Talk:Palestinian stone-throwing/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Lead

Palestinian stone-throwing is a form of traditional popular protest, guerrilla tactic and mode of civil disobedience used predominantly by youths to protest the Israeli occupation and settlement of the Palestinian territories.

Stone throwing came to prominence during the First Intifada, which was unarmed and generally eschewed recourse to lethal weapons, though some argue that stone-throwing employs deadly objects, that it should be treated as a form of terrorism, or that, psychologically, it is intrinsically violent. Those targeted are Israeli soldiers, and also Israeli civilians and settlers driving in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

Since the 1987 uprising, characterized by youths facing Israel's military might and when 97% of protest actions were peaceful, the technique has been widely interpreted as inverting the association of modern Israel with David, and her enemies with Goliath, by casting the Palestinians as David to Israel’s Goliath, The international press and media have focused on the aspect of stone-throwing in protests, with Palestinian stone-throwing, which gained iconic status, getting more headline attention than other violent conflicts in the world. Edward Said argued that media coverage selectively commodifies stone throwing (and mindless terroristic bombings) for outside consumption, distorting the cultural and social complexities of an anti-colonial resistance movement by the Palestinian people.

While stone throwing is not regarded in most counties as lethal, Israel, as opposed to Western practice, allows the use of arms to disperse riots and demonstrations, with live fire permitted when the soldier or policeman deems that a threat to life exists. The Israeli penal code treats Palestinian stone throwing as a felony, with a maximum penalty if convicted of 2 years imprisonment. A law has been proposed to extend this to a maximum of 10 years for stoning cars, even without proof of intent to endanger passengers, and 20 years for throwing stones at people. without proof of intent to cause bodily harm.

Analysis of revision proposal

• (1) remove the photo. Either a smaller version or a different one (this is of course pointy. They hide behind ambulances (well, true, but most don't)
• (2) Remove
• (3)'Add 'was generally unarmed and eschewed recourse to lethal weapons' (in sources)
• Remove:It has occasionally been imitated by activists among the Israeli Palestinian Arab minority. Some view it as a form of ‘non-lethal civil disobedience’
• (4)Reformulate in a single sentence Israel's approach, the question of lethality, and general Western practice.
• (5)Remove:Stone-throwers, refraining from firearms, Israel’s strong suit, also employ catapults, slings and slingshots armed with readily available materials at hand: stones, bricks, bottles, pebbles or ball bearings, and sometimes rats or cement blocks. Slingshots, used "to give their stones velocity," are often loaded with large ball bearings instead of stones.

This can be included in a specific section devoted to the terms for stone throwers, their weapons, and their methods (hopefully by supplementing with more Arabic glosses).

Igorp. Please desist from this bad habit (plunking cn tags when the sources provide the clarification you request. All you need do is click on a reference, and find the page referred to, which reads:' But this image of the intifada obscures the fact that over 97% of the campaign activities reported by the Israeli Defense Force were nonviolent, including mass demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, and other acts of defiance and civil disobedience'(King 2007; Pearlman 2009).'

That means that a tertiary source cites two scholarly secondary sources for the 97 percent. 3 scholarly sources is sufficient for Wikipedia. If you find other sources contradicting this, bring them here.Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, "please desist from this bad habit" - passing your false "peaceful" imagination :) to Wiki. This is what I've checked, not imagined: Morris doesn't write about this 97% at all. Erica Chenoweth wrote about nonviolent (not "peaceful"), citing King & Pearlman.

What I only found is that Pearlman in turn sited IDF-1992 only here to p.119 (ref #162).

Pls let me know if you may find something else. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said, read Cheneweth, who reports that datum. Nishidani (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It's me, who proposes you to read it and to learn that there is no "peaceful" definition there.

++ Erica Chenoweth, Maria J. Stephan & Pearlman

So I'll return the {{clarify}} & {{cn}} tags till it will be written according to the RS. --Igorp_lj (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

This can easily be resolved by changing to "nonviolent". --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

No so easily. Even Erica Chenoweth & Maria J. Stephanwrop haven't mentioned the stone-throwing attacks at p.119 and in their table (p.120), allegedly siting Pearlman's data. They have compared only "unarmed protest" & "shooting" incidents" and gave 1.36% (1992), for example, of "all incidents involving firearms". --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The data is given by Wendy Pearlman as can be confirmed here. We could add how Erica Chenoweth and ‎Maria J. Stephan calculates it to be over 97%. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

IRISZOOM, thanks for a real quote. This is what I've asked Nishodani above.

But the question remains unanswered: how Erica Chenoweth & Maria J. Stephanwrop got 97% nonviolent{{what}} incidents from Perlman's book. I do not see this number at your link. And once again: she wrote only about the "% of all incidents involving shooting". Where are "sporadic stabbings" (sic), etc.? --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

This is how they view it. As I said, it could be added how they calculated this. No matter exact percentages, it is clear that the First Intifada was to a great extent nonviolent (especially in the first years). --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

"how they view" or "how{{how}} they calculated"? :)

IMHO, only specific info with exact definitions and numbers as mentioned above, may be added to the article, not mythical 97%. --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

They authors call it "nonviolent". We can mention how they reach that conclusion. Exact definition and numbers are given by them, who cite Wendy Pearlman. They compare shooting incidents with unarmed protest incidents and say that was violent respectively nonviolent. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I added how they calculated that. I also changed it to "nonviolent". The tags have therefore been removed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Your

• "... it has been calculated, by looking on how many of all incidents involved firearms, that 97% of reported resistance activities at that period were nonviolent"

should be clarified as minimum to ~ as:

"Some authors wrote that 97% of reported resistance activities at that period were nonviolent. It should be mentioned that they considered as violent only those incidents what involved firearms ("shooting"), for some reasons excluding from their statistics stone-throwing and other violent incidents".

