Talk:Jewish Israeli stone-throwing

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.

RFC's are not a vote, they are based on strength of argument and strongly consider policy and guidelines. NPOV is a core policy and can not be overcome or ignored. As pointed out by My very best wishes and others this RFC would violate NPOV. Using the quote again "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". If instances exist in reliable sources they should be included per WP:WEIGHT, the lack of an article on the wiki is not suitable reason to ignore or remove them. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to ignore policy. Consensus is therefore against the question. AlbinoFerret 20:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

---

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [applied]. -- ExParte ^{talk | contribs} 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 ^{talk | contribs} 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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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.

Lack of edit summaries

Where are the edit summaries in the revisions here? What are you objecting to here @Dan Murphy:[1]? 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 Wikipedia 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 [Israeli] 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 [whatever] religious community ... does employ [something not actually tied to their religious or other cultural practices]" is basically meaningless. You can insert almost anything there, like "does employ the use of running water" or "does employ motor vehicles".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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 Wikipedia. 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: “[Stone-throwing] 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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)

Either merge this and Palestinian stone throwing into a single Stone throwing in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or keep two separate articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmcintyre1959 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 October 2015

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

"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 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.[18] 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 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 ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

References

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

RfC template

Legobot removed an RfC template I put there yesterday, since the section on this never had, as was appropriate, a request for input from the wider community. Can this be restored, to stop any temptation for incestuous vote stacking by either 'side'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs)

Strong oppose for various reasons. 1. There was already an Rfc at the other article, and since these two article are so much alike, I see no reason to assume the consensus here will or should differ from the consensus there. 2. The section has been commented on very nicely, and I think we have all the input we need. 3. Consensus is clear already, and there is no reason to suppose it will change by asking wider input. 4. That section was opened over a month ago, and I think you are simply trying to stall the inevitable. Debresser (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The RfC ran the full 30 days. One can't really force people to comment if they don't want to. There was no formal close, but the consensus seems clear enough, so even if one goes through the motions, the result won't change. My suggestion, if one wants to pursue this, is to make a joint RfC reconsidering the RfC on the other page and this page together. This will address concerns about NPOV. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

That is, if it would be a good idea to reconsider that Rfc, which there seems to be consensus it is not. Debresser (talk) 07:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see anyone comment on all on reconsidering the RfC at the other page, except for me. Kingsindian ♝♚ 07:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani [2] and I also agree. Three is a consensus. Debresser (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure an reconsidering an RfC which was closed almost a year ago counts as "rapidly". But I am not going to do anything. I just suggested a course of action. Kingsindian ♝♚ 19:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Debresser. I concurred on Palestinian stone-throwing. I do not think that this applies to this article, for a number of reasons. If the RfC at the former concludes that no item of information can be added to an article unless it itself has an article, as it is being interpreted, the RfC in this nook and cranny would, thus applied, devastate a huge number of wiki articles. Secondly, the RfC was done when the Palestinian stone throwing was in a very primitive state, and few answered. One obvious way to clarify the ambiguity caused by that closure (can all news items be elided, or does it mean only items in a list (which I think was the intention), is to add the RfC request here, and allow a full outside input on the issue as from today. That will allow us to clarify whether this inference from the PST RfC is legitimate or not for this and probably thousands of other articles.Nishidani (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The RfC here was removed by Legobot, a mechanical moron, furthermore.Nishidani (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

In order to nip in the bud what seems to be shaping into an excuse to reopen that RfC, I will concede it applies only to lists of incidents. Now someone kindly explain why you can't list incidents there but can list them here. I'd also like to know if listing incidents but adding a bit of text and maybe a header or two makes it less of a list than just bulletpoints. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Edits by IP

@100.33.126.154: Please discuss your edits on the talk page. It is not permissible to edit war even if you think you are correct. Kingsindian ♝♚ 02:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Breaking 1R and edit warring again by Debresser

Neither of these sources mentions Orthodox Jews. One source mentioned settlers, which is not the subject of this article This is a false edit summary, since the lead says ‘Jewish Israeli stone throwing refers to Jewish Israelis throwing stones, either by settlers at Palestinians or by Orthodox Jews who believe the territory belongs to them and wish to police it from any opposition.,’ meaning the article of settlers throwing stones is the subject of the article.

You left in ‘Orthodox Jews’ which was an error, and I replaced this by Haredi Jews, which you, in a second revert, also expu nge.

2nd revert. This is under a 1R sanction, and you refuse to abide by the rules. You had a point about on inappropriate source, but the rest of your edit was completely unmotivated.

What you do is write 'failed verification' in that first source. I will eliminate it when I revert you tomorrow, and add the following easily found sources to supplement the sentence.

Michael Segalov, 'Israeli policewoman protected by Palestinians as settlers throw rocks at authorities,' The Independent 8 August 2015

Oz Rosenberg, 'Haredi Men Throw Rocks at 'Immodest' Woman and Her Baby in Beit Sdhemesh,' Haaretz 21 June 2012

Both these cover the fact that settlers and the Haredi throw stones, which, precisely, is what this article is about.Nishidani (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

You are right. Both that I made a mistake when I said that this article is not about settlers, and that the source was in the wrong location because it didn't mention Haredi stone-throwing. I have undone my edit, while moving the sources higher up in the sentence, where it mentions settlers. Please notice that there is long-standing consensus to avoid the term "ultra-Orthodox Judaism", which is perceived as a pejorative. If you want I can try to find where this was discussed. Debresser (talk) 09:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Notability

Is there a topic here?

