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

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)

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)

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)