| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Intifada article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
 |
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
 | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Intifada, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
I think that the section for describing 'the iraq intifada' should not say "aimed at ending the US Occupation of Iraq". It seems to lack objectivity of the author, just as writing "aimed at ending the US Liberation of Iraq" would.
A more proper wording would be "aimed at ending the US military presence in Iraq".
-- Popoi
Well, what's happening in Iraq IS Occupation NOT Presence!
--Riyadhawi
They're the same thing, except "occupation" is a negative word, particularly when you capitalize it like that. Speaking of which, I think its use in the phrase "directed at ending the Israeli military occupation" is negative towards Israel, particularly since many, including intifada participants, will say that the intifada is aimed at obliterating Israel as a state and/or the Jews altogether, not just the occupation of Palestinian-populated areas. One can hardly say, for example, that Jerusalem, a major Palestinian goal (at the very least to share) is merely occupied by the Israeli military. I am going to change the wording to something legitimately biaseless, i.e. expressing both views.
--James
NYT Tuesday has
Facebook Removes ‘Palestinian Intifada’ Page By JENNIFER PRESTON
5:43 p.m. | Updated After complaints by Israeli government officials and Jewish organizations in the United States, Facebook took down a page today by Palestinian supporters that called for violence against Jews and an uprising against Israel.
The page, entitled “Third Palestinian Intifada,” began earlier this month as a call for peaceful protests in the occupied Palestinian territories on May 15, one of more than a dozen Facebook pages that have been used in recent months to mobilize uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa.
[NYT article continues]
One quirk of the story is the use of "Third Intifada" to refer to the same proposed activity on two contradictory logical grounds:
- A.
- First Palestinian Intifada
- Second Palestinian Intifada
- Third Palestinian Intifada
- B.
- Tunisian First Intifada
- Egyptian Second Intifada
- Palestinian Third Intifada
Surely we need to cover this as a FaceBook topic, notwithstanding two earlier years' deletions of earlier would-be-
Third Intifada wannabe articles.
--
Jerzy•
t 01:27 & 01:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I refer above to
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third Intifada (fall 2010, delete) and
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third intifada (winter 2007, merge to
Khaled Mashal apparently w/o Rdr).
-- Jerzy• t 01:35 & 01:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The first and second Palestinian intifadas included suicide bombers, stone throwing etc. Under History, it says it was intended to be nonviolent.
Even if it's meant to show intention only, it should also state that they were, in fact, violent.
If this part under History refers to the INTENT to represent it as non violent, that should be stated.
That's both for complete encyclopedic content and because in these complicated times of the current Israeli-Palestinian war, uneducated supporters who don't know what intifada is or can't tell the difference between Hamas and Palestinians search Wikipedia for affirmation for supporting Hamas, and they then call for intifada because "it means revolution" while to others like Hamas it means violent deeds like suicide bombings.
Yes, this is an encyclopedia, not an opinion column. But this section showing the first and second intifadas as non violent does the truth injustice in practice. Our purpose is to convey the facts well, this may fail at that.
Peace be upon both nations.
... in the First and Second Intifadas, where it was originally chosen to connote "aggressive nonviolent resistance", a meaning it bore among Palestinian students in struggles in the 1980s and which they adopted as less confrontational than terms in earlier militant rhetoric since it bore no nuance of violence.
2A0D:6FC2:64A0:B00:7C45:9BEF:DB18:BBAC ( talk) 11:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- The sentence seems to be eliding a lot, as the second intifada was in 2000, 15 years later and after the First Intifada had turned violent. The term in 2000 did not necessarily have the same connotation it had in the late 80s.The Second Intifada began violent on September 29, 2000, immediately after Sharon went to the Temple Mount, and both sides used violent rhetoric immediately with the militant terms this article says weren't used. 67.242.46.6 ( talk) 02:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article is extremely misleading. It makes the reader believe that the Palestinian Intifadas were non violent - or intended to be non violent. But the truth is that both intifadas were indeed very violent from day 1. I can find numerous examples of this violence. If a suicide bomber on a bus is a “nonviolent” act than i guess no one is violent.
I will of course bring all the evidence needed - both for the definition of intifada and for the actual events that happened under it. Please let the truth be written!
Here’s one for the definition: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/intifada Bozzidag ( talk) 12:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a
"change X to Y" format and provide a
reliable source if appropriate.
