Talk:October 2000 protests in Israel

Violent is POV

Hi again Amoruso. While it is your POV is that all the demonstrations were "violent", others (including myself) disagree. There was a general strike, many non-violent demonstrations, etc., that characterized the vast majority of the protests that took place in those few days in October. To use the word violent, without attribution to a specific source, and to characterize all the protest actions as such, is misleading and POV.

We have been through this before. Describing actions - like throwing Molotovs, or blocking streets or shooting unarmed demonstrators - as they are is sufficient. We do not need to append judgemental descriptives, like "violent". The reader can decide for themselves what is violent and what is not after being exposed to the facts. By all means cite and source the instances that you view as violent, but you don't need to tell the reader that they were. They are smart enough to make those judgements on their own. Tiamut 15:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

While you believe violent is POV, solidarity demonstrations is of course a joke. I'll try a compromise using the fact they escalated quickly. I drove through those roads later and there was not a single traffic light that the "solidarity protestors" didn't break. Also the committee was very clear on this - there were rocks, molotov bottles and violence. This is why there was a reaction, which perhaps should have been limited to rubber bullets and not live bullets, more tear gas etc, but there was violence. It is highly inappropriate to try to paint a picture as if this is Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 in Beijing or something. I'll try a compromise, and I'm removing east jerusalem again, there were no riots here. Amoruso 17:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

1)They were solidarity demonstrations. Material I have added in the background explains why this is an appropriate formulation.

2)I have other evidence from Amensty International that shows escalation only occurred where police were present, but I don't object to your formulation for now.

3)Please feel free to describe the acts you feel were violent in detail. I will be including detailed material on the victims of Israeli police violence too.

4) I am reincluding East Jerusalem since that is where the protests began and a number of arrests were made there in the days that followed. Presumably those arrests were related to the protests, no? Or maybe just the regular police picking up random Palestinians for questioning for no good reason at all. In any case, the protest started there, so it shoudl stay. Tiamut 18:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm attempted to npov the article a bit and remove irrelevant material and false information. Violent terrorism/intifada is not soldiarity protests, sorry. Disturbance in the temple mount doesn't equal intifada in east jerusalem, most are israeli residents/citizens and the real problems didn't happen there, but anyway... I removed some of the OR too. Amoruso 23:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing for renaming?

Hi Tiamut,

I understand your desire to remove the word 'riot' from the title due to implications that it may have, but the title as it stands doesn't make very much sense (I for one have heard of several variations on the name, none of which was simply "October 2000"). I'm moving it to "October 2000 events (Israel)" in accordance to what is a popular name (He Wiki, [1], [2], Or Commission, [the Ar entry has very little detail]), though in my searches I've found that '"October 2000 events" Israel' and '"October 2000 riots" Israel' are both of the same order of magnitude, and thus the name change warrants further discussion. On a different point, a lot of the background which you added is disputed, and in any event covered at length in al-Aqsa Intifada, and so it shouldn't really be included here. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 06:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your objection Tewfik. As you stated "October 2000 events" is used as much as "October 2000 riots." While the first is used by people from both sides of the issue, the other is used almost exclusively by Israelis. As for this information being covered in the Al-Aqsa Intifada article, it is not covered in any significant detail. Nor does the information there provide any background as to why the protests began inside Israel as well. I would ask that you hold off on making any drastic moves, like merger or deletion, until the article can be developed further. It is new and needs work. Then, you can decide whether it is wholly repetitive, or is better off being included in the larger article. Tiamut 09:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The information which I was referring to was copied word-for-word from al-Aqsa Intifada. I left some of it in 'as-is', reworded some, and removed the discussion about the cause/timing, which is also discussed at length in the main article. As there was very little about the actual events, I roughly copied the timeline from the He Wiki. Unfortunately there is almost nothing in the Ar Wiki. As for the name, that may well be, but I'd like to look into it, since I saw many mainstream references to the former title as well, and I'm not confident that it is POV. Anyways, good luck on expansion. Tewfik^Talk 10:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing the history of the al-Aqsa intifada article shows that it is you, not me, that copied a large section of text from this article and appended it to that article, quite nonsensically at the end of the section. I can't believe you accuse me of plaigarism when I was the original author of that section, which you copied and moved to that section there. I have reverted your edits to this article, reincluded some of the information you added, added cn notations where required and would hope that you would stop adding POV language, and unsourced factual inaccuracies to this article. As I said, I would appreciate some time to develop it. Tiamut 13:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not accurate at all. Reviewing the history so that I could understand what you are talking about, I see that this edit by IZAK which moved the information. I then saw that the info was verbatim there without noticing that it had just been copied from here, though I never accused you of plagiarism or anything else, and I wish that you would do me the same courtesy. However the passages that deal with cause/timing still don't belong here since there is a section that deals with them in the main article.

