Talk:Palestinian stone-throwing/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

What's this newbie doing?

? It's fairly obvious that the editor is a sock or disturber, but rewriting sources to the point where they become comical is pointless. White phosphorus bombs used '0in response' to stone-throwing?!!! Wow. Never heard of that before. People in Gaza hit by white phosphorus inside the city were some kilometres from the border and the IAF aircraft and artillery that lobbed that stuff. What were the kids doing, lobbing stones at fighter jets? slinging stones at howitzers 3 kilometres away. Come on! This is farcical.Nishidani (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Thank you. If what you say is accurate (which I am not confirming or disputing), why is it mentioned in an entry related to Palestinian stone-throwing? Clearly the editor is trying to justify the actions of the stone throwers in response to (as you say) the entirely unrelated actions of Israelis.

One writes according to sources. No editor has a right to rewrite a sentence that is sourced, without first consulting the source to find a justification in it for the rewrite. (b) Had you read the source, you would have noted that the text connects phosphorus bombing and stone-throwing via Israeli laws and practices.Nishidani (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani: I just want to be clear, have you changed your position and are now claiming there is a connection between stone-throwing and the use of white phosphorus munitions? Despite your accusation, I did in fact read the reference before making the change (my original change was deletion of the biased sentence). The article makes absolutely no connection between the use of white phosphorous munitions and stone throwing, other than to discuss them in the same paragraph. Because the author of the paper made a choice to discuss stone-throwing and use of white phosphorous munitions in the same paragraph in a text, does not mean there is a connection by the Israelis (or the Palestinians). Therefore, discussion of the use of "white phosphorous munitions" does not belong in a entry related to Palestinian stone throwing. If there is some connection (again, not referenced in the source), that connection should be made clear. Otherwise its comparing two entirely unrelated actions in an attempt to justify the stone throwing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Apndrew (talk • contribs)

There are remedial classes for people who can't construe a simple sentence.

I did in fact read the reference before making the change (my original change was deletion of the biased sentence). The article makes absolutely no connection between the use of white phosphorous munitions and stone throwing,

Source text

Israel's attitude towards the use of phosophorus as a military weapon compared with its attitude towards stone throwing is striking.'Nishidani (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani:You know someone has lost an argument when they resort to ad hominem attacks. As if my sentence structure in that sentence you point out has anything to do with the argument at hand. Please avoid resorting to childish tactics to attempt to win an argument. Although irrelevant, my sentence structure in that sentence was fine. Perhaps you should ask someone who can confirm that for you. In any event, as to the argument, the sentence you point to does not even come close to supporting your argument. The author of the text commenting on what he believes is the Israeli attitude on two distinct actions does not connect them, as much as you may want it to. Also, you have now changed your position for the third time. First, there was no connection between the two. Second, there was a connection related to "Israeli laws and practices," and now you cite a sentence totally unrelated to either of your previous positions. The author could have compared the Israeli attitude on literally any two actions of his choice, and that wouldn't mean there was an actual connection between the two just because they were in the same sentence in his paper.

Put simply, there is simply no connection described in the source between the use of "white phosphorus munitions" by Israelis and Palestinian stone-throwing to justify its inclusion in an entry about Palestinian stone-throwing. The glaring lack of connection only serves to demonstrate total bias on behalf of the editor likely based on his or her own belief of asymmetrical, but totally unrelated, actions. If you do somehow come up with an actual connection, it should be stated clearly in the entry.

Repetition is not an argument. I have answered you. If you can convince an established relatively neutral editor that I am wrong, I might reply further. Otherwise, this is concluded.Nishidani (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani This question was discussed above, and it was agreed that the comparison is in the source. But, again, I have to ask the question: is this relevant? The way the sentence comes now, it is not clear what precisely is issue of this phosphor, and why it should be compared to stone throwing at all. This means, that in its present for this is not relevant to the article, and I support removal of that sentence. I would likely be okay with adding this back in as a separate section, with explanation. Debresser (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The source compares the (harsh) legal treatment of stone throwing with the use of white phosphor use as a perspective measure.--TMCk (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That's right. The source compares it, but there is no connection between the two. The source could have compared any two actions, but that doesn't connect them. This is just one example of a faulty comparison (with no justification within the source) or highly misleading text within the entry. For the sake of neutrality, I would appreciate if a neutral editor would review my other issues with the entry, which are cited above in response to Roscelese. If necessary, I am happy to re-state or address them each individually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apndrew (talk • contribs) 15:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I just explained the connection in simple words. It's a legal one. One could compare the difference in legal treatment of setting of a bomb in a city compared to throwing firecrackers in a crowd. The latter would usually be treated as a lesser offense than the former, but when it seems to be reversed it becomes notable. We can't make such connection on our own per wp:SYNTH but when a reliable source does it, we can use it.--TMCk (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The confusion here is threefold. (a)If RS connect things, then we follow, as the dull dragomans of what competent experts say. This is what we are doing here. (b)there is a confusion between a fact to be treated as an isolate, and a fact in the context of other facts. Where reliable source contextualize one fact in a mosaic of related facts, one obsequiously paraphrases the connections made (c) There is a confusion between facts and attitudes, laws, interpretations of those facts. This encyclopedia is not a Gradgrindian assembly of "empirical facts". Were it so, suffice it to make each page into a statistical chart (which would be illuminating). We include how people involved in the facts react to them (i) as normal in themselves (ii) as incongruous.

