Talk:Palestinian stone-throwing/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Source falsification?

Please note this edit:

• Source says "the level of violence of the 1987 Palestinian uprising[1] in the West Bank and Gaza initially was characterized[2] as an intermediary strategy appropriately placed somewhere between the use of arms[3] and nonviolence"
• Our article says (stone throwing[1] implied) is "often thought[2] to be intermediate between recourse to firearms[3] and non-violence.

Am I the only one who sees a problem here? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

What's the problem? You make a lot of discursive fuss, when all that's needed is a simple adjustment, as I have noted several times. Just rewrite 'has been thought', 'has often been thought'. Editing is simple, you know. Nishidani (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The source talks about the level of violence in the first intifada in general. You make it seem like it's talking specifically about stone throwing. The source says "was initially characterized" you said "is often thought" which are not even close. "Use of arms" is neutral "recourse to firearms" implies last available option. I can't edit the article because of 1RR so I brought it here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Stone throwing became the defining norm of Palestinian collective resistance in the first Intifada and this generated a huge amount of literature which the authors sum up as defining it in numerous distinct ways (in contradiction to what editors here are trying to ram home, with the bare denomination 'is violence'. I.e.

Proponents, sympathizers, and analysts have called such phenomena, “restricted violence,” “limited violence,” “nonlethal power,” “ restrained violence,”. “symbolic violence,” “unarmed resistance,” “offensive nonviolence,” “relatively nonviolent,” “predominantly nonviolent,” “non-military uprising.” “low-level violence,” and similar characterizations. Whether downgrading from violence or upgrading from non-violence to a middle-of-the-road form of rebellion, such forms of violence generally have been described as the use of methods primarily intended to intimidate, aggravate, and/or cause minor injuries to the opposing party in the conflict. Acts are not aimed at causing great bodily harm. The main method highlighted has been stone throwing, which has become symbolically important.

You and the others are trying to shave down the complexities by erasing this analytic diversity. You can split hairs about any text, but the premise here, that we need (a) sources that talk about Palestinian stone throwing abstractly as distinct from (b) sources that specify from period to period (Ist Intifada, 2nd Intifada, now etc.) what stone throwing involves is patently an attempt to game the article. Stone throwing is stone throwing, invariable across the period. To suggest that because the text reflects on the act in 1987 that somehow it is not applicable to the same act, in identical circumstances, under the same conditions, by the same people motivated by the same situation of occupation, in 2015 is a nincompoop's argument. I've bolded have called such phenomena to notify those who don't notify the obvious that (a) the present perfect tense and such in 'such phenomena' indicate temporal transcendence of a specific period, meaning continuity over time. Sheesh, kindergarten lessons.Nishidani (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you are trying to water down the undeniable fact that most if not all sources (and common sense) say it's a form a violence. Even in this list you posted above it's mostly "X violence" or "violent X" or "not quite not violent" or whatever. In the passage you quote is says "such forms of violence..." I have bolded it up there for your convenience.

You are creating a mini article in the lead in your attempt to obscure this fact, complete with multiple refs that don't even appear in the body of the article.

You still haven't explained how "have called" has turned into "often thought" and "use of arms" turned into "recourse to firearms". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

As I said you are making a mountain over a molehill. My objection that you and a few others are attempting to create a palpable violation of NPOV by asserting that an identifiable government viewpoint is a fact, in a sentence that then overtly suggests Palestinian are liars, and this in a lead, stands. You make generic assertions, about an ostensible 'undeniable fact' that most if not all sources say stone throwing is a form of violence. Well you haven't read the sources, which in the quote immediately above this are comprehensively summed up, and indicate analysts see that phenomenon as veering from “restricted violence,” “limited violence,” “nonlethal power,” “restrained violence,”. “symbolic violence,” “unarmed resistance,” “offensive nonviolence,” “relatively nonviolent,” “predominantly nonviolent,” “non-military uprising.” “low-level violence.” All of these have epithets attached to them, meaning that the sources thus summed up are not satisfied with the simple noun 'violence' you wish to seed into the text without acknowledging the contested status of the concept. Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Your own source, the one you got that list from, explicitly says all of those are forms of violence. You can see it in bold in your quote. This is the lead, stop trying to turn it into a mini article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed it as unneeded and vague. Debresser (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The "streamlined version" of first three paragraphs

left out what things that were important? Since I explained the rationale for my edits perhaps my fellow editor Debresser can detail his. Motsebboh (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Really? Please see this diff. Don't you notice the differences?

1. "While stone throwing is a form a violence, the majority of Palestinian youths engaged in the practice appear to regard it as non-violent, with many considering it a method of deterring Israeli military forces and civilians from the occupation of Palestinian lands." -> "Many Palestinians engaged in the practice consider it a method of deterring Israeli military forces and civilians from occupying Palestinian lands."
2. Deleted: "or that, in terms of the psychology of those who hurl stones, it is intrinsically aggressive."

