Wikipedia

Talk:Palestinian stone-throwing/Archive 1

< Talk:Palestinian stone-throwing
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Nishidani in topic Civilians then IDF soldiers
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Ed Said said

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I was surprised not to see anything about the Ed Said rock throwing incident here. From the NYTime [1]

'Mr. Said's action drew some sharp criticism last summer. Mr. Said said he was having a stone-throwing contest with his son and called it a symbolic gesture of joy at the end of Israel's occupation of Lebanon."

I don't know how to add a picture but this is the famous one.[1]

So besides being what it is, it is considered a symbolic gesture. Rather hard to get behind rock throwing as symbolizing joy. I guess some Palestinians are just naturally joyful since there is a fair amount of rock throwing going on.

I thought this was some joke, but it is serious and it is notable. Perhaps somebody add this to the article indeed. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Sourced part of this section to the Columbia Daily Spectator, not merely "a college paper", one of America's great college newspapers, writing on one of Columbia's most famous professors. It is one of the best and most reliable sources for this particular storyShulMaven (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I can't find this claim on As-Safir's website, which is really what we should be citing if we're attributing stuff to it. Regardless of Said's teaching at Columbia (irrelevant - they weren't with him just because of that), student-written college papers are not generally considered equal to real newspapers in terms of oversight and reliability. A previous version of Said's Wikipedia article stated that UPI also reported on As-Safir's coverage, but I looked and likewise cannot verify this. Are there any actual sources for this claim? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ www.classicalvalues.com/SaidRock.jpg

Non-notable incidents

Latest comment: 9 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

This can't be a memorial page for anybody killed by a thrown stone. Since reliable sources discuss this as a phenomenon, we should primarily be reflecting their coverage, rather than listing a bunch of incidents that can't support their own articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You have a point, and I agree that this page shouldn't list all such incidents. Perhaps we could create a list of people who were killed or severely wounded in Palestinian stone-throwing and link that list from here. It does perhaps make sense to keep of few of these, just to show that the phenomenon is wide-spread. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think we need to show that the phenomenon is widespread (and I'd be just as against a list of non-notable news stories in a separate article as here). Surely at least one of our sources says it is widespread. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. 1.) The extent and type of harm (death, loss of an eye) caused by stone-throwing is pertinent. 2.) it is not good form to gut an article that you are attempting to get deleted. 3.) I propose that we get opinions form a larger number of editors before removing large swaths of material.ShulMaven (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I !voted to keep this article, but if you're going to continue ownership behavior, you're going to lead people to want to TNT it. Re 1, if it's pertinent to the subject as a whole, you should be able to source it from the scholarly discussion that supports the rest of the article, not from WP:NEWS stories. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I've looked through this, and I think the material should go back in. There's value in having a clear identification of exactly how many people have been wounded, how, by the stone throwing. That's something people are likely to debate, and having a clear and well-sourced answer here would add value. ShulMaven How many more do you need for consensus? Djcheburashka (talk) 01:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you should stop hounding me. It will not help your campaign and it will not help your future editing prospects. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Having looked at a few of your more recent contributions, I think its appropriate to look at whether there were earlier issues. Article talk pages are supposed to be for discussions about issues with articles. If you'd like to discuss broader editorial issues, I'd welcome that, and the appropriate place is either your talk page or one of the dispute resolution pages where the issues have been raised. Djcheburashka (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Hundreds of people looked at the article during the recent AFD, without feeling moved to vote or to delete major sections of material. I therefore believe that it would be unwarranted to remove this material until/unless a great many more editors weigh in on the topic.ShulMaven (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
So no one should edit the article ever again from the form in which it appeared at AFD, since that's obviously what the WP community wants the article to be? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
No, only that there were lots of eyes on this page, not many took the time to support your proposal.ShulMaven (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
AFD isn't usually the place for that kind of discussion. That's why we're discussing on the talk page instead. Would you like to provide some sources demonstrating pertinence? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
At this point, this is a relatively brief article and the list provides a useful, chronological look at the deaths and injuries caused by stone-throwing.ShulMaven (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think "it's short" is a good reason for padding it with newspaper search results. If it wouldn't belong in a longer version of the article, it wouldn't belong in a short version. There should be enough material in reliable sources to expand the article! And if reliable sources discuss any specific incidents as particularly historic, we might discuss those specifically. Again, this is not a memorial. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, with all due respect. You have a point, but the only other editors I see here all disagree with you. May I point you to WP:DEADHORSE? Debresser (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Two versus one in an ongoing discussion (I'm ignoring the user who's just here because he's stalking me) is hardly a dead horse. I think I have more faith in the openness of other users to discussion than you do. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm going to give this another day or so and then start an RFC. An article on a stoning was just deleted as non-notable, and I continue to maintain that this article can't keep on being used as a backdoor for content the WP community, which is already extremely lax in its notability policies when it comes to Israel, has decided not to keep. Let's get more eyes here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Photos needed

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This page needs more photos. Slingshot section particularly in need of a photo of a Palestinian wielding a professional slingshot, I have seen such Bil'in. A photo of a crashed car, it's window smashed by stones would also be useful.ShulMaven (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Use by Israeli agents undercover

