Talk:Intifada

Talk

1. 1. Etymology

Another reference to cite for the word root:

https://www.almaany.com/en/dict/ar-en/%D9%86%D9%81%D8%B6/

https://www.almaany.com/ar/dict/ar-en/%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AA%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%B6%D8%A9/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:1398:4AD0:C7FB:93CB:5BB1:FA99 (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Third Intifada on FB

   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.

1. First Palestinian Intifada
2. Second Palestinian Intifada
3. Third Palestinian Intifada

B.

1. Tunisian First Intifada
2. Egyptian Second Intifada
3. 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)

Palestinian intifada nonviolent?

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2023

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.

== 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)

 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)

History Section

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.

 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)

rewording and adding reference to related source

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)

sources on violence vs nonviolence

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)

@Shinealittlelight: The sources you provided here proves the point, that it involved both violent and non-violent methods. Relying exclusively on the Economist charachterization is cherrypicking a POV; I await your self-reversion. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Again the body makes it clear that in the I-P context the two intifadas were characterized by violence. And while the economist source is the most explicit that the “hallmark” of the intifadas was violence, all sources describe the violence in detail. So no cherry picking. Just accurate summary. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: The body makes no such claims:

“ 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. The First Intifada was characterized by protests and violent riots, especially stone-throwing, while the Second Intifada was characterized by a period of heightened violence. The suicide bombings carried out by Palestinian assailants became one of the more prominent features of the Second Intifada and mainly targeted Israeli civilians, contrasting with the relatively less violent nature of the First Intifada. ”

Furthermore, the different definitions provided by yourself proves that such claim is not factually correct. I still await your self-reversion, as the burden of verifiability and reaching consensus is on the editor making a claim per WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Neither intifada involved 21st-century-Western-style nonviolent protests, which is a difficult norm to achieve without our built-up advantage in state capacity. If you look at the Britannica page, the term "protests" is not used at all -- "riots" is what we'd call the same actions in the US, because they all involved extreme physical violence against Israelis and property. Already the action plans released daily by the PLO during 1987-9 generally included an instruction to throw stones and Molotov cocktails at Israelis and passing cars. However, the "intifada of stones and Molotov cocktails" (as declared by the PLO in 1987; PIJ tried to reframe it as an "intifada of knives" in 1990) was definitely less violent than the Second Intifada, which from its inception attempted to achieve higher Israeli casualties by using mostly guns and heavy explosives. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

"21st-century-Western-style nonviolent protests". Ah, yes, western protests are inherently non-violent, and those savage non-westerner protests are inherently violent. Sorry to be blunt, but it is mind-boggling that anyone believes this and edits Wikipedia based on these prejudices. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about. In the United States in 2024, "protest" by default refers to a group of people standing on a street corner with placards chanting slogans. Neither intifada took this form. The characteristic action of the first intifada was a group of Palestinians throwing up an improvised roadblock and defending it with stones and Molotov cocktails, while the characteristic action of the second intifada was a suicide bombing or knife or gun attack on a crowded street. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, like the Daunte Wright protests, where westerners stood on a street corner peacefully with placards chanting slogans, and did not largely engage in any acts of rioting, looting, and arson. While of course the non-western 2018–2019 Gaza border protests were charachterized by suicide kites, and was not largely peaceful (the peaceful protestors were massacred anyway by the Israeli army). This dichotomy does not exist; let's start editing Wikipedia based on what reliable sources say, not what our prejudices say. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Remember that, even stipulating we have some sort of disagreement, this is not a forum for political disputes. The Daunte Wright page begins "Protests and civil disorder occurred." In this sentence "protests" refers to protests, and "civil disorder" refers to the "rioting, looting, and arson" that you mention. "Civil disorder" is used in addition to "protests" because these actions are not normally defined under "protests" without the modifier "violent" or etc. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The article is nevertheless still called Daunte Wright protests, not Daunte Wright Riots. I agree this is not a forum for political disputes, this is a forum to demonstrate in it that we as editors have a responsibility to edit according to reliable sources, not according to baseless prejudices. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the body says the term was chosen to connote nonviolence. But the fact that it was chosen to connote nonviolence is consistent with the fact, also established by sources, that the intifadas ended up being characterized by violence anyway. And the fact that they were characterized by violence is established by the quote you provide: the first intifada was characterized by protests and violent riots (note, it definitely does not say "non-violent protests" but rather protests and violent riots) and the second intifada was even more violent, and was characterized by a period of hightened violence. So again, these intifadas were characterized by violence, per all the sources and the current body. Our lead should reflect this.

