Talk:Palestinian stone-throwing

Non-notable incidents

This can't be a memorial page for anybody killed by a thrown stone. Since reliable sources discuss this as a phenomenon, we should primarily be reflecting their coverage, rather than listing a bunch of incidents that can't support their own articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You have a point, and I agree that this page shouldn't list all such incidents. Perhaps we could create a list of people who were killed or severely wounded in Palestinian stone-throwing and link that list from here. It does perhaps make sense to keep of few of these, just to show that the phenomenon is wide-spread. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need to show that the phenomenon is widespread (and I'd be just as against a list of non-notable news stories in a separate article as here). Surely at least one of our sources says it is widespread. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. 1.) The extent and type of harm (death, loss of an eye) caused by stone-throwing is pertinent. 2.) it is not good form to gut an article that you are attempting to get deleted. 3.) I propose that we get opinions form a larger number of editors before removing large swaths of material.ShulMaven (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I !voted to keep this article, but if you're going to continue ownership behavior, you're going to lead people to want to TNT it. Re 1, if it's pertinent to the subject as a whole, you should be able to source it from the scholarly discussion that supports the rest of the article, not from WP:NEWS stories. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I've looked through this, and I think the material should go back in. There's value in having a clear identification of exactly how many people have been wounded, how, by the stone throwing. That's something people are likely to debate, and having a clear and well-sourced answer here would add value. ShulMaven How many more do you need for consensus? Djcheburashka (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you should stop hounding me. It will not help your campaign and it will not help your future editing prospects. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Having looked at a few of your more recent contributions, I think its appropriate to look at whether there were earlier issues. Article talk pages are supposed to be for discussions about issues with articles. If you'd like to discuss broader editorial issues, I'd welcome that, and the appropriate place is either your talk page or one of the dispute resolution pages where the issues have been raised. Djcheburashka (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hundreds of people looked at the article during the recent AFD, without feeling moved to vote or to delete major sections of material. I therefore believe that it would be unwarranted to remove this material until/unless a great many more editors weigh in on the topic.ShulMaven (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

So no one should edit the article ever again from the form in which it appeared at AFD, since that's obviously what the WP community wants the article to be? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No, only that there were lots of eyes on this page, not many took the time to support your proposal.ShulMaven (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

AFD isn't usually the place for that kind of discussion. That's why we're discussing on the talk page instead. Would you like to provide some sources demonstrating pertinence? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

At this point, this is a relatively brief article and the list provides a useful, chronological look at the deaths and injuries caused by stone-throwing.ShulMaven (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think "it's short" is a good reason for padding it with newspaper search results. If it wouldn't belong in a longer version of the article, it wouldn't belong in a short version. There should be enough material in reliable sources to expand the article! And if reliable sources discuss any specific incidents as particularly historic, we might discuss those specifically. Again, this is not a memorial. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, with all due respect. You have a point, but the only other editors I see here all disagree with you. May I point you to WP:DEADHORSE? Debresser (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Two versus one in an ongoing discussion (I'm ignoring the user who's just here because he's stalking me) is hardly a dead horse. I think I have more faith in the openness of other users to discussion than you do. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm going to give this another day or so and then start an RFC. An article on a stoning was just deleted as non-notable, and I continue to maintain that this article can't keep on being used as a backdoor for content the WP community, which is already extremely lax in its notability policies when it comes to Israel, has decided not to keep. Let's get more eyes here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Ed Said said

I was surprised not to see anything about the Ed Said rock throwing incident here. From the NYTime [1]

'Mr. Said's action drew some sharp criticism last summer. Mr. Said said he was having a stone-throwing contest with his son and called it a symbolic gesture of joy at the end of Israel's occupation of Lebanon."

I don't know how to add a picture but this is the famous one.

So besides being what it is, it is considered a symbolic gesture. Rather hard to get behind rock throwing as symbolizing joy. I guess some Palestinians are just naturally joyful since there is a fair amount of rock throwing going on.

I thought this was some joke, but it is serious and it is notable. Perhaps somebody add this to the article indeed. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Sourced part of this section to the Columbia Daily Spectator, not merely "a college paper", one of America's great college newspapers, writing on one of Columbia's most famous professors. It is one of the best and most reliable sources for this particular storyShulMaven (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I can't find this claim on As-Safir's website, which is really what we should be citing if we're attributing stuff to it. Regardless of Said's teaching at Columbia (irrelevant - they weren't with him just because of that), student-written college papers are not generally considered equal to real newspapers in terms of oversight and reliability. A previous version of Said's Wikipedia article stated that UPI also reported on As-Safir's coverage, but I looked and likewise cannot verify this. Are there any actual sources for this claim? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

References

RFC: List of incidents

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article contain a list of non-bluelink incidents (incidents without their own article, eg. where no article has been created or where an article has been created and consensus was to delete it) in which people were harmed or killed by thrown stones? Supporters say that this demonstrates that the phenomenon of stone-throwing is widespread and that showing the extent and type of harm is useful, especially in a short article; opponents, that the use of news rather than scholarly sources is inappropriate and that the existence of the phenomenon does not justify a memorial or news repository. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The WP community, which is extremely lax in its enforcement of event notability when Israel is concerned, just voted to delete an article on one of these stonings. This list seems like a back door for getting around the notability policy. Scholarly sources demonstrate that this is a phenomenon worthy of academic study, so if they have anything to say about its extent or the type of harm typically caused, we can go with what they say, rather than assembling news stories to "prove" anything. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Keep The notability criteria for the existence of an article on Wikipedia are not the same as the criteria governing a mention in an article. That is only normal. That however does not mean than because one article was deleted, so should the mention of that incident and person inside this article, and even more so doesn't come to teach us about other cases. Debresser (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Roscelese. A list (even if referenced with news articles) about a bunch of incidents sounds pointy to me. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Roscelese and Chris Troutman. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - that would just be a case of selective reporting of the incidents that were found. The article should be working in terms of general statistics as to numbers injured, and prevalence. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep Such a list shows how much this phenomena is serious. @GraemeLeggett: "a case of selective reporting" - it's not selecvive : infortunally, such incidens really happenes and were reported by RS. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • If it's "serious", we should be able to cite reliable sources that say so, rather than compiling a list in order to prove our thesis. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    • RS for the fact that a murder is serious one? What about common sense? --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia does not, in fact, cover every single murder. For that matter, accidental deaths or deaths of natural causes are also serious and tragic for the families of the people involved, but Wikipedia does not run on sentimentality. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
        • As to your words that "Wikipedia does not cover every single murder". Nobody proposes to write an article about each of these incidents. Therefore, your "argument" is simply not related to the issue at hand. Sentimentality also has nothing to do with the argument of Igorp lj. Roscelese, we know your position in this Rfc. No need to attack people who disagree with your point of view, with arguments that are unrelated to the issue. Debresser (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
          • I would suggest that you have an inflated view of what constitutes an "attack." Let's stick to discussing content, not contributors, please. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
        • @Roscelese: "accidental deaths"? Are you serious? Any way, this Ministry law proposal does answer to your "If it's "serious" : Ministers advance bill jailing rock throwers for up to 20 years, Palestinian stone throwers could face 20 years in jail. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
          • Yes, we cover that in the article. How does it show that any other individual news story merits inclusion? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Unless there is a list on WP of every person that the Israeli army has injured or killed, or every home that has been bulldozed, then I don't think a list of every person harmed by Palestinian stone throwing should be included.174.63.103.38 (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

That is a non-argument. Feel free to make such a list, if you think it is notable. Debresser (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm concerned that some editors seem to want to use the incidents in a way to insinuate that this is a widespread and serious problem. If that's true, then quote a source directly that says so; to do otherwise is sythesis. The arguments about due weight have some merit, but I think that the synthesis is more of an issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
• Keep. The fact that several people were killed by this type of violent actions should be enough to prove the relevance of this section.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: I reverted Roscelese's edit from today, who couldn't wait till this RFC was closed. Debresser (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use by Israeli agents undercover

I don't think it's correct to be framing these as individual incidents; that's newsy. We have a statement from the military about SOP; we should be able to cut the section down further in order to include that, without a blow-by-blow of every time it's reported, which would get tedious. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

While you did succeed in incorporating the Palestinian perspective, you edits substituted "at" for "in the direction of" Israeli forces. they also lack context. Moreover, PlotSpoiler has a point when he writes: what the hell does this have to do with effectiveness? Please find a way to incorporate in a way that is WP:NPOV and not WP:UNDUE). I will make a fresh attempt at a section that is WP:NPOV but not WP:UNDUE.ShulMaven (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Moved it to it's own little seciton in Legal status section. It is probably still WP:UNDUE.ShulMaven (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're arguing that it's undue weight and then restoring a version with more text and a newsy blow-by-blow of individual incidents. I think you're also relying too hard on the apologetic "general direction of." There isn't anyone who thinks it's okay if it was "in the direction of" and bad if it was "at", let's just keep it concise. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy outweighs concision.ShulMaven (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that any greater accuracy is conveyed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese; frankly, I thought it was better under its own sub-heading, before you moved it. I´m ok with you "contracting" it, but the present paragraph structure is no good. What on earth is it doing under "Legal status"?

Another matter is stone-throwing by Israeli settlers, which is an increasing phenomena; [2] [3][4][5] [6] [7] [8]: How do we deal with that? (No, I´m not suggesting an article: Israeli settler`s stone–throwing) But I think we should incorporate the more significant episodes into this article. What about a heading: "Stone–throwing by Israeli military and settlers"? Also, I am changing the picture, to the one really well-known one, Huldra (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

By all means do create an honest, well-sourced article on Israeli settler`s stone–throwing). Make sure to source it as I did, with articles in leading newspapers and academic journals laying out the theory and political role of stone-throwing to Palestinians. the theoretical sections are crucial to the topic of this article, which is Palestinian stone-throwing.ShulMaven (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be a good see-also if an article can be created and sustained, but the reason Israeli forces' stone-throwing is here is because they're pretending to be Palestinians, making it relevant to this topic, not because "stone-throwing in the IP conflict" is a thing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Photos needed

This page needs more photos. Slingshot section particularly in need of a photo of a Palestinian wielding a professional slingshot, I have seen such Bil'in. A photo of a crashed car, it's window smashed by stones would also be useful.ShulMaven (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Title

Use of the endash is incorrect in this context, per MOS:ENDASH.– Gilliam (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Do the source connect these two things?

This edit makes me wonder if the source connects those things? I do see that it points out that Israel argues that stone throwing is equivalent to murder someone. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

'Israel's attitude towards the use of phosphorus as a military weapon compared with its attitude towards stone throiwing is striking.'

