Talk:Zemla Intifada

Comments
Is there any record at all of this usage before the phrase intefada got its current political meaning? collounsbury 15:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in nationalist literature. For example, I have a copy of a book in Arabic ("al-bulizario, qaid wa thawra", Dar al-Masira, Beirut) which is mostly about quoting Polisario documents approvingly and lionizing El Ouali. It was published in 1976, thus well before the Palestinian Intifada, by Leila Badie Eitani, a Lebanese author who I gather was madly in love with the man...
 * To take one mention on p. 203, Muhammad Bassiri's photo there has a caption describing him as "qaid al-intifada 'am 1970". The Polisario's 1974 Second Congress platform is republished in the same book, and it refers to "intifada 17 yuniu 1970" (p. 43). So usage of the term "intifada" for this in nationalist vocabulary is established since the very beginning, just after the events themselves.
 * This aside, the article needs formal sourcing. Pazzanita's Political dictionary of W. Sahara should be able to give plenty of that, but alas, I don't own a copy myself.Arre 18:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Good, just wanted to be sure. Afraid after that Koavf twit I came to distrust this whole body of work. collounsbury 19:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
 * No problem, but don't be mean, it'll just get you banned. Arre 20:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

KOAVF Edit - Wikima Edit re POV on Intefada issues
Given my discussion supra with Arre I have to agree with KOAVF. The article however does need citation as cited by Arre above in our February discussion. I take, however, for the time being, on good faith, his citation supra. While I am not a fan of KOAVF's edits, I do not believe engaging in partisan back and forth is useful, and the present wording of the article seems fairly balanced as such. One can question, of course, why Western Sahara has more electronic real estate than say Algeria, but that's a structural issue. collounsbury 20:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC).


 * My POV tag is related to te title in special. Intifada is a word that is a propaganda wording used for paletinian fight but used (to not to say stolen) by Polisario in its Propaganda.
 * If we decide to keep it as is, then we must describe this fact clearly.
 * Otherwise this would mean we are using Polisario stolen propaganda wording as encylcopaedically relevant.
 * Just dangerous for wikipedia


 * Cheers - wikima


 * The article already makes it clear that this is a usage by the political grouping. Does this deserve it's own article? Probably not. I'd move to fold this article into a larger "resistance to Morocco" article frankly. But as it stands now, the article seems fair and does not need POV label. collounsbury 10:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC).
 * The bug in Arre's answer is that the book he refered you (collounsbury) is a book written in Arabic, where the word intifada is used linguistically and in the 70s did not have the connotation it has now after the Palestinian intifadas. When you write it in English, the word uprising is the correct one. Then again, everyone can look at the pictures of this intifada on some Polisario sites, and everyone can count the persons involved in the riots. Does it qualify as an intifada?. No. The point is clear. This use of Intifada in WS articles is meant to rise the riots of Polisario fans to the the level of the Palestinian intifadas.--A Jalil 13:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A valid point. I would then support changing the title to the "Zemla Uprising." Sounds good enough? collounsbury 13:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC).


 * Col, this sounds more accurate.
 * Honnestly, people who understand arabic just laugh on all this.
 * Intifida is strongly connotated with the Palestinian uprising of the early 90s until (potentially) now.
 * Like children of stones (Atfal Alhijara) it hasn't been used earlier.
 * Polisario and Algeria just misuse this palesitnian wave, but with no pay-off. Unless we serve them in Wikipedia of course (as koavf is doing).
 * But that's not new. Look at the flag of the so-called "sadr" (Gallery_of_confusable_flags
 * ... doesn't it look same as the palestinian one (how exotic for the Maghreb region!)?! With the algerian red crescent and star on it?
 * If we do nothing, this means choose to encourage people misuse wikipedia for propaganda.