So I return the tags till we'll reach some consensus about a text and its position. Do you really think that Lede is a suitable place for such disputed info? --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

As usual, you insist on putting several tags. You have had nearly three weeks to reply but when I go forward and try to solve the issue, you then write back and put in the tags again. Little earlier you had reverted me in another article.

First of all, you have not discussed the position of the info until now when I finally went forward to solve the issue. So how can you complain on me?

Secondly, your suggestion is not good. It is own commentary. Of course your highlights and observations are nothing that belongs in a Wikipedia article.

We could though add directly from Wendy Pearlman in addition to how Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan view it. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not complain on you :) I only consider that it's not correct to leave their 'nonviolent' definition without such "details" (from the same their books) that it really means only "not-shooting" and doesn't include such attacks as "sporadic stabbings", "Molotov cocktails" and the same "stone-throwing" what we're talking about here. (:) --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay. :) We could add from Wendy Pearlman too (page 105) and reword it like: "Despite there being daily protests acts all over the Palestinian territories, the number of shooting incidents was tiny (less than 3%), but the international press and media focused on the aspect of stone-throwing. Palestinian stone-throwing got more headline attention than other violent conflicts in the world, so that it became iconic for characterizing the uprising". What do you think? --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

For me Ok means your variant with Wendy Pearlman only. Pls only clarify if you mean p.105, not p.106 (I do may see p.106 with the table, and cannot - p.105). --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

What? The other source makes a point, partly based on citing statistics from Wendy Pearlman, which I have said we can add too to clarify the statistics. Now you say you are "only okay" with Pearlman being used.

Page 105 refers to the table on page 106. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I have reworded it now by adding from Wendy Pearlman's book in addition to having the book by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan left as it is they who make the point, partly basing it on the statistics cited by Pearlman. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Jewish Israeli stone throwing

Nishidani, in this edit you introduced a section called "Jewish Israeli stone throwing". I just now noticed this, and remembered that this was discussed before and that there is no consensus that such a section is relevant to this article about Palestinian stone throwing. As opposed to "settler reactions", which is specifically a "reaction" and therefore relevant to this article, which is why I have no problem with the "Settler reactions" section. For the previous discussions, which show a a lack of consensus and actually a clear opposition, to a "Jewish Israeli stone throwing" section, see the second #Title section above, and the opening of this section as well. Debresser (talk) 08:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Slight memory lapse (I just noticed this), Dovid. You made the same point more than a month ago (22:34, 22 March 2015). Yes, on reflection, I think there is some justice in your point, so I have accommodated it by excising the section and locating it in an appropriate new sister article Jewish Israeli stone throwing, providing a dab link to that, below the Criminal stone throwing one, at the head of this page. I think this resolves the issue with a compromise that satisfies both NPOV and your suggestion. Nishidani (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, and it is a pleasure doing business with you, as always. :) Debresser (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Peter Beinart's text, which was added later (in May) and not part of the discussion then, belongs here. It is actually focusing on Palestinian stone-throwing and the reactions to it. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If you say so. In what section? Debresser (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The lead paragraph is "Why do Israeli leaders respond so differently when the stone throwers are Palestinian rather than Ethiopian?". Three paragraphs below Peter Beinart writes "Illegitimate means do not erase legitimate grievances. Leaders can condemn violence while still acknowledging, and working to overcome, the injustice that helps fuel it. When the perpetrators committing the violence are Ethiopian Israelis or African-Americans, the distinction seems obvious. So why it is so hard for the Israeli government and its defenders to grasp when the perpetrators are Palestinian? Why can’t Israeli leaders condemn Palestinian violence without using that violence to excuse Israel’s unjust and undemocratic control of the West Bank?'". --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

IRISZOOM, do we need this here? This is a talkpage about the article, not about its subject. Debresser (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

What? I answered a question you asked after I wrote that Peter Beinart's article belong here as it is not only about "Jewish Israeli stone throwing". --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@IRISZOOM Sorry, I got confused.

I don't think we need that article at all. It is an opinion piece, nothing useful for an encyclopedia. Debresser (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

No problem.

Opinion pieces can be used but not present them as a fact and this is from a person who knows the conflict well. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I see no encyclopedical worth in this article. Regarding opinion pieces. There are millions of people with opinions, and this one is highly one-sided. Debresser (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Beinart is perfectly acceptable with attribution. Nishidani (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as WP:RS is concerned perhaps, but what information is there in what he says that should be added to the article? Debresser (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Beinart observes what is a fact. Let's put it in logical terms.

(a)*Rock throwing is a form of violence.

(b)*Palestinians frequently throw rocks at police/the IDF.