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

I don't think it's correct to be framing these as individual incidents; that's newsy. We have a statement from the military about SOP; we should be able to cut the section down further in order to include that, without a blow-by-blow of every time it's reported, which would get tedious. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

While you did succeed in incorporating the Palestinian perspective, you edits substituted "at" for "in the direction of" Israeli forces. they also lack context. Moreover, PlotSpoiler has a point when he writes: what the hell does this have to do with effectiveness? Please find a way to incorporate in a way that is WP:NPOV and not WP:UNDUE). I will make a fresh attempt at a section that is WP:NPOV but not WP:UNDUE.ShulMaven (talk) 19:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Moved it to it's own little seciton in Legal status section. It is probably still WP:UNDUE.ShulMaven (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand why you're arguing that it's undue weight and then restoring a version with more text and a newsy blow-by-blow of individual incidents. I think you're also relying too hard on the apologetic "general direction of." There isn't anyone who thinks it's okay if it was "in the direction of" and bad if it was "at", let's just keep it concise. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Accuracy outweighs concision.ShulMaven (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe that any greater accuracy is conveyed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Roscelese; frankly, I thought it was better under its own sub-heading, before you moved it. I´m ok with you "contracting" it, but the present paragraph structure is no good. What on earth is it doing under "Legal status"?
Another matter is stone-throwing by Israeli settlers, which is an increasing phenomena; [2] [3][4][5] [6] [7] [8]: How do we deal with that? (No, I´m not suggesting an article: Israeli settler`s stone–throwing) But I think we should incorporate the more significant episodes into this article. What about a heading: "Stone–throwing by Israeli military and settlers"? Also, I am changing the picture, to the one really well-known one, Huldra (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
By all means do create an honest, well-sourced article on Israeli settler`s stone–throwing). Make sure to source it as I did, with articles in leading newspapers and academic journals laying out the theory and political role of stone-throwing to Palestinians. the theoretical sections are crucial to the topic of this article, which is Palestinian stone-throwing.ShulMaven (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
It would be a good see-also if an article can be created and sustained, but the reason Israeli forces' stone-throwing is here is because they're pretending to be Palestinians, making it relevant to this topic, not because "stone-throwing in the IP conflict" is a thing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Title

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Use of the endash is incorrect in this context, per MOS:ENDASH.– Gilliam (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC: List of incidents

Latest comment: 9 years ago20 comments10 people in discussion
There is a consensus against inclusion of incidents without their own Wikipedia articles. Arguments are that Wikipedia does not cover routine news events, and there is concern that an indiscriminate list would either directly (WP:SYNTH) or indirectly be advancing a position not directly supported by sources. Sam Walton (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this article contain a list of non-bluelink incidents (incidents without their own article, eg. where no article has been created or where an article has been created and consensus was to delete it) in which people were harmed or killed by thrown stones? Supporters say that this demonstrates that the phenomenon of stone-throwing is widespread and that showing the extent and type of harm is useful, especially in a short article; opponents, that the use of news rather than scholarly sources is inappropriate and that the existence of the phenomenon does not justify a memorial or news repository. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose. The WP community, which is extremely lax in its enforcement of event notability when Israel is concerned, just voted to delete an article on one of these stonings. This list seems like a back door for getting around the notability policy. Scholarly sources demonstrate that this is a phenomenon worthy of academic study, so if they have anything to say about its extent or the type of harm typically caused, we can go with what they say, rather than assembling news stories to "prove" anything. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep The notability criteria for the existence of an article on Wikipedia are not the same as the criteria governing a mention in an article. That is only normal. That however does not mean than because one article was deleted, so should the mention of that incident and person inside this article, and even more so doesn't come to teach us about other cases. Debresser (talk) 22:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Roscelese. A list (even if referenced with news articles) about a bunch of incidents sounds pointy to me. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Roscelese and Chris Troutman. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - that would just be a case of selective reporting of the incidents that were found. The article should be working in terms of general statistics as to numbers injured, and prevalence. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep Such a list shows how much this phenomena is serious. @GraemeLeggett: "a case of selective reporting" - it's not selecvive : infortunally, such incidens really happenes and were reported by RS. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    • If it's "serious", we should be able to cite reliable sources that say so, rather than compiling a list in order to prove our thesis. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
      • RS for the fact that a murder is serious one? What about common sense? --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia does not, in fact, cover every single murder. For that matter, accidental deaths or deaths of natural causes are also serious and tragic for the families of the people involved, but Wikipedia does not run on sentimentality. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
          • As to your words that "Wikipedia does not cover every single murder". Nobody proposes to write an article about each of these incidents. Therefore, your "argument" is simply not related to the issue at hand. Sentimentality also has nothing to do with the argument of Igorp lj. Roscelese, we know your position in this Rfc. No need to attack people who disagree with your point of view, with arguments that are unrelated to the issue. Debresser (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
            • I would suggest that you have an inflated view of what constitutes an "attack." Let's stick to discussing content, not contributors, please. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
          • @Roscelese: "accidental deaths"? Are you serious? Any way, this Ministry law proposal does answer to your "If it's "serious" : Ministers advance bill jailing rock throwers for up to 20 years, Palestinian stone throwers could face 20 years in jail. --Igorp_lj (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
            • Yes, we cover that in the article. How does it show that any other individual news story merits inclusion? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unless there is a list on WP of every person that the Israeli army has injured or killed, or every home that has been bulldozed, then I don't think a list of every person harmed by Palestinian stone throwing should be included.174.63.103.38 (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
That is a non-argument. Feel free to make such a list, if you think it is notable. Debresser (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm concerned that some editors seem to want to use the incidents in a way to insinuate that this is a widespread and serious problem. If that's true, then quote a source directly that says so; to do otherwise is sythesis. The arguments about due weight have some merit, but I think that the synthesis is more of an issue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep. The fact that several people were killed by this type of violent actions should be enough to prove the relevance of this section.--Baatarsaikan (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Note: I reverted Roscelese's edit from today, who couldn't wait till this RFC was closed. Debresser (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Do the source connect these two things?

