Talk:First Intifada/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Seems to have been edited to address some points

I agree that the article could do with some casualty figures to put the conflict into some sort of perspective, maybe with a time line showing escalation/decline of violence. However it currently reads neutral to me, it is difficult when you have passionate feelings on a subject to not interpret neutrality as an endorsement of a viewpoint other then your own, but as I said this looks okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:J d noonan (talk • contribs) 11:25, 4 November 2004 (UTC)

one addition to not NPOV argument

Wikipedia is anti-islam and anti-arab... All Israeli and Jewish sources are considered reliable. Anything Arab or Muslim is not.. Period... Everyone should know that. Even American newspapers are not reliable, they are based on Zionist propaganda The timeframe description "The first Intifada was the intifada that took place from 1987 to 1991 (end of massive Israeli violence)" is definitely non-neutral. It implies that the violence was one-sided, and "massive" is an unecessarily weighted word.

I suggest using the description from the Intifada article "The first Intifada began in 1987, with a decrease in violence in 1991 and a more complete end with the signing of the Oslo accords (August 1993) and the creation of the Palestinian Authority. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliphaunt (usurped) (talk • contribs) 06:30, 5 January 2004 (UTC)

--The Israel response WAS massive. The word is weighted because the response was weighted. ­—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.53.138 (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2005 (UTC)

I believe the above quote is quite accurate, this account of the intifada has obvious sympathies for the Palestinians, I think it would be to the credit of the article to admit its preoccupation. That said, I'm not quite sure including Israel's military losses would compliment the peice; its not suprising that soldiers tend to bear the burden of warfare. While I also agree with the critique, i'm not quite sure I accept the stance that the Intifada provided no impetus for the peace process. Surely even the most sensitive surveys of Israeli history, which account for the activities of zionist paramilitaries during the mandatory period, are aware of the political potential of violence. Make no mistake, that assertion is not an endorsement of militancy but a simple observation. ­—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.106.89.46 (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

7 members of the islamic jihad

The article talking about pre-intifada events, says that on the 1st of October 7 palestinians were killed by the israili military, and that it is belived that they were members of the PIJ, any reference that shows that they were belived to be members of PIJ, who claims so, any denials? was the assisination conducted by the IDF, by a civilian or by a solder without orders to do so? were the 7 workers in israel? --Mayz 22:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Palestinian Minors versus Israeli Children

I'm not sure I understand why in the outcome section the casualties are listed either by Palestinian minors or as Israeli children. Along with the fact that the editor somehow determined from the statistical information in the cited source that these Palestinians casualties took an "active role" I'd say this constitutes a disregard for NPOV. I'll change it for now, if anyone disagrees please feel free to explain. CRobey 16:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Children took active role in Intifada for example stone and molotov cocktail throwing —­Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.166.136 (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand that there were children that took an active role in the Intifada. I am wondering where the editor got the information that of the 241 children that were listed, most of them took at active role. Just because we know that children took a role in the violence, we can't just randomly assume that most of the children that were killed were actively involved. Unless there was some chart in the cited source that listed actively involved versus innocent bystander deaths I don't see where this comes from, it seems to show an assumption of the editor that most of the Palestinians killed were somehow actively involved. I'm not arguing one way or another; I’m just saying unless the claim can be substantiated, it shouldn’t be listed, otherwise it's not just a problem with NPOV but factual accuracy. CRobey 00:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As it was changed back without further comment I'll take one more crack at this. The first problem is the use of the term minor versus child, minor simply implies age whereas child seems to imply innocence. In order to be consistent and unbiased, either call them both children or both minors. The second problem, which I won't change for now (as perhaps I'm the only one that sees this as bias), seems to imply the death of the Palestinian children who died can be justified by their role in the violence. Also, the implication that they were involved in something that is unsubstantiated by the B'Tseelem source. I won't change it, but I wouldn't consider removing the neutrality warning with something like this remaining unsourced in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CRobey (talk • contribs) 20:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

84.108.166.136 (rv POV)

Dear 84.108.166.136, You reverted my edit of Islamic Jihad from militant back to terrorist. Militant is the NPOV term, and not terrorist. Most people would agree on calling them militant, while there is controversy calling them terrorists. The article on Palestinian Islamic Jihad clearly states that the US and Israel consider it a terrorist group. However the US and Israel's opinion cannot be used as a given fact. Please use militant (If nobody else changes it, I will, unless an explanation is given to why it is necessary to use the word terrorist here). --Fjmustak 22:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that I'd agree that militant is the same as terrorist just in NPOV terms. I think there is a difference in definition of the term. Militancy just refers to the use of violence, Terrorism refers to the use of violence to achieve specific political goals. I don't know enough about Islamic Jihad that I would be able to classify the entire group. As I remember back when they were originally formed they were more radical fundamentalists rather than militants. I'm not suggesting labeling it one way or the other, just pointing out the difference is not truly just in POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CRobey (talk • contribs) 23:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest removing the word completely, and leaving it as 'Palestinian Islamic Jihad group', or just 'Palestinian Islamic Jihad', without group. If one wants to learn more about PIJ, one could click on it and read the different opinions on it. --Fjmustak 23:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"Indiscriminate torture"

I am very disturbed by the claim in the "General causes" section that "Palestinians and their supporters assert that the Intifada was a protest of Israel's brutal repression which included ... indiscriminate torture." This is a very serious charge and if it is not backed up by solid evidence, I would like it to be deleted. The burden of proof is on the "Palestinians and their supproters" to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Israelis not only tortured Palestinians, but that they tortured Palestinians indiscriminately, that is that they tortured Palestinians without reguard to age, sex, religion practiced, or, most importantly, criminal record. --GHcool 22:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

re "indiscriminate torture"

The claim is accurate. Palestinians did assert that indiscriminate torture was one of the reasons for the intifada. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant. The fact remains that they thought it was true. trapnhawk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.10.129.181 (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

indisctiminate torture and propaganda

I guess Palestinians did beleve that Israelis were indiscriminitly torturing people because of the propaganda they heard. The propaganda they hear is not only anti Israeli but actually anti-Semetic and anti Western.-Dendoi Sunday 7:22 PM January 7, 2007

Ahem. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the IDF does indeed carry out indiscriminate torturing of suspects. I think the use of the word "assert" works just fine in this context. 80.5.149.61 02:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

We need to change some of the info on the infobox. For example this was not a battle between Israel and the Palestinian Authority as there was not Palestinian Authority at the time. I don't even know if Yasir Arafat can be considered the commander since according to my understanding the uprising was started by Palestinians in the Occupied Territories not those in the Diaspora. I'm not sure what the proper replacements should be, but the infobox as currently displayed is misleading. Oneworld25 22:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Number of casualties

We should give both the Israeli and the Palestinian casualty rate, and not just the Palestinian one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.115.21.176 (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

lead image

What was the reason for removing the lead image? Imad marie (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the POV description? Well, it's not actually a free image, nor fair use. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

POV description? well that's your opinion. And the image is fair use. Imad marie (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The source says nothing whatsoever like your description, though, so it's not just my opinion. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I added the ref. Imad marie (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not a ref for that image. In fact, that image is not even of the first intifada, as source makes clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The source does not explicitly say the image is taken from the first intifada, however most of the article context is talking about it. Anyhow we have this and this that make this explicit reference. Imad marie (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The picture was taken in 2000, and is talking about the death of Oslo. The 1st intifada ended in 1993. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes introduced by myself on April 20

I don´t know why somebody is changing what I put in the first paragraph. The First Intifada didn´t consist only in the violence that took place in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank; it took place inside the State of Israel in the form of terrorist attacks, too. - Follgramm3006, April 20, 2008, 17:39, Spain.

