Jump to content

Talk:Palestinian stone-throwing/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

What about Rafah and the Egypt Gaza border?

Should there be a section on stone throwing attacks on Egyptian border guards at the Egypt-Gaza border? There have been quite a few such confrontations in recent years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Of course that is relevant. But it does not require a section. Suffice it to add a scholarly source like this: Ehud Rosen, Mapping the Organizational Sources of the Global Delegitimization Campaign Against Israel in the UK, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs 2011 p.35, and perhaps Associated Press '1 dead, dozens wounded in Palestinian-Egyptian clash on Gaza border,' Ynet 04 February 2008.

If you cite that stuff you must contextualize it. The last named incident occurred when Israel blocked off all exits and entrances, Palestinians broke the Egyptian wall, and stone throwing, and shooting occurred,(for which Hamas apologized) (Ellen Knickmeyer, 'Egyptians Reseal Border, Cutting Access From Gaza,' Washington Post February 4, 2008.

I think therefore, to avoid 'bloat', that one should simply note that stone throwing also extends at times to the Rafah border area.Nishidani (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

And of course to the ARA (areas of restricted access) defined by Israel.Nishidani (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that a separate section would be appropriate, because the bulk of the article is about Palestinian stone-throwing in and against Israelis, not Egyptians. We'd also need to add a mention in the lead, of course. Debresser (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I've no objections. It's not how I would do it, since proportionately throwing stones at the border (from my research at least) is limited to very specific incidents and times, linked to protests about the strangulation of the Gaza Strip and difficulty of exit. If editors want that stuff in, sure.Nishidani (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Separating riots from throwing stones at vehicles and pedestrians

Subsections are needed separating the use of stone throwing in political demonstrations (which are termed riots in English the minute the segue into throwing stones) from the Palestinian practice practice of standing near roads and throwing stones at vehicles presumed ot carry Isrealis, and throwing stones at pedestrians in quiet streets where no demonstration is taking place.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Political demonstrations are called 'riots' in the Israeli media, which follows the language of choice in IDF explanations. Most Israeli newspapers also describe many incidents as 'terrorism' which however we do not follow, and we are under no obligation to follow the Israeli definition of riots. Riots certainly occur, as do mass demonstrations and protests, and it is very difficult to determine generally when to describe an event as one or the other. An article cannot get bogged down in specific incidents (one could have a List of people injured, killed by Palestinian stone throwing for that. To throw stones is not automatically a sign of a riot, since it would mean everytime one is woken up with troops all over your village, and shooting, and tear gas being fired into houses, any youth who throws a stone is a 'rioter' whereas the Israeli defence forces are just 'peace keepers'. The only way to avoid such pitfalls, which permeate even good books, is to insist on high quality evidence by scholars or journalists with a repute for accurate analysis. Nishidani (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Illustration from Hebron. 'Settlers wrecked the Sharabati household around the corner from the team's apartment, throwing the family's water tanks into the street. Adel Samoh, a shoe store owner and longtime friend of the team who lived above Beit Hadassah, was hit in the head by a rock. When Palestinians in the market also began throwing back the stones that settlers had thrown at them, soldiers began shooting at the Palestinians. (Kathleen Kern, As Resident Aliens: Christian Peacemaker Teams in the West Bank, 1995-2005, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2010 p.84) In IDF reports this would be described as a Palestinian riot.Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
And apropos the Sharabatis, one could make an article of them alone. They have been stoned consistently over almost two decades by settlers. Their baby daughter, Samir was hit in the eye with a rock at the very outset of the Second Intifada, thrown by settlers from Beit Hadassah under the eyes of the IDF outpost on the roof. No action taken. Source? Peter Bouckaert, Center of the Storm: A Case Study of Human Rights Abuses in Hebron District,Human Rights Watch 2001 pp.85-6, which are full of such incidents, esp. in Hebron where settler stone throwing is endemic on Shuhada Street.Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of which, article should mention cases where Arabs in a car have been injured by Arabs throwing stones at vehicles they presumed to be carrying Jews?E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

All relevant information in Rs is given according to due weight. So yes, cases of Arabs being injured by stone throwing is automatically included, preferably in sources that examine the topic generally. This should also mean that Palestinians injured by settler stone throwing deserves mention, of course. Nishidani (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Category added