(c)*Ethiopians, (and Haredi Jews) throw rocks at times at the police.

(d)*Israeli authorities characterize (a) as terror when (b) is involved, and do not mention that (a) might have roots in a sense, legitimate or not, of grievance, which should be addressed (beyond issues of law and order enforcement).

(e)Israel authorities don't characterize (c) as terror, but as violence requiring methods of control and enforcement, but also measures to address the grievance behind the behaviour.

Conclusion there is an ethnic discrimination in the way authorities treat the same behavior. It is branded as rootless terrorism if an Arab is throws a rock (which can be answered by shooting the person). It is handled as a civic disturbance requiring empathy if the thrower is Jewish, Ethiopian or otherwise.

It's obvious that this point is relevant to the article on Palestinian stone-throwing since (1) the subject touched on is precisely that (2) the observation makes a comparison that suggests the same behavior is addressed differently by the same authority.Nishidani (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Debresser (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Considering the replies here, I will readd the text by Peter Beinart. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Not the subject of this article

Dovid, you removed an edit justified per WP:Lede. Leads summarize the article's section content.

Settler reactions deals at length with settlers throwing stones in the context of Palestinian stone-throwing. By cancelling the summary sentence, you have failed to respect WP:Lede.Nishidani (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

First of all, Nishidani, please cut down on the drama. Sentences like "you failed to respect [guideline X, Y or Z] sound soooo dramatic.

You're right, and I was wrong. I'll tell you what my mistake was: the section about settlers is called "Settler reactions", while this sentence does not mention anything about "reaction". Debresser (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't overread. I remind you of the rules, because you frequently ignore them. I know it's not intentional, that's why I never formally complain. But a friendly reminder every now and them is not dramatizing. Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article appears to romanticize stone-throwing, a form of criminal assault which is often considered attempted murder (when targeting speeding cars). It's one thing to represent multiple points of view, but its another to declare in the lead that it's "a form of resistance". The David and Goliath thing really editorializes too, that should be taken out. --Monochrome_Monitor 12:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Why 'romanticize'? The original article criminalized it, certainly as does the back up article Criminal rock-throwing, which is supposed to endorse the equation of Palestinian stone throwing with criminal behavior. None of the comparative evidence is however relevant because editors are confusing (a) rock throwing in countries by delinquents who are citizens of that country with (b) rock throwing in an occupied country by the occupied people at the occupiers. Like it or not, these are fundamentally distinct situations legally and conceptually. The former is delinquent and/or felonious, though distinctions are made between 'non-consummate' and 'consummated' acts (the laws on intent, and aims). The latter is a violation of international law esp where civilians are concerned, as are the acts associated with Israel's colonial enterprise in the Palestinian territories. It is documented as a form of resistance all over the world, in the past and the present. No resistance is permitted to pass off as 'resistance' the killing of civilians of course. Most stone throwing is aimed at an armed military power which responds with lethal fire. Secondly, stone throwing is widely employed by settlers - you can watch dozens of youtube videos of this, and yet this almost never leads to arrests or criminal prosecution, which it is under Israeli law, applied in Israel to Israelis of any ethnic group (except the religious communities). The situation is remarkably like that of Derry and Belfast in the bad old days where you couldn't walk, Protestant or Mick, on many streets without copping bricks, stones and bottles. Arrests were rare, police did not habitually shoot throwers dead on sight, nor detain children under arrest and fine their parents, and there the situation was more blurred than it was in the Palestinian territories, since technically it was a unified political entity.Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length pretty recently. In addition to what Nishidani said, this edit was misleading for two reasons I mentioned when I just reverted you. In addition to the other POV issues you introduced, the cat "Palestinian terrorism" was added and is still there. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed that Nishidani brought up the first part on your talk page. The category is still an issue as it prefers the view that this is just criminal and Israel is doing what any country would do. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Since either the stone-throwing takes place in Israel or the victims are Israelis, therefore Israeli and international law is clear in the issue that the point of view of Israeli criminal law is relevant and people can be convicted and such a conviction will be legal. So yes, either Israeli does what any country would do, or at least its action in this regard are considered legally binding in accordance with international law. Debresser (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Debresser. The laws applied to Palestinians in the West Bank are not the laws applied in Israel (though these can be applied to Israeli settlers in those territories). The legal system governing Palestinians is that of military law codied by the IDF run soi-disant Civil Administration. Israel's internal laws are its own business, and have nothing to do with International Law. Israel's military codes for the territories' Palestinians are subject to the international conventions regarding the military occupation of a foreign country or territory. You have confused the distinction by conflating two systems of Israeli law that are operative in different situations, national and extra-territorial.Nishidani (talk) 09:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I have not confused anything in this case. I am aware that in general, Israeli civil or criminal law do not necessarily apply in the occupied territories. Regardless, where Israelis are the victims, Israeli criminal law applies. By the way, even without that, part of Israeli criminal law applies, specifically amendment 91. Debresser (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not like "any country" in the world is in the same situation where they are occupying another, which is why many see it as resistance to an occupation. Regardless, the category is POV and can't be there. Category:Political violence in the Palestinian territories is more fitting and so is for example Category:Political activism. --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

"Political activism" would be a euphemism, but Category:Political violence in the Palestinian territories seems the ideal choice here. Debresser (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

