Talk:Palestinian stone-throwing/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

972 mag

A separate discussion seem to be about 972mag. And I must say that I don't know the rules about what is a reputable source and what is not. I believe that even though 972mag is a blog and many authors publish under pseudonyms, it is still a trustworthy source. It has, afaik, not been caught with publishing fake news. ImTheIP (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

972mag is WP:SPS per their own about page. There is no editorial board, each blogger to his own. Not a RS. Trustworthiness for 972mag would, if at all, be attributed to an individual author and not to 972mag (which does no vetting). It is also a highly biased source - vehemently anti occupation. Regarding assailants (Arabs, kids, whatever) that are killed or injured as they attack, frankly that should be seen as WP:ROUTINE unless the incident is truly notable.Icewhiz (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Is it your opinion that an SPS is not an RS? Because from my reading of the page you linked to, Wikipedia policy appears not to be that an SPS is not an RS. My take is therefore that links to 972mag is permissible and removing such links on the grounds that 972mag is an SPS, is not allowed. ImTheIP (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It is WP policy that SPSes are generally not RS. Regarding being caught with fake news... It is a highly partisan blog, which is not something that is usually checked by 3rd parties. Haaertz would be caught if it ran a fake (non opinion) in the main page, 972mag quite possibly not. Readership is mainly the convinced. It might be a well regarded collection of blogs. They are still blogs.Icewhiz (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe the key word here is "generally." I can set up my own blog and publish how many diatribes I want and you would be right, that would not be a reputable source. Most SPS:es are just like that, random diatribes from random people. However, 972mag is clearly not like that. It is an exceptionally high quality SPS often relied upon by third parties. Therefore, again, removing references to 972mag is not justified by Wikipedia's SPS policy. ImTheIP (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• Note that even when highly regarded, indisputable WP:RS publications like the Washington Post and Forbes publish WP:SPS op-eds and commentators (both Forbes and WaPo now run large numbers of SPS contributions by wide range of activists, academics, and self-promoters, as a means of driving traffic to the site,) this material is not treated like edited material written by paid journalists, it is SPS, as reliable as the author, no more, no less.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No, that isnt a SPS, the author isnt publishing the material by itself. There are editors and a structure beyond a writer posting something to wordpress or something. 972 is very much not a self-published source. nableezy - 14:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

• News articles in edited news media are assigned and overseen by an editor with the publication taking ownership of, that is, backing the content with its editorial integrity and warranting the content as accurate and responsible coverage; in an ex cathedra editorial, the editorial board of a publication takes responsibility for its own opinions and for its presentation of fact; in op-eds, columns by regular but unpaid "contributors" even in a mainstream publication like Forbes or WaPo, the writers are personally responsible for what they say. The op-ed page editor at The New York Times, WaPo, or Haaretz decides what to accept, and will sometimes make suggestions, but the editor DOES NOT ask the writer of an op-ed to show an editor that the facts presented have been verified. This is the category in which +972 stands, according to their own self-description. If you want to claim that +972 has the same sort of editorial control over its writers that WaPo or Haaretz does, please bring sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:SPS applies very specifically to sources that are self-published. Please do not erect strawmen. +972 is not a self-published source. Full stop. nableezy - 15:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

It as an SPS per their about: [1] We see +972 as a platform for our bloggers to share analysis, reports, ideas, images and videos on their channels. Each blogger owns his or her channel and has full rights over its contents (unless otherwise stated). The bloggers alone are responsible for the content posted on their channels; the positions expressed on individual blogs reflect those of their authors, and not +972 as a whole. Since they themselves admit to being a SPS, there is no need to evaluate their partisan nature (also readily admitted by themselves in the same about in the para above) or their reliabiliy. SPSes may be used for opinions of the authors, possibly interviews, but not facts.Icewhiz (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You are missing WP:NEWSBLOG. There is no difference between an opinion piece on +972 and an opinion piece on some other magazine's site. Namely, they are citable with attribution. Because one magazine might call something an "op-ed" and another might call it it a "blog" doesn't make a difference. If they are essentially the same we should treat them the same. +972 is a magazine with an editorial board that publishes opinion pieces. Gregory's description of op-eds in regular newspapers is correct, but it doesn't mean that we can't cite them. It only means we have to use attribution when we cite them, as NEWSBLOG says. Zero^talk 14:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