First, saying that Jerusalem is Israel's capital is highly controversial, second, AFAIK there were no suicide bombings during the first intifada. In all cases, present your references. Imad marie (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. Jerusalem simply is Israel's capital. See Jerusalem. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Imad Marie is of course correct in saying that to write that "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" is controversial. The status of Jerusalem is deeply disputed and it is not recognized as Israel's capital by most of the world. Anyway, such information has no place in this article.

Second, there was only one suicide bombing during the first intifada, occurring at the tail end of it in April of 1993 (it was the first such bombing by Palestinians ever, and was referenced in the article when I included it a while ago). The mainstream sources overwhelmingly agree that the majority of acts during the first intifada consisted on civil disobediance centered in the occupied territories. Tiamut^talk 13:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, saying that Jerusalem is Israel´s capital is of course controversial, but the reality is that the entire city is inside Israeli territory, and the Israelis (and not others from outside) should decide by themselves what city is their capital.

By the other hand, it´s true that there were suicide bombings during the First Intifada, maybe a few and at the end of this period (see the date of the Mehola Junction bombing), but this fact should be mentioned in the article. - Follgramm3006, May 7, 2008, 17:27, Spain.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Follgramm3006 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether dates in 1993 belong in the First Intifada is questionable. Here is Morris on the end of the Intifada, Righteous Victims, p. 594. "The Intifada was called off in September 1993, when the PLO and Israel signed their first peace accord in Oslo. But the end of October 1991, when an international Middle East peace conference was convened in Madrid, might be viewed as a more accurate cutoff date. After that the popular demonstrations and mass violence began to die down, to be replaced by an upsurge of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism, aimed specifically at undermining the unfolding peace process." Below on that page he cites the "spectacle of the return to the territories of the Palestinian delegation to Madrid" being greeted by masses of young Palestinians defying an Israeli closure order - who handed out flowers and olive branches to the (confused) Israeli troops - as showing that "something entirely new was taking hold." In any case, the article should mention this point and make the same distinction between the characteristic activities of the intifada and the fundamentalist upsurge.John Z (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

POV edit and summary

Dear Mr. Humus Sapiens,

Could you please elaborate on your edit here. What do you mean by "rv whitewash as if Israelis target innocent children"? Whitewash is what you are doing by implying that these children deserved to die, because some of them were "violent". True, some of them threw some stones, a fact already mentioned in the article. But do you really think its NPOV to add what you did in bold below?:

Prior to the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, 1,162 Palestinians (241 of them children, some of whom took an active role in the violence) had been killed by Israelis and 160 Israelis (5 of them children) had been killed by Palestinians.

Should I start going around to articles on the victims of suicide bombings and add things like some of whom took an active role in the violence after the casualty figures to refer to those who served in the Israeli army (i.e. most people in Israel)?

I think your edit is totally WP:UNDUE and tells the reader (your NPOV) more than it shows them what the conflict is about. I'd ask that you remove the bolded section and offer a different way of incorporating this information, if you feel it's not already sufficiently clear in the article. Tiamut^talk 09:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You and I may not like it, but the fact that some Palestinian minors took active role in violence is well documented and widely reported. I hope you can do better than repeating jihadist propaganda justifying terrorism. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? "Jihadist propaganda justifying terrorism"? What?

Read what I said again. I don't think your placement of that information there is NPOV and it's also UNDUE. It's clear from the article that Palestinian youth engaged in stone-throwing. Appending your unsourced adjective of "violent" to that behaviour and sticking it into parantheses after a casualty figure on Palestinian children is pushing your editorializing onto others. A lot of the children who were killed were not engaged in any kind of "violence" when it happened. I'd appreciate it if you would deal with the substance of my argument, rather than making baseless and nonsensical accusations. Tiamut^talk 09:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a reference in hope to help you catch the substance of the argument. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, yeah. That ref doesn't say anything about the children who were killed being engaged in violence at the time. And if you notice, I didn't ask you for a reference. I don't deny that children engaged in stone-throwing or molotov cocktail throwing, my problem with your edit centers around NPOV and UNDUE emphasis of these facts in an inappropriate fashion, (much as does the article you linked to as a source). Could you please address the points I'm raising and find a way to bridge the gap between our positions, rather than providing me sources for things when that's not even the issue? Thanks. Tiamut^talk 10:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we say "were killed being engaged in violence at the time"? No, we say "some of whom (children) took an active role in the violence", and that is exactly what the quote you didn't ask for says. BTW, Perhaps we should add Daoud Kuttab's description of the tactics employed by the youth, as it seems relevant to this article. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

About Daoud Kuttab's writings on tactics, they would be a valuable edition to the article. It would be good to use him as a source directly however, rather than the article you provided, which is of dubious reliability and heavily partisan.

About the issue at hand, you are still missing the point. By juxtaposing "some of whom took an active role in the violence, directly after the listing of child casualties, the implication being made is that some of those killed were engaged in violence (ergo, they deserved it). It's not fair and not NPOV and the source doesn't make the link between the dead and the acts of violence itself, so you still don't have a source for it. That wasn't the issue to begin with however. The issue is editorializing in a POV fashion that is also UNDUE. Adding a ref doesn't alleviate the problem. Tiamut^talk 10:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add it, and don't forget to mention indoctrination in their education and mass media. As to our issue, taking away the phrase "some of whom took an active role in the violence" suggests that Israelis target Palestinian children indiscriminately. Was that your intention? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. But thanks for asking. The article already discusses the use of stone-throwing by youth and the reader can draw their own inferences. You don't need to spell it out for them, especially when you don't have a source that says some of the children killed were killed because they were engaged in violence. Anyway, whatever source says that, would be a partisan source and would likely need to have an alternative viewpoint appended that says, Israelis killed some children who were not engaged in violence. What I'm getting at is that your highlighting of this issue in an UNDUE fashion reeks of POV. If you don't want me to start adding things to express the opposite POV for the sake of introducing balance, like say "some of the children killed were sitting in their homes quietly when a bullet came flying through the window" or "some of the children were shot at close-range even though they were unarmed",I I suggest you delete your own one-sided addition. Tiamut^talk 10:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, pro-Palestinian PR asserts indiscriminate murder and intentionally or not, your version suggests this as well. BTW, I don't see how a Prof. of Georgetown U. with an Irish name is a partisan source. I find the quote highly relevant to the article. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not the prof that's the problem, it's the article he's quoted in. And it's not the sourcing that's the issue, its the one-sided presentation of information. As I said above, some of the children killed were shot down for no good reason. I can find a source that says that and append it beside the one you provided to satisfy WP:NPOV by cramming the two POVs beside one another in a parentheses after the child casualty figure for Palestinians. Or, we can both accept that there are multiple POVs that like to highlight their view over the other and discard both at this particular juncture in the article and do a more nuanced and comprehensive summary of those differences in a sub-section devoted to a breakdown of the casualties. Or, we can just drop it altogether (after you remove your POV addition). So based on the three different options, how would you like to proceed? Tiamut^talk 11:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how a quote from Prof. O'Brien's book Law and Morality in Israel's War With the PLO becomes somehow invalidated just because it was cited somewhere else. The current wording stayed here for well more than a year, here's a random version dated 7 October 2006: [1], and while its age doesn't make it necessarily correct, you should stop pretending that the change was introduced just now by me. Finally, if we mention the casualty numbers, we should mention the fact that some Palestinian minors engaged in the hostilities. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I didn't say that Prof-O'Brien's book is invalid. Re-read my comment and please don't misrepresent my views. It's irrelevant too that the information you re-added was added a year ago. It is problematic for the many reasons I outlined extensively above. Now, to achieve NPOV, which your edit is not, the choices are as follows:

1. I can add beside your comment in the parentheses that "some of the children were innocent bystanders" to balance out your statement that "some of the children were engaged in violence". Both statements are equally true.
2. You can simply remove the statement and we let the matter drop.
3. You can remove that statement and place it elsewhere in the article, where we can engage in a more nuanced discussion of the casualties.

Sticking one-sided info in a parentheses after the casualty figures is not the way to achieve NPOV or enlighten the reader as to the facts involved. It's both simplistic, and when confined to just one of the POVs, propagandistic. So how would you like to proceed? Tiamut^talk 20:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Our text does not say that all children were engaged in violence, but only some, so I won't be against adding the phrase "some of the children were innocent bystanders". As long as our text does not imply that the IDF targets children. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you think the appropriate place for both those views is in a parentheses? Perhaps option three would be best then? Tiamut^talk 11:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It is also note-worthy that the quintessential Intifida action - the stoning of the tanks - bears a marked resemblance to the Stoning of the Devil component of the Islamic Hajj. This MAY have had some symbolic significance as a gesture of religious significance and/or contributed to the appeal/spread of the Intifida, perhaps due media coverage(?). This would also coincide with the rise of religious extremist groups following the Iranian revolution. Note that this paragraph has not been researched by me, I'm just postulating these as potential links that may be included in the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.105.98 (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Media coverage focussed?

Jay seems to agree with my secret admirer that the caption of the front image ought to say,

Media coverage of the first Intifada (1987-1992) often focused on young Palestinians throwing stones at tanks and Israeli soldiers.

I'm at a loss to understand how this can be considered more accurate and neutral. According to one survey, eighty-eight percent of male Palestinian youth reported having thrown stones during the years. (The report of the survey was titled, "What Has Become of the ‘Children of the Stone’?") It is of course true that "media coverage often focused" on such acts, but this was obviously because such acts actually characterized the Intifada. The original source for the caption is apparently the journal of a radical-pacifist student organization at Berkeley; evidently they intend to invoke "media coverage" out of belief that the media should have focused on whatever handful of Palestinian activists pursued their preferred, pure, politically correct means. I have a sneaking suspicion that others may favour the caption for other reasons, but whatever. The point is that stone-throwing characterized the intifada, the picture shows a guy throwing stones, and what media coverage did or did not focus on is a secondary issue. Shoehorning it into the caption is argumentative and inappropriate. <eleland/talkedits> 03:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you know the caption comes from "the journal of a radical-pacifist student organization at Berkeley". Are you referring to this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't jump in to revert for a sock puppet if you're not willing to even read his edit summary. <eleland/talkedits> 04:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The sockpuppet respectively secret admirer speaking. So I guess we agree on that media coverage focused on little boys throwing stones against tanks, but whether that was really characteristic of the first intifada is less clear and up to everyone own subjective interpretation. I also have a sneaking suspicion that others may favour this picture for other reasons (David against Goliath), probably the same reason why the media concentrated on these acts, instead of emphasizing the peaceful and non-violent protests. Sixtyideas (talk) 04:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

A survey by a qualified sociologist, published in an esteemed journal, found that 88% of male youth and 51% of female youth in Gaza reported having thrown stones. In an earlier article in the same journal, he reports that "participating in demonstrations, throwing stones, being harassed by soldiers, and being beaten by soldiers" were their four most common experiences of the intifada years. This was a quantitative, comprehensive, sociological survey, not any "subjective interpretation." Address the evidence at hand, please. [2] <eleland/talkedits> 05:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find anywhere where the report says throwing stones at tanks, something that would make sense only as a demonstration exercise for the media, as opposed to throwing stones at people, which would make sense from a practical point of view. So please provide the evidence that this picture really depicts something that was typical for the first intifada, as opposed to typical for media coverage. See also [3] by a qualified sociologist, published in an esteemed scholarly publishing house, giving evidence that media coverage during the first intifada concentrated on the David against Goliath image, as is shown in the picture. Sixtyideas (talk) 05:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You have just cited a source which discusses one specific editorial cartoon. Are you dishonest, or just illiterate? <eleland/talkedits> 06:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please abide by WP:BITE, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL. Also, the source provided discusses a serious of cartoons, and iconic imagery, not individual images. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read the source again, it does not specifially discuss one cartoon, but the media coverage in general. If psychological projection does not come into your way you will see that after a second reading, of course assuming that you are not dishonest or illiterate. Sixtyideas (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

You too should abide by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, even if you're just mirroring another editor's inappropriate words back to him. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"Iconic images" in... editorial cartoons, yes. Do you really think people won't read the cited source and realize what kind of nonsense this is? <eleland/talkedits> 19:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I restored what appeared to be a more neutral and accurate caption. I didn't look at the previous edit, nor care what his/her reasons for making the edit were; my reasons for the edit were entirely and solely my own. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Now please explain them. <eleland/talkedits> 05:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

While it is unquestioned that the media coverage focused on children throwing stones, and in particular used visually arresting images (of the kind that sell newspapers), such as youths throwing stones at tanks, is it actually the case that the intifada was characterized by children throwing stones at tanks? Also, how reliable are these subjective surveys? Memory, particularly in the face of propaganda campaigns and media onslaughts, is a very tricky thing. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not go for a simple, descriptive, factual caption like "A Palestinian throwing stones at an Israeli tank" instead of making unsupportable generalizations? Unless, of course, there's a suspicion that the image is doctored, in which case it should be discarded altogether. -- Nudve (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that the image is the only picture in the article, and clearly intended to create a David and Goliath view, one is forced to raise questions about WP:NPOV, which a more neutral caption helps alleviate. That said, the Fair Use claim of the image is dubious, as is its sourcing. Which reliable source states that this image is what it portends to be? According to Eleland, the source is "the journal of a radical-pacifist student organization at Berkeley", which I think everyone would agree is not reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. If there are problems with the image itself, we might consider removing it or moving it to another section. But it's a bit strange to have the caption say that the photo in the infobox is not what it looks like. -- Nudve (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, the debate about these images occurred several months ago, at which time the uploader, Imad Marie, initially suggested different images, but the retracted his suggestion. The reason why he did so is quite obvious, as these were the images in question: [4][5] It took him several weeks after that to finally find an image that created just the right POV, that of a youth facing down a tank. How about we replace the boy facing tank image with this one? After all, it also shows a youth throwing stones in the First Intifada. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the image is not ideal, and that one without the "David and Goliath view" would be better. The First Intifada was a conflict between the Palestinians and Israel, so an image featuring both is preferable. Indeed, if another fair use image can be found, it would be the best solution all around. -- Nudve (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a rather emotive presentation. A montage would be best. <eleland/talkedits> 06:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It is also note-worthy that the quintessential Intifida action - the stoning of the tanks - bears a marked resemblance to the Stoning of the Devil component of the Islamic Hajj. This MAY have had some symbolic significance as a gesture of religious significance and/or contributed to the appeal/spread of the Intifida, perhaps due media coverage(?). This would also coincide with the rise of religious extremist groups following the Iranian revolution. Note that this paragraph has not been researched by me, I'm just postulating these as potential links that may be included in the infobox.116.14.105.98 (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"The Israel Lobby"