I was going to bring it up some days ago when I saw it but didn't have time so I ask now: what is Category:Deaths by rocks thrown at cars doing here? If this were an article about people killed by that, it would be included. That category is for articles like Death of Adele Biton, which describes a person killed in a car crash because of a rock was thrown at the car. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I had the same thought when I saw that category. Debresser (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
For some reason, I thought this had been removed but I have removed it now. --IRISZOOM (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Edmond Ghanem (Ghaneim)

Igorp's edit is totally unacceptable Edmond Ghanem's death is alluded to in at least a dozen good sources, since, together with the mysterious death of Basem Rishmawi, it is remembered in Beit Sahour and studied by scholars of the Christian community there. One cannot, Igorp, wipe out scholars who specialize in that area's history and write decades after the event, in the light of broad studies, and interviews, and replace them with a single primary source raw report from 1988, that just sums up two versions. If commonsense prevails over the recent wave of atrocious editing, then most of the sourcing, and paraphrasing of sources, I have provided can be removed. As it is, one has to provisorily give the fuller picture because editors are tampering with this to spin a POV. IDF investigations have no more authority than scholarly investigations. We don't know the truth: we are obliged to give all existing, available versions, and let the reader draw her own conclusions.Nishidani (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

IDF investigations do, however, take place shortly after incidents occur and have acess to witness and evidence that academics writing months or years later and at a distance lack. Memory of witnesses is particularly unreliable as time passes. But the main point is that when the IDF denies something it merits inclusion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
IDF investigations have almost zero credibility in this area, as almost all neutral authorities (B'tselem, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International) have repeated for decades. Justice Moshe Landau who presided at Eichmann's trial and reviewed the Beita bone-smashing case and Meir Yehuda's role, concluded that :'GSS agents had systematically committed perjury for sixteen years, lying about the fact that they used brutal physical and psychological methods to get confessions and information,' backing it up by citing an internal GSS memo (1982) that set forth guidelines about what kind of lies should be told,' if investigations ensued. (John Conroy, Unspeakable Acts, Ordinary People: The Dynamics of Torture, p.212)
The IDF/Border Police actually do not regularly interrogate Palestinian witnesses except for cases regarding Israeli victims. They close 95% cases of Palestinian complaints, and almost never act against Israeli stone throwers. Youtube is full of videos showing soldiers standing around as settlers throw stones. This means that, of course, the IDF POV is included, because it is in the sources. No one has challenged that obligation (and no one in Beit Sahour believes it, esp. after the initial explanation that wind had blown a rock off the rooftop, a miracle if it is not sheer mocking irony). Nishidani (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "of course, the IDF POV is included, because it is in the sources"
Not correct. It wasn't included by you, instead of it was mentioned in one of your sources (Nancie L.Katz). You've added it only after I've already added the UN source.
Thanks to IRISZOOM, who did some order in this your edit to let a reader understand what happened there (see "Nishidani's versions" below). --Igorp_lj (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
BTW, is this
  • "Sometimes, in clashes between IDF forces and Palestinians, concrete blocks were used to kill or occasioned the death of the adversary"
statement a simple wp:OR or it's approved by some RS?
IMHO, it's excessive. --Igorp_lj (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Igorp

Why do you keep doing this kind of thing over numerous pages? The link gave the pages to view. The first page stated exactly what I said was written there. And you persist in plunking down silly tags, 'not in source'. It's now getting to be noisome. Probably, to edit in what was written there, which you apparently did not read, I had to break 1R today, innocuously. Look, if you have a problem, state it on the talk page. In English 'had been killed by an Israeli soldier' in the active means 'An Israeli soldier had killed him'. Got it? Nishidani (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