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This edit makes me wonder if the source connects those things? I do see that it points out that Israel argues that stone throwing is equivalent to murder someone. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

'Israel's attitude towards the use of phosphorus as a military weapon compared with its attitude towards stone throiwing is striking.'

The source connects the two, and goes into some detail. It is not therefore off-topic, and was improperly removed.Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, then it is relevant. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Abusive edit summaries

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
  • Debresser violated IR, and has yet to fix that
  • This edit summary by User:E.M.Gregory 'removed WP:Well poisoning ' is actually WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You cannot remove a properly sourced academic on-topic statement out of dislike. And you cannot use a stupid term to cover the removal. Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, with this edit User:E.M.Gregory reverts back to a wording of the captions, taken straight from the IDF. And that counts as "neutral" in his eyes? Huldra (talk) 18:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Nishidani, what is "IR"? Debresser (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
You mean "1R"? That is not so, feel free to check. Debresser (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@Debresser:. Actually you did. Better check again.--TMCk (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Book Roscelese

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

(I can't see how book is related though) The book traces the practice back to 1936 (background), and on p.26 specifically gives an example from a survey in The Independent, of such undercover figures joining riots. A pedant might complain that 'stone-throwing' is not specifically mentioned, but contextually it throws light on the phenomenon, often complained of by Palestinians, of Israeli undercover agents in their ranks who provoke the worst (that itself can be a pretext or excuse of course) by challenging their own troops. Incitement is a key term of Israel's rhetoric, but in the Ist Intifada, some of the most extremist pamphlets calling for insurrection proved to be written by Israel's secret services (well documented), then distributed by these undercover troops to Palestinians. It is an important if minor element in the background, esp. for Bil'in villagers who see their peaceful protests rocked by people in their ranks they can't identify.Nishidani (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I am a pedant. For WP:SYNTH purposes I think it's important that we only include information related to the article topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
So am I. Rock throwing is most frequently done in riots. Of three elements in the immediate text: (a) rocks being thrown (b) in a context of riots (c) where undercover agents participate, the source has (b) and (c), and directs the interested reader who might pursue the topic, to a long historical overview. WP:SYNTH is not the issue. Of course, as a hair-splitter myself I won't object if you regard it as inappropriate. As an encyclopedist, with academic publishing experience of the genre, I can't see any abuse.Nishidani (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler for the umpteenth time

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This edit summary, like many you make in habitually reverting my work, is abusive. you can't find a better, more reputable source than a university thesis? you're really grasping at straws for your POV pushing. That is a (a) false justification based on ignorance of policy (b) done without any inquiry or collegial requests on the talk page (c) a WP:AGF violation. I'm used to it, and won't react, except to note that: You missed the section in WP:RS that runs: WP:SCHOLARSHIP

Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties

The ProQuest source is the doctoral thesis of Amani Ismail, lecturer at the American University in Cairo. She did that under the doctoral supervision of Daniel A. Berkowitz, professor in media studies at Iowa State University, and a leading authority in his field. The doctoral thesis is not a primary source, but a secondar source analyzing primary sources, academic, and peer-reviewed. Ismail later re-edited the book as Mission Palestine: The Second Intifada in the American Elite Press, Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrucken 2010, which unfortunately is not available. So, it is perfectly respectable as a wiki source, per the above policy statement. The onus on you would have been to take it to RSN and question it there, since a prima facie policy case appears to validate its use.('the iconic stone throwing by Palestinian youth during the First Intifada')

2.More grievously, what you removed, about 'iconic', is readily ascertainable in one of the sources you didn't contest, the same language is used on the linked page (so you reverted without examining the sources added) I.e.

3. If you thought that statement dubious, you could have checked on google books and found instantaneously any number of other sources noting that stone-throwing was iconic of the First Intifada (like the IDF practice of breaking legs of protesters). I.e.