They are not part of a newsorg, but rather fully indepedent (they may be funded by an NGO, not sure. They do have a Hebrew affilate of the same stripe, but no news org) - so I am not sure this appllies. 972mag does not have an editorial board - they expressly state that each writer has full control of his channel. I do agree they can be used for opinions, if the opinion is notable and attributed, but not for facts (without attribution) - eg in the scope of this article who was killed by whom.Icewhiz (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but you are entirely wrong about this. +972 does have an editorial board, including an editor-in-chief, a deputy editor and several other board members. You can find the list of names here. Also, I have no idea what newsorgs have to do with it. Zero^talk 16:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

That still is not self-published. There is a selection made of who is allowed to publish on 972. I cannot ask for and be granted the opportunity to publish anything on that site. And beyond that, reliability is determined by more than the publisher, it is also dependent on the author. If the author is an expert in the field, demonstrated by their work being published by other respected sources, then the source may still be reliable. Willy nilly removing 972 on the basis of it being a "SPS" is bogus, it is not a self-published source. Removing it based on it being a blog is likewise bogus, as Zero points out there are places where blogs may be used. An expert writing about his or her field of expertise is one of those places. nableezy - 16:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a matter of practical commonsense. We have a dozen Israeli/Jewish sources that report breaking news mainly by translating IDF radio reports, handouts, and the like, No one questions the reliability of these, though anyone working closely with the wire reportage, and checking reports hour by hour, will see that there is a notable amount of error, misreportage, that requires constant updating. A magazine like +972 frequently supplies us with overall summaries, critically, of what has occurred over a day, or two, or several. The reports aren't written to a deadline. They are written mainly by experienced journalists who have worked in most mainstream Israeli news outlets. This won't convince the 'never-budge' school, but one lesson should be this: any editor just removing +972 mechanically, esp. if used with attribution, has no backing at RSN or from a determinative page discussion, and if the edit summary asserts this, it should be reported. If there is a general ban, that must be established at RSN. With the majority of Israeli sources centre-right, this is one that is generally acute, and not within that area, and the objection is basically here, the magazine's failure to write in lockstep.Nishidani (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

This a highly partisan source - of the Israeli radical left (the extreme 0.1%). They exist mainly to promote an anti Israeli government view, and are not a newsorg. These are individual bloggers (a term they use) each writing as they see fit, with no fact checking or oversight.Icewhiz (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

This is not a blog, repeating oneself is pointless. There is no such thing as a 'radical left' in a country where the 'left' itself doubts its own existence, a suspicion often supported by mainstream commentators. The 'radical left' is, as usual, a jargon term for anyone ncritical of what the official government, or the unofficial government (IDF), states.Nishidani (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Per their about [2] +972 Magazine is a blog-based web magazine...... We see +972 as a platform for our bloggers to share analysis, reports, ideas, images and videos on their channels.. Convince them to self declare as a newsorg, and then maybe there will be something to discuss (they would still be a highly partisan non-RS in my opinion), as is, they themselves declare themselves to be an SPS (or maybe possibly NEWSBLOG at best).Icewhiz (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEON. Stop repeating yourself. No one listens if you do.Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz claims: "This a highly partisan source - of the Israeli radical left (the extreme 0.1%)." I respond: "That is complete nonsense." Icewhiz also claims that +972 has no editorial board, which is also nonsense. To exclude something from the left like +972 yet permit rabid-right "news" organizations like A7 makes a mockery of the NPOV policy. Personally I would prefer to raise the bar across the board, but if that isn't possible at least we can aim for balance in our biases. Zero^talk 16:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I used to dismiss A7, but they have improved much in terms of journalistic standards, and with the growing numerical weight of the settler movement represent a "mainstream settler POV" (representing the half million of settler statelet and their hardcore supporters outside). 972mag, which is a blog, really represents the same viewpoint of the current Haaretz mgmt, just without the journalistic standards.Icewhiz (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