To illustrate 3. Debresser's friends at Betar Illit are perfectly normal and right in finding their passage along roads disturbed by delinquent Palestinian stone-throwers. It violates the law, it endangers life, and often those who are subject to this violence are law-abiding, decent people going about their lives without hurting a flea. A Palestinian in that locality will know kin and kith killed, wounded, or assaulted under the occupation, or arrested in demonstrations against the sewage flowing out of Btar Illit untreated into their fields, or recall that as the town expanded over expropriated Palestinian land, over a dozen natural wells, fundamental to local agriculture, dried up or were shut. When some of them throw stones in revolt, and end up in court with a 20 year sentence for terrorism, many of them contrast this with (a) the fact that Israeli stone-throwers in the samwe area almost never arrested, since 95% of complaints are rejected (b) Israel uses the most advanced modern weaponry to shoot down civil disobedience and disturbances, and even carpet-bombs intensely habited built up areas with impunity with DIME and phosphorus bombs, fully aware that civilian casualties will be high. They note that in this case, the world press will say, it's Hamas's fault for using them as human shields. The connection between the enormous extralegal freedom exercised in Israel's recourse to extreme and lethal forms of violence against civilians, children and all, and the imposition of draconian laws against children who throw stones (99% of the time without casualties) is remarked on all over Palestine and abroad. It is a POV discussed in RS. It is understanding that from an pro-Israeli perspective, stone-throwing should deal with the delinquency and danger, cordoned off from any historical social context. It is obvious that Palestinians and international observers see it in a wider context. NPOV demands that both be given a due hearing, side by side. Nishidani (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Nishidani, by I can not agree with you. Wikipedia is not a forum for seeking justice. Unless you want to add some explanation to add context to this sentence, this comparison is void of meaning in the context of this article and can not stay. In addition, it has been removed by various editors already, so per WP:BRD I think it should be removed till such time as a clear consensus to have it can be shown. Debresser (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that seeking justice has no place on Wikipedia. Giving the full picture of a topic, per WP:NPOV, is particularly obligatory when you have articles dealing with conflict, something the editor who created the one-sided slant of this page ignored (here and on many other articles). I deal in sources and paraphrase what they say on any argument. If RS make connections to an article topic, this is duly added. If this is interpreted as an 'attempt to seek justice', well, what can I say? This article was created to get at Palestinians, and no one objected.(b) WP:BRD is not Wikipedia policy, and the removalists had no policy warrant for erasing the text, unless it was WP:IDONTLIKETHAT. The BRD argument is abused often, in defiance of the text:

Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reverts will happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's edit history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. If not, you may begin one (see this list for a glossary of common abbreviations you might see).

BRD cannot apply to academic texts which bring to bear relevant information from sources that meet the WP:RS highbar, indeed polevault it, as this one does, being a legal scholar talking specifically about Israel's legal attitude to stone throwing and the use of extremely lethal weaponry where civilians are at high risk of being hit by 'collateral damage.' Nishidani (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I referred to the principle of WP:CONSENSUS that is the core of WP:BRD. I don't see consensus for this edit, and therefore it should not have been restored in the mean time. I do not try to seek an excuse for edit warring. Debresser (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, wouldn't this sentence be in place in the Legal status section, more than in the Conceptualizations section? By the way by the way, can't we replace "conceptualizations" by something clearer? Debresser (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you have a point there. 'Conceptualizations' is ugly. The dinner gong has sounded, and urgency demands my attention, unfortunately, on such Lebensnotwendigkeiten for an hour or two.Nishidani (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

:) Debresser (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

It is clear though, as I wrote in #Do the source connect these two things?, that the source mentions this about Israel's view in page 179: "For example, they argue that stone throwing is equivalent to the crime of murder and note that murder carries a heavy penalty in Israel ...". --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

IRISZOOM What do you mean? I for a moment don't understand what you are referring to. Debresser (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the authors' view on Israel's attitude towards the two things (use of white phosphorus and stone-throwing) is relevant, like that Israel views it as equivalent to murder. If you think the former wording by Nishidani needs rework, only saying "Israel criminalizes stone-throwing as a threat to state security" does not make it better. It makes it looks like their point is that Israel criminalizes stone-throwing because it is a threat when they are criticizing Israel's attitude. But the context is left out here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Dovid, your arithmetic is seriously skewed and your understanding of WP:CONSENSUS fragile. The facts:

(1)I added it Suggested by User:Nishidani.

(2)restored here by User:IRISZOOM

(3)restored by User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper

(4) Restored as originally written by User:Roscelese

3 editors did not, while reverting, object to this specific passage, or while editing it, did not challenge its RS status.

(5) Not objected to by User:Plot Spoiler, in his revert

(6)Not removed by User:Huldra

(7)the language was modified but the text was not questioned by User:Yuvn86

In explicit favour, per reverts, of its removal

(8)reverted by User:Debresser.

(9)removed by User:Apndrew who also tampered with the text against the source language

(10) removed by User:E.M.Gregory here in a ridiculous non-existent policy reference (WP:Well-poisoning)