If you enjoy smoking a pipe, there's plenty there to stuff into yours, and puff and huff over an egregiously bad revert. In any case, reverting it back is almost obligatory, and if you have any residual quibbles, take it to RSN.Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Title

Latest comment: 9 years ago20 comments7 people in discussion

I've seen numerous photos of settler youth using the same rock slings Palestinians use. I don't think the title, ethically focused, is appropriate, and suggest a title change to 'Stone-throwing in the Palestinian territories'.Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I haven't seen such pictures, and even if so, this article is not about them. Debresser (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it's clear that the sources generally cover the stone-throwing of Palestinians as a phenomenon, not just stone-throwing by any people who happen to be in the area at the time (the stone-throwing by Israelis undercover as agents provocateurs or not wanting to break their cover is relevant via its relation to the former and doesn't justify a broader treatment of the subject as "stone-throwing in this location"). In order to change the scope, I think there would need to be at least a significant minority of coverage of Israeli stone-throwing. Nishidani, can you provide more sources? (Although, Debresser, I do think the "this article's title is about Palestinians, so it shouldn't discuss Israelis - this article doesn't cover Israelis, so its title should refer to Palestinians" is a bit of circular logic.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't see this as covering anything other than what the title states it covers. Per Debresser. Epeefleche (talk) 08:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
'I haven't seen such pictures.' Debresser.
Amazing that you have never seen evidence of this, Debresser. After all the picture in the linked article shows an example. Had you clicked, rather than reverting, you would have seen the phot. If a Palestinian is caught throwing stones he can in Israeli law, be shot (dead): a huge amount of video evidence, supplied by yesh Din and B't5selem, captures settlers throwing rocks, and using slings to attack villages. A large part of those videos show IDF soldiers watching, or participating in these incidents, to protect the rock throwers.
As I will document, stone-throwing is endemic among settlers esp in the outlying areas (Yitzhar, Hebron Hills etc ) and it is done under police and IDF eyes, and the norm is to arrest Palestinians, and basically either protect or ignore what settlers are doing, when they are mirroring each other's behaviour.

And both sides in the conflict use stones. “This tactic of stone-throwing has been adopted by particularly extremist Israeli settlers who also throw stones at Palestinians,” Estrin said. “In the West Bank, rocks are aplenty. It’s a very rocky terrain, and all you have to do to fight someone is to bend down and pick up a rock.”

Between 2008 and 2013, the number of young Palestinians arrested by police for throwing stones was 1,142, while the number of young Israeli settlers arrested was 53. The consequences for a Palestinian, he said, can range from three to eight months of a military prison sentence, while the typical outcome for an Israeli is release without being convicted.

Settler violence, lately characterized mainly by masked young men roaming the West Bank and attacking Palestinian farmers with stones, clubs or rifles and burning their olive groves, their fields, and occasionally their schools, mosques and homes, is a unique feature of the occupation.

see example 13

Over 20 masked settlers armed with slingshots invaded the West Bank village of Burin on Tuesday afternoon, a field worker from human rights organization Yesh Din reported.

example 15

Video handed to B'Tselem shows Itzhar settlers throwing rocks at Palestinians; soldiers standing aside. Itzhar spokesperson slams video as 'blood libel'; IDF claims was not given opportunity to investigate incident

B'Tselem May 31, 2013

example 16
example 17
example 18 December 9, 2014

Settlers in the area store rocks in plastic bins on their rooftops to throw at Palestinian residents, according to DCI-Palestine sources.

Harriet Sherwood, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/21/israeli-settler-fires-gun-stone-thrower Israeli settlers filmed firing guns at Palestinians Tbe Guardian 21 May 2012.

According to B'Tselem, which uploaded the footage to YouTube, a large group of settlers, some masked and armed, approached the village from the nearby settlement of Yitzhar and began throwing rocks and starting fires. After a group of Palestinians gathered and threw rocks in return at the settlers, Israeli police and soldiers arrived on the scene.One of the settlers is seen crouching while aiming and then firing his pistol at the group of Palestinians. Two other settlers are seen firing assault rifles.

'in the old city in al-Khalil (Hebron) settlers from the illegal settlement of Beit Hadassah threw rocks and water at Palestinians living on Shalala Street. This is a regular occurance for Palestinian families living close to illegal settlements in al-Khalil. The majority of the time the Israeli military watches from a distance and does not do anything to intervene in the violence and property damage.One Palestinian, a 35-year old man, documented the stone throwing only to be detained and then arrested by the Israeli military. The man was taken through a yellow gate to an area where Palestinians are restricted from, where the soldiers pushed him around.