Liu1126 (
talk) 13:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- The article is clearly written with bias towards the view that it is a non-violent movement. The words used to describe it as peaceful include positive terms like "solidarity" and "support," while the two sentences about the inherent violence dismissively use phrases like "alleged" and "feel." 68.112.18.142 ( talk) 16:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- ok. I would add to the first paragraph:
- "An intifada (Arabic: انتفاضة intifāḍah) is a rebellion or uprising, or a resistance movement. It is a key concept in contemporary Arabic usage referring to a uprising against oppression. In the Israeli - Palestinian conflict context, it refers to violent or non - violent uprising or opposition by the Palestinian people to the Israeli occupation. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
- == Notes ==
- == References ==
- Intidada Definition, Cambridge Dictionary
- Brinkley, Joel (1988). "sustained violence that has become known by the Arabic word for uprising, intifada", The New York Times.
- Bard, Mitchell (2005). "This uprising or intifada was violent from the start." Jewish Virtual Library.
- Balsam, Avi (2023). "Intifada revolution(...) a term which connotes violent uprising against Jews", The Tech.
- Geraghty, Jim (2023) "Calling for an “intifada” is calling for a violent uprising", National Review.
- Bozzidag ( talk) 17:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- == References ==
Not done for now: please establish a
consensus for this alteration
before using the {{ Edit extended-protected}}template. Spintendo 23:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)- Well, I don’t see a raging debate here, and I had one other person in this thread agreeing with me, plus another person complaining before about the same problem in this article (painting intifada as an almost hippie movement, which is absurd).
- I understand that this edit is controversial, and you can read and take what you think is more important from what I’ve added, but please note that I did add references and sources for my claims, and not one, but five. Also, I dare you to find anything that I wrote that is NOT factual. I think it is politically biased to ignore ALL of it. Thanks Bozzidag ( talk) 10:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Done with some other sources.
ARandomName123 (
talk)Ping me! 18:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request to add citations and change some of this text:
'In the Palestinian context, the word refers to attempts to "shake off" the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the First and Second Intifadas, where it was originally chosen to connote "aggressive nonviolent resistance", a meaning it bore among Palestinian students in struggles in the 1980s and which they adopted as less confrontational than terms in earlier militant rhetoric since it bore no nuance of violence.'
Ok. but i'd like to add :
In actuality, the first Intifada consisted of violent attacks on Israeli troops and civilians with stones, axes, Molotov cocktails, hand grenades, explosives, and firearms, as well as nonviolent actions such as mass boycotts, civil disobedience, and Palestinians refusing to work jobs in Israel. [1] [2] [3] [4]
- Not done for now: please establish a
consensus for this alteration
before using the
{{ Edit extended-protected}}template. Spintendo 23:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Again, where is the raging debate ??
- I understand that this edit is controversial, because this is an emotional and politically charged issue, but again, you can read and take what you think is more important from what I’ve added, but please note that I did add references and sources for my claims, and not one, but four. Once again, I dare you to find anything that I wrote that is NOT factual. I think it is politically biased to ignore ALL of it. Thanks
Bozzidag (
talk) 10:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Not done - stale, contested request.
* Pppery *
it has begun... 01:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
References
References
- The Intifada: 1987-1990, Anti-Defamation League, 2022
- "The First Intifada was (...) attacks (using rocks, Molotov cocktails, and occasionally firearms) on Israelis." What you need to know about the 1987 Intifada, PBS, 2019
- "the Palestinians shifted from throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at Israeli targets to attacking them with rifles, hand grenades, and explosives" Intifada, Encyclopædia Britannica.
- 'We threw one Molotov at the beginning'(...)'We'd go down there and throw stones and Molotovs' Jaafar recalled", Inside the Intifada, Joel Brinkley, The New York Times, 1987.
Bozzidag ( talk) 17:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
the wording is confusing with the double or, here is my sugested rewording it and add link to relevant source on wikipedia according to WP:BUILD.
change:
it refers to violent or non-violent uprising or opposition by the Palestinian people to the Israeli occupation.
to:
it refers to non-violent opposition or violent uprising by the Palestinian people to the Israeli occupation. 79.176.106.171 ( talk) 01:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
The lead says that 'intifada' refers to violent or non-violent uprising or opposition by the Palestinian people to the Israeli occupation.
But the sources do not support this. The sources cited are an Economist article that says Violence is a hallmark of an intifada
, a Vox article which says that the
First Intifada included both violent and non-violent actions, and a Deutsche Welle article that says nothing about non-violence, but simply summarizes the facts of the two violent intifadas in the history of Israel-Palestine. I therefore propose this revision: In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict context, it refers to uprising or opposition by the Palestinian people to the Israeli occupation, characteristically involving violent resistance, and also sometimes involving nonviolent methods of resistance.