IRISZOOM, did you have to go ahead and make the edit?! When will editors here learn to establish consensus first, and not make edits in the middle of an ongoing discussion? Debresser (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not only violent and the other view must be included. Everything on this can be found in the introduction: "Palestinian stone-throwing refers to a Palestinian practice of throwing stones at outgroups, most commonly as a form of resistance.[1] It is generally defined as a violent activity, though the majority of Palestinian youths engaged in the practice appear to regard it as non-violent.[2] It has been described variously as a form of traditional[3] popular protest[4] guerrilla tactic or action,[5][6] as a form of hate crime or terrorism, or mode of civil disobedience which came to prominence during the First Intifada.[7][8]". Can you find a more fitting category than Category:Political activism to include the other view? It is meant to include the other part of it, which views it as resistance (hence why I chose "political activism"), and it does not have to be either violent or political activism. If the text is wrong, change it, but otherwise such categories belong there.

Your description is not correct and it is actually funny to see what you write considering your edits recently on Sur Baher. It was not "in the middle of an ongoing discussion". I had just suggested it and made an edit. See WP:BOLD. It is not like it had been rejected and as I said above, this can be found in the lead, so it was based on what it says in the article. If I now, after a discussion with you objecting to the category, would go on to make edits like that, your description would have been correct but that is not the case here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you find any category that represents what the article says about Palestinian stone-throwing being usually seen "as a form of resistance"? --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Please understand me correctly. I agree with the addition of Category:Political violence in the Palestinian territories.

Since you referred to WP:BOLD, please see the WP:CAREFUL section of that same guideline, which tells you that on articles like this one you should avoid being bold. Debresser (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't asked about Category:Political violence in the Palestinian territories but rather about the category Category:Political activism and other categories that match "Palestinian stone-throwing refers to a Palestinian practice of throwing stones at outgroups, most commonly as a form of resistance". I just brought it up in my latest response to you.

It says it "should be done with extra care". I don't think adding a category that matches what it says in the article is something that I shouldn't have done. However, your logic is interesting. Since you later said you wanted me to wait for consensus to be established and called it a shame I didn't, I am expecting you will apply this standard to other edits. You did not revert for example Monochrome Monitor's addition of the category Category:Palestinian terrorism. Furthermore, while you are still stuck on discussing why I shouldn't have added one of two cats, I am waiting for you to return to the discussion about which other category should be there at least too. So again, the lead says "Palestinian stone-throwing refers to a Palestinian practice of throwing stones at outgroups, most commonly as a form of resistance" and can you find a more fitting category than Category:Political activism that represent this? I would love to hear if there is another category that matches this. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can, and it is Category:Political violence in the Palestinian territories. On a sidenote, I'd say that "political violence" categories should probably be subcategories of "political activism", which would make this an issue of WP:DUPCAT, even though at present Category:Political violence and Category:Political activism are both subcategories of Category:Politics. Debresser (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, Category:Political violence in the Palestinian territories covers the statement "It is generally defined as a violent activity". I am saying we should add a category that covers the statement "a Palestinian practice of throwing stones at outgroups, most commonly as a form of resistance". It doesn't have to be Category:Political activism but one other that covers the statement about resistance. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, it is Category:Political violence in the Palestinian territories. Why do you always think I don't understand you whenever I disagree with you? Debresser (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that exactly what you did above when you replied to me today? I have been very clear what I am disagreeing with and I said from the start that "... it does not have to be either violent or political activism". I also said in my latest response that the issue if not "political activism" should be there or not but a category that covers the statement about resistance. Do you really think Category:Political violence in the Palestinian territories covers that? I don't. It is just a subcategory of "Political violence" (which is listed under "Violence" and "Politics"). Perhaps Category:Revolutionary tactics (there are some subcats there, several of them mentioned in the lead) could be added instead. What do you think about that one? --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I have added Category:Revolutionary tactics that (with its subcats) covers several of the tactics mentioned in the lead. --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if I would have added Category:Revolutionary tactics or perhaps one or more of it subcats. My personal policy on Wikipedia is, don't touch it unless you're sure it is wrong. Debresser (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Neither do I, for that matter. But reflecting on it, the precedent of the important role stone-throwing played in the American and French revolutions (in the latter in trials regarding citizens who were arraigned for insulting the gendarmerie, asking if the person threw stones or not was a standard question) Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The category (with its subcats) is covered by statements in the lead. --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It is more the subcats that are covered, if you ask me. Again, I am not sure this was the optimal category to add, but will not remove it on that basis alone. However, perhaps other editors have more definite opinions on this subject. Debresser (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought adding the parent category was better than adding several of its subcats, some of which may also be POV to put directly. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

+972 source

" stone throwing by Palestinians has yet to have killed a single IDF soldier,[1] though Sergeant Meisner was killed by a cement block" - who are John Brown* and Noam Rotem and why would we care about their opinion? +972 is not RS if the writers aren't notable. Are they? Settleman (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

removal of norman

Thats a reliable source, and there is 0 justification for removing it. nableezy - 17:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course. It's the usual IP vandalism, but I don't know if one can revert it under that classification, hence I'll wait until it doesn't involve 1R, just be on the safe side. But the chap should be blocked.Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

1rr doesnt apply to IP addresses. Apparently an admin thinks these arent vandalism though so the 3rr applies. nableezy - 18:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Not considered deadly force in most countries

Here's the full quote from the source:

Stone throwing is not considered a deadly force in most countries, and the reaction of the police is protection by shields and protective clothing, out-manoeuvering the stone-throwers, water cannons and occasional tear-gas. In Western countries, fire-arms are not used, apart from cases of immediate danger to life. The open fire regulation used by Israeli forces, as far as is clear what it contains, seems to allow for a much faster use of fire arms and for heavier arms than is usual in demonstrations elsewhere. The requirement of proportionality of force, . . does not appear to apply here.

