Talk:Palestinian stone-throwing

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 May 2018

In the section "Evaluations", in a quote from Edward Said, the last word of the quote is misspelled "lackays". It should be "lackeys". Grinchitude (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Done (after verifying it was not misspelled by Said, which it was not).Icewhiz (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Jerusalem Light Tramway

We should have something about the persistent throwing of stones at the Jerusalem Light Tramway. Which is all the more ironic because a large part of the line was made specifically to facilitate access of the Palestinian population to the city center. Debresser (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Are there sources that note the throwing of stones specifically at the tramway as a phenomenon? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Meisner

In Nablus on 24 February 1989, Israeli Paratrooper Binyamin Meisner was killed by a cement block dropped from the top of a building during clashes between Israeli troops and local residents in the town market.[124]

This is an article about Palestinian stone-throwing. A cinder-block is not a stone. Palestinians also drop, per sources, refrigerators from windows on patrolling soldiers. So what we are doing is adding information, selectively, on any form of object thrown (bar refrigerators, bricks etc) even if it is not a stone or rock. That is, to put a fine point on it, WP:OR, for cinder blocks are not stones, though the technique is identical. Icewhiz did not add refrigerators, because they are not stone, even though in the source he added they were mentioned together with rocks (and cinder-blocks), among things dropped from upper storeys. Cinder-blocks are no more stones than are refrigerators, so you could only enter this if the article had a different title, i.e. Palestinian use of objects to throw at soldiers, which would be silly.Nishidani (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Concrete masonry units as well as Bricks are close enough to being rocks or stones, being treated as masonry in the construction industry.Icewhiz (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

That's an arbitrary opinion, not an argument. Lexically in English, no one in his right mind would confuse rocks or stones, which are natural materials, with masonry, which are elaborately produced by human manufacture, just as are refrigerators. In conceptual taxonomy, there are different. The only point in common is that they are thrown objects, like knives, etc., in which case you would have to add anything thrown at soldiers. It would be like me adding garbage, and bottles thrown by Hebron's settlers on Shuhada street Palestinians to the Jewish stone-throwing article, something I don't do, because bottles are not stones. I might add that we document the throwing of Molotov cocktails here, which by the same token, is a different matter from stones/rocks. I don't fuss, but in principle, that kind of incendiary material belongs to a different pages if the title means what it is supposed to mean. Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Per Masonry The common materials of masonry construction are brick, building stone such as marble, granite, travertine, and limestone, cast stone, concrete block, glass block, and adobe and since Wikipedia isn't a source, per Britannica Masonry, the art and craft of building and fabricating in stone, clay, brick, or concrete block ... The art of masonry originated when early man sought to supplement his valuable but rare natural caves with artificial caves made from piles of stone. .... Per m-w Mason: : a skilled worker who builds by laying units of substantial material (such as stone or brick), per Cambridge masonry 1. the bricks and pieces of stone that are used to make a building, 2. the skill of building with brick and stone - it would seem that many sources, quite possibly in their right minds, do actually conflate of confuse "rocks or stones, which are natural materials, with masonry, which are elaborately produced by human manufacture".Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope, unlike stones, that won't fly. For one, the article is stone-throwing, not masonry-throwing, and secondly I made a distinction between natural and worked materials, in line with English usage, a distinction made in your own text, which lists worked materials ( not 'stone' but cast stone. As you must know, wikipedia is not a reliable source (as one can see from I/P articles). Masonry according to the authoritative Oxford English Dictionary is (a) the art, skill or occupation of a mason, the art of building in stone; (b) that which is built or constructed by a mason; work executed by a mason, stonework; (c) the craft, principles and mysteries of freemasons; (d) composed or built of masonry.' O. E. D. 1989 2nd. ed. vol IX p.429 col.3. As blind Freddy and his dog can see, stones picked up in fields or roads to throw at people are one thing and what all our references refer to, quarried rock worked by stonemasons to construct buildings another. I never heard the stonemason, so rare those days it was a major effort to find one, who worked to chip and shape the granite blocks that were used to construct my brother's home, speak of 'stones': he spoke of stone-work, meaning specifically the labour of moulding and laying large blocks of quarried granite or basalt. One would have to be stoned to confuse the two, and, of course, I take note that you haven't explained to me how the glass bottles used to make Molotov cocktails are 'masonry'. Even our lead has the silly WP:OR asserting that or cement blocks are used by stone-throwers, or flung by slings. Try it. That was put in because, I assume, we had one case of a soldier dying from a tipped cement or cinder block dropped on his head, which the editor wanted to squeeze in here. Nishidani (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Ain't presently stoned. The lede seems to be a bit of a jumble, but it isn't making the claim blocks are shot by slings (it seems to list a series of optional launching methods, including catapults, following by possible ammunition). As for blocks (or other heavy stones, or stone-like objects) dropped from above - this was actually one of the leading causes of IDF deaths in confrontation with the Palestinians in 1987-90 - 2 fatalities out of 11 - and there have been a few subsequent cases.Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

102 IDF soldiers were killed during the Ist Intifada, so two cases of masonry dropped was not a leading cause of deaths in that period, and this is irrelevant. We distinguish caber throwing, javelin throwing, discus throwing, and throwing shot puts according to the nature of the object used in the act of throwing or hurling, and the same distinction applies here: the article must deal with stones thrown. I'm still waiting for an answer as to why Molotov cocktails are masonry or stones.Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that molotov cocktail tossing would be off topic here as a subject. However, in as much as there were incidents (or legal issues) which involved stone throwing alongside cocktail tossing - than mentioning the cocktails alongside the stones would be relevant for the incidents described.Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It is off-topic, -Israeli legal issues have nothing to do with the distinction - and anyone is welcome to make an article on the topic of Palestinian Molotov cocktail-throwing since it is richly documented. Remember Icewhiz, you split straws to eliminate a report used at Jewish Israeli stone throwing regarding the killing of two unarmed hijackers by a Shin Bet squad of men who are reported to have smashed their heads with stones, simply assuming that they weren't 'thrown' and thus off-topic. We don't know if they were thrown, or some were thrown and one used directly to bash in the skulls. To me, all that mattered that a stone was used, to you it all hinged round the semantics of the verb 'to throw' and thus that item got excluded there. One cannot switch positions over articles depending on whose interest is at stake. Here you say it doesn't matter whether it was thrown or not: what matters is that by 'stone' we understand 'masonry' (which is silly). 'Throw' here means what it means, and one cannot change tack and maintain credibility by implying, 'oh, here, it is not a question of being thrown or not, or whether it was a 'stone' or something else, because here the victim was an IDF soldier, and there they were just Palestinians in captivity, and we use different taxonomies and principles to describe these incidents.'Nishidani (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Anti-semitic bias

Most of the article is a slick attempts to justify stoning Jews. This is more of Jew hate propaganda than encyclopedic article. 73.121.228.133 (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)