I could go on all afternoon. Israel mainstream newspaper are meticulous in reporting every incident of teenage Palestinian rock-throwing, hence this article, which gives the spurious impression it is distinctive to the occupied population.(And thus Israelis 'suffer' from this violence. Nishidani (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I would appreciate the courtesy of a reply. It took me longer to compile this than it will take either of you to click through and watch this very limited selection of the available evidence.Nishidani (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
While not all of these sources are good, I think there's definitely enough here to include some content in this article on settlers throwing stones. I still think the sourcing (eg. on the cultural resonance of the act among Palestinians) supports keeping the article's title and framing as it currently is, but your sourcing, and particularly the sources you've found that compare Palestinian and Israeli stone-throwing, shows that it makes sense to include some mention of this. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't look for 'good sources' (though all but one are. +972 magazine may be contested (actually it is very good Israeli journalism), but the videos they host are not. I cited mainly videos because one editor said the phenomenon was unfamiliar. Anyone who gets daily CPT reports, or knows the West Bank, knows that stone-throwing is an every day occurrence on both sides. I think the Palestinians do more of it. But an article that begs editors to create Israeli settler stone-throwing should yield ground and just incorporate all the evidence from all sides in one article. Nishidani (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, it would certainly make sense to link Israeli settler violence in whatever paragraph we add here on settler stone-throwing, but I'm not sure the sources justify the existence of a separate article on settler stone-throwing. However, editors with a lower standard of notability for events than mine, such as one frequently sees at AFD for Israel-related articles, may a have different opinion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • LOL! This POV pushing is reaching comical levels. If only these editors suggesting a name change weren't useless single-issue battleground accounts. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, what about making an argument which is not ad hominem?, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Not an argument. And I may be 'useless' but am not as any check can show 'a single-issue battleground account'.Nishidani (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Anybody can look at your last 500 edits Nishidani and see that nearly all of them pertain to the IP area. And take down that laughable "semi-retired" nonsense. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
User:Plot Spoiler: editing only in the IP area is not a crime; or a blockable offence. It is fully allowed, and there are lots of editors who do it. (Which is why we never hear from them again if they are topic-banned...) Again; could you please make an argument which address the issue? (and is *not* ad hominem), (Incidentally, if I had had a block-log like this, I would not be so fast as to accuse others of "battleground behaviour". Pot, kettle, black, etc.) Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Nishidani A commendable job you did on sourcing Jewish stone throwing. There is a simple reason I hadn't seen these sources, which is connected to my lifestyle, in which I don't regularly follow the news. My argument, however, stands, and several editors have agreed with this above, that this article is not about them. At the same time, it does make sense to at least mention the fact that Jewish settles also have been know to throw stoned upon occasion. Then again, we should be careful to avoid the suggestion that the frequency of the second comes anywhere close to the frequency of the first.
Any edit which will do all the above, I will not revert. Perhaps such a sentence could be combined with "In certain documented cases, Israeli undercover units have thrown stones at uniformed IDF and police alongside Palestinians." in a new section. I would leave it out of the lead. Debresser (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Not watching the news is an admirable practice. Since I have to read a dozen newspapers a day to get perspective on all sides of the I/P area, the way I see things will appear odd to those who have (enviably) more sensible ways of exploiting our brief time on the planet.
The article was created by User:ShulMaven during a flurry of article-creation focusing on Palestinian terrorism after the attacks in Jerusalem last year. I.e.Death of Netanel Arami (deleted),Murder of Ibolya Ryan, Killing of Sergeant Almog Shiloni, Silent Intifada. Much of this 'stuff' was immediately put up for deletion. What he was doing is particularly evident in the last, which was the ignore all Israeli violence and focus unilaterally on several grievous incidents where Jews were victims. Unfortunately for his case, once the background began to grow, it emerged that there were numerous antecedents involving Israeli violence to that 'silent intifada', and when I added them, a fork was created Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2014 to cope (but note: both Silent Intifada and the fork cover 'all violence related to the topic, without ethnic discriminations. There is not a shadow of a doubt that he was not interested in comprehensive coverage but only in fingering one side. He framed the topic to exclude by definition any mention of the circumstances, or broader thematic realities. Per WP:NPOVa topic, if it deals with a practice in which two or more sides are regularly engaged, we are required to covered all angles, and not just spin one side of the broader narrative.Nishidani (talk) 08:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
The question is if this needs to be mentioned in this article. As to the facts, I am confident nobody will claim the amount of incidents of stone throwing by Palestinians is in any proportion to the amount of stone throwing by Israelis. Debresser (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Images

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Are any images like these free to upload? Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I tried to use the iconic image of Faris Odeh in the article, but that was deleted. Presently all the pictures are from IDF...go figure, Huldra (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It's uploaded onto the wiki article on the boy. perhaps it can be copied from there.Nishidani (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It is a "fair use" picture, i.e. not free. I simply do not know enough about copy-right to say if we can use it to not. Huldra (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Terrorism category

Latest comment: 9 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

A quick look through reliable sources doesn't seem to support the addition of this category, with a number of good sources explicitly defining these acts as non-terrorist. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand we must go by reliable sources. On the other hand, if you were ever to be on the receiving end of a stone, you might change your mind. Just saying. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't run on my personal experience or feelings. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Throwing stones is not terrorism. It could be depending on target but so could many things be but it does not mean such a tag is warranted. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
This is straightforward. It is the (unique, I believe) Israeli Point of view that stone-throwing, in any context, is terrorism. So that is a position. It is not shared by the world. As someone raised with stone-throwing as a weekend sport, head injuries etc. frequent among combatants, I don't think I was a terrorist. It was a serious problem with vandals on highways some years ago in Italy. When people died as a result the stone throwers if caught were put on trial for murder, not terrorism. It happens in riots all over the world. Blackblockers are not treated as terrorists in Berlin, Paris, Seattle or Rome. If caught they are gaoled for delinquency. The cat is inappropriate, since Israel's POV is peculiar, but the POV should be described in the article.Nishidani (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
See Is every Palestinian kid who throws stones a terrorist?, "stone-throwing terrorists", that it is not a simple as you think. Debresser (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
In what way does that change what I said and how was my argument "simple"? I don't understand what you are disputing. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I showed that there are sources that use the term "terrorism" in the context of Palestinian stone throwing. Debresser (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely true. But there are numerous sources which contest this exclusively Israeli point of view. One can't have a CAT that assumes a POV function, rather than classifying facts.Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I said that it could be terrorism, just like many other things, but in general it is not and we can not add a category that makes it look like it is something certain. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Any point of view is contested here, so we shouldn't have any cats at all? That doesn't sound right either. Debresser (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
What is contested? Do you think stone-throwing is necessarily terrorism? It is generally not and thus should not be categorized as such. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know about generally, but we are talking about a specific case, and if in this specific case the Israeli government or reliable source call it terrorism, then we on Wikipedia may and must also call it so. Note that we are talking about a phenomenon, or even tactic, which has been implemented for so many years now in this specific area. Debresser (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Removals by Apndrew and improper edit summaries and ARBPIA violations by Debresser