Your edit removed most all mention of stone-throwing being violence and aggressive, and that I think is something that has to be stated clearly. Debresser (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

And, as I said in my edit comment, of course throwing stones at people is violent. Do we really need to tell our readers something which is that painfully obvious?? As for the notion that many/most of those engaged in the practice " appear to regard it as non-violent" I would say that even if this notion about the psychology of the perpetrators is very well sourced it probably belongs in the body of the article, not the lead. Motsebboh (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Whatever, the open sore that we have a proposition passing off a generalization, closely identified with Israel's POV, as a fact covering all cases (throwing stones at your girlfriend's window at night included), followed up by a declaration that Palestinians don't see it that way. The tenacity with which editors persist in defending this formulation, which means 'the truth is this . . and Palestinians are in denial in thinking otherwise', has contaminated the lead and is a blatant violation of both NPOV, and several sources which suggest that proposition requires nuancing. Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Motsebboh: You should probably read the sources and the discussions here. Not everyone here agrees that stone throwing is a violent act, but almost all the sources do. They also provide information about the psychology of the perpetrators, as you put it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

All the sources preferred on the page by a couple of editors do, many sources consistently removed from the page don't. The reiterated 'almost all the sources' thesis is just that, an assertion not underwritten by sources which, per WP:Due must be weighed according to their respective emphasizes, another policy that is being violated.Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. The last 3-4 sources were added by you and they still say it's a form of violence. None of them were "removed from the page", I moved them down to the appropriate section since the lead is not supposed to be a mini-article arguing your POV, it's supposed to be a summary of the whole article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Read again.Nishidani (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

C'mon Nishidani, we aren't talking here about throwing pebbles at your sweetheart's bedroom window to get her attention or skipping rocks off the surf for the fun of it. To everyone involved, how about writing material for the typical reader's benefit rather than for the benefit of editors with axes to grind! Readers shouldn't have to be told that throwing stones with harmful intent is violent behavior. The issue of whether some perpetrators see it differently should be saved for the body. Motsebboh (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Since the overwhelming number of cases of stone throwing never result in any injuries to their ostensible targets, soldiers engaged in an aggressive penetration of Palestinian areas, and since the known rules of engagement keep the groups at a distance (50-70 yards) where hitting a target with a stone is statistically low, this practice has been defined in a more nuanced way than the text allows. It is, more than anything else, a technique of distance maintenance. That is why 'violence' requires an adjective: it is not comparable to the hour by hour armed violence of Israel over the last several decades in operating on Palestinian lands in Zionism's ongoing pursuit of theft.Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Many articles say obvious things. Even though, and this I say on a side note, what is obvious to one reader is not obvious to another reader. There is nothing against the obvious. See WP:OBVIOUS. Debresser (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I still think that my blue sky citation is more appropriate. As a reader coming across this article for the first time, the opening seemed damned stilted to me. By the way, what specific information supports the idea that most of the Palestinian youths engaged in it see it as non-violent? Motsebboh (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The sources are in the Evaluations section, and it's quite obvious BLUESKY (which is not a guideline or policy) doesn't apply here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing I see in the so-called "Evaluations" section indicates that "the majority of Palestinian youths engaged in the practice appear to regard it as non-violent." Has any other casual observer come along to tell you how badly this article is written? Motsebboh (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Here's an example from the first paragraph:

In Israel it is considered criminal because it is potentially lethal, and it is argued that in some cases it should be treated as a form of terrorism, or that, in terms of the psychology of those who hurl stones, it is intrinsically aggressive.

If you don't see that as awkward, unsatisfactory writing you shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia. Motsebboh (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree, that is awkward. :) Debresser (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Debresser

There are hundreds if some some thousand of list articles in Wikipedia, and to my knowledge there has never been a wiki-wide decision to apply that criterion across the board. Check through the list articles in Lists of murders, to take but one small example. The norm is that such articles list, in that case, murders that do not have their own article. If you want a Night of the Long Knives to hack out everything here, be consistent, and try to touch those articles with the same criterion. Half of the indispensable list at List of Palestinian suicide attacks are redlinked? All that goes out. All 13 articles of Lists of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel would have to be erased. Of course, if you have such a proposal, since it has consequences for thousands of articles, raise it. Nishidani (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• General comment for a wiki-wide approach: The aim should be to list the most notable incidents as examples to further understanding of an article's subject regardless of whether they have a separate wiki article or not.--TMCk (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• General note: @Nishidani: I've already pointed out, regarding to your List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, that your claims to above-mentioned Lists are incomprehensible, Palestinian suicide attacks & Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel are widely recognized as a war crime. --Igorp_lj (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but this issue was discussed on this very talkpage and there was a clear consensus for the rule that only incidents that have their own article should be mentioned. See Talk:Palestinian_stone-throwing/Archive_1#RFC:_List_of_incidents. Debresser (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

So what? That was about one year ago. If you think my comment is w/o merit you should explain why.--TMCk (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It's called an explicit consensus and you'll need a new RfC to change it. Feel free to open one. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No comment on merit either?--TMCk (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I happened to be opposed to the conclusion of that Rfc. One of the few editors who were, actually. Nevertheless, I abide by consensus and I do see the merit in limiting the possibly unending list of incidents. Debresser (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark: if you're serious about this, the way forward would be to start a new RFC, properly written and formatted, to see whether or not consensus has changed. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Debresser was correct on this. I didn't know of that because I only looked at the article seriously months afterwards. In principle I don't think RfCs should be rechallenged rapidly.Nishidani (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

gas video

I have reverted the addition of the gas video per WP:RECENTISM and WP:RS exceptional claims require exceptional sources. this is a breaking news story, and there has been no independent verification, and there are numerous instances of staged videos :Try and get your policy understanding sorted out.

On 29 October 2015, a video filmed on his iPhone by a resident Yazan Ikhlayel (17) of the Aida Refugee Camp captured an address purportedly made from an Israeli military vehicle during a raid into the camp. The speech warned residents that, if they did not desist from stone throwing they would be gassed to death -children, youths and the aged. Referring apparently to the arrest of Qassan Abu Aker, the speaker added that one of the arrested would be killed as the residents looked on if the throwing did not stop.

