Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:34, 11 May 2018

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Should we have this article

Why is this are necessary? It's a very limited phenomenon which has caused zero casualties and should not be given weight comparable to Palestinian stone throwing. Seems to me like moral equivalence. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It was hived off from the Palestinian stone throwing page, where it stood for some months, on the advice of another editor. Settlers throw stones every other day, though it's not newsworthy. The article is not supposed to give weight compared to the Palestinian article. It looks at this phenomenon in its own terms. Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"Not newsworthy" according to whom? Deaths from Palestinian stone throwing are almost never reported outside of Israeli media, if you meant to imply media bias. I do understand your reasoning, but then why does Palestinian stone throwing give it a see also? I'm guessing it's because the information used to be on that article, but it should be given an in-line link rather than a "see also". --Monochrome_Monitor 20:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The Israeli police do not keep statistics on Israelis injured from stone throwing for some strange reason. They only index incidents. I suppose I should get over to the other article and give the statistics. Never have much time in here to do what I'd like. Look under the voice 'video' on the PST talk page. Videos of settlers throwing stones, while the IDF stands by, are endemic on Youtube, but I can't find many newspaper mentions. It is false to assert that Israeli deaths from stoning are never reported abroad. Or at least, we have wiki articles on nearly all victims of such acts, and each such event is widely documented in the foreign press.

'but then why does Palestinian stone throwing give it a see also?' I don't understand that. 'See' as a noun has the sense of a a diocese or bishoprick (not bishop's prick - you never know these days if those chaps have flashing habits:)) Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC from Palestinian stone-throwing

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Should the result of RfC on 'sister article' (Palestinian stone-throwing) be applied to this article as well? (Result:There is a consensus against inclusion of incidents without their own Misplaced Pages articles) Settleman (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - What are you saying was the result of the RFC? What changes are you proposing to this article? Please specify. -- Andrewaskew (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The result was - Only incidents which has their own articles are notable enough to be included in the article about the subject. Other incidents are considered minor and thus should not be included. Settleman (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

* YES - The arguments brought up by User:Roscelese about WP:NOTABILITY etc' are as relevant to this article as they were a year ago on the other RfC and thus, the incident list should include only incidents with their own Misplaced Pages article according to the old consensus. Settleman (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)Blocked Sockpuppet!--TMCk (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, it's unnecessary to include non-notable individual incidents. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• YES - If information is sufficiently notable to meet the criteria for inclusion under WP:NOTE, then an article should be created for it, before it is listed elsewhere. The consensus achieved here is generally applicable to this situation and should be . -- ExParte 02:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - strongly. The suggestion not include events which were not covered in other WP pages (but covered in multiple RS) goes directly against WP:NPOV which requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.". I also doubt that a similar RfC on another page has any force as directly contradicting our core policies. My very best wishes (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: I'd just like to clarify, the cited portion at WP:NPOV seems to be in relation to all significant views, not necessarily information. Furthermore, the discussion here appears to indicate that the information itself is not significant, so I do not believe that WP:NPOV could be applied to this situation directly, or indirectly. Thanks! -- ExParte 02:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• How come? According to RfC, Only incidents which has their own articles are notable enough to be included in the article about the subject. However, Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source and not a proof of notability of anything. A page about something highly notable can be missing for a number of reasons. Usually, no one simply care to create a page. This RfC is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV, one that attempts to make violation of WP:NPOV a rule. My very best wishes (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. per My very best wishes.Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment on general approach: The aim should be to list the most notable incidents as examples to further understanding of an article's subject regardless of whether they have a separate wiki article or not.--TMCk (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Strong agree For the same reasons mentioned in that discussion. In addition, I feel strongly that both articles should be treated equally, to avoid bias in our covering of the I/P-conflict. Debresser (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