The current state of consensus is this: there was an inaccurate version of the lead, I pointed this out on talk above (on 26 April), proposed my alternative, waited a day, saw no response, and changed the lead accordingly. You are now here wanting to propose a new edit. You need to gain consensus to enact that new edit. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: RS, including the ones you provided above, do not agree that the first intifada was mainly violent:

“ Daniel Lefkowitz, a professor of language and culture in the Middle East at the University of Virginia who lived in Israel for several years in the early 2000s, hypothesized that, for most Palestinians, the word brings up memories of the First Intifada, a largely non-violent Palestinian protest largely involving work stoppages, boycotts and demonstrations. Some Palestinians also attacked Israelis, mostly with small weapons such as rocks or Molotov cocktails, and on some occasions with firearms or grenades. [1] ”

If anything the intifadas were characterized by even deadlier and more violent Israeli repression. This is both cherrypicking of RS and of information. I still await your self-reversion because the claim that the intifadas were charachterized by violence is a claim you are trying to insert, and one I am trying remove; the burden again is on you. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that one source says Professor Lefkowitz thinks that the first intifada was "largely nonviolent". Several other sources characterize the intifadas as characterized by violence as indicated. But in any case the opinion of this single person seems WP:UNDUE to me in light of the totality of the sources.

I don't understand the relevance of your claim about "Israeli repression". The sources indicate that the intifadas were characterized by violence. That's consistent with your claim about "Israeli repression" so I don't understand why you're bringing that up. Nobody needs to dispute your claim.

As for the current state of the article, you need consensus for a new edit, as explained above. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: Reliable sources simply disagree:

• "In contrast to the First Intifada, which was predominantly peaceful, the Second Intifada was violent." [2]
• "While the first Intifada was a peaceful people's revolt, the second became a violent battle between the elites of both sides who had failed to formulate a shared vision for a solution of the conflict." [3]

WP:BURDEN: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." You restored the material that the protests were characterized by violence and the burden is on you to demonstrate verifiability. I have went out of my way to refute the alleged universality of this claim and I am still waiting for your self-revert. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Helpful sources, thanks. I think part of the problem here is that terms like "predominately peaceful" are vague. Let's go for the facts. For example, this source [4] gives us some hard facts: The first intifada began as demonstrations, strikes, riots and violence ... an Israeli was stabbed to death while shopping in Gaza ... Mass rioting broke out in Jabalya ... a 17-year-old youth was killed by an Israeli soldier after throwing a Molotov cocktail at an army patrol ... rock-throwing, blocked roads and tyre burnings were reported throughout the territories ... six Palestinians had been killed and 30 injured in the violence ... rioters threw a gasoline bomb at the US consulate in East Jerusalem ... 16 Israeli civilians and 11 soldiers were killed by Palestinians in the territories, but more than 1,400 Israeli civilians and 1,700 Israeli soldiers were injured... I propose that we summarize these facts and then cite the mixed sources that disagree about whether this constitutes a violent uprising. We could then discuss how to alter the lead to summarize the new material in the body. Sound good? Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Meaning of predominantly in the dictionary: for the most part; it is a clear word that is not vague. This sounds to me like original research and irrelevant anyway. The violence vs nonviolence of these revolts is not relevant to the article. We do not discuss whether Sahara's intifadas were violent vs nonviolent; we do not discuss whether the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was violent or consisted of peaceful chants with placards. This is not relevant to the article in any case. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that the quote I provided from the Seddon source is original research? It is not: it is a quote from the book I linked. You wanted to include some information from the sources you found: that these particular scholars think that the first intifada was "predominately peaceful". I've suggested a way we can do this neutrally given that sources conflict: we can provide context by summarizing the facts in the reliable source I found, and then attribute the mixed opinions on whether the facts amount to a violent or nonviolent uprising. If you've changed your mind and don't want to include the material from the sources you found, that's fine too, I'm fine with leaving it as-is. Shinealittlelight (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

No, the quote is not original research, what you are trying to do with the quote is analyze it and come up with your own personal conclusions, which is original research. Wikipedia reports the conclusions of reliable sources, not of editors, and reliable sources as demonstrated above disagree that the first intifada was characterized by violence. I am sure you will act in good faith to discuss this, seeking consensus here per WP:BURDEN, and not restoring your preferred version by inserting a claim that contradicts reliable source provided above. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

What was the "personal conclusion" I drew? Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This course of action seems like original research: "I propose that we summarize these facts and then cite the mixed sources that disagree about whether this constitutes a violent uprising." And is anyway, as mentioned, not related to the article, since we are not discussing the tactics and the contexts of the Warsaw, Iraqi or Sahrawi intifadas. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Summarizing the facts from a reliable source and then adding the sources you mentioned is OR? No, that's incorrect. Also, you're now engaged in an edit war. Please revert to the version before and gain consensus for your new version. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Summarizing the facts to come up with one's personal conclusions is OR. There's no edit war here so far and there is no such thing as new version in WP policy. Any additions to the article require consensus. If any claim is inserted and is disputed, especially in this case which was only as recent as a few days added, then consensus is required for its addition. If consensus is not reached between the three of us then the next step would be an RFC. Re-adding contested material without consensus would be edit warring. This is how WP processes work. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