I.e., (1) no breaking news can be reported (WP:RECENTISM) however no one reads policy in that way (2) Ma'an News Agency though accepted as RS is not RS, nor is Middle East Eye? (3) There is something 'exceptional' in the threat. Exceptional claims do not require exceptional sources, so you are wrong on that. I held off for several hours, but added it when I observed that, other than IMEMC, it started to be reported by the two later, and on Mondoweiss. I don't rule out even the Pallywood misnomer, though a voice on the video says the accent appears to be that of a Druze soldier. Someone with linguistic competence will assuredly check that out, but your objection is so far not solidly motivated. Hanna's article was carried by the Jews for Justice for Palestinians website Israeli forces have ripped up the rule book Jews for Justice for Palestinians 30 October 2015 a few hours ago, and when Middle East Eye added to the video a detailed reportage citing by name several eyewitnesses, I decided that it was being taken seriously, whatever the merits of the case. I would add that everyday I add breaking news like the terrorist woman in Afula case which, examining the videos and reportage, I thought extremely dubious. The court dismissed the charge yesterday, and all of the reports were wrong as indeed may be possible here. Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

As to exceptional, there a lots of things in this area that an outsider would consider exceptional but are quite normal, like using a military jeep to run down a kid, who had been throwing stones, as he runs away or executing a wounded man, perhaps a knifer, frfom a safe distance as he lies helpless. It's on my count the third time this new method has been used this month.Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

In fact you are wrong. Exceptional claims DO require exceptional sources.WP:REDFLAG In your original edit, and just above you plainly admit the story is exceptional and surprising.Gaijin42 (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If understanding English is the problem, 'exceptional' means 'unusual' it does not mean 'multiple mainstream sources'. The three sources are not fringe for the area, but quite normal. You haven't proven this is an exceptional claim. Indeed to think that a threat like that would be exceptional for the territories speaks of topical nescience. Nishidani (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

So here's the logical outcome

Apropos this The RfC was designed to challenge listing news items, one after the other, in sequence, as this page originally did, when the individual items did not themselves have an article on them. The outcome of that RfC is now being abused to remove any news item of distaste. The article has several examples of incidents occurring on particular days each with no article backing them, and technically any fundamentalist with a mission could cut much of the article by applying this misreasoning or failure to understand the clear intent of the RfC, which does not translate as a warrant to revert any single news item added to an I/P page. Nishidani (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

edit warring

Gaijin you are edit warring, wit5h almost no rational use of the talk page. (1) No editor requires a consensus to add new information to any page (2) you are reverting and changing the grounds for each revert. First it is supposed to be an exceptional claim, now the 'pretext' (as it looks to me) is that I need consensus to add information here. Had that principle been invoked, I would never have managed to get this page from the attack list it was at 10,000kb to the 100,000kb it has now. (2) Could this I/P place get editors who wish to intervene to be constructive (i.e. 'build' articles) rather than intrude, sit on them, hanging round to play revert games?

The two reverts are

• Ist revert
• 2nd revert

This article is under ARBPIA 1R, as the talk page indicates. Kindly revert, and try to engage on the talk page and be constructive.Nishidani (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

A bit quick on the trigger aren't you? Check the history. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No. I never take, as some do, these slips as opportunities to create difficulties for editors by making official complaints, though what is going on here is blatant POV pushing per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. What is disturbing is that as soon as you corrected the error, immediately the usual never-talk-just-revert-Nishidani (User:Plot Spoiler), one of several, jumped in to erase the same thing again. The entire history of User:Plot Spoiler in my regard is tactical reverting like this, he never does anything else. This tagteaming (no talk, just solidarity voting and reverting, against, usually, a single editor, is deplorable.Nishidani (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Please. I encourage you to take this incident to AE and see what the result is. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Look, this is silly. I don't report people in principle at AE (only when things are toxically impossible, twice perhaps in 9 years), and I always make a courtesy notice to an editor who, like all of us, slips up. Thirdly, what on earth would be the point of reporting someone who realized he had make a mistake and reverted himself. Your counsel is a very weird way of construing what people like myself do here.Nishidani (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The incident has now been authenticated by the Israeli Border Police who have suspended the officer who made that speech. This leaves no doubt that your preemptive revert, imitated by two other editors, was flawed.'Border cop suspended for threatening to ‘gas’ Palestinians,' The Times of Israel, 30 October 2015. You will find confirmation on Haaretz, Jerusalem Post and Ynet shortly.Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The text under discussion here is very interesting, but only tangentially related to the subject. I feel the only possible reason to include it in the article is to try make somebody look bad. That is not yet an inclusion criteria. So I think we shouldn't have this. Debresser (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you try to argue in Wikipedia terms rather than provide your personal 'take'? Why is a loudspeaker threat to an entire community to stop the stone throwing on pain of being gassed, tangential to an article on stone throwing, that has covered most angles? The look bad argument is stupid. Virtually all news from both sides makes each look bad, and that has never persuaded editors to not register it.Nishidani (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I did: I said it is only tangentially related. What is not clear about that?