(11)Removed by User:Multimotyl ('off topic') The editor has 50 edits in 6 years, almost zilch to do with this topic area.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Without personalizing things, 2 editors of the 4 removalists here are blow-ins who have done little or nothing on Wikipedia. One just popped up into wikipedia to edit here and has made some 30 edits. The other just swerved widely from his interest in camera lenses to revert this obscure article. It has all the appearance of gaming. Convincing 4 objectors in a flash community of 11 to agree is not consensus. Seeing 4 pro and 3 non-objecting editors here suggests, the burden lies on you, not on me, to get consensus for removal.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks to User:Nishidani for alerting me to this discussion. I removed the comparison of white phosphorous to rock throwing because it seemed to me an obvious instance of well poisoning. (a term in common usage on WP talk pages; it is irrelevant that I was mistaken to red link well poisoning.) It still seems inappropriate. We don't drag every accusation made in a book onto the page merely because it is printed in some book. I just went back and read the passage Nishdani cited. To me, it is polemical and loosely argued: "Several factors belie the claim that phosphorous is justified while stone-throwing should be criminalized.... the targets on which phosphorous versus stone are directed (entire population centers versus individuals who may be in armored vehicles or inanimate objects such as the wall)" you can read more, but there is reason to interrogate this source. Among its obvious flaws, Israel, as I understand it, used white phosphorous for marking or signaling purposes, it did not "target" entire civilian populations. Moreover, to cherry pick 2 targets of Palestinian stone throwers, and choose "armored vehicles" as one and "the wall" as the other is certainly polemical. (do Palestinians throw stones at "the wall"? I thought they threw them at soldiers defending the wire fence in Bil'in from demonstrators with wire-cutters.) You can read the article, which appeared in a non-notable gook (i.e. published without being reviewed by academic journals or, as far as I can find, noticed by anyone) and edited by three non blue-linked authors. Routeledge publishes some notable and enormous numbers of non-notable books. Leaving that aside, comparing white phosphorous to rock-throwing for rheorical purposes may be valid, but it is far from being a significant part of the discussion of the criminal status or general conceptualization of rock=throwing. It appears merely to be a comparison being made in a single essay in a single book. Adding it to the article appears gratuitous, polemical, a kind of well-poisoning, mere anti-Israel mud-slinging. A violation of WP:NPOV, and an appropriate passage to revert.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

None of this is comprehensible in terms of wiki rules and practice. By this adventitious introduction of the term, any negative information or invidious comparison, contained in a reputable RS, could be unilaterally removed. Well-poisoning, -a flash phrase for WP:IDONTLIKEIT- is not policy, and therefore the reason given for your edit was false. This is not a subjective enterprise, but empirical and logical.

Our task here is simply to note what sources say. If the source is of high quality, and relevant, it goes in regardless of our personal beliefs or distaste. I accept this whatever side produces information. I've seen hundreds of edits I think misrepresentative of the overall picture, but I don't remove any if the source is strong. No policy-based argument has been given. Apart from Debresser, no editor of long experience has challenged that as a reliable or relevant source. These are basic rules.Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You say 4 out of 11 are against, I say 4 removed, 4 restored, 3 neutral. That sounds like no consensus to me. It's the same numbers, the question is only how to represent them. But that is not the main issue here, since there is an ongoing discussion we can look to to see that there is no consensus.

I agree with the argument of E.M.Gregory and disagree with the argument of Nishidani. E.M.Gregory calls it well-poisoning, I call it irrelevant, but I do agree there is an implication there that is well-poisoning. That is, likely, close to a definition of "well-poisoning": adding something that really is irrelevant, to make a certain implication, cast a certain doubt, etc. Nishidani uses the RS argument. I just want to point out a point which I have made many times on Wikipedia over the years: we have no obligation to write everything that can be found in reliable sources. We write an encyclopedia with logically structured and balanced articles. There is much information to be found, that does not serve that purpose. This is one of those cases. Moreover, as I said before, this addition does more harm than good. Debresser (talk) 13:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You have four opposed to its inclusion, of 11 editors. As for the 3,Geshvign heyst oykh geredt, as they say in the classics.Nishidani (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I find it... odd... Nishdani fights so strenuously to put in an isolated analogy to white phosphorous from a lone, obscure source, when the article lacks so much. It lacks:

Numbers of civilians and soldiers injured and killed by rock-throwers.

Discussion of Arab casualties caused by rock-throwers hitting cars driven by Arabs.

Mention in the conceptualizations section of such widely discussed questions as rock-throwing at civilian vehicles as a form of terrorism.

Mention in the conceptualizations section of rocks and slingshots as lethal weapons.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead. For once I think it proper that some other editors actually chip and build the page, rather than leaving the hard work to me.Nishidani (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Gentlemen. I don't need your consensus to restore a relevant fact from a high quality source, which was removed without any policy-based reason. It was a patent abuse of procedures.Nishidani (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

If that were the case, you'd be right. But I for one hold this is not relevant. Sorry, but I think you'll have to either resign to the present version without the phrase you want, or go to some dispute resolution forum. Debresser (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Editorial decisions are rule-based. No objector has yet to provide us with a relevant wiki policy justifying the removal of on-topic material from a high quality legal source. Opinions are simply not an adequate justification for elision. This is a Grade 1 wiki principle.Nishidani (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, again, Nishidani. The real "grade 1 Wikipedia principle" is WP:CONSENSUS, and there is no consensus that this is relevant, therefore the rest of your argument becomes void. Debresser (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Stone throwing is a "political action"

I don't see congressmen throwing stones at each other in the parliament.

How is stone throwing a political action? It's aimed at: 1) Causing damage to property, which is vandalism, not a political action 2) Harming or killing civilians Israelis or troops, which is terrorism and unlawful warfare / asymmetric warfare respectively.

Why is this coined as a political action? Shouldn't it be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewnited (talk • contribs) 18:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Read the Toledot Yeshu which says Christ was stoned while he was strung up, as Jewish law required in sentencing sorcerers to death. Was that report referring to a political act? (And whaddya mean about 'unlawful warfare' in this area? Nothing is lawful there. It's the badlands, where anything goes for either side, including the use of torture units and electrical shock to extract confessions of stoning in the First Intifada.)Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how you addressed Jewnited's point. How is damage or inflicting bodily harm called politcal action? Boardg (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Most stone-throwing never inflicts damage or bodily harm. If you go into the details of Israel's strategy and tactical use of weapons in crowd dispersal, - which covers most incidents -everything hinges around the distance, 75-100 metres beyond which stone/rock throwing is ineffective. Even the type of ammunition used is calibrated according to safe distance for soldiers over munition effectiveness in that range.