1. The first sentence implies we're talking about people throwing stones at police (or "security forces"), probably at demonstrations or riots. Shields, water cannons and tear-gas are not used against individuals or small groups who are throwing stones at other people or cars or whatever. This is also supported by the second part that talks about how Israeli forces deal with demonstrations. Does anyone disagree with this?
2. The source says that the requirement of proportionality of force "does not appear to apply here" and that the Israeli open fire regulation "seems" to allow faster use of fire arms and heavier arms than are usually used in Western countries. The article, on the other hand, says "Israel soldiers' and police's open fire regulation to disperse crowds or riots is thus considered unusual and disproportionate" which is much stronger and more absolute language than the source uses (single source, unattributed, in the lead, but never mind). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
   1. I do disagree that we should be making assumptions that aren't in the source, yes. If you feel that at police or soldiers is obvious from the mention of police which follows, then the reader of our article will have no trouble inferring the same from our mention of police and soldiers following the first clause.
   2. By all means suggest rephrasing, I have no attachment to the language! I just noticed that there was no evident connection between the two sentences despite the connection being clear in the source, so I wanted to clean that up. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
      1. The reader of our article doesn't get the full context the source gives in its first sentence. That's exactly the problem. Someone took the first few words, added a few words from the next sentence, connected the two with a colon and made it seem like any stone throwing is not considered deadly force "in most countries". That doesn't seem to me what the source is saying (and I doubt it's factual).
      2. The wording now is worse than it was before I tried to add context, making statements of undisputed fact where the source uses much more ambiguous language. Not sure how to fix, though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
         1. The source talks about how Israeli forces are wary of snipers, but says most demonstrations "did not exceed the level of stone throwing, unpleasant and risky for the IDF soldiers and the police facing them, but no apparent reason to react with rifles." It seems to me that if context is missing, it's not your own insertion of "at police", which is neither asserted nor implied by the source, but something like "in a popular demonstration."
         2. Okay, maybe someone else will have a suggestion. However, the current text is obviously unsuitable, because it makes no sense to someone who has not actually read the source.

Anyone else? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

From the second part of the first sentence, it seems to me the source implies police, but I'd be good with anything along the lines of "at police/security forces" or "during demonstrations/riots". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You need to reframe this because the way you've misconstrued things makes it seem there is a problem when I can't see it. If you want to add 'stone throwing (at police/in demonstrations) that's not a problem. Take each sentence at a time, with its respective source:

Text

(A)Stone throwing is not considered a deadly force in most countries: in the West firearms are not used in crowd or riot dispersals and proportionality of force is the norm, except where immediate danger to life exists.

Source

(B)Stone throwing is not considered a deadly force in most countries, and the reaction of the police is protection by shields and protective clothing, out-manoeuvering the stone-throwers, water cannons and occasional tear-gas. In Western countries, fire-arms are not used, apart from cases of immediate danger to life. The open fire regulation used by Israeli forces, as far as is clear what it contains, seems to allow for a much faster use of fire arms and for heavier arms than is usual in demonstrations elsewhere. The requirement of proportionality of force, . . does not appear to apply here.'.

Where's the problem? I.e., where does A falsify its RS justification in B?Nishidani (talk) 07:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Source distortion by NMMGG

You are making numerous arbitrary changes without reading closely the sources. The first example.

• 'While stone throwing is a form a violence,[2]'

Todd reads: Technically, the throwing of stones is not a form of non-violent resistance. . However, given the massive Israeli military response, the dynamic they set in motion is the same. . . You call my 'While technically it is not classified as a form of non-violent resistance' as weasel language, which you 'deweasel' . Actually unlike your reformulation, it respects precisely what the source says.

There is no way you can extrapolate from this a statement presented as a factual proposition, esp. since syntactically with the qualifying 'however', after 'technically', the author appears to be saying that the 'dynamic' is the same (as 'non-violent resistance'). This is one way of construing a loose sentence, and when this is the case, deductive propositions are ruled out. Particularly since the context affirms that Todd's point is the opposite, as the follow up passage shows (i.e. throwing stones against a modern army is not so much a form of violence, as much as a declaration of unintimidated courage and assertion of equality despite the preponderance of power on the other side.

But the point at issue here concerns the Palestinians. To assert oneself against an army through throwing stones is, among other things, to expose oneself without hiding behind advanced armor. The message here is something like this: we as a people can face your tanks and your helicopters and your high-speed bullets. We m, then, are equal to you. ‘pp.54-55

In other words, you've bulldozed the text from a nuanced disclaimer into a positive proposition, and destroyed the nuance explicit in the source.Nishidani (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• (2) still unsourced and contradicts other information in the body of the article.

