Talk:Intifada/Archive 1

Archive 1

Spelling?

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

no, since it's a form 8 noun :-)

look,

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

Arre 00:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

French Intifada?

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

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

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

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

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

According to MSN Encarta, Intifada means Palestinian uprising

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

Vote for rewrite: 'attacks on civilians'/ redirect

Two obvious issues with this very bad page.

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

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

Deletion log

The heading for the following entries (re content removals) is intentionally subordinated to the lead section (above that heading) since it is part of the "front matter" for the discussion, and not part of the discussion itself.^{Jerzy•t 10:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)}

• talk on temple mount incident moved to Talk:Al-Aqsa Intifada. Martin
• talk on the meaning of "anti-Zionism" moved to Talk:Anti-Zionism. Martin

(NPoV)

(Encyclopedic?)

According to the relevant ed-hist, the following blue box contains the whole contrib by Uriyan at the time now indicated, creating the page. The initial, indented portion was removed at some point (yet to be identified). That removal destroyed the context of the resulting remainder of the signed comment, thereby in effect (perhaps accidentally, or if not, at best recklessly) attributing a forged statement to Uriyan.^{Jerzy•t 10:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)}

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

Whoever put this, for obvious reasons this is not encyclopedia stuff. Either add your claims (in an orderly fashion) to the article or don't make them at all. Also, citing Palestinian sources as 'balanced' would be a bit odd, to my point of view. --Uriyan —Preceding undated comment added 08:16, 17 April 2002.

An IP-user made one contribution in direct response to the preceding (08:16, 17 April 2002) contrib, coded as two 'graphs (separated by a single return that appeared only in the wiki-markup and had no effect on the rendered talk page) with a non-compliant sig. The following 3 green boxes include all of its text; they are accompanied by later annotations consisting of additional non-compliant sigs. This annotation and the boxes should serve to identify clearly the context in which that response originally placed its subsequently separated pieces.^{Jerzy•t 10:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)}

Stating that "citing Palestinian sources as 'balanced' would be a bit odd, to my point of view", is itself a bit odd, to my point of view.

The preceding text was part of a contrib by 193.132.79.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at 19:11, 15 June 2002; its end appears further below in the current section.^{Jerzy•t 10:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)}

GrahamN 16 June '02 The preceding was placed here as a quasi-sig by User:193.132.79.6 (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2002

For most other groups and nationalities, that would be true. But not in this case. The Palestinian Authority and Palestinian media sources have a reputation for lying and anti-Semitism, so its hard to take their claims seriously without independent cooberation. For instance, they spent a week screaming to the world, claiming that Israelies murdered 5000 civilians in Jenin. It then turned out that no massacre took place at all; in the entire mini-war less than five dozen people were killed, most of whom were combatants. The Palestinians then held mock funerals with live people pretending to be dead, only to be unmasked when one of the "corpses" got up and walked away! This kind of dishonesty has been going on for years, and many people in the West just won't believe their propaganda anymore. RK—Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 15 June 2002.

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

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

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

The preceding text was part of a contrib by 193.132.79.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) at 19:11, 15 June 2002; its end appears further below in the current section.^{Jerzy•t 10:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)}

GrahamN 16 June '02
The preceding was placed here as a quasi-sig by User:193.132.79.6 (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2002

Again we must ask, how so? This article is a work in progress and constructive criticism is appreciated. However my experience is that whenever anyone tries to add what they term "balance", it often is pro-Palestinian propaganda, and sometimes veers off into anti-Semitism and apologetics for homicide bombings. That is why some of us are wary. RK—Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 15 June 2002.

To somebody who is fervently convinced they are right, any opposing opinion will seem to be wrong-headed. I think you should try to take a step back and disengage your emotions. I hope you are able to make the distinction between anti-Semitism, which is obviously completely abhorrent and unacceptable, and anti-Zionism, which is a perfectly legitimate moral and political stance. The Intifada is a struggle against Zionism, not against Jews. I am not saying that no Palestinian participating in the Intifada is an anti-Semite. That would be absurd. Clearly many Palestinians are horribly anti-Semitic, just as many Americans are horribly prejudiced against people of African descent, and many Israelis are horribly prejudiced against Arabs. But the fact that some of a person's compatriots are bigots doesn't mean their own opinions must be discounted. There are many moderate Palestinians who are anti-Zionist but not racist. I believe these people’s perspective on the conflict is entirely valid, and should be represented in this article. GrahamN 17 June '02