The source connects the two, and goes into some detail. It is not therefore off-topic, and was improperly removed.Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, then it is relevant. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Title

I've seen numerous photos of settler youth using the same rock slings Palestinians use. I don't think the title, ethically focused, is appropriate, and suggest a title change to 'Stone-throwing in the Palestinian territories'.Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I haven't seen such pictures, and even if so, this article is not about them. Debresser (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's clear that the sources generally cover the stone-throwing of Palestinians as a phenomenon, not just stone-throwing by any people who happen to be in the area at the time (the stone-throwing by Israelis undercover as agents provocateurs or not wanting to break their cover is relevant via its relation to the former and doesn't justify a broader treatment of the subject as "stone-throwing in this location"). In order to change the scope, I think there would need to be at least a significant minority of coverage of Israeli stone-throwing. Nishidani, can you provide more sources? (Although, Debresser, I do think the "this article's title is about Palestinians, so it shouldn't discuss Israelis - this article doesn't cover Israelis, so its title should refer to Palestinians" is a bit of circular logic.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see this as covering anything other than what the title states it covers. Per Debresser. Epeefleche (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

'I haven't seen such pictures.' Debresser.

Amazing that you have never seen evidence of this, Debresser. After all the picture in the linked article shows an example. Had you clicked, rather than reverting, you would have seen the phot. If a Palestinian is caught throwing stones he can in Israeli law, be shot (dead): a huge amount of video evidence, supplied by yesh Din and B't5selem, captures settlers throwing rocks, and using slings to attack villages. A large part of those videos show IDF soldiers watching, or participating in these incidents, to protect the rock throwers.

As I will document, stone-throwing is endemic among settlers esp in the outlying areas (Yitzhar, Hebron Hills etc ) and it is done under police and IDF eyes, and the norm is to arrest Palestinians, and basically either protect or ignore what settlers are doing, when they are mirroring each other's behaviour.

• Jaimee Haddad the West Bank, Israeli and Palestinian kids who throw stones face unequal justice April 22, 2014

And both sides in the conflict use stones. “This tactic of stone-throwing has been adopted by particularly extremist Israeli settlers who also throw stones at Palestinians,” Estrin said. “In the West Bank, rocks are aplenty. It’s a very rocky terrain, and all you have to do to fight someone is to bend down and pick up a rock.”

Between 2008 and 2013, the number of young Palestinians arrested by police for throwing stones was 1,142, while the number of young Israeli settlers arrested was 53. The consequences for a Palestinian, he said, can range from three to eight months of a military prison sentence, while the typical outcome for an Israeli is release without being convicted.

• Larry Derfner, Settler Violence in the West Bank: A Decades-Long Reign of Terror on Unarmed Palestinians +972 magazine 21 January 2014

Settler violence, lately characterized mainly by masked young men roaming the West Bank and attacking Palestinian farmers with stones, clubs or rifles and burning their olive groves, their fields, and occasionally their schools, mosques and homes, is a unique feature of the occupation.

• attacking consular officials
• example 1
• example 2
• example 3:the most moral army in the work providing gunfire cover for Israeli stone throwers
• example 4
• example 5
• example 6
• example 7
• example 8
• example 9 2.50 second into this
• example 10
• example 11 an Arab mother protecting her child from Jewish children throwing stones while the IDF stands by
• example 12 7 minutes of Jewish kids stoning Palestinian schoolchildren. No arrests, the police are present
• Mairav Zonszein IDF turns blind eye to settlers throwing stones at Israeli activists +972 magazine September 24, 2012

see example 13

• Mairav Zonszein,Example 14 WATCH: Settlers hurl rocks at Palestinians in the presence of IDF soldiers +972 magazine January 14, 2014

Over 20 masked settlers armed with slingshots invaded the West Bank village of Burin on Tuesday afternoon, a field worker from human rights organization Yesh Din reported.

example 15

• Elior Levy,ignore settlers hurling stones,' Ynet 14 April 2011

Video handed to B'Tselem shows Itzhar settlers throwing rocks at Palestinians; soldiers standing aside. Itzhar spokesperson slams video as 'blood libel'; IDF claims was not given opportunity to investigate incident

• Security forces fail to protect Palestinians from settler attacks in incidents documented by B’Tselem over last three months (Videos)

B'Tselem May 31, 2013

example 16

example 17

example 18 December 9, 2014

• 'Stone-throwing Israeli settler injures child in Hebron,' example 19 13 Mar 2013

Settlers in the area store rocks in plastic bins on their rooftops to throw at Palestinian residents, according to DCI-Palestine sources.

• 'Poll: Right-wing extremism predicted to increase in Israel,' Middle East Monitor [[Wednesday, 03 December 2014

Harriet Sherwood, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/21/israeli-settler-fires-gun-stone-thrower Israeli settlers filmed firing guns at Palestinians Tbe Guardian 21 May 2012.

According to B'Tselem, which uploaded the footage to YouTube, a large group of settlers, some masked and armed, approached the village from the nearby settlement of Yitzhar and began throwing rocks and starting fires. After a group of Palestinians gathered and threw rocks in return at the settlers, Israeli police and soldiers arrived on the scene.One of the settlers is seen crouching while aiming and then firing his pistol at the group of Palestinians. Two other settlers are seen firing assault rifles.

• Gili Cohen, Israeli soldiers did nothing to stop stone-throwing settlers, videos show,' Haaretz 20 November 2014.
• 'Palestinian arrested after filming settlers throwing stones,' ISM 17 August 2014.

'in the old city in al-Khalil (Hebron) settlers from the illegal settlement of Beit Hadassah threw rocks and water at Palestinians living on Shalala Street. This is a regular occurance for Palestinian families living close to illegal settlements in al-Khalil. The majority of the time the Israeli military watches from a distance and does not do anything to intervene in the violence and property damage.One Palestinian, a 35-year old man, documented the stone throwing only to be detained and then arrested by the Israeli military. The man was taken through a yellow gate to an area where Palestinians are restricted from, where the soldiers pushed him around.

• Mairav Zonszein, 'WATCH: After handshake, settler child throws stone at six-year-old Palestinian,' +972 magazine, October 5, 2013

I could go on all afternoon. Israel mainstream newspaper are meticulous in reporting every incident of teenage Palestinian rock-throwing, hence this article, which gives the spurious impression it is distinctive to the occupied population.(And thus Israelis 'suffer' from this violence. Nishidani (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I would appreciate the courtesy of a reply. It took me longer to compile this than it will take either of you to click through and watch this very limited selection of the available evidence.Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

While not all of these sources are good, I think there's definitely enough here to include some content in this article on settlers throwing stones. I still think the sourcing (eg. on the cultural resonance of the act among Palestinians) supports keeping the article's title and framing as it currently is, but your sourcing, and particularly the sources you've found that compare Palestinian and Israeli stone-throwing, shows that it makes sense to include some mention of this. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't look for 'good sources' (though all but one are. +972 magazine may be contested (actually it is very good Israeli journalism), but the videos they host are not. I cited mainly videos because one editor said the phenomenon was unfamiliar. Anyone who gets daily CPT reports, or knows the West Bank, knows that stone-throwing is an every day occurrence on both sides. I think the Palestinians do more of it. But an article that begs editors to create Israeli settler stone-throwing should yield ground and just incorporate all the evidence from all sides in one article. Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, it would certainly make sense to link Israeli settler violence in whatever paragraph we add here on settler stone-throwing, but I'm not sure the sources justify the existence of a separate article on settler stone-throwing. However, editors with a lower standard of notability for events than mine, such as one frequently sees at AFD for Israel-related articles, may a have different opinion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose title change This is an article about Palestinian rock throwing, (it's political implications and ideological foundations) The material you suggest adding is a better fit for Israeli settler violence.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • So you suggest logically that this article ought to be merged with Palestinian political violence?Nishidani (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• In addition to the above sources posted by Nishidani, we have:
  • http://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinian-kids-reportedly-injured-from-stone-throwing/
  • http://www.dci-palestine.org/documents/stone-throwing-israeli-settler-injures-child-hebron
  • http://972mag.com/watch-israeli-police-let-stone-throwing-settlers-walk-away/99740/
  • http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.627399
  • http://www.jpost.com/national-news/watch-idf-stands-idly-by-as-settlers-throw-stones-at-palestinians-337476
  • http://palsolidarity.org/2014/08/palestinian-arrested-after-filming-settlers-throwing-stones/
  • http://www.jerusalemonline.com/news/middle-east/israeli-palestinian-relations/settlers-throw-stones-as-soldiers-watch-9600
  • http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4374261,00.html
  • http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Haredim-assault-female-firefighter-in-Mea-Shearim
  • http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/02/israeli-settlers-stone-two-cars-us-consulate-staff
• These days it seems to me as if it is as much used by Israeli settlers as by Palestinians. I suggest we move this article to Stone-throwing in the Israeli-Palestine conflict, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• LOL! This POV pushing is reaching comical levels. If only these editors suggesting a name change weren't useless single-issue battleground accounts. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, what about making an argument which is not ad hominem?, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Not an argument. And I may be 'useless' but am not as any check can show 'a single-issue battleground account'.Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Anybody can look at your last 500 edits Nishidani and see that nearly all of them pertain to the IP area. And take down that laughable "semi-retired" nonsense. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Plot Spoiler: editing only in the IP area is not a crime; or a blockable offence. It is fully allowed, and there are lots of editors who do it. (Which is why we never hear from them again if they are topic-banned...) Again; could you please make an argument which address the issue? (and is *not* ad hominem), (Incidentally, if I had had a block-log like this, I would not be so fast as to accuse others of "battleground behaviour". Pot, kettle, black, etc.) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani A commendable job you did on sourcing Jewish stone throwing. There is a simple reason I hadn't seen these sources, which is connected to my lifestyle, in which I don't regularly follow the news. My argument, however, stands, and several editors have agreed with this above, that this article is not about them. At the same time, it does make sense to at least mention the fact that Jewish settles also have been know to throw stoned upon occasion. Then again, we should be careful to avoid the suggestion that the frequency of the second comes anywhere close to the frequency of the first.

Any edit which will do all the above, I will not revert. Perhaps such a sentence could be combined with "In certain documented cases, Israeli undercover units have thrown stones at uniformed IDF and police alongside Palestinians." in a new section. I would leave it out of the lead. Debresser (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Not watching the news is an admirable practice. Since I have to read a dozen newspapers a day to get perspective on all sides of the I/P area, the way I see things will appear odd to those who have (enviably) more sensible ways of exploiting our brief time on the planet.