Having reviewed your newest revision, I question what "POV language, and unsourced factual inaccuracies" I supposedly added, since you retain most of my edit. The only significant difference that I saw was my confusion on who you meant by the 13th victim. Tewfik^Talk 18:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't add the section that deals with cause/timing vis-a-vis Sharon and the Intifada. As I've noted several times, that is a complicated topic that is dealt with at length in the main article, and a short synthesis that favours one point of view based on one source while ignoring the wider discussion (both in the article and the Talk which led to it) is in a sense forking, and I'm sure you don't mean to do that. It seems fair enough to refer to the stated cause (reaction to the violence in Jerusalem) while directing interested readers to Prior events.

If you agree that the original charges you made of me may not be accurate, then I would appreciate if you could say as much for the record, and if not, then I would equally appreciate if you could clarify based on my questions above so that I could have a better understanding of what you think I did wrong. Tewfik^Talk 16:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect Tewfik, on the whole, most of your additions were not directly sourced and contained POV language. See the difference between my version and yours here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=October_2000_events_%28Israel%29&diff=109525614&oldid=109521906

Also, while I requested on the talk page to be given some space to develop the article, you just jumped right in. You erased huge chunks of the background section that provide proper context regarding how these events are directly related to al-Aqsa intifada. You also re-inserted the word “violent” or "violence" twice into the intro after I had already removed it. I believe we've had discussions before about just describing events, rather than appending the word "violent".

And the 13th victim who was not an Arab citizen was “shot by police” in my formulation, which was backed by a source (He is a Palestinian from Gaza). You changed it, somehow assuming that I meant this person was the Jewish victim of stone-throwers. Having never heard of that Jewish victim’s death being associated with October 2000 events, I didn’t understand what you were doing. I assumed you had simply erased the death of the Palestinian from Gaza. (You only provided a link later on in the article to another wiki article where I checked the sources there and then properly references them and included them here.) It was this, combined with the insertion of “violent” twice, and the denuding of the article of any context that I took to be POV pushing.

In general, all of you edits, including the most recent ones, attempt to place the responsibility for the events of October on Arab citizens themselves, and downplay the excessive force used by police and the historical and present-day context of occupation and discrimination that gives rise to these protests. 13 Arabs were killed in October, along with one Jew. The state killed the 13 Arabs, and the Arabs killed the one Jew. The violence of the state towards the Arabs was greater than the violence of the Arabs towards the state. Stop blaming the victim. Stop trying to make the excessive force seem justified. There is no justification for killing civilians, even those armed with rocks. The Israelis proved themselves capable of non-violent crowd control measures against rowdy and chaotic crowds during the disengagement. The Jews that threw acid, paint, stones and other debris at the security forces were not shot and killed. No live ammunition was used. Not even rubber bullets. Events have a context. We have a duty to represent it. Tiamut 17:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

With respect, the timeline, which is what you've attached the {{cn}} tags to, was sourced to the Or Report to which I included a link at the bottom, though I have included more information from English language sources alongside you. As for "jumping right in," I explained several times why it is inappropriate to discuss the Sharon cause etc. of the al-Aqsa Intifada; I'm not sure at what other point you think I prematurely removed information, but please point it out. And I don't think that there is anything wrong with describing events of stone and firebomb-throwing and shooting as "violent", as you yourself just did in the paragraph above. On the other hand, I assiduously stayed away from labelling the events "rioting" per your concerns, even though I feel that would also be an acceptable description.

I'm not sure which of my specific edits you believe show me either making a novel judgement (negative or otherwise) on the Arab participants, or 'downplaying excessive force on the part of the police', but again, I'd appreciate specific examples so as to better understand what you think I'm doing wrong. Seeing as you do have strong feelings in favour of those Arab participants and against the police, I would caution you to be extra careful to keep your own biases out, as I try to when I edit.

On this last topic, of the two PDFs that you added to the beginning of the entry, neither deals with background. In the first case, I believe you misunderstood what the word "tension" was modifying (not that I disagree with the conclusion, but then what does it really add). The second one, "the only protestors to be killed by the police have been Arabs" is very much inappropriate, since aside from coming from a POV source that says it outside of context ('the only protesters to shoot at police' type claims), it also has no direct bearing on the background other than to express general frustration with the Israeli police. Tewfik^Talk 18:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. but those are totally valid inclusions. The first sentence provides a succint sum-up of the historical context that this population shares with the state, and the second, with the police. If you are going to claim that the Arabs were unusually violent towards the police, you have to provide a context for that violence. I am reverting. Tiamut 00:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all please stop leaving edit-summaries claiming that I 'deleted information without explanation'. That is totally misleading. Secondly, I don't need to prove anything, that passage is POV and is based on a POV source. If you want to include some information about past tension, that is fine, but vague accusations based on such weak sourcing is not encyclopaedic. Tewfik^Talk 01:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Some additional points relating to your last set of edits:

• I'm not sure what your intention was in placing the shooting of Muhammad Jabarin before the description of the firebombing etc. that was going on, but it presents an inaccurate causal chain.
• Please stop wikilinking to [[Jatt]], a northern Indo-Aryan people. The best available current link is the one that I used earlier, [[Baqa-Jat|Jat]].
• I mentioned when I first added the timetable that it was sourced to the Or Report links that I added with it. I added a note to point out a specific case I was sourcing and I continue to hunt for English-Language resources, but I don't think it would be beneficial to include interlinear Hebrew-language references.