WP:LEDE summarizes, and the body of the article shows that the main objects of Palestinian stone throwing are the military and civilian vehicles. Hence this is a false edit summary

You have not furthermore read several sentences in the Evaluations section speaking of it as ‘limited violence or even with Thomas Friedman arguing that stone-throwing is compatible with “the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi”[11]

• (3) it's obvious the source is talking about throwing stones at police and not at people in general

False edit summary, ignoring both the quote which refers to ‘police’ and to the more generic Israeli forces, which everyone but blind Freddy knows includes the IDF. ('The open fire regulation used by Israeli forces, as far as is clear what it contains, seems to allow for a much faster use of fire arms and for heavier arms than is usual in demonstrations elsewhere). The text then goes on to discuss police specifically lower down in a separate section.Nishidani (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

(1) Kindly check the source which I mentioned in my edit summary, namely current source #1 - From the Eye of the Storm which explicitly says throwing stones is a form of violence, as do several (most?) others. That Todd wants to weasel doesn't mean we have to.

(2) No, the body of the article shows this is a practice that has gone on for centuries, well before Israel was established and is done both inside and outside the Palestinian territories. The text I removed was not a summary of the article.

(3) The source referees to police when talking about other countries but I wouldn't mind changing it to "security forces" or something along those lines. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I just went over the Evaluation section again. I gather you wrote most of it? Let me start by noting that I see not a single criticism, so good job with the NPOV. Now let's look at the sources that actually address this issue:

• Amani Ezzat Ismail doesn't address this specifically, although he does call it "retaliation" on a "battle scene" which would imply violence.
• Gene Sharp (in 1989): "limited violence" (= violence).
• Thomas Friedman says it's "non-lethal" (which again implies violence).
• Amira Hass - the Joshua Muravchik source used in that bullet clearly says that Hass supports violence by supporting stone throwing.
• Jonathan Pollack - violence.
• Azmi Bishara - seems to be saying it's not violent (or at least not a weapon) but I can't see the whole quote.

So it's quite clear that the Balance of the sources we have in this section is that stone throwing is a form of violence. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• 2. I am familiar with the source.

‘Thus, while the Intifada cannot be characterized as a fully nonviolent movement, it has nonetheless been predominantly nonviolent, and most of the power it has generated has been of an essentially nonviolent sort. Stone-throwing, as pathetically ineffectual as it is as a military tactic against heavily armed soldiers, is still a form of violence, as is the throwing of fire-bombs and the dropping of rocks from buildings. . . Stone-throwing has almost exclusively symbolic value . .The Intifada does, in any event, represent a milestone in the historical evolution of the idea of nonviolence. It will almost certainly provide a lasting example of the potential of nonviolent action, whether that potential is further realized in this context or not..

In editing from sources, one is obliged to read the context, meaning pages for and aft, to interpret correctly. Selective quotation ripped of context can prove anything, and

You have picked out one phrase, and ignored its context. We have the irony that a 'violent act' is said to be 'ineffectual' and 'mostly symbolic' and the characteristic 'violent act' which was the hallmark of 86% of all Intifada incidents was, 'nonviolent', which is what the author is saying if you construe the whole passage, and not just lever out what you want for a definition. As to your second point, most sources I am familiar with do not agree with the abstract 'violent'/'non-violent' terminology. If you are familiar with these daily scenes, it is tactical on both sides: distances are measured: troops usually stay at a distance, as do Palestinians, who have calculated the lethality of bullets, and consider 70 yards a distance for assuring some degree of safety from lethal wounds. Very few Israeli soldiers are wounded by stones, huge numbers of Palestinians historically have been wounded by Israeli gunfire. To call a symbolic use of the most primitive armament around in terms of 'violent'/'non-violent' is question-begging as a large number of the sources suggest, or say.Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• (2) The body of the article gives a historical background of 3,000 years, noting several instances from that period. That is why I have not removed 'outgroup' though it is fatuous, because unfocused.

That stone-throwing here deals overwhelmingly with the modern period under the Israeli occupation is evidenced in the text.

• (3) On this we agree.

The balance of the sources say that Palestinian stone throwing rarely hits its target, i.e. it is symbolic, as numerous sources affirm. A form of 'violence' that is ineffectual is a paradox. Shooting at unarmed people is a form of violence, but of course, being effective, it is not a form of violence if a 'state actor' does it. More fundamentally, since polls show that (a) Palestinians do not consider stone-throwing violent, whereas (b) Israelis do, you cannot per WP:NPOV adopt the definition of convenience and permit the lead the pass off as a factual proposition what is a POV. Nishidani (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

If it's ineffectual violence or not often lethal violence or whatever you were trying to say there doesn't change the fact that it's a violent act, as several of the sources we have in the article note. Even when you chose the most activist POV sources, the best you can come up with is one guy who says it's "technically violent" and another who says it's "light violence", both of which mean it's violent. You're the one who chose to frame it as "Palestinians don't think it's violent but Israelis do". A more correct framing is "most sources think it's violent but Palestinians don't".

