Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Third intifada

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Intifada. And merge content from the history to the extent that consensus among the target article's editors allows. Consensus here is that we don't currently have good material for a separate article with this title, in particular because it's not clear whether it should cover any past or ongoing conflict, or a potential future conflict. Should consensus be reached about that (e.g. via a RfC on Talk:Intifada), the article can be recreated.  Sandstein  10:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Third intifada[edit]

The Third intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a violation of so many policies and guidelines, it's difficult to know where to begin, but how about starting with WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTNEWS. The fact that the final sentence "The demolition of the al-Aqsa Mosque, which is one of Israel’s strategic plans" (a quote) is being presented as fact shows that the article's creator (who removed the prod without a reason) is clearly not here to write a neutral encyclopedia. Number 57 12:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I agree with WP:OR problem but it never justifies deleting a notable subject. A simple search, brings up reliable secondary sources for this subject, such as this, this, this and etc. I'm not ignoring the fair critique presented by the nominator, but they only has nothing to do with AFD policies. Mhhossein (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may have missed the fact that I cited WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTNEWS. Two of your cited sources are news articles from the past week, whilst the other one is an opinion piece from 2014 on a completely different topic (i.e. not the recent violence). The recent news articles only serve as speculation as to whether it will happen (or has), not that it actually has happened, so I'll also throw WP:CRYSTAL into the mix. Number 57 15:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, WP:SYNTH has nothing to do with WP:AFD. Per WP:CRYSTAL, "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred," which even supports having a article for the subject? If the subject had already happened, could we have an article for that? I think yes, what do you think? Mhhossein (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(a) SYNTH is a perfectly acceptable deletion argument if that's the entire concept of the article (b) you're ignoring NOTNEWS and (c) regarding your last point, I wholly disagree – the news articles are merely speculation that something may be happening, not that it has or definitely will – this is tjhe very definition of a CRYSTAL violation. Number 57 23:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your (a) and suggest a WP:TNT for that. By the way, some fresh articles from reliable sources justify having such a subject. Mhhossein (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article is fundamentally flawed, for reasons outlined by Number 57. However, the recent clashes about Al-Aqsa and the resulting disturbances in East Jerusalem deserves an article. Just in the past few weeks 500 Palestinians have been injured and many people killed on both sides. I have myself thought about doing something about this. But this isn't the way to go about it. Best to blow it up and start all over again. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with WP:TNT. Mhhossein (talk) 06:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please note that since November 2014, Third Intifada has existed as a redirect to Silent Intifada, which focuses on events during the latter half of 2014, and includes sources indicating that last year's increased violence was already being discussed as a potential "third Intifada". --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I agree with the critiques about this article (i.e. with WP:SYNTH and WP:CRYSTALBALL), and I think someone needs to WP:BLOWITUP and start from scratch. However, it does appear that reliable sources use this term to describe a hypothetical conflict, and appears some sources claim the Third Intifada has already begun. See, for example, this source and this source. I think a good analogy for this article may be the article for World War III. There has never been a Third World War, but the term has received enough coverage to justify an article, per WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up comment: I decided to press the detonator myself, and I re-wrote the article per WP:BLOWITUP. Hopefully this will assuage the concerns regarding bias, SYNTH, and OR. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more comment: If the consensus is to keep, we should probably move this page to Third Intifada (note that Third Intifada currently redirects to Silent Intifada). The use of the definite article and the inconsistent capitalization of the current title likely warrant re-naming this article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We keep film articles with reliable sources, that are in production and yet to be released. Third Intifada is often cited in the media.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 06:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON. Even if the much muted "Third Intifada" does indeed come to pass the article as nominated was hardly the best of starts was it? And without talking down his efforts, Notecardforfree's heroic rewrite is little more than a bit of vague speculation based on the musings of a few commentators. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AnotherNewAccount, thank you for your kind words -- I have tried, as much as possible, to embody the WP:SOFIXIT philosophy. If the term "Third Intifada" was only being used in reference to current events in Israel/Palestine, then I would agree that WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL would apply in this case. However, it appears that the term has been used for years to describe a potential third Intifada, much in the same way that the term World War III is used to describe a hypothetical future conflict. See, for example, this N.Y. times article and this Haaretz article from 2014, this N.Y. times article from 2012, this Al Jazeera article from 2008, and this Christian Science Monitor article from 2008. All of those articles use the term to refer to a hypothetical future conflict (much like WWIII). Because the term has received so much coverage, I think this article deserves to stay. However, we should make it clear in the article that the term has been used primarily to describe a hypothetical future event, rather than anything that has actually occurred. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In present form, this article fits the description of Notecardforfree above, and his argument is convincing. Debresser (talk) 08:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is no problem. All entries are updated with the authoritative References.. Felestin1714 (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with both Number and User:Kingsindian, but am abstaining (for the moment) because these things should be adjudicated by experienced editors with no horse in the race. Nearly all the 'keep' votes so far are completely extraneous to policy considerations. (b) The fundamental objection is that the title and subject are preemptive of what has not yet been established by a terminological consensus. The 'Third Intifada' article was sketched by User:ShulMaven late last year after a spate of attacks, but this fizzled out, and the article became Silent Intifada. The first Intifada lasted 6 years, the Second 5/6 years: both were mass movements expressive of widespread popular unrest. We are 2 weeks into an event that so far is characterized by 'lone wolf incidents' that have yet to find a response in a mass movement. This is therefore premature, the material should be sandboxed until reality clarifies what is going on. All of the incidents are already covered in other articles.Nishidani (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, please read my reply to AnotherNewAccount above. The term "Third Intifada" has been used for years to describe a hypothetical future event (see the sources I cite above). If the term was only used in reference to current events, then I agree WP:CRYSTAL would apply, but that is not the case here. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 10:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I've adjusted my remark. Your comment was a very intelligent, informed and independent take on this. I was focused on other predictable automatic "voters". Usually, a new article of this type is created when the material in a mother article (say Palestinian political violence) on a specific set of events starts to get out of hand, and thus requires its own page. This stub should have been put on that or any other number of similar thematic pages, and, once sufficient work had been done to warrant an independent article (which has not been done) it could then be shifted. Nishidani (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words, Nishidani. I agree with you that editors should be particularly cautious when dealing with recent events, especially during difficult times. There is certainly room to improve this article, but the mere fact that an article is a stub is not, by itself, sufficient grounds for deletion (see WP:TOOSHORT). There are plenty of sources that have discussed the term "Third Intifada" over the last few years, so I think we have more than enough material to work with. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 11:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten by Notecardforfree, overcoming the WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues raised. However, I would like to see the 2008 and 2012 sources listed above (and earlier sources if available) referenced in the article, to show the term has a history of being used in regard to a hypothetical future event analagous to use of "World War Three" as mentioned above. If Notecardforfree is not interested in adding those sources, I would be willing to do it myself; let me know. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 15:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GrammarFascist, I have updated the article according to your suggestions. I added the 2008 and 2012 sources, and I tried to provide a little more background information. I also did some research to see if anyone used the term prior to 2008, but I could not find any sources. I would be very curious to know when the term was first used. In any case, please feel free to continue editing the article if you think it can be improved. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notecardforfree. The problem is that 'Third Intifada' as a prospect has been in continuous use since at least 2006, and has at various moments like last year (September-November) immediately been evoked as now happening, only for it to pass. There are numerous 'shakings off', 14 by one account. These points may help.
David Pratt, Intifada,Casemate Publishers, 2009 pp.20-21, for the transition in 1987 from the expected thawra (revolt) to intifada, a Palestinian choice which surprised Arabic speakers abroad. Pratt also notes that the term was being bandied as a prospect when Hamas beat Fatah in the elections of 2006 (p.254)
For Third Intifada's early use, when Netanyahu opened the tunnel under Al-Aqsa on September 23 1996 some people called that the Second Intifada, lasting only 4 days. The term 'The Third Intifada' was being used for the period of violence in 1998-1999, implying the Al-Aqsa one 2000 onwards was the fourth, by a Palestinian reckoning.(Graham Usher, Dispatches from Palestine: The Rise and Fall of the Oslo Peace Process, Pluto Press, 1999 thus in an interview Ibrahim Ghoshah)
Just an aside, but there is a book by Y. Eyal,Ha-Intifada ha-rishona: Dikuy ha–Mered ha-aravi al yedey ha-tzava ha-Briti be-Eretz Israel, 1936–39, which, in its very title, called the Ist Intifada not that of 1987 but the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939. (The First Intifada: The Suppression of the Arab Revolt by the British Army, 1936-1929, Ma’arahot, Tel Aviv 1998)- That would make this present 'shaking off', were it to be formally recognized as such, the 5th, or 15th, depending on the whimsy of the analyst.Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, I think you raise an important point that much of the discourse on this topic has marginalized many of the "shakings off" that have happened over the last century. Nevertheless, WP:GNG states that standalone articles are appropriate when a topic has received significant coverage from reliable sources. In this case, the term "Third Intifada" has been widely used by a variety of reliable sources since the "Second" Intifada (2000-2005) to refer to a hypothetical new, large-scale uprising. By way of analogy, there were many events labeled World War III by commentators that turned out to be nothing more than a flash in the pan. The World War III analogy is especially useful here, because there were many global conflicts prior to World War I that could have conceivably been called a World War. With regard to your concerns about the definition or numbering of Intifadas, perhaps a good solution would be to expand the Intifada article (currently a DAB) to explain the challenges associated with defining the term (indeed, there have been Intifadas outside Israel/Paelstine). You may also want to add events like the Arab Revolt of 1936-1939 to the current DAB page located at Intifada. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been even better improved by your latest additions, Notecardforfree; I really think you've done very well at recreating The Third intifada as something that belongs on Wikipedia. (Though, once this discussion is closed, it should probably be moved to The Third Intifada, as it makes no sense to capitalize Third but not intifada.) I have made some minor corrections to the article's formatting. I am far from an expert in matters of the politics of Arabic-speaking regions, but the article seems to cover the topic adequately in its present form. That said, it also sounds as though the further additions proposed by Nishidani could improve the article as well. I would note that the term "World War III" has also been raised as a possibility by analysts many times, and about a number of different regions as where such a war would originate. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 21:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, GrammarFascist! One quick point about potential renaming: I agree that renaming is likely warranted here. However, I think this article should be moved to "Third Intifada" (without the word "the" at the beginning of the title). At the moment, the articles for other Intifadas are located at First Intifada and Second Intifada, so I think it would be best to maintain consistency with existing articles. An article titled Third Intifada already exists, but it redirects to Silent Intifada. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, good catch about First Intifada and Second Intifada; I hadn't noticed those articles lacked the leading "The". I think you're right that this article should follow that convention. And I don't see moving the article over the redirect as a problem, as the Third Intifada article will still link to Silent Intifada for those looking for that article. And of course you're welcome. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 22:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/selective merge to Intifada. Relevant discussion of potential future intifadas, boycott-based intifadas, etc. can go there. Note that Third intifada currently redirects somewhere else; I'm going to point it here, since it seems like regardless of whether this article is deleted or kept, it's not a mainstream or common name for these events in Jerusalem, July 2014. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't redirect prior to the conclusion of this discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 10:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Nothing is served by preserving the redirect. If the consensus of this discussion is that "Third intifada" is commonly used to refer to specific events in Jerusalem in the summer of 2014, both the old redirect and this article title will be pointed back there. If the consensus is that it's a phrase that's used in passing to refer to a variety of specific things, then both will be deleted. To treat the two links differently, when they differ only by a "the", would be foolish. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a sourced name for 2014 riots.GreyShark (dibra) 15:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a sourced name for a lot of other stuff. That's why we're having this debate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Greyshark09 that Third Intifada should not be redirected until this discussion concludes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greyshark09, please read my reply to AnotherNewAccount above. The term "Third Intifada" has been used for years to describe a hypothetical future event (see the sources I cite above). See also my discussion with Nishidani above regarding the difficult task of identifying the number of intifadas that have occurred. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think a reasonable amount of work has been done to warrant the preservation of this article into Wikipedia, probably under a reformed title: The concept of a third intifada. Without preempting history, there are strong sociological reasons why this will not occur, while the term itself can be documented as being in use since 1996, and repeatedly evoked since then for intimations of yet one more outbreak. It therefore has, regardless of what happens now, an interesting history in its own right.Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Prohibited Area, please read my reply to AnotherNewAccount above. The term "Third Intifada" has been used for years to describe a hypothetical future event (see the sources I cite above). If the term was only used in reference to current events, then I agree WP:CRYSTAL would apply, but that is not the case here. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015) on an overlapping topic is also at AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015).E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment As someone above points out, Third Intifada exists - and is a model of the bad articles spawned by a topic area with too many ill-defined articles. And of the use of Wikipedia for promoting causes. Third Intifada is a term in use for decades now, BOTH by Palestine activists pushing for a violent uprising. AND by by Israeli making a point of calling Palestinian Arab activism violent. I actually suspect that having an article about the term is a reasonable idea. But until/unless an awful lot of reliable sources decide to call the spate of lone wolf stabbing attacks and riots of the last few weeks by this name, any article about recent events should be called something else, and this article - if it is kept - should limit current events to a sentence or two cited to the reputable sources now musing aloud over whether this is or is not an intifada - sources I have seen cite the term only to point out that we are not there yet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/selective merge to Intifada. As per User:Roscelese.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory, please read my reply to AnotherNewAccount above. The term "Third Intifada" has been used for years to describe a hypothetical future event (see the sources I cite above). The re-written version of the article, as it exists now, discusses the term as it applies to a hypothetical event, rather than specific current events. If the term was only used in reference to current events, then WP:CRYSTAL would apply, but that is not the case here. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I read it, carefully. And I think that redirecting to Intifada makes more sense in that it gives readers a broader sense of how the term is used.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move the content of this to Third Intifada. the broader term and its usage is fine, but as the OP pointed out its POV/OR/SYNTHESIS/many more. And anyways moving Third Intifada away from silent is fine as thats OR.Lihaas (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Nothing about this article is encyclopedia worthy. Its at best WP:OR and definitely WP:CRYSTAL. - GalatzTalk 00:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Galatz: Nothing? Mhhossein (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/selective merge to Intifada per Roscelese. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/selective merge to Intifada per Roscelese. That seems to be the best option. There's a bunch of WP:NEO articles that struggle to focus on whether it's about the term, or disparate things that different people have applied the term to (which hits OR and SYNTH issues fast). -- Callinus (talk) 04:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many international reliable sources which use Intafada for this round of violence in Palestine and Israel such as Foreign Policy [1] and Independent [2]. Even the Israeli sources have used this title: Ynetnews [3], and Haaretz [4].--Seyyed(t-c) 05:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would add this to the list! It's published just 14 hrs ago. Mhhossein (talk) 10:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Third_intifada&oldid=1138858124"