I hope then that our disagreement here is limited to the inclusion of the broad passage I discussed in the posting above. I hope that you can find the type of sourcing and language that we can both agree on, and create the best article. I'm sorry that you are frustrated, but I believe that I have valid objections. Tewfik^Talk 02:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tewfik. With all due respect, you are obfuscating the issues. The paragraph you took issue with on the al-Aqsa intifada has not been readded. After adding mention of theintifada itself, I compromised and let the additional explanation go. The other paragraph that you deleted provided context for police relations with Arab citizens. It's fully relevant, the sources are WP:RS and I don't agree with your explanation regarding their irrelevance. I have repeatedly asked you (here and at the Al-Aqsa page) to please retain text whose sources you find questionable and add a fact needed citation so as to allow me to find replacements for contentious sources. You just deleting my work. Note that I do not do the same for what I assumed what unsourced information from. I simply aded fact needed citations. This is a very civilised way of editing that respets the hard work of others that I wish you would adopt. Tiamut 11:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, the timeline you provided and my source both confirm that my version of the events is the more accurate one. Please review both carefully before accusing me of making nonsensical changes. Tiamut 11:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact tags that you added came after the sources, as I've already mentioned at least three times.

Tiamut: I was not bring that up again. I was simply citing my general way of dealing with what I view to be POV or contentious material.

Tewfik: I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I was objecting to your characterising my edit as being a massive addition of unsourced information, when I added a link to the Or Report at the bottom. Tewfik^Talk 22:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And either way, there is no equation between your citation requests for my addition of events or my citation requests and resourcing for your addition of events, and your addition of material that I have already explained several times does not belong due to POV concerns.

Tiamut: My point is you could change the wording, provide alternate sources that provide a different POV, or engage in a more thorough discussion about the substance of the dispute, rather than simply reverting, throwing people's hard work in the garbage and then engaging in lengthy "he said" "she said" discussions and wasting productive, valuable substance-based editing time.

Tewfik: A paragraph detailing general tensions that Arabs face/have faced in Israeli society is relevant. However I found the tone and content of your passage not to meet that, but rather to take a one-sided approach. The problem couldn't be remedied by changing the sources, but only by rewriting. While I certainly can rewrite it, it is primarily your responsibility. That said, I acknowledge that it would be more helpful if we held a discussion on the matter rather than me only reverting it. To that end, the objections that I stated above were in part regarding the vague (and not well sourced) statement about frustrations, but mostly about the inflammatory and noncontextual statement about only Arabs having been killed by police. That painss the events in an ugly and racist light which is non factual and inappropriate, totally ignores facts such as some of the guilty policemen being Arabs themselves, and adds very little to the facts of the case. A much more informative paragraph stating past tensions would be far more appropriate. Tewfik^Talk 22:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that I also pointed out previously that in the case of the first, the source does not support it, and in the case of the second, the source doesn't qualify as RS for that claim is tangential.

Tiamut:I disagree, regarding the first, and as for the second, How does the Adalah Legal Center [www.adalah.org] fail to meet RS?

Tewfik: I dealt with this above. Tewfik^Talk 22:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Providing a link to a page does not grant carte blanche to add whatever material in whatever style pushing whatever agenda one wants. I added no such inflammatory and unencyclopaedic material, and I would expect the same from you. Tewfik^Talk 17:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut:What did I add that was inflammatory?

Tewfik: I dealt with this above. Tewfik^Talk 22:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Based on your edit-summaries, I request that you read my Talk more carefully.

• It's relvant and sourced. If you challenge the RS of the sources, simply remove the links and place a fact needed citation. It provides context and balance. No, as I said previously - that is not my primary objection.
• reinsertin correct timelines of events based also on the Ha'aretz timeline. The mention of gunfire in that article comes after the killing of the first demonstratorss As I also said previously, this is based on the Or report whose link I provided from the very beginning.

Tiamut: I'm talking about the Or Report (the summary, I remember it being from Ha'aretz. There is no full version available in English).

Tewfik: You are correct that there is no full version available in English (AFAIK), which is why I mentioned several times on this Talk page that I was employing the original [Hebrew language] report, whose possible inconvenience I thought wouldn't be a factor since you are Israeli, and presumably read Hebrew. If that isn't the case, I can cite the specific passages and present them for inspection so that you can get any number of Hebrew speakers from any POV to look them over. Tewfik^Talk 22:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And you restored the "civil disobedience" to being the result of escalation. I specifically addressed this point in my last edit-summary. The civil-disobedience would have been the beginning, which escalated to rock-throwing, firebombing, and live fire.