Ref # 23 cites "The Israel Lobby" by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. This paper was extremely controversial, and I would argue that it doesn't qualify for NPOV. The fact that the cite seems to have been disguised (^ a b Eugene R. Wittkopf and James M. McCormick (2007). The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence. Rowan & Littlefield. p. 86. ISBN 074254740X. http://books.google.ca/books?id=CwN6RATLAk0C&pg=PA86&dq=children+palestinian+%22first+intifada%22+killed&lr=&sig=NKCQqT4M1tRUOl0zGJsu2vtBsu4.) also strikes me as suspicious. 99.231.211.103 (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not from the book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, it is from a paper in the London Review of Books (see here). That is a reliable source. Sources need not be "NPOV", that is a criteria for articles. I've replaced the link in the article to cite the original, and the person who originally put it in should have listed the piece and the authors, not the editors of the book as the authors. Either way, the source is fine. nableezy - 05:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Photograph of Faris Odeh

The photo of Faris Odeh throwing a rock at an Israeli tank is misleading. That event occurred in 2000, during the Second (Al-Aqsa) Intifadah, not the First Intifadah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.87.1 (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The two pictures look very similar, and that is why it misleads, but they are different. If you compare two pictures you will see that a boy throwing a stone in the picture of First Intifada is not Faris Odeh.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 18:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless if is Faris Odeh or not, there is bias in the photo. This dialogue should go with the "lead image" talk. Nevertheless the image should be removed until the bias can be settled. Zpowers (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the bias in the photo? nableezy - 05:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's similiar to the bias in Jeff Widener's Tank Man photo which oddly I've never seen in China. Perhaps Zpowers is referring to the concerns in the Talk:First_Intifada#lead_image section that the image may not be from the First Intifada. Has it been established that it's a first intifada photo ? I know the wiki image source suggests that is but the lead image discussion section confusingly includes the statement "that image is not even of the first intifada, as source makes clear"... Not sure what source is being discussed. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Uprising

Why does the writer talks about the intifada as an uprising? that way the Palestines are brought in discredit. Israel is their country just as much as it is of the Jews. It's terrible what the Jews have done to the Palestines though by locking them up in their own country, but the terrorist attacks are so unnecessairy because a lot of innocent people die. Just wanted to say that both parties are equal to me and just a small change wouldn't be that hard, would it? ­—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.69.203.77 (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral term isn't it? Warsaw uprising in WWII was by Poles in Poland. ­—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.146.89.138 (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Warsaw Uprising was aimed exclusively against occupant soldiers. No Pole ever dirve to Berlin to blow himself up in local kindergarden. ­—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.238.93.15 (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Using the term 'The Jews', is incorrect. It is not the entire Jewish population who have 'locked up' the Palistinians (although in my opinion the situation as a whole is far more complicated than that) it is the Israelis. Please understand, not all Jews are Israeli, and not all Israelis are Jews. ­—Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.236.91 (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you see there you said it, an uprising is against the people IN CHARGE...occupant soldiers..I wanted to say, Israel as it is now, is nobodys land, and yes I do understand that not all Jews are Israeli, and not all Israelis are Jews. but, I'm sorry to say this but in the region where I live everybody says it that way and even though I am fully aware it's incorrect is still use it. Strange but true. 81.69.203.77 22:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Technically, though, all Jews are Israeli citizens.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.59.216 (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

All Jews are not Israeli citizens. You fail at being correct.ThisIsMyWikipediaName (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically, they are not but they have a right to become citizens under the law of return. I am sure this is what he meant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.81.74 (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

lead image 2

The lead image in this article had been, for over 3 years, this image. It was replaced by Wikifan12345 in this edit a couple of weeks ago. That replacement has been contested, but a user whose only apparent purpose is to revert others without making any comments on talk pages re-reverted the replacement of the original image. If you would like to discuss changing the image fine, but I have restored the images that has been in use here for many years. nableezy - 21:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I doubt we can find better image than the tank kid picture. It's an amazing art work. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

What? The picture is totally dishonest and a product of Hamas propaganda. Enough POV-pushing. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because an image has been in an article for over 3 years does not somehow make it more legitimate. Not a lot of images are available on the first intifada, and editors are too lazy to find better photos. This article was not edited-frequently, only 50 edits over a two year period. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image is one in which the only violent images were violence committed by Palestinians. The image used in the lead is an iconic image of the first intifida and as such it is the lead image. Do not try to force this in, you need to establish consensus for such changes and you know that. nableezy - 03:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

What is "iconic image?" Iconic is subjective. Editors don't get to define iconic. The avatar should represent the conflict, and the conflict was very violent. If the conflict was about infants throwing stones at tanks, then the picture would be acceptable in the lead. The image could be moved to Palestinian violence or the "intifada." Editors don't need permission to remove clearly biased and dishonest photo, especially when the article was practically ignored for 2 years. Only when the photo is changed, do editors who have no history of contributing to the article, say enough is enough. Edit-warring isn't a great way to achieve a consensus. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

An editor is not defining anything. here is a source saying "it was the stone-throwing demonstrations against the heavily-armed occupation troops that captured international attention." The only violence shown in your "comprehensive" photo is violence by Palestinians. You also show the aftermath of a suicide bombing despite the fact that, depending on what source you use for the end of the intifida, suicide bombings did not take place until the very end of the uprising. You know that you do not have consensus for changing the lead image, stop doing so until you do. nableezy - 18:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Another source:

The first intifida began as a revolt of the Palestinian youth throwing stones against the forces of Israeli occupation.

and later

The violence of the first intifida on the Palestinian side was mainly from stone throwing and only much later some use of small arms.

nableezy - 18:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan, I repeat. Do not try to force this change into the article. This had been stable as the lead image for over 3 years. You have in the last few weeks tried to force a change of the lead image. You do not have consensus for it and continuing to force it in will not end well for either of us. Please stop. nableezy - 19:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at your source Nab:

The first intifada began as a revolt of Palestinian youth throwing stones against against the forces of Israeli occupation, but became a wide-spread movement involving civil disobedience with large-scale demonstrations supported by commercial enterprises.

Nableezy, you and I both know this is a gross generalization and patently false. The first intifada "officially" began when an Israeli businessman was killed by Palestinians in Gaza. This is the narrative in the wikipedia article. Yes, much of the conflict involved deadly stone-throwing and Hamas spent quite a lot of time framing the conflict by exploiting minors as poster-childs for the movement. And anyways, this still has nothing to do with the lead image. The lead image should represent the gist of the article, not a singular event or subjective/partisan POV. The intifada was not about infants lobbying rocks at tanks.