The article was created by User:ShulMaven during a flurry of article-creation focusing on Palestinian terrorism after the attacks in Jerusalem last year. I.e.Death of Netanel Arami (deleted),Murder of Ibolya Ryan, Killing of Sergeant Almog Shiloni, Silent Intifada. Much of this 'stuff' was immediately put up for deletion. What he was doing is particularly evident in the last, which was the ignore all Israeli violence and focus unilaterally on several grievous incidents where Jews were victims. Unfortunately for his case, once the background began to grow, it emerged that there were numerous antecedents involving Israeli violence to that 'silent intifada', and when I added them, a fork was created Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014 to cope (but note: both Silent Intifada and the fork cover 'all violence related to the topic, without ethnic discriminations. There is not a shadow of a doubt that he was not interested in comprehensive coverage but only in fingering one side. He framed the topic to exclude by definition any mention of the circumstances, or broader thematic realities. Per WP:NPOVa topic, if it deals with a practice in which two or more sides are regularly engaged, we are required to covered all angles, and not just spin one side of the broader narrative.Nishidani (talk) 08:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The question is if this needs to be mentioned in this article. As to the facts, I am confident nobody will claim the amount of incidents of stone throwing by Palestinians is in any proportion to the amount of stone throwing by Israelis. Debresser (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Abusive edit summaries

• Debresser violated IR, and has yet to fix that
• This edit summary by User:E.M.Gregory 'removed WP:Well poisoning ' is actually WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You cannot remove a properly sourced academic on-topic statement out of dislike. And you cannot use a stupid term to cover the removal. Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, with this edit User:E.M.Gregory reverts back to a wording of the captions, taken straight from the IDF. And that counts as "neutral" in his eyes? Huldra (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, what is "IR"? Debresser (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You mean "1R"? That is not so, feel free to check. Debresser (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Debresser:. Actually you did. Better check again.--TMCk (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Terrorism category

A quick look through reliable sources doesn't seem to support the addition of this category, with a number of good sources explicitly defining these acts as non-terrorist. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand we must go by reliable sources. On the other hand, if you were ever to be on the receiving end of a stone, you might change your mind. Just saying. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't run on my personal experience or feelings. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Throwing stones is not terrorism. It could be depending on target but so could many things be but it does not mean such a tag is warranted. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This is straightforward. It is the (unique, I believe) Israeli Point of view that stone-throwing, in any context, is terrorism. So that is a position. It is not shared by the world. As someone raised with stone-throwing as a weekend sport, head injuries etc. frequent among combatants, I don't think I was a terrorist. It was a serious problem with vandals on highways some years ago in Italy. When people died as a result the stone throwers if caught were put on trial for murder, not terrorism. It happens in riots all over the world. Blackblockers are not treated as terrorists in Berlin, Paris, Seattle or Rome. If caught they are gaoled for delinquency. The cat is inappropriate, since Israel's POV is peculiar, but the POV should be described in the article.Nishidani (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

See Is every Palestinian kid who throws stones a terrorist?, "stone-throwing terrorists", that it is not a simple as you think. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

In what way does that change what I said and how was my argument "simple"? I don't understand what you are disputing. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I showed that there are sources that use the term "terrorism" in the context of Palestinian stone throwing. Debresser (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely true. But there are numerous sources which contest this exclusively Israeli point of view. One can't have a CAT that assumes a POV function, rather than classifying facts.Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I said that it could be terrorism, just like many other things, but in general it is not and we can not add a category that makes it look like it is something certain. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Any point of view is contested here, so we shouldn't have any cats at all? That doesn't sound right either. Debresser (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

What is contested? Do you think stone-throwing is necessarily terrorism? It is generally not and thus should not be categorized as such. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about generally, but we are talking about a specific case, and if in this specific case the Israeli government or reliable source call it terrorism, then we on Wikipedia may and must also call it so. Note that we are talking about a phenomenon, or even tactic, which has been implemented for so many years now in this specific area. Debresser (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Book Roscelese

(I can't see how book is related though) The book traces the practice back to 1936 (background), and on p.26 specifically gives an example from a survey in The Independent, of such undercover figures joining riots. A pedant might complain that 'stone-throwing' is not specifically mentioned, but contextually it throws light on the phenomenon, often complained of by Palestinians, of Israeli undercover agents in their ranks who provoke the worst (that itself can be a pretext or excuse of course) by challenging their own troops. Incitement is a key term of Israel's rhetoric, but in the Ist Intifada, some of the most extremist pamphlets calling for insurrection proved to be written by Israel's secret services (well documented), then distributed by these undercover troops to Palestinians. It is an important if minor element in the background, esp. for Bil'in villagers who see their peaceful protests rocked by people in their ranks they can't identify.Nishidani (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I am a pedant. For WP:SYNTH purposes I think it's important that we only include information related to the article topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

So am I. Rock throwing is most frequently done in riots. Of three elements in the immediate text: (a) rocks being thrown (b) in a context of riots (c) where undercover agents participate, the source has (b) and (c), and directs the interested reader who might pursue the topic, to a long historical overview. WP:SYNTH is not the issue. Of course, as a hair-splitter myself I won't object if you regard it as inappropriate. As an encyclopedist, with academic publishing experience of the genre, I can't see any abuse.Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler for the umpteenth time

This edit summary, like many you make in habitually reverting my work, is abusive. you can't find a better, more reputable source than a university thesis? you're really grasping at straws for your POV pushing. That is a (a) false justification based on ignorance of policy (b) done without any inquiry or collegial requests on the talk page (c) a WP:AGF violation. I'm used to it, and won't react, except to note that: You missed the section in WP:RS that runs: WP:SCHOLARSHIP

Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties

The ProQuest source is the doctoral thesis of Amani Ismail, lecturer at the American University in Cairo. She did that under the doctoral supervision of Daniel A. Berkowitz, professor in media studies at Iowa State University, and a leading authority in his field. The doctoral thesis is not a primary source, but a secondar source analyzing primary sources, academic, and peer-reviewed. Ismail later re-edited the book as Mission Palestine: The Second Intifada in the American Elite Press, Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrucken 2010, which unfortunately is not available. So, it is perfectly respectable as a wiki source, per the above policy statement. The onus on you would have been to take it to RSN and question it there, since a prima facie policy case appears to validate its use.('the iconic stone throwing by Palestinian youth during the First Intifada')

2.More grievously, what you removed, about 'iconic', is readily ascertainable in one of the sources you didn't contest, the same language is used on the linked page (so you reverted without examining the sources added) I.e.

• Erica Chenoweth, ‎Maria J. Stephan Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict, p.119

3. If you thought that statement dubious, you could have checked on google books and found instantaneously any number of other sources noting that stone-throwing was iconic of the First Intifada (like the IDF practice of breaking legs of protesters). I.e.

• Peter Mandavillem, Global Political Islam, Routledge, 2010 p.207.

If you enjoy smoking a pipe, there's plenty there to stuff into yours, and puff and huff over an egregiously bad revert. In any case, reverting it back is almost obligatory, and if you have any residual quibbles, take it to RSN.Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Images

Are any images like these free to upload? Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I tried to use the iconic image of Faris Odeh in the article, but that was deleted. Presently all the pictures are from IDF...go figure, Huldra (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It's uploaded onto the wiki article on the boy. perhaps it can be copied from there.Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It is a "fair use" picture, i.e. not free. I simply do not know enough about copy-right to say if we can use it to not. Huldra (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Civilians then IDF soldiers

You reverted my adjustments.

I adjusted the text for the obvious reason that (a) most rock-throwing occurs in clashes with IDF and Border Police forces. Description of a list in this case should follow an order of incidence. To place 'civilians' at top is, arguably, to suggest that they are the primary targets: they are not. (b)I removed 'babies' /'children' from the lead. It is true that several Israeli children have been killed as a result of stone-throwing. It is true that of several thousand incidents, these constitute an exiguous minority. It is true that the IDF has a distinguished record for shooting at large numbers of Palestinian children, a policy officially endorsed by Rabin, but not for that do I worry the Israeli Defense Forces page trying to plug in this bit of information.Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I can personally tell you that all stones that are regularly thrown in the vicinity of Husan, as far as I know, are thrown at citizens of Betar Illit, usually religious and unarmed people driving civilian vehicles.

Children should be mentioned, because they are more often covered in news articles, since they are more noteworthy. Notability also counts for something. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Old people are as iumportant as children, both are defenseless, and old people get kicked, driven from their homes, etc., regularly by IDF soldiers. Not fopr that would I mention this in a lead. Jewish children are mentioned in the Israel and foreign press quite regularly. Palestinian children are harassed every day, hit with stones, and this is almost never reported. There are teams of peacemakers in certain areas who must act as body guards to kids going to school in Hebron, the Southern Hills esp. They make daily reports, which I subscribe to (not RS). It's source bias. In a tragedy as immense as this, sober precision with facts, parity of treatment, not pulling at the heartstrings of one side, is required.Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I may agree with you that it is source bias. But that bias is based on the fact that the notability of a child killed by a Palestinian stone is indeed higher than of an adult. We go by sources and notability here, which I why I restored the previous version of the lead. Note also that that version stood uncontested for a while now. You have not convinced me that it is inferior to the version you propose. Debresser (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that from the other POV:

the fact that the notability of a Palestinian child killed by an Israel soldier is indeed no higher than of a Palestinian adult being killed in the same circumstances.

133 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 2,060 Palestinian children (see here) have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000. Roughly that is 1 Israeli child for every 18 Palestinian children. I know that in Zionist education, what happens to non-Jews doesn't register much, if at all, but the statistics are obvious. The former are given quite a few individual pages on Wikipedia - 'child' 'baby' is leapt at wherever possible. The latter are not even mentioned in the articles: compare Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada where 'civilian' actually turns out to mean 'Israelis', to List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, prefaced by Israeli sources dismissing the evidence as dealing mostly with terrorists/comnbatants of whatever age).

The major objection to that order is that civilians, and children are statistically minor compared to combat soldiers in rock-throwing, yet that order is reverted in order to suggest these demonstrations are inhuman assaults primarily on non-state actors, civilians, rather than things that occur against an occupying power. Nishidani (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as the number of killed children is concerned, this article is only about deaths as result of stone throwing.

I understand your point, so lets change the order from "hurled or catapulted at Israeli civilians or security forces" to "hurled or catapulted at Israeli security forces or civilians" and "fatalities among civilians, including infants" to "fatalities, including among civilians". Would that be fine with you? Debresser (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine by me (save that 'catapulted' reminds me of Graeco-Byzantine siege machines, which at the moment is beyond the mechanical competence of most village youths). I wouldn't exclude it, recalling that my cousin made one to prepare for a clash with another gang in our area, made from a veritable tree trunk at the fork, using a tire-tube as the sling pouch, and requiring two feet to hold the catapult's Y branches steady, two hands to pull the sling back, and a third hand (mine) to feed fist-sized stones into the pouch. It was effective over 50-60 yards, but not quite functional, unless you fired at an entrenched opposition, the mobile "enemy" could run round and sling shots at you while you're arse was on the ground, your legs in the air, like a sitting duck. Sorry for the frivolity.Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits by Nishidani

First of all, let me stress that you are edit warring.