www.jmcc.org is new to me, although a from very quick glance it appears sober enough. www.electronicintifada.org , however, I know to be an excellent site, and I urge you to peruse it in the interests of balance. The site seems to me to go out of its way to be fair, far more than you would reasonably expect from Palestinians, given all that they have suffered and are suffering at the hands of the Israelis. I've only discovered Wikipedia today (what a terrific idea it is!), so I'm not entirely comfortable with barging in and making wholesale changes just yet. If I find time, I'd like attempt to draft a more neutral article, showing the thing from both sides. Would the normal thing be to post it here in Talk, first, for others to comment on, or should I follow the advice to be "bold" and destroy all the hard work Uriyan has put into this well written (if biased) original, at a stroke? GrahamN 16 June 02 (I didn't post the first comment, by the way)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.132.79.6 (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2002

Registered user RK made, at 20:19, 15 June 2002, one contiguous contribution in direct response to the preceding fragment of the 19:11 contrib, coded as three indented and hand-numbered 'graphs (with a non-compliant sig/timestamp). The following 3 yellow boxes include all of its text. This annotation and the boxes should serve to identify clearly the context in which that response originally placed its subsequently separated pieces.^{Jerzy•t 10:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)}

(1)- Under no circumstances should anyone completely rewrite any subject entire entry by themselves. This is a community project. Complete rewrites are used only in cases of vandalism, plagarism, lunacy, slander, etc, but not when we disagree with an article's tone or direction.

The preceding text was part of a contrib by RK (talk · contribs) at 20:19, 15 June 2002; its end appears further below in the current section.^{Jerzy•t 10:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)}

RK The preceding user-link was copied here as a quasi-sig by User:193.132.79.6 (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2002

(cutting in) I disagree - be bold in updating pages, in line with editing policy. If an article needs a complete rewrite, do it. It's unusual, because normally it's more productive to edit and refactor existing content, but it has worked in the past. Martin

Thank you for this advice, which sounds very sensible. On reflection, I find the idea of a complete re-write too daunting, anyway. GrahamN 17 June '02

(2) Uriyan didn't write this entire article; others contributed as well.

The preceding text was part of a contiguous contrib by RK (talk · contribs) at 19:11, 15 June 2002; its end appears further below in the current section.^{Jerzy•t 10:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)}

RK The preceding user-link was copied here as a quasi-sig by User:193.132.79.6 (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2002

I gained the impression that the article was principally Uriyan's work by examining its history, but looking at it again I now see that I may have been mistaken. What does "conversion script" mean? Does it mean all the history of the article before that has been deleted? GrahamN 17 June '02

(3) If you have a subtantial change to make, that's fine. First mention it here, and back it up with your rationale and sources. This is the way all of our articles are improved.RK

— Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 15 June 2002; following its fragmentation, a parenthesized digit was removed from each of its fragments by its author on April 7, 2003, as indicated with strike-thru.

I don't have much free time at the moment, but never fear – I shall return in a few weeks with proposed amendments, and I'll be only too pleased to provide back-up rationale and sources! I like to think I have a very open mind, so it is quite possible you may convince me to change my opinions. I look forward to some interesting discussions.  :-) GrahamN 17 June '02

What user:Uriyan's talk contribution above (blue box at top of section) quotes is a 'graph added to the article (that lies "under" the current Dab) at 07:27, 17 April 2002.
--Jerzy•t 10:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

("... Preparing for the worst"?)

However, these statement can only be understood in a relevant context. It is well known that both sides, Israelis and Palestinians, were preparing for the worst in the form of violent conflict.

What is the sentence above supposed to mean?
--Uri — Preceding undated comment added 07:45, 28 July 2002

The quoted graph was removed by Uri a minute earlier.
--Jerzy•t 10:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

("Defence forces"?)

I really don't want to get involved in this stuff.. but this comment caught my eye on Recent changes:

"GrahamN (It is POV to insist on referring to the Israeli military as "defence forces".) "

Um. Depends. If it's as 'the Israeli Defense Forces', then you're just using their name. If it's uncapitalized or incomplete, then you've got a valid point. See "People's Republic of China", "People's Democratic Republic of Korea", any number of dictators that take the title of "President"... when it's the name, you use it whether you think it's utter lies or not.
-- Jake 17:57, 2003 Sep 12 (UTC)

POV?