Standard of inclusion in the article seems to be if a Jew picks up a rock, whether in Mandatory Palestine, or in the State of Israel, throws it, and it gets into the newspaper: it belongs in the article. WP:COATRACK.

See, by contrast, the articles in such categories as Category:Political campaign techniques, Category:Terrorism tactics, or, Category:Propaganda techniques. Articles in these categories such as Potemkin village, or Martyrdom video define a type of activity, give his history, and are sourced to RS articles discussing the nature, purpose and impact of these phenomenon.

Topics, if this is a topic, require sources that address the topic as a topic. If Jewish Israeli stone throwing is a topic, there should be WP:SIGCOV of it as a phenomenon. Anyone who wants to remove the notability tag should locate and add such articles. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Either the title or the lede is wrong

"Jewish Israeli stone throwing refers to Israelis throwing stones." This is patently incorrect. Israel is a plurireligious country. Therefore, if the article is about "Jewish Israeli stone throwing," then the article must refer to Jewish Israeli stone throwing on the lede. If, on the other hand, the article is about Israelis throwing stones, then the title of the article ought to be "Israeli stone throwing." XavierItzm (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Considering the "Historical incidents" section is about Palestinian Jews (yes - pre May 1948 and the decision on the new name Israel (which was not clear a-priori) - Jews in the Yishuv called themselves Palestinians (e.g. Anglo-Palestine Bank => Leumi Bank) - contrasted with Arabs whom many held pan-Arab aspirations) - the scope of this article is rather unclear.Icewhiz (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Considering that this whole article was created to make a POINT (see first edit), that is not surprising. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Article was created to conform with Wikipedia notability standards and practices, as amply demonstrated at Palestinian stone throwing, nothing more. I'll fix the lead for consistency as requested by my good faith pals, one of whom seems a bit confused about the difference between Mandate Palestine and the ethnic identity "Palestinian." (Edit: It was already fixed by someone else! Hooray us!)Dan Murphy (talk) 05:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Possible solution

• This WP:COATRACK could be improved by deleting the irrelevant "historical" section. The poorly sourced "By settlers" can redirected to Israeli settler violence, where it belongs. As for the section on a single incident where Ethiopians threw stones, it gives WP:UNDUE to a Peter Beinart opinion column. That leaves Haredi stone throwing. I am not sure that it is a topic, but it is the only part of this article that comes close to being one. Once we remove the rest of the COATRACK, the article could be renamed Haredi political violence, which may be an actual topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

RfD

Are there contributors who would disagree to delete this article ? I don't see any notoriaty to this topic.
(And of course, the 'real' topic, referring to Palestinian stone throwing, should not gather anything before the 1st intifida - unless WP:RS secondary sources did.
Pluto2012 (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe the two articles should be merged. Zero^talk 06:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

We can discuss but I don't agree with the merging.

What is known and notorious is the fact that Palestinians have thrown stones since the Intifada.

The idea that Palestinians can also be Jewish Palestinians before 1948 and threw stones at the time is a WP:POV and WP:UNDUE and should not be reported. The fact that some settlers throw stones is just a kind of propaganda to compare what is not comparable. It could be added in the article (the other one, not this one) if and only if reliable and notorious sources compare the events (ie, eg not Arutz Sheva)...

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Pluto and his reasons. Debresser (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The great obstacle to merging this with Palestinian stone throwing is that Palestinian stone-throwing is a coherent topic with a great deal of serious discussion (much of it supportive of rock throwing for political ends,) of it as a phenomenon. And teh topic does not include the comparatively trivial matter of Jews throwing stones.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I suspect that haredi (ultra orthodox stone throwing) might be notable - but none of the others, and that these different uses are usually not discussed as a group (as they arise in totally different circumstances).Icewhiz (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it might be to move the "Haredi" section of this article to an article on Ultra-orthodox political violence, on the model of Israeli settler violence, which is certainly the correct place to discuss stone-throwing by settlers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Most of the Israeli settlers are Ultra-orthodox and all Ultra-orthodox who are notable for throwing stones are settlers.

So both these articles could be merged... What is your mind ? Pluto2012 (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

1. On Wikipedia we use "Haredi" instead of "ultra-orthodox". 2. Most settlers are not Haredi, rather nationalistic-religious. Debresser (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed - most of the people you are calling settlers are not haredi - and the haredi violence stone throwing is mostly in Jerusalem (the western part - particularly in Mea Shearim, Bnei Brak, and Beit Shemesh. The motivations for the haredi stone throwing (which I'm not sure is stand alone notable - but maybe) - are quite different from settler groups.Icewhiz (talk) 11:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I think there is general agreement that today's Israeli Jewish stone throwing generally arises from two different sources, and probably for diverse reasons: settlers and Haredis.XavierItzm (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Palestinian stone throwing is a thing. It has wide coverage. It appears in detailed academic works. The Palestinians are proud of it. "Jewish Israeli stone throwing" (wonderful title, by the way) is just a fishing expedition for anything that mentions a Jew throwing a stone in Israel. It is not a thing. Merging the two makes little sense. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. But do I understand properly and do you agree also that Jews throwing stone is not a notorious event. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I think this article is a list of incidents collected by editors, rather than a coherent thing discussed by reliable sources. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

