![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The infobox claims…
… only for the article to contradict this with:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
considered to be reliable and encyclopedic by whom?-- Severino ( talk) 06:33, 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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
First Intifada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Should "civi disobedience" be "civil disobedience" in the introduction? Quittle ( talk) 14:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
First Intifada has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. Thank you for your input!
P.I. Ellsworth
ed.
put'r there
10:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)