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

@Apndrew: it's incredibly probable that you're a sockpuppet, but on the off chance you're not, perhaps you could explain why you blanked what appears to be adequately cited and relevant content with no explanation? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Roscelese: Sure. I removed what was clearly biased language which appears to justify stone throwing by Palestinians, or suggests that Palestinians only throw stones after the police have attacked them (not the other way around, which all of the references state is the case). Other language was simply entirely unrelated to "Palestinian stone-throwing" (the title of this Wikipedia entry) or merely reflected the opinion of the editor.

For example, the first sentence under "Conceptualizations" states: "While Israel has justified its use of phosphorus munitions in areas where the civilian density is high, as in Gaza, as legitimate in international law, it criminalizes stone-throwing as a threat to the security of the State."

What is the point of stating that Israel has "justified use of phosphorous munitions in areas where civilian density is high" other than to attempt to lend support to rock-throwing. Do the Israelis shoot phosphorous munitions for reasons unrelated to rock throwing? If so, it does not belong here in a "Palestinian stone-throwing" entry. If, alternatively, Israel has approved phosphorous munitions in response to such stone-throwing, then this sentence should state it. The way it's currently written (i.e., stating first that Israelis have approved phosphorous munitions before discussing stone throwing) serves only to suggest that stone-throwing is a justified or reasonable response to such actions, and that Israel is in the wrong for approving one but not the other. Also, there is no point to state "where civilian density is high" other than to inflame tensions. Israelis respond to stone throwing. The stone throwers are throwing stones in areas "where civilian density is high." Why does this sentence accuse Israelis for responding to stone throwers and not the stone throwers for choosing areas "where civilian density is high."

As another example, the entry states: "90% of the 271 Palestinian minors shot dead on the basis of these criteria in the six years of this intifada were killed at moments when they were not actually throwing stones." While there is a citation to a reference, that reference provides no evidence to support this statistic, other than to state it is based on eyewitness testimony. The sentence, if it remains, should be reflected to acknowledge this fact. Also, this sentence is highly misleading. Stone throwing is not a constant action. You throw a stone, take a break, and then throw another stone. There are very few "moments" in time when you are actually in the act of throwing a stone. It would be virtually impossible to coincidentally shoot stone throwers at the exact "moment" when they are throwing stones. Instead the implication of this sentence is clearly meant to suggest that they were not throwing stones at all, which is not supported by the reference.

Another sentence states "In response to the wave of protests beginning in December 1987, the Israeli government appears to have sanctioned the adoption of lethal or seriously damaging gunfire..." This is blatantly false. The reference cited clearly states "non-lethal" force was sanctioned.

Further, it is highly deceptive and reflective of bias to state "the de facto rule permitted the use of lived ammunition against children..." First off, what's the relevance of mentioning "against children," other than to inflame individuals. Also, the article clearly states that "plastic bullets" are used. To state "live ammunition" is used is highly deceptive.

Finally, every mention of a statistic involving people injured always begins with the number of Palestinians injured or killed, and ends the sentence (as if an after-thought) with the amount of Israeli's killed. For example, the entry states: "Rock throwing to protest Ariel Sharon's visit to the Haram al-Sharif in 2000 led to a clash in which 6 Palestinians were killed, and 220 wounded by Israeli gunfire, while 70 Israeli police were injured by rock-throwing." To put the number of Israelis at the end (every single time injuries or deaths are mentioned in the entry) suggests that Israelis first killed the Palestinians, who then in response killed the Israelis. In this particular incidence, it was not that case that the Israeli police killed 6 Palestinians before the Palestinians began throwing rocks, as suggested by the phrasing. These statistics need to me amended through-out the entry to make it clear, deaths and injuries occur of Palestinians occur as an Israeli response to stone-throwing, not the other way around. The entry makes it seem that all Palestinian rock-throwing happens only after there is police action, when the opposite is true.

All changes were made to make this entry more neutral and remove the obvious and extreme bias of whoever previously edited this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apndrew (talk • contribs) 17:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Debresser

(1)I warned you on your page you are edit-warring and breaking 1R (ARBPIA)