What was the personal conclusion? You never said. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Analyzing the events of the intifada and concluding if it was violent/nonviolent, which was called "summarizing", and then contrasting with RS provided above. In any case, this is still not relevant to the article, which makes no mention what the tactics of the countless other intifadas were. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I did not propose a conclusion of my own about the events of the intifada. I proposed adding the description of the events of the intifada from the source I found, and then adding the opinion about those events from our various sources. My opinion did not come into it. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Retroactive use of word intifada

it seems many conflicts have recently been added to indicate they were intifadas.

The editors should confirm that these were called as intifadas in that time.

There is an attempt to normalize the term intifada outside of the Palestinian context. Where it never was used as such.

Simply translating all uprisings as intifadas is not intellectually honest 174.141.173.97 (talk) 13:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree and I'm particularly concerned by our reference to the "concept" of intifada. What we list are examples of popular uprisings that are referred to as "intifada" by modern media, none of these were called intifada at the time and it's not at all clear to me that there's anything that unifies these conceptually to the exclusion of other events. I'm going to remove the content and someone can add it back if they find a source. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree and almost all of the examples do not include sources. Eframgoldberg (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

"no nuance of violence"

I tried to track down the source of the claim that 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. The cite given is to Mary E. King, A Quiet Revolution (2007), p. 208. King says there They had revived the word intifada deliberately, as a linguistically nonviolent construction because it carries no implication of violence, from its earlier use in the student struggles of the 1980s but she doesn't cite any source. In an earlier book (Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. (1999) p. 470) King says The choice of the term intifada, or ‘shaking off’, was itself linguistically nonviolent which is somewhat more limited, and cites this to "Jonathan Kuttab, interview with author, Jerusalem, 8 June 1988".

Kuttab is a very interesting commentator on the conflict, but I'm concerned that he doesn't define "nonviolent" in the way Wiki readers will expect. Two months before Kuttab's interview with Mary E. King, you can watch him on YouTube clarifying that he means throwing stones, which he considers "relatively speaking, within that context" nonviolent. You can read in Mary E. King's book (p. 259ff) a sympathetic treatment of intifada leaders' take on the nonviolence of stone-throwing. In any case, I think we should look for other sources or note explicitly that the First Intifada can only be said to have been significantly non-violent if stone-throwing is defined as non-violent. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you've got that quite right. The current source isn't to King's book, but to an article called "Birth, Transformation, and Death of Refugee Identity: Women and Girls of the Intifada". There, she cites a 1991 paper (then in press) by Judith Martin. Martin makes the claim explicitly, and cites a personal interview with Faisal Husseini, who evidently told Martin he chose this word (along with other Palestinian leaders) because of it's connotation. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight Martin doesn't really say that. She only cites the previous paragraph to an interview with Husseini. But let's assume she meant to cite that interview with Husseini in May 1990. At the Madrid Conference of 1991 Husseini said "Until now the intifada was with stones". See here. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Fair points, but I still think the source is reliable for the claim that the term was chosen to connote "aggressive nonviolent resistence". I would agree that the source is not reliable for the claim that the intifada was nonviolent, or even that it was intended to be nonviolent or beleived to be nonviolent. So maybe what you're saying is that we need to clarify that despite the decision to choose this term to connote nonviolence, the intifada was nevertheless violent from the very beginning. I would agree with that. The same sources note that stone throwing was characteristic from the outset. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Warsaw

@Ploni: Please self-revert your last edit to bring yourself in compliance with WP:1RR. [5] [6] Makeandtoss (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Ploni: Violating 1RR, removing sourced material and ignoring the talk page is not going to sit well at ARBCOM. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Why aren't you reverting your bold edits and get consensus for the sourced material which some editors argue isn't reliable enough for this specific topic, see dw antisemitic controversies|dw 212.29.194.49 (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 May 2024

This reference is in Arabic and when translated provides no academic support for this claim. There is no historical reference of any integrity or objectivity that will refer to the Warsaw ghetto uprising as an intifada. This claim in and of itself is Holocaust revisionism, and anti-Semitic. It needs to be removed from this page, and removed in the reference below. Jimrose000 (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, and it is included now in the Events Called Intifada, almost all of which do not include citations or sources. Eframgoldberg (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

 Already done It looks like the text in question has been removed. I will note, however, that there is a bit of an edit war to add (or remove) the content, so it might be re-added in the future. Hopefully, though, a discussion will be had and further warring avoided. Primefac (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Lede

@Smartypants2006: MOS:LEDE: Lede is a summary of the body; it is not out-of-place; waiting for your self-reversion to bring compliance with WP policies. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