Shinealittlelight (
talk) 19:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Intifada article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
|
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 365 days
|
|
| Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
|
| WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Intifada, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
|
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
I think that the section for describing 'the iraq intifada' should not say "aimed at ending the US Occupation of Iraq". It seems to lack objectivity of the author, just as writing "aimed at ending the US Liberation of Iraq" would.
A more proper wording would be "aimed at ending the US military presence in Iraq".
-- Popoi
Well, what's happening in Iraq IS Occupation NOT Presence!
--Riyadhawi
They're the same thing, except "occupation" is a negative word, particularly when you capitalize it like that. Speaking of which, I think its use in the phrase "directed at ending the Israeli military occupation" is negative towards Israel, particularly since many, including intifada participants, will say that the intifada is aimed at obliterating Israel as a state and/or the Jews altogether, not just the occupation of Palestinian-populated areas. One can hardly say, for example, that Jerusalem, a major Palestinian goal (at the very least to share) is merely occupied by the Israeli military. I am going to change the wording to something legitimately biaseless, i.e. expressing both views.
--James
NYT Tuesday has
Facebook Removes ‘Palestinian Intifada’ Page By JENNIFER PRESTON
5:43 p.m. | Updated After complaints by Israeli government officials and Jewish organizations in the United States, Facebook took down a page today by Palestinian supporters that called for violence against Jews and an uprising against Israel.
The page, entitled “Third Palestinian Intifada,” began earlier this month as a call for peaceful protests in the occupied Palestinian territories on May 15, one of more than a dozen Facebook pages that have been used in recent months to mobilize uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa.
[NYT article continues]
One quirk of the story is the use of "Third Intifada" to refer to the same proposed activity on two contradictory logical grounds:
- A.
- First Palestinian Intifada
- Second Palestinian Intifada
- Third Palestinian Intifada
- B.
- Tunisian First Intifada
- Egyptian Second Intifada
- Palestinian Third Intifada
Surely we need to cover this as a FaceBook topic, notwithstanding two earlier years' deletions of earlier would-be-
Third Intifada wannabe articles.
--
Jerzy•
t 01:27 & 01:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I refer above to
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third Intifada (fall 2010, delete) and
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third intifada (winter 2007, merge to
Khaled Mashal apparently w/o Rdr).
-- Jerzy• t 01:35 & 01:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The first and second Palestinian intifadas included suicide bombers, stone throwing etc. Under History, it says it was intended to be nonviolent.
Even if it's meant to show intention only, it should also state that they were, in fact, violent.
If this part under History refers to the INTENT to represent it as non violent, that should be stated.
That's both for complete encyclopedic content and because in these complicated times of the current Israeli-Palestinian war, uneducated supporters who don't know what intifada is or can't tell the difference between Hamas and Palestinians search Wikipedia for affirmation for supporting Hamas, and they then call for intifada because "it means revolution" while to others like Hamas it means violent deeds like suicide bombings.
Yes, this is an encyclopedia, not an opinion column. But this section showing the first and second intifadas as non violent does the truth injustice in practice. Our purpose is to convey the facts well, this may fail at that.
Peace be upon both nations.
... in the First and Second Intifadas, where it was originally chosen to connote "aggressive nonviolent resistance", a meaning it bore among Palestinian students in struggles in the 1980s and which they adopted as less confrontational than terms in earlier militant rhetoric since it bore no nuance of violence.
2A0D:6FC2:64A0:B00:7C45:9BEF:DB18:BBAC ( talk) 11:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
- The sentence seems to be eliding a lot, as the second intifada was in 2000, 15 years later and after the First Intifada had turned violent. The term in 2000 did not necessarily have the same connotation it had in the late 80s.The Second Intifada began violent on September 29, 2000, immediately after Sharon went to the Temple Mount, and both sides used violent rhetoric immediately with the militant terms this article says weren't used. 67.242.46.6 ( talk) 02:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article is extremely misleading. It makes the reader believe that the Palestinian Intifadas were non violent - or intended to be non violent. But the truth is that both intifadas were indeed very violent from day 1. I can find numerous examples of this violence. If a suicide bomber on a bus is a “nonviolent” act than i guess no one is violent.
I will of course bring all the evidence needed - both for the definition of intifada and for the actual events that happened under it. Please let the truth be written!
Here’s one for the definition: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/intifada Bozzidag ( talk) 12:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a
"change X to Y" format and provide a
reliable source if appropriate.
