Talk:Intifada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Intifada is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.

Contents

[edit] Deletion log

Please bear in mind that much of the above is nonsense. For a more balanced view of the legitimate Palestinian resistance to thirty five years of occupation, check out: www.electronicintifada.org or www.jmcc.org

Whoever put this, for obvious reasons this is not encyclopedia stuff. Either add your claims (in an orderly fashion) to the article or don't make them at all. Also, citing Palestinian sources as 'balanced' would be a bit odd, to my point of view. --Uriyan
Stating that "citing Palestinian sources as 'balanced' would be a bit odd, to my point of view", is itself a bit odd, to my point of view. GrahamN 16 June '02
For most other groups and nationalities, that would be true. But not in this case. The Palestinian Authority and Palestinian media sources have a reputation for lying and anti-Semitism, so its hard to take their claims seriously without independent cooberation. For instance, they spent a week screaming to the world, claiming that Israelies murdered 5000 civilians in Jenin. It then turned out that no massacre took place at all; in the entire mini-war less than five dozen people were killed, most of whom were combatants. The Palestinians then held mock funerals with live people pretending to be dead, only to be unmasked when one of the "corpses" got up and walked away! This kind of dishonesty has been going on for years, and many people in the West just won't believe their propaganda anymore. RK

Oh dear. I completely disagree. Do you think that Israelis don't issue propaganda, that they don't lie and trade in their own hate-speech against the Palestinians? Your naïveté is touching. GrahamN 17 June '02

Just because you think that the Israelis are not always honest does not make it Ok for the Palestinians to make massive lies about casualites, etc. Two wrongs do not make a right, especially when we are trying to use facts to write an encyclopaedia article. RK


Surely an encyclopaedia article should try to see it from all sides, even sides the author doesn't personally agree with. Uriyan's comment above, and indeed the article itself, both seem to me to have a strong pro-Israeli bias. GrahamN 16 June '02

Again we must ask, how so? This article is a work in progress and constructive criticism is appreciated. However my experience is that whenever anyone tries to add what they term "balance", it often is pro-Palestinian propaganda, and sometimes veers off into anti-Semitism and apologetics for homicide bombings. That is why some of us are wary. RK
To somebody who is fervently convinced they are right, any opposing opinion will seem to be wrong-headed. I think you should try to take a step back and disengage your emotions. I hope you are able to make the distinction between anti-Semitism, which is obviously completely abhorrent and unacceptable, and anti-Zionism, which is a perfectly legitimate moral and political stance. The Intifada is a struggle against Zionism, not against Jews. I am not saying that no Palestinian participating in the Intifada is an anti-Semite. That would be absurd. Clearly many Palestinians are horribly anti-Semitic, just as many Americans are horribly prejudiced against people of African descent, and many Israelis are horribly prejudiced against Arabs. But the fact that some of a person's compatriots are bigots doesn't mean their own opinions must be discounted. There are many moderate Palestinians who are anti-Zionist but not racist. I believe these people’s perspective on the conflict is entirely valid, and should be represented in this article. GrahamN 17 June '02

www.jmcc.org is new to me, although a from very quick glance it appears sober enough. www.electronicintifada.org , however, I know to be an excellent site, and I urge you to peruse it in the interests of balance. The site seems to me to go out of its way to be fair, far more than you would reasonably expect from Palestinians, given all that they have suffered and are suffering at the hands of the Israelis. I've only discovered Wikipedia today (what a terrific idea it is!), so I'm not entirely comfortable with barging in and making wholesale changes just yet. If I find time, I'd like attempt to draft a more neutral article, showing the thing from both sides. Would the normal thing be to post it here in Talk, first, for others to comment on, or should I follow the advice to be "bold" and destroy all the hard work Uriyan has put into this well written (if biased) original, at a stroke? GrahamN 16 June 02 (I didn't post the first comment, by the way)

Under no circumstances should anyone completely rewrite any subject entire entry by themselves. This is a community project. Complete rewrites are used only in cases of vandalism, plagarism, lunacy, slander, etc, but not when we disagree with an article's tone or direction. RK
(cutting in) I disagree - be bold in updating pages, in line with editing policy. If an article needs a complete rewrite, do it. It's unusual, because normally it's more productive to edit and refactor existing content, but it has worked in the past. Martin
Thank you for this advice, which sounds very sensible. On reflection, I find the idea of a complete re-write too daunting, anyway. GrahamN 17 June '02
Uriyan didn't write this entire article; others contributed as well. RK
I gained the impression that the article was principally Uriyan's work by examining its history, but looking at it again I now see that I may have been mistaken. What does "conversion script" mean? Does it mean all the history of the article before that has been deleted? GrahamN 17 June '02
If you have a subtantial change to make, that's fine. First mention it here, and back it up with your rationale and sources. This is the way all of our articles are improved. RK
I don't have much free time at the moment, but never fear – I shall return in a few weeks with proposed amendments, and I'll be only too pleased to provide back-up rationale and sources! I like to think I have a very open mind, so it is quite possible you may convince me to change my opinions. I look forward to some interesting discussions.  :-) GrahamN 17 June '02
However, these statement can only be understood in a relevant context. It is well known that both sides, Israelis and Palestinians, were preparing for the worst in the form of violent conflict.

