Talk:First Intifada

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)

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)

one addition to not NPOV argument

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)

--The Israel response WAS massive. The word is weighted because the response was weighted.

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.

• Ibn Filastin, IBanerjee@slc.edu

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.

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)

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)

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?

Neutral term isn't it? Warsaw uprising in WWII was by Poles in Poland.

Warsaw Uprising was aimed exclusively against occupant soldiers. No Pole ever dirve to Berlin to blow himself up in local kindergarden.

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.

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)

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

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.

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.

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

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)

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?

"...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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.