Liu1126 (
talk) 13:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
- The article is clearly written with bias towards the view that it is a non-violent movement. The words used to describe it as peaceful include positive terms like "solidarity" and "support," while the two sentences about the inherent violence dismissively use phrases like "alleged" and "feel." 68.112.18.142 ( talk) 16:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- ok. I would add to the first paragraph:
- "An intifada (Arabic: انتفاضة intifāḍah) is a rebellion or uprising, or a resistance movement. It is a key concept in contemporary Arabic usage referring to a uprising against oppression. In the Israeli - Palestinian conflict context, it refers to violent or non - violent uprising or opposition by the Palestinian people to the Israeli occupation. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
- == Notes ==
- == References ==
- Intidada Definition, Cambridge Dictionary
- Brinkley, Joel (1988). "sustained violence that has become known by the Arabic word for uprising, intifada", The New York Times.
- Bard, Mitchell (2005). "This uprising or intifada was violent from the start." Jewish Virtual Library.
- Balsam, Avi (2023). "Intifada revolution(...) a term which connotes violent uprising against Jews", The Tech.
- Geraghty, Jim (2023) "Calling for an “intifada” is calling for a violent uprising", National Review.
- Bozzidag ( talk) 17:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- == References ==
- Not done for now: please establish a
consensus for this alteration
before using the
{{ Edit extended-protected}}template. Spintendo 23:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)- Well, I don’t see a raging debate here, and I had one other person in this thread agreeing with me, plus another person complaining before about the same problem in this article (painting intifada as an almost hippie movement, which is absurd).
- I understand that this edit is controversial, and you can read and take what you think is more important from what I’ve added, but please note that I did add references and sources for my claims, and not one, but five. Also, I dare you to find anything that I wrote that is NOT factual. I think it is politically biased to ignore ALL of it. Thanks Bozzidag ( talk) 10:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Done with some other sources.
ARandomName123 (
talk)Ping me! 18:47, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
| This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request to add citations and change some of this text:
'In the Palestinian context, the word refers to attempts to "shake off" the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the First and Second Intifadas, where it was originally chosen to connote "aggressive nonviolent resistance", a meaning it bore among Palestinian students in struggles in the 1980s and which they adopted as less confrontational than terms in earlier militant rhetoric since it bore no nuance of violence.'
Ok. but i'd like to add :
In actuality, the first Intifada consisted of violent attacks on Israeli troops and civilians with stones, axes, Molotov cocktails, hand grenades, explosives, and firearms, as well as nonviolent actions such as mass boycotts, civil disobedience, and Palestinians refusing to work jobs in Israel. [1] [2] [3] [4]
- Not done for now: please establish a
consensus for this alteration
before using the
{{ Edit extended-protected}}template. Spintendo 23:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- Again, where is the raging debate ??
- I understand that this edit is controversial, because this is an emotional and politically charged issue, but again, you can read and take what you think is more important from what I’ve added, but please note that I did add references and sources for my claims, and not one, but four. Once again, I dare you to find anything that I wrote that is NOT factual. I think it is politically biased to ignore ALL of it. Thanks
Bozzidag (
talk) 10:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not done - stale, contested request.
* Pppery *
it has begun... 01:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
References
References
- The Intifada: 1987-1990, Anti-Defamation League, 2022
- "The First Intifada was (...) attacks (using rocks, Molotov cocktails, and occasionally firearms) on Israelis." What you need to know about the 1987 Intifada, PBS, 2019
- "the Palestinians shifted from throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails at Israeli targets to attacking them with rifles, hand grenades, and explosives" Intifada, Encyclopædia Britannica.
- 'We threw one Molotov at the beginning'(...)'We'd go down there and throw stones and Molotovs' Jaafar recalled", Inside the Intifada, Joel Brinkley, The New York Times, 1987.
Bozzidag ( talk) 17:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
the wording is confusing with the double or, here is my sugested rewording it and add link to relevant source on wikipedia according to WP:BUILD.
change:
it refers to violent or non-violent uprising or opposition by the Palestinian people to the Israeli occupation.
to:
it refers to non-violent opposition or violent uprising by the Palestinian people to the Israeli occupation. 79.176.106.171 ( talk) 01:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
The lead says that 'intifada' refers to violent or non-violent uprising or opposition by the Palestinian people to the Israeli occupation.
But the sources do not support this. The sources cited are an Economist article that says Violence is a hallmark of an intifada
, a Vox article which says that the
First Intifada included both violent and non-violent actions, and a Deutsche Welle article that says nothing about non-violence, but simply summarizes the facts of the two violent intifadas in the history of Israel-Palestine. I therefore propose this revision: In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict context, it refers to uprising or opposition by the Palestinian people to the Israeli occupation, characteristically involving violent resistance, and also sometimes involving nonviolent methods of resistance.
Shinealittlelight (
talk) 19:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)