Talk:Second Intifada/Archive 4

message: What's wrong with just saying "West Bank"? It appears to be the more commonly used term. Khoikhoi 05:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disengagement plan 

message: There's been several reverts back and forth about the use of Samaria in sentence about the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from four settlement outposts in the northern West Bank.  Samaria is the name of the biblical area roughly comprising the northern West Bank (the area around Nablus, or Shekhem as some people like to call it).  It is also part of the name of an administrative region claimed by Israel recognized by nobody else.  I think Samaria deserves mention in the article about the West Bank, but not in any article that the northern West Bank is mentioned in.  Wikipedia is not a forum for pushing the Israeli point of view (through multiple reverts), but should use language understood by AND agreed upon by the World community, that is as neutral as possible. --Fjmustak 08:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw this thread, but as I said in my edit summary, this has nothing to do with the modern Israeli state, its administrative divisions, or any politics. Samaria is a geographic term describing a specific region within the northern West Bank. I think that people are being confused by reference to Judea and Samaria, which is an Israeli administrative area and political term. Cheers, TewfikTalk 05:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Tewfik, Palestine is also the name of a geographic area, however, just like Samaria, it can also refer to a political area.  Part of the geographic region Palestine is the modern-day State of Israel, and the geographic region Samaria is roughly equivalent to the modern-day northern West Bank.  So if an article is talking about pre-1948 Palestine, I would use Palestine, otherwise Israel it is.  Same with Judea and Samaria.  If it's about biblical history, then Judea and Samaria it is.  In the 21st century, the West Bank (and maybe in the 22nd century a real State of Palestine).  --Fjmustak 08:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, Palestine refers to a geographic area, and so does Samaria - neither currently refer to a political area. As I said above, I fear that you are confused with Judea and Samaria, which is a political term/Israeli administrative area. Samaria refers to the northern part of the West Bank north of Jerusalem, and is not an exclusively Israeli/Jewish term. TewfikTalk 16:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Samaria" 

message: The article The shooting on Gilo is really small and unlikely to get larger or more informative.  I am suggesting that we merge it into this article, al-Aqsa Intifada, Gilo and Operation Defensive Shield were more readers will encounter the information.  It seems like a straight forward merge to me.  --Abnn 02:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge: [[The shooting on Gilo]] 

message: It is written taht this intifada is still ongoing but I think that most observers say that the Intifada ended with Arafat's death in 2004. Most of the violence has ended, and what is left is by no mean an "uprising" (meaning of Intifada) but attacks by terroristes groups like there were between 1993 and 2000 (in fact much less than during this period). So I propose to write that the intifada finished in november 2004. Benjil 15:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find a source for that? --Coroebus 17:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well with difficulty. There is no "official date". It's like the first Intifada that was ended in the facts by 1991-92 but not until the Oslo agreement in september 1993 did people (journalists ?) decide it was the official end of the intifada. For the Israelis the Intifada has ended years ago, and they (and the Arabs) sometimes speak of a possible third intifada. Here is a 2005 article from the Guardian written by Marwan Bishara (brother of Arab nationalist MK Azmi Bishara): http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1551402,00.html. Benjil 16:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: yes I think the same. Hardly it caould be ongoing with the current crisis among Palestinians. --TheFEARgod (?) 18:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So seriously - we should change the "ongoing" status of the Intifada to "ended in 2004 or 2005". There is not one date it stopped but it is finished and the new events need to be analyzed in this context - meaning the consequences of the failure of the intifada. The death of Arafat on november 2004 or maybe the withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005 can be chosen as ending date in my opinion. If someone has anything else to propose, be my guess. If you oppose, please do it also, I don't want to change the article if there is no approval from a majority. Benjil 05:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  End date of the Intifada 

message: I removed the TotallyDisputed tag, not because this article is perfect (it's not), but because there does appear to be any ongoing dispute, other than the title dispute which does not by itself justify this tag.  I would invite editors who find neutrality or factual problems in this article to just fix them.  If we reach an impasse then the tag can be restored. Sanguinalis 02:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed TotallyDisputed tag 

message: Concerning this picture, I have a series of these showing how it really happened step by step (sorry, ain't got no copyright to publish it here) but if someone knows something about ballistics, will see studying the bullet holes in the cinder block wall that shots came not from the right where supposedly Israelis were, but from the direction where camera was, little to the left. It looks to me like killing of this kid was staged for the sole purpose of recording that. Let me know on my talk page if you're interested, then I may send it by email. Allow a day or two to do that. greg park avenue 23:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image:AlDurrah2.jpg