• removing sentence that provides summary for day's event. it's not necessary, describe the events themselves without the editorializing First you challenged that there was actually Arab violence on that day (and included the most inflammatory language you could find - "rampage", which makes me rethink my decision to honour your request to refrain from using "riot", also found in the sources), and once I provided a specific supporting reference (since I had already mentioned that this was based on the Or Report linked below), you then decided that in this specific instance, a summary was unnecessary, and so removed any reference to Arab violence on that day.

Tiamut:Rampage was used in the Ha'aretz article I took the information from (the one you provided). It is not my word. About your second point, I don't follow at all.

Tewfik: and 'riot' is used in many articles as well. I don't specifically object, but how do you think asking me to keep one word out when using another similar word yourself looks? More importantly is the rest of my comment above, where you challenge a fact, I provide sourcing, and then you present another reason to remove it, which also doesn't appear complimentary at face-value. Tewfik^Talk 22:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I again say that I can appreciate that this is a sensitive topic for you, but please take a deep breathe and calm down. There is in actuality very little that we disagree on, and almost every addition that you've made to the article is still there. Please, let us work together, and not against each other. Tewfik^Talk 22:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut:I think you should calm down.

Tewfik: I'm not sure how asking me to calm down is relates to me requesting that you calm down, but my request was prompted by statements which seemed to indicate that you were getting somewhat emotional, including attributing many things to me which I had not done, and what seemed to me to be reverting things based on assertions that I had previosuly dealt with here, and which it seemed you were not reading. Forgive me if I err. Tewfik^Talk 22:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You've again inserted the broad paragraph, changed the sequence of events, and removed the 10-9 introduction, while referring me to Talk. I previously responded above to your concerns. Tewfik^Talk 18:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

(Sections above following the word Tiamut are my responses to your User:Tewfik individual points.) While you put up an excellent appearance by seeming to meticulously respond to each of the issues I have raised, you are obfuscating. There is no accusation of intentionality here, but that's the best way I can characterize your response. While certainly lengthy, it paints a wholly inaccurate picture of what is going. I also do not appreciate how you dismiss my valid objections to your repeated deletions and reversions by implying that I need to calm down. I am fully calm, though admittedly quite puzzled. Tiamut 21:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've left responses to many of your statements above. I hope that we can chisel out what are really only a few minor issues here on Talk. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 22:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are there Hebrew Language Links

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)

That would be Tewfik. From what I understand, the Hebrew is the full version of the report, the English is a summary. The full version is not available in English. I would prefer it not be used since there is no way to translate the entire text, which is quite substantive and it is used as a source here but not directly quoted. Tiamut 18:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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. Tewfik^Talk 22:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you translate the section in question Tewfik? I don't read Hebrew. Tiamut 19:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you a Palestinian? Itzse (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Durra

Jaakobou, this edit doesn't make any sense. Muhammed al-Durrah is already wikilinked in the article and people can read the controversy section in that article without it being highlighted by you in a WP:UNDUE fashion. I also don't understand your edit summary. How does adding videotaping have anything to do with who killed him? Please do not make this edit again. Tiamut 02:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the video tape does not show the boy get shot. just recently France 2 was told to screen the 27 min tape at court and they only showed 18 and many people came out saying that it's clear that France two are hiding some mal-practice. i've changed the phrasing to show that this issue, which caused riots - is under great dispute. to use the phrasing "watched the death of 12-year-old Muhammad al-Dura, shot at Netzarim" [3] is just wrong considering the growing evidence on this. have you been following the recent court issues and the documentaries on this that you reinsert "shot" and "death" into the paragraph? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Jaakaou... the only thing about Durra that is relevant to this article is that people saw his being killed on television and that increased the feeling of solidarity among Palestinians in Israel. The fact that now, seven years after the event, Israel is claiming it did not actually shoot Durra or that he did not actually die is not relevant to this article. The Muhammed al-Durrah article is wikilinked and readers can see the controversy there. It does not need highlighting here and is completely irrelevant actually. I am therefore reverting you once again. Tiamut 15:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

nobody saw him being "shot" and/or "killed" [4] on television. what people saw, is phillip krentsey saying he was killed by israelis - this was not clearly demonstrated in the images - but people believed his report, based on the single testimony of a palestinian cameraman who admitted he took this job to help his people's cause. don't misrepresent the facts! Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of the claims those denying that Durra was killed have made. That doesn't belie the fact he was seen on television, with his father protecting him from gunfire, screaming in fear, and later seem in the same television report lying lifelessly at his father's side. That is what people saw, and the impact this had on Palestinian in Israel and their involvement int he events of October 2000 is what is relevant to this article. What you are trying to add is inaccurate and irrelevant here. I suggest you drop it. Tiamut 15:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

he was seen on television screaming, then he's seen raising his arm looking at the camera after he was already pronounced dead by the cameraman. instead of us discussing weather or not he's dead or not - and weather or not he was shot (no bullets were recovered). i suggest we leave that debate for the al-dura trials and prmote the neutral version that explains rioters became more violent after they saw the images on TV. (claiming the images show him shot is clearly false - there is no time-stamp on the film where you see bullets hitting him and his body recoiling as a result). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