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

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

Well, nothing can be unbiased. But we try to provide a neutral reader an holistic article, giving to arguments on many sides. I don't think my there was any yelling" or trying to "out-shout" anyone, not in my comment, and not in what it referenced. IMHO, replies such as the previous one discourage discussion and deter people from having meaningful debate. Kwikwag (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Untitled section

Multiple edits are trying to avoid the Arab-English dictionary meaning of the word, for removing the violent context of the ``intifada. Please lock a version containing the dictionary meaning of the word. This is done from psychological reasons, to make people favor intifadas (ignoring the violent part of it...). Please maintain the accurate, dictionary, meaning in this page. I consider these changes as not legitimate, vandalism of the content — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evenro (talk • contribs) 13:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC).

Edit warring over the lead

@Evenro: Please note that it is not permissible to edit-war even if you think you are right. Kindly self-revert and use the talk page to discuss the lead. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not a question of who right and who's not - it's a question of definition. We need to stick with dictionary definitions for maintaining unbiased attitude. As long as changes are accurate - I will not edit or touch them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evenro (talk • contribs) 18:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You broke the 3R rule, and you are under an obligation to revert for that reason. Otherwise you will be reported and blocked.Nishidani (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No I haven't, defining intifada as ``shaking is vandalism, and it was vandalized a while ago (And was recognized as vandalism before)... all I did is fixing it (and insisted on it). Although initially I deleted the original content, this back and forth reverting made me convinced the literal meaning is relevant as the word history. I reported it to the administrators nearly immediately and requested a lock, I also supplied about 2-3 different references to convince the meaning I brought is a consensus... So... vandalism, which was the original content and what was reverted to by others consistently, does not fall under the 3R rule. I think that it is safe to say that removing the dictionary definition from being presented first in a page about a foreign language word - is vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evenro (talk • contribs) 01:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2015

Please Begin the page with that text: Intifada (انتفاضة intifāḍah ) is an Arabic word meaning insurrection, a usually violent attempt to take control of a government.

Instead of with Intifada (انتفاضة intifāḍah) is an Arabic word literally meaning, as a noun, "tremor", "shivering", "shuddering"

The reason is that currently, although the source of the word appears, the content is wrong. You cannot start a page about "bitching" with "literally the female dog" - you need to give the dictionary meaning - this is what was there, and for a strange reason removed and locked without.

It seems like a propaganda is being spread using this page, and it should stay out of wikipedia! The dictionary meaning is important! Truthforcer (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Foreign dictionaries for general English usage, often dated, are worth little compare to what area specialists with a mastery of the language define as the meaning of the word, in considerable detail. This has nothing to do with propaganda: it has very much to do with what the word, adopted into English, actually connotes and denotes in the language of origin where it is used with a conscious effort to distinguish between a thawra and a modern attempt to overthrow a power that lacks democratic consensus. To define it as a 'violent insurrection' is to prejudice the issue in favour of the powers respectively challenged, which can be dictatorial or colonial. The first Intifada was, notoriously, rather non-violent.Nishidani (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. Also, if Truthforcer is one of the people who have been blocked in this drama, I suggest they read the policy WP:SOCK. It is not permissible to create new accounts to evade blocks. Wait for a week, and use the talk page for discussion, instead of doing this. It will only hurt you and solve nothing. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

OP blocked as an obvious sockpuppet. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Dabconcept

This is a good candidate for a WP:DABCONCEPT. My version with the sourced and separate lede is the most sensible version to restore to. I came here to just fix that incorrect dab, but the de-drama seems dramatic so I will leave for others to do now. Widefox; talk 19:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: on the Third Intifada

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is opposed to including the thrid intifada at this time. The majority opinion says its to soon and cites WP:CRYSTALBALL or follows its logic. AlbinoFerret 23:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