(3). And then again broke 1R immediately afterwards

Technically, any editor would be in her rights to take this to AE and get you suspended. I dislike that, as it is an extreme recourse for socks or recalcitrantly obtuse bad editors. One can't argue one's way around these things, but more seriously, don't accuse other editors who don't break the rules, of breaking the rule you repeatedly infringe. Nishidani (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I apologize. I have seen so many edit wars lately, in all kinds of fields outside WP:ARBPIA, that I am used to reverting automatically any time a tendentious editor restores something that has already been reverted and for which there is no consensus. It has become a matter of fashion for IP and people with emotional ties to certain subjects to edit war in the middle of ongoing discussions. I am simply not used to the 1RR restriction, so I reverted automatically. Again, I apologize. Nevertheless, on a general note regarding this article, I do object to Huldra, you, or anybody else, restoring material that is contested on the talkpage, and I hope that if all will abide by the simple rule of WP:BRD, that we will be able to improve this article and reach consensus without edit wars. Debresser (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay. But there have been several abuses here, by the sock and Plot Spoiler as well, that remove material without addressing the talk page. If you want a level playing field, you should exercise your revert right equally. Whoever is uncollegial, or an obvious sock, should meet a stone-wall, from both sides. One should not evaluate what to contest, remove according to an evaluation that, 'hey, I'll let him/her get away with that because the removal/addition fits my POV'. I know punching under the belt is standard here, and not exclusive of any side, but good editors should try to hew to the Marquess of Queensberry Rules.Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Not only are the removals unwarranted as they remove a relevant connection made by a source and mention of Palestinian casualties, the edits are not "minor edits". --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits by Nishidani

Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

First of all, let me stress that you are edit warring.

  1. A demonstration in which rocks are thrown is called a riot. Especially if that is the usual way of "demonstrating". This use of a euphemism has been reverted before, and you should not restore it.
  2. The information about Mista'arvim is definitely out of place in a caption. I think I said somewhere above that if anything, it could be mentioned in a section of its own. This also has been repeatedly reverted, and you should not try to restore it despite the lack of consensus.
  3. The paragraph about Faris Odeh seems completely unrelated, apart from the fact that he was a stone thrower. It is so sad that a boy of 14 years should engage in such activities instead of doing something useful with his life. In any case, what does the way he died have to do with anything, unless you were making a suggestion, which you obviously wouldn't do, since I can't even count the number of Wikipedia guidelines that would violate. :) Debresser (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the first point, as you said yourself above: "Rock throwing is most frequently done in riots." Debresser (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you are mixing up Nishidani and me, as I was the one who changed "riot" into demonstrations. Presently (after your edits) the article takes the exact wording from IDF propaganda pictures, and talk about "Stone throwing at a riot in Bil'in." The Friday demonstrations at Bil'in are famous, (an Oscar-nominated film as been made about them, among other publicity). AFAIK: nobody, but nobody but Israeli military ...and now Wikipedia..calls them "riots". This is not about WP:EUPHEMISM, but WP:LABEL
Oh, and the Faris Odeh -picture is iconic (on several stamps from the Middle East, for a start), *the* most famous picture of a Palestinian stone-trower...and you think it is irrelevant in an article named "Palestinian stone-throwing"??? Seriously. Huldra (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I think we could include Odeh, but users adding the text would have to add citations, preferably citations/writeup that indicated the iconic nature of the image so it doesn't sound like WP:NOTNEWS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Nishidani, I am sorry. It was indeed Huldra who changed "riot" to "demonstration" in this edit (which, by the way, had an edit commentary which only partially described the edit). Huldra, I don't understand how you can defend that edit. If people throw stones, it is a riot, not a demonstration. At most it is a demonstration which turned into a riot. You can't do injustice to the English language in such a way. Debresser (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The edit adding Odeh was made by Nishidani ([9]), has no sources, and the part about his death shows no connection to the stone throwing, and as such is unacceptable here. Debresser (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
(a) I removed Huldra's edit, because while she is right about using IDF sources, that gives no entitlement to re-write a caption with material that is properly on the article. The caption should summarize what the jpg. says, not editorialize.
(b)Objecting to Odeh Farah because it is unsourced is otiose. I could have, had the dinner gong not sounded, added mechanically any number of sources from that page. Any editor would know this is instantly source-able. Sources say he was a known stone-thrower and was shot dead by a sniper (Israeli snipers have at their side an observer who coordinates information from a variety of sources, and then targets the person to be shot, and gives instructions to that effect. Everyone who follows the literature knows this. And the data I added, until some sock puppet removed it, shows stone-throwing historically has not dominated 'demonstrations' or 'protest marches'. This is a violent conflict between an armed state military and an unarmed people. People who throw stones at cars are engaged in criminal behavior which violates the Geneva Conventions. Troops who shoot people resisting their defense of land, water and livestock theft are breaking the same conventions. Wikipedia does not take sides: it gives the full range of data, and opinions, in neutral language, and this is necessary particularly on an article which began as an attack page on one side by an editor specializing in this stuff.Nishidani (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Throwing stones is not a necessarily a 'riot'. Israeli and foreign newspapers are extremely careful to avoid using the word 'riot' of any settler 'disturbance'. I gave you numerous videos showing that stone-throwing is endemic, esp. among Hilltop youth, and it is never described as a riot. 'Demonstrations' are again met by armed force, the shooting of often toxic quantities of tear-gas, rubber bullets, and occasionally live fire, whether stones are thrown or not.Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
According to IDF, stone throwing is always "a riot" when done by Palestinians, never so when done by Israeli settlers. I put the ref in the caption as there were 2 pictures from Bil'in, both from the Israeli occupying forces, and both with their preferred wording; "riot". And Bil'in is the place we *know* undercover Israeli forces have been throwing stones. In short; we have absolutely no idea as if the "Palestinian rioters" in the pictures are Palestinian...or if they are Israeli undercover military. And again; please show me any "neutral" source who use the word "riot" about the demonstrations in Bil'in? So far we have exactly one source using that word about it, and that is IDF. So, User:Debresser: show me some neutral sources who use "riot" about the Bil'in demos, or out it goes. Wikipedia is not a microphone for IDF. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Nishidani, I have no problem with re-adding Odeh, if sourced. If you want to include the circumstances of his death as well, then you'll have to show that they are relevant to this article about stone throwing (not just the general I/P conflict), and add reliable, third-party sources.
Nishidani and Huldra I agree that stone throwing doesn't yet necessarily make a riot, and a demonstration can take place while at the same time other people throw stones, but if the stone throwing takes place during a demonstration and at the same location as a demonstration and by the same people who are supposed to be demonstrating, then it's a riot. This is simply a matter of English. This means that if I see a picture with stone throwing people, I can not claim this is a demonstration. If the caption would read "Palestinians throwing stones during a demonstration", such a text would imply precisely that logically impossible claim. If, on the other hand, you;d like to argue that those Palestinians were throwing stones while at the same time a demonstration was taking place, then I think that demonstration is not relevant to the caption any more. So either it is a riot, or it is simply Palestinians throwing stones, but there is no such thing as throwing stones during a demonstration, because that would be a riot. A matter of language. Debresser (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Civilians then IDF soldiers