People (what you refer to as "rioters") did not become "more violent" after seeing Durra's death on television. I understand that you are excited about what you know about the Durra case, but it's not relevant here. All that is relevant is that Arabs in Israel cited the case of Durra as one of the reasons for protests in solidarity with the Palestinians. That's it, that's all. What happened after that (years later, the Israeli denials of responsiblity and such) is noit relevant to this article. Tiamut 16:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

you're mixing issues. the issue i'm contesting is the statement that the video they saw shows him being shot dead - that information is false. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to make a suggestion. perhaps by adding more details about what specifically actually went on, perhaps we could satisfy both sets of concerns. hope that sounds somewhat helpful. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

i don't mind the suggestion but i worry it would be an opening for even more edit warring. personally, i feel that giving out only a mention to the incident without going into the details would be the cleanest way to avoid WP:TOPIC and edit warring on the details. anyways, if tiamut is interested, i'm willing to include information about talal abu rahma's report and the problematic footage/evidence. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry guys but I don't see how it's at all relevant here. Developments questioning what was portrayed came long after the time of the shooting itself and they are in no way representative of a majority viewpoint. It's totally WP:UNDUE to make mention of this here and it's unrelated to the context in which Durra is discussed here. Tiamut 19:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

are you saying that the facts don't matter just because at the time, the people were misinformed? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You, and now Armon (talk · contribs) who has inserted the word "alleged" before the killing of Muhammed al-Durrah are ignoring that there is a source provided for this information in article and it states:

But what pulled Palestinians out onto the streets of their villages was televised murder -- relayed again and again on Arab TV -- of 12--year old Mohamed Al-Dorra at the Netzarim junction in Gaza after 45 minutes of continuous Israeli army fire. And what put rocks into their hands was the lethal response of the Israeli police, for whom there has never been a Green Line as far "their" Palestinians are concerned.

You can't change the text to read whatever you want it to. This is sourced information from an article on the causes behind the outbreak of the intifada on both sides of the green line. Stop ignoring WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. This isn't your own private blog. It's an encyclopedia. Keep conspiracy theories about Durrah's death to the page on him. His name is wikilinked in this article and people can read about those inane theories there if they want to. This is not the place for it. Tiamut 23:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Tiamut,

allow me to repeat the question: "are you saying that the facts don't matter just because at the time, the people were misinformed?" Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that the sources cited in the article do not mention anything about an alleged killing. We write based on sources, not your opinion. Please stop misrepresenting what the soruces say. Tiamut 11:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

enough already. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Enough what? Enough asking you to respect Wikipedia policies and not misrepresent what the sources cited say? Do you object to these sources? Do you have alternative sources you would like to see represented? Please stop making tendentious edits based on your opinion of events without providing proof for your assertions in the form of a reliable source. Tiamut 13:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"televised murder" [5] is a fundamental violation of WP:NPOV - it's not clear who killed the boy, much less that he was "murdered". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

also note, that an October 2000 report by al-ahram weekly is certainly not a reliable source for this and the second link is dead. anyways, i rephrased the text, hope you can approve. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The report by Graham Usher in Al-Ahram weekly, backed up by the Amnesty International report, provide enough in the way of reliable sources, in my opinion. I know the linf to the latter is now dead, but I can assure you it said that Durra was shot on TV which is what the text says now after Eleland's latest edit. Please do not insert irrelevant information regarding the controversy over Durra's death taking place in recent years. This was not germane to the issue then and is not relevant to this article now. Tiamut 17:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree wholeheartedly with Tiamat here. The constant metastasizing of the al-Durrah conspiracy theory across every Wikipedia page about the Intifada has got to stop. It's incredibly petulant to demand that NPOV requires we say he was "allegedly" killed (since some sources dispute the killing) while saying that there was "a crossfire" even though a much heavier weight of reliable sources say that there was no fire from the Palestinian side during the period of al-Durrah's killing. The subsequent conspiracy theories have absolutely no relevance to understanding the October 2000 events, and there's no reason to elaborate on every detail. There are essentially no reliable sources which dispute that a child named Mohamed al-Dura received lethal gunshot wounds while being filmed, which is the point here. Whether the shots came from Israelis or Palestinians is not relevant to understanding why Palestinians were shocked and outraged by the footage. <eleland/talkedits> 17:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"much heavier weight of reliable sources say that there was no fire from the Palestinian side during the period of al-Durrah's killing" - are those reliable sources of much heavier weight? please provide appropriate references. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, relative to the sources which say that al Durrah might not have been killed at all, the sources which say there was no "crossfire" are much more reliable and significant. HRW: "The firing from the IDF outpost continued for at least forty-five minutes, although during this time there was no apparent return fire from the Palestinian demonstrators or police."