That is called WP:DRIVEBYTAGGING. As I wrote here above on 00:22, 15 April 2015, "the two other sources put the blame on the Israeli soldier". He has also several times in vague terms questioned the sources (last time was one hour ago in this edit summary). I think it is time that Igorp lj raises concrete objections here in the talk page if he has any so we know and so we don't have to clean up the tags.
I will sort the refs according to the statements they support, otherwise they are hard to distinguish (eight refs are there together). --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Done now. Please correct me if I sorted them wrong. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, in this case I wasn't right - confused with different Edmonds.
About the rest : a) the quality of the section, b) such Nishidani's style as "For Godì's sake Igortp (a) learn to edit, (b) learn to read (3) learn to look at the pages linked on the page" and other ridiculous speculations above - later. --Igorp_lj (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Igorp A minor tutorial This page is an overview of a practice , practical, technical, cultural and historical. All of your edits are getting fixated on minutiae, fail to enlighten, and only complicate the broad narrative. Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not see what I may wiki-learn (see later about English) from you. This page is now the best example of your blatant non-NPOV and apology оf stone-throwing and its current edition it deserves only
  • the {{Cleanup-rewrite}} tag (what I'm going to place), or
  • return to the version of ~ 7 March 2015 and a consecutive transfer into the article only what is already discussed here.
--Igorp_lj (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • (1)Your differentiation of Pappe and Grinberg was correct, but your edit completely screwed up the English, with two serious grammatical errors. (has been stoned in 2000 (wrong tense)/that it stoned "regularly (the verb cannot be used absolutely. Your edit said that the mosque stoned people.)
(1b)I correct these two errors. Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for gramma's correction (BTW, it was typo and should be "it's stoned" - is it correct?).
No,'it's stoned' means that the mosque is a heavy drug-taker, even worse. Sigh.Nishidani (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Your (served as a fact) "The Hassan Bek Mosque in Jaffa has been regularly stoned" (@Pappe) has no sense at all, even in current, with our additions, version. If there were such incident there, they should be exactly mentioned --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Pappe is an Arabic speaking Israeli scholar, who has more credibility than any anonymous wiki editor. Your objection is subjective. Just a brief glimpse, (not to waste my time on this endless witless quibbling, see also
Since June 2001, worshipers occasionally have been insulted and stones were thrown on two occasions, breaking windows and causing light damage to the building.’ It was also fire-bombed in late 2004 Yair Ettinger Two firebombs thrown at Tel Aviv mosque Haaretz Dec. 27, 2004
Ibtisam Azem,Present Absent: Palestinians in Israel (Part 1) Jadaliyya 26 ott 2010 - In the last ten years, this mosque was the target of more than seven attacks, including arson, all attempted by extremists, the last of which in 2008.
Haven't you an intelligent way of wasting your time?Nishidani (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I proposed (a) Israeli-Palestinian and (b) ‘demonstrations’ because that was the language of the first source, Grinberg. The principle is not to stray from source language too far.

October 2000 events|Israeli-Palestinian demonstrations

You come back with

"Palestinian citizens of Israel" demonstrations

Which is (a) ungrammatical, i.e. unacceptable English and (b) contains a meaningless italicization. As shown in earlier arguments on wiki, though Israeli Arab is the preferred government term, the self-identifier ‘Israeli Palestinian’/Palestinian Israeli’ became the preferred term in the wake of 2000. Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

      • I've tried to be nice and helpful. It's evident that you don't understand rules, grammar, nothing. It's pointless interacting with you. 'Palestinian citizens of Israel (subject) took to the streets to demonstrate' cannot be rephrased as 'Palestinian citizens of Israel" demonstrations,' for the simple fucking reason that you are making, ungrammatically, an adjectival clause of Grinberg's first phrase to make it qualify 'demonstrations'. This is kindergarten level English.- If you can't understand that, you certainly can't understand my English not the extensive textual sources. No one is obliged to collaborate with editors who cannot pass elementary reading skills, and no one should have to sit round and clean up consistently silly edits, esp when the said editor tries to be witty.Nishidani (talk) 06:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Symptomatic flow of invective, which accurately describes just its author. :(
As a part of humanitarian help I suggest you to learn the following quotes from your source:
etc. :) --Igorp_lj (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