It is a political action because there is such a thing called an occupation which (a) denies water rights to villagers while supplying water to settlements (b) allows all settlers to be heavily armed, while treating any form of weapon among Palestinians, even in homes, as 'terroristic' (c) using an army to strangle villages whose land is sought for settlement expansion (Kfar Qaddum/Bil'in and numerous others) which generates weekly protests in order to secure the right of passage out or into continuous villages, whereas all settlements are serviced by road networks that allow free transit; (d) the right of free assembly in demonstrations against the occupation is denied by the military authority in that it demands that protesters receive permission from the IDF which is rarely given, rendering virtually all protests illegal under military law: no such prohibition affects settler protests, (e) settlers are allowed to throw stones, as IDF troops stand by. Numerous videos show this. Their behaviour is not considered criminal, terrorist or vandalistic, etc.etc. This could go on for hours. The question is framed by premises which reflects either the editor's POV, or some assumption governing the normal (U.S.?) world. In no democracy are people who assemble in protest, for whatever reason, shot day by day, as has been the case for decades there.Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

On-topic, please, Nishidani. This is not a forum. I think we can say that stone-throwing is not solely a political action in the sense in which the term is generally understood - other users, any wording suggestions? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I answer queries. The topic I addressed is framed by the question. Stone-throwing is many things, obviously, but numerous sources stress it is not just shanghai slinging as all kids do the world over, but, contextually a form of popular protest, and popular protests are political. All one need do is document the various interpretations of stone throwing, which include 'guerilla tactic' 'civil disobedience' 'form of popular protest' etc. Sources determine usage and definition, and we just follow them.Nishidani (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That's a start. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit-warring, mass removal without talk page explanations, of sourced material

• Ist mass removal by User:E.M.Gregory
• 2nd mass removal by User:Galatz

(a) there is no agreement in these reductions. Two editors take chunks, without prior notice, and there is no rationale given on the talk page, nor any known policy base. (b) all of those pieces are connected by the sourcing with Palestinian rock throwing.(c) having 'the numbers' to challenge a single editor is always a powerful temptation for editors to revert, erase, ignore rules, not discuss. This is what is happening here.Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

In fact, Nishdani proposed (above) changing the title and, therefore, the article to an article on stone throwing in the Arab/Israeli conflict. There was a long discussion with many participants. The proposal was turned down by editors arguing that this in an article about Palestinian stone throwing. It was suggested to Nishdani that if he wants to have articles about other stuff (such as the extremely bloated and POV material about David-and-Goliath symbolism, the section that User:Galatz removed, or on stone throwing by Israelis, the section that I removed, he can write articles on those topics. Instead Nishdani is willfully overlooking discussions and consensus to convert this article into the very article on both Israeli and Palestinian stone-throwing that other editors rejected in discussion.

Far from attempting anything resembling NPOV editing here Nishdani's mass reversions and mass removal of sourced material added by editors is highly POV and restores a great many inaccurate POV pseudo-facts and POV assertions cited to highly partisan sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Editing is not quite a science, but it is rule-governed. You are persistently making (while reverting) accusations ad personam while avoiding any on -topic replies to the queries I raise. If you have a list of a great many inaccurate POV pseudo-facts', provide it.

(b) Can you please explain why 'POV assertions cited to highly partisan sources' is an adequate summary of paraphrases from predominantly area specialist university press publications on the topic. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Attempting rational discussion and consensus-building with Nishdani is a fruitless time sink.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

There was consensus that this article is a mess and POV. There are SO MANY things that need to be changed that there is no way everything can be proposes. You decided to randomly add a bunch of horrible content. Maybe if you dont like us changing it, revert everything back to before you ruined the article and add back only relevant and properly formatted content. - Galatz^Talk 14:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

There was no such consensus. (1) I wrote it (2) Roscelese mentioned the lead should be briefer. (3) Debresser said that it was a useful addition. Plot Spoiler is an automatic revert and naysayer (1); E.M.Gregory (2) and yourself (3).

There are SO MANY things that need to be changed that there is no way everything can be proposes. You decided to randomly add a bunch of horrible content.

That is not a reply. If you can actually see things that must be changed, you list them. List them.

Maybe if you dont like us changing it.' Thanks for the confession that this is a group effort, so far, of two.Nishidani (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani After your recent undiscussed complete rewrite of this article, adding some 74,000 characters to this article, I think you can not in good faith protest against other editors who rewrite this article again, removing "only" 3,000 or 9,000 characters. Debresser (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You seriously believe that an I/P stub can be rewritten, line by line, from 20,000 to 97,000 by asking a team of editors who customarily vote in lockstep on everything, and are hypersensitive about one side's image, to stand around and give their consensus to every line you add? Competent editors (a) use the talk page (b) don't edit to one side but edit comprehensively (c) when in doubt, or challenged, they set forth their arguments on the talk page to achieve some form of agreement. Behaviourally what has occurred here is (a) mass removals without talk page justification (b) save for wild claims that my work is a terrible mess of POV assertions. You stated above