What is "Wikipedia terms"? Please remember that Wikipedia is edited by people, and is made for people. Is there something like Wikipedia terms, that can not be expressed in English? Please stop WikiLawyering. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

That is an opinion, not an argument. They teach you that in high school, or used to, and it is known to every Ist week student of Philosophy1 at a University level.Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is edited by people, anyone can edit (2) Wikipedia aims at encyclopedic quality, which means reliance on optimally academic sources to write articles. It is not enough to be a person, you have to have an ability to read, and read precisely what scholarship says and does, to be useful. Otherwise, people are just wasting serious editors' time while lowering the standards of the encyclopedia.Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the edit pretexts for keeping this valid information off the page have all been replied to, or are irrelevant policy wise. (a) Gaijin's objections no longer stand since The Times of Israel and Al Jazeera covered the incident (b) the RfC argument stems from a misinterpretation, regarding lists, which are applied to single items illustrating aspects of the history of stone throwing and as such is a reductio ad absurdum which would mean no news item could be used in any article unless the item itself has its own article, which is patent nonsense.Nishidani (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no valid reason why this information should not be in this article.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

That is, as Nishidani would say "an opinion, not an argument". Mine is the opposite. Based on the argument that this information is not about stone-throwing, but only tangentially related to it. Debresser (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

That is an opinion, not an argument. This is directly related to stone throwing as it is a military reaction to Palestinian stone throwing. If it is an argument then please point me to wikipedia policy on tangentially related. That is such a vague phrase that it can cover the removal of a great deal of material.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the WP:NOTEVERYTHING policy? That is a policy, which raises the standard as compared to a guideline.

You say it is directly related. So you already admit it is not about stone throwing itself. I think it is not even directly related, only tangentially, since it relates an isolated incident, not an official government policy how to react in case of stone throwing. Which is in itself the second reason I think this incident is not relevant, since it is an isolated incident rather than a policy (as testified to by the fact that the soldier in question was disciplined). Debresser (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

In addition, may I point out that it is you who has to show reason for inclusion, rather than the opposite. I have not heard anything but opinions from you and proof by assertion. Debresser (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It is very much the case that you have to show a reason why this should not be included, rather than the opposite. This is about military action to stop stone throwing. The article already includes this 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.[26] And this In October 1936 a Collective Punishment Ordinance was invoked to impose punitive measures on villages implicated in stone-throwing against passing vehicles. The Nablus District Commissioner Hugh Foot posted a notice warning that not only boy stone-throwers but also their fathers and guardians would be punished. And this Human Rights Watch documented early that IDF soldiers were shooting stone throwing youths where no serious threats to their safety existed.[88] And this One of the iconic images of the Second Intifada was of a little boy in Gaza confronting an Israeli tank and winding his arm up to throw a stone from his sling.[90] Snipers were used to put down stone-throwers within Israel at Umm al-Fahm inside Israel during the Al-Aqsa Intifada AND FINALLY a whole section on Israeli tactics against the first wave of stone throwing. The new material should be here, as it is equally as relevant as the examples I have given.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Johnmcintyre1959, you are offering a novel interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Till this moment, the rule was that an editor wanting to include certain information, had to prove its relevance and provide a good source.

Apart from that there is also WP:CONSENUS, and consensus for this change you don't have. But then again, perhaps WP:CONSENSUS is another of those oldfashioned rules that you just threw out the door. Debresser (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I notice that you are not dealing with the substance of my point. Are you challenging the RS? There are so many. Are you ignoring my evidence that this is just as relevant as other material on here? This is an example of a military response to Palestinian stone throwing, just like many other examples in this article. That is the reason why it should be included. Now tell us why that is not relevant.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Johnmcintyre1959 1. I have already shown above why this is not relevant enough for this article. 2. You have actually admitted my point implicitly, even though you deny it. 3. You have not even tried to refute my argument, only made statements. 4. The onus of proof is on you, not on me. 5. In your last post, you again implicitly admit that this is not information for this article by calling it "an example". Not all examples should be included in this article. There is a long-standing consensus about that. See above. Debresser (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

'Till this moment, the rule was that an editor wanting to include certain information, had to prove its relevance and provide a good source.'

• (a) The article is about stone throwing, including measures to stop it
• (b) This incident is about the use of threats to make stone throwers desist.
• (c) The requirement of good sourcing is satisfied by the fact that it was reported in Al Jazeera, The Forward, Haaretz, The Times of Israel, Reuters, etc.etc. Consensus is not based on a numbers game, but on the quality of the arguments per policy, and so far there is no policy argument justifying the exclusion, just numbers. Gsijin's original revert was based on the argument that it required mainstream support. It has that. Then the edit justifications changed, and well no doubt change again. Nishidani (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• (b) No, this is some guy saying some stuff on a loudspeaker and immediately getting suspended. It's an anecdote that a serious encyclopedia not populated by political activists would never consider including. The obvious problem here is WEIGHT. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

DB You have not shown why other material here that is not an incident of stone throwing but 'directly related' to it is keep while this notable, widely reported, and commented on incident is not considered important enough to be included. You have not covered the relevancy argument at all, you have avoided it entirely. This example should be included because it has been so widely reported, and is notable. It should be restored.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with No More Mr Nice Guy, and his argument against Nishidani's #2 is the same as mine: this is not "about the use of threats to make stone throwers desist". This is one incident.

The source is not the issue here.

Oh, and thank you, Johnmcintyre1959, for repeating your argument by assertion for the fourth time now. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Look at the analysis of the objections, which consistently change, as each sduccessive objection is met.