In this specific context, bias in the I/P conflict arises from the frenetic activity to create articles on Jewish/Israeli victims, and the austere restraint exercised by serious editors not to follow that lamentable abuse of WP:EVENT with the potentially parallel victims of Israeli violence. As Mt very best wishes acutely observed, the sum effect of what is being requested here is to violate WP:NPOV (and consolidate WP:Systemic bias). I might also add that the passage of this principle would provide a deleterious incentive to create victim articles in order to justify the relevant list. Nishidani (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Says the guy who created the Zion Square assault article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, per Roscelese, it's unnecessary to include non-notable individual incidents. It is also bad for the encyclopedia to lack consistency, and we have applied this same standard on an identical article, for stone throwing by Arabs. Bad Dryer (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• Agree. Both articles should be treated the same. Shame on those who want these articles to be treated differently. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm., Everyone piling in, I see. None of this is notable? If Israeli/Jews are injured, you make articles about them because it is notable. If Palestinians are injured by Jewish stone throwing, it is not notable. Some concept of NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Yawn. See my comment just above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Agree. The same approach should be for both articles. Otherwise, it isn't a fair play. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I think this is an extremely daft way of finding out notable events. Article notability has nothing at all to do with due weight within an article. I was not aware of the other article or RfC in time, otherwise I would have opposed such a criterion myself. I am sure that Roscelese meant well, but this was simply a terrible idea. The I/P area is full of people who create WP:MEMORIAL articles on one side of the conflict. Nobody cares most of the time, and WP:AE refuses to act, generally. I think we should revisit the RfC on the other page as well, and run both of the RfCs together, to control for !votes whose only way of thinking is a partisan one. Lastly, the effect of this would be to increase the systemic bias Israeli deaths are relatively rarer and much more well covered than Palestinian deaths, simply because Israel has many more newspapers which are considered reliable on WP. It is natural for a national newspaper to focus on the deaths of their own citizens. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • What deaths? I don't see a single Palestinian death from "Jewish Israeli stone throwing" (just the title makes you wonder) listed in this article. Apparently some people won't allow Israeli fatalities to be listed in the other article, but want to list every single incident they can find here, even those that didn't result in any reported injuries. "Some concept on NPOV", eh? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I have struck out that part of my comment. Regarding your latter statement, I in fact recommended that both RfCs should be run together to handle WP:NPOV issues. Therefore, I fail to see the point of the random insinuation in your comment. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• • "simply because Israel has many more newspapers" @Kingsindian: Try once to count (in relevant articles) a number of NGOs, a main task of which is condemnation of Israel for any reason, and then tell us about results. (:( Btw, can you or anyone else, tell us what is the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor (EMHRM), so used as RS in the List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict along with Amnesty, and whether we do should treat it as a RS? --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It is true that there exist Israeli NGOs which are very honourable and do important work. But actually the shoe is on the other foot. Israeli NGOs are quoted routinely, precisely because reporters want to cover their ass and quote an Israeli one instead of a Palestinian one. It is not as if Palestinian NGOs don't exist. Al-Haq is ten years older than B'Tselem - how many people quote Al-Haq? Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

There aren't only Israeli NGOs, but a lot of all (pro) Palestinian ones, widely referenced in the articles, such as B'tselem, and - EMHRM, etc. Btw, can you say something about it? --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Agree This whole article seems like a borderline WP:AfD-case. I agree with No More Mr Nice Guy that listing every incident where somebody threw a stone would seem to fail WP:NOTABILITY and WP:DUE. Can I add that the title of the article is terrible? "Jewish Israeli stone throwing"? It makes it sound either as a national pastime or some quaint local sport. Jeppiz (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The article was hived off from the other article, as mentioned in the very first section of the talk page. I don't think the article should exist as a stand-alone either - it should be incorporated in the other article. But people just want to keep the other article as pristine "Palestinians as terrorists" article. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

To an outside reader, both articles are bad and fraught with WP:POV and WP:SYNT problems. I won't get involved in either of the articles, they seem to be roughly equally bad. Jeppiz (talk) 22:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The objections are based on a rather insouciant reading of what is actually written on that page. Everything is being systematically removed as though we were dealing with an identical 'list' to the one formerly in Palestinian stone throwing. If you examine it, the year summary refers, as often as not, to material for a phenomenon over time, not to a list of incidents. The removal therefore is not justified in terms of the RfC on the other page, which dealt with lists. Iì'm astonished at this carelessness.Nishidani (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

E.g., even if one accepts the analogy, it cannot justify the blanket cancellation of the following material.

• 1980s

Haredi attacks, involving both stone throwing, violent clashes with the police, vandalism arson at bus stops, broke out in 1985-1986 to protest posters showing what they regarded as immodest women.

• 2009

Jewish Orthodox Israelis threw stones at passing cars throughout the year to protest infractions of the Sabbath. Large scale protests broke out, involving stone throwing in June and July in response to the opening of a car park near the Old Quarter of Jerusalem. On 9 August, the Jerusalem city mayor Nir Barkat was stoned by dozens of ultra-orthodox demonstrators who held him responsible for the car park's opening.