So please stop-edit warring. The photo was perfectly acceptable. You need to provide a reasoning consistent wikipedia policy before moving it, not edit-warring it out and demanding a discuss you refuse to enter. Had I not restored my edit it is unlikely you would have responded to my comments.

edit war: Yes, the lead image remained for over 3 years. So what? Really? So a problematic edit remained in the article 3 years means it should remain? The article only had 50 contributions in the last 2 years. Wikipedia isn't about nostalgia. 3 years ago many current good articles were terrible. Please feel free to find my a policy that says pictures must remain if they have stayed in the article for a minimum of 3 years. XD Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I would be shocked if the intifida was "about infants lobbying rocks at tanks" and I would further be shocked if we had a picture of such a thing. I have never in my life seen an infant be able to throw a rock, much less direct it at a tank. The edit that inserted this image was not "problematic" until you made this problem up out of thin air. Could you please explain to me why what the BBC says captured the world attention and what a book published by Oxford University Press say was an iconic scene from the intifida should not be the lead image? And why the only violent acts in your chosen image are those committed by Palestinians, why the only Palestinian injury shown is the hanging of a collaborator? Or why you show a suicide bombing despite the fact that suicide bombings did not take place for the overwhelming majority of the intifida? Or why you show an Israeli injured by a Palestinian attack but no Israeli attacks despite the fact the death toll disparity was on the order of 10-1? And yes, I can show you a policy that says material that has been stable for years should not be forcibly changed. WP:CONSENSUS. Do not try to force in controversial changes, you should know this by now. nableezy - 20:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So the BBC says the pic captured world-wide attention? No one is disputing this. So what if a book published by Oxford University Press generalizes the first intifada if not outright obfuscating the reality of the war? I'm not opposed to the picture, I like it. But it should go in the relevant section, not the lead of the article. If the article was called "A Palestinian throwing a rock at a tank" then the photo would make sense. The picture is non-neutral and not justified under precedent. This photo was the original lead picture for many years until it was switched out with a neutral map picture. That photo is one of the widely-published photos of the entire Arab-Israeli conflict, and yet it is regulated to the West Bank section. The first intifada was violent, the lead photo illustrates the violence. There is nothing controversial about the photo other than you don't like it. That does not equal controversy. What is controversial is supporting a blatantly non-neutral photo that grossly misrepresents the conflict. The fact that this edit remained in the article for a long time is irrelevant. Like I said before, only 50 contributions in a 2 year period. Inferences like "stable" is dubious under that context. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand what the word dubious means? Why would you expect something that ended almost 20 years ago to have many edits to it? Your unsourced opinion on the validity of sources such as BBC and a book published by a quality university press is meaningless. Your proposed picture is neither "balanced" or "neutral". You show one picture of a roadblock, and that is the only picture of anything that Israel did in the intifida. You then show the hanging of a collaborator and the aftermath of a suicide bombing. This despite the fact that over 1300 Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces during the intifida. You show no violence by Israel and instead only portray their actions as either being that of a victim or a non-violent roadblock. The photo in the article is not "non-neutral", in fact there are multiple sources saying such images were the iconic ones of the intifida. If you have a problem with the images used in the Six-Day War article go to that talk page. While you are here though do not try to force in controversial changes. nableezy - 20:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The picture is a checkpoint at the refugee camp where the first intifada began. The first intifada lead the IDF to establish a complicated network of checkpoints and roadblocks. This issue is far more important than rock-throwing. The other photo is a Palestinian being hanged for informing for Israel, another important and notable aspect of the conflict. The last photo is a bombing in Israel (not suicide). I don't know of any photos that show Israelis killed by Palestinians, but if free ones exist then feel free to insert them in the article. You clearly have a problem with pictures that accurately describe the reality of the conflict, and prefer Hamas-propaganda...the david and goliath scenario beamed throughout the entire world. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Since I cannot say what it is I think "you clearly" are, NPA and all that, kindly do not say such things about me. You have yet to address the issues I have brought up multiple times with the image you have chosen and have not provided a valid response to my giving 2 reliable sources backing my statement about this being an iconic image of the intifida. Since you are either unwilling or unable to do so I do not see the point in continuing this conversation. To the point, do not try to force this change into the article. You need consensus to make such controversial change and you do not have it. nableezy - 21:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've responded quite thoroughly to your arguments. A) Picture has been in the article for 3 years without conflict. This is irrelevant, I explained why. B) Picture is iconic and one book says the first intifada began with stone-throwing. I said this doesn't matter, the conflict was not about rock-throwing and the fact that one book infers it (doesn't explicitly refer to any photographic) is irrelevant. Claims that the montage false represents the conflict is dubious at best considering the picture you lobby for is totally dishonest portrait of the war. Complaints that more than "1,300 Palestinians were killed by Israelis" is again irrelevant. No free images exist portraying Palestinians being killed by Israelis. You clearly don't like the photograph, and yet it is consistent with other conflicts: Iraq War, Gulf War, Second intifada, Iran-Iraq war, etc...etc. Stop calling for consensus, there are only two editors in dispute. You went ahead and removed the photo unilaterally without any explanation in talk saying it was "controversial." Saying something is controversial over and over again doesn't make it so. Portraying the conflict as kids throwing rocks at tanks is controversial and censoring photos that show more real aspects from the war is controversial. Hopefully the 3rd opinion shows up soon. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You have in fact "responded" if "respond" only means typing irrelevant nonsense without addressing the issue. I have provided sources that say the intifida was characterized by this type of action and images such as the one here are iconic of the uprising, you have just said "no". Sorry, but my sources trump your no. I have shown that you present a very distorted image of what hapened in the intifida only showing violence committed by Palestinians despite the fact that Israel killed many more people than Palestinians did during the intifida. You have just said this is "irrelevant". You wishing it were does not make it so. And now another user with a predictable POV has reverted to include the image without one saying one word on the talk page and not even one word in the edit summary. This is bullshit. nableezy - 22:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest to take it back to proportions. First intifada was a complicated phenomena and can not be fully or "fairly" represented by any single picture, and trying to do so leads to endless arguing. The real value of photographs in this case is aesthetic, let's try to address this point. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not know why the picture of the boy throwing a rock at the back of a tank is worthy at all for anyone. It's rather wimpy to get behind a tank where there is virtually no field of vision for those inside and throw a rock or even candies. I don't think that this is a pro-Palestinian picture so those who are pro-Palestinian should find a better pic to fight for. The picture with blood is more appropriate since the Palestinians often chant that they will liberate Jerusalem with blood. --Shuki (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

