Jump to content

Talk:Intifada

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

US Occupation

[edit]

I think that the section for describing 'the iraq intifada' should not say "aimed at ending the US Occupation of Iraq". It seems to lack objectivity of the author, just as writing "aimed at ending the US Liberation of Iraq" would.

A more proper wording would be "aimed at ending the US military presence in Iraq".

-- Popoi

It is occupation

[edit]

Well, what's happening in Iraq IS Occupation NOT Presence!

--Riyadhawi

They're the same thing, except "occupation" is a negative word, particularly when you capitalize it like that. Speaking of which, I think its use in the phrase "directed at ending the Israeli military occupation" is negative towards Israel, particularly since many, including intifada participants, will say that the intifada is aimed at obliterating Israel as a state and/or the Jews altogether, not just the occupation of Palestinian-populated areas. One can hardly say, for example, that Jerusalem, a major Palestinian goal (at the very least to share) is merely occupied by the Israeli military. I am going to change the wording to something legitimately biaseless, i.e. expressing both views.

--James

Third Intifada on FB

[edit]

   NYT Tuesday has

Facebook Removes ‘Palestinian Intifada’ Page By JENNIFER PRESTON

5:43 p.m. | Updated After complaints by Israeli government officials and Jewish organizations in the United States, Facebook took down a page today by Palestinian supporters that called for violence against Jews and an uprising against Israel.

The page, entitled “Third Palestinian Intifada,” began earlier this month as a call for peaceful protests in the occupied Palestinian territories on May 15, one of more than a dozen Facebook pages that have been used in recent months to mobilize uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa.

[NYT article continues]

   One quirk of the story is the use of "Third Intifada" to refer to the same proposed activity on two contradictory logical grounds:

A.
  1. First Palestinian Intifada
  2. Second Palestinian Intifada
  3. Third Palestinian Intifada
B.
  1. Tunisian First Intifada
  2. Egyptian Second Intifada
  3. Palestinian Third Intifada

   Surely we need to cover this as a FaceBook topic, notwithstanding two earlier years' deletions of earlier would-be-Third Intifada wannabe articles.
--Jerzy•t 01:27 & 01:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

   I refer above to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third Intifada (fall 2010, delete) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third intifada (winter 2007, merge to Khaled Mashal apparently w/o Rdr).
--Jerzy•t 01:35 & 01:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Warsaw

[edit]