 * Thanks - wikima


 * Ecoute mate, the flag comes from the 70s and the wave of pan-Arabism. Be reasonable, and drop the whinging on about "Algeria" crescent - adopting the (rather overdone to be sure) "pan Arab" flag says nothing other than the Pan Arab movement of the 70s had about as much originality as European nationalists of the 18th century (look at the tricolour variants - well, the pan Arab movement was even less creative, but voila). collounsbury 01:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Intifada, etc. While it is true that the term, when used in the English-speaking world is closely associated with the Palestinian disturbance(s), it is also true that there are other intifadas, hence the disambig. Furthermore, the naming conventions are to use the most common name, and I've never seen the term "Zemla Uprising" before. I personally have no strong feelings on the matter, but it would appear that the page should stay where it is, barring that it get merged into some other History of intifadas against Morocco or somesuch, which seems unlikely. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Intefadas as usage in English has a certain connotation (Israel - Palestine in particular, indeed solely in real usage). Uprising is the more usual translation. You've seen fuck all for term - one doesn't see any reference in English at all, ex Polisario partisan to Zemla, period. The disamb. is solely due to your personal djihad. Uprisings and Resistance to Moroccan Rule would be a perfectly valid, useful and NON PARTISAN phrasing to adopt in keeping with usual English usage (whatever Polisario agendas for pimping the Intefada angle), which would be in keeping with standard English usage. I am utterly uninterested in your input in this area given your utter lack of objectivity.
 * Now, an article covering resistance to Moroccan rule needs to be closely edited to keep in line Moroccan whinging on about Algerian blah blah, but that's another matter. I am going with intefada as usage as clearly POV. collounsbury 00:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Right Look, I grant that there is an association with "intifada" meaning the two rounds of Palestinian mass movements against Israeli occupation. Clearly. The Zemla Intifada happened before either of them and had that name before either of them. Others (e.g. Cedar Revolution/Intifada) have had that name since. I don't see why ALL CAPS BOLD and bloody cursing are necessary; I'm willing to hear you out here. I also do not know who, other than pro-Sahrawi sources would even report on the matter. It's not like state-run Spanish newspapers would write about it, anymore than state-run Moroccan media downplay the current intifada and call them "unlawful riots." It's odd that you say you aren't interested in my opinion and then respond to it, but that having been said, if you call "intifada" POV, how is it POV? Should we change the other "X Intifada" articles to "X-ish resistance to Y?" -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your reading comprehension lacks. Certainly in Arabic the phrase "intefada ez-Zemla" or something to that effect -- meaning simply The Zemla Uprising in ordinary translation -- predates the Palestinian Intefada. However, the Palestinian Intefadas are the events that brought the word into English language usage, and in English language the word is strongly associated with - indeed almost uniquely associated with the Palestinian Intefada which carries certain clear connotations. The Lebanese "Cedar Revolution" indeed makes the point, as in English virtually no one (native speaking) refers to the events as intefada but rather Cedar Revolution or some variant on the same. Your pitiful excuse that you don't know anyone but pro-Polisario sources is without merit. There are certainly analyses in the world that are not pro-Polisario, in English language, that speak to Polisario and certain Sahraoua resistance to Moroccan rule. Intefada I find POV as it is a clear political move obvious to anyone not fundamentally retarded or a blind partisan to associate one cause with another. A neutral translation, casting neither aspersion nor implying favouritism to either side is Uprising.
 * Very simple. Now, let's leave aside partisan claims of "current uprising" and the like. Bloody blind partisans. (collounsbury 11:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC))
 * Sure, but... Naming conventions (common names). In general, as a rule of thumb, it is better to use the more common name of a phenomenon as its title. Regardless of whether or not said rule is propaganda or group-think (e.g. Propaganda of the deed for anarchists, Armenian Genocide for Armenian nationalists, Opium of the People for Marxists, etc.) The fact that the term was coined by a political group with a particular agenda is immaterial; the most common name is the Zemla Intifada (which is not to say that the term is itself common, nor is "propaganda of the deed.") Again, I have no personal stake in the name "Zemla Intifada" per se, but the naming conventions would imply that this is the name it should have. It would be one thing if we coined the term as a slight against Morocco (e.g. making the link miserable failure redirect to George W. Bush); that would violate the conventions. We didn't though, and who did is irrelevant, even if said name is in some way POV or could be construed as such. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no particular evidence that in English, outside partisan sources, the usage prevails. Ergo, a non-partisan, ordinary language translation, Zemla Uprising, is better. I think the argument is clear, I fail to see you doing anything more than making special pleading for a usage and translation of your favoured party. collounsbury 17:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC).
 * Okay How does this statement "I see no particular evidence that in English, outside partisan sources, the usage prevails" not apply to the examples I gave (propaganda of the deed, etc.), especially Armenian Genocide, which itself, is a translated term, and is only called as such by those who think it did, in fact, occur? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the Armenian Genocide article strikes me as suffering from the same disease as much of the WS arties. Partisanship and special pleading. But I don't touch stuff I am not reasonably expert in, so that's not my problem. But we're not even bloody arguing over actually poo-pooing the Zemla Uprising, are we; we're merely having a pointless round and round because you want your particular POV phrasing to win out over a straight translation, one that hardly gives credit to the bloody Moroccans, eh? The problem I have with your editing is it isn't enough to have merely facts - you want the Polis facts and phrasing. collounsbury 18:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC).


 * Just to add that I have personally come across the word "intifada" used for many historical events whose english language translation either uses uprising, riots, demonstrations, or revolution: some examples, "intifadat al khobz" = bread intifada, for the 1988 riots in Algeria that left officially 600 deaths, intifadat/tawrat 20 august, in reference to the wave of uprisings that swept Morocco in 20, august 1953 in response to the forced exile of Mohamed V. In Lebanon recently, and, in Iraq in 1991 intifadat ashia, the uprising of the shiites after the 1991 gulf war. There are so many examples of the use of intifada in Arabic litterature meaning uprising. As to Zamla uprising, it was actually a sit-in to hand over a petition to the Spanish authorities. hours after the sit-in, the Spanish forces wanted to disperse the remaining demonstrators and arrest the leaders of the sit-in. So, if you look closely, it is not even an uprising.--A Jalil 20:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)