: I want to thank Nishidani for this rewrite of the article. I think he did a great job, including a great job in sourcing. The lede is perhaps a little long, but not unacceptably. If there are any (N)POV issues, including the issue raised by Roscelese, please be specific about what statement you think is formulated wrongly or is undue. Debresser (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The activist editors then went and removed two different blocks of text, with no policy based argument given. Neither Galatz nor Gregory agreed on what should be removed, they each took out a slice they didn't want in, again, with no policy-based reason. Their respective arguments were of distaste. You asked that editors (Roscelese) list issues she might have with the text, do that they could be dealt with. That is how we work here. You are entitled to change your mind, but generic support is meaningless. Persuasion and good faith are based on a readiness to justify what one does in terms of policy. You now find my behavior contradictory, and remain silent over the way Galatz and Gregory charged in.Nishidani (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

And for the record, I was commissioned by a major scholar in his field to write the article on his academic speciality for an encyclopedia he edited. He chose me to do it because our positions were diametrically opposed, and wished both to avoid giving his authoritative slant to the article in question and to repose trust in my ability to review the literature on the subject with due regard to neutrality, and the aims of encyclopedic writing. He changed one word, a mistake in his native language, and it was duly published. That is what scholars do. They set peers a challenge, and trust that they will put aside personal disagreements for the shared ideal of precision of reportage, fairness of coverage, fearlessness in treading over hermeneutic minefields, and readable prose. That is the ideal, and we all fall short of it regularly, but when others correct one, you know whether it is sound judgment or just ideological bitchiness and score settling.Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. We all respect you very much, and the work you are doing on this article. But really, did you think you could completely rewrite and significantly expand an article, especially on this subject, and have everyone agree with your text? Debresser (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Look. I may be a tough editor, but I like working with strong competent editors, esp. if they are dedicated, share the 5 pillars and know how this place operates. In the Shakespeare Authorship Question article, for example. I rewrote the article from zero, while another editor was asked to write his preferred version. He didn't. It took 3 months. Then it was taken in hand by a masterly drafter and recognized authority on the subject, Tom Reedy, who recast it, often substantially, from his perspective. I bowed before his superior knowledge and editorial wisdom. We were joined by several other very experienced wikipedians, often disagreeing over niceties. I think if we met in private we would all disagree on much, but this never translated into squabbles over the article, which duly attained FA status. It is extremely enjoyable to work in such environments. I've seen brilliant editors work from top to bottom, controversial I/P articles, and though I might disagree on several points, I never obstruct the work, nor intrude, until the editor has completed the rewriting (Slim Virgin at Lydda Exodus or on Mohammad Durrah). Editor WarKoSign at the Gaza 2014 articles had values, attitudes diametrically opposed to mine. We would privately disagree on everything. In several months, we have never had occasion to get personal, because he (certainly, excluding myself) adhered scrupulously to the best practice protocols on Wikipedia and whether or not it is reciprocated, he has my respect as an ideal collegial editor. No problem. The last thing I expect is agreement, and the first thing I accept is that this is a collegial undertaking.

Unfortunately, most of this area is avoided by wikipedians, and the quality of articles is generally substandard. Most editors tweak, revert or add tidbits, but don't actually take on an article to see it to basio levels. If there is a vote, there is a sudden inflow of interested people, who vote one way or another. and then leave, or people who just revert, take stuff out, or add silly POV stuff (disregarding structure, context, formatting etc). That is what I see here. What I wrote was a comprehensive draft, and then I waited for reactions, and point by point comments that could enable this to be trimmed, rephrased, improved, expanded etc., as GA writing demands. Those who have edited, apart from yourself, have simply yelled 'Horrible mess' and taken the axe to it. They have not deigned to engage in any constructive analysis or to offer on the talk page a policy basis for their decisions, and a readiness to respond to my own remarks. To the contrary, the message has been: 'It's pointless engaging with Nishidani'.

It is very hard to be constructive. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can pull something apart.Nishidani (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani's Rewrite Terribly Unbalanced Violation of NPOV

Nishidani's entire rewrite is terribly unbalanced. Should be reverted and discussed and refined on talk page before such a large scale POV edit (e.g. "Stone-throwers, refraining from firearms, Israel’s strong suit"). Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks unbalanced only because the historical situation described is 'unbalanced', i.e. you have a vast scholarly literature dealing with movements of stone-throwers against an immensely powerful army of occupation, and the asymmetry is in the reality, and in the sources that analyse that reality. That is all. You call that a POV? It's reality, and the reflection of that reality in sources.

As to POV, this is the only article ethnically identifying 'stone throwers' qua Palestinians as a problem, when any google search will tell you it is chronic in all periods, in all countries, where conflict rages. Who thought of nailing the Palestinians as 'unique'? I'm glad they did, retrospectively, because it is intensely studied, and has a fascinating history, well worth exploring (without mentioning the huge literature on stoned prophets, saints, martyrs, and catapult battles in the medieval times, in Palestine.Nishidani (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I noticed in the above section that numerous POV pushers will stop a proposal without troubling to actually work this or any article and then leave the page. People congregate to play games. Few edit here: most sit round and discuss, and challenge tidbits. This is supposed to aspire to encyclopedic level writing, meaning people are not supposed to make a career of sitting round waiting for someone to actually work hard, and then kibitz, whinge and revert, until they are happy. If you have any specific proposals, list them. 'Israel's strong suit' is directly in the sources. You can paraphrase that as 'forte' but that is what the (academic) text states as the motive. POV finally, here means what the mass of sources (95% from academic specialists in highly reliable publications, state. Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't have time to read through all the changes at this time, but the lede is way too long. This is not what ledes are for.