The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising is referred to as an intifada in Arabic according to German state-funded newspaper DW, the Israeli TV station i24NEWS (Israeli TV channel), and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which reflects a universal consensus. This ideological removal of sourced content must stop. [1] [2], [3] @Smartypants2006:'s suggestion is a good middle ground solution for the lede. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think anyone is trying to engage in “ideological removal of sourced content”. There’s a good faith disagreement here. The question is whether the fact that an Arabic language source calls an event “انتفاضة” (or some cognate) is sufficient to conclude that it should be deemed to be among “events named intifada” in our English language article. The word “intifada” is normally used in English language sources for a much narrower range of events than the word “uprising”. This is evidently not the case in Arabic language sources. I think we want this article to reflect the narrower use in English since this is not an article about uprisings in general. Shinealittlelight (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shinealittlelight: Removal of sourced content for no good reason is indeed ideological. This article, as defined by the opening paragraph, clearly states that its scope is the Arabic word. And there are now two highly reliable sources, worthy noting that one is German and the other is the Holocaust Memorial Museum, showing that indeed the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising is called an intifada in Arabic because that's the literal translation of uprising. To add a cherry on top we have a right-wing Israeli TV channel to ward off any further ideologically-based counterarguments. This is sourced and needs to stay. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s WP:AGF please. So your view is that this article should be about uprisings in general, since it seems that any event called an uprising in English will be called by the Arabic word in Arabic. By contrast, compare how Britannia deals with the topic here: [4]. Also we already have another article on rebellions in general. Let’s see what the other editors have to say. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not my view, this is the article's already existing scope; that it is about the Arabic word. Meanwhile, Britannica, which is not a reliable source according to WP and is a WP:TERTIARY source, specifically mentions the Intifada within the scope of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict below the title. Hence, these are two different things, this article has a broader scope. Highly reliable sources have been provided for this point and there's no reasonable justification why they should be excluded. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are asserting this, so it is your view. That doesn’t mean it is not correct. Let’s seek consensus. WP does not deem Britannica to be unreliable. It is simply a tertiary source that by the policy you linked can be used to establish what is due in an article. I stand by my view that this article should not be about uprisings in general. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay let's seek consensus. WP:CONSENSUS says reaching consensus is based on Wikipedia guidelines and making compromises by reaching middle ground solutions. I have provided two highly reliable sources per the guidelines and made a compromise accepting Smartypants2006's phrasing. The ball is no longer in my court. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the sources and proposal you provided are sufficient depends on the question I identified about the scope of the article. I think we need to hear from others now; you and I are unlikely to come to consensus by ourselves. Shinealittlelight (talk) 12:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more question: if we can find a history book in Arabic that talks about the American revolution, or the French revolution, or the Bolshevic revolition, and it calls these "انتفاضة", should we include them on the list too? Shinealittlelight (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't since revolution does not translate to intifada, but uprising does. And yes, we would include them too, because the scope of the article is the Arabic word. We are fully capable of reaching consensus when we make arguments that are based in relevant Wikipedia policies. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying is that if an Arabic writer will publishing an article and he will call the french revolution the french intifada it will sufficient by your standards to be included in this article? 212.29.194.49 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
all sources who call this intifada are news articles from recent years, I was not able to find any academic metirial supporting this claim. 212.29.194.49 (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ARBECR
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
this is the reason to removed the one citation from the list of 10+ its no so much removal of content as reducing the amount of content. the main point is to give examples of political acts that could be described by the word intifada. however in the particular case of called Warsaw Uprising an "intifada" is an apparent case of Holocaust inversion, intended or not. It creates false equivalents between Palestinians with Polish Jews and Israelis with Nazis. Jimrose000 (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Holocaust_inversion&redirect=no
https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/opinion/356234/jewish-studies-and-holocaust-inversion-making-gaza-into-auschwitz/ Jimrose000 (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the Association for Jewish Studies is being criticized for "Holocaust inversion" says more about the criticism than it does about the AJS or the idea that such a thing is not a transparent effort to shield a certain state from criticism. Anyway, that you think it is "Holocaust inversion" is a nice personal opinion to have, but it doesn’t factor in to our content decisions at all. Finally, this being related to the Arab Israeli conflict, new accounts and IPs may not participate. nableezy - 23:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Odd that you discount AJS simply because the name contains "Jewish". The organization is quite established academically and located at a major academic institution, Brandeis University. Brandeis is also a very progressive institution that maintains a deep program in Middle East and Islamic study. I added a wiki reference as well, if you didnt notice, and there are plenty more to add. Point being this is a widely acknowledged concern regarding a soft form of antisemitism and ought to be respected as such.
I maintain that an academically respected and established reference for Warsaw Uprising as Intifada be found before it is included in the wiki entry. until that source is found, it does very little to the wiki entry to add this highly questionable reference to an already long list that is offered as support for the definition. Suffice to say that if I make a website that describes First Intifada, Second Intifada etc as a "tea party" that does not make ts a source reference.
Take the data for what its worth. Jimrose000 (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not discount them lol. That is a lie. I discounted the attack on the AJS by Jarrod Tanny, claiming that the AJS is participating "Holocaust inversion" by publishing a section on the artwork installation "Gaza Ghetto" by Jewish artist Ruth Sergel in their Fall 2022 edition of Perspectives. No part of that was my discounting any group or organization for containing the word "Jewish". Please do not lie about what I wrote, especially to make a claim of racism. Again, you may not participate in this discussion. I am collapsing this entire bit as an ARBECR violation. nableezy - 14:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How much does the Warsaw Uprising factor into coverage of the topic of this article? Not everything that can be sourced should be in an article, if it isnt a topic that is routinely discussed within the context of "initifada" then it doesnt belong. But the Britannica article is not a good template, it is only about the two Palestinian intifadas, and there are plenty of other ones besides those. nableezy - 13:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: The article's scope is about the Arabic word and not the context of an Arab concept. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and how many of the articles discussing the Arabic word discuss Warsaw? If it is a handful of news sources this doesnt merit inclusion. nableezy - 14:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: There are no articles discussing the Arabic word, similar to any article about any foreign word on English Wikipedia. This still doesn't affect the fact that every uprising is referred to in Arabic as an intifada, including most prominently the Warsaw Ghetto one, and by Israeli sources such as ToI.[5] Can you elaborate on how this is an argument against inclusion? Makeandtoss (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because you need sources to show that it is prominent, not just establish that prominence yourself. If the Warsaw Uprising is a noteworthy subtopic in the topic of the Arabic word then sources that focus on coverage of the Arabic word would be discussing the Warsaw Uprising as being a prominent example. It would be like including in the lead of Madrasa that this is also used for schools like Eton College. That may well be true, but it isnt really part of the topic of Madrasa when sources are discussing the term. nableezy - 15:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: I think the question is what to understand by your term the context of "intifada". Do you think that Arabic sources using the word "انتفاضة" are among those contexts? Makeandtoss thinks that the scope is about the Arabic word but I am not convinced. The fact that we mention the Arabic word in the first sentence does not mean that the scope includes all sources in which that Arabic word occurs. There's clearly a distinction between uprisings and intifadas in English--we don't call every uprising an intifada in English--and of course "intifada" in its more restricted English use nevertheless derives from the Arabic word. So we would mention the word whether we intend the more restricted or the more general use to be the scope of our article. The fact that we mention the word therefore does not settle the issue. My view is that our readers are not coming to this article for information about uprisings in general (for which we have a separate article), but are coming to this article for information about events called intifadas in ordinary English. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article starts with: "Intifada (Arabic: انتفاضة intifāḍah) is an Arabic word".
Why would English sources call non-Arab uprisings an intifada? That would make no sense. Of course they wouldn't. But in Arabic, every uprising is an intifada. This article is about the Arabic word, whether it is used in the Arabic and English languages in the context of Arab uprisings, or whether it is used in Arabic to refer to non-Arab uprisings. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
English sources generally don't seem to call all uprisings "intifada". They generally seem to call certain uprisings (not all!) in Arabic speaking parts of the world by that name. I think those uprisings are what the article should be about. I understand you disagree. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it should be on the term itself. We have articles on those intifadas, we dont need another one here. nableezy - 15:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have two minds about this. First, having the Warsaw Uprising sitting there as the only example outside the Arab world would be misleading, as if there was something special about that particular uprising that marked it out from all other non-Arab uprising. On the other hand, I see the same word used for additional uprisings, such as the Jeju uprising in Japan and the Montengro uprising, other uprisings in the Balkans, and the Irish Easter Rebellion. I wouldn't be adverse to a sentence explaining its general application with a few sourced examples. However, I think the itemised list would be most useful restricted to the Arab world; otherwise it will just become a list of uprisings and that is not the point of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zero0000 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Id be fine with that as well. nableezy - 15:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with this too. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with that as well, will edit accordingly. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually if someone can add it since I am constrained by 1RR:
Most uprisings globally are referred to as intifada in the Arabic language, including for example, the 1916 Easter Rising (Arabic: انتفاضة الفصح),[1] the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (Arabic: انتفاضة غيتو وارسو),[2] and the 1949 Jeju uprising (Arabic: انتفاضة جيجو).[3] Makeandtoss (talk) 16:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is OR, you need a source saying that each of those things is referred to as such in Arabic, not an Arabic source just doing so. nableezy - 16:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think only the first part could be OR, so I would suggest: "Uprisings are generally referred to as intifada..." Makeandtoss (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is OR as well, but the OR in including any of this is drawing a conclusion that any of those uprisings is referred to in Arabic by those terms through usage, as you do not have a source that says "this is known in Arabic as ...". Like I said earlier, it may well be true, but that doesnt mean it belongs here unless sources make specific note of it. nableezy - 17:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The OR part here is in the "most..are" or "are generally", which are not established by some examples of usage. The solution is to weaken it to what the sources actually establish. Namely, that other uprisings "can be" or "are sometimes" called by this word. Zerotalk 00:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works with me, adding accordingly. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the current addition of the content goes against Wikipedia values, at best it could be considered a Semantic change or Reappropriation of the word of which some schoolers view as attempt to to white wash the word and in a political endeavor to demonizing Israel. (see :Comparisons_between_Israel_and_Nazi_Germany)
as per why your sources did not met the Wikipedia threshold in the first place, all of your source are recently published (at least form 2010) so they are prune to a politics bias.
"With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing"
in addition, your claims goes against a consensus sentence in the article:
"The word intifada was first used in modern times in 1952, when Iraqi parties took to the streets to protest their monarchy, which was known as the Iraqi Intifada."
@Makeandtoss you are Once again asked to please remove your content and reach a consensus before re-adding this WP:POINT and please remember Wikipedia:Do_not_create_hoaxes 79.176.174.2 (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since when are we restricted to word usage from the time of the event? This is a made-up criterion. If we took it seriously we would be unable to write any articles on events that occurred before the English language existed. The only error would be to claim that the word was used then without a source; merely writing that it is used now for that past event is not a problem. Zerotalk 15:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it is a restriction that related to the polish history during 2nd world war.
"All articles and edits in the topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland are subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction. When a source that is not an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution is removed from an article, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard."
since there was no consensus reached yet regarding the reliability of the sources you have provided @Makeandtoss you are requested to remove this information and gain consensus on the talk page before reinstate the source. 79.180.47.77 (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may not participate in this discussion. nableezy - 11:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i canno find any reference by USHMM to intifada, much less in reference to Warsaw Uprising. please explain or sharet Jimrose000 (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.aljazeera.net/news/2003/4/20/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%84%D9%86%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%88%D9%86-%D9%8A%D8%AD%D9%8A%D9%88%D9%86-%D8%B0%D9%83%D8%B1%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AA%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%B6%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D8%B5%D8%AD
  2. ^ "في الذكرى الـ80 للانتفاضة ـ هذا ما حدث في "غيتو وارسو"". Deutsche Welle (in Arabic). 19 April 2023. Retrieved 3 May 2024. في 19 أبريل 1943، بدأت الانتفاضة الأولى ضد النظام النازي On 19 April 1943, the first intifada began against the Nazi regime
  3. ^ https://www.bbc.com/arabic/world-43698497