That sentence is definitely out-of-place. A better sentence would be something along the lines of "The word intifada is also used in Arabic to refer to rebellions and uprisings outside of Arab world such as the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising." Smartypants2006 (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Smartypants2006: Then please feel free to expand that sentence accordingly and re-add it to the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I consulted two authoritative histories of the Warsaw ghetto uprising (one from University of California press, one from Yale University press), and neither one of these lengthy sources uses the term "intifada" a single time. I think it's therefore not correct to include this content in the article. Several other editors have agreed with this: @Jimrose000:, @Eframgoldberg:, @Ploni:. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Original Research/Lack of Sources

Under the section called Events Named Intifada,

The majority do not have citations associated with them. Furthermore some, such as referring to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising only rely on 1 source which is a news article from a German Newspaper less than a year old and should not indicate a consensus that the name is accepted, especially as it is unclear if the original article was written in German and auto translated to Arabic. Eframgoldberg (talk) 17:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Most of the material in that section should be removed, as it is unsourced. I have unsuccessfully tried to find sources for some of them. Shinealittlelight (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Warsaw

The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising is referred to as an intifada in Arabic according to German state-funded newspaper DW, the Israeli TV station i24NEWS (Israeli TV channel), and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which reflects a universal consensus. This ideological removal of sourced content must stop. [7] [8], [9] @Smartypants2006:'s suggestion is a good middle ground solution for the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone is trying to engage in “ideological removal of sourced content”. There’s a good faith disagreement here. The question is whether the fact that an Arabic language source calls an event “انتفاضة” (or some cognate) is sufficient to conclude that it should be deemed to be among “events named intifada” in our English language article. The word “intifada” is normally used in English language sources for a much narrower range of events than the word “uprising”. This is evidently not the case in Arabic language sources. I think we want this article to reflect the narrower use in English since this is not an article about uprisings in general. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Shinealittlelight: Removal of sourced content for no good reason is indeed ideological. This article, as defined by the opening paragraph, clearly states that its scope is the Arabic word. And there are now two highly reliable sources, worthy noting that one is German and the other is the Holocaust Memorial Museum, showing that indeed the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising is called an intifada in Arabic because that's the literal translation of uprising. To add a cherry on top we have a right-wing Israeli TV channel to ward off any further ideologically-based counterarguments. This is sourced and needs to stay. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Let’s WP:AGF please. So your view is that this article should be about uprisings in general, since it seems that any event called an uprising in English will be called by the Arabic word in Arabic. By contrast, compare how Britannia deals with the topic here: [10]. Also we already have another article on rebellions in general. Let’s see what the other editors have to say. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

This is not my view, this is the article's already existing scope; that it is about the Arabic word. Meanwhile, Britannica, which is not a reliable source according to WP and is a WP:TERTIARY source, specifically mentions the Intifada within the scope of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict below the title. Hence, these are two different things, this article has a broader scope. Highly reliable sources have been provided for this point and there's no reasonable justification why they should be excluded. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

You are asserting this, so it is your view. That doesn’t mean it is not correct. Let’s seek consensus. WP does not deem Britannica to be unreliable. It is simply a tertiary source that by the policy you linked can be used to establish what is due in an article. I stand by my view that this article should not be about uprisings in general. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay let's seek consensus. WP:CONSENSUS says reaching consensus is based on Wikipedia guidelines and making compromises by reaching middle ground solutions. I have provided two highly reliable sources per the guidelines and made a compromise accepting Smartypants2006's phrasing. The ball is no longer in my court. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Whether the sources and proposal you provided are sufficient depends on the question I identified about the scope of the article. I think we need to hear from others now; you and I are unlikely to come to consensus by ourselves. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

One more question: if we can find a history book in Arabic that talks about the American revolution, or the French revolution, or the Bolshevic revolition, and it calls these "انتفاضة", should we include them on the list too? Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

It wouldn't since revolution does not translate to intifada, but uprising does. And yes, we would include them too, because the scope of the article is the Arabic word. We are fully capable of reaching consensus when we make arguments that are based in relevant Wikipedia policies. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