POV

Lede reads: "it has been claimed that Jewish Israelis receive more lenient sentencing than others" - sourced to a single news article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree, so removed. Debresser (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Everyone knows it is true, including both of you, and you could find more sources if you bothered. Zero^talk 18:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It hard to compare actuaĺly - as the West Band residents are tried under a completely different legal system - the underlying legal code is different - being based on Jordanian law, per Israel's decision to follow int. law legal conventions on the held territories. Israeli citizens are tried in Israeli courts. Futhermore, rates of recidivism are different, and repeat offenders are punished much more severely.Icewhiz (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

What a lot of baloney. West Bank Palestinians are tried in military courts with 99.74% conviction rate (2010 figures). That is, for practical purposes West Bank Palestinians are always found guilty so it doesn't make the least difference what penal code they are supposedly being tried under. It isn't even true in theory; lots of the charges and penalties are determined by military orders, not by Jordanian law. By comparison, complaints of things like stone throwing against settlers are rarely investigated even when filmed. Zero^talk 20:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Zero is correct: by military order (tzav aluf), Israeli penal law is applied uniformly over the territories. Debresser (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Gutting on multiple pages

At 'Palestrinian stone-throwing long-stable text was repeatedly excised by Icewhiz.

• Not the main article - covers non-settlers on the one hand, and on the other hand doesn't cover gunfire towards stone throwers
• not a reaction to stone throwing, but to Israeli gvmt actions
• Not a settler reaction to stone throwing
• Not in source. Also patently false. This may have been true in a certain time and place - but not as a blanket stmt. In any event fails verification
• Not RS - definitely not for unattributed blanket stmt
• These 3 alleged incidents are not alleged to be reactions to alleged Palestinian stone throwing

Since I will be automatically reverted there for the usual, 'revert Nishidani if he reverts' reasons, I will ask you here to justify your hacking out a good deal of the material I placed here from those edits.

• Not about stone throwing by settlers
• about stone throwing by settlers
• Poorly sourced

All of this is a behavioural problem, but do us the courtesy of giving a rational policy-based explanation for these excisions. I can see only one that stands, the 'not in source', which took 30 seconds to fix because the source cited had been confused on the page with another source by the same author. For the rest all of those excellent sources mention Jewish Israeli stone-throwing and its contexts.Nishidani (talk) 10:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You inserted off-topic (in a different manner) content in both articles. I will reply to the set of 3 diffs in this article - discuss the other one other there -

1. Not about stone throwing by settlers - as the edit summary states, this is not about stone throwing by settlers. It is about alleged use of gunfire and arson, by settlers, in reaction to Palestinian stone throwing. As it is not about "Jewish Israeli stone throwing"("By settlers" subsection) it is off topic in this article which is about stone throwing by "Jewish Israelis".
2. Not about stone throwing by settlers - as the edit summary states, this is not about stone throwing by settlers. It is about alleged use of gunfire and roadblocks, by settlers, in reaction to Palestinian stone throwing. As it is not about "Jewish Israeli stone throwing"("By settlers" subsection) it is off topic in this article which is about stone throwing by "Jewish Israelis".
3. Poorly sourced - use of PRIAMRY testimony in a book by an activist to make a blanket stmt about what happens in a wide geographical region (Hebron hills - covering approx. half of the southern half of the West Bank) from a primary account relating to a very small village (Al Bowereh).

This article has a topic. Material inserted here should match the topic - if we look at both articles, I left what was relevant in each one (with the exception of material that was poorly sourced and misrepresented) - leaving material connected to "settler responses to Palestinian stone throwing" in that article, and material connected to "Jewish Israeli stone throwing" in this article. In as much as there was "Jewish Israeli stone throwing in reaction to Palestinian stone throwing" - I left it in both articles.Icewhiz (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No. All of those sources are cited because they mention stone-throwing. The last objection is silly. First you removed it as not RS, now you say it is a poor source. It is reliably published under a small but important publisher, Wipf and Stock Publishers. There is no policy on Wikipedia that automatically questions the usability of a book, reliably published, by a Christian who did three months of peace-keeping in Hebron, which relates what he saw, and your definition of WP:Primary is bizarre. All books reporting what their authors observed, if they come out under an important imprint, are usable. That he happens to have worked for Christian Peacemaker Teams does not make him an 'activist'. To the contrary. That group was officially invited there to calm tensions between the parties, not to exacerbate them.

The material on the Palestinian stone-throwing page is all drawn from sources that describe the phenomenon of stone-throwing in that nook of the Middle East called Palestine/Israel/Palestinian territories.

All events regarding stone-throwing must either be in that article, or in the Jewish Israeli stone throwing article. The sources all identify, and contextualize, stone-throwing from one of these two ethnic groups.

