Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Second Intifada
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	See the RfC below for an idea of the potential scope
Mediator(s)	Steve Crossin, MBisanz (withdrawn)
Comment	MedCom representative failed to respond after several weeks. Open a MedCom case if necessary.

[[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal closed cases|Second Intifada]][[Category:Wikipedia Mediation Cabal maintenance|Second Intifada]]

If Accepted, requesting all involved RfC parties be notified about the case. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All those who commented in the RfC can be considered involved parties in addition to those who commented in the sections subsequent.

Please note that many of the users who appeared to partake in the RfC were WP:CANVASSed by User:Michael Safyan. He has apologized for this. It means however that there were a number of people who engaged to in the RfC simply to vote along partisan lines, so to speak, rather than engage in substantive discussion of the issues. While this process should of course to open to any who wish to partake, I think it's important that the MedCab have full disclosure as to the participants involved and that we try to focus on bringing in editors who are committed to a discussion of the sources, rather than just popping in to say "Yes I agree" or "No I don't".

One more thing, User:Jaakobou, a key party in the dispute, is not able to edit I-P related articles for this upcoming week. I propose that we not open the case formally until he can participate fully since his involvement thus far has been extensive and his agreement to whatever compromise is reached, is in my view, important. Tiamut^talk 17:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is a possible list of parties: User:Tiamut, User:Michael Safyan, User:Sm8900, User:Nishidani, User:Nickhh. This is not a definitive list though. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• To Sm8900's list, I would add: User:Jaakobou, User:Timeshifter, User:Delad, and User:Gatoclass. Secondary parties who only commented in the RfC might include User:CasualObserver'48, User:Yahel Guhan, User:Ynhockey and User:IronDuke. Tiamut^talk 14:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I was asked to participate in the RfC by Tiamut, who then withdrew the request. However, I found this mediation request while doing something else, and I was involved slightly in the discussion before. I'm adding myself as a party. <eleland/talkedits> 20:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I would also like to add myself as a party; although I'll be away for the next few days celebrating Purim. I won't mind if it takes place without me. Itzse (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Count me in as well, if signing up is necessary.Nishidani (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the list provided above, the users that appear to be involved in this case are:

Tiamut, Michael Safyan, Sm8900, Nishidani, Nickhh, Jaakobou, Timeshifter, Delad, Eleland, Gatoclass, CasualObserver'48, Yahel Guhan, Ynhockey and IronDuke

If I have missed anyone, let me or the other mediator know. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Talk:Second Intifada#RfC: Is it objective to describe the Second Intifada as an uprising, not only in name, but also in deed? for a summary of the positions.

• We were discussing a revision issue, but we seem to have reached an impasse. There are several reasons for the impasse; one key reason is that is over a single phrase or a single word, "uprising," etc. arguments over semantics can frequently be hard to resolve, which is why often one side has to be willing to make compromises somewhat. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I dropped out of substantive discussion on this issue awhile back. From my cursory examination of the talk page since then, I believe a compromise may be to express all views and who holds them. I read one interesting comment that the various elements of the Israeli media have some unique and widely divergent views on the issue. I don't think Wikipedia should be deciding what is the "right view" or the "average worldview". Nor should wikipedia choose between the Israeli view, the UN view, the US view, the European view, the various Palestinian viewpoints, the Hamas viewpoint, the Fatah viewpoint, the non-aligned nations' view, the Western view, the variety of Arab nations' views, the non-Western view, etc... I think the spin that various elements worldwide put on the Second Intifada is very important, and should be thoroughly explained. For a similar example see: Positions on Jerusalem. This is a change in position on my part because I did not understand just how fierce the differences of opinion were on these issues. I still do not see a contradiction between "waves of violence" and "uprising". But my viewpoint is just one among many, and I now see that the whole conflict continues partly because there is such a fierce spin battle going on worldwide in the media that goes back all the way to the crusades and before. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Certain editors have ascertained the position that they believe the only way to describe the events is by the direct translation of the Arabic terminology; rejecting a different perspective that others view a direct translation as a wholly non-neutral descriptive. A proposition was made to use 'wave of violence between Palestinians and Israel' in the first paragraph and to give the Arabic translation in the second paragraph - a proposition that's been rejected. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing above, in my view, describes what is going on. I don't see any room for 'mediation'. My position however is not uncompromising. The reasons for this are that massive evidence shows 'uprising' is (a) a generic neutral word for the kind of event described (b) that it is widely perhaps universally used in the technical literature devoted to the area's history, and specifically to the al Aqsa intifada, and not some 'slant' or 'spin' used in certain quarters of the world: it is used equally by Israeli, Jewish and international scholars (c) that, by those who oppose the word, no evidence has been forthcoming to prove 'uprising' is contentious and POV. (d) MIchael Safyan admitted he has no textual evidence, but only a series of personal inferences from one dictionary that it might bear a POV (e) that in recent texts he has adduced for his position, the word 'uprising' is nonetheless used without inverted commas as a description of the Al Aqsa intifada, if one actually reads them, something which (as I wll show elsewhere) once more undoes his case. (f) that essentially those who challenge 'uprising' are trying to alter the standard meanings of both English and scholarly conventions by area specialists to create an anomaly: Jewish uprisings can occur, Palestinian uprisings cannot, except under exceptional circumstances (when they are characterised by Gandhian pacificism, and not armed insurrections). I could name a dozen more reasons. But I register here my deepest dissent from any attempt to challenge the normative uses of English words on an encyclopedia, simply because of what appears to be an ethnic discrimination. One side to the dispute has no evidence for its highly irregular questioning of an English word's meaning. The other has amply refuted every point, and shown the objections to be wrong. I don't compromise when grave errors of subjective interpretation threaten to contaminate scholarly conventions and English usage. At some point in this endless haggling, a call will have to be made: is the huge volume of evidence corroborating what, until this dispute arose, is obviously standard usage sufficient to dismiss the negligable evidence for what is a personal or fringe editorial assertion with no grounding in scholarship, or usage?Nishidani (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We would like to determine how to use the term "uprising" in this article in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including but not limited to WP:CONSENSUS.

As the topic ban for Jaakobou is nearly over, the case will begin shortly. Details will soon follow, a proposals page has been created, where discussion and proposing of different versions of the article will occur. More details will be given soon on the articles talk page, and also here. Steve Crossin (talk to me) 01:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]