None of that has anything to do with reliability. Every reason you have given has been proven false or irrelevant, yet you continue with the same talking points. nableezy - 15:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The site publishing these articles calls them blogs and says they're not responsible for their content. That's about a SPSish as you can get short of using Wordpress. If the author is otherwise notable in the field or whatever, their opinions can (but don't have to) be used with attribution. This is fairly basic Wikipedia editing knowledge I'm almost entirely sure the very experienced editors participating here are aware of. The reference to BLUDGEON while completely ignoring what the site says about itself was a nice touch, btw. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I really dont get how people are claiming that being invited by a third party to write on their website is about a[s] SPSish as you can get short of using Wordpress. Because that is on its face a laughable thing to say. Say it with me now, self published. Nobody has ignored what they say on their website, this game of pretending otherwise might play well is some other forum, but here, on this talk page, it has been acknowledged, repeatedly. However, their about us page does not cause things that are not self-published to magically become self-published so that they may be removed under the SPS guideline. Pretty basic thinking here, a nice touch in trying to walk around it, but still not at all valid. nableezy - 18:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I may have missed the part where SPS or V in general talks about "being invited" as a relevant criteria. Please quote. I do note it specifically talks about "group blogs". Say it with me now, group blogs. Pretty basic thinking here indeed, although I understand the use of "self" might confuse some people. The idea is that it is not published by an organization that is somehow responsible for the content. A group can still "self-publish". Hope that helps! No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

An ordinary publisher of an ordinary book does not take responsibility for the accuracy of the book contents. The author takes responsibility. And yet we don't call the book "self-published" unless the publisher is one of those vanity presses. You are completely misrepresenting the concept of self-publication. The fact that +972 has an editorial board and selects who to publish makes it entirely unlike a vanity press or Wordpress and quite similar to an ordinary publisher. Zero^talk 20:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

You're the one who's completely misrepresenting both the letter and the spirit of V. 972 is a platform created by a group of people in order to publish their work, where each individual has full control over what's published in his/her name. How is that not a group blog? If you want to compare it to book publishing, it's as if a group of authors bought a press together and each can use it to print whatever they like. That is certainly more like a vanity press than an ordinary publisher. 927 itself adds nothing to the reliability of what its members publish, and states so explicitly. Things published there can be used with attribution if the author is an expert or somehow otherwise notable. It is not a reliable source for facts. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

This source is clearly not reliable for facts and cannot be used there is no editorial oversight as the 972 page clearly says.--Shrike (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I think in most cases material from there should be attributed to its author. It is entirely reliable for the author's opinions. In fact, the lack of interference in the authors' writing makes it more reliable for the authors' opinions. Zero^talk 10:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a great source for author opinions (as for those that does write with a nom de plume - which some do (including one used to source this article)), agreed. It is not an appropriate source for how many, how, why, and where people were killed by stones or during the throwing of stones.Icewhiz (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, every single person who commented said that it's a reliable source for the author's opinion, just like any SPS is. It's not a reliable source for facts. I'm glad we finally agree. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

It just means that "According to X, ..." is usually appropriate, just like it is for most op-eds in regular newspapers. It doesn't mean that material can be deleted on the (false) SPS excuse. My words "usually" and "most" are intended to allow for a small number of cases where the writer is acknowledged by everyone to be a subject expert; such cases to be considered on their individual merits. Zero^talk 20:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone suggested material could just be deleted on the basis of SPS, but otherwise I agree. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

That is actually exactly what happened. nableezy - 13:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

There's quite a long and detailed ES there which quite clearly states more reasons that SPS. Nice try though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Palestinian stone-throwing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141111162826/http://www.film.com/movies/rock-the-casbah-review to http://www.film.com/movies/rock-the-casbah-review

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Dislike erasures. Jonathan Cook

• extended variant on the same point made by this author earlier in the article
• Having cook in once is questionable. Twice saying the same thing (+declaration of war) is not tenable

Both these edit summaries are patently question-begging if not indeed mendacious.

(a) 'stone throwing has been, according to Jonathan Cook, an 'enduring symbol' of how the weak can challenge the strong. (b) For Jonathan Cook, Netanyahu's declaration of a war on "terrorism by stones", as evidenced in these measures, is an attempt to reinvent the David–Goliath story by conflating stone throwing with Islamic terrorism to undermine Western sympathies for stone-throwing youths facing an army.

(a) is generic about stone-throwing and has no reference to David or Goliath, which comes from the preceding sentence by Ted Swedenburg (b) is specific about a Netanyahu's legislation over some ostensible "terrorism by stones", and interprets what Cook perceives as a political strategy by that fellow.