You removed a swathe of material from the Palestinian article, so I placed it in this sister article. You removed it from the latter as well. So you are required to explain why material mostly academically sourced to either Jewish Israeli or Palestinian stone-throwing can't be used on either page.

It's sheer chutzpah to pretend that relevant materials on one or the other cannot be allowed on either article. This is the first case I have come across of some editor saying reliably sourced material on a topic cannot be admitted to either of the two articles which cover that topic.

Unless you can show that the numerous RS you took out, do not mention the topic of stone-throwing, the edit summaries above are just chat, and therefore the material must be restored. No one questioned it for years on the other page. You alone jumped at it, with edit summaries that are silly. And if your beef if the 'settler' section, then the material should have been conserved by placing it elsewhere on the page, according to the thematic focus of each source. So far, all we have is WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Nishidani (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I left in most of the material - either in this article or the Palestinian one. As for the book by the CPT activist - it is a poor source - a primary account from an activist who was on the ground for 3 months - and is used to make an unattributed blanket allegation (both in time span and in geographic scope).Icewhiz (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

In your view it is a poor source. I might have treated your objection seriously if this was [Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources an exceptional claim]. It isn't as every Israeli should, and every broad reader of this specific topic area, does know because it is so widely and regularly reported. Even if you didn't know, all you needed to have done was google and you would have got numerous results textually corroborating the point the writer in question made. There are no excuses for pretending otherwise. I'll go and underscore it by further documentation, as usual. Familiarize yourself with the issues before reverting spuriously.Nishidani (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

As I see it, material that was removed was material that was poorly sourced. Nishidani, you should refrain from making demands that are not based in policy or guidelines. Icewhiz, or any removing editor, does not need to show that stone-throwing is not mentioned in the sources in order to be able to remove them, as you falsely claim. Rather, you, or any adding editor, need to show that stone-throwing is mentioned in it, and not just mentioned, but in a prominent and meaningful way, that makes it possible to use that source in this article. You have not even tried to do so, and even had you tried, you would have failed, because Icewhiz was correct in removing them for the reasons he mentioned in both the edit summaries and here above. Debresser (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I don 't use poor sources, period, Debresser. Go through my 66,000 edits with a fine tooth comb and try and prove that absurd charge. And, I read policy the same way over multiple pages, I do not, as is done regularly here, air an opinion with a nod towards some vague policy. Thirdly, if someone reverts, it is not enough to just step in and back them with some further revert saying: Are you real? 'I agree with my colleagues'. That is an abuse of English, since technically we are, from whatever POV, 'colleagues' here and you inadvertently and tellingly stated that you regard as colleagues only those with whose POV you concur, another example of sloppy reasoning with no policy basis.Nishidani (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Pointless diatribe, unable to make any point, but in passing showing 1. the disregard of this editor for Wikipedia policies and guidelines ("some vague policy"), 2. his belligerent attitude. Debresser (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Just on a point of correct English usage once more. Stating that you use the word 'colleague' in the unattested sense of 'someone whose views I share' is not a 'diatribe': it is a logical inference from they words you wrote. A diatribe in classical Greek can imply many things, like whiling away one's time in some pastime, which is a fair description of pointless comments like the above.Nishidani (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Egged Bus 300 incident

In the 1984 Egged Bus 300 incident, four Palestinian hijackers seized a bus and held its passengers hostage as ransom in order to negotiate their exchange with Palestinian prisoners in Israeli detention. Israeli forces managed to kill two of the hijackers, and detain the other two. It later emerged that a Shin Bet agent asserted he had subsequently killed the two captives by smashing their skulls with stones and a crowbar.

Icewhiz. How do you know that the rocks used to smash their skulls were not thrown? I don't know, excellent sources (Gidi Weitz 'New Testimonies on Bus 300 Affair Reveal How Lies Protected Israel's Secret Service,' Haaretz 6 April 2013) simply state that rocks/stones were one of the instruments used (not allegedly used) to smash their skulls. It is WP:OR to assume that they cannot have been thrown or hurled, and that they must have been directly held as the Shin Bet murderer bashed their skulls in. As you can see from my edit, I do not assert either that the rocks were thrown/hurled or used to crush their skulls directly. To cavil over whether the stone was released by throwing or not is beside the point. Stones are thrown/or used directly, to injure or, as often, to 'make a statement', and this incident's wholly peculiar recourse to stones is fair game, in my view, for the topic.Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Find a source that says they were thrown- it is OR to claim that they were. As someone who is familiar with the sources here - you will not find one - as it is alleged these Gazans were beaten (with various implements, stones included) at very close quarters.Icewhiz (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Find a source that says that Yahud held the stones in his hand as he shattered their skulls, otherwise it is WP:OR to assume that was the case.Nishidani (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

ONUS on you to show relevance. It seems rather unlikely one guy was bashing with a crowbar a foot away while another was hurling stones at Gazans and crowbar person, managing to hit only the Gazams. The accounts all speak of a beating, not a stoning.Icewhiz (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Nishidani. How do you know that the rocks used to smash their skulls were not directly held? I don't know, excellent sources (Gidi Weitz 'New Testimonies on Bus 300 Affair Reveal How Lies Protected Israel's Secret Service,' Haaretz 6 April 2013) simply state that rocks/stones were one of the instruments used (not allegedly used) to smash their skulls. It is WP:OR to assume that they cannot have been directly held, and that they must have been thrown or hurled as the Shin Bet counter-terrorist agent bashed their skulls in. To cavil over whether the stone was released by throwing or not is beside the point. Stones are thrown/or used directly, to injure or, as often, to 'make a statement', and the hostage rescuer's recourse to weapons at hand is completely unwarranted, in my view, for the topic.XavierItzm (talk) 05:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