The point is not whether there was a crossfire or not; the point is that you can't just go and say "alleged killing" because you found a crappy partisan source saying he wasn't killed, while leaving in "crossfire" even though there are reliable sources who question or deny any "crossfire" was involved. <eleland/talkedits> 18:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

with all due respect, that is a quote of talal abu rahmah's eye witness/participant testimonial (per "based on the accounts of eyewitnesses... Then, Abu Rahmeh told Human Rights Watch...") Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm not here to debate the facts about what really happened. The HRW source is not clear about whether they're passing on what abu-Ramah said, or speaking in their own voice, when they say the Palestinians were not shooting. However, in either case, they found abu-Ramah to be credible enough to pass his information on. I know that the man has been condemned as a fraud and a liar by unreliable partisans, but frankly I don't care. HRW is roughly a thousand times more reliable than Richard Landes, and they found his testimony to be worthy of note.

The point I'm making is that essentially every fact, claim, or opinion about Israel and the Palestinians is disputed in some way. We can't go around shoehorning these disputes into every article which touches on the issues. Rather, we should seek neutral, factual, and concise representations of the issues which stick to the subject matter at hand.

This article is about a series of riots and protests by Palestinians, mostly Palestinian citizens of Israel, in October 2000. Those protests were motivated in part by television footage which appeared to show a Palestinian child being murdered in cold blood by Israeli troops. That's the point. Whether he was murdered intentionally, killed in a crossfire, or not killed at all really isn't relevant to the October 2000 events. <eleland/talkedits> 05:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the tape shows the shooting of Muhammed al-Durrah, but not his death, I recommend changing:

Demonstrations from among the Arab communities throughout northern Israel followed, becoming more widespread after television viewers 
watched the death of 12-year-old Muhammad al-Dura, shot at Netzarim Junction on 30 September in the Gaza Strip.

To:

Demonstrations from among the Arab communities throughout northern Israel followed, becoming more widespread after the shooting of 11-12 
year old Muhammad al-Durrah at the Netzarim Junction on September 30 in the Gaza Strip.

Michael Safyan (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why we should give any credence to the conspiracy theories surrounding Durra's death, but if "shooting" will put an end to the disagreement, I'm willing to accept it for now. Can I suggest we add "televised" before "shooting" or some other set of words since the important information here is how people reacted to the reports of Durra's death? Tiamut 16:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind the above, I see you've made another set of edits instead. Tiamut 16:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I refrained from making this change in order to hear-out any potential objections. My recent edit performed only minor cleanup, such as giving titles to reference links. So, please do continue to discuss and comment on this proposed change. Thank you. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't look into who made what edits too thoroughly - just the total changes since I last edited the article. Your name was last and I assumed it was your edit. My apologies for the confusion.

What I said above still applies. I'm willing to accept televised "shooting", without lengthy commentary about the Durra conspiracy theories. Tiamut 21:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has objected to the proposed change, thus far, I am going to apply it. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well Jaakobou, rather than discussing his proposed changes, changed your version and after I noticed it and changed it back to yours, he reverted that edit, saying his was the consensus version. Jaakobou, did you not notice this discussion on the talk page? Do you think your unilateral, undiscussed change represents a more consensus version than the one carved out via discussion here? Please self-revert. Tiamut^talk 01:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If you pardon, I may have missed a certain part of the discussion and therefore allowed to it transpire without commentary. However, the change in itself is not agreed upon (by me) for a number of reasons, and the version I reverted to was the last long standing version. I'm open to continue discussions on desired changes (if there are any) and the reasons to make them. As of now, I see a few problems with the suggested change and could not endorse it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's okay if you missed the discussion, but your failure to self-revert your restoration of your version, while acknowledging that there was a consensus version agreed to by myself and MichaelSafyan is very strange. I would again suggest that you self-revert, and then explain exactly what is wrong with the consensus version we agreed upon. If you don't, I will have to revert your edit since you are the only supporter of it for now and you haven't explained at all why it is preferable or what is wrong with the other version carved from discussion and compromise. Tiamut^talk 13:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Version break

per this diff: [6]

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 .

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.