• Ist reason here by User:Gaijin43 reverted per WP:RECENTISM and WP:RS, and said we should wait for strong sources.
  • Recentism, thus applied would mean no news could be added to any article, which is nonsense. WP:RS objections collapsed with the addition of Haaretz, The Times of Israel, Reuters, The Forward etc.etc.
• 2nd reason NMMGG cited as the reason for his revert that the RfC that this comes under the umbrella of an incident list, which it is not (as NMMGG concedes, that RfC applies to lists). So that too is not a good reason
• 3rd reason, mentioned by User:Gaijin43, who adopts a third reason WP:NOCONSENSUS, and then was supported by Plot Spoiler. This is a non-reason. WP:Consensus is not a policy excuse for excluding material by numbers. If the material is objected to on one ground, then another, and these objections are met, you cannot then trump the issue by saying ‘we have the numbers’. Either you have a sound policy objection or you don’t.
• 4th objection

some guy saying some stuff on a loudspeaker and immediately getting suspended. It's an anecdote that a serious encyclopedia not populated by political activists would never consider including

That is a patent caricature of the event. An officer with the IDF, during an IDF military operation, made that threat. He wasn't immediately suspended. He was only suspended later when the video came to light, and was picked up by social media. It is not 'anecdotal' (i.e. hearsay), and this objection has no policy basis.

Unless one has a sound policy basis for treating this item of news as exceptional, 'unencyclopedic' it should be treated like any other illustrative matter on this or any other wiki page.Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• 5th objection

It's WP:Undue (See NMMGG)

I did not mean "anecdote" in the archaic sense of "hearsay", I meant it in the sense of "a short, obscure historical or biographical account" as I'm sure everyone who can "construe a sentence in English" understood. Like I said, someone said something on a loudspeaker and was immediately suspended. His threats were not supported by higher ups and in fact he was punished for them. What exactly do you think this illustrates? The obvious policy basis here is UNDUE. Do you really want us to start filling up articles with every stupid thing every person of no standing said? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope and hilariously so. An event that took place a few days ago cannot be by definition an 'obscure historical . .account', as anyone who knows English will appreciate.

The rest is all speculation and in some parts false. He was suspended a day later, after the videos began being circulated and found a response in newspapers, not immediately. What took place took place during an authorized raid on a camp by the IDF. The official in question hasn't been punished. He was 'suspended'. Now you come up with the 5th objection, WP:Undue

As to that charge, no. Comprehensive 'dousing' of areas with toxic quantities of tear gas is known to every village. Most families have plugging equipment to stop the drift of teargas into their homes. It is a daily occurrence in these places, (check the literature) and obviously there is nothing undue here.Nishidani (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

NMMNG You have not shown that this is UNDUE. All you have done is made excuses for the perpetrator of this hate crime. The fact that the individual was punished is totally irrelevant to the notability of this widely reported incident which does belong here.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 18:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You are a self professed sock, yet you are still editing. How interesting. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not a sock, self professed or other. This has all been sorted out. Yet you harp on about it, how interesting.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani Did you consider that all the above objections are true, and the only reason the arguments are alternated, is because some editors, or should I say "some editor", does not accept them, and then we try another argument? By the way, some of these 5 are closely related, to the point of coming done to one and the same argument. Debresser (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what I understand as a reasoned argument, but rather (a) antipathy and suspicion and (b) failure to command the details of the many sources used. I just see numbers adding up, and I am on my own so that's it. This is the way the I/P area works unfortunately.Nishidani (talk) 11:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani is not alone in his view I agree that this material should stay here. All the so called reasons for not including it have been throughly refutedJohnmcintyre1959 (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary, his arguments have been refuted. Apart from that, Johnmcintyre1959 just takes whatever side I disagree with. :) Debresser (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is a citation needed for?

throwing stones at people or property

It is patently absurd to require a citation for an obvious summary of the realities documented throughout the article. If you throw stones, the target is a person or property (assets, animals, cars, houses etc.) This is a completely innocuous, uncontroversial summary, and the citation should be dropped.Nishidani (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Debresser (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Good. I take it that anyone can remove it, then.Nishidani (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Debresser (talk) 18:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Evaluations

Propose limiting this laundry list section to the opinions of blue-linked commentators, or comments and non-notable individuals whose comments have been discussed in some secondary RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Deaths and casualties

This section briefly mentions several blue-linked deaths of Israelis. I removed the non-blue-linked death of a Palestinian Arab. If we put it back in, we would also have to add several well-sourced but non blue-linked deaths and permanently disabling injuries of Israelis (and was there also a tourist?). What we CANNOT have without violating NPOV is a practice of only including blue-linked Israeli casualties, while including non-bluelinked Arab casualties.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Both this and below are purely subjective assertions. Where is the policy. More seriously, you have removed a mass of reliable sources regarding aspects of Palestinian stone throwing without discussion. It is not enough to do that and state:'I did this'. Concretely:

• (1) Removed unreliable source

I.e.John Brown and Noam Rotem, 'License to Kill: Stone-throwing while Palestinian could get you killed,' +972 magazine 24 August 2015

(a)You have been warned at RSN that going around articles and automatically removing ‘972 magazine when its status as unreliable has not been determined is improper.

I see that, even without waiting for this thread to close or a clear consensus to develop, E.M.Gregory is going through articles, systematically removing citations to +972 Mag. This is tendentious and disruptive behaviour, from which s/he should desist unless and until it is agreed or ruled that the magazine is not a reliable source and should not be cited RolandR (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2015

The RSN history of +972 magazine gives you no warrant to persist. There is no decisive view and its usability depends on context according to external input.

• 2012 not seen as problematical;2014 here;2015 here (ignore the sockpuppet;here etc.

In other words, if you are unhappy with it, given this indeterminateness, argue, as I have done regularly, ast the RSN board before proceeding. If you don't the edit summary is improper, implying a certainty for what is your personal subjective viewepoint.

