Talk:First Intifada/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Self-contradiction in infobox

The infobox claims…

359 killed by Palestinians

… only for the article to contradict this with:

An estimated 771 (according to Associated Press) to 942 (according to the IDF) Palestinians were executed on suspicion of collaboration during the span of the Intifada.

These 771-942 were a direct part of the Intifada, not counting them in the box is whitewashing.

-- 95.90.219.15 (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Please cease mentioning occupied Territories

This article repeatedly mentions Israel's going into occupied territories. I wish for it to be changed to something neutral. IsraeliIdan (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Zvikorn: Can you suggest an alternate wording? I'm not fully knowledgeable about the situation, but it's recognized by the international community, even the ICJ and the Israeli Supreme Court (at least in the intro to Israeli occupation of the West Bank), that the territories are "occupied", and to try to word it otherwise would also not be neutral. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Occupied territories is neutral. nableezy - 03:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I’m aware that I’m responding to this very late. However, a generally accepted neutral term is “disputed territories” given that their claim is disputed by Israel and Palestine, and their status is disputed as well YidChef323 (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Not NPOV

The article is not neutral, and supports the intifada throughout. For example, in the conclusion "Some say it was the Intifada that caused the repeated rise of the Israeli peace movement (see Peace Now), and Yitzhak Rabin's eventual re-election in 1992. " It does not mention that others believe it is responsible for an increase in the militant movement.

Furthermore, while the causes of intifada and the harms against Palestinians by Israelis is discussed:

"On October 1, 1987 Israeli military ambushed and killed seven men from Gaza believed to be members of the Jihad. Several days later an Israeli settler shot a Palestinian schoolgirl in the back."

"However, the general underlying cause of the intifada can be seen in the many years of military control that the Palestinians suffered under the Israelis.

Arabs maintain that the Intifada was a protest of Israel's brutal repression which included extra-judicial killings, mass detentions, house demolitions, indiscriminate torture, deportations, and so on. "

I cannot find any assessment whatsoever of the violence against Israelis that occured during the Intifada.

"The mere presence of stories, reinforced by the real incidents above, caused wild panic and street fights against Israeli policemen and soldiers"

is the only statement on the other side, but it doesn't talk about how soldiers were killed, and the Israeli civilians are never mentioned.

Basically, the article discusses the negative effects on one side (the Palestinians) without discussing how the other (the Israelis) was hurt.

Another disturbing factor is that the only criticism of the Intifada is that it didn't go far enough: "Others point out that Palestinians felt abandoned by their Arab allies, the PLO had failed to destroy Israel and establish a Palestinian state in its stead as promised. "

The article failed to point out another very common point of view - that it hurt Israel and was too violent a reaction. Additionally, the goal of "destroy[ing] Israel and establishing a Palestinian state in its stead" is not thought of as a positive goal by most groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliphaunt (usurped) (talk • contribs) 06:24, 5 January 2004‎ (UTC)

Moreover, this sentence is ridiculous: "Israeli military occupation of Southern Lebanon - rife with war crimes - and the continued Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza fed a growing discontent with the colonial status quo." 'Rife with war crimes'? Place any other country in the region in the situation that Israel found itself in, and I think you'll find it a whole lot 'rifer.' And don't use words like 'colonial' unless you're going to apply them equally to the numerous other, much more proactive occupations in the world. Israel never asked to get invaded. 64.231.208.200 01:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Israel never asked to be invaded, but it did invade a number of countries, and when it scooped up the landed given to the Palestinians in 1948 and began building settlements on it, it became a colonial venture. This is in contravention to UN resolutions that were vetoed by the US or Israel and building permanent settlements on lands won in war is a war crime, so it is perfectly reasonable to call the building of settlements colonization and also reasonable to say that these are war crimes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.148.209 (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter what they did in the Intifada. No matter what kind of retaliation was made, it could never be worse than losing your entire homeland and being exiled and mass murdered, along with all the war crimes that Israel is fuilty of —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.88.25 (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

the section about "palestinians killing palestinians" is not NPOV as it's claims seem only to be sourced by jerusalemvirtuallibrary. --Severino (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library is a reliable source and considered to be encyclopedic as far as Israel/Palestine goes. Outside of the RS you disagree with, can you explain what is NPOV about the section? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Look at this [1] --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

considered to be reliable and encyclopedic by whom?--Severino (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

By the Wikipedia community. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

so you claim. 2 users do not represent the wikipedia community. even if you bring some more, they wouldn't be the community. also, there are guidelines for the reliability of sources.--Severino (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Jewish Virtual Library has been cited by CNN, New York Times, BBC, CBS News, Fox News, The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Business Week, and Bloomberg, among others. It is listed as reference by academic libraries at Pennsylvania State University, Michigan State University, University of Washington, King's College, London, and the University of Delaware. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