If you read what I wrote above, you will observe that I for one do not know how that stone was used, since sources do not specify if it was thrown or used directly. I am saying that since we don't know, to exclude it on the grounds that it was not thrown is WP:OR. The logical reply is that inclusion also, via the title, involves the opposite, equally invalid inference. Knowing that I merely glossed the source's language 'smashed their skulls with a stone' etc., choosing to add it because the topic deals with the violent use of stones>/rocks to hurt, assail or remonstrate with adversaries. You might note that Byman, an estimable scholar, does cite it in the context of violence recourse to stone-throwing. My original academic source thought it relevant to that (our) topic, and I followed him. What struck me was their going into a field and picking up stones to kill off people battered by boots and guns and rifles for an hour or so. Going into a field, picking up a rock, and using it to kill Palestinians, most notorious for rock throwing (which Israel defines as a terrorist act) mirrors what the detested adversary is reproved for doing. Cf.

Yossi Melman Whg Gave the Order? Jerusalem Post 9 January 2013:' The two surviving hijackers were beaten and interrogated on the spot by military personnel, and then handed over to Ehud Yatom, the head of the Shin Bet’s operational department. Yatom and his team put the two terrorists in a van and drove to the nearest Shin Bet detention and interrogation center. But they never reached their destination. As instructed by Shalom, Yatom and his men stopped in a field, picked up rocks and smashed in the skulls of the two young terrorists. It was a brutal, cold-blooded killing.

Nishidani (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a BLPCRIME issue here since no one was convicted (the people with serious suspected involvement - were pardoned prior to trial - it is also not clear who did what) - which is why I used alleged. The exact details of the alleged beating (what implements exactly, who exactly (Yatom is known to have commanded the unit in the field - but which underlings)) - are not entirely ascertained (and there are a number of different versions). What is fairly clear is that the two Gazans died from blunt trauma to the head, after being captured.Icewhiz (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Look. You can't chant CRIME every time significant newspaper coverage names members of the Israeli military as involved in murder, coverups or general mayhem. (Tzipi Livni's famous proud boast: 'We really behaved like hooligans in there!' commenting on the havoc they wrought in the 2014 Gaza war). Did I say someone was convicted, or pardoned, or whatever. No. I simply said what Ehud Yahud and others present openly admitted or described as having happened, without going into details, and which is widely documented in newspapers read by the Israeli public. Nishidani (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

«I for one do not know how that stone was used, since sources do not specify if it was thrown or used directly». You can't provide WP:RS that the stones were thrown. Therefore, you can't include on this here article. XavierItzm (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

The simple meaning of "smashing" is not "throwing". Also note that he used "stones and a crowbar", and I don't think anybody will argue the crowbar was thrown! End of discussion, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I would have twigged that possibility if it were in my mothertongue. You are wrong, You're familiar with the story of Abimelech (Judges 9:53 where a woman dropped a millstone on his head and 'smashed his skull.' and indeed smash as the verb marking the consequence of an action at distance is widely discussed by linguists.

Current Trends in Linguistic Theory

Editorial UNED, 2012 p.110 n. 'The boy broke/smashed a window with a stone,' where the boy does not hold the stone as he smashes the window. See also

Marcello Giovanelli Teaching Grammar, Structure and Meaning: Exploring theory and practice for post-16 English Language teachers Routledge, 2014 p.80 where the implicit meaning implies distance.But you have ignored the fact that several people used stones/rocks against the two terrorists:

As instructed by Shalom, Yatom and his men stopped in a field, picked up rocks and smashed in the skulls of the two young terrorists

One is expected to believe that a number of men together or one after another, knelt down within arm's reach of each terrorist, and then smashed the hand-held rock each had, into their skulls. This is a rather bizarre ritual, if that is the way it occurred.

We cannot know in precise detail what happened. All we know is that some men used rocks to smash the hijackers' skulls. I can imagine one man kneeling beside another and bashing his head in with a rock, but the idea that his kneeling practice was sequentially imitated by other members of his team speaks of some weird ritual and not of how soldiers, even if intent on killing with rocks, finish someone off.Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Category for stone-throwing

@Debresser: since the article starts "Jewish Israeli stone-throwing refers to criminal rock-throwing activity", why remove it from Category:Criminal rock-throwing? Your edit summary[3] states "Already linked in article proper", but that does not explain removing it from membership of a category for what is clearly a wp:Defining topic. – Fayenatic London 21:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Obviously. My mistake. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Tagging

Debresser. You restored these tags. Why do you think all of those tags, on 4 respectable sources,are necessary?Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

There were 3 tags. Two "additional sources needed" and those were added, so no problem here. Remains only 1 issue, the "relevance" tag. The issue is that there is a lot of text based on the story of one soldier, and I don't think that whole detailed story is relevant. It is for sure it is undue attention to some story. Also some soldier is hardly a reliable source. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The anecdote is thought significant by the five authors of four books. That establishes relevance.