It appears there are already 3 opinions in this discussion, but I'll add mine anyway. I actually have a few. The first being that the edit warring which is going on is extremely unhelpful. Please review WP:BRD, which stands for "Bold, Revert, Discuss". The previous image has been here for 3+ years, and someone boldly changed it. There's no problem with that. Then, someone reverted the change. Again, no problem with that. But then, Wikifan skipped directly over the "Discuss" part of the process and re-reverted. The image has been here for 3 years and so it has some "tenure" (i.e. consensus) which should have been respected. No one is saying consensus can't change, and no one is saying that this image is perfect solely because it survived in this article for 3 years, but I am absolutely saying that it's inappropriate to edit war over a disputed edit which changes long-standing content. Discuss first, come to a new consensus, then change the image. Anyway, as far as the image goes, my opinion is that I prefer the original image of a person (clearly not an infant) throwing something at a tank. There are many reasons why: The other image has content which is disturbing and offensive, in particular the image of a dead person shortly after being lynched, and the image of a severely charred person. Yes, the intifada was a violent event, but we don't need to show gruesome images to prove it, nor do we need to provide images of people whose faces are clearly identifiable. The other image is a montage of three images, two of which show the violent aftermath of Palestinian actions, while the other shows a comparatively peaceful-looking Israeli checkpoint. It's difficult to argue that there aren't any NPOV problems with that. If you look closely, the bottom left image of the montage appears to be sort of cut in half vertically. The right half of it shows the bloody, burned man. The left half of it shows something completely unidentifiable. It appears to be two men, and one of them is pointing at something out of frame. My point being, the montage looks amateurish and doesn't belong in a professional encyclopedia. The original image is clearly an extraordinary photograph, from an artistic/aesthetic point of view. It also neatly captures the notion that the Palestinians were technologically outmatched by the Israelis. According to Nableezy, the original image was used numerous times in various media representations of the First Intifada. I haven't verified this, but if it is true, it does lend credence to the assertion that this is an "iconic" intifada image. The other image was recently uploaded and has a speedy deletion tag on it for improper licensing. So, if I had to choose between the two, I would definitely choose the original image.—SnottyWong spout 01:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the third opinion hit it perfectly ))from ElComandanteChe not Snottywong). The image is awesome but it isn't free. We have free images available. Was that image actually iconic or ones similar to it? And even if it is iconic, that argument can be made for the other images so best to go with the free ones. And gruesomeness has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia is not censored and war can be gruesome. The montage can show many aspects (including technology) as long as the images are free. A big part of a FUR is if an image replaceable. We have images available that illustrate the subject so any FUR is invalid.Cptnono (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The "collage" is not free, it is actually a copyright violation in which a user claims as his own work images what he copied from the internet. But you miss the point, this is a blatant POV push. In a conflict in which 1300+ Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces and several hundred more killed by Israeli civilians and where Israel suffered about 1/10 the casualties we now show only violence committed by Palestinians and not one image of any violence in which the Israelis are the perpetrators. On top of that, in an uprising that sources say was characterized largely stone-throwing and non-violent protests and strikes, we show the only the most greusome images of Palestinian actions during the intifida. On top of that, the stone-throwing image was in the article for over 3 years, in Wikifan and a user that has yet to say one word here have edit-warred it out of the article, much like you and a pal of yours did to a certain phrase at another article. Odd that you only have a problem with edit-warring sometimes. Besides coming here to annoy me, is there a reason you are here? Have you done any reading into the first intifida? Do you know the statistics (such as the casualties, or the reports of upwards of 85% of young Palestinian males throwing rocks at occupation forces, or the types of methods used to protest, both violent and non-violent? Or are you here just to annoy me? nableezy - 02:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I cam here since Wikifan's talk page (see me giving him a hard time here and third opinion are both on my watchlist and if you look at my recent contributions you will see that I have been removing nonfree logos on similar articles. I have already asked you to stop making such comments on talk pages. Stop it.

The primary reason for not using the image is that no FUR is sufficient. It was being used to identify the subject. It is therefore replaceable since other images can identify the subject just fine. If others are not free (I assume at least one of those is) then those need to be handled separately. Most images require use in critical commentary for a proper FUR. So it might be acceptable in one of the sections of the article but even then there is a huge question as to if a kid throwing a rock needs the image for a better understanding of the text. It appears to be purely decorative. It is a copyright violation that doesn't even have sufficient FURs for each article. So not only is it illegal, it does not follow the protocol in place to keep Wikipedia in the clear if someone was to present a dispute.Cptnono (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

And Nableezy has tagged a couple of them for speedy deletion. I am considering marking the tank photo for deletion since the FUR is not good enough (someone could try writing a FUR instead of deleting the other images of course) but if it is for critical commentary in the body instead of identifying the subject in the lead the FUR could be good enough (still thinking). The other image not currently marked may not be the best to identify the subject. The tank image is not suitable to identify the conflict regardless of replaceability, though.Cptnono (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Editors should not create FURs only for the images they like. How about this one [6] BBC likes this one A FUR could just as easily be written for that. If we are going to violate copyright we need to make sure that it is NPOV (someone mentioned David and Goliath above) with a truly accurate FUR that is inline with the image guidelines. The tank one doesn't do it. This many people raising objections (whether after 3 years or three minutes) means something.Cptnono (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so what image do we use? Also what is a FUR? Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for ranting. I like the BBC one. If it is good enough to be their lead image then it should be good enough for us. It is also NPOV. It isn't perfect though. Non of the images in the montage are good enough on their own so Nableey catching the copyright violation rules that out unless other free images are found. I mentioned it to JJG since he has been good at tracking down free images.

All nonfree images need a Fair Use Rationale. See: Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (policy with legal considerations), Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline, and User:ESkog/Rationales or info.Cptnono (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, since the new image is disputed, the original image should stay in the article until a consensus is established. SnottyWong ^confess 03:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

And per the policy with legal considerations I have removed it. Until this is worked out, the article can survive without an image. That has nothing to do with BRD which is subserviant (but even if it wasn't, I don;t believe anyone has tried no image at all)Cptnono (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay with no image. Can we move to the tank photo to the intifada section and lynch pic to Palestinians killing Palestinians? Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If the licensing on the image was truly problematic, I think it probably would have been dealt with in the past 3+ years. Removing the image is bordering pretty close on being pointy. I'm going to disengage from this discussion because I don't want to get dragged into an edit war, and I don't feel like babysitting right now. My opinion is above, use it as you like. SnottyWong ^spout 04:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Super duper of you feel like moving on. It is truly problematic and no one noticed. So moving forward,the FUR may be acceptable but its use should be for critical commentary and not the defining image. This is both a lack of license (since there is no license) and NPOV issue. If others think it and the lynching one are good in the body then that might be cool. There are resources for free images that editors could be using ([[commons:Wikimedia Israel free image collection project] maybe?) and if a nonfree image is used it should identify the topic much better than the tank and kid since that is only one aspect (again:contextual significance) that also has POV concerns raised.Cptnono (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Brotherhood of Warriors

I've just noticed that some important parts of this article are based on the following book. I assume this is an oversight.

Cohen, Aaron (2008). Brotherhood of Warriors. New York: HarperCollins. pp. pg11-12. ISBN 978-0-06-123615-0

Given the author's job at the time, it doesn't strike me as a reliable source for the kind of statements it's being used for such as "The deep roots of the Intifada lay in the 20 year occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, but it is widely accepted that the First Intifada "sprang from a serious of rumors and false allegations of Israeli atrocities and investigation from immans at various mosques." Sean.hoyland - talk 13:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

How so? Shlaim says "demonstrators burned tires, brandished iron bars, thew moltov cocktails at Israeli cars..etc" etc.