Nishidani, please accept that "everyone throws stones, there's no reason to single out Palestinians" is a lost cause. The article exists because there are sources singling it out, not because we are. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I must note that it is obvious I already accepted that proposition because the consensus was against my proposal. I dropped the 'lost cause'. Since the article was a farce, that left me no alternative than that of writing up a comprehensive history of the subject according to the best available studies. Doing so is not defending a 'lost cause': it is ensuring that editors who think cheap sketches of complex realities to get at an adversary is what we do here will find that snippet caricatures have no place on Wikipedia, and the only remedy is to take on the job of showing what the real scholarship on the subject shows regarding the subject, in all of its intricate historical and cultural details. As to the lead, it sums up a long page, and is proportionately long. (I have by the way left out a lot of extra material out of respect for contemporary readers, who tire after a twitter, so I'm told). Things can be adjusted, if editors, in good faith, study the page and the relevant sources in depth. To do so, I would expect that, other than just reading the page and objecting, editors click through each link and read, visualize and digest some of the over 1,000 pages of text I have had to sift through to get these basic elements on the page. That done, one can certainly engage in a comprehensive point by point review.Nishidani (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I want to thank Nishidani for this rewrite of the article. I think he did a great job, including a great job in sourcing. The lede is perhaps a little long, but not unacceptably. If there are any (N)POV issues, including the issue raised by Roscelese, please be specific about what statement you think is formulated wrongly or is undue. Debresser (talk) 22:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Although some of it might be great background it really feels very disjointed and very hard to follow now. The article is definitely now just one big mess - Galatz^Talk 02:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It is somewhat disjointed for a very simple reason: the rules of composition on Wikipedia disallow intelligent prose composition, particularly on contentious articles, because there is no scope for commonsense (you'll be reverted for WP:OR) or narrative cogency (WP:SYNTH), since every statement must be, on pain of reversion, meticulously sourced and verifiable. Lastly, the more you read on any subject the more you realize how self-contradictory, inaccurate, POV-oriented, even our secondary sources are (forget about newspapers, mainly a lost cause). I tried to get, for example, a coherent institutional timedline for changes in cabinet decisions and official policy as the various phases of the intifada unfolded:no deal, or no ideal, so one had to forage endlessly for dates+ types of operation. The result was some order, but harlequinesque. In the end, I opted to put before editors a strong sample of the kind of material we can potentially harvest. It's a very rich field, studied by psychologist, strategists, anthropologists, sociologists and historians. Nishidani (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Having read it with fresh eyes, I can see how the lead can be significantly reduced. My problem there was to honour the content of the earlier lead's points, so I documented and expanded each issue raised there. One could take out (a) Israeli Palestinians imitate (b) the excessive detail on munition (I expanded that via documentation because people wanted Fisk, and the Binjamin Meisner bit about a cement block in (even though that is rare); (c) trim Said, etc., while conserving the footnotes and details for relocation in the body of the text, I'll present a trimmed down version here this afternoon, and we can pare it even further down. Any further suggestions?Nishidani (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

As I see Nishidani did his best to compile an apology of stone-throwing. May be, he'll receive a next thanks from Gaza :) but the article after his change does not comply with NPOV. --Igorp_lj (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Such reliable (?) sources, used by Nishidani :(

Current version:

===The use of concrete blocks hurled from rooftops===

Sometimes, in clashes between IDF forces and Palestinians, concrete blocks were used to kill the adversary. In Beit Sahour on the 18th of July 1988 Edmond Ghanem (17) was killed when a soldier dropped a building block on his head from the third story Israeli army outpost in the municipal building as Ghanem walked by.

And what how this incident is described in the UN report, 24 October 1988 :

223. On 18 July 1988, widespread demonstrations took place in Beit Sahur after the death of Edmond Elias Ghanem, 17. The youth was killed when a big brick dropped from a building used as a look-out post by troops. Local residents alleged that soldiers dropped the brick deliberately, but IDF senior officers investigated the death and said it was a "tragic accident".

I am going to replace Nishidani's sources by UN one and to change the text according to it.
BTW, one may try to count the 'stone', 'riot' vs 'demonstration' or to find 'peaceful' words, and to evalute how may be right above mentioned thesis about "97% peaceful demonstration", --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

While the UN report and Sun Sentinel did gave that view you replaced it with, the two other sources put the blame on the Israeli soldier. What do you mean with "Such reliable (?) sources"? --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Your own research based on looking on this article that deals specifically about Palestinian stone-throwing to show that the portrayal of the First Intifada is wrong says nothing about how it was. Even if this article was perfect, such an argument has no basis as you can't make a case out of noting how many times certain words are mentioned and measure it according to some unknown criteria. In addition to only looking on this article itself, you don't take into account that this article don't only describes the First Intifada but several other events too.

I am really apalled by your reply. No wonder that WP:OR is unacceptable when arguments like this is made. If you think the portrayal of that intifada is wrong, start make a case based on reliable sources. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Article has serious issues of ownership, accuracy, POV

Even setting aside Nishdani's aggressive "ownership" attitude towards this article, there are serious problems here.

The bloated lede is highly POV, favoring justifications for throwing stones, assertions of their non-lethality, and failing to mention that throwing stones in regarded as Criminal rock throwing a felony in most of the world.

The article contains many statements not supported by Nishdani's own sources. Such as the assertion in the secition on "concrete blocks" that an Israeli soldier "a soldier dropped a building block" on the head of a Paestinian, an assertion that Nishdani's source the Sun-Sentinel does not support, it states that the IDF called the incident a an "accident". It makes me wonder what else Nishdani has in the article that is badly sourced.