Definition and Translation

[edit]

Suggestion for opening paragraph:

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

Revised Opening Paragraph

[edit]

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2024

[edit]
62.56.244.129 (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely disgusting

[edit]


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

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

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

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

Please address immediately, this is unacceptable and dangerous.

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

References

Denied This is just a rant. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on Koavf's response, this is not a well-formed edit request. Editors must be extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic except for making edit requests. Edit requests most likely to succeed are those that are 'Specific, Uncontroversial, Necessary, Sensible' per WP:EDITXY. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the Mention of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising

[edit]
Block evasion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I request that this mention be removed due to the following reasons:

1.Historical Accuracy and Relevance: The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, a notable Jewish resistance during the Holocaust, is not historically or contextually connected to the Intifada. The Intifada refers specifically to Palestinian uprisings against Israeli authority, beginning in 1987 and 2000, and any comparisons with the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising might lead to historical inaccuracies or misrepresentations of both events.

2.Political Implications: The term "Intifada" in Arabic translates to "uprising" or "shaking off" and is rooted in a specific historical and political context related to the Palestinian struggle. Historically, the event was sometimes referred to in Arabic as "tamrod," but this term is not widely recognized or used in academic discussions about the Intifada. Comparing it to the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising might suggest an inappropriate equivalence between distinct historical events with different causes and contexts.

3.Manipulation of Reality through Language: The inclusion of such a comparison could be seen as a form of political rhetoric. The manipulation of language and terminology is a basic tool for shaping perceptions and narratives. When words are used to draw comparisons between dissimilar events, it can skew public understanding and control the narrative surrounding these issues. By controlling the meaning and association of words, individuals or groups can influence how people interpret historical events and their significance.


The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and the Intifada should be treated as separate historical phenomena with their unique contexts and should not be conflated in this manner. Removing this reference will help maintain the clarity and accuracy of the historical information presented in the article. 79.183.197.96 (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did chatgpt write this edit request? (t · c) buidhe 01:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    no, its written by a Living LLM aka Human.
    The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them. as Jimrose000 wrote regarding this topic: "in the particular case of called Warsaw Uprising an "intifada" is an apparent case of Holocaust inversion, intended or not. It creates false equivalents between Palestinians with Polish Jews and Israelis with Nazis." keeping this information goes against: WP:NPOV "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)"79.183.197.96 (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 August 2024

[edit]

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

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

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

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

This edit better reflects the way the First Intifada is characterized in the full Wikipedia article on this topic. See [[6]], especially the second paragraph.

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

I'm not quite sure if the First Intifada was largely associated with non-violent forms of civil disobedience as it wasn't quite mentioned in the main article and from what you've described of "widespread throwing of stones and Molotov cocktails at the Israeli army and its infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza" made it seem to not be the case. Though I do agree that the casuality and level of violence was much lower than the Second Intifada. Other than this the rest seems good to me. Please let me know what you think, and thank you. Ilovefood123123 (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended the article without the part where the first intifada was largely associated with non-violent forms of civil disobedience. I'm happy to have it included when you get back to me. Ilovefood123123 (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected request on 12 November 2024

[edit]

In the lede:

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

Readingpro256 talk to me contribs 15:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Rainsage (talk) 08:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 4 April 2025

[edit]

Description of suggested change:

Diff:

−
ORIGINAL_TEXT
+
CHANGED_TEXT

50.245.235.1 (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intifada is Arabic for "shaking off"

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. This is already mentioned in the article. Day Creature (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intifada&oldid=1291312986"