Old edit:

Rumours that the accident was, in fact, a deliberate act inflamed Palestinian passions and set off disturbances in the Jabaliya camp and in the rest of the Gaza Strip, thereafter in the West Bank as well. Within days the occupied territories were engulfed in a wave of demonstrations and commercial strikes on an unprecedented scale. Equally unprecedented was the extent of mass participation in these disturbances: tens of thousands of ordinary civilians, including women and children. The Israeli security forces used the full panoply of crowd control measures to try and quell the disturbances: cudgels, nightsticks, tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets, and live ammunition. But the disturbances only gathered momentum.

Cohen and Shlaim seem to agree with each other but the old edit omitted crucial material (from Shlaim) that painted a false picture of the event. I also believe Cohen provides a footnote for the specifics on weapon attacks, but I'll need to look at it again. Regardless, the current version is a vast improvement from the old version. We could say, according to Aaron Cohen and Shlaim, x, y and z happened - but the facts are widely known anyways. Open to alternative sources. Wikifan^{Be nice} 14:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Finding and citing alternative, more appropriate, fit for purpose sources (such as Shlaim) is all I was suggesting Wikifan. Perhaps I wasn't clear about that. This is one of the high importance articles in the topic area so we should try to use the best sources available. Cohen's book strikes me as an odd choice. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It was on my shelve. I'm totally open to more scholarly sources but the content sourced to Cohen is or more less lifted from other sources although he does add his own experiences because it is an semi-autobiography. The Shlaim cite was misrepresented, completely. An editor ignored sentences that basically ruined the timeline of the origins of the intifiada. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

unsourced

It was the first time that the people of the territories had acted with cohesion and as a nation.. i'm deleting this because it is unsourced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.20.190 (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The end needs to be specified

It may have ended in 1993 but there is no clear end month or day, if there is. This article needs to clearly address this, or rather, should we edit the end year in the inbox to be "1993 (unclear)" just like the unclear 2005 end to the Second Intifada? Either way, just 1993 alone in this article is not sufficient information. 68.4.43.132 (talk) 12:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

How many Palestinians killed each other?

On the one hand, we have Additionally, over 1,000 alleged informers were killed by Arab death squads.... On the other, By the time the Oslo Accords were signed, 1,162 Palestinians and 160 Israelis had died... (killed by the Israeli security forces). Benny Morris, cited by Alan Dershowitz, gives the number as 400 by the signing of the Oslo accords. What's the deal? grendel|khan 20:15, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

The deal is, the numbers need to be cleaned up using cited sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the ones from B'tselem, probably the best source 1,162 etc are right - I just recalculated them and cleaned them up and made the article consistent with the source, which does not report them this way. Major discrepancies probably come from changing dates, different areas covered, not separating adults and children, etc. Not all of these 1,162 were killed by the security forces, though. The death squads number just introduced sounds high to me (and vaguely dated, more than 10 years post facto) and the Morris number sounds low. This article needs work, and I was planning on doing some, based on Morris's chapter in Righteous Victims and Aryeh Shalev's book, which should give the Israeli govt POV. Schiff and Ya'ari's book would be another good source. Earlier versions had valid information which has disappeared from the article. --John Z 22:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The figures also vary due to who does the counting. The collaborators also killed, the "suicides" of detainees, etc etc as put into the article, the "official Israeli" figures are normally the lowest as settler attacks on Palestinians are not counted...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Since when is B'tselem an unbiased source? That's ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.103.28.231 (talk) 05:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

re lack of sources and questionable language

In the "Outcomes" section:

The harsh Israeli countermeasures (particularly during the earlier years of the Intifada) resulted in international attention returning to the plight of the Palestinians, as prisoners in their own land. The fact that 159 Palestinian children below the age of 16 (many of them gunned down while tossing stones at IDF soldiers) were killed was especially alarming for international observers

"plight of the Palestinians" - change to "cause of" or a less one-sided word.

"prisoners in their own land" - this assumes that the land is the Palestinians', which is a whole other argument... -- this should be deleted.

"...159 Palestinian children..." - where is the source that this number is derived from? —­Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.160.96.7 (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"...159 Palestinian children..." -amnesty international

"prisoners in their own land"- see history of Palestine pre-1948 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.148.209 (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Since when has Amnesty International been an unbiased observer in this conflict, such that their numbers should be relied upon?! Their strong anti-Israel bias is perfectly clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.59.76 (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Brotherhood of Warriors: Behind Enemy Lines with a Commando in One of the World's Most Elite Counterterrorism Units

Unfortunately I have been unable to find a single mainstream media source who reviewed the book but here is the blurb from Amazon to give a feel of what we are dealing with:

"At the age of eighteen, Aaron Cohen left Beverly Hills to prove himself in the crucible of the armed forces. He was determined to be a part of Israel's most elite security cadre, akin to the American Green Berets and Navy SEALs. After fifteen months of grueling training designed to break down each individual man and to rebuild him as a warrior, Cohen was offered the only post a non-Israeli can hold in the special forces. In 1996 he joined a top-secret, highly controversial unit that dispatches operatives disguised as Arabs into the Palestinian-controlled West Bank to abduct terrorist leaders and bring them to Israel for interrogation and trial."

"Between 1996 and 1998, Aaron Cohen would learn Hebrew and Arabic; become an expert in urban counterterror warfare, the martial art of Krav Maga, and undercover operations; and participate in dozens of life-or-death missions. He would infiltrate a Hamas wedding to seize a wanted terrorist and pose as an American journalist to set a trap for one of the financiers behind the Dizengoff Massacre, taking him down in a brutal, hand-to-hand struggle. A propulsive, gripping read, Cohen's story is a rare, fly-on-the-wall view into the shadowy world of "black ops" that redefines invincible strength, true danger, and inviolable security."

"Canadian-born and California-raised Cohen describes his work with the Israeli group Sayeret Duvdevan in this you-are-there debut memoir."[7]

Not really my cup of tea, but if you enjoy the glorification of war as light entertainment I am sure it is a perfectly passable read for a day or two down at the beach. It is certainly not the kind of book that should be used for multiple citations establishing historical fact in an encyclopedia article (at best it could be used for the opinions of Mr Cohen and his ghost writer Douglas Century, but these opinions are far from relevant to this article). I am deleting the citations from the article and I will also remove the material unless someone finds alternate references fairly quickly. Dlv999 (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Intra-communal violence

The section is almost entirely unsourced. There are three citations in the entire section. Two of them lead to the same document, a report by Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group, an organisation founded in 1996, so it is unclear how they had a handle on intra-communal violence during the Intifada between 1987-93. The third citation is a quote from Benny Morris.