Discussion

1. 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. [7] 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.
2. 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).
3. 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, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

link

article seems to be missing info from this link: [8]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

i can teach you, but i have to charge. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

English Wikipedia articles should reference English sources. See WP:RSUE. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems a large chunk of the material is also written here: [9] (English). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

LexisNesis

This reference seemed broken and I was unable to corroborate the material. Considering the material was not overly a stretch, I've only removed the dead link and added a {{cn}} tag. [10]

The dead material:

• <ref name=BarYaacov>{{cite news | first=Naomi | last=Bar-Yaacov | coauthors= | title=Arab Israeli parties feel betrayed by Barak | date=1999-07-05 | publisher=Agence France Presse | url =http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?_m=165be3539776a53fde76df5a5a66237b&wchp=dGLbVzW-zSkVA&_md5=46c31a3fc9bbde09f17b833a12c1bded | work =Via Lexis Nexis | pages = | accessdate = 2007-04-03}}</ref>

If anyone finds a reliable replacement, that would be good. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It was probably correct to remove the deadlink and replace with {{cn}} so that someone can find a new source. GDonato (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. If the link is dead, it makes no sense to keep the deadlink there. Unsourced claims can be challenged, and if someone tries to verify via a deadlink, they would be right to challenge its validity. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who added the Lexis-Nexis Link. Though I accessed it through the Lexis-Nexis database the story was from the AP wire. Since Lexis Nexis is only a subscription only service, I don't know how I can provide a "live-link" that can be verified. Let me know how I can help.--Oneworld25 (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a solid citation (author, title, publisher, date), even if the link is broken. If you could delete any citation without a link then all the academic books cited without links would be removable.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

LamaLoLeshLa is quite correct. The source is cited properly, regardless of whether the online copy happens to have been archived. Please see WP:DEADLINK, which notes (emphasis in the original) that "Dead links of online newspaper articles can be converted to references to off-line sources. Do not simply remove dead links; they often contain valuable information." Also see WP:CITE; "keep the citation information if still appropriate to the article. (This may happen, for example, when an online copy of material that originally appeared in print is no longer online.) In the remaining citation, note that the dead link was found to be inactive on today's date. Even with an inactive link, the citation still records a source that was used, and provides a context for understanding archiving delays or for taking other actions."

I'd ask you to consider this: If the original citation had been an actual physical reprint, in a newspaper, of the AFP report, would it matter whether there's an online link? If not, then why should it matter now? <eleland/talkedits> 14:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Roni Ben Efrat

per my following removals of the source: [11]

I've done some checking and this person doesn't appear to be anything more than a left-wing activist, let alone a real and reliable, neutral authority of events.

Therefore, I've removed the following and added {{cn}} tags where the information seemed reasonable.

<ref name=Efrat>{{cite web|title=The Blank Ballot and the Boycott|author=Roni Ben Efrat||publisher=Challenge: A Jerusalem Magazine on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict|date=March-April 2001|accessdate=2007-12-15|url=http://www.challenge-mag.com/66/blankballot.html}}</ref>

Regardless if the information is correct or not, the link to an opinion piece at a self-published politically motivated magazine is not good practice, putting it mildly. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC) typo's 05:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaakobou, I have noticed you adopting this tactic of removing sources and adding {{cn}} tags in their place on several occasions now. You do realize that the point of those tags is to get text removed, I'm sure, so I think this kind of behavior borders on gaming the system. There is nothing remotely controversial about the information you tagged; it has been widely discussed in Israel for the better part of a decade now. If you don't like Challenge magazine because you think it's too left wing, you could try the Jersualem Center for Public Affairs or a paper presented by a senior professor at the Moshe Dayan Center for Arabism at Tel Aviv University. [12]

You're a veteran editor; I'm pretty sure you know that there are {{Verify credibility}} and {{Dubious}} and so forth, all of which are better suited for this than deleting sources and adding a "there's no source" tag. Not to mention that you could easily have found either of those reliable sources in less than the time it took to figure out who Challenge Magazine are and write a condescending little note about them on this talk page. Enough with this. <eleland/talkedits> 07:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, such a move does strike one as gaming the system. Please post to the talk page before making such a move as removing sources clealry requires prior discussion, not as an afterthought. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already checked the validity of the source so placing the tag would be inappropriate. Nice work on finding a replacement. Sadly, this article seems to have, prima facie, more than one-two poorly selected sources and there might be a future need to further find replacements for them.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

First, NB that I've moved your comment down and properly indented it.

Second, Jaakobou, if you've really "checked the validity of the source," let's try something here. Who is Roni ben Efrat? Tell me something about her career, why don't you, since you've been so diligent in checking up. From what you've told me you don't appear to know who she is at all; you've just observed that she's too left-wing for your liking and thus not a reliable source. Although I've provided other sources, I am quite willing to defend her as a reliable source for the relevant information. <eleland/talkedits> 13:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a totally anti-consensus edit, with shades of BLP, intended to game the system. Efrat was likely a much better source than others we're seeing edit-warred into many other articles. PR^talk 21:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Where Sharon Visited

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)

Unreliable sourcing

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)

Adalah - The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel.

