Jump to content

Talk:First Intifada

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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2025

[edit]

Saying front and centre that the first intifada was "a sustained series of non-violent protests" so that the thumbnail on other articles doesn't contain the terrorist action by palestinians is very biased.

especially when most protests were very violent thus the nickname name "Stone Intifada" https://english.wafa.ps/Pages/Details/100614 https://www.palquest.org/en/highlight/31119/ix-first-intifada-and-israeli-palestinian-negotiations

the intifada changed its non violent direction very quickly. so putting it in first sentance so it looks like the intifada was non violent is just not indicative of what was realety at the time. Royleny (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 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. The first sentence already mentions riots and terrorist attacks in addition to non-violent protests. Day Creature (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Royleny I do understand what you mean, and I have rephrased the sentence. Lova Falk (talk) 13:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 November 2025

[edit]

The second paragraph of the "Hamas" section of this page needs to replace "Israeli" with "Israel".

Currently: "In response to this Israeli began to arrest and kill many Hamas leaders including Ahmad Yassin, but by this point Hamas was too big for Israeli to destroy easily so the group survived these counterattacks."

Edit Request: "In response to this Israel began to arrest and kill many Hamas leaders including Ahmad Yassin, but by this point Hamas was too big for Israel to destroy easily so the group survived these counterattacks."

This sentence, and the one that follows it, could be written better, as well as represent the cited source more accurately. If possible, please accept this revised version of the sentence above: "In response to this Israel arrested several Hamas leaders, including Ahmad Yassin. By this time, however, Hamas had grown to such an extent that Israeli retaliation could reduce Hamas's capabilities, but not destroy it. By the end of the Intifada Hamas, along with other Islamic movements, gained significant political and military power both within Palestine and abroad."

But, at the very least, the minor edit should be made. Thank you. Dsa605 (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done: I did the minor edit but the more expnasive version needs consensus. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 03:01, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 12 December 2025

[edit]

Description of suggested change:

Change a usage of the word "children" to "minors". The listed source uses the categorization of "minors under 17", so "minor" is a more precise term than "children", which can ambiguously mean either a person below the age of majority, or a person below the age of puberty


Diff:

During the whole six-year intifada, the Israeli army killed at least 1,087 Palestinians, of which 240 were children.
+
During the whole six-year intifada, the Israeli army killed at least 1,087 Palestinians, of which 240 were minors.

~2025-39715-80 (talk) 08:30, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: People under the age of 18 are children; no ambiguity here. Day Creature (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I disagree. Even wikipedia's own entry on the word first states the "below puberty" definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child . Also, why not use the word the actual source itself uses? ~2025-39715-80 (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Children" is commonly understood to mean people under the age of 18 in ordinary, everyday speech. The "below puberty" definition occurs more often in the context of biology and the sciences. The article should not be changed without consensus. Day Creature (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child the "below puberty" definition is given as the first definition, and I would argue that that is the commonly understood meaning, and the under 18 definition comes into play in the context of the law.
I have stated the downsides of using the word "children", but I don't understand what the downsides are to the change? It could be made better with the change (more precise; alignment with the source), but what would be made worse with it? Is there an objection other than inertia? ~2025-39715-80 (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: My objection to the change is that "children" is a perfectly accurate description for people under 18, making the change unnecessary, and "minors" sounds more clinical and diminishes the impact of the statement. Again, consensus will be required for the proposed change. Day Creature (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have already provided evidence that contradicts that it is "perfectly accurate"; without context, "children" is an ambiguous term. '[A]nd "minors" sounds more clinical and diminishes the impact of the statement' what impact is the statement supposed to have, other than providing the facts of the casualties? Anything beyond the facts would be editorializing, and isn't the goal to disseminate facts, not opinions?
As this is a protected topic, this is the only talk page available to me. In an effort to build that consensus, I would like to request that you let that `answered` flag stay false, encouraging others to weigh in ~2025-39715-80 (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like we've both made our points and have a fundamental disagreement. I'm happy to leave the edit request marked unanswered for now. Day Creature (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Given that edit request are for uncontroversial changes, I'm going to close this ER as not done (without prejudice for further discussion/consensus building). — Rtrb (talk) (contribs) 20:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Buddy, you'd still need consensus even if you have evidence. MosquitoDestroyer (talk | mosquitoes destroyed) 05:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2026

[edit]

"Round the clock curfews were implemented at least 1600 times in the first year" - this sentence needs to be changed, people will assume a round the clock curfews lasts at least 1 day, and a year has only 365 days, so it is unclear how that is possible. ~2026-23014-96 (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Done GordonGlottal (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]