---

@Sandstein, Notecardforfree, Number 57, and Mhhossein: Following this AFD, The Third intifada was redirected to this article. However, I think it should have been redirected to Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015). --Seyyed(t-c) 05:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Pinging User:Kingsindian and User:Nishidani because of being active in this field. Mhhossein (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support: Obviously, Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015) covers what some analysts called "The Third Intifada" and some others didn't. This section tries to make this connection. Intifada is a very general page. --Mhhossein (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. First and foremost, I want to commend Seyyed for their attempts to bring clarity to this incredibly complex topic. Despite my previous efforts to expand the (now deleted) Third Intifada article, I feel compelled to vote oppose in light of the recognized consensus at the earlier AFD. Specifically, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON are still valid concerns, especially in light of the fact that the term "Third Intifada" has not gained widespread acceptance among mainstream sources (as applied to the current situation). Scholars and commentators have used the term "Third Intifada" for years as a way to describe a hypothetical future conflict (much like World War III). Also, Nishidani cited some very interesting sources that discuss the fact that the term "Intifada" has been used to describe a number of "shakings off" over the last century, and there may actually be as many as fourteen Intifadas, depending on who is counting. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I should also mention that we may want to consider expanding this DAB page to include a broader discussion about the applicability of the term "Intifada" to earlier conflicts and shakings off. Within the context of this larger discussion, we could then explain that some sources have used the term "Third Intifada" to describe the 2015 conflicts. This approach would also help alleviate some of the WP:NPOV concerns that were expressed in the AfD discussion, because we can better explain the range of opinions with regard to how the term should be used. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I think both Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015) and Third Intifada were created prematurely, in line with the bad practice of spinning articles out of incidents to create more instantaneous victim material for one side. We should certainly, now, have an article on September and October-, but Israeli-Palestinian conflict (2015) is a misnomer, for it should be now redesigned to focus on the late summer/autumn period. No one is going to do the work of reconstructing the drift of events since January down to August.

When terrorist incidents are in the air, you do not get much approximating to comprehensive coverage, which only comes in after a month or so (terror is terror, but what is going on,-things not being adequately reported in the mainstream coverage of this uptick in violence) what is being spun by the media, the silence on the extraordinary casualties Israel's repression of an unending discontent with a chronically degraded state of exclusion and occupation is causing, yesterday confirmed as what the PM thinks will continue for the forseeable future, with Israel doomed to 'wield the sword', is unnerving even a lot of people who until recently kept out of the debate or were conservative middle of the roaders (ie. Steven Levitsky and Glen Weyl “We are lifelong Zionists. Here’s why we’ve chosen to boycott Israel.” Washington Post 23 October 2015; Assaf Gavron, 'Confessions of an Israeli traitor_The occupation is destroying our own society, too,' Washington Post 23 October 2015). That this surge represents a structural problem demanding a political process, than merely a 'Palestinian' problem of violence, to be solved by more shooting, gaols, containment to achieve acquiescence in an occupation, is being widely reported all over place in serious commentary, meaning that the 'event' description both these articles were constructed on, is looking fragile and highly POV.

The Israeli–Palestinian conflict (2015) is, despite a consensus to keep, self-evidently aimed at the events also covered in the earlier Third Intifada: probably no one is going to get down and write a comprehensive page on 2015, and the page which focus on September-October. Both were attack pages, and both, despite some excellent work by outside editors to make some fixes, remain deeply unencyclopedic. I have been downloading a few dozen intelligent articles, emerging now with some frequently, by analysts who don't focus on incidents or one side, but the sociopolitical context and realities. Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - the attempt to employ the term "third intifada" for the still ongoing riots is obviously politically-motivated, badly sourced and more evidently is violating WP:CRYSTALBALL. Moreover, Third Intifada concept was attempted to be utilized for the 2014 riots between Jews and Arabs and more distantly in the past we can see references to "Third Intifada" already in 2006 [2]. In another place, the Third Intifada was utilized as a term for the 2010 Gdeim Izik protests in Western Sahara [3].GreyShark (dibra) 18:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose; as GreyShark alluded above, there seems to be a propensity towards overusing the term Intifada, and doing so in an encyclopaedia would be too hasty at best. See Silent Intifada as well. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 15:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - too early. It might well be considered a Third Intifada in some months, but for the moment there is no consistent trend of it being called so, and many analysts and media dispute the claim. If the term gains recognition, let's debate afresh. By the way, don't confuse a term and a number. Any uprising in the Arab world may be termed an 'intifada' by somebody, and as GreyShark shows, some people count the First, Second and Third "Saharawi intifadas", but this cannot be confused with the Palestinian numbering, and if there is a next 'intifada' in the Israel-Palestine conflict, it will be the Third, independent of how many intifadas are counted in other parts of the world. Ilyacadiz (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2017

The final sentence in the second paragraph is inconclusive and doesn't actually say anything. " it bore among Palestinian students in struggles in the 1980s and which they adopted as less confrontational than terms in earlier militant rhetoric since it bore no nuance of violence.[4] The most wide-scale events described as Intifada"

