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 th and saying major clashes didn't occur until the th ts's first version is concise accurate carefully and neutrally phrased with regards to the dispute and free of original research