1. A demonstration in which rocks are thrown is called a riot. Especially if that is the usual way of "demonstrating". This use of a euphemism has been reverted before, and you should not restore it.
2. The information about Mista'arvim is definitely out of place in a caption. I think I said somewhere above that if anything, it could be mentioned in a section of its own. This also has been repeatedly reverted, and you should not try to restore it despite the lack of consensus.
3. The paragraph about Faris Odeh seems completely unrelated, apart from the fact that he was a stone thrower. It is so sad that a boy of 14 years should engage in such activities instead of doing something useful with his life. In any case, what does the way he died have to do with anything, unless you were making a suggestion, which you obviously wouldn't do, since I can't even count the number of Wikipedia guidelines that would violate. :) Debresser (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the first point, as you said yourself above: "Rock throwing is most frequently done in riots." Debresser (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you are mixing up Nishidani and me, as I was the one who changed "riot" into demonstrations. Presently (after your edits) the article takes the exact wording from IDF propaganda pictures, and talk about "Stone throwing at a riot in Bil'in." The Friday demonstrations at Bil'in are famous, (an Oscar-nominated film as been made about them, among other publicity). AFAIK: nobody, but nobody but Israeli military ...and now Wikipedia..calls them "riots". This is not about WP:EUPHEMISM, but WP:LABEL

Oh, and the Faris Odeh -picture is iconic (on several stamps from the Middle East, for a start), *the* most famous picture of a Palestinian stone-trower...and you think it is irrelevant in an article named "Palestinian stone-throwing"??? Seriously. Huldra (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we could include Odeh, but users adding the text would have to add citations, preferably citations/writeup that indicated the iconic nature of the image so it doesn't sound like WP:NOTNEWS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, I am sorry. It was indeed Huldra who changed "riot" to "demonstration" in this edit (which, by the way, had an edit commentary which only partially described the edit). Huldra, I don't understand how you can defend that edit. If people throw stones, it is a riot, not a demonstration. At most it is a demonstration which turned into a riot. You can't do injustice to the English language in such a way. Debresser (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The edit adding Odeh was made by Nishidani ([9]), has no sources, and the part about his death shows no connection to the stone throwing, and as such is unacceptable here. Debresser (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

(a) I removed Huldra's edit, because while she is right about using IDF sources, that gives no entitlement to re-write a caption with material that is properly on the article. The caption should summarize what the jpg. says, not editorialize.

(b)Objecting to Odeh Farah because it is unsourced is otiose. I could have, had the dinner gong not sounded, added mechanically any number of sources from that page. Any editor would know this is instantly source-able. Sources say he was a known stone-thrower and was shot dead by a sniper (Israeli snipers have at their side an observer who coordinates information from a variety of sources, and then targets the person to be shot, and gives instructions to that effect. Everyone who follows the literature knows this. And the data I added, until some sock puppet removed it, shows stone-throwing historically has not dominated 'demonstrations' or 'protest marches'. This is a violent conflict between an armed state military and an unarmed people. People who throw stones at cars are engaged in criminal behavior which violates the Geneva Conventions. Troops who shoot people resisting their defense of land, water and livestock theft are breaking the same conventions. Wikipedia does not take sides: it gives the full range of data, and opinions, in neutral language, and this is necessary particularly on an article which began as an attack page on one side by an editor specializing in this stuff.Nishidani (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Throwing stones is not a necessarily a 'riot'. Israeli and foreign newspapers are extremely careful to avoid using the word 'riot' of any settler 'disturbance'. I gave you numerous videos showing that stone-throwing is endemic, esp. among Hilltop youth, and it is never described as a riot. 'Demonstrations' are again met by armed force, the shooting of often toxic quantities of tear-gas, rubber bullets, and occasionally live fire, whether stones are thrown or not.Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

According to IDF, stone throwing is always "a riot" when done by Palestinians, never so when done by Israeli settlers. I put the ref in the caption as there were 2 pictures from Bil'in, both from the Israeli occupying forces, and both with their preferred wording; "riot". And Bil'in is the place we *know* undercover Israeli forces have been throwing stones. In short; we have absolutely no idea as if the "Palestinian rioters" in the pictures are Palestinian...or if they are Israeli undercover military. And again; please show me any "neutral" source who use the word "riot" about the demonstrations in Bil'in? So far we have exactly one source using that word about it, and that is IDF. So, User:Debresser: show me some neutral sources who use "riot" about the Bil'in demos, or out it goes. Wikipedia is not a microphone for IDF. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, I have no problem with re-adding Odeh, if sourced. If you want to include the circumstances of his death as well, then you'll have to show that they are relevant to this article about stone throwing (not just the general I/P conflict), and add reliable, third-party sources.

Nishidani and Huldra I agree that stone throwing doesn't yet necessarily make a riot, and a demonstration can take place while at the same time other people throw stones, but if the stone throwing takes place during a demonstration and at the same location as a demonstration and by the same people who are supposed to be demonstrating, then it's a riot. This is simply a matter of English. This means that if I see a picture with stone throwing people, I can not claim this is a demonstration. If the caption would read "Palestinians throwing stones during a demonstration", such a text would imply precisely that logically impossible claim. If, on the other hand, you;d like to argue that those Palestinians were throwing stones while at the same time a demonstration was taking place, then I think that demonstration is not relevant to the caption any more. So either it is a riot, or it is simply Palestinians throwing stones, but there is no such thing as throwing stones during a demonstration, because that would be a riot. A matter of language. Debresser (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Removals by Apndrew and improper edit summaries and ARBPIA violations by Debresser

@Apndrew: it's incredibly probable that you're a sockpuppet, but on the off chance you're not, perhaps you could explain why you blanked what appears to be adequately cited and relevant content with no explanation? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Sure. I removed what was clearly biased language which appears to justify stone throwing by Palestinians, or suggests that Palestinians only throw stones after the police have attacked them (not the other way around, which all of the references state is the case). Other language was simply entirely unrelated to "Palestinian stone-throwing" (the title of this Wikipedia entry) or merely reflected the opinion of the editor.

For example, the first sentence under "Conceptualizations" states: "While Israel has justified its use of phosphorus munitions in areas where the civilian density is high, as in Gaza, as legitimate in international law, it criminalizes stone-throwing as a threat to the security of the State."

What is the point of stating that Israel has "justified use of phosphorous munitions in areas where civilian density is high" other than to attempt to lend support to rock-throwing. Do the Israelis shoot phosphorous munitions for reasons unrelated to rock throwing? If so, it does not belong here in a "Palestinian stone-throwing" entry. If, alternatively, Israel has approved phosphorous munitions in response to such stone-throwing, then this sentence should state it. The way it's currently written (i.e., stating first that Israelis have approved phosphorous munitions before discussing stone throwing) serves only to suggest that stone-throwing is a justified or reasonable response to such actions, and that Israel is in the wrong for approving one but not the other. Also, there is no point to state "where civilian density is high" other than to inflame tensions. Israelis respond to stone throwing. The stone throwers are throwing stones in areas "where civilian density is high." Why does this sentence accuse Israelis for responding to stone throwers and not the stone throwers for choosing areas "where civilian density is high."

As another example, the entry states: "90% of the 271 Palestinian minors shot dead on the basis of these criteria in the six years of this intifada were killed at moments when they were not actually throwing stones." While there is a citation to a reference, that reference provides no evidence to support this statistic, other than to state it is based on eyewitness testimony. The sentence, if it remains, should be reflected to acknowledge this fact. Also, this sentence is highly misleading. Stone throwing is not a constant action. You throw a stone, take a break, and then throw another stone. There are very few "moments" in time when you are actually in the act of throwing a stone. It would be virtually impossible to coincidentally shoot stone throwers at the exact "moment" when they are throwing stones. Instead the implication of this sentence is clearly meant to suggest that they were not throwing stones at all, which is not supported by the reference.

Another sentence states "In response to the wave of protests beginning in December 1987, the Israeli government appears to have sanctioned the adoption of lethal or seriously damaging gunfire..." This is blatantly false. The reference cited clearly states "non-lethal" force was sanctioned.

Further, it is highly deceptive and reflective of bias to state "the de facto rule permitted the use of lived ammunition against children..." First off, what's the relevance of mentioning "against children," other than to inflame individuals. Also, the article clearly states that "plastic bullets" are used. To state "live ammunition" is used is highly deceptive.

Finally, every mention of a statistic involving people injured always begins with the number of Palestinians injured or killed, and ends the sentence (as if an after-thought) with the amount of Israeli's killed. For example, the entry states: "Rock throwing to protest Ariel Sharon's visit to the Haram al-Sharif in 2000 led to a clash in which 6 Palestinians were killed, and 220 wounded by Israeli gunfire, while 70 Israeli police were injured by rock-throwing." To put the number of Israelis at the end (every single time injuries or deaths are mentioned in the entry) suggests that Israelis first killed the Palestinians, who then in response killed the Israelis. In this particular incidence, it was not that case that the Israeli police killed 6 Palestinians before the Palestinians began throwing rocks, as suggested by the phrasing. These statistics need to me amended through-out the entry to make it clear, deaths and injuries occur of Palestinians occur as an Israeli response to stone-throwing, not the other way around. The entry makes it seem that all Palestinian rock-throwing happens only after there is police action, when the opposite is true.

All changes were made to make this entry more neutral and remove the obvious and extreme bias of whoever previously edited this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apndrew (talk • contribs) 17:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Debresser

• Nishidani is edit warring.

(1)I warned you on your page you are edit-warring and breaking 1R (ARBPIA)

• revert 1 22:14, 21 March 2015‎
• revert 2 00:35, 22 March 2015‎

• (2).You took note of the warning

(3). And then again broke 1R immediately afterwards

• 1st and *2nd

Technically, any editor would be in her rights to take this to AE and get you suspended. I dislike that, as it is an extreme recourse for socks or recalcitrantly obtuse bad editors. One can't argue one's way around these things, but more seriously, don't accuse other editors who don't break the rules, of breaking the rule you repeatedly infringe. Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I apologize. I have seen so many edit wars lately, in all kinds of fields outside WP:ARBPIA, that I am used to reverting automatically any time a tendentious editor restores something that has already been reverted and for which there is no consensus. It has become a matter of fashion for IP and people with emotional ties to certain subjects to edit war in the middle of ongoing discussions. I am simply not used to the 1RR restriction, so I reverted automatically. Again, I apologize. Nevertheless, on a general note regarding this article, I do object to Huldra, you, or anybody else, restoring material that is contested on the talkpage, and I hope that if all will abide by the simple rule of WP:BRD, that we will be able to improve this article and reach consensus without edit wars. Debresser (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. But there have been several abuses here, by the sock and Plot Spoiler as well, that remove material without addressing the talk page. If you want a level playing field, you should exercise your revert right equally. Whoever is uncollegial, or an obvious sock, should meet a stone-wall, from both sides. One should not evaluate what to contest, remove according to an evaluation that, 'hey, I'll let him/her get away with that because the removal/addition fits my POV'. I know punching under the belt is standard here, and not exclusive of any side, but good editors should try to hew to the Marquess of Queensberry Rules.Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Not only are the removals unwarranted as they remove a relevant connection made by a source and mention of Palestinian casualties, the edits are not "minor edits". --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

What's this newbie doing?