What you are saying is that if an Arabic writer will publishing an article and he will call the french revolution the french intifada it will sufficient by your standards to be included in this article? 212.29.194.49 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

all sources who call this intifada are news articles from recent years, I was not able to find any academic metirial supporting this claim. 212.29.194.49 (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
this is the reason to removed the one citation from the list of 10+ its no so much removal of content as reducing the amount of content. the main point is to give examples of political acts that could be described by the word intifada. however in the particular case of called Warsaw Uprising an "intifada" is an apparent case of Holocaust inversion, intended or not. It creates false equivalents between Palestinians with Polish Jews and Israelis with Nazis. Jimrose000 (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Holocaust_inversion&redirect=no https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/opinion/356234/jewish-studies-and-holocaust-inversion-making-gaza-into-auschwitz/ Jimrose000 (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC) The fact that the Association for Jewish Studies is being criticized for "Holocaust inversion" says more about the criticism than it does about the AJS or the idea that such a thing is not a transparent effort to shield a certain state from criticism. Anyway, that you think it is "Holocaust inversion" is a nice personal opinion to have, but it doesn’t factor in to our content decisions at all. Finally, this being related to the Arab Israeli conflict, new accounts and IPs may not participate. nableezy - 23:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC) Odd that you discount AJS simply because the name contains "Jewish". The organization is quite established academically and located at a major academic institution, Brandeis University. Brandeis is also a very progressive institution that maintains a deep program in Middle East and Islamic study. I added a wiki reference as well, if you didnt notice, and there are plenty more to add. Point being this is a widely acknowledged concern regarding a soft form of antisemitism and ought to be respected as such. I maintain that an academically respected and established reference for Warsaw Uprising as Intifada be found before it is included in the wiki entry. until that source is found, it does very little to the wiki entry to add this highly questionable reference to an already long list that is offered as support for the definition. Suffice to say that if I make a website that describes First Intifada, Second Intifada etc as a "tea party" that does not make ts a source reference. Take the data for what its worth. Jimrose000 (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC) No, I did not discount them lol. That is a lie. I discounted the attack on the AJS by Jarrod Tanny, claiming that the AJS is participating "Holocaust inversion" by publishing a section on the artwork installation "Gaza Ghetto" by Jewish artist Ruth Sergel in their Fall 2022 edition of Perspectives. No part of that was my discounting any group or organization for containing the word "Jewish". Please do not lie about what I wrote, especially to make a claim of racism. Again, you may not participate in this discussion. I am collapsing this entire bit as an ARBECR violation. nableezy - 14:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

How much does the Warsaw Uprising factor into coverage of the topic of this article? Not everything that can be sourced should be in an article, if it isnt a topic that is routinely discussed within the context of "initifada" then it doesnt belong. But the Britannica article is not a good template, it is only about the two Palestinian intifadas, and there are plenty of other ones besides those. nableezy - 13:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy: The article's scope is about the Arabic word and not the context of an Arab concept. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and how many of the articles discussing the Arabic word discuss Warsaw? If it is a handful of news sources this doesnt merit inclusion. nableezy - 14:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy: There are no articles discussing the Arabic word, similar to any article about any foreign word on English Wikipedia. This still doesn't affect the fact that every uprising is referred to in Arabic as an intifada, including most prominently the Warsaw Ghetto one, and by Israeli sources such as ToI.[11] Can you elaborate on how this is an argument against inclusion? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Because you need sources to show that it is prominent, not just establish that prominence yourself. If the Warsaw Uprising is a noteworthy subtopic in the topic of the Arabic word then sources that focus on coverage of the Arabic word would be discussing the Warsaw Uprising as being a prominent example. It would be like including in the lead of Madrasa that this is also used for schools like Eton College. That may well be true, but it isnt really part of the topic of Madrasa when sources are discussing the term. nableezy - 15:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Nableezy: I think the question is what to understand by your term the context of "intifada". Do you think that Arabic sources using the word "انتفاضة" are among those contexts? Makeandtoss thinks that the scope is about the Arabic word but I am not convinced. The fact that we mention the Arabic word in the first sentence does not mean that the scope includes all sources in which that Arabic word occurs. There's clearly a distinction between uprisings and intifadas in English--we don't call every uprising an intifada in English--and of course "intifada" in its more restricted English use nevertheless derives from the Arabic word. So we would mention the word whether we intend the more restricted or the more general use to be the scope of our article. The fact that we mention the word therefore does not settle the issue. My view is that our readers are not coming to this article for information about uprisings in general (for which we have a separate article), but are coming to this article for information about events called intifadas in ordinary English. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The article starts with: "Intifada (Arabic: انتفاضة intifāḍah) is an Arabic word".