This material is perfectly valid as summarizing periods, and is everywhere on Misplaced Pages in non-list articles. The collapsing of both into one 'stuff for removal' suggests WP:IDONTLIKEIT. not any identifiable consensus or policy.Nishidani (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. As I already noted above, this RfC is not valid (no matter the outcome) as something clearly undermining our basic WP:NPOV policy. And what is the prevailing argument in support? That a similar violation of policy had happened on another page. My very best wishes (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Well. nobody here seems to agree with you even remotely. By the way, this is not an Rfc, but a regular discussion. Debresser (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

That means I'm Odysseus, i.e. 'Nobody'. For as above, I repeat, I agree with MVBW, who happens to be neutral. Nishidani (talk) 09:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean "neutral"? Are you suggesting anybody here is not neutral? Please stop the innuendo, personal attacks, etc. How much longer will you continue poisoning the well at every opportunity? Debresser (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Lack of edit summaries

Where are the edit summaries in the revisions here? What are you objecting to here @Dan Murphy:? This is just devolving into a naked edit war as the last 4 reverts have not had any edit summary. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

How about the removal of Yehoshua Kolodny, the removal of Morris on Deir Yassin survivors? nableezy - 17:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

• Proposing a merger into Criminal rock throwing.
• The article, by its existence, and, explicitely, in the lede asserts a "practice" of Jewish and Israeli stone throwing, what it describes as the "the Israeli practice of throwing stones at others". But there nothing at all persuasive to show that such a practice exists, either in the sense the rock throwing by Israelis is shown to be more common than ii is the world over, or in the sense that Israelis have developed an ideology of rock-throwing, or that they formally justify stone throwing with ideological arguments. In fact, evidence in the article and elsewhere shows quite the opposite, that Israel laws condemns stone-throwing, that Jewish religious and Israeli government leaders condemn stone throwing, that Jews are arrested and convicted by Israeli police and courts when they throw stones, the news articles, newspaper headlines, and pundits across the Israeli opinion spectrum condemn it. In fact, sources in the article and elsewhere demonstrate that this is not a topic, that there is nothing particular about stone throwing by Israelis about which to write an article. Whatever exists can be rolled into Criminal rock throwing. This article is a violation WP:OR and WP:SYNTHNOT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

:E.M.Gregory I believe what causing this mess (beyond the obvious bias of most editors involved) is the fact the "not all stones are made equal". While many incidents of rock throwing involves small rocks one may use to skip on water, many others include cement blocks weighting 10,20 lbs or more. Your chances of finding an academic source stating the obvious is exactly ZERO. With the industry of smear out there and the fact a title of HR NGO entitle such an organization as an RS almost automatically in the eyes of some, there isn't much we can do. Soon, the logo of Misplaced Pages will read "The Free Palestine Encyclopedia". Settleman (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Comment. Go to Tel Rumeida or Havat Ma'on any day of the week and watch children or shepherds being stoned by settlers. Google settlers+rock throwing on youtube, and you'll find hundreds of videos, as I once noted on the P stone throwing page with many links. You're saying this doesn't exist? Click, and watch.Nishidani (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Youtube is not a reliable, secondary source. Rock-throwing happens worldwide, what is lacking is a scholarly conversation about rock-throwing as an Israeli phenomenon.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