? It's fairly obvious that the editor is a sock or disturber, but rewriting sources to the point where they become comical is pointless. White phosphorus bombs used '0in response' to stone-throwing?!!! Wow. Never heard of that before. People in Gaza hit by white phosphorus inside the city were some kilometres from the border and the IAF aircraft and artillery that lobbed that stuff. What were the kids doing, lobbing stones at fighter jets? slinging stones at howitzers 3 kilometres away. Come on! This is farcical.Nishidani (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Thank you. If what you say is accurate (which I am not confirming or disputing), why is it mentioned in an entry related to Palestinian stone-throwing? Clearly the editor is trying to justify the actions of the stone throwers in response to (as you say) the entirely unrelated actions of Israelis.

One writes according to sources. No editor has a right to rewrite a sentence that is sourced, without first consulting the source to find a justification in it for the rewrite. (b) Had you read the source, you would have noted that the text connects phosphorus bombing and stone-throwing via Israeli laws and practices.Nishidani (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I just want to be clear, have you changed your position and are now claiming there is a connection between stone-throwing and the use of white phosphorus munitions? Despite your accusation, I did in fact read the reference before making the change (my original change was deletion of the biased sentence). The article makes absolutely no connection between the use of white phosphorous munitions and stone throwing, other than to discuss them in the same paragraph. Because the author of the paper made a choice to discuss stone-throwing and use of white phosphorous munitions in the same paragraph in a text, does not mean there is a connection by the Israelis (or the Palestinians). Therefore, discussion of the use of "white phosphorous munitions" does not belong in a entry related to Palestinian stone throwing. If there is some connection (again, not referenced in the source), that connection should be made clear. Otherwise its comparing two entirely unrelated actions in an attempt to justify the stone throwing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Apndrew (talk • contribs)

There are remedial classes for people who can't construe a simple sentence.

I did in fact read the reference before making the change (my original change was deletion of the biased sentence). The article makes absolutely no connection between the use of white phosphorous munitions and stone throwing,

Source text

Israel's attitude towards the use of phosophorus as a military weapon compared with its attitude towards stone throwing is striking.'Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani:You know someone has lost an argument when they resort to ad hominem attacks. As if my sentence structure in that sentence you point out has anything to do with the argument at hand. Please avoid resorting to childish tactics to attempt to win an argument. Although irrelevant, my sentence structure in that sentence was fine. Perhaps you should ask someone who can confirm that for you. In any event, as to the argument, the sentence you point to does not even come close to supporting your argument. The author of the text commenting on what he believes is the Israeli attitude on two distinct actions does not connect them, as much as you may want it to. Also, you have now changed your position for the third time. First, there was no connection between the two. Second, there was a connection related to "Israeli laws and practices," and now you cite a sentence totally unrelated to either of your previous positions. The author could have compared the Israeli attitude on literally any two actions of his choice, and that wouldn't mean there was an actual connection between the two just because they were in the same sentence in his paper.

Put simply, there is simply no connection described in the source between the use of "white phosphorus munitions" by Israelis and Palestinian stone-throwing to justify its inclusion in an entry about Palestinian stone-throwing. The glaring lack of connection only serves to demonstrate total bias on behalf of the editor likely based on his or her own belief of asymmetrical, but totally unrelated, actions. If you do somehow come up with an actual connection, it should be stated clearly in the entry.

Repetition is not an argument. I have answered you. If you can convince an established relatively neutral editor that I am wrong, I might reply further. Otherwise, this is concluded.Nishidani (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani This question was discussed above, and it was agreed that the comparison is in the source. But, again, I have to ask the question: is this relevant? The way the sentence comes now, it is not clear what precisely is issue of this phosphor, and why it should be compared to stone throwing at all. This means, that in its present for this is not relevant to the article, and I support removal of that sentence. I would likely be okay with adding this back in as a separate section, with explanation. Debresser (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The source compares the (harsh) legal treatment of stone throwing with the use of white phosphor use as a perspective measure.--TMCk (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That's right. The source compares it, but there is no connection between the two. The source could have compared any two actions, but that doesn't connect them. This is just one example of a faulty comparison (with no justification within the source) or highly misleading text within the entry. For the sake of neutrality, I would appreciate if a neutral editor would review my other issues with the entry, which are cited above in response to Roscelese. If necessary, I am happy to re-state or address them each individually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apndrew (talk • contribs) 15:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I just explained the connection in simple words. It's a legal one. One could compare the difference in legal treatment of setting of a bomb in a city compared to throwing firecrackers in a crowd. The latter would usually be treated as a lesser offense than the former, but when it seems to be reversed it becomes notable. We can't make such connection on our own per wp:SYNTH but when a reliable source does it, we can use it.--TMCk (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The confusion here is threefold. (a)If RS connect things, then we follow, as the dull dragomans of what competent experts say. This is what we are doing here. (b)there is a confusion between a fact to be treated as an isolate, and a fact in the context of other facts. Where reliable source contextualize one fact in a mosaic of related facts, one obsequiously paraphrases the connections made (c) There is a confusion between facts and attitudes, laws, interpretations of those facts. This encyclopedia is not a Gradgrindian assembly of "empirical facts". Were it so, suffice it to make each page into a statistical chart (which would be illuminating). We include how people involved in the facts react to them (i) as normal in themselves (ii) as incongruous.

To illustrate 3. Debresser's friends at Betar Illit are perfectly normal and right in finding their passage along roads disturbed by delinquent Palestinian stone-throwers. It violates the law, it endangers life, and often those who are subject to this violence are law-abiding, decent people going about their lives without hurting a flea. A Palestinian in that locality will know kin and kith killed, wounded, or assaulted under the occupation, or arrested in demonstrations against the sewage flowing out of Btar Illit untreated into their fields, or recall that as the town expanded over expropriated Palestinian land, over a dozen natural wells, fundamental to local agriculture, dried up or were shut. When some of them throw stones in revolt, and end up in court with a 20 year sentence for terrorism, many of them contrast this with (a) the fact that Israeli stone-throwers in the samwe area almost never arrested, since 95% of complaints are rejected (b) Israel uses the most advanced modern weaponry to shoot down civil disobedience and disturbances, and even carpet-bombs intensely habited built up areas with impunity with DIME and phosphorus bombs, fully aware that civilian casualties will be high. They note that in this case, the world press will say, it's Hamas's fault for using them as human shields. The connection between the enormous extralegal freedom exercised in Israel's recourse to extreme and lethal forms of violence against civilians, children and all, and the imposition of draconian laws against children who throw stones (99% of the time without casualties) is remarked on all over Palestine and abroad. It is a POV discussed in RS. It is understanding that from an pro-Israeli perspective, stone-throwing should deal with the delinquency and danger, cordoned off from any historical social context. It is obvious that Palestinians and international observers see it in a wider context. NPOV demands that both be given a due hearing, side by side. Nishidani (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Nishidani, by I can not agree with you. Wikipedia is not a forum for seeking justice. Unless you want to add some explanation to add context to this sentence, this comparison is void of meaning in the context of this article and can not stay. In addition, it has been removed by various editors already, so per WP:BRD I think it should be removed till such time as a clear consensus to have it can be shown. Debresser (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that seeking justice has no place on Wikipedia. Giving the full picture of a topic, per WP:NPOV, is particularly obligatory when you have articles dealing with conflict, something the editor who created the one-sided slant of this page ignored (here and on many other articles). I deal in sources and paraphrase what they say on any argument. If RS make connections to an article topic, this is duly added. If this is interpreted as an 'attempt to seek justice', well, what can I say? This article was created to get at Palestinians, and no one objected.(b) WP:BRD is not Wikipedia policy, and the removalists had no policy warrant for erasing the text, unless it was WP:IDONTLIKETHAT. The BRD argument is abused often, in defiance of the text:

Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one (see this list for a glossary of common abbreviations you might see).

BRD cannot apply to academic texts which bring to bear relevant information from sources that meet the WP:RS highbar, indeed polevault it, as this one does, being a legal scholar talking specifically about Israel's legal attitude to stone throwing and the use of extremely lethal weaponry where civilians are at high risk of being hit by 'collateral damage.' Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I referred to the principle of WP:CONSENSUS that is the core of WP:BRD. I don't see consensus for this edit, and therefore it should not have been restored in the mean time. I do not try to seek an excuse for edit warring. Debresser (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, wouldn't this sentence be in place in the Legal status section, more than in the Conceptualizations section? By the way by the way, can't we replace "conceptualizations" by something clearer? Debresser (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you have a point there. 'Conceptualizations' is ugly. The dinner gong has sounded, and urgency demands my attention, unfortunately, on such Lebensnotwendigkeiten for an hour or two.Nishidani (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

:) Debresser (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It is clear though, as I wrote in #Do the source connect these two things?, that the source mentions this about Israel's view in page 179: "For example, they argue that stone throwing is equivalent to the crime of murder and note that murder carries a heavy penalty in Israel ...". --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

IRISZOOM What do you mean? I for a moment don't understand what you are referring to. Debresser (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the authors' view on Israel's attitude towards the two things (use of white phosphorus and stone-throwing) is relevant, like that Israel views it as equivalent to murder. If you think the former wording by Nishidani needs rework, only saying "Israel criminalizes stone-throwing as a threat to state security" does not make it better. It makes it looks like their point is that Israel criminalizes stone-throwing because it is a threat when they are criticizing Israel's attitude. But the context is left out here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Dovid, your arithmetic is seriously skewed and your understanding of WP:CONSENSUS fragile. The facts:

(1)I added it Suggested by User:Nishidani.

(2)restored here by User:IRISZOOM

(3)restored by User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper

(4) Restored as originally written by User:Roscelese

3 editors did not, while reverting, object to this specific passage, or while editing it, did not challenge its RS status.