• (2)See talk

The comment at talk, here, is, to me, incomprehensible policy-wise.

• (3)remove; misplced in this article which is about Palestinian stone throwing

You are contradicting the content of several undisputed RS by removing the following.

• Katie Zavadski, ['Palestinian-American Teenager Killed by IDF in West Bank'], New York Magazine 24 October 2014.
• Mohammad Daraghmeh, 'Palestinian killed in clash with Israeli military', Associated Press, 24 October 2014]
• WATCH: IDF stands idly by as settlers throw stones at Palestinians', Jerusalem Post 8 January 2014.
• 'Settler violence: Lack of accountability', B'Tselem
• Hebron, '3 video segments: Soldiers overlook settlers' violent actions, take measures when Palestinians throw stones', B'Tselem 2 August 2014
• Gili Cohen, 'Israeli Soldiers Did Nothing to Stop Stone-throwing Settlers, Videos Show', Haaretz 20 November 2014
• Avi Lewis, 'IDF: Rules of engagement now same for Jewish offenders, Palestinians', The Times of Israel 13 July 2015
• 'Israeli settlers filmed firing guns at Palestinians', The Guardian 21 May 2012.

En masse removal of material that has stood on a closely scrutinized article for years is dubious practice. There is a talkpage, so use it rather than act preemptively. I'm putting this material back in the meantime, since it is far too extensive and enduring to be eviscerated, as you did.Nishidani (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Please look at this 2014/15 RFC, which I noticed because it is referenced on the talk page at Jewish Israeli stone throwing, much shorter talk page where decisions are not buried in the archives). Here:[1] it reaches consensus with the statement "There is a consensus against inclusion of incidents without their own Wikipedia articles." I assume that this decision still applies, and that is what I was referencing when I removed the menitions of non-bluelinked deaths in stone-throwing incidents. @Nishidani:E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I.e. When people have reverted, I take it to the RSN board. Now, be a decent chap, and take it to that board. There is no warrant in recent discussions for removing it at sight and just declaring in an edit summary it is not RS. Nishidani (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• Wait. Are you saying that the is a statute of limitations on the application of consensus decisions reached on a talk page? that after a while we can just move on and do what we want, disregarding an RFC?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Icewhiz, John of Reading, Oshwah, Ynhockey, and ImTheIP:, the last 5 non-bots who edited the page. Gentlemen, is Nishidani correct on policy? I deleted a number of non-bluelinked incidents on the basis of a well-attended RFC that closed in January 2015, ruling that non-bluelinked injuries and deaths caused by stone-throwing could not be listed on this page. Here:[2]. Nish says that the old RFC can be ignored. Can one of you enlighten me on policy here. At what point do we decide to ignore the consensus reached by an RFC? I would have thought that a new RFC would be required to overturn one that reached consensus.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

That is an improper method. Two of those named are fairly predictable. I don't know the others. (b) as to the 'consensus' re incidents requiring a distinct page, this is WP:Systemic bias. There is a tacit agreement among one group of editors not to leap at incidents involving Palestinian victims, unless a month or two shows continued public focus, and even then few care to do that kind of lachrymose article, regarding it as an abuse of WP:Notability. You specialize in these articles, regarding acts of Palestinian terrorism against Israeli Jews etc., which is your right. However, as the page stands we have a list of 4 Jewish victims of stoning, which, if your view is accepted, can stand, but we must eliminate all mention of Palestinians in similar cases unless someone takes the trouble to write articles on the specific events. Well, I refuse to do that, because I think it an abuse of what wiki is about, encyclopedic coverage without playing politics. Your proposal, objectively, breaks WP:NPOV, for the rules are cited to keep Jewish victims of stone-throwing in focus, and toss out equally catastrophic evidence of the IDF standing by as settler youths throw stones, etc. Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Finally, there is something troubling about the removal of several excellent mainstream sources on Palestinian stone-throwing without prior discussion, when that passage has passed scrutiny for some years. You should politely notify a page, and not do that under an incomprehensive es,Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Umm, no. If consensus was reached in the RFC regarding this situation (or similar situations), that's what should be upheld unless a newer discussion takes place and consensus changes. The statements you made about "wiki abuse" make no sense to me and aren't supported by any diffs or evidence; why must we "eliminate all mention of Palestinians in similar cases" as you stated above? I know that I'm stepping in the middle of this discussion and there's probably more to this than I've seen here, but when something makes no sense and there are no diffs or links to back up the claims made, it'll make no sense and hold little weight regardless of where or what part of the discussion it takes place on. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Examining the mass deletions done before discussion was concluded.

Oshwah. Per the above, where you find my admittedly elliptical generalizations obscure, and the edits your post immediately generated, with extensive deletions here, here and here, while discussion is underway (did your comment wrap it up so quickly) let me explain.

User:E.M.Gregory is basically removing a mass of material based on this closure note, taken 3 years ago when the article was in a primitive state.

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

This refers to the state of the page way before I noticed it, and though I am bound by prior decisions, the history suggests that decision requires review. User:Roscelese implemented that decision, removing all instances of Israeli victims of Palestinian stone-throwing, blue-linked or otherwise. User:Debresser correctly restored the bluelinked list. We are talking about a page with 12,500 kbs.

E.M. Gregory then introduced further material, the (Death of Adele Biton) on 22 February 2015, after creating that dubious (WP:Notability) article a few minutes earlier and then this equally non.-notable event with theDeath of Binyamin Meisner, an article he created for that purpose a day later and in addition a further note on Meisner.