Delete The most wide-scale events described as Intifada or complete the thought zCryophoenix 16:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZCryophoenix (talk • contribs)

 Done — IVORK _Discuss 10:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

INTI FAD'AH

INTI in Arabic means YOU

INTI FAD'AH means "YOU ARE MY SACRIFICE"

IN HEBREW אתה כפרתי — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al.Qudsi (talk • contribs) 18:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2019

Many articles in ARBPIA have links to Second Intifada (see for example Israel#Further conflict and peace process), and this redirect that was recently made (without consensus) ruins that link. I ask somebody to please revert that move, so when somebody writes 'Second Intifada' it will redirect to Al-Aqsa Intifada like it's supposed to (instead of redirecting to this article which includes all events in the Arab world called 'Intifada'). Thanks.--Peditodelculo (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done Sceptre (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Al-Aqsa Intifada which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Remove "legitimate" in describing what an intifada is

Using the word "legitimate" threatens the neural POV and perhaps is even being used for political motives to justify violence against civilians. During the second intifada, there were numerous attacks that involved in the murder of civilians. In many cases Israeli civilians were intentionally killed by intifada participants and their deaths were not attributable as collateral casualties of war. 74.83.104.136 (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Neither the first or second Palestinian intifada was non-violent

Describing either of the Palestinian intifadas as a Palestinian non-violence movement is factually incorrect. There were plenty of instances of intentional violence towards Israeli civilians during both intifadas (not to mention intentional violence towards Israeli security personnel). 74.83.104.136 (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2023

"...The concept intifada was first utilized in modern times,...", it should read "...first used..." Utilize and use have completely different meanings. When something is utilized, it is being used for other than its designed purpose. Think of a chair, it is designed to be "used" for sitting upon (its intended purpose). A chair also can be "utilized" as a step stool (not its intended purpose). Thank you. 2600:1700:42D1:2140:E97B:D297:6D9B:594A (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

This isn't something that I've ever heard of, and I am well aware of how apparently synonymous English words may have subtle differences in meaning. However, at the same time, there doesn't seem to be any reason not to make the change, and it does seem to simplify it slightly, as well as replacing a word with more than one regional spelling variety with one which is universally spelled the same. On the balance of all this, and since no objections have been raised, I will make the change. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request: revert latest MakeAndToss Changes regarding Warsaw Ghetto Uprising

edit request: revert @makeAndToss Recent changes regarding the new name for the historic event, there is no sources these event were called intifada when they happened, only new source that are biased with Recentism and white washing.

time and time again you have ignored fellow editors (@Ploni, @nablezi @Zero @Shinealittlelight @Queens Historian @Eframgoldberg: @Jimrose000 request for reaching consensus before reverting your changes and adding your POV for a Contentious topic.

per Wikipedia guidelines, when 2 editors disagree, until consensus will be reached, they should remain off the article and in the talk page until a consensus have been reached.

2nd time: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1223175049&oldid=1223144365&title=Intifada 1st time https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1222321090&oldid=1222098276&title=Intifada

@ScottishFinnishRadish , I would really appreciate if this time around you will decide to allow my edit requests to be discussed and express my concerns regarding the abuse of Wikipedia guidelines for pushing a non factual information.

as the Wikipedia rules says "just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point."

I am asking you to please follow editorial and behavioral best practice even although I am just an IP. the contentions topic was the renaming of historical event. my request for the removal was not contentions but the fake history and the renaming of historical event. 79.176.174.2 (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

There was a consensus reached above to include a brief mention of the fact that 'intifada' is used in Arabic to refer generally to uprisings, including uprisings outside the Arab world. So I don't think you're right that this was done without consensus. I don't think there was consensus to include this minor point in the lede, so I'd be ok with removing it from the lede as it does seem to me like a minor point. But I don't see Makeandtoss as having edited against consensus here.

As for the substantive issue, I confess that I am not an Arabic speaker, but sources were found that do seem to indicate that the word is so used in Arabic for uprisings in general. I don't understand your opposition to this point. Is it your opinion that the word for intifada in Arabic is not ordinarily applied to uprisings generally? If so, what do you make of the provided sources? Shinealittlelight (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The IP request is an WP:ARBECR breach, not a straightforward edit request at all, impugning other editors, casting aspersions, making unsourced claims, just making speeches. This matter is closed. Selfstudier (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)