(5) Not objected to by User:Plot Spoiler, in his revert

(6)Not removed by User:Huldra

(7)the language was modified but the text was not questioned by User:Yuvn86

In explicit favour, per reverts, of its removal

(8)reverted by User:Debresser.

(9)removed by User:Apndrew who also tampered with the text against the source language

(10) removed by User:E.M.Gregory here in a ridiculous non-existent policy reference (WP:Well-poisoning)

(11)Removed by User:Multimotyl ('off topic') The editor has 50 edits in 6 years, almost zilch to do with this topic area.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Without personalizing things, 2 editors of the 4 removalists here are blow-ins who have done little or nothing on Wikipedia. One just popped up into wikipedia to edit here and has made some 30 edits. The other just swerved widely from his interest in camera lenses to revert this obscure article. It has all the appearance of gaming. Convincing 4 objectors in a flash community of 11 to agree is not consensus. Seeing 4 pro and 3 non-objecting editors here suggests, the burden lies on you, not on me, to get consensus for removal.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks to User:Nishidani for alerting me to this discussion. I removed the comparison of white phosphorous to rock throwing because it seemed to me an obvious instance of well poisoning. (a term in common usage on WP talk pages; it is irrelevant that I was mistaken to red link well poisoning.) It still seems inappropriate. We don't drag every accusation made in a book onto the page merely because it is printed in some book. I just went back and read the passage Nishdani cited. To me, it is polemical and loosely argued: "Several factors belie the claim that phosphorous is justified while stone-throwing should be criminalized.... the targets on which phosphorous versus stone are directed (entire population centers versus individuals who may be in armored vehicles or inanimate objects such as the wall)" you can read more, but there is reason to interrogate this source. Among its obvious flaws, Israel, as I understand it, used white phosphorous for marking or signaling purposes, it did not "target" entire civilian populations. Moreover, to cherry pick 2 targets of Palestinian stone throwers, and choose "armored vehicles" as one and "the wall" as the other is certainly polemical. (do Palestinians throw stones at "the wall"? I thought they threw them at soldiers defending the wire fence in Bil'in from demonstrators with wire-cutters.) You can read the article, which appeared in a non-notable gook (i.e. published without being reviewed by academic journals or, as far as I can find, noticed by anyone) and edited by three non blue-linked authors. Routeledge publishes some notable and enormous numbers of non-notable books. Leaving that aside, comparing white phosphorous to rock-throwing for rheorical purposes may be valid, but it is far from being a significant part of the discussion of the criminal status or general conceptualization of rock=throwing. It appears merely to be a comparison being made in a single essay in a single book. Adding it to the article appears gratuitous, polemical, a kind of well-poisoning, mere anti-Israel mud-slinging. A violation of WP:NPOV, and an appropriate passage to revert.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

None of this is comprehensible in terms of wiki rules and practice. By this adventitious introduction of the term, any negative information or invidious comparison, contained in a reputable RS, could be unilaterally removed. Well-poisoning, -a flash phrase for WP:IDONTLIKEIT- is not policy, and therefore the reason given for your edit was false. This is not a subjective enterprise, but empirical and logical.

Our task here is simply to note what sources say. If the source is of high quality, and relevant, it goes in regardless of our personal beliefs or distaste. I accept this whatever side produces information. I've seen hundreds of edits I think misrepresentative of the overall picture, but I don't remove any if the source is strong. No policy-based argument has been given. Apart from Debresser, no editor of long experience has challenged that as a reliable or relevant source. These are basic rules.Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You say 4 out of 11 are against, I say 4 removed, 4 restored, 3 neutral. That sounds like no consensus to me. It's the same numbers, the question is only how to represent them. But that is not the main issue here, since there is an ongoing discussion we can look to to see that there is no consensus.

I agree with the argument of E.M.Gregory and disagree with the argument of Nishidani. E.M.Gregory calls it well-poisoning, I call it irrelevant, but I do agree there is an implication there that is well-poisoning. That is, likely, close to a definition of "well-poisoning": adding something that really is irrelevant, to make a certain implication, cast a certain doubt, etc. Nishidani uses the RS argument. I just want to point out a point which I have made many times on Wikipedia over the years: we have no obligation to write everything that can be found in reliable sources. We write an encyclopedia with logically structured and balanced articles. There is much information to be found, that does not serve that purpose. This is one of those cases. Moreover, as I said before, this addition does more harm than good. Debresser (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You have four opposed to its inclusion, of 11 editors. As for the 3,Geshvign heyst oykh geredt, as they say in the classics.Nishidani (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I find it... odd... Nishdani fights so strenuously to put in an isolated analogy to white phosphorous from a lone, obscure source, when the article lacks so much. It lacks:

Numbers of civilians and soldiers injured and killed by rock-throwers.

Discussion of Arab casualties caused by rock-throwers hitting cars driven by Arabs.

Mention in the conceptualizations section of such widely discussed questions as rock-throwing at civilian vehicles as a form of terrorism.

Mention in the conceptualizations section of rocks and slingshots as lethal weapons.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead. For once I think it proper that some other editors actually chip and build the page, rather than leaving the hard work to me.Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Gentlemen. I don't need your consensus to restore a relevant fact from a high quality source, which was removed without any policy-based reason. It was a patent abuse of procedures.Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

If that were the case, you'd be right. But I for one hold this is not relevant. Sorry, but I think you'll have to either resign to the present version without the phrase you want, or go to some dispute resolution forum. Debresser (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Editorial decisions are rule-based. No objector has yet to provide us with a relevant wiki policy justifying the removal of on-topic material from a high quality legal source. Opinions are simply not an adequate justification for elision. This is a Grade 1 wiki principle.Nishidani (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, again, Nishidani. The real "grade 1 Wikipedia principle" is WP:CONSENSUS, and there is no consensus that this is relevant, therefore the rest of your argument becomes void. Debresser (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC Should the article be renamed to something like 'Stone throwing in the Palestinian territories'/'Stone-throwing in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict'? to comply with NPOV?

Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Input would be appreciated by editors, preferably with a neutral attitude to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, regarding the appropriatness of the title of this article. Stone-throwing in the I/P area is often associated with Palestinian behavior. It is also widely attested for settler behavior. Should the article's focus be changed to include stone-throwing behavior by both parties to the dispute?Nishidani (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose This is an article about a coherent topic, rock throwing by Palestinian activists, that has generated significant attention over many years not merely in news reports, but by academics and in analytic journalism, as well as inspiring representation by artists, filmmakers, and in novels, stories and memoirs. It is discussed as a symbolic representation of the Palestinian struggle. And it is described by both pro- and anti-Israel analysts as having been a significant factor in the First intifada and in the course of the Israel-Arab conflict more generally.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral, under certain conditions I don't mind, as long as proper weight is given to each of these phenomena, by which I mean that Palestinian stone throwing is by far more widespread and has, as the "conceptualizations" section shows, deep roots in Palestinian culture (by lack of a better word). Another question is, if there are no cases of Palestinian stone throwing in areas that are not in the Palestinian territories, or all incidents were only there? If there are at least a few incidents outside that area, then I think a rename would be out of the question.Debresser (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

To reply here to both you and Galatz (below), of course stone-throwing occurs in Israel from time to time. I think a sniper was used to take out a stone-thrower in Umm al-Fahm during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, though I can't remember the year (2000, I think). In that regard, clearly, were a different more broader title to be used, it would have to be 'Stone -throwing in the I/P conflict', since that embraces also stone-throwing inside Israel by Palestinian Israelis.Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I see two very big issues with the move. (1) You are ruling out any and all possibilities of any mentions of stone throwing outside of the west bank and gaza. Can you prove that there has never been a case of this outside of there? Not one of these roits take place in west jerusalem? 2 I think the proposed title is misleading. It would lead one to believe that both Palestinians and Jews are using stone-throwing as a form of rioting. Unless you have sources saying this is equal, than it is extremely misleading. - Galatz^Talk 19:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope 'partisans' will abstain. We need fresh eyes, and disinterested editors (though I think both 'sides' have editors who meet this criterion) The title is up to grabs, my suggestion is not to confirm one of many possible titles like the one I proposed heuristically, but to suggest we find a title that reflects the phenomenon in that area, irrespective of who throws stones. I, for one, will not be voting, in any case, since my views are known and I am an interested party.Nishidani (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at my edit history of this article [10]. You will see I have only added one court case, requested a citation and moved the article for formatting. I pretty much have been removed from this article. I really don't follow this topic, although as you know from other articles I do have an opinion on the topic itself. You can tell from my edit history though however I very often make changes to remove POV.

Either way though I don't think either point I made really shows POV in either direction. My point is you are trying to limit it to a more specific area than need be and to include people that really dont make sense to include.

• Oppose. As it is, it is a well-defined discrete issue. Widely covered by the RSs, as-is. Appropriate as-is. Epeefleche (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you examine the list of Palestinian attack articles created by User:ShulMaven, like this one, from September last year, all specializing in material on injuries done to Israelis or preemptively attributed to Palestinians (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Netanel Arami ). Do you think he was interested in a topical issue looked at neutrally, or in framing a statement for an Israeli POV?Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

So what? What does WP:OSE have to do with this move? You have to look at this article as is, on its own. - Galatz^Talk 21:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

So two wrongs make a right then in your book Nishidani, because this article that you've OWNED for retaliatory POV purposes is a disaster: Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

That it is a "retaliatory POV" is harsh to say. I think Nishidani's point is that the one who created this article, including naming it like this, was not neutral. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support I think the article should include both sides but if most think it should only be about Palestinians, which will more or less suppress mention of Israelis here, I think an article about Israeli stone-throwing should be created. There is much info about especially Israeli settlers in Hebron throwing rocks and stones at Palestinians and foreigners visiting the area. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think the non-newsy sources discuss this as a Palestinian phenomenon with particular symbolic resonance. It doesn't mean that Israelis don't do it or that we shouldn't also mention Israeli violence in the article, particularly given the sources that compare the two. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Roscelese. The fact that this is even being seriously proposed underscores the unfortunate POV pushing, battleground mentality, and gaming that plagues this topic area. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Verb + Noun, pretty straight forward. Is there an argument here that there is no such thing as the Palestinian territories?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Second thought, is the argument being made here that stone-throwers are combatants in the conflict? If so, that has serious consequences.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per same reasons as in prev. such proposal: "RFC: List of incidents" above. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Stone throwing is a "political action"

I don't see congressmen throwing stones at each other in the parliament.

How is stone throwing a political action? It's aimed at: 1) Causing damage to property, which is vandalism, not a political action 2) Harming or killing civilians Israelis or troops, which is terrorism and unlawful warfare / asymmetric warfare respectively.

