Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:20, 29 October 2015

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

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) 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. 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)

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)

• I am not denying that rocks get thrown, I am pointing out that your creation of an article about Israeli rock throwing as a phenomenon, a "practice", violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTHNOT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Including a source from 1902 and a cutesy Yiddish song also fail Israeli-Jewish. Settleman (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course, because a source on stone throwing by Jews mentioned it. Policy flag waving as a substitute for analysis is no answer. Show why a phenomenon so called, and frequently documented, should not be here. WP:SYNTH and WP:OR don't mean what you take them to mean.Nishidani (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

You have a whole article about settler violence (which as we know is done by tiny minority). Can you explain why this article should become a copy paste of the other one (except for the obvious reason). Why haven't you included it in a few months ago when you wrote it? (I somewhat suspect you were aware of the phenomena at that point). Settleman (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Focus. Find concrete points. Don't make counterfactual claims if you wish to be heard (copypaste of other article).Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me try again which my focusmeter set in the opposite of when I made my previous comment - blah, blablah, blablah. Can you comment now? Settleman (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support merge (to the proposed article and, in summary form, to relevant article(s) on Israel–Palestine conflict). This being a current "assault wave" in Israel is just news, and can be covered in a section there. And it's not "Jewish Israeli stone throwing". There is nothing innately Jewish and Israeli about it. Having an article like this is like having one called African-American pistol shootings in Oakland, or Puerto Rican and Cuban Florida car burglaries. That a demographic in a region is, at some point in time, statistically correlated with a particular kind of crime more than some other neighboring ethnicity is a trivial intersection, a non-encyclopedic coincidence. Rock throwing as individual assault and stoning as punishment and "neighbor war" have existed all over the world since prehistory. Proto-humanity's first weapons were rocks and sticks.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  01:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. These pages might be merged into something like Criminal rock throwing in Israel, not to the article suggested above. My very best wishes (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Can't be done under that title, since most of the rock throwing here does not take place in Israel.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. But it seems that Palestinian stone-throwing is a distinct phenomenon that needs a separate page. However, I think that "Palestinian" (or another word) should denote a territory, rather than any ethnic group. My very best wishes (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 October 2015

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

The year heandings under "Timeline of incidents" (1980s, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, & 2015) each need an additional equals sign to turn them into subsections of that heading. Thanks. Andrewaskew (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

A silly question...

What does the The Sergeants affair paragraph doing here? It doesn't mention stones or rocks and even the full article just mentions "to leave no stone unturned" or gravestones. Am I missing something? Settleman (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Stone throwing by Jews to protest the use of force by UK soldiers, which led to a further escalation of force by the UK soldiers/government against what they called terrorists.Dan Murphy (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Bottom-line is that this article is mostly WP:SYNTH. Users clearly engaging in WP:Original Research for WP:POINTY WP:POV WP:BATTLEGROUND reasons. Highlighting the above incident is part of that record. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Jewish Israelis weren't stone throwing in response to violence by an occupying power?Dan Murphy (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, WP:POINTY bs from bs provocateur. There is a whole mythos around Palestinian stone-throwing, objectively. Not for Jewish Israelis, for a variety of reasons, like power dynamics, to which I'm sure you would agree. But if you want to waste your time making a stupid equivalence go ahead. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 October 2015

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

"leading to the growth of the practice" is not a conclusion directly tied to the facts. If the facts support the leniency by Israeli military, so be it, it should be stated and sourced, but a further conclusion is merely an opinion and for purposes of this article is not supported by any authoritative (if there even can be one) opinion. 74.101.51.219 (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 October 2015

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

This statement: The IDF website brands all Palestinian stone-throwing as 'unprovoked', and as 'threats to the stability of the region', and yet Beinart thinks it absurd to characterize behaviour by 'people who have lived for almost a half-century under military law and without free movement, citizenship or the right to vote,' unprovoked. should be reference with a specific reference to the mentioned website. Otherwise it has no basis in fact. 74.101.51.219 (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:55, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 October 2015

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

This statement is not complete and is therefore biased: In May 2015 The Netherlands warned its citizens about travelling near West Bank settlements in the following terms.

"Jewish settlers live in illegal settlements in the West Bank . . These settlers organize on a regular basis demonstrations close to the roads. These demonstrations are sometimes violent. This happens when settlers throw rocks toward Palestinian and foreign vehicles."

Going directly to the referenced source, the article states, "The advisory also focused on violence by Arabs, urging tourists to be wary of the “unstable” situation in the region and warning Dutch citizens not to travel to areas of Jerusalem.

“Palestinians demonstrate regularly against the occupation in various places,” it noted, adding that “these demonstrations sometimes involve violence. There are always Israeli soldiers present during these demonstrations. Avoid demonstrations. Recently, there have been violent incidents in the border area between east and west Jerusalem. They are aimed at Israelis. Be alert in those areas and avoid public transportation.”" 74.101.51.219 (talk) 01:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• (1)The above should be redrafted.

