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 equilavent 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 discriminatios.There is not a shdow 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)

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)

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.