Therefore there is no reduplication, the same article can be multiply cited as our ref name system proves, and Jonathan Cook is an award-winning journalist. So the edit summaries are false. Nishidani (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• I restored the material; it's a continuation of the same thought, not duplication. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

  And why are we giving Cook such UNDUE ample space for his thoughts? Perhaps we should only include the second stmt which seems to include the first?Icewhiz (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Twice this propagandist seems a little bit UNDUE. What is he anyway? What are Cook's credentials? Is he a scholar, an historian, a journalist...? If he's just another pro-Palestinian activist, I don't see why we should mention him more than once, if any.--יניב הורון (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd remind you both that a respectable prize-winning journalist whom you both might personally dislike (propagandist?) still qualifies. As Coffman notes, saying two paraphrased snippets of an article, amounting to 51 of 825 words, a sixteenth of the original article, is undue, is farcical POV-pushing.Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I see the inevitable POV-pedalling eraser Shrike has just struck again, without a rational thought here arguing why Cook, who has an MA with distinction in Middle eastern studies, has lived in Israel for 11 years, writes for highly reputed conflict think tanks like the International Crisis Group, is married to an Israeli, and is competent in the languages, is somehow like many IP editors, a propagandist. He's competent, we are not.Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Cook mainly writes opinion pieces and rather polemic books such as Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair or Israel and the Clash of Civilizations: Iraq, Iran and the plan to remake the Middle East. His work is often featured on Electronic Intifada. I'm not sure why his marriage is relevant, but he's married to an Israeli Arab and they Like many other local families, we had chosen not to celebrate Israel’s independence but to take part that day in commemorating the Nakba[3].Icewhiz (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't be silly. I'll lay a bet you've never read a word of any of Cook's three books. Making a judgement like the above based on hearsay or at-a-glance-googled-opinionism, won't wash, and the fact that Cook writes with reportorial acumen on what the usual Zionist claptrap (i.e. most mainstream sources) ignores doesn't mean he is polemical. The facts on that account are all 'polemical'. Writing for The Electronic Intifada is no crime, since the New York Times et al., customize their IP writers to avoid mentioning the unmentionable (they do however mention the facts people like Cook regularly cull from the Israeli press in the New York Review of Books - there, none of their Zionist reporters are employed, only Israelis who know the ground facts- Perhaps because the readership there is an elite constituency consisting of people who actually read books, where these tragedies are minutely documented). As to the usual green-slicked highlight, I guess you mean Aborigines in Canada, the US or Australia should be taken to task for not standing proud with their fellow citizens to celebrate a day which evokes, for decimated minorities, the foundational event of their persecution, genocide and eclipse. Jeezus!

No argument against Cook stands. Find one, or that stuff should go back, since (a) he is an important source, reputabòly published, and used moderately (a 16th of text) Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't be a fool. Who cares about Cook? He is not an academic, just some journalist. Are those your "sources" now, opinion pieces by journalists? Debresser (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Most IP articles are sourced to journalists, not academics, and I don't see you objecting to this practice. (b) Opinion pieces are usable under attribution. So again, this opposition has no logical or policy basis. Nishidani (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Please explain why Cook opinion is so important and WP:DUE to include.--Shrike (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Read the thread above, where I have already given my reasons. This material stood without challenge for some time until an editor with zero familiarity with the IP area, with a dislike of Cook, started reverting his material out at sight. I restored it, for he had made no argument. Once I restored it the usual team lobbed in to confirm this distaste, i.e. vote stacking and automatic reverting out. It is not that Cook is supremely important: it is simply that he has a professional engagement with the area, is qualified academically in this area, has written 3 books on it, has received a major award for the quality of his reportage, and is called on to contribute to the highly respected International Crisis Group, so if Nathan Thrall thinks his work good enough, drive-by editors with a POV obsession shouldn't be just voting him off Wikipedia. I repeat: no reverter has given any policy-based argument why a 16th of one article by Cook dealing specifically with two aspects of Palestinian stone-throwing should not be used, for a generic opinion, and a specific interpretation of what Netanyahu's laws re it were aiming at. Since those 'legal measures' are mentioned, they require for balance the other perspective's critical version. If none of you have an argument, then kindly desist from voting in silent lockstep against re-inclusion of a snippet that none of you, all familiar with this page, hitherto found objectionable.Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE.Icewhiz (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

That is meaningless, since you have not replied to the above, which shows Cook is not fringe and that the text used is a mere snippet.Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Cook has a voice, and by looking at where he is published on can ascertain his location on the spectrum here. That the proposed text is a summary of a longer opinion by Cook is irrelevant. Once is enough in our article. Note that if were to include a fringe view of outlawing stone throwing as tantamount to a declaration of war we would have add balancing analysis of this far out claim (which might not be out there, as this is a voice that is not responded to outside of the echo chamber it is spoken in).Icewhiz (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 May 2018