The section needs to be re-written based on RS. We also need to think about the length of this section in terms of undue weight (if no/few reliable sources discuss the issue, why is it given so much space in the article? Dlv999 (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure I follow the logic here. Why would an organization founded in 1996 not be able to credibly report on events that happened in 1987-1993? Isn't this what historians and researchers do all the time? They think it's all over (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The single source does not contain the numerous (and erroneous) claims made in the (now mostly deleted) section. I do believe however that this is an important part of the story and should be expanded in the future with reliable sources. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the section at all, nor am I commenting on it. I just want someone to explain the logic behind claiming an organization founded in year X can't be a reliable source on events in year Y, if X>Y. They think it's all over (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think this point should be covered though. I believe B'Tselem can provide reliable statistics. In the meantime I think the present text should be removed. user:EzA+lSeb Nnakari:s claim that the section is "Well referenced" is simply absurd. Hardly any of the claims are supported. Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Arabic article

The arabic wikiarticle on this is an FA with over 60 inline cites. Might be a good idea to look through it for ideas. Wrad (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this article is pretty chaotic, and could do with input from other language versions. I started translating the French one myself, IMHO better organized than this, a while ago.John Z (talk) 05:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this article is fairly atrocious. The structure is jumbled, emphasis skewed and bias rampant. Why is there so little mention of the non demonstrative Palestinian strategies of resistance employed i.e. tax revolts, strikes, obstructions of settlement building and boycotts. But most worrying of all is the dearth of sound references, particularly in the intifada section. Highly contentious claims are made without a single shred of support. Clearly this is a highly important article and deserves better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.59.126 (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of bad stuff (no source and no answer to cn requests for a year. On editing

I've removed this. It's simply not good enough to edit in 'stuff' without a source, and for it to lie there for over a year with a source tag. All such matter should be removed. I.e.

• (1)The Israel Defense Forces reported more than 3,600 Molotov cocktail attacks, 100 hand grenade attacks and 600 assaults with guns or explosives. The attacks were directed at both soldiers and Israeli civilians.

• (2)Demonstrations evolved from random disturbances to more organized attacks instigated by the Palestinian leadership. By 1988, the Islamist Palestinian movements, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, emerged. The organizations were responsible for hundreds of violent acts, including kidnapping soldiers and killing Israeli civilians.
• (3)Other rumors circulated that Palestinian youths wounded by Israeli soldiers were being taken to an army hospital near Tel Aviv and "finished off." Another rumor, claimed Israeli troops poisoned a water reservoir in Khan Yunis. A UN official said these stories were untrue. Only the most seriously injured Palestinians were taken out of the Gaza Strip for treatment, and, in some cases, this probably saved their lives. The water was also tested and found to be uncontaminated.(removed. Unsubstantiated (and trivial) rumours should not be on the article page until firmly documented by RSNishidani (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Secondly, in future, editors should only write the text with specific quality sources at hand. The Intifadas are amply covered in numerous academic works -it is an historical research topic that has engaged much scholarship- and the article can be written from top to bottom using these in preference to anything else.Nishidani (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Repeated addition of POV tag

Please stop edit-warring over the tag. Read this first. The purpose of the tag is to fix specific POV problems identified on the talk page. Such kind of drive-by tagging with no active discussion can be removed by anyone. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tbm1998: I fail to understand your actions here. I objected to the POV tag, you then added a POV-check tag, while not using the talk page at all. I quote from the Template:POV-check: The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. Unless this is done, I will remove it again. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: Fine, you win. The first paragraph of the outcomes has no sources and makes the Palestinian side look godly. In fact the whole Outcomes section just talks of the Palestinian perspective. "the Intifada did produce a number of results that Palestinians considered positive:" in what twisted sense is that NPOV? Certain points on the list also border on Palestinian propaganda and are entirely fabricated; "Criticism of Israel came from the United Nations ... which during the 1980s were concentrated on the Iran–Iraq War." really? List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine would disagree. since there is now a discussion that is not older than 'nearly a year', I am putting the POV tag back up.Tbm1998 (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tbm1998: It is not a matter of "winning", it is a matter of fixing what is wrong. Otherwise the tag will stay there forever - I have encountered tags which stay for years without anyone arsing themselves to fix stuff. So now you have listed things which you find objectionable. I will address your points below:

• I have removed two superfluous and unsourced sentences. (about Iran-Iraq war, and the Madrid conference)
• Some of the unsourced information is simply uncontroversial. The fact that the PLO leadership did not initiate the intifada is accepted by all serious scholars. See the section "Leadership and aims". I have added another source for this, but it was not strictly necessary.
• I have reorganized the section, and removed some superfluous content.

Let me know if more needs to be done, or give suggestions. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tbm1998: I took away the paragraph about what the intifada was, the way that it happened should not be included in the outcome, it should be int the body — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbm1998 (talk • contribs)

@Tbm1998: I have partially reverted your edit. (Only kept the second sentence.) The recognition of the intifada as a broad-based movement independent of the leadership is important and noted everywhere in scholarship. This was part of the background of the diplomatic negotiations leading to the Oslo Accords. Arafat/PLO tried to use the intifada to get leverage, but were afraid of losing control because they did not start it. Feel free to revert/discuss more. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction is a huge mess. Too specific in some places, doesn't summarize anything, also reads like an essay at times instead of an encyclopedia article. Also it's only essentially one paragraph other than the one-sentence para about the Second Intifada. hbdragon88 (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Point of view problem

This article seems to be based on a staunch pro-Palestinian point of view. Regular established news sources are reliable. Do not call that "Zionist propaganda", that is a biased Anti-Zionist POV. On the other hand, do not use sources that have a an anti-Palestinian bias. I would not consider Amnesty International or the Jewish Virtual Library to be reliable. Amnesty is anti-Israel while the JVL is explicitly pro-Israel.108.13.114.31 (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

REAL CAUSE: Israelis kill teenage boy for throwing stone

Here is the real cause of the First Intifada:

"Palestinian frustration exploded in December 1987 when an Israeli army truck accidentally struck a car carrying four Palestinian laborers in Gaza killing them all. A crowd of Palestinians gathered at the accident site and a teenaged boy threw a stone at the Israeli soldiers. The Israelis responded with gunfire killing the boy. The incident unleashed a spontaneous rebellion among Palestinians spreading quickly from Gaza to the West Bank. In towns throughout the occupied territories, rock-throwing Palestinians confronted Israeli soldiers often eliciting gunfire in return. The Palestinian Uprising or Intifada as it was called took everyone by surprise."

My source is a direct quotation from a lecture titled "The First Palestinian Intifada" from the Great Courses lecture series, "United States and the Middle East 1914 to 9/11". The statement was made by Professor Salim Yaqub, Associate Professor of History at the University of California, Santa Barbara. A specialist in modern Middle Eastern history, he earned his Ph.D. from Yale University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.119.198 (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on First Intifada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130114152859/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/3BD6ABF508EFE04E852560D30070EC3B to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/3BD6ABF508EFE04E852560D30070EC3B
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080909204606/http://www.fpri.org/peacefacts/023.199511.sicherman.rabinappreciation.html to http://www.fpri.org/peacefacts/023.199511.sicherman.rabinappreciation.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on First Intifada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150710172640/http://www.zaman.com.tr/dunya_saddam-olsaydi-israile-dersini-verirdi_789991.html to http://www.zaman.com.tr/dunya_saddam-olsaydi-israile-dersini-verirdi_789991.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104215919/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/50670C9C0FF4C6308025645F005EAAA4 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/50670C9C0FF4C6308025645F005EAAA4
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104215919/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/50670C9C0FF4C6308025645F005EAAA4 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/50670C9C0FF4C6308025645F005EAAA4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 February 2018

The information is completely factually inaccurate, antisemitic, and total propaganda. The entire page needs to either be rewritten to reflect actual facts, or removed entirely. I am sending this page to the JDL, anti-defamation league, and the World Jewish Congress. You cannot represent this as actual historical events when it is so completely inaccurate. This page is legally defamation and you cannot represent this as truth. 73.99.96.165 (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Discuss 22:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)