What is the sentence above supposed to mean? --Uri

I really don't want to get involved in this stuff.. but this comment caught my eye on Recent changes: "GrahamN (It is POV to insist on referring to the Israeli military as "defence forces".) " Um. Depends. If it's as 'the Israeli Defense Forces', then you're just using their name. If it's uncapitalized or incomplete, then you've got a valid point. See "People's Republic of China", "People's Democratic Republic of Korea", any number of dictators that take the title of "President"... when it's the name, you use it whether you think it's utter lies or not. -- Jake 17:57, 2003 Sep 12 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

Isn't stating that occupation is 'unjust' POV? Anyway, should Intifada be capitalized or not? Capitalization should at least be consistant. --Yuval

I love an arguement where both sides spend the whole time trying to out-shout the other, yelling nothing back and forth except, "you're lying!" and "proaganda." There is no question that most of the cited sources are biased to varying degrees, and in this debate, I doubt an unbiased source exists. Get over yourselves, guys, and try to find a way of witing thigs that we might all accept.


[edit] Spelling?

Have recently studied Form 6 verbs in Arabic with transliterations. Should it not be intaffada due to the pattern of the Form 6 verbs (root = nfd, double middle vowel and place 'ta' in middle). Just as a politically ambigous point for some (hopefully) less vitriolic discussion.


no, since it's a form 8 noun :-)

look,

  • the root is n-f-D.
  • the VIII verb form, in perfect 3rd person masculin, is "intafaDa"
  • thus the verbal noun is "intifaaDa (taa' marbuuta).

Arre 00:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Have another look at your verbal tables, yaa anonymous! There is actually no form corresponding to the one you describe, but it sounds like you have mixed up the fifth and the eighth forms. Form V: prefix ta and double middle consonant ( fa`ala --> tafa``ala ). Form VI: prefix ta and add long vowel after first consonant ( fa`ala --> tafā`ala ). Form VIII: insert t after first consonant and, where necessary, prefix short vowel i with hamzat al-wasl ( fa`ala --> ifta`ala ). Any clearer? Palmiro | Talk 20:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] French Intifada?

A source for this would be nice. I've asked on the relative talk page as well. google search turns up 1.5 million odd results, but the first few pages seem to be mostly from far-right sights or .il addresses. If its use is common but restricted then I suppose we could cite it but note this. Palmiro | Talk 22:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

If anyone wants to keep deleting the important note that the use of the term "French Intifada" is confined to extremists and right-wing circles, please cite some evidence for other use. Palmiro | Talk 15:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

===>Burden of proof You need to prove that it's only extremists and right-wingers, since you are the one making the claim. See also weasel terms. Justin (koavf) 01:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would be quite happy to delete it altogether since I'm not convinced that it's a notable usage. Instead, I left it in with an explanation of the circumstances in which it's used. Either it's explained like that, or there's evidence given for its wider usage, or it goes. You choose. Palmiro | Talk 11:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

===>Fair enough I say leave it out, as it's inflammatory. Justin (koavf) 22:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] US Occupation

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

[edit] It is occupation

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

[edit] According to MSN Encarta, Intifada means Palestinian uprising

[1] Robin Hood 1212 14:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote for rewrite: 'attacks on civilians'/ redirect

Two obvious issues with this very bad page.

First, using the quote from the Washington post is very un-encyclopedia-ish. It's the lead paragraph in an encyclopedia article ferchrissake! You don't use a journalistic quote. I vote to delete the quote. Not to mention that it's an inaccurate depiction of the word's perception. Most non-Arab people see the (first) intifada as unarmed resistance; that's the reason it was such a difficult situation for Israel.

Second of course, is the fact that this is a redirect page essentially, instead of an article about the first intifada with references to later events which have borrowed the term. I suggest either a real article on the concept of Intifada, or combining with the 1987 event.jackbrown (talk) 07:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)