• (a) If five authors consider it important, editors comply with their judgment. The word 'relevance', at least in English, means 'The quality or state of being closely connected or appropriate.'
• (b) The article deals with Jewish stone throwing. The section deals with Jewish settler stone-throwing. The anecdote relates an incident of settlers, religious Jews, throwing stones at an old woman. It is perfectly consonant with the article topic, therefore. It is embarrassing to have to note what is so obvious it should never be the subject of contention.
• (c) It's not necessarily one soldier, see the wording of Joyce Dalsheim's account. Feige attributes it to one soldier. Noam Chayut mentions it in his memoir as having observed it, as does Yehuda Shaul. Both served as officers in Hebron, and, like the 'mute woman' whose home is repeatedly stoned by neighbouring Jewish children,(an anecdote I have ignored) the elderly woman may have to run the same stone gauntlet frequently, since it is mentioned in 2004, 2005 etc., in different sources.Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Pejorative language

@User:Nishidani, the stigmatizing term "ultra-Orthodox" is widely considered to be pejorative by Haredi and Hasidic Jews. It's a bigoted term that non-Haredim use to disparage Haredi and Hasidic Jews. I don't think it should be used on Wikipedia. Violent acts from a minority of Haredim is an example of extremism, but it's wrong to link extremism to Haredi Jews. I would suggest different wording, perhaps something like "Haredi extremists". Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Of course it's wrong to link extremism in violence to Haredis. Yaakov Shapiro, to cite but one, is a man one cannot but deeply admire, certainly not simply for his take on Zionism. The issue here is whose usage do we accept -common English usage, or a distinction that is now firm in infra-Jewish/Israeli Hebrew usage, where one distinguishes dati and haredim? Within the fold, 'ultra-orthodox' is often considered an aspersion (Samuel C. Heilman, Defenders of the Faith: Inside Ultra-Orthodox Jewry, University of California Press, 2000 ISBN 978-0-520-22112-3. Please note the title and the author's insistence on using 'ultra-orthodox' through that book, notwithstanding his recognition that there is an infra-Jewish/Israeli distinction that sees it as aspersive), but in English the O.E.D. does not recognize this nuance. And the term haredim is in any case not an autonym, but an exonym for them used by the orthodox: in their Yiddish usage they call themselves simply Yidn/erlicher Yidn (virtuous) Jews, and implicit in this is the idea that you are not 'Jewish' unless you follow strict Torah/Talmudic observances.

In English orthodox and ultra-orthodox are in opposition. You suggest we replace, in this case alone, the latter term in the opposition should be replaced by haredim. Haredim does not stand in opposition to orthodox in English usage. Most English users are unfamiliar with it, and would have to click on a link.

Introduce haredim, while sticking to 'orthodox' rather than introducing dati, rings no bell and breaks the antithesis or contrast. Secondly, is the term pejorative? Certainly not in American Jewish usage. When the Haredi rabbi Yaakov Shapiro describes himself as an ultra-orthodox Jew, here at 24:17-18 he is not being self-denigratory. This is the English Wikipedia, and there is no reason I can see for transforming natural usage to suit a very specific linguistic distinction which in any case is not apparently universal in the Jewish community. Google ultra-orthodox+Ynet and you get 75,000 hits. With Haaretz, the result is 204,000 hits, while The Times of Israel yields 2,760,000. This suggests that Israeli English, pitched to standards of intelligibility of usage among a foreign, Anglophone readership finds nothing objectionable in 'ultra-orthodox'.Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been using "Haredi" over "ultra-Orthodox", based on a consensus that this later term is pejorative. I have literally seen tens of replacements over the years. I think it was discussed once, but would have to look where. This is not something controversial, and has been going on for as long as I am aware. Debresser (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

'The term most commonly used by outsiders, including most American news organizations, is ultra-Orthodox Judaism'.Haredi Judaism

Link to the discussion on the putative achieved consensus, please.Nishidani (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

You can find it in the archives of the Haredi Judaism talkpage. It is the reason that article was moved there. Which is about the best proof possible that you should not use "ultra-Orthodox", as the big rule is to use the term that articles are on. Debresser (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I asked for a link to the precise discussion. You said it existed, so, apart from a question of courtesy, the onus on you is to provide that link requested, not to airily suggest I search for it.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The term most commonly used by outsiders, including most American news organizations, is ultra-Orthodox Judaism. Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Wiki policy is quite clear on this. The usage adopted must reflect the mainstream standard usage in English language sources. This is particularly true in this area because RS state that it is Chabad lobbying that accounts for pressure to substitute the standard ultra-orthodox term with Haredi.Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

You are back to introducing strife where there was none before. In short, 1. we use the term where the article is 2. there is no onus on me (that is your usual trick, to claim that other need to prove things) 3. No idea what RS you are talking about, or how it is relevant. As far as I am concerned, unless you establish a new consensus, this issue is closed. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

You are back to introducing strife where there was none before

Is a personal attack. Another example of the refusal to WP:AGF in my regard was asserting on your talk page that

Nishidani is back to his usual seeding controversy. A shame he came back from his umpteenth retirement. Nothing good ever came from his edits or comments.