Why is this coined as a political action? Shouldn't it be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewnited (talk • contribs) 18:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Read the Toledot Yeshu which says Christ was stoned while he was strung up, as Jewish law required in sentencing sorcerers to death. Was that report referring to a political act? (And whaddya mean about 'unlawful warfare' in this area? Nothing is lawful there. It's the badlands, where anything goes for either side, including the use of torture units and electrical shock to extract confessions of stoning in the First Intifada.)Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how you addressed Jewnited's point. How is damage or inflicting bodily harm called politcal action? Boardg (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Most stone-throwing never inflicts damage or bodily harm. If you go into the details of Israel's strategy and tactical use of weapons in crowd dispersal, - which covers most incidents -everything hinges around the distance, 75-100 metres beyond which stone/rock throwing is ineffective. Even the type of ammunition used is calibrated according to safe distance for soldiers over munition effectiveness in that range.

It is a political action because there is such a thing called an occupation which (a) denies water rights to villagers while supplying water to settlements (b) allows all settlers to be heavily armed, while treating any form of weapon among Palestinians, even in homes, as 'terroristic' (c) using an army to strangle villages whose land is sought for settlement expansion (Kfar Qaddum/Bil'in and numerous others) which generates weekly protests in order to secure the right of passage out or into continuous villages, whereas all settlements are serviced by road networks that allow free transit; (d) the right of free assembly in demonstrations against the occupation is denied by the military authority in that it demands that protesters receive permission from the IDF which is rarely given, rendering virtually all protests illegal under military law: no such prohibition affects settler protests, (e) settlers are allowed to throw stones, as IDF troops stand by. Numerous videos show this. Their behaviour is not considered criminal, terrorist or vandalistic, etc.etc. This could go on for hours. The question is framed by premises which reflects either the editor's POV, or some assumption governing the normal (U.S.?) world. In no democracy are people who assemble in protest, for whatever reason, shot day by day, as has been the case for decades there.Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

On-topic, please, Nishidani. This is not a forum. I think we can say that stone-throwing is not solely a political action in the sense in which the term is generally understood - other users, any wording suggestions? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I answer queries. The topic I addressed is framed by the question. Stone-throwing is many things, obviously, but numerous sources stress it is not just shanghai slinging as all kids do the world over, but, contextually a form of popular protest, and popular protests are political. All one need do is document the various interpretations of stone throwing, which include 'guerilla tactic' 'civil disobedience' 'form of popular protest' etc. Sources determine usage and definition, and we just follow them.Nishidani (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a start. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani's Rewrite Terribly Unbalanced Violation of NPOV

Nishidani's entire rewrite is terribly unbalanced. Should be reverted and discussed and refined on talk page before such a large scale POV edit (e.g. "Stone-throwers, refraining from firearms, Israel’s strong suit"). Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks unbalanced only because the historical situation described is 'unbalanced', i.e. you have a vast scholarly literature dealing with movements of stone-throwers against an immensely powerful army of occupation, and the asymmetry is in the reality, and in the sources that analyse that reality. That is all. You call that a POV? It's reality, and the reflection of that reality in sources.

As to POV, this is the only article ethnically identifying 'stone throwers' qua Palestinians as a problem, when any google search will tell you it is chronic in all periods, in all countries, where conflict rages. Who thought of nailing the Palestinians as 'unique'? I'm glad they did, retrospectively, because it is intensely studied, and has a fascinating history, well worth exploring (without mentioning the huge literature on stoned prophets, saints, martyrs, and catapult battles in the medieval times, in Palestine.Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I noticed in the above section that numerous POV pushers will stop a proposal without troubling to actually work this or any article and then leave the page. People congregate to play games. Few edit here: most sit round and discuss, and challenge tidbits. This is supposed to aspire to encyclopedic level writing, meaning people are not supposed to make a career of sitting round waiting for someone to actually work hard, and then kibitz, whinge and revert, until they are happy. If you have any specific proposals, list them. 'Israel's strong suit' is directly in the sources. You can paraphrase that as 'forte' but that is what the (academic) text states as the motive. POV finally, here means what the mass of sources (95% from academic specialists in highly reliable publications, state. Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't have time to read through all the changes at this time, but the lede is way too long. This is not what ledes are for.

Nishidani, please accept that "everyone throws stones, there's no reason to single out Palestinians" is a lost cause. The article exists because there are sources singling it out, not because we are. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I must note that it is obvious I already accepted that proposition because the consensus was against my proposal. I dropped the 'lost cause'. Since the article was a farce, that left me no alternative than that of writing up a comprehensive history of the subject according to the best available studies. Doing so is not defending a 'lost cause': it is ensuring that editors who think cheap sketches of complex realities to get at an adversary is what we do here will find that snippet caricatures have no place on Wikipedia, and the only remedy is to take on the job of showing what the real scholarship on the subject shows regarding the subject, in all of its intricate historical and cultural details. As to the lead, it sums up a long page, and is proportionately long. (I have by the way left out a lot of extra material out of respect for contemporary readers, who tire after a twitter, so I'm told). Things can be adjusted, if editors, in good faith, study the page and the relevant sources in depth. To do so, I would expect that, other than just reading the page and objecting, editors click through each link and read, visualize and digest some of the over 1,000 pages of text I have had to sift through to get these basic elements on the page. That done, one can certainly engage in a comprehensive point by point review.Nishidani (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I want to thank Nishidani for this rewrite of the article. I think he did a great job, including a great job in sourcing. The lede is perhaps a little long, but not unacceptably. If there are any (N)POV issues, including the issue raised by Roscelese, please be specific about what statement you think is formulated wrongly or is undue. Debresser (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Although some of it might be great background it really feels very disjointed and very hard to follow now. The article is definitely now just one big mess - Galatz^Talk 02:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It is somewhat disjointed for a very simple reason: the rules of composition on Wikipedia disallow intelligent prose composition, particularly on contentious articles, because there is no scope for commonsense (you'll be reverted for WP:OR) or narrative cogency (WP:SYNTH), since every statement must be, on pain of reversion, meticulously sourced and verifiable. Lastly, the more you read on any subject the more you realize how self-contradictory, inaccurate, POV-oriented, even our secondary sources are (forget about newspapers, mainly a lost cause). I tried to get, for example, a coherent institutional timedline for changes in cabinet decisions and official policy as the various phases of the intifada unfolded:no deal, or no ideal, so one had to forage endlessly for dates+ types of operation. The result was some order, but harlequinesque. In the end, I opted to put before editors a strong sample of the kind of material we can potentially harvest. It's a very rich field, studied by psychologist, strategists, anthropologists, sociologists and historians. Nishidani (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Having read it with fresh eyes, I can see how the lead can be significantly reduced. My problem there was to honour the content of the earlier lead's points, so I documented and expanded each issue raised there. One could take out (a) Israeli Palestinians imitate (b) the excessive detail on munition (I expanded that via documentation because people wanted Fisk, and the Binjamin Meisner bit about a cement block in (even though that is rare); (c) trim Said, etc., while conserving the footnotes and details for relocation in the body of the text, I'll present a trimmed down version here this afternoon, and we can pare it even further down. Any further suggestions?Nishidani (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead

Palestinian stone-throwing is a form of traditional popular protest, guerrilla tactic and mode of civil disobedience used predominantly by youths to protest the Israeli occupation and settlement of the Palestinian territories.

Stone throwing came to prominence during the First Intifada, which was unarmed and generally eschewed recourse to lethal weapons, though some argue that stone-throwing employs deadly objects, that it should be treated as a form of terrorism, or that, psychologically, it is intrinsically violent. Those targeted are Israeli soldiers, and also Israeli civilians and settlers driving in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Since the 1987 uprising, characterized by youths facing Israel's military might and when 97% of protest actions were peaceful, the technique has been widely interpreted as inverting the association of modern Israel with David, and her enemies with Goliath, by casting the Palestinians as David to Israel’s Goliath, The international press and media have focused on the aspect of stone-throwing in protests, with Palestinian stone-throwing, which gained iconic status, getting more headline attention than other violent conflicts in the world. Edward Said argued that media coverage selectively commodifies stone throwing (and mindless terroristic bombings) for outside consumption, distorting the cultural and social complexities of an anti-colonial resistance movement by the Palestinian people.

While stone throwing is not regarded in most counties as lethal, Israel, as opposed to Western practice, allows the use of arms to disperse riots and demonstrations, with live fire permitted when the soldier or policeman deems that a threat to life exists. The Israeli penal code treats Palestinian stone throwing as a felony, with a maximum penalty if convicted of 2 years imprisonment. A law has been proposed to extend this to a maximum of 10 years for stoning cars, even without proof of intent to endanger passengers, and 20 years for throwing stones at people. without proof of intent to cause bodily harm.

Analysis of revision proposal

• (1) remove the photo. Either a smaller version or a different one (this is of course pointy. They hide behind ambulances (well, true, but most don't)
• (2) Remove
• (3)'Add 'was generally unarmed and eschewed recourse to lethal weapons' (in sources)
• Remove:It has occasionally been imitated by activists among the Israeli Palestinian Arab minority. Some view it as a form of ‘non-lethal civil disobedience’
• (4)Reformulate in a single sentence Israel's approach, the question of lethality, and general Western practice.
• (5)Remove:Stone-throwers, refraining from firearms, Israel’s strong suit, also employ catapults, slings and slingshots armed with readily available materials at hand: stones, bricks, bottles, pebbles or ball bearings, and sometimes rats or cement blocks. Slingshots, used "to give their stones velocity," are often loaded with large ball bearings instead of stones.

This can be included in a specific section devoted to the terms for stone throwers, their weapons, and their methods (hopefully by supplementing with more Arabic glosses).

Editing in bad faith

• I opened a section above for see if we could agree to a reduction of the lead. No one answered, no assistance.
• definition the topic as intrinsically a criminal activity when that is the Israel official POV.

I did note earlier to Roscelese that the title was calculated to exclude any mention that Jews throw stones, and I don't think she believed me. Well, E M Gregory removes this as off-topic. I suppose if I mention that in 2008-2014, 53 settler youths were arrested for rock throwing, 90% of cases were shelved: 4 were judged guilty without conviction, i.e. given an administrative warning, while 50% of the 1,142 Palestinians arrested were convicted in court and got gaol sentences. If it's an Israel it's just an administrative problem. If it is Palestinian it is criminal.Nishidani (talk) 07:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• editing for accuracy. No editing, to insert WP:OR, and doing so, in defiance of the content of the source, which justifies no such rewriting.
• excluding the parallel phenomenon

• 'cutting bloat'. No, removing an important definition in sources. False edit summary.
• Note how ‘stone throwing’ (which is quite distinct) is linked to an article Criminal rock throwing to prejudice the issue by obtaining the WP:OR unsourced generalization,

Stone throwing is illegal worldwide.[9] In Israel as in other western countries police attempt to control stone-throwing rioters with non-lethal tactics, such as riot shields and tear gas

The wiki article that links this is Criminal rock throwing. Two countries are mentioned, Australia and the US. (b) wiki is not RS (c) Israel is a not a Western country (4) the sources that stated the contrary were buried in footnotes, but contradict the reformulation, since many sources state that Israel's historic response is not that adopted in 'most other countries' and certainly not in Western countries. An editor that readjusts against sources, manipulating links and justifying this as NPOV is being provocative, not serious.

