and son under attack lasts several minutes but does not clearly show the child's death."
====Discussion====
# I'm not familiar that "televised shooting" is a commonly used expression and certainly you can't see a shooting of the boy in the film.  That you can see a few shots taken at the wall behind him does not make version A right; saying the report shows a televised shooting of a boy is flat out wrong.
# The video report was that the boy was shot dead by Israeli forces. Many studies, one of the better ones I've seen is 'three bullets and a dead child', present a great probability that the boy was shot by Palestinians and that the source of report is a Palestinian cameraman of seemingly dubious character. The plot thickens further when the father has reportedly claimed an injury from 1991 to be inflicted by the October 2000 shooting (of the Israelis?). There has been a mention by Pajamas media that a picture of an autopsy on a dead child was appeared before the boy was shot which raises small but notable concerns that perhaps this was part of the allegedly false story. The word "apparent.. attributed to Israel" was the best solution I came up with but I'm open to hear others (guessing this is the point of contest).
# Since my edit from Jan. 31 was uncontested neither by you or by Michael at a time, it would appear that there was no clear agreement or demand for change. I won't start an edit war and revert you back if you've decided that reverting must be done to clear the air, but I think that we're mature enough to sustain a "wrong version" while we talk over what you believe demands correction on it... without reverting to a different "wrong version" that I cannot agree to.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 14:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version break 

message: # I'm not familiar that "televised shooting" is a commonly used expression and certainly you can't see a shooting of the boy in the film.  That you can see a few shots taken at the wall behind him does not make version A right; saying the report shows a televised shooting of a boy is flat out wrong.
# The video report was that the boy was shot dead by Israeli forces. Many studies, one of the better ones I've seen is 'three bullets and a dead child', present a great probability that the boy was shot by Palestinians and that the source of report is a Palestinian cameraman of seemingly dubious character. The plot thickens further when the father has reportedly claimed an injury from 1991 to be inflicted by the October 2000 shooting (of the Israelis?). There has been a mention by Pajamas media that a picture of an autopsy on a dead child was appeared before the boy was shot which raises small but notable concerns that perhaps this was part of the allegedly false story. The word "apparent.. attributed to Israel" was the best solution I came up with but I'm open to hear others (guessing this is the point of contest).
# Since my edit from Jan. 31 was uncontested neither by you or by Michael at a time, it would appear that there was no clear agreement or demand for change. I won't start an edit war and revert you back if you've decided that reverting must be done to clear the air, but I think that we're mature enough to sustain a "wrong version" while we talk over what you believe demands correction on it... without reverting to a different "wrong version" that I cannot agree to.
With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 14:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: article seems to be missing info from this link: . JaakobouChalk Talk 11:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me go take five years of Hebrew school, then I'll come back to the article and incorporate that information. <eleland/talkedits> 18:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: i can teach you, but i have to charge. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, we can reference Hebrew sources, especially if they have some information which can't be sourced to English. But it would be nice to know what the information actually is that we're supposed to be including. I'll start saving up my sheqels. <eleland/talkedits> 21:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Article gives input on the OR commission and their administrative decisions such as disqualifying Vilk, Alik Ron and Ben-Ami from future administrative positions similar to the ones they were holding at the time. JaakobouChalk Talk 22:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Seems a large chunk of the material is also written here:  (English). JaakobouChalk Talk 22:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Where Sharon Visited 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unreliable sourcing 

message: This source is not notable, and even with attribution, it cannot make contentious third party claims.Ankh.Morpork 12:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, they shouldn't be used without attribution, but they are clearly a significant opinion on the topic, they are quoted by numerous RS on the October 2000 events and as central to the Or Commission which was established to investigate the events. E.g "Without Adalah, there would be no Or Commission. They had no chance to get at the truth" , , . Dlv999 (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Where their views are reported by other RS I have no objection to their inclusion. It is when they report issues themselves that WP:SPS applies and they cannot even with attribution make third party claims.Ankh.Morpork 12:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting piece of shameless wikilawyering given that you have been prominent in arguing for the inclusion of self-published claims by the likes of CAMERA against various individuals and organisations in topics where they have not even been reported as notable by a single RS . WP:SPS states that, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". As I have already indicated, they have been quoted extensively on the October 2000 events and as integral to the Or Commission report which was established to investigate the events. We are not using the source as a third party RS in this case, only as a source for its own opinions, which are notable for the reasons already discussed. Dlv999 (talk) 12:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adalah - The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel. 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, demonstrations don't describe them properly. Those were violent riots.--Watchlonly (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Agreed, the rename was in error. The euphemism "October 2000 events" is the WP:COMMONNAME. "October 2000 riots" is downright bad and "October 2000 protests" would be much better. Compare and contrast with July 2019 Ethiopian Jews protest in Israel which also involved rioting but where that word is not in the title. ImTheIP (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Those events are remarkable for being a violent uprising by Israeli Arabs, not just protests where some rioting occurred, just like the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol was characterized by the violent incidents that happened, despite the fact that it started as a normal protest (and not all the people involved actually stormed the capitol).--Watchlonly (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we will agree here (say, that the inhabitants had plenty of reasons to be angry). I'll start a move-request, Huldra (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very biased title 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved.  —usernamekiran (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: October 2000 riots →   – Old title is POV; not what, say, the people of Nazareth would call it, Huldra (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Update, I changed October 2000 protests to October 2000 protests in Israel pr Peacemaker67, Huldra (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 23 July 2022