There’s another point. The article October 2000 events is about Northern Israel. The Jaffa riots was in response per sources to events reported both throughout Israel and from Gaza and the West Bank, suggesting that October 2000 page is inappropriate.Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Why "about Northern Israel" only? There were the same riots. As I see Jaffo is already mentioned in it. This our discussion is a good reason to add some NPOV only info & RS to it. Meanwhile "In the wake (beginning) of Second intifada" may be used as well. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Answer the point. Stop piling on confusion. You messed English. I pointed it out. You tried to vindicate the error by saying it came from the source, saying the source was a 'comrade' of mine. I showed the error did not come from the source, but from your fumbling patching up of the source, which remains ungrammatical. You come back speaking of my 'invective', and start listing more links. As to those links below, no one is silly enough to follow this unfocused listing. I certainly haven't and won't. So stop wasting time. When you 'engage' like this, no one reads you.Nishidani (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
It's you who hasn't "answered the point".
And it's me who won't reply to your next personal attacks. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a problem. While I am suggesting that the extensive texts in notes, once the text is stable, can be removed (they exist only to save people time so that editors can catch at a glance the referred to content, and verify the accuracy of the edit) you are expanding to frame a narrative. LeBor’s book is overall a fine one, but has its notable spin (for me it is fascinating for what it explores or fails to explore), which balances Grinberg’s ‘leftist’ spin. That is why I put it in. But the remark you cite unbalances things, because whereas what Grinberg states is not quoted (the ‘left’ view=’The violent clashes between the police and demonstrators were termed “war” to provide legitimacy for the use of force and the killing of demonstrators, as if the lives of the police were in danger and they were acting in self-defense. . .(The IDF) responded with disproportionate force that only an army can unleash, force that would have been appropriate in a war against a standing army but was totally out of place against stone-throwing civilians. The IDF reaction deepened the ongoing sense of powerlessness among Palestinians, who responded with larger demonstrations, . .) LeBor’s is.
So, when you add LeBor, with his POV about the chronic rioting of ‘Arabs’( 1921 and 1936, then 2000), you only create an imbalance, and invite other editors to jam in more context (Grinberg details, etc.) Arabs dedmonstrated/rioted in 1920, 1921 and 2000 for political reasons, Jews also 'rioted'/'demonstrated' during these periods, and it is factually untrue that in all three instances to assert that ‘Arabs started it’, as your addition is suggesting. The situations were conflictual from the start, and both sides can be said to have ‘started it’ depending on one’s POV. Good historians exist, who just describe the sequences, which rarely allow one to make this kind of facile ‘they started it’ argument.
  • Yes, here I repeat you pratice of quoting. Regarding to a Grinberg's quote see later.
  • "What is Adam LeBor doing in the article" (sic!) I have to remind you about the name of this article: "Palestinian stone-throwing". It's you who wrote above about ‘Israeli Palestinian’/Palestinian Israeli’. So LeBor's quote describes exactly what happened in these days in Yaffo. And my edit separates specific authors' presentation of events

The Hassan Bek Mosque in Jaffa was stoned in October 2000 by Jews, who tried to set it on fire, in the wake of "Palestinian citizens of Israel" demonstrations (Grinberg, 2009[81]) and local rioting, and stone throwing in solidarity with West Bank protesters (Adam LeBor[159]), and Ilan Pappe has claimed it is regularly ({{clarify}} should be added) subject to stoning.[160]

"These were the tribals borders - Jews against Arabs, without geographical borders"]. Nothing apropos 'stone-throwing'.
  • you replace ‘according to one analyst’ with ‘according to Lev Luis Grinberg. Red links are often created to throw a light of suspicion on the authority of the source (you may not know this). Grinberg, unlike Adam LeBor (who should be linked because he has a bio) is a distinguished professional Israeli academic, with a notable number of academic works to his credit. I wrote ‘one analyst’ to save multiple additional sources that state a similar point of view. Your edit makes it his peculiar view, and the red link tends to imply the view is from a non-notable scholar. His view isn’t unique. It actually glosses, if you know the background, what Jacques Chirac said to Ehud Barak at Paris precisely in those days (October 2000).

"Your (Ehud) account of events does not match the impression of any country in the world,” he (Chirac) said. “At Camp David, Israel did in fact make a significant step towards peace, but Sharon’s visit was the detonator, and everything has exploded. This morning, sixty-four Palestinians are dead, nine Israeli-Arabs were also killed,and you’re pressing on. You cannot, Mr Prime Minister, explain this ratio in the number of wounded. You cannot make anyone believe that the Palestinians are the aggressors . . .When I was a company commander in Algeria, I also thought I was right. I fought the guerillas. Later I realized I was wrong. It is the honour of the strong, to reach out and not to shoot. Today you must reach out your hand. If you continue to fire from helicopters on people throwing rocks, and you continue to refuse an international inquiry, you are turning down a gesture from Arafat. You have no idea how hard I pushed Arafat to agree to a trilateral meeting. Gilead Sher , The Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, 1999–2001: within reach, Routledge 2006 pp.161-162.</ref>