In the section "Evaluations", in a quote from Edward Said, the last word of the quote is misspelled "lackays". It should be "lackeys". Grinchitude (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Done (after verifying it was not misspelled by Said, which it was not).Icewhiz (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Jerusalem Light Tramway

We should have something about the persistent throwing of stones at the Jerusalem Light Tramway. Which is all the more ironic because a large part of the line was made specifically to facilitate access of the Palestinian population to the city center. Debresser (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Are there sources that note the throwing of stones specifically at the tramway as a phenomenon? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Meisner

In Nablus on 24 February 1989, Israeli Paratrooper Binyamin Meisner was killed by a cement block dropped from the top of a building during clashes between Israeli troops and local residents in the town market.[124]

This is an article about Palestinian stone-throwing. A cinder-block is not a stone. Palestinians also drop, per sources, refrigerators from windows on patrolling soldiers. So what we are doing is adding information, selectively, on any form of object thrown (bar refrigerators, bricks etc) even if it is not a stone or rock. That is, to put a fine point on it, WP:OR, for cinder blocks are not stones, though the technique is identical. Icewhiz did not add refrigerators, because they are not stone, even though in the source he added they were mentioned together with rocks (and cinder-blocks), among things dropped from upper storeys. Cinder-blocks are no more stones than are refrigerators, so you could only enter this if the article had a different title, i.e. Palestinian use of objects to throw at soldiers, which would be silly.Nishidani (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Concrete masonry units as well as Bricks are close enough to being rocks or stones, being treated as masonry in the construction industry.Icewhiz (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

That's an arbitrary opinion, not an argument. Lexically in English, no one in his right mind would confuse rocks or stones, which are natural materials, with masonry, which are elaborately produced by human manufacture, just as are refrigerators. In conceptual taxonomy, there are different. The only point in common is that they are thrown objects, like knives, etc., in which case you would have to add anything thrown at soldiers. It would be like me adding garbage, and bottles thrown by Hebron's settlers on Shuhada street Palestinians to the Jewish stone-throwing article, something I don't do, because bottles are not stones. I might add that we document the throwing of Molotov cocktails here, which by the same token, is a different matter from stones/rocks. I don't fuss, but in principle, that kind of incendiary material belongs to a different pages if the title means what it is supposed to mean. Nishidani (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Per Masonry The common materials of masonry construction are brick, building stone such as marble, granite, travertine, and limestone, cast stone, concrete block, glass block, and adobe and since Wikipedia isn't a source, per Britannica Masonry, the art and craft of building and fabricating in stone, clay, brick, or concrete block ... The art of masonry originated when early man sought to supplement his valuable but rare natural caves with artificial caves made from piles of stone. .... Per m-w Mason: : a skilled worker who builds by laying units of substantial material (such as stone or brick), per Cambridge masonry 1. the bricks and pieces of stone that are used to make a building, 2. the skill of building with brick and stone - it would seem that many sources, quite possibly in their right minds, do actually conflate of confuse "rocks or stones, which are natural materials, with masonry, which are elaborately produced by human manufacture".Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope, unlike stones, that won't fly. For one, the article is stone-throwing, not masonry-throwing, and secondly I made a distinction between natural and worked materials, in line with English usage, a distinction made in your own text, which lists worked materials ( not 'stone' but cast stone. As you must know, wikipedia is not a reliable source (as one can see from I/P articles). Masonry according to the authoritative Oxford English Dictionary is (a) the art, skill or occupation of a mason, the art of building in stone; (b) that which is built or constructed by a mason; work executed by a mason, stonework; (c) the craft, principles and mysteries of freemasons; (d) composed or built of masonry.' O. E. D. 1989 2nd. ed. vol IX p.429 col.3. As blind Freddy and his dog can see, stones picked up in fields or roads to throw at people are one thing and what all our references refer to, quarried rock worked by stonemasons to construct buildings another. I never heard the stonemason, so rare those days it was a major effort to find one, who worked to chip and shape the granite blocks that were used to construct my brother's home, speak of 'stones': he spoke of stone-work, meaning specifically the labour of moulding and laying large blocks of quarried granite or basalt. One would have to be stoned to confuse the two, and, of course, I take note that you haven't explained to me how the glass bottles used to make Molotov cocktails are 'masonry'. Even our lead has the silly WP:OR asserting that or cement blocks are used by stone-throwers, or flung by slings. Try it. That was put in because, I assume, we had one case of a soldier dying from a tipped cement or cinder block dropped on his head, which the editor wanted to squeeze in here. Nishidani (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Ain't presently stoned. The lede seems to be a bit of a jumble, but it isn't making the claim blocks are shot by slings (it seems to list a series of optional launching methods, including catapults, following by possible ammunition). As for blocks (or other heavy stones, or stone-like objects) dropped from above - this was actually one of the leading causes of IDF deaths in confrontation with the Palestinians in 1987-90 - 2 fatalities out of 11 - and there have been a few subsequent cases.Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