This source is not notable, and even with attribution, it cannot make contentious third party claims.Ankh.Morpork 12:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

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" [13], [14], [15]. Dlv999 (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

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 [16]. 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)

Lede's change

Nishidani, I will not go into all of your current changes based on one source only (Dan Rabinowitz). As for your radical change of Lede based on the same source, I return it to its previous version, and then one may add other RS as well. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The telltale fingerprint of a POV scribe is to leave one version out, and list sanguinary events by one side w without historical contextualization. The October riots are everywhere in the literature linked to the Al Aqsa Intifada, and the broadcasts of the aftermath when masses of civilians outside Israel were being shot down in the first days. (Nimrod Luz, 'The Glocalizatyion of al-Haram al-Sharif: Defining Memory, Mystifying Place,' in Itzchak Weismann, Ulrika Mårtensson, Mark Sedgwick (eds.), Islamic Myths and Memories: Mediators of Globalization, Ashgate Publishing 2014.pp.99-120, esp pp.103-105.) and numerous other sources. Failure to do so means the editor is just framing the usual narrative: 'Arabs riot (it's part of their nature and culture), and, painfully, we (Jewish) Israelis suffer and have to restore order', which is what the lead here does, 'order' being, keeping them as second-rate citizens or outrageously protesting obstacles to further settlement of their land, and theft of their resources.Nishidani (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Rabonowitz is a scholar. He was also there. He has written extensively about that period and finally he remarks:-

events of October 2000 included hundreds of incidents spread out over two weeks. They are seared in the collective Israeli memory as a series of conflicts between Arab demonstrators, who in some cases numbered in the thousands, and the police. But there is another aspect to those difficult days that has been erased over the years from the awareness of Israeli Jews: the riots initiated by Jews against mosques, Arab-owned businesses, residences and Arab passersby, in mixed cities and elsewhere. The blurred memory of those incidents is particularly worrisome because of the fact that the Or Commission devoted an entire chapter to those events, describing them in detail

In layman's language, the October 2000 events are remembered in Israel for Palestinian Arab rioting and the fact that frequently Jewish Israelis went on rampages is forgotten. That indicates there is source bias towards the Israeli viewpoint, and Rabinowitz corrects the bias.

Saying I have one source so can be reverted is not a Wikipedia argument. There's loads of stuff. See below for a small sampling Nishidani (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Sabina Citron, The Indictment, Gefen Publishing House Ltd, 2006 pp.169-172
• Ronnie May Olesker, The Value of Security Vs. the Security of Values: The Relationship Between the Rights of the Minority and the Security of the Majority in Israel, ProQuest 2007 pp.326ff.(doctoral dissertation but OK)
• Nida Shoughry, "Israeli-Arab" Political Mobilization: Between Acquiescence, Participation and Resistance, Palgrave Macmillan,2012 pp.97 ff, esp.101ff (esp. the bias in the Hebrew naming Habbat October of the events)
• Asher Susser, Israel, Jordan, and Palestine: The Two-state Imperative, UPNE 2012 pp.101ff
• Yitzhak Reiter, National Minority, Regional Majority: Palestinian Arabs Verses Jews In Israel, Syracuse University Press, 2009 pp.199-228. (a)Very good description of the Furaydis incident on Ocxtober 1 2000, and the Or Coimmission's note that this was mirrored precisely in the Hatikva incident 8 days alter, samne structure of events, but Jews rioting (b) the term "Black October etc.(c)'In October 2000 for the first time since Israel's inception, Jewish groups retaliated with violence against Arab citizens. In addition, the Jewish public attempted to radicalize policies towards the Arab minority and to influence the government to introduce tougher measures on issues essential to Israel's existence as a Jewish state.' p.229
• Shourideh C. Molavi, Stateless Citizenship: The Palestinian-Arab Citizens of Israel, BRILL, 2013 pp.67-8

Contrary to the indications of the Or Commission, in January 2008 the Attorney General decided not to issue an indictment for the killings.Nishidani (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• "Saying I have one source so can be reverted"

I simply repeat what I've exactly said: "As for your radical change of Lede based on the same source, I return it to its previous version, and then one may add other RS as well. --Igorp_lj23:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)"

--Igorp_lj (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 25 April 2020

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: Move to October 2000 riots buidhe 20:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

---

October 2000 events → October 2000 riots – There were many events in October 2000, not only this one. Another option, ALT move: October 2000 riots in Israel. 94.179.168.56 (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• I suggest to move it to something with "Israel" in the title, for the sake of clarity. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support October 2000 riots in Israel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support per ASTONISH. This is a no brainer. cookie monster (2020) 755 06:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Very biased title

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)

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

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)

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) Sock.

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)

Requested move 23 July 2022

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)

---

October 2000 riots → October 2000 protests in Israel October 2000 protests – Old title is POV; not what, say, the people of Nazareth would call it, Huldra (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Update, I changed October 2000 protests to October 2000 protests in Israel pr Peacemaker67, Huldra (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Either way, it needs disambiguation by country or region. How many protests occurred around the world in October 2000? Suggest October 2000 protests in Israel or something like that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support October 2000 protests in Israel. BD2412 T 06:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support per ATONISH. cookie monster 755 05:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.