A third example of the same, with an utterly irrational or misleading claim is your asserting again on that page

you should be too ashamed of yourself to come and complain on my talkpage. Where, by the way, you know very well that you are not welcome in general

This flies in the face of what we agreed to some 11 days ago in the following exchange.

• (me) Apologies for intruding on your page, but I require some input I think only you could provide it).
• (you in reply)You are welcome here.

Ie 11 days ago you welcomed me to comment there, and now challenge my doing so by insinuating that I knowingly was disruptive in simply placing a courtesy notice there, and willfully breaking an agreement not to post on your page, when you yourself say I am welcome to so.

I am banned (I still do not understand why) by Sandstein from making AE reports (which in any case I have only done twice in 14 years). This disagreement also would never cross my mind as requiring an AE report. But I am trying to edit a page 'rationally, in terms of policy, and by using high quality sources, and (a) my editing is reverted by someone who breaks 1R (b) no intelligible source based arguments are supplied in response to my request for logical arguments (c) I asked you to provide a link to the archives where you assert the problem of Haredi vs. 'ultra-orthodox' wsas solved. You refused to do so.

The evidence from the archives, it turns out, is by no means clear.

(1)This discussion was slim, with few users and dates to 2004

(2)was indecisive, when the question reemerged 5 years later in 2009.

(3) it was re-raised indeterminately again in September 2011

4) and again in July 2014 for which see this edit by Zero0000 8 July 2014.

The last happens to argue exactly the point I raised. English language mainstream sources in Israel and abroad do not validate the claim that 'ultra-orthodox' is a pejorative. It turns out, as further evidence I gave above shows, to be the default English term.

So this is not closed. I would prevail on you to drop personal accusations, address the substance of arguments made. Wikipedia is careless with its correct application of rules governing collegial behavior. You are in my view getting away with asserting what appears to be a unique right to break 1R and disparage editors with impunity.Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

While I can agree with Debresser that it would be preferable to stick with Haredi, if only to correspond with the present nomenclature being used on Wikipedia, I see no harm in allowing the use of the phrase ultra-Orthodox, a synonym for Haredi and a phrase no more pejorative than the word Ultraviolet. Havradim (talk) 13:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

With due respect, I don't think preferences decide such matters. Policy does.Wikipedia:ESTABLISHED reads:'If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources.'

No evidence given in archives or here contests the facts that (a) the default term in mainstream English language newspapers, in Israel and abroad, is 'ultra-orthodox', which is intelligible at sight, and (b) numerous sources deny that the term is pejorative. Distinctions like Hasid/Haredi/Dati/Orthodox are completely meaningless to non-Jewish ears and eyes generally. Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The difference between "haredi" and "ultra-orthodox" is that the first is Hebrew and the second is English. That is actually the complete story. As far as I am aware, all the English language newspapers published in Israel use "ultra-orthodox" very often: Jerusalem Post, Haaretz, Israel National News, Ynetnews.com, Israel Hayom. An extremely large number of academic publications, many by Israel scholars, use it. The idea that "ultra-orthodox" is pejorative is a modern fringe concept that should be mentioned in the main article but doesn't need to force us to use a Hebrew word that most English readers will not understand. Zero^talk 00:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

1RR now applied

Please edit accordingly. El_C 22:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The admin NeilN added the Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement header to this page, warning editors to respect the 1R rule, on 1 October 2015. Both I and Debresser have edited that page often in the past four years, and have been thoroughly familiar with the contents of that header over that period.Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Answered here. El_C 15:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

West Bank

Huldra, Why does west bank should be special and get a pipe a link? If you want to change it you should gain a new consensus if you want to change something WP:ONUS is on you. --Shrike (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

My point precisely.[4] "This link is not needed here, and is actually a bit misleading in this context." In the context of this sentence, this should link to a geographical location, which it did, not to politically loaded articles. This was a POV edit if ever I saw one!

Please also notice that it has been added recently, so the onus of proof it is needed is heavily on those who want to add it. Debresser (talk) 10:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