I read this as an attempt to get around the Walton 2015 closure summation by creating articles ad hoc on non-notable incidents in order to consolidate the list of Jewish victims on the Palestinian stone throwing page. That, at least, is what it looks like, a violation of WP:NPOV. The Adele Biton article wasn’t nominated for deletion, as it was breaking news, but Roscelese nominated the Binyamin Meisner article for deletion, and it scraped by, with the help of the sockpuppet Ashtul.

The page was an attack page at the time, completely indifferent to the Palestinian POV, and wholly dedicated to Israeli victims. I thought it needed an overhaul, to give the complete historical context of stone-throwing. and so I made a subsequent 169 edits i.e 24.18 percent of contributions, doing most of the work to bringing it up to the 104,000 kbs we have now. It was therefore a radically different piece of work. The passages being removed have been stable for 2 years, and while Israeli victims are duly noticed, Gregory's edits are successively removing parallel details concerning Palestinians and stone throwing because I won't create separate pages on each incident. I could mimic him, and do this, since each incident or fact is documented, but I adhere strictly to WP:Notability and have always protested the abuse of that principle. As it stands Gregory adds material deleterious to Palestinians (his right), and at the same time, removes much material that relates to Israeli abuses of Palestinians, in the thematic context of stone-throwing.

I hope my earlier remarks are clearer now. I think Gregory's acting instantaneously on your none comment, as if an ongoing discussion were thereby definitively sealed, improper.Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Why was I pinged here? I don't know what you mean by a 2014 decision, nor have I created any articles on 'non-notable incidents' about Palestine. Sam Walton (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't ping. I forgot that linking names (I do it for the record) means one is notified. The decision closure-note is the one you gave early 2015. Apologies.Nishidani (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry, I missed the quote of my close above. Sam Walton (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Nishidani, the RFC was concluded in 2015. I had supposed that it was still valid when I removed non-bluelinked material a couple of days ago, which you restored. So I asked edirots what the policy is. User:Oshwash (an experienced editor who doesn't usually do I/P) confirmed my supposition that Non-bluelinked material can be removed form this article based on that well-attended, 2015 RFC. Here [3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm looking at the recent changes as they stand now. Apart from some wording changes and a cite tag that I removed because the material was already cited, what seems to have been changed is:
  • Mention of Dina Matar being shot. I agree with this removal because it is not pertinent to the section in which it's included. There may be another place in the article where it would be appropriate, though.
  • A "better source" tag for a Human Rights Watch document. I'm not familiar with WP's current view on HRW's reliability. Do we not feel that they are reliable?
  • The death of Edmond Ghaneim. It wasn't clear to me how this text was relevant to the article because I needed to Google to find out that he was throwing stones at the time he was "passing by after shopping." If the story is included, this information must also be included because otherwise it's irrelevant; if this claim is not generally agreed-upon the content should remain excluded. I don't see it in most of the sources, so my feeling is that the incident should be excluded; Nishidani, unless you have an alternate body of sources?

Most sources state Ghaneim was killed in exactly the same way that Binyamin Meisner was killed. I could easily write a wiki article on it, but as I stated, I don't do lachrymose stuff to get some theatrical pull on wiki readers' political feelings. The general account (esp by Bowman who is a specialist is that he was out buying eggs for his mother at the market, and coming home. A late Israeli report stated he had been part of the stone-throwing, and just, accidentally, got hit by a cinder block when it fell off a roof where soldiers happened to be posted. So one has 2 reports. Go figure.

• Marshall J. Breger, Yitzhak Reiter, Leonard Hammer (eds.)Sacred Space in Israel and Palestine: Religion and Politics Routledge, 2013
• Hillel Bardin A Zionist among Palestinians Indiana University Press, 2012 p.44
• Glenn Bowman, 'A Death Revisited: Solidarity and Dissonance in a Muslim-Christian Palestinian Community,' in Ussama Samir Makdisi, Paul A. Silverstein (eds.) Memory and Violence in the Middle East and North Africa, Indiana University Press, 2006 pp.27-49 p.29
• Henk Driessen, Ton Otto (eds.) Perplexities of Identification: Anthropological Studies in Cultural Differentiation and the Use of Resources, Aarhus University Press, 2000 p.59