Why would English sources call non-Arab uprisings an intifada? That would make no sense. Of course they wouldn't. But in Arabic, every uprising is an intifada. This article is about the Arabic word, whether it is used in the Arabic and English languages in the context of Arab uprisings, or whether it is used in Arabic to refer to non-Arab uprisings. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

English sources generally don't seem to call all uprisings "intifada". They generally seem to call certain uprisings (not all!) in Arabic speaking parts of the world by that name. I think those uprisings are what the article should be about. I understand you disagree. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it should be on the term itself. We have articles on those intifadas, we dont need another one here. nableezy - 15:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I have two minds about this. First, having the Warsaw Uprising sitting there as the only example outside the Arab world would be misleading, as if there was something special about that particular uprising that marked it out from all other non-Arab uprising. On the other hand, I see the same word used for additional uprisings, such as the Jeju uprising in Japan and the Montengro uprising, other uprisings in the Balkans, and the Irish Easter Rebellion. I wouldn't be adverse to a sentence explaining its general application with a few sourced examples. However, I think the itemised list would be most useful restricted to the Arab world; otherwise it will just become a list of uprisings and that is not the point of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zero0000 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Id be fine with that as well. nableezy - 15:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with this too. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Fine with that as well, will edit accordingly. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually if someone can add it since I am constrained by 1RR:

Most uprisings globally are referred to as intifada in the Arabic language, including for example, the 1916 Easter Rising (Arabic: انتفاضة الفصح), the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (Arabic: انتفاضة غيتو وارسو), and the 1949 Jeju uprising (Arabic: انتفاضة جيجو). Makeandtoss (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that is OR, you need a source saying that each of those things is referred to as such in Arabic, not an Arabic source just doing so. nableezy - 16:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I think only the first part could be OR, so I would suggest: "Uprisings are generally referred to as intifada..." Makeandtoss (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is OR as well, but the OR in including any of this is drawing a conclusion that any of those uprisings is referred to in Arabic by those terms through usage, as you do not have a source that says "this is known in Arabic as ...". Like I said earlier, it may well be true, but that doesnt mean it belongs here unless sources make specific note of it. nableezy - 17:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The OR part here is in the "most..are" or "are generally", which are not established by some examples of usage. The solution is to weaken it to what the sources actually establish. Namely, that other uprisings "can be" or "are sometimes" called by this word. Zero^talk 00:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Works with me, adding accordingly. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

the current addition of the content goes against Wikipedia values, at best it could be considered a Semantic change or Reappropriation of the word of which some schoolers view as attempt to to white wash the word and in a political endeavor to demonizing Israel. (see :Comparisons_between_Israel_and_Nazi_Germany)

as per why your sources did not met the Wikipedia threshold in the first place, all of your source are recently published (at least form 2010) so they are prune to a politics bias.

"With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing"

in addition, your claims goes against a consensus sentence in the article:

"The word intifada was first used in modern times in 1952, when Iraqi parties took to the streets to protest their monarchy, which was known as the Iraqi Intifada."

@Makeandtoss you are Once again asked to please remove your content and reach a consensus before re-adding this WP:POINT and please remember Wikipedia:Do_not_create_hoaxes 79.176.174.2 (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Since when are we restricted to word usage from the time of the event? This is a made-up criterion. If we took it seriously we would be unable to write any articles on events that occurred before the English language existed. The only error would be to claim that the word was used then without a source; merely writing that it is used now for that past event is not a problem. Zero^talk 15:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

it is a restriction that related to the polish history during 2nd world war.

"All articles and edits in the topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland are subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction. When a source that is not an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution is removed from an article, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard."

since there was no consensus reached yet regarding the reliability of the sources you have provided @Makeandtoss you are requested to remove this information and gain consensus on the talk page before reinstate the source. 79.180.47.77 (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

You may not participate in this discussion. nableezy - 11:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

i canno find any reference by USHMM to intifada, much less in reference to Warsaw Uprising. please explain or sharet Jimrose000 (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

References

What is the scope of this article?

What is this article about, exactly?

1. Uprising, as in the concept itself? If so, we already have an article about that (rebellion; uprising is a redirect there).
2. The Arabic word for "rebellion" ("intifada")? If so, that's a WP:NOTDIC violation.
3. Arab rebellions -- which, in English, are often called "intifadas," borrowing the Arabic word for "uprising". If so, it would be a proper sub-article of rebellion (Arab rebellions aka Intifadas makes sense), but then of course Warsaw Uprising would not be mentioned in this article, nor would any other non-Arab uprisings.
4. List of Arab rebellions or List of intifadas would also make sense, and that seems to be what the actual content of this article is. This could also be done as a WP:DAB page.