It was added by User: Bohemian Baltimore and he broke no consensus. In the past we had the Occupied Palestinian Territories a s a long-standing description. What happened is that this earlier Occupied Palestinian Territories was changed to West Bank by E. M. Gregory with this edit in May 2018, a POV push whose inanity consisted in excluding the Gaza Strip where settlers used to throw stones at Palestinians. Since we are dealing with an area of continual conflict and not simply a geographical entity, Bohemian Baltimore’s edit was in my view more than apposite. Nishidani (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Debresser that the version with links only to the various geographical entities is the most straightforward option. But in that vein, listing Mandatory Palestine is wholly inappropriate, both because it is an historical entity unlike the others, and because this is an article about Jewish Israelis, a classification that did not exist during that period. The phrase Mandatory Palestine should be struck, and the corresponding paragraph in the article needs to be moved to Palestinian stone-throwing, which should include all stone-throwing activity in the pre-1948 territory, and all the post-1948 activity of the Palestinians. Havradim (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Good point about Mandatory Palestine, but that can be easily fixed by either a tweak of the title,-any number of alternatives are available ('Jewish/Jewish Israeli stone-throwing' etc), and simply changing 'Historical incidents' to 'Historical background', which is normative for articles. It would be pointless, since the creator of the Palestinian stone-throwing article focused on a specific ethnic group to cram it with stone throwing by Jews. And, please note, this article's creation was imposed by a number of editors continually trying to keep mention of Jewish and Israeli stone throwing out of that article, indeed, off Wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Nishidani, your response illustrates the reality of how point-of-view elements are what gave birth to both of these articles. Now an effort should be made to both achieve accuracy and correct some of those biases. I cannot see your article title suggestion above as being appropriate; Jewish stone-throwing might be, but it would generate so many problems; it would be difficult not to include sekila, for instance, and just as difficult to include it due to COATRACK. The controversy doesn't seem to be worth it. Havradim (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Surely not. An attack page was created to highlight the usual suspects lauding stone-throwing by Palestinians, immediately followed up by a scroll of Israeli/Jewish casualties. The POV was legitimate: Palestinians are notorious stone-throwers, and it is a major concern in Israeli media. It became a topic and I rewrote the whole article because WP:NPOV was evidently violated.

In doing that, I mentioned Jewish/Israeli stone-throwing, to allow for the other repressed narrative. The bias at PST was corrected by giving as thorough an overview of the phenomenon as highly reliable sources allowed, and some of this included parallels with Jewish/Israeli stone-throwing. When the attack editors disproved of its presence there, as jarring with the title, the material was split off to this page. I don't see anyone indicating that there is a problem with 'accuracy'.

As to bias, that occurs when one cherrypicks part of the record, while systematically ignoring the full story in RS. The bias here has consisted of two types:(a)a desire to delete, trim down, even gut the page and (b) a studied insouciance to Israei papers we all presumably read every day, which document extensive stone throwing incidents by settlers in particular. Editors who ignore that material, and leave the page undeveloped, leave the impression there is something peculiar about Palestinian stone-throwing, while Jewish/Israeli stone-throwing is nugatory.

I have extensive notes on the history of Jewish stoning, but haven't used it, not because WP:COATRACK would be a problem, anymore than noting at the corresponding Palestinian page that in medieval times Gazans threw stones at passing cavanserai was problematical. Coatrack is disorderly jumbling: systematic topical coverage in an historical perspective is what one does with encyclopedic work.Nishidani (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit request by Nishidani

Request text here. [refactored by El_C 18:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)]

 Not done. The objection is substantiated. The lead is supposed to summarize the body. If you wish for that summary to include the Gaza Strip, you will have to add mention of such instances in the body. Please feel free to propose such an addition. If there are no objections to it, I will add it and the lead mention to the protected article. El_C 18:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

That was indeed my point. Otherwise, I would not object. For example, an instance of settlers from Gush Katif throwing stones would be interesting by itself, and would justify the addition. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Or you could point to a reliable source which defines "Jewish Israeli stone-throwing" and includes Gaza. Which you can't, of course, since there is no such term as "Jewish Israeli stone-throwing". After all, this article is nothing more than a coatrack. Debresser (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

"Historical incidents" section: Deir Yassin Massacre

In the Historical incidents section, there is a reference to the Deir Yassin massacre in which the Irgun and Lehi are anachronistically described as 'Israeli'. The massacre took place before the establishment of Israel, on which the two underground groups were quickly disbanded.     ←   ZScarpia   14:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The lead explains that Mandatory Palestine is included in the scope of this article. Debresser (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The point is, that the Irgun and Lehi were not "Israeli" militias. Israel didn't exist at the time under consideration. The description is incorrect.     ←   ZScarpia   01:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Mandatory Palestine has nothing to do with it. The adjective 'Israeli' must be dropped. If necessary substitute 'Jewish'. We shouldn't be discussing this. It is an automatic correction, since Deir Yassin occurred before the creation of Israel and an 'Israeli' identity. This is not something one needs consensus on: it is a major of correct historical usage of an undisputed fact.Nishidani (talk) 09:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I changed it from "Israeli" to Yishuv..hope that is ok, Huldra (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit request by Nishidani2

El_C I have complied with the request, fulfilling the conditions set. Ergo, I request that Gaza be reinserted into the lead, supported by the following section, 'Gaza Strip'.

During the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip, reports emerged of incidents of Jewish settlers throwing stones, particularly during the period running up to, and including the execution of the Israeli withdrawal of settlements from that zone. The latter move in 2005 was met by protests involving settlers throwing stones, targeting Palestinian houses at al-Mawasi close to Gush Katif. In one instance, a Palestinian youth, Haled el-Astal (16) was killed after being struck by a stones thrown by settlers who had occupied a Palestinian building and, when evicted, went on a rampage that led to a clash between the two parties near Tal Yam. A soldier of the IDF was present at the scene. Both sides threw stones, and two other Palestinians were injured. Later that year, in August, IDF troops ordered to oversee the evacuation were pelted with stones by both settlers and their sympathisers at Neve Dekalim.

References

Thank you in anticipation.Nishidani (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nishidani: the page is no longer fully-protected, so you may submit the desired edits yourself at any time. El_C 16:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)