102 IDF soldiers were killed during the Ist Intifada, so two cases of masonry dropped was not a leading cause of deaths in that period, and this is irrelevant. We distinguish caber throwing, javelin throwing, discus throwing, and throwing shot puts according to the nature of the object used in the act of throwing or hurling, and the same distinction applies here: the article must deal with stones thrown. I'm still waiting for an answer as to why Molotov cocktails are masonry or stones.Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that molotov cocktail tossing would be off topic here as a subject. However, in as much as there were incidents (or legal issues) which involved stone throwing alongside cocktail tossing - than mentioning the cocktails alongside the stones would be relevant for the incidents described.Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

It is off-topic, -Israeli legal issues have nothing to do with the distinction - and anyone is welcome to make an article on the topic of Palestinian Molotov cocktail-throwing since it is richly documented. Remember Icewhiz, you split straws to eliminate a report used at Jewish Israeli stone throwing regarding the killing of two unarmed hijackers by a Shin Bet squad of men who are reported to have smashed their heads with stones, simply assuming that they weren't 'thrown' and thus off-topic. We don't know if they were thrown, or some were thrown and one used directly to bash in the skulls. To me, all that mattered that a stone was used, to you it all hinged round the semantics of the verb 'to throw' and thus that item got excluded there. One cannot switch positions over articles depending on whose interest is at stake. Here you say it doesn't matter whether it was thrown or not: what matters is that by 'stone' we understand 'masonry' (which is silly). 'Throw' here means what it means, and one cannot change tack and maintain credibility by implying, 'oh, here, it is not a question of being thrown or not, or whether it was a 'stone' or something else, because here the victim was an IDF soldier, and there they were just Palestinians in captivity, and we use different taxonomies and principles to describe these incidents.'Nishidani (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

IDF "human shield" photo in lead

@Debresser: you can pretend to be stupid as much as you like with your revert comment, but we're not. This image is shamelessly sourced out of the IDF's Flickr account, and propagates the "human shield" narrative by the military occupation and its supporters. Once you are able to present us with stats demonstrating that most rock throwing at the occupation army was carried out behind medical vehicles, we can then begin to talk about its inclusion. For now, the first thing that comes to mind about Palestinians and rocks continues to be images of youth hurtling stones at Israeli occupation tanks. Naturally, that should be the lead photo. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

What difference does it make who took this picture? Or who posted it and where?

Photos record facts. A photo can not be POV. If the photo support the idea that Palestinians use human shields, then apparently that is because Palestinians use human shields.

As I understand it, your point is that this should not be the lead photo of this article. I have no problem with that. Not because I agree with your POV argument, but because I simply don't mind. Let's put another photo in the lead, and this one somewhere else in the article. Please go ahead and make the change. Debresser (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Al-Andalusi, please be civil. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I boldly moved a different photo from the article to the lead. I don't have an opinion about whether or not the previous photo belongs anywhere in the article. Havradim (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The move was fine, bu you should have swapped the pictures, as that is all we agreed upon here, not replace it. Fixed that now. Debresser (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

A perfect swap was not possible because the photo is from 2011 while the Second Intifada ended in 2007 at the latest, and probably much earlier than that, so it is not really a 'fix.' Havradim (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand your point. I would be perfectly fine with moving it to another section, but see no reason to remove it altogether. Please feel free to pick a section of your choosing. Debresser (talk) 11:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Another Israeli killed by Palestinian stone-throwing

While the article is protected, there is a relevant update in the section on Israelis who have died from rock throwing. The man’s name was Amit Ben Ygal.

Source: www.nytimes.com/2020/05/12/world/middleeast/israel-soldier-killed-west-bank.amp.html Painting17 (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)