I think most people understand that throwing projectiles at other people is an act of violence. I don't think we'd be having this discussion if the targets were different. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

So now, after I've shown most of the sources we have in the article that address the issue call it a form a violence, and while discussion is ongoing, you just went ahead and put what one source you like says in the lead? Lovely. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, I like the source you just added to the article. Did you notice how on page 258 is says explicitly that stone throwing is a violent act? You keep telling us to read I few pages before and after the quotes we use, so I assume you saw that. Anyhoo, tomorrow I will be moving all these sources from the lead to the evaluation section where they belong, and the lead will summarize that, not cherrypick a single source you like and use its terminology. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy Page 258 of which source? Link? Debresser (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The Mary Elizabeth King one. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani I think the previous text was clearer. Saying "is not a form of non-violence" is obfuscating the matter, compared to "is violence", and we don't do that on Wikipedia. We paraphrase our sources into an easily understandable text. Debresser (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Answer the point. The previous text is concocted to say 'Palestinians are liars', and that is unacceptable manipulation. My suggestion is faithful to the source: the other suggestion elides that source and asserts a POV generalization. A double negative of this kind does not not yield a straight litotes, for, as anyone with a normal childhood knows, one can skim stones over water, compete to see who can throw the furthest, who can hit an improvised inanimate target, scare animals off one's cultivated fields, or shy one up to a window to wake one's sweetheart etc.etc. The point is evident if one dislocates one's anxieties by citing a similar formulation and subjecting it to the same litotic reduction. A sentence of the kind: 'kissing is not a form of non-sex' does not resolve to 'kissing is sex' (were it, we are all necrophiles at the funerals of those we love, or paedophiles with babies etc). This is fucking elementary logic.Nishidani (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nishidani Who should answer which point? This discussion is rather complex and confusing at times. Debresser (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

+1. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@No More Mr Nice Guy Then why haven't you added it as a source to the sentence that it is a form of violence? Debresser (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Opening line.outgroup, def.

Roscelese's point about 'outgroup' is well-taken. It can't be sourced. Whoever put it there presumably (a) did so to summarize the fact that throughout history, we have examples of Palestinians (Jews, Arabs, Christians) throwing stones at outsiders, and (2) inadvertently or not, making stone-throwing a practice related to hostility to all outsiders, of any description.

WP:LEDE says leads summarize, and therefore one cannot ask for a source for everything in the lead, one can only ask for the lead to be justified by reference to the sections summarized. In this sense, 'outgroup' can be justified as a summary of a deep historical background, but not of 90% of the article, where 'stone throwing' is overwhelmingly related to the phenomenon of foreign rule (a)Mandatory Palestine under the British (b) Gaza and the West Bank under Israel. In both these cases, stone-throwing is not against 'outgroups', but against specific people identified with an Occupation.

2.

• (a) (still unsourced, still pov, still contradicts other information in the body of the article.)

Removes

[(Palestinian stone throwing) refers to a Palestinian practice of throwing stones at outgroups, particularly against Israeli soldiers and Israeli civilian traffic in the occupied Palestinian territories.]

• (b)

. (unsourced and untrue, as anyone who watches the news knows The removed phrase is

Those targeted are Israeli soldiers, and Israeli civilians driving in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.

The edit summaries here are totally inadequate, for a lead generalization does not require a source, but must be verifiable as a summary of the content. It is contrafactual since the overwhelming thrust of the evidence is that stone-throwing on the industrial scale we have seen in the last 3 decades is a recent phenomenon directed at settlers, and the military. Anyone who watches the news, or who googles 'stone throwing' will find a half a million snippets mentioning it in the context of confrontations with the military or settlers, and almost zero references for it as a general practice directed from time immemorial at outgroups.

The objections can be overcome by the simplest adjustment, which reflects the content and also news reports over the last 3 decades. In recent decades the practice has predominantly targeted Israeli soldiers and civilian settlers in the Palestinian territories and East Jerusalem.Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the word was first added by you in this edit, changing the lede from "stone throwing committed by Palestinians, a form of criminal assault" with the summary "Absolutely not. That is the imposition of an occupying power's definition, that violates NPOV and does not cover the variety of instances, historical and otherwise, of its use. It has been used often in conflicts, and in war, is not a criminal assault".

Whatever earlier history stone-throwing by Jewish "Palestinians" may have, that's not the subject of this article and we shouldn't be taking it into account. "Outgroups" makes no sense in our context, and honestly doesn't really make sense in a broader one either, because there's no meaningful sense in which the throwers are an "ingroup." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Considering that just today they were throwing stones at Israelis that are not "Israeli soldiers and civilian settlers in the Palestinian territories and East Jerusalem" (not to mention they don't know who's in a civilian vehicle and have killed Arabs when targeting Jews), putting that as the definition would be completely unacceptable. Also, they've throne stones at Egyptians and other Palestinians, just to give a couple of examples. It should just say "at others". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Curious, Roscelese, but thanks. Because it is not the kind of language I like, and is dumb. I've been looking at it ever since and wondering how to change it. The subject of the article is Palestinian stone-throwing, and stone throwing was chronic in Palestinian religious history, to which the articles does allude. 'Palestinians' for the nth time is a standard adjective for describing Jews in Palestine ("Palestinian Judaism"). Stoning was a standard form of imposing a religious death sentence (Acts 7 on Stephen, John 8:3-10 for the adultery and "casting the first stone"). I have agreed that it is inappropriate here. My edit summary argument in my view however still stands. You cannot, as several are trying to do here, with the regular assistance of dubious revert dummies, to violate NPOV by creating a definition that makes a POV (that of Israel) into a factual proposition. Stone throwing is criminal according to context: in international law, it is criminal to throw stones at civilians and their traffic, and every Palestinian engaged in this specific form of the act is de jure engaged in criminal behaviour. To throw stones at an occupying power engaged in its own form of violence is a far more complicated matter in international law, and cannot be passed off as a 'criminal' act in itself.Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