I don't really understand why Easter Rising, Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, or Jeju uprising are mentioned in one article other than the article about rebellion. Just because these things are sometimes called "intifada" in another language doesn't mean that we should have an article called "intifada" on the English Wikipedia that covers those. As written, this article seems to be a dictionary definition of the Arabic word "intifada," and I don't think that's what Wikipedia articles should be? Levivich (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the scope of the article should be to explain and discuss the history of the sorts of uprisings for which "intifada" is used in English, roughly a certain subset of Arab uprisings. Note that not every Arab uprising is called an "intifada" in English: we don't call the Arab Spring an intifada, or at least I'm not aware of any source that does. If that's the scope, I think it makes sense to briefly note that the word is used in Arabic more generally; that wouldn't make the article a dictionary definition, I think. I don't think that this note probably belongs in the lead, though (as it currently is). Rather, I think it belongs in the first section on etymology. Shinealittlelight (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The article as it currently is deals with Intifada as an Arabic word and to a connected degree the context in which it is used. Therefore, it is not just a definition of the Arabic word as a dictionary would do, but also an elaboration on the context. We have plenty of similar articles including most prominently Allah, a good article, which is not just the definition of the word and etymology but also the accompanying historical usage. As for the lede it is supposed to summarize the body. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Dictionary entries provide the definition of a word and an elaboration on its context, such as examples of usage and etymology, and Allah looks like another dictionary entry to me. Let me ask it another way: what are three good sources for this article? Because I'm not seeing sources about the word "intifada" (as opposed to sources about intifadas themselves), which would suggest the word itself is an encyclopedic topic. Levivich (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

If the article is as Makeandtoss says dealing with the Arabic word rather than dealing with a certain subset of Arab uprisings then I agree with Levivich that it’s a dictionary entry in violation of policy. And I think including the minor point about the word in the lead both exacerbates this dictionary feel and also gives undue weight to a minor point. Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Shinealittlelight I would appreciate my words being accurately quoted: "deals with Intifada as an Arabic word and to a connected degree the context in which it is used."

Encyclopaedia: "Generally speaking, encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article's title; this is unlike dictionary entries, which focus on linguistic information about words, such as their etymology, meaning, pronunciation, use, and grammatical forms".

Clearly the article in its current form does not focus on the pronunciation, use, grammatical forms or the word intifada (nor does the article Allah for that matter), so this is not a dictionary entry. The article currently gives factual information about several intifadas and the word's usage in Arabic. It is obviously encyclopaedic. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

This article, as currently

written, does indeed focus on use and etymology. Most of the article is examples of use, and the remainder is the section on etymology. That's what makes it like a dictionary entry and not an encyclopedia article. It is not obviously encyclopedic. What sources exist that are about the word "intifada" and not about specific intifadas? Levivich (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Examples of use is indeed encyclopaedic as defined above: "factual information concerning the subject". Not only it is a list, but it gives a brief explanation on the context surround each of the intifadas, which further aligns with the definition of Encyclopaedia as "providing summaries of knowledge". Makeandtoss (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The best source for an article on the word itself that I've found is Cannon, G.H.; Kaye, A.S. (1994). The Arabic Contributions to the English Language: An Historical Dictionary. Harrassowitz. ISBN 978-3-447-03491-3.. I can look for others, but trying to get more than the snippet view in google, but even that shows pretty in depth discussion of the word and its usage in English. nableezy - 15:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

...and it's a dictionary. To show that a word is encyclopedic, we need non-dictionary sources, don't we? Levivich (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it isn't really. It has a dictionary, but it also goes into the history of the usage beyond what a dictionary would do. It gives in depth coverage to how Arabic words are borrowed in English, and the ways that intifada follow that and in places does not (eg here). nableezy - 17:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Historical dictionaries are dictionaries. But, in any case, per WP:NOTDICT the article should not be about the word 'intifada' but about what the word denotes: intifadas. As it stands, I think the article is too much focused on the word for an encyclopedia. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

No, that isnt what NOTDICT is, NOTDICT means if the only thing we have is what a dictionary would have then that isnt a suitable topic. But WP:WORDISSUBJECT is still a valid encyclopedia topic, especially when sources go beyond what a dictionary has, as in the source above. nableezy - 18:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

That's helpful, thanks. I still think we should be focused on intifadas, not 'intifada'. Shinealittlelight (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Definition and Translation

Suggestion for opening paragraph:

Intifada (Arabic: انتفاضة - intifāḍah (literally: "shaking off")) is an Arabic word for a rebellion, uprising, or a resistance movement. In the Palestinian context, understood to mean a civil uprising or an uprising against oppression. 199.101.177.252 (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Revised Opening Paragraph

Suggestion for opening paragraph: Intifada (Arabic: انتفاضة - intifāḍah (literally: "shaking off")) is an Arabic word for a rebellion, uprising, or a resistance movement. In the Palestinian context, understood to mean a civil uprising or an uprising against oppression. 199.101.177.252 (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Revised opening reuses both references 199.101.177.252 (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2024

62.56.244.129 (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Intifada (Arabic: intifada, exact transliteration: antapacha, "renunciation, uprising") is a violent uprising in the Arab world.

Many recognize the Intifada as a violent period, characterized by terrorist acts, by the Palestinians against Israel. The intifadas are one of the most important aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in recent decades.