I thought of that immediately, on reading Grinberg's remark, because I read Sher's book and added a note to that effect to the Al-Aqsa Intifada page years ago (which on checking I see someone said it was a dead link, and now I've adjusted). I could cite many more. I was just being polite saying 'one analyst' because I was citing one source to avoid complications (which I think you are now inviting editors to elaborate on). Please try to be less suspicious, and more careful. None of those edits look reasonable or informative. They look like they are trying to consolidate a POV while ignoring the other side.Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
It's about the mess in Ginberg's book with "Palestinian citizens of Israel", etc. (see above) as well as to your question about his quote.
It's you who has already quoted him and not in Notes, but just in the article:

according to Lev Luis Grinberg (added by me), to use all the weapons in its arsenal, including snipers, and shooting missiles from Apache helicopters at demonstrators and buildings. He concludes ‘It responded with disproportionate force that only an army can unleash totally out of place against stone-throwing civilians

I do not see any suspicion in red link. Moreover, it's a good reason for somebody to write a new article about this person/event. But you may delete it if...
"I could cite many more" - not only you. But these additions should be about the article's subject. As I see nor Chirac's, not Grinberg's ones as well as other your sources do not add somthng useful to it. --Igorp_lj (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani's versions

( 13:23, 13 April 2015; with sources see in "Palestinian_stone-throwing|Such reliable (?) sources, used by Nishidani :( subtopic above)"

Sometimes, in clashes between IDF forces and Palestinians, concrete blocks were used to kill the adversary. In Beit Sahour on the 18th of July 1988 Edmond Ghanem (17) was killed when a soldier dropped a building block on his head from the third story Israeli army outpost in the municipal building as Ghanem walked by.<[110][111][112] 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.[113]

Last his edit (19:27, 15 April 2015):

Sometimes, in clashes between IDF forces and Palestinians, concrete blocks were used to kill or occasioned the death of the adversary. In Beit Sahour on the 18th of July 1988, a building block from the third story of the municipal building where an Israeli army outpost was located, hit and killed Edmond Ghanem (17), a Roman Catholic who happened to be passing by after shopping in a suq. Villagers claimed soldiers had thrown it. Israeli soldiers stationed on the roof subsequently stated that had blown off the roof.An IDF investigation concluded it was a 'tragic accident'. Some scholars interpret it as a killing.[113][114][115][116][117][118][119]

--Igorp_lj (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

What's the problem? The second version is more NPOV because it is rephrased to encompass the Israeli version. 'used to kill' (Nablus definitely) 'occasioned the death of' (Beit Sahour according to Palestinian and Israeli accounts, neutrally)Nishidani (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It is only (!) one example of such not-NPOV editing, when you only choose either the version and sources what correspond to your POV, or even not mentioned in the article what is already written just in your sources. And only when you get caught by the hand, you have to change something in the article. --Igorp_lj (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I've tried to do some order in this confusing text (thanks to IRISZOOM for beginning). Here is the variant what should be better:

In Beit Sahour on the 18th of July 1988, a building block from the third story of the municipal building where an Israeli army outpost was located, hit and killed Edmond Ghanem (17),[113] a Roman Catholic who happened to be passing by after shopping in a suq. Villagers claimed soldiers had thrown it. Israeli soldiers stationed on the roof subsequently stated that had blown off the roof.[114] An IDF investigation concluded it was a 'tragic accident'.[113][115] Some scholars interpret it as a killing.[116][117]

--Igorp_lj (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Here is another example of such your not-NPOV editing (The Hassan Bek Mosque in Jaffa):
served as a fact:
in fact:
--Igorp_lj (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW: what connection to the article's subject has such your text:

  • "When settlers in 1983 killed a 11 year-old Palestinian girl from Nablus[clarification needed] (--Igorp_lj (talk)), the chief rabbi of the Sephardic community in defense, cited a Talmudic text which justified killing an enemy on occasions when one may see from a child’s perspective that he or she will grow up to become your enemy’.[140]"