In an intelligent universe, one would think that an article shouting in a bold section that a soldier was killed by a cinder-block dropped on his head, should equably include the mirror case of a Palestinian being killed by the same method. But Wikipedia is a bureaucracy, and the rules don't allow intelligent coverage. It's our minute technical finessing that kicks the door wide open to POV management like what's going on here. Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• • Ometz Lesarev soldier quote: The material seems pertinent and the sourcing seems fine. However, I don't think it needs to be quoted at this length. This could be restored in a cut/paraphrased form.
• Going to look at the rest too, just wanted to put this here now. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• More:
  • The removal of the "grow up to become an enemy" bit under "Settler reactions" is very obviously proper, wtf. There's no indication in the source that it has anything to do with stone-throwing, that's just inflammatory synthesis.
  • I agree with not having a list of individual incidents of retaliation, but E.M. Gregory was wrong to completely remove them instead of replacing them with some kind of summary. E.M., you should replace the text you removed with a summary or overview statement. The bit beginning "The similarities" doesn't even make sense without it.
  • In the "Casualties" section, many news sources were cited, but mostly not as individual incidents, rather, to support a more generalized statement. The generalized statement is appropriate and should be restored if the sources are considered good, IMO.
  • We don't need a "citation needed" tag for stone throwers being shot, we already have sources for this, just cite them.
• Additionally, I was initially responding to this as a new addition before realizing it wasn't, but I don't think ideas that are simply floated for law/policy re: stone-throwing are worthy of inclusion unless they actually become law or policy (or unless long-view, non-news reliable sources take note). Which, if any, of the things mentioned in the "In September 2015" paragraph have actually gone through the whole process of becoming law or policy? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Detailed as usual.Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I attempted to material that violates the RFC. If you have RS making generalized comments (such as: in summer of 199_, several youths were killed by Israeli security forces during protests where rocks were thrown), of course it can be used. Such sumarizing statements exist in the article and I have no objection to them. What I understand the RFC to forbid is anything along the the lines of in summer of 199_, a 17-year-old from Umm al-Fahm was killed by Israeli security forces during an August 1 protest in Umm al-Fahm where rocks were thrown, since this would be referencing a specific non-bluelinked incident. (By the by, did either of you happen to see Rock the Casbah (2012 film)? Wondering if it interesting enough that I should add it to my netflix list.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Have you even thought that there is a talk page, that preemptive mass removals without addressing the talk page look odd, a provocative invite to edit-warring; that there are colleagues who are amenable to discussing rationally any proposal, that in the presence case, the essence of the issue was not the content, but the style (dates) used, and that one could easily have hashed out a compromise? Nishidani (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Discussion at talk is not required preliminary to removing material in clear violation of an established rule, in this case, a rule established by an RFC, here :[4]. Nish, I understand that WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I understand how shocking it must feel to have carefully worked on and added material to an article without being aware of a rule that was, after all, buried in an old archive until I happened on it while revisiting this and Jewish Israeli stone throwing. But the rule exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

That RFC was about including a list. This was not a listing, this was in the prose of an article. You removed material about children being shot over throwing stones which cited sources and replaced that with a {{fact}} tag. How exactly is that not bad faith editing? You removed sources for something that you know back up the material and then replaced it with a fact tag. And your reasons for this are because an RFC said not to include a list of incidents? How exactly does that justify removing the sources and replacing it with a fact tag? nableezy - 18:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Revisiting that RFC

1.) The 2015 RFC, [5] had the effect of imposing a sort of deescalation of this long page, from a WP:BATTLEGROUND, to an article where a limited number of edits are made per year, and there is relatively little flame-throwing, by I/P standards. However, the page had accumulated long sections enumerating long prose lists of incidents in which Arabs were allegedly killed or injured by Israeli soldiers. And also many mentions of such incidents. They were often problematic due to POV phrasing and unreliable sourcing. But they had certainly accumulated. I interpreted the RFC to forbid adding such incidents, unless the incident was sufficiently notable to be bluelinked. 2.) We could, of course, open a new RFC, and decide whether to allow an unlimited number of deaths and injuries to be added. There have been many such incidents. Many. Opening this article to non-bluelinked incidents and injuries will open a floodgate. And almost inevitably lead to nasty edit wars. 3.) Note that omitting the non-blue-linked incidents will not damage the article materially, since there is so much RS material about stone-throwing and its consequences. 4.) Or we could deescalate by interpreting the 2015 RFC as User:Oshwah, an editor not regularly involved in I/P, has done above, to mean not only formal lists but "similar situations". Agree to abide by the 2015 decision to omit non-bluelinked injuries, damage, and deaths. And avert endless bickering. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

From reading the rfc, it appears to apply to lists of incidents. That means that it is inapplicable to incidents described in running text. In my opinion, examples can be given in running texts to demonstrate the existence of phenomenons and whether they have "blue links" or not is inconsequential. One should of course prefer to refer to famous incidents over less famous ones. The problem with the "blue link" test is of course that it has a tendency to bias Wikipedia's coverage to what its editors are most interested to write about and what Western media reports the most about. Therefore I don't think we should use it as a "notability" criteria.(signed by [[User:ImTheIP) I am boldly separating these 2 separate parts of this discussion bu subheads.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC))

• Editors are free to create articles on Palestinian death and injuries related to stone-throwing. We have at least one such article Death of Khalil al-Mughrabi as well as Faris Odeh, and an entire Category:Palestinian casualties during the Second Intifada, plus Category:Second Intifada casualties in which non-Palestinian activists deaths are listed, including foreign activists. WP:OTHERSTUFF is always a poor argumentE.M.Gregory (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• On your other point, as I stated above, permitting non-bluelinked deaths and injuries ot be added seems likely to lead to endless argument without really improving the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry Gregory, but this is the first time I have heard about the "blue link" criterion. I can not find any evidence of its existence in formal Wikipedia policy. I my view, your appeal to authority argument is therefore rejected. Wikipedia is woefully incomplete in many areas and a lot of pages needs to be written. That incompleteness can not in itself be used as an argument to determine content in other articles. I believe the Wikipedia way is to write text with red links and hope that someone with more time can write those articles for us. ImTheIP (talk) 21:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

If it had existed, I think it would skew Wikipedia very much to topics which editors are interested in, rather than to topics that are important.this comment was made by User:ImTheIP.

• Here: [6]. It was an RFC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The question in the RFC was "Should this article contain a list of non-bluelink incidents" and this is the list they were discussing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_stone-throwing&oldid=638541675#Deaths_and_casualties It is clearly not the same thing as examples given in running text. Sorry, but I really don't think it is great to remove a ton of content without discussing the issues first. ImTheIP (talk) 01:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)