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

You reverted my adjustments.

I adjusted the text for the obvious reason that (a) most rock-throwing occurs in clashes with IDF and Border Police forces. Description of a list in this case should follow an order of incidence. To place 'civilians' at top is, arguably, to suggest that they are the primary targets: they are not. (b)I removed 'babies' /'children' from the lead. It is true that several Israeli children have been killed as a result of stone-throwing. It is true that of several thousand incidents, these constitute an exiguous minority. It is true that the IDF has a distinguished record for shooting at large numbers of Palestinian children, a policy officially endorsed by Rabin, but not for that do I worry the Israeli Defense Forces page trying to plug in this bit of information.Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I can personally tell you that all stones that are regularly thrown in the vicinity of Husan, as far as I know, are thrown at citizens of Betar Illit, usually religious and unarmed people driving civilian vehicles.
Children should be mentioned, because they are more often covered in news articles, since they are more noteworthy. Notability also counts for something. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Old people are as iumportant as children, both are defenseless, and old people get kicked, driven from their homes, etc., regularly by IDF soldiers. Not fopr that would I mention this in a lead. Jewish children are mentioned in the Israel and foreign press quite regularly. Palestinian children are harassed every day, hit with stones, and this is almost never reported. There are teams of peacemakers in certain areas who must act as body guards to kids going to school in Hebron, the Southern Hills esp. They make daily reports, which I subscribe to (not RS). It's source bias. In a tragedy as immense as this, sober precision with facts, parity of treatment, not pulling at the heartstrings of one side, is required.Nishidani (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I may agree with you that it is source bias. But that bias is based on the fact that the notability of a child killed by a Palestinian stone is indeed higher than of an adult. We go by sources and notability here, which I why I restored the previous version of the lead. Note also that that version stood uncontested for a while now. You have not convinced me that it is inferior to the version you propose. Debresser (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Let me rephrase that from the other POV:

the fact that the notability of a Palestinian child killed by an Israel soldier is indeed no higher than of a Palestinian adult being killed in the same circumstances.

133 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 2,060 Palestinian children (see here) have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000. Roughly that is 1 Israeli child for every 18 Palestinian children. I know that in Zionist education, what happens to non-Jews doesn't register much, if at all, but the statistics are obvious. The former are given quite a few individual pages on Wikipedia - 'child' 'baby' is leapt at wherever possible. The latter are not even mentioned in the articles: compare Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada where 'civilian' actually turns out to mean 'Israelis', to List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, prefaced by Israeli sources dismissing the evidence as dealing mostly with terrorists/comnbatants of whatever age).
The major objection to that order is that civilians, and children are statistically minor compared to combat soldiers in rock-throwing, yet that order is reverted in order to suggest these demonstrations are inhuman assaults primarily on non-state actors, civilians, rather than things that occur against an occupying power. Nishidani (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
As far as the number of killed children is concerned, this article is only about deaths as result of stone throwing.
I understand your point, so lets change the order from "hurled or catapulted at Israeli civilians or security forces" to "hurled or catapulted at Israeli security forces or civilians" and "fatalities among civilians, including infants" to "fatalities, including among civilians". Would that be fine with you? Debresser (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fine by me (save that 'catapulted' reminds me of Graeco-Byzantine siege machines, which at the moment is beyond the mechanical competence of most village youths). I wouldn't exclude it, recalling that my cousin made one to prepare for a clash with another gang in our area, made from a veritable tree trunk at the fork, using a tire-tube as the sling pouch, and requiring two feet to hold the catapult's Y branches steady, two hands to pull the sling back, and a third hand (mine) to feed fist-sized stones into the pouch. It was effective over 50-60 yards, but not quite functional, unless you fired at an entrenched opposition, the mobile "enemy" could run round and sling shots at you while you're arse was on the ground, your legs in the air, like a sitting duck. Sorry for the frivolity.Nishidani (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinian_stone-throwing/Archive_1&oldid=677105054"