? --Igorp_lj (talk) 10:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

You are, as on several other pages earlier, not understanding the points made, and engaging in a personal polemic. The connection is made in the text, being cited, in the context of stoned-throwing and settler reactions, and justifications for their attacks/retaliations. Settler stone throwing often comes from radical religious communities whose rabbis (certainly not representative of that tradition, but influential in these enclaves) provide justifications for stoning, harassing and even killing Palestinians. It mirrors those fanatics who cite Islamic tradition to justify violence. I no more think one should just state, 'settlers throw stones' without contextualization, than I think 'Arabs throw stones' without contextualization as this is documented in sources dealing with the topic. By the way, why not start fixing the several messes you introduced, like removing that tag denying that a source said what the source has been proven to say? It's been noted, you'v e been shown the actual source denies what you insinuate, and you haven't acted to fix it.Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
No comments for not answer, but only next personal attack...
"the source has been proven to say" ?  :( --Igorp_lj (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Pics

Settler stone throwing is endemic and widely video-ed and photographed. Are there no pictures uploaded to provide a balance to the article? Likewise, Palestinian cars are often targeted by settler stone-throwers, as today's example shows, which exactly parallels the picture of a damaged Israeli settler car damaged, which we have here. Can anyone find some photos of this aspect, for use here?Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

"to provide a balance to the article" - instead of reality?
"The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if ..." (:) --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
This article is not about settler stone throwing. Debresser (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Neither is it about Muslim stone-throwing but E.M.Gregory added much about that. Unless source put it relation to Palestinian stone-throwing, they should be removed. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Editing incompetently

I did note earlier to Roscelese that the title was calculated to exclude any mention that Jews throw stones, and I don't think she believed me. Well, E M Gregory removes this as off-topic. I suppose if I mention that in 2008-2014, 53 settler youths were arrested for rock throwing, 90% of cases were shelved: 4 were judged guilty without conviction, i.e. given an administrative warning, while 50% of the 1,142 Palestinians arrested were convicted in court and got gaol sentences. If it's an Israel it's just an administrative problem. If it is Palestinian it is criminal.Nishidani (talk) 07:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • To change the article, E.M. Gregory created a new wiki article stub to give warrant for his POV (it should be up for deletion, technically, not for the topic, but for the incompetence of the draft). I.e. here, namely Criminal rock throwing. This is sleight-of-hand, creating the appearance of evidence, in order to alter the evidence on a second article, by using the former as a corroborative wikilink. Nishidani (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • editing for accuracy. No editing, to insert WP:OR, and doing so, in defiance of the content of the source, which justifies no such rewriting.
  • excluding the parallel phenomenon
  • 'cutting bloat'. No, removing an important definition in sources. False edit summary.
  • Note how ‘stone throwing’ (which is quite distinct) is linked to an article Criminal rock throwing to prejudice the issue by obtaining the WP:OR unsourced generalization,

Stone throwing is illegal worldwide.[9] In Israel as in other western countries police attempt to control stone-throwing rioters with non-lethal tactics, such as riot shields and tear gas

The wiki article that links this is Criminal rock throwing. Two countries are mentioned, Australia and the US. (b) wiki is not RS (c) Israel is a not a Western country (4) the sources that stated the contrary were buried in footnotes, but contradict the reformulation, since many sources state that Israel's historic response is not that adopted in 'most other countries' and certainly not in Western countries. An editor that readjusts against sources, manipulating links and justifying this as NPOV is being provocative, not serious.

You can't allow that to stand in the face of sources that say:

Stone throwing is not considered a deadly force in most countries: in the West firearms are not used in crowd or riot dispersals and proportionality of force is the norm, except where immediate danger to life exists.(Pete van Reenben in ‘Children as Victims in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Policing Realities and Police Training,' Charles W. Greenbaum,Philip E. Veerman,Naomi Bacon-Shnoor (eds.), Protection of Children During Armed Political Conflict: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, Intersentia Antwerp/Oxford 2006 pp371-393 p.384:’Stone throwing is not considered a deadly force in most countries, and the reaction of the police is protection by shields and protective clothing, out-manoeuvering the stone-throwers, water cannons and occasional tear-gas. In Western countries, fire-arms are not used, apart from cases of immediate danger to life.to life. The open fire regulation used by Israeli forces, as far as is clear what it contains, seems to allow for a much faster use of fire arms and for heavier arms than is usual in demonstrations elsewhere. The requirement of proportionality of force, . . does not appear to apply here.')