You can't allow that to stand in the face of sources that say:

Stone throwing is not considered a deadly force in most countries: in the West firearms are not used in crowd or riot dispersals and proportionality of force is the norm, except where immediate danger to life exists.(Pete van Reenben in ‘Children as Victims in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Policing Realities and Police Training,' Charles W. Greenbaum,Philip E. Veerman,Naomi Bacon-Shnoor (eds.), Protection of Children During Armed Political Conflict: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, Intersentia Antwerp/Oxford 2006 pp371-393 p.384:’Stone throwing is not considered a deadly force in most countries, and the reaction of the police is protection by shields and protective clothing, out-manoeuvering the stone-throwers, water cannons and occasional tear-gas. In Western countries, fire-arms are not used, apart from cases of immediate danger to life.to life. The open fire regulation used by Israeli forces, as far as is clear what it contains, seems to allow for a much faster use of fire arms and for heavier arms than is usual in demonstrations elsewhere. The requirement of proportionality of force, . . does not appear to apply here.')

• One of the reasons I use academic sources is that you can find any polemical reply to any other position on the net, and confound the clarity of texts by infra-journalistic POV battles. I have no objection toStein, Micah (6 August 2013). "What's Wrong With Throwing Rocks?". Daily Beast. Retrieved 12 April 2015. being used, but it was used to justify the rephrasing 'rock throwing is a criminal offence all round the world,' which is a sneaky distortion, by introducing Stein.

The article deals with 'stone throwing' mostly against an army of occupation: rocks are included, as are incidents of rocks being thrown at cars.

Stein(a fellow at the Tikvah Fund) 's article reads:

Rock throwing is also illegal, both in Israel and around the world. In Australia, Section 49A of the Crimes Act provides a maximum 5-year prison sentence for "throwing rocks and other objects at vehicles and vessels." In the United States, tossing rocks at cars can be a felony assault, or get you charged with "throwing a deadly missile" in some states, which comes with a sentence of up to 15 years in prison. There is nothing at all unusual or extreme about Israel’s treatment of rock throwers.

This confuses stone throwing generically with one law cited from the Australian penal code regarding 'tossing at cars'. That indeed is a criminal offence, but neither Stein, against sources in the text, nor the Australian penal code can allow us to make the WP:OR construction that all stone throwing in the Palestinian territories is identical to throwing rocks at passing vehicles.This is what E.M.Gregory has done, and it is an obvious example of fishing for a POV justification.Nishidani (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

If you want that the stick in other words, you must create an article on rock throwing'(at vehicular traffic)' which is certainly a criminal offence all round the world. Stone throwing at police or soldiers of an occupation who are licensed to shoot you, in support of land-theft, is not covered by the Australian or American penal codes, as far as I know.Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• This edit again falsifies the source.

Linn is misconstrued: she writes,’an undeclared war that that wasd often led by women and children who used “cold,” though very often lethal, ammunition.’ Becomes ‘lethal assault’. My version respected that ‘very often’( ‘Other argue that such stone throwing has involved recourse to lethel objects’. Gregory has made an absolute statement out of a qualified statement.Nishidani (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• 'WOW is this POV pushing'

I.e. I wrote of two incidents, one from each side, in which people were killed by concrete blocks and, as I always do, I order the incidents in chronological order if possible. Ghanem was killed by an Israeli soldier, and then the Israeli paratrooper was killed by a Palestinian militant. If you adopt chronology, no margin for POV prioritizing is possible. Instead if, as Gregory does, you ignore chronology and place your preference ahead of the other, the priorization is subjective and shows a POV bias.Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Article has serious issues of ownership, accuracy, POV

Even setting aside Nishdani's aggressive "ownership" attitude towards this article, there are serious problems here.

The bloated lede is highly POV, favoring justifications for throwing stones, assertions of their non-lethality, and failing to mention that throwing stones in regarded as Criminal rock throwing a felony in most of the world.

The article contains many statements not supported by Nishdani's own sources. Such as the assertion in the secition on "concrete blocks" that an Israeli soldier "a soldier dropped a building block" on the head of a Paestinian, an assertion that Nishdani's source the Sun-Sentinel does not support, it states that the IDF called the incident a an "accident". It makes me wonder what else Nishdani has in the article that is badly sourced.

The article conflates stone throwing during riots with stone throwing by small groups targeting cars, and elides the fact that stone throwing is a crime in almost every country by asserting that Isrel is unique in criminalizing stone throwing.

The article is entitled Palestinian stone throwing and much of the text is devoted to the symbolic significance of stone throwing to Palestinian culture, which makes the section on Israelis who throw stones an inappropriate intrusion into the article.

A link to the worldwide phenomenon of Criminal rock throwing, covering both riots and the targeting of cars on highways, usually by groups of youths, seems appropriate and normal Wikipedia practice. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

That is misrepresentation throughout. The lead provided numerous examples of how 'stone throwing' is defined in the technical literature. I followed Roscelese's suggestion in reply to a comment on how to define the practice (see above). What you did was rewrite the section to make it (a) comply with one type of incident (b) and make out that Israeli law was identical to those prevailing in other countries, which (1) ignores the sources and (b) sets up one POV, Israel's, to substitute for the several points of view surveyed in the earlier lead. So it really the pot calling the kettle black. I generally don't revert except where I see POV puishing or incompetence. Your edits were emblematic of both.Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I opened up a section to discuss the lead, following two suggestions that it was too long. I even offered some suggestions. The standard wiki practice is to use the talk page to iron out collegially problems. Your sequenced ignored this, and made a series of edits that, one by one, seemed to ignore standard and elementary procedures for good editing. I.e. you do not rewrite a text which is sourced, keeping the source, while completely altering the text in a way that it no longer respects the source's content. Editing like that just makes the source unverifiable and creates problems. So, act collegially, make your proposals. I don't own the page, but I am careful about writing to sources, not inventing stuff, as you have done consistently, esp. with that WP:OR nonsense that tries to make the peculiarity of Israel's practice in a foreign country (Palestinian territories) identical for infra-national laws in two other countries, that are highly specific (road laws) and do not apply to the vast range of stone-throwing incidents covered by the literature which deal with stone-throwing at armed police and soldiers. That is covered by other legal conventions, international and otherwise, and not by road laws.Nishidani (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The entire article is just one big mess now honestly. It needs really serious work. Nishidani made so many POV edits all over the place in addition to the horrible formatting. It was take so many months to attempt to even make this article readable again. - Galatz^Talk 13:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Galatz is correct. I suggest we start with the POV lede. And editing in a link to Criminal rock throwing in the first sentence of the lede (normal Wikipedia procedure]]. And that Nishdana refrain form making sweeping reversions of large numbers of well-supported edits, including those that challenge his multiple single-sourced, inaccurate factual assertions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

No. Neither of you did any serious work on the article, which in my view, perhaps mistaken was farcical. It originated as part of a series of articles created by User:ShulMaven as one of a set of blame-the-Palestinians articles in Sept-Novembver 2014. I sat down and read through the numerous academic sources and simply synthesized their content, allowed what RS discuss to influence the formation of the topic and its themes.

The reply has been one of dislike, no discussion on the issues, protests arguing for a mass revert, or single-handed individual attempts to remove en bloc material the sources on rock throwing mention.

The above comments are vague and personal.

If you wish to be constructive, list, I repeat, following Debresser, the things you think questionable, and they will be addressed by all editors. As of today, there appears to be no interest in following standard editorial procedures, but rather an attempt to unhinge the cogency of what sources state.Nishidani (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring, mass removal without talk page explanations, of sourced material

• Ist mass removal by User:E.M.Gregory
• 2nd mass removal by User:Galatz

(a) there is no agreement in these reductions. Two editors take chunks, without prior notice, and there is no rationale given on the talk page, nor any known policy base. (b) all of those pieces are connected by the sourcing with Palestinian rock throwing.(c) having 'the numbers' to challenge a single editor is always a powerful temptation for editors to revert, erase, ignore rules, not discuss. This is what is happening here.Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

In fact, Nishdani proposed (above) changing the title and, therefore, the article to an article on stone throwing in the Arab/Israeli conflict. There was a long discussion with many participants. The proposal was turned down by editors arguing that this in an article about Palestinian stone throwing. It was suggested to Nishdani that if he wants to have articles about other stuff (such as the extremely bloated and POV material about David-and-Goliath symbolism, the section that User:Galatz removed, or on stone throwing by Israelis, the section that I removed, he can write articles on those topics. Instead Nishdani is willfully overlooking discussions and consensus to convert this article into the very article on both Israeli and Palestinian stone-throwing that other editors rejected in discussion.

Far from attempting anything resembling NPOV editing here Nishdani's mass reversions and mass removal of sourced material added by editors is highly POV and restores a great many inaccurate POV pseudo-facts and POV assertions cited to highly partisan sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Editing is not quite a science, but it is rule-governed. You are persistently making (while reverting) accusations ad personam while avoiding any on -topic replies to the queries I raise. If you have a list of a great many inaccurate POV pseudo-facts', provide it.

(b) Can you please explain why 'POV assertions cited to highly partisan sources' is an adequate summary of paraphrases from predominantly area specialist university press publications on the topic. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Attempting rational discussion and consensus-building with Nishdani is a fruitless time sink.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

There was consensus that this article is a mess and POV. There are SO MANY things that need to be changed that there is no way everything can be proposes. You decided to randomly add a bunch of horrible content. Maybe if you dont like us changing it, revert everything back to before you ruined the article and add back only relevant and properly formatted content. - Galatz^Talk 14:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

There was no such consensus. (1) I wrote it (2) Roscelese mentioned the lead should be briefer. (3) Debresser said that it was a useful addition. Plot Spoiler is an automatic revert and naysayer (1); E.M.Gregory (2) and yourself (3).

There are SO MANY things that need to be changed that there is no way everything can be proposes. You decided to randomly add a bunch of horrible content.

That is not a reply. If you can actually see things that must be changed, you list them. List them.

Maybe if you dont like us changing it.' Thanks for the confession that this is a group effort, so far, of two.Nishidani (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, perhaps you should seeking help for these conspiracy delusions? There are excellent therapists who truly can can help.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)