NMMNG. That is just chat. Read all the references in the article, and the point I am making sense holds weight against the passing impressionism of anecdote. All one need do is add 'predominantly'. Stone throwing within Israel has occurred desultorily in well known episodes in all three Intifadas, but is not a daily fact of that country, as it has been for the last three decades in the Palestinian territories. Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of just chat and anecdotes, perhaps you have a source or two that support your preferred wording? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It's already been provided. Be more attentive.Nishidani (talk) 06:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Cherry picking

This edit replaces Todd with Holmes, saying using Todd is 'cherry picking'. By the same token, privileging Holmes is cherry picking. The fact remains that you cannot, I repeat, define stoning as violent intrinsically, and then follow that with 'but Palestinians don't think so'. To write that is not only to grossly violate NPOV, but to assert in the lead that the Palestinians are liars. This is totally unacceptable.Nishidani (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That is an incorrect interpretation. What the text says now is that the textbook definition is violence, but (for culturally determined reasons?) the Palestinian youth sees things differently. That is all. Why liars? Debresser (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh for the tetragrammaton's sake! This is pure obtusity to the point of illiteracy.

While stone throwing is a form a violence,[1] the majority of Palestinian youths engaged in the practice appear to regard it as non-violent

Look up, blind Freddy and his dog. There is absolutely no margin for denying that the sentence thus written asserts a truth, and then asserts that the Palestinians don't subscribe to that truth.Nishidani (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

They weren't saying Todd is cherry picking. They said you were. And you were.

This article has many sources that say throwing stones is a form of violence but none that say it isn't. Something that's "not technically non-violent" is violent. Something that is "light violence" is violent. The article is asserting something is true because that's what the sources say. And honestly, throwing stones at people is a form a violence, as I'm fairly sure you know. It's not POV to say the earth is round.

If you could provide a few sources that say it isn't violent (not that the Palestinians don't think it is, but the source says it isn't) we could weight them per WEIGHT. Meanwhile, the current wording is complies with both V and LEAD since its summarizing the sources in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say Todd was cherrypicking, and I don't know how you conjured that weird impression out of the air like candyfloss. You are making assertions without substance. If you have 2 sources that have different language, and prefer one to the other, you are cherry picking, which is what you and the other guy did in reverting. I don't need to pick a few sources to say it isn't violent. There are sources that say it is violent, and sources that say it isn't violent in the view of those who engage in it. That means one has 2 POVs, not a mixture of a truth proposition and a point of view. It's quite pointless arguing this if editors blab through and past a clear technical problem. You persist furthermore in refusing to reply on point. A POV is presented as a fact, and then the Palestinians are said to disagree with the fact, i.e. they are liars or deluded. This is getting to be a numbers game by people refusing to actually address NPOV problems.Nishidani (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Roscelese, you are independent here. Could yo kindly construe this sentence and tell us whether the implication I see there, that it suggests the Palestinians are in denial, has a textual base, or is ungrounded in the phrasing?

'While stone throwing is a form a violence,[1] the majority of Palestinian youths engaged in the practice appear to regard it as non-violent.'Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The sources say it's violent but the Palestinians don't see it that way. That's what the sources say, and that's what this article should say. We have sources explicitly saying "it's a form a violence but the Palestinians don't regard it as such". We don't have a single expert source saying it isn't a form a violence. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Could we have other opinions. We are supposed to solve differences of opinion, not repeat ourselves in a pretence at dialogue.Nishidani (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Multiple sources say rock throwing is violent (and it is also common sense). No source says it is not violent - even your source concedes it is. Choosing the clumsy wording"It is not technically not-violent" over "it is violent" is bastardization of the language to push a POV. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

By all means. I will continue to rebut any false arguments you make, though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

In this case, Nishidani, I think you are really overdoing it, with completely out of the blue interpretations, and I see no need to wait for more editors to review this issue. Feel free to ask any editor to explain the issue to you privately, though. Debresser (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I.e. a non-response. Since no one is focused on anything but my presumed 'attitude' which appears to arouse far more concern than any issue of logic, this is quite pointless. If you have no reasonable answer to the question I posed you, Dovid, withhold the suggestions about therapy. I was raised on textual criticism, and shouldn't expect those with other interests to understand these, really, straightforward issues of reading, especially in our distracted age.Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Please, Nishidani. I have no problem with your attitude here, and was not referring you to therapy, just recommended that somebody else try to explain to you what I haven't been able to. I too was raised on texts, by the way, as you are probably aware, and I still completely disagree with your interpretation. Debresser (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)