  • One of the reasons I use academic sources is that you can find any polemical reply to any other position on the net, and confound the clarity of texts by infra-journalistic POV battles. I have no objection toStein, Micah (6 August 2013). "What's Wrong With Throwing Rocks?". Daily Beast. Retrieved 12 April 2015. being used, but it was used to justify the rephrasing 'rock throwing is a criminal offence all round the world,' which is a sneaky distortion, by introducing Stein.
The article deals with 'stone throwing' mostly against an army of occupation: rocks are included, as are incidents of rocks being thrown at cars.
Stein(a fellow at the Tikvah Fund) 's article reads:

Rock throwing is also illegal, both in Israel and around the world. In Australia, Section 49A of the Crimes Act provides a maximum 5-year prison sentence for "throwing rocks and other objects at vehicles and vessels." In the United States, tossing rocks at cars can be a felony assault, or get you charged with "throwing a deadly missile" in some states, which comes with a sentence of up to 15 years in prison. There is nothing at all unusual or extreme about Israel’s treatment of rock throwers.

This confuses stone throwing generically with one law cited from the Australian penal code regarding 'tossing at cars'. That indeed is a criminal offence, but neither Stein, against sources in the text, nor the Australian penal code can allow us to make the WP:OR construction that all stone throwing in the Palestinian territories is identical to throwing rocks at passing vehicles.This is what E.M.Gregory has done, and it is an obvious example of fishing for a POV justification.Nishidani (talk) 10:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
If you want that the stick in other words, you must create an article on rock throwing'(at vehicular traffic)' which is certainly a criminal offence all round the world. Stone throwing at police or soldiers of an occupation who are licensed to shoot you, in support of land-theft, is not covered by the Australian or American penal codes, as far as I know.Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Linn is misconstrued: she writes,’an undeclared war that that wasd often led by women and children who used “cold,” though very often lethal, ammunition.’ Becomes ‘lethal assault’. My version respected that ‘very often’( ‘Other argue that such stone throwing has involved recourse to lethel objects’. Gregory has made an absolute statement out of a qualified statement.Nishidani (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I.e. I wrote of two incidents, one from each side, in which people were killed by concrete blocks and, as I always do, I order the incidents in chronological order if possible. Ghanem was killed by an Israeli soldier, and then the Israeli paratrooper was killed by a Palestinian militant. If you adopt chronology, no margin for POV prioritizing is possible. Instead if, as Gregory does, you ignore chronology and place your preference ahead of the other, the priorization is subjective and shows a POV bias.Nishidani (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, Gregory's sheer incompetence. The reference is on the page (David A. McDonald, ‘Performative Politics: Folklore and Popular resistance in the First Palestine Intifada,’ in Moslih Kanaaneh, Stig-Magnus Thorsén, Heather Bursheh, David A. McDonald (eds.) Palestinian Music and Song: Expression and Resistance since 1900, Indiana University Press, 2013 pp123-140), and he can't see it. Perhaps because the name conjures up hamburgers if misspelt, as it was before I began rewriting the page. I.e. David A. MacDonald understands stone throwing as, "resistance performance... strategically engineered to reinforce the sacred relationship between the nation and the land".Nishidani (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