The article conflates stone throwing during riots with stone throwing by small groups targeting cars, and elides the fact that stone throwing is a crime in almost every country by asserting that Isrel is unique in criminalizing stone throwing.

The article is entitled Palestinian stone throwing and much of the text is devoted to the symbolic significance of stone throwing to Palestinian culture, which makes the section on Israelis who throw stones an inappropriate intrusion into the article.

A link to the worldwide phenomenon of Criminal rock throwing, covering both riots and the targeting of cars on highways, usually by groups of youths, seems appropriate and normal Wikipedia practice. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

That is misrepresentation throughout. The lead provided numerous examples of how 'stone throwing' is defined in the technical literature. I followed Roscelese's suggestion in reply to a comment on how to define the practice (see above). What you did was rewrite the section to make it (a) comply with one type of incident (b) and make out that Israeli law was identical to those prevailing in other countries, which (1) ignores the sources and (b) sets up one POV, Israel's, to substitute for the several points of view surveyed in the earlier lead. So it really the pot calling the kettle black. I generally don't revert except where I see POV puishing or incompetence. Your edits were emblematic of both.Nishidani (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I opened up a section to discuss the lead, following two suggestions that it was too long. I even offered some suggestions. The standard wiki practice is to use the talk page to iron out collegially problems. Your sequenced ignored this, and made a series of edits that, one by one, seemed to ignore standard and elementary procedures for good editing. I.e. you do not rewrite a text which is sourced, keeping the source, while completely altering the text in a way that it no longer respects the source's content. Editing like that just makes the source unverifiable and creates problems. So, act collegially, make your proposals. I don't own the page, but I am careful about writing to sources, not inventing stuff, as you have done consistently, esp. with that WP:OR nonsense that tries to make the peculiarity of Israel's practice in a foreign country (Palestinian territories) identical for infra-national laws in two other countries, that are highly specific (road laws) and do not apply to the vast range of stone-throwing incidents covered by the literature which deal with stone-throwing at armed police and soldiers. That is covered by other legal conventions, international and otherwise, and not by road laws.Nishidani (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The entire article is just one big mess now honestly. It needs really serious work. Nishidani made so many POV edits all over the place in addition to the horrible formatting. It was take so many months to attempt to even make this article readable again. - Galatz^Talk 13:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Galatz is correct. I suggest we start with the POV lede. And editing in a link to Criminal rock throwing in the first sentence of the lede (normal Wikipedia procedure]]. And that Nishdana refrain form making sweeping reversions of large numbers of well-supported edits, including those that challenge his multiple single-sourced, inaccurate factual assertions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

No. Neither of you did any serious work on the article, which in my view, perhaps mistaken was farcical. It originated as part of a series of articles created by User:ShulMaven as one of a set of blame-the-Palestinians articles in Sept-Novembver 2014. I sat down and read through the numerous academic sources and simply synthesized their content, allowed what RS discuss to influence the formation of the topic and its themes.

The reply has been one of dislike, no discussion on the issues, protests arguing for a mass revert, or single-handed individual attempts to remove en bloc material the sources on rock throwing mention.

The above comments are vague and personal.

If you wish to be constructive, list, I repeat, following Debresser, the things you think questionable, and they will be addressed by all editors. As of today, there appears to be no interest in following standard editorial procedures, but rather an attempt to unhinge the cogency of what sources state.Nishidani (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani You recently proposed to add a few words about Israeli phosphor use based on a connection made by a source. Now you are the one to protest against the claim that Palestinian stone throwing is internationally illegal, based on the argument that the source only mentioned throwing stones at cars in other countries, even though the source does make that connection. That looks like using two different yardsticks to me. Debresser (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You don't evidently find it problematical as an index of a behavioural attitude (refusal to respond to queries) when editors write:

Attempting rational discussion and consensus-building with Nishdani is a fruitless time sink

I.e. that is an adamant refusal to carry out one's policy obligations and a personal attack on another's editor's bona fides.Nishidani (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, and disagree with the statement you quoted. At the same time, I do think that we should have a link at criminal rock throwing. Or would you like to make the point that this is a legitimate form of protest? Debresser (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. What Gregory did was create an ad hoc article to buttress his intervention here, and allow him to recast an extremely complex issue as merely criminal behavior by a people. The Criminal rock throwing article is pathetically defective, as any glance at the literature shows (there is a long history to it, but I'm fucked if I should feel obliged to fix everything here, like adding American court judgements from the time the American citizenry, prone to throwing stones at the British soldiery who were forbidden by common law to shoot or bayonet them in such cases, to judge Stone (sic!) contrary judgement a century later, etc., to show there, and in other countries how this developed in law, and the differences between rock throwing in a country where one is a citizen, and rock throwing against a power in belligerent occupation of one's country (or why Israeli settler stone throwers are subject to civil law, (and almost always let off) whereas Palestinian rock throwers are subject to military courts, and almost always fined or imprisoned).