 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. Charliehdb (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

This is absolutely disgusting

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): change uprising to violent terrorist attacks that targeted civilians. Take out Wharsaw Ghetto Uprising as an example of “intifada.”
• Why it should be changed:

It is absolutely abhorrent how the “Intifada” Wikipedia page is worded. It was a series of bus bombings, cafe shootings, stabbing of little children, random bombings at people’s homes. This is all very easily researched and it’s frankly vile that the page frames it as a series of “uprisings against the Israeli occupation.”

Jews are indigenous to Israel and those were not fun uprisings to be romanticized. They were gruesome, bloody, awful targeting of civilians and you keeping it like that encourages more violence towards Jews worldwide and legitimizes calls for a “global intifada.”

Also please NEVER describe the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising as an intifada or put it on this page. That is Holocaust inversion, that was a very different situation. Palestinians have been offered their own state many times and have refused each time, instead choosing this path of endless war and destruction while targeting and hiding behind civilians.

Please address immediately, this is unacceptable and dangerous.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): https://m.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/the-second-intifada-a-look-back-at-the-palestinian-terror-campaign-642647

2601:602:B80:5340:ED8E:81CA:FFE8:6889 (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Denied This is just a rant. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

To expand on Koavf's response, this is not a well-formed edit request. Editors must be extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic except for making edit requests. Edit requests most likely to succeed are those that are 'Specific, Uncontroversial, Necessary, Sensible' per WP:EDITXY. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of the Mention of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising

Block evasion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I request that this mention be removed due to the following reasons: 1.Historical Accuracy and Relevance: The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, a notable Jewish resistance during the Holocaust, is not historically or contextually connected to the Intifada. The Intifada refers specifically to Palestinian uprisings against Israeli authority, beginning in 1987 and 2000, and any comparisons with the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising might lead to historical inaccuracies or misrepresentations of both events. 2.Political Implications: The term "Intifada" in Arabic translates to "uprising" or "shaking off" and is rooted in a specific historical and political context related to the Palestinian struggle. Historically, the event was sometimes referred to in Arabic as "tamrod," but this term is not widely recognized or used in academic discussions about the Intifada. Comparing it to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising might suggest an inappropriate equivalence between distinct historical events with different causes and contexts. 3.Manipulation of Reality through Language: The inclusion of such a comparison could be seen as a form of political rhetoric. The manipulation of language and terminology is a basic tool for shaping perceptions and narratives. When words are used to draw comparisons between dissimilar events, it can skew public understanding and control the narrative surrounding these issues. By controlling the meaning and association of words, individuals or groups can influence how people interpret historical events and their significance. The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and the Intifada should be treated as separate historical phenomena with their unique contexts and should not be conflated in this manner. Removing this reference will help maintain the clarity and accuracy of the historical information presented in the article. 79.183.197.96 (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC) Did chatgpt write this edit request? (t · c) buidhe 01:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC) no, its written by a Living LLM aka Human. The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them. as Jimrose000 wrote regarding this topic: "in the particular case of called Warsaw Uprising an "intifada" is an apparent case of Holocaust inversion, intended or not. It creates false equivalents between Palestinians with Polish Jews and Israelis with Nazis." keeping this information goes against: WP:NPOV "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)"79.183.197.96 (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 August 2024

Adding more nuance to the characterization of the First Intifada in the following sentence:

"The First Intifada was characterized by protests and violent riots, especially stone-throwing, while the Second Intifada was characterized by a period of heightened violence."

Change "The First Intifada was characterized by protests and violent riots, especially stone-throwing"

to "The First Intifada was characterized by protests, general strikes, economic boycotts, and riots, including the widespread throwing of stones and Molotov cocktails at the Israeli army and its infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza. While the First Intifada was largely (though not exclusively) associated with non-violent forms of civil disobedience, the Second Intifada was characterized by a period of heightened violence."

This edit better reflects the way the First Intifada is characterized in the full Wikipedia article on this topic. See [[12]], especially the second paragraph.

Thanks! Master & Emissary (talk) 02:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if the First Intifada was largely associated with non-violent forms of civil disobedience as it wasn't quite mentioned in the main article and from what you've described of "widespread throwing of stones and Molotov cocktails at the Israeli army and its infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza" made it seem to not be the case. Though I do agree that the casuality and level of violence was much lower than the Second Intifada. Other than this the rest seems good to me. Please let me know what you think, and thank you. Ilovefood123123 (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I've amended the article without the part where the first intifada was largely associated with non-violent forms of civil disobedience. I'm happy to have it included when you get back to me. Ilovefood123123 (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected request on 12 November 2024

In the lede:

−

While in Arabic-language usage, uprisings globally can be referred to as intifada, including for example, the 1916 Easter Rising, the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, and the 1949 Jeju uprising.

+

In Arabic-language usage, an uprising anywhere can be referred to as an intifada, including, for example, the 1916 Easter Rising, the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, and the 1949 Jeju uprising.

Readingpro256 _{talk to me contribs} 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)