(WP:AGF) Now Gregory is recommending I see a psychiatrist.Nishidani (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
You bring up some very serious issues. Perhaps what is worst is the edits that takes the Israeli view that "this is criminal" (they forget that Israel is not like the vast majority of states as it is an occupying power and that is why many people view it as legitimate resistance), in combination with the edits removing mention of Israelis trowing stones in this same area but adds that Muslims did that against Jews and adding descriptions of an anti-Jewish attack in Libya too. --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
There is plenty of room for all POVs, and certainly the Israeli/Jewish official or hostile ones. Only WP:NPOV requires that all POVs be given due weight, and E.M. Gregory's edits would rewrite the page according to the official government POV (apart from the incompetence). There is nothing 'legitimate' in a resistance that endangers the lives of civilians, be they settlers or not. This is explicitly forbidden under the very protocols in the relevant 4th Geneva Convention which are often cited as being systematically violated by Israel. Throwing stones at an occupying power is borderline (they are obliged to keep order, and are recognized as having that role. They are forbidden to treat the occupied people in the way they treat them, however.Nishidani (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with that and very few would dispute that it is forbidden to attack civilians. However, many attacks are against Israeli security forces, and taking the Israeli view that it is all "illegal" is wrong. That was, however, only one of the problems addressed here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The part about chronology was one of the problem. It was also added that "In what the Israeli aremy described as a tragic accident, and Palestinians alleged was a deliberate act, in". Why start with that? And do Israeli army "describe" things while Palestinians "allege"? --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, in the source I cited ( re Ghanem, and then had to revert out per IR, the Israeli initial version was that the building block fell off during a strong wind. The incident became a problem because Ghanem was a Catholic (well, sure, an Arab, but the IDF are a little more cautious with Arabs of Christian background). The Christians of Beit Sahour will tell you there is a policy to constantly embarrass them in front of Muslim friends, i.e., if you go together on a picnic, at the checkpoint, the Christians are waved through while the Muslims are held up often for an hour or two, to create, according to the former, a suspicion among the Muslims that the Christians are collaborators with Israel. The story of wind was so totally idiotic, that an official apology came through some time later, but no investigation was held, which is always held if Israelis are killed.Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Lets look closer at an edit by E.M.Gregory. So he says "adding significant context to section bloated with irrelevancies, such as Alexander the Great". Which is one of the "irrelevancies" he is talking about? From this Wikipedia article:
"Gaza, where the first Intifada broke out, has had a long history of stone-throwing, which, according to Oliver and Steinberg, goes back at least to an incident where Alexander the Great, while laying siege to the city, was hit by a stone, and almost lost his life."
So when authors look at it and connects the history in a way, it is "irrelevancies". E.M.Gregory also added that "The practice of Arab rioters throwing stones at Jews was also seen in the 1948 Anti-Jewish Riots in Tripolitania, Libya" because it was a "significant context". I looked at page 68 and several pages around but can't find anything about stones there. I did find that on 1948 Anti-Jewish Riots in Tripolitania, which he linked to. One source there is quoted about the stone-throwing but who else than you, E.M.Gregory, decided it was relevant to stone-throwing by Palestinians? Then you added more examples. That part from the book by Benny Morris can be seen here. As one can see from the edit itself and can check with the book, Morris talks about Muslim stone-throwing unrelated to this topic. Do you think you decide what is relevant and what is not? Sorry, but that is not how Wikipedia works. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
There are two edits, which head the historical and cultural background. Originally it was written in (a) conceptual outline (b) ancient precedents in Palestined (c) chronological order of various indicative incidents. E. M. Gregory ignored these normal drafting protocols to highlight two specific incidents (of thousands no doubt). That in itself is another example of erratic POV pushing. Specifically
  • Stone throwing against Jews in Algeria
  • Benny Morris on Morocco
    • The Algerian/Yemeni whatever stuff, unless directly connected with Palestine, is WP:OR. I might add that just looking for stones+Arabs+Jews is the wrong stratagem because the article is about Palestinian rock throwing, not Arab rock throwing at Jews.
    • The Benny Morris bit can, I believe, be used, because Morris's book gives background before moving to specifics, which is what we do here. However, it is an interesting quote. It was made by a British officer, in a context of anti-Semitic caricature:

    • (One) ‘looks in vain for a handsome face among the grown-up males (Jews). This I attribute to the constant debasement of their minds, in which the thoughts of servility, avarice, deceit, and the meanest subtlety, are daily gaining the ascendancy over the more radiant virtues of nature, visible in the jocund open countenance of extreme youth. Then Jewish boy has hardly turned his seventh year, when he is taken in hand by the elder brethren, and taught “to make the worse appear the better bargain.” From this moment, so strong are their passions, the child becomes ugly. This will be easier imagined when we consider the debasement to which they are subject, even from the children of a true believer. "I have seen a little fellow of six years old, with a troop of fat toddlers of only three and four, teaching [them] to throw stones at a Jew.But such, and ten times as much will Moses endure for the sake of cheating his persecutor at some future period, and this is, besides its individual advanrtage, the sweetest revenge of a Jew.’ Captain George Robert Beauclerk, A journey to Marocco, in 1826, Poole &Edwards, London 1828 pp.279-230.

    • The event described took place in Morocco, which is fair game for Morris's thesis since like our editor(s) his intent is to show the 'Arabs' hate Jews, and always stone them, whereas Westerners, and