What Gregory should do is do for the article he created what I did for this. Give this kind of background:

‘Under English common law, soldiers could not fire on civilians without an order from a civil magistrate, except in self-defense when their lives were in danger. By the fall of 1760, no magistrate dared issue such a command. Clashes between soldiers and civilians grew frequent, and justices of the peace singled out the soldiers for punishment. At one point, when town officials tried to arrest a British officer who was commanding the guard at Boston Neck, Captain Ponsonby Molesworth intervened to confront a stone-throwing crowd. Molesworth ordered the soldiers to bayonet anyone throwing stones who got too close. A Boston justice told him that, under common law, a bayonet thrust was not an act of self-defense against a stone, which was not a lethal weapon. Had a soldier killed anyone, Molesworth could have been tried for his life.'(John Murrin,Paul Johnson,James McPherson,Alice Fahs,Gary Gerstle, : Liberty, Equality, Power: A History of the American People, Cengage Learning, 2011 p.183

he should then go to google books and amass material using the phrasing 'criminal rock throwing' and its variants with regard to Palestinians, otherwise he is engaged in WP:SYNTH. It is obvious that throwing rocks at cars on roads is criminal (it is obvious that shooting live ammunition at an occupied unarmed people is not acceptable in Western or international law), but what interests us with regard to the former are the statutes and laws Israel uses to define its practices. It is not obvious from a Palestinian perspective that throwing stones is improper in circumstances where a foreign army bursta into your village, for whatever reason, breaking down doors, rounding up people you know, on unknown grounds, after midnight, as happens every night. To try and fix the Israeli POV as he did, as completely consonant with internal law and order disciplines in an integrated nation studiously ignores the difference between nation-state laws applicable to all citizens, and occupying powers fashioning tactics to maintain what they decide is order over an occupied people who are not citizens of the ruling state and is sheer POV spinning, and as such, unacceptable.Nishidani (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani It is not correct to say that E.M.Gregory reduces Palestinian stone throwing to merely a criminal act. The first sentence clearly say other things as well ("variously described as a form of traditional popular protest guerrilla tactic or action, or mode of civil disobedience"). Debresser (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually it is correct. In the flurry of edits, it is understandable that we miss details like this, but first here and then in this one Gregory 'reduced Palestinian stoned throwing to merely a criminal act.' The stupidity of that edit, apart from its assertion that there is only 'one true definition' lies in the fact that, when my earlier range of definitions is read below it, Gregory's addition makes out that 'civil disobedience', or all unauthorized protests, as some scholars describe 'stone throwing', constitute criminal activities. This is elementary. Nishidani (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The full part of it: "Palestinian stone-throwing is a variety of criminal rock throwing variously described as a form of traditional[1] popular protest[2] guerrilla tactic or action,[3][4] or mode of civil disobedience". So it gets classified as "criminal" and then we are told that that various people describe it in different ways. So while those descriptions are there, the actions are classified from the beginning as "criminal". --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, pray tell me, isn't it criminal to throw stones then? Debresser (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it criminal to shoot people? 70.50.122.38 (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Removals

David and Goliath symbolism

The first intifada's mode of confrontation between armed soldiers and stone throwing youths was as much a 'battle of perceptions' as a military clash. The myth of David and Goliath in which ancestral Israel’s first king defeats the Philistines by the use of a slingshot and stones had been reenacted in the Zionist struggle to establish a state against a much larger Arab world’s opposition, a “few against the many” narrative, of a David slaying Goliath, which some argue still exercises a hegemonic hold over Western attitudes. When the first revolt against the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories broke out, according to Mira Sucharov, the myth reappeared in a subverted version, in both a kibbutz song,

Dudi, you always wanted to be like David
Red headed and nice eyes, And always with a smile
In an alley in Nablus you forgot everything
and turned into Goliath.

and as a reformulation in significant areas of the policy in which Israelis imagined themselves as Goliath, and their Other, the unarmed Palestinians asserting their nationalism, as David.

At the same time, the myth was consciously appropriated by Palestinians who ‘returned to the ancient method: the sling and stone like David.’ The image thus became recurrent in descriptions of the different means employed by both sides in the confrontations in this asymmetric warfare. Eitan Alimi argues that this transfer of the Israeli story into Palestinian hands gave the latter three advantages: it was a spiritual resource for insurgents against a strong army; it followed David’s rejection of Saul’s advice to employ armour and lethal weaponry in favour of techniques they were more traditionally familiar with; and it was newsworthy to face off Israeli tanks and heavily armed soldiers with stones and burning tires. Astute Palestinian planning to see that media representatives were present, despite Israeli efforts to hinder coverage, were demoralizing not only for Israel’s foreign image, but to the parents of IDF soldiers watching the news. The international press, through television broadcasts of the uprising, contrasted heavily armed troops against rock-throwing boys as a ‘David-and-Goliath standoff,’ casting the Palestinians as the underdog. According to Stuart Eizenstat, the ‘reverse David-and-Goliath image of Israelis with tanks against rock-throwing Palestinian teenagers’ distorts foreign perceptions of Israel's battle against terrorism. It is argued that this asymmetric stand-off has reversed the traditional global impression of Israel as a David facing an Arab Goliath.

Please list the policy grounds for the removal of this section.Nishidani (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this section is relevant and important, even though perhaps a little too detailed. After some pruning, we should definitely have this. Debresser (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Please explain why it is needed. Every single item in it is already in the article elsewhere. It adds nothing to the article - Galatz^Talk 14:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

That is patently false, as any check will immediately show. So please offer a serious explanation of why it was removed. If you can show reduplication, as you insinuate, fine, but unless you can document it, all we have is an assertion or claim, which no one is obliged to take seriously.Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm putting it back, accepting Debresser's point that it may need pruning. I.e. you do not remove a whole section of an article when the issues are merely matters of pruning here and there, copy-editing etc. I welcome proposals here to review the text.Nishidani (talk) 04:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

(My edit summary was defective. For 'Refusal to answer objections to its refusal' ='Refusal to answer objections to its removal'. I would add that removal of upwards of 14 academic sources bearing directly on the subject of any article is frowned on, looks 'vandalistic' and probably, if it recurs, a reportable form of abusive behavior. Nishidani (talk) 05:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)