So, all of those videos are mocked up in the Pallywood studios? No one is saying Youtube is RS for wiki. They are saying you need the eys of Polyphemus after he met Odysseus not to see the obvious point being made above about 'reality'.Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, we don't know, do we, since they're not reliable sources. I can point you to about 1,000 videos on YouTube of cats trying to jump onto furniture and missing, but this is not reliable-source evidence that cats suck at jumping onto things; the opposite is actually the case. And see also WP:TRUTH. It's not our "job" as Wikipedians to present iffy news reporting, but to present facts about notable subjects that have received reliable, reputably published, secondary-source coverage, in a way that indicates a public consensus that what is being reported is not some fringe idea or propaganda. It's not clear that we have that here. And see all the discussion here; there seems to be a lot of back and forth about "Is is Israeli stoning, or Palestinian stoning?" Even Palestinian stone-throwing as a form of not-well-armed resistance against an occupying military force is not something we need a separate article about; it's just trivia to include in relevant articles on Palestine–Israel conflict. Finally, this is the cincher (from comments below by Nishidani): "at least one sector of the religious community ... does employ stone throwing extensively: it is frequently filmed, and rarely reported in print or studied." If it's rarely reported in print and rarely studied, WP doesn't write about it. And "at least one sector of the religious community ... does employ " is basically meaningless. You can insert almost anything there, like "does employ the use of running water" or "does employ motor vehicles".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  01:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Catching up. 'Even Palestinian stone throwing as a form of not-well-armed resistance against an occupying military force is not something we need a separate article about; it's just trivia to include in relevant articles on Palestine–Israel conflict.' Look at the article. It has a huge academic literature on it. As to the videos, they are mounted by B'tselem, a very reputable independent NGO, with accompanying commentary, something utterly different from private users mucking around with cats and cameras. Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hadn't realized that the article was locked, perhaps an administrator could add this to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment. 'many others include cement blocks weighting 10,20 lbs or more.' that's (20) heavier than a shot putt. The most concentrated, poised, athletically trained Olympian can get 16lbs over the 20 yard mark which is a third of the distance from which stones are usually thrown. So I'm looking forward to a gold for the Palestinian team at next year's Olympics (if any survive the snipers).Nishidani (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Settlers are rarely (if ever) prosecuted for such acts, and the rest of your "evidence" isnt at all relevant to whether or not this is a valid topic on Misplaced Pages. The correct way to deal with this is to have a single article Stone throwing in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and have it cover all aspects. But no, you want to be able to make a series of articles about Palestinians are baaad mmkay, and then censor anything that shows Jewish Israelis in the same light. Funny how that works out. nableezy - 18:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• No, the point is that there exists a massive literature theorizing, justifying and celebrating Palestinian stone throwing. Such a literature does not exist among Israelis. People all over the world throw rocks. What makes it legitimate to write about Palestinaian stone throwing is the uniqueness of the Palestinian ideology of stone-throwing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this Ha'aretz piece (cited in the article) makes a claim of rock throwing having deep roots in Israeli culture: “ is therefore an old Jewish custom, and the children of the intifadas did not invent it.” In any case, I don't see how merging this article into a list of unrelated and decontextualized incidents would solve any original synthesis problem. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that unemotionally. Palestinian stone throwing has been studied extensively, as opposed to Israeli/Jewish stone throwing. Palestinians throw stones under occupation. Israel, the occupying power, has no such incentive to resort to this method, since its settlers are armed to the teeth, and it has a powerful army that can shoot anyone 'rioting' against its occupation with relative impunity. Nonetheless, settlers, and at least one sector of the religious community (cf this ), does employ stone throwing extensively: it is frequently filmed, and rarely reported in print or studied. Your comparison, sociologically, is one between apples and oranges, therefore. When the Haredim stopped stone throwing as the First Intifada got underway, some of them spoke admiringly of the Palestinian stone-throwers' courage:'Those Palestinian don't run when the police come at them like our Hasidic guys do. They're taking revenge on the police for the way the police treated us when we demonstrated!" (Jonathan Boyarin, Palestine and Jewish History: Criticism at the Borders of Ethnography, University of Minnesota Press, 1996 p.198.

The error you consistently make in your blinkered campaign to sift this Palestinian phenomenon through the sieve of Western criminal law, where stone throwing rarely has any other motive than delinquent and homicidal hooliganism when it is not an extreme tactic among protestors (in neither case are police in democracies permitted to shoot stone throwers at sight, as Israeli forces are entitled to do) means nothing more than that you have a set of confused assumptions about a world you do not appear to want to understand. I don't approve of stone throwing: I do think one must understand it, and analyse its complex origins in a milieu foreign to mine. This is not about approbation, but the sociopolitical and psychological analysis of another world (just as alien to most of us as the Haredim or Neturei Karta or indeed radical rabbinical theological yeshiva thinking is). When you study what is incomprehensible, you do best to exercise detachment, otherwise what you write or do will simply be a violent extension of parochial prejudice. I was reading last night Lord Owen's meditations on the simplistic idiocy of Tony Blair who went to war because he with manic narcissism identified himself with Churchill in going against Saddam Hussein (for Blair =Hitler), when he was just a religious obsessive deluding himself about the apocalyptic powers of a relatively broken tinpot regional dictator. (Jonathan Bailey, ‘The Political Context: Why We Went to War and the Mismatch of Ends, Ways and means,’ in Jonathan Bailey,Richard Iron, Hew Strachan (eds.)British Generals in Blair's Wars, Ashgate 2013 pp.5-26 p.8 The relevant scholarship says we went to a war that has destroyed the livelihoods of several million protected Christians in Iraq and Syria because two dimwits, he and Bush, were so obsessed with Biblical assumptions they refused to listen to the consensus of scholars who predicted that the invasion would cause a decades' long period of utter chaos. I.e. they didn't try to understand the alien world in its terms: they imposed their prejudices on it, and wrought havoc in unleashing the dogs of war, just as the Israeli government is doing by shootings dozens of underage stone throwers every month) These obvious considerations will have no impact here whatsoever.Nishidani (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani did a very decent job when he started this article and after some more additions in keeping it 'Jewish'. Then as part of the late mess in the relevant articles (all involved editors know what I refer to), the anti-Palestinian became part of it as well. Now, Settler violence has its own lengthy article so while this type of practice should be mentioned here, the article was recently doubled which IMO is WP:UNDUE. Settleman (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Jewish Israeli stone throwing has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This edit request to Jewish Israeli stone throwing has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This edit request to Jewish Israeli stone throwing has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This edit request to Jewish Israeli stone throwing has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.