'The Dutch government issued a travel advisory warning prospective tourists of security risks throughout the West Bank and East Jerusalem, esp .near settlements in the Nablus and Hebron areas. Jewish colonists regularly mount demonstrations, sometimes violent, on roads, at times involving stone throwing at cars. Palestinian demonstrations against the occupation are also at times violent, it added. Israeli soldiers are present at the latter. It advised avoided public transport in East Jerusalem, where violent incidents aimed at Israelis occur.

• (2) For 2009. An ambulance carrying an aged resident of Tel Rumeida back home was subject to two rock assaults by settler children at a checkpoint in Hebron. Soldiers were present. No action was apparently taken against the stone throwers.

Not done: The requester is blocked, and the page is no longer protected. — Mr. Stradivarius 04:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

References

1. 'Dutch Warn of Violent Jewish 'Colonists' on West Bank,' The Forward / JTA 2 June, 2015
2. Testimony: Settlers throw rocks at ambulance transporting patient while soldiers stand idly by, Hebron, April '09,' B'tselem April 2009.

List of incidents

There was a Rfc at Talk:Palestinian_stone-throwing/Archive_1#RFC:_List_of_incidents regarding lists of incidents, which conclusion was by a large majority that "there is a consensus against inclusion of incidents without their own Misplaced Pages articles". I see no reason to apply this consensus only to Palestinian stone-throwing, and so I applied it here as well. Nishidani reverted me, rejecting the idea that the consensus there can be applied here as well. I see no reason for such a conclusion, and would argue that it is discriminatory to apply different yardsticks to Palestinian and Jewish Israeli stone throwing. Debresser (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I just now saw that this was discussed above at #RfC from Palestinian stone-throwing and there was a 3-1 consensus (now 4-2 with Nishidani against and me in favor) that the answer is "yes". Debresser (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That is still an open RfC and you are anticipating its closure, which would require another few weeks. I for one never noticed it, though an interested party, no one told me of this. As argued, there are literally several hundred lists on Misplaced Pages with huge amounts of material that does not have its own article. Unless you wish to nuke that huge, and consensual encyclopedia building work, you must get consensus on each article.

I doesn't help that you have broken 1R 4 times on this page, have been notified on your page, and still edit without reverting back to the original page. Do you really think you can persist in this impunity, with the by now months long tolerance of courteous editors who so far have refrained mostly from reporting you? You are obliged to restore the mass of material you cancelled, and propose that it be removed here.Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That Rfc was opened on October 26, so its closure is overdue. In addition, as I said, I made the edit before I saw the Rfc, based on common sense. Debresser (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I have not broken 1RR, as you can see on my talkpage, and I ask you to stop poisoning the well. Debresser (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Per the RfC at the other page, and the section titled RfC (that doesn't look like an active RfC to me), there's an explicit consensus that individual incidents should not be listed unless they have their own article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This page never had an RfC template, requesting wider output as far as I can see, and almost no one has participated. There is as it stands, no consensus because of the marginal difference in the latter factor. I've added a formal request for such a discussion.Nishidani (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The difference is not marginal, there are 4 yes to 2 no, which makes it 2:1. And there's also the other RfC which addresses the same question only in another article. You wouldn't be advocating we use a different standard for these two similar articles, would you? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Caption

As to the Tove Johansson caption, it can be crafted from the details (settlers nota bene) and sourced to

• Saree Makdisi, Palestine Inside Out: An Everyday Occupation, W. W. Norton & Company, 2010 p.211

• William A. Cook, The Plight of the Palestinians: A Long History of Destruction, Palgrave Macmillan, 2010 p.126

Why do we have a picture of a bloody victim in this article but a picture of perpetrators in the other one? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

according to both of those accounts, she was hit in the face with a bottle wielded by an attacker - why is this image even here, in an article about stone throwing? Nothing was thrown AFAICT. Bad Dryer (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I'll remove it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Correct name

Two questions:

1. Should it be Jewish Israeli, Israeli Jewish, Jewish-Israeli, Israeli-Jewish, Jewish or Israeli?
2. Should it be "stone throwing" or "stone-throwing" as at Palestinian stone-throwing?

Debresser (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The Hebron community website is not a reliable source

Particularly when using farcical material like this An open letter to Swedish Ambassador, when we have two book sources that describe the incident in detail, and say soldiers stood aside as settlers spat and attacked, leading to that gashing. The edit also destroyed the formatting . This page needs page protection.Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree this edit should be reverted. In addition, no need for that many details in a caption. That is not normal for captions. Not to mention WP:UNDUE. Debresser (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)