JVL is not considered to be an RS in the same way that the sources you have listed are considered to be reliable sources. It has been discussed at the RS noticeboard many times. See this for example but there are several other instances. It seems to be more of a use with caution source depending on context source and information in JVL is often available elsewhere. I would suggest taking it to WP:RSN and asking about the specific information in the specific context if there is ambiguity/disaqreement. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

well, most of these "references" are none, don't verifiy the impartiality and reliability of jvl, if one takes a closer look. in the NY times link for example, it's in a row of links beside netanjahu's campaign website. should we also consider this a reliable source? many others attribute the information they have drawn from jvl to them, in the running text. a sign of cautiousness. i'd say one has to decide from case to case. biographical informations about israeli politicians are probably reliable on jvl (as one of the listed newspapers has taken it from there) but when it comes to issues with the palestinians (not only contemporary, also historical ones!) or generally israel's foreign relations and conflicts, it's extremely biased, therefore not reliable.--Severino (talk) 08:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"Extremely biased." JVL is a reliable source and used frequently on wikipedia. Bard is recognized expert on Israel/Palestinian affairs. JVL is by far one of the most comprehensive resources available, very few websites rival the information found there. As far the first intifada goes, there is nothing controversial about what JVL says. IT is pretty much the mainstream. The previous version had no overview of the conflict, very few concrete details. And might I add the previous version was almost completely unsourced and contained blatant OR. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sean. In this case, I don't want to waste more time on JVL, but to see if there are additional sources. Is phrmg.org an RS? I have a strong feeling that the information in the article can be verified or negated by additional sources. As Sean pointed out, JVL discussion isn't new. Instead of repeating old arguments let's try to research a bit. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 09:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The RS noticeboard was a one-time issue. JVL cite merely linked to statistics from Israeli sources. JVL is reliable and empirical. PHRMG provides a Palestinian perspective on human rights. It isn't unreliable, but unfortunately doesn't have the same credibility as HRW, AI, or B'tselem even though I personally believe it is far more accurate and honest. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

amendment: biographical information on jvl also can be questionable, without having checked out, it's likely to find embellishment for example in ariel sharons biography concerning his involvement in the sabra-shatila massacre. but birthdays, dates of death, information about the origin should be correct, also information about less controversial persons/issues.--Severino (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What does matter in this case, is that the numbers of PHRMG do fit those given by Bard. Actually, PHRMG references Haj-Yahia's research and Freih Abu Middein's statement (link). --ElComandanteChe (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Virtual Library as a source is questionable at best, given that it is a venture of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise and the mission statement sets it out as explicitly Pro-Israeli. Additionally, much of "The Intifada" section is DIRECTLY COPIED from the following link: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/intifada.html and much of is not sourced to that link. This should be rewritten, preferably based on another source.

Here are a few paragraphs from the link which were near directly lifted into the article:

False charges of Israeli atrocities and instigation from the mosques played an important role in starting the intifada. On December 6, 1987, an Israeli was stabbed to death while shopping in Gaza. One day later, four residents of the Jabalya refugee camp in Gaza were killed in a traffic accident. Rumors that the four had been killed by Israelis as a deliberate act of revenge began to spread among the Palestinians. Mass rioting broke out in Jabalya on the morning of December 9, in which a 17-year-old youth was killed by an Israeli soldier after throwing a Molotov cocktail at an army patrol. This soon sparked a wave of unrest that engulfed the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem.

Over the next week, rock-throwing, blocked roads and tire burnings were reported throughout the territories. By December 12, six Palestinians had died and 30 had been injured in the violence. The following day, rioters threw a gasoline bomb at the U.S. consulate in East Jerusalem. No one was hurt in the bombing.

In Gaza, 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.

The intifada was violent from the start. During the first four years of the uprising, more than 3,600 Molotov cocktail attacks, 100 hand grenade attacks and 600 assaults with guns or explosives were reported by the Israel Defense Forces. The violence was directed at soldiers and civilians alike. During this period, 16 Israeli civilians and 11 soldiers were killed by Palestinians in the territories; more than 1,400 Israeli civilians and 1,700 Israeli soldiers were injured. Approximately 1,100 Palestinians were killed in clashes with Israeli troops.

I'm not a regular here, but this is too ridiculous for me not to comment. 07:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoniel (talk • contribs)

Likewise I'm not a regular here. This article is loaded with purported statements of fact that are either subtly (or not so) pro-Palestinian and/or anti-Israel POV, such as referring to Palestine as a nation (it is not). Unless I missed, I don't see discussion of the large number of attacks by Palestinians against Israeli civilians, or background regarding the vast history of organized Palestinian terror against Israeli civilians prior to the Intifada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.59.76 (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to the above comments, though some have them definitely should have been made more civilly. However, they definitely should be reviewed again, as the discussion has been silent since 2012, and they are still very pertinent YidChef323 (talk) 04:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 December 2023

Change "civi disobedience" to "civil disobedience". 108.34.174.66 (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Done Selfstudier (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Typo

Should "civi disobedience" be "civil disobedience" in the introduction? Quittle (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2021

Change: “The First Intifada, or First Palestinian Intifada (also known simply as the intifada or intifadah),[note 1] was a sustained series of Palestinian protests, and in some cases violent riots,[6] against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza that had begun twenty years prior, in 1967.[7] The intifada lasted from December 1987 until the Madrid Conference in 1991, though some date its conclusion to 1993, with the signing of the Oslo Accords.[8]” To: “The First Intifada, or First Palestinian Intifada (also known simply as the intifada or intifadah),[note 1] was a sustained series of Palestinian protests, and in some cases terrorist attacks and violent riots,[6] against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza that had begun twenty years prior, in 1967.[7] The intifada lasted from December 1987 until the Madrid Conference in 1991, though some date its conclusion to 1993, with the signing of the Oslo Accords.[8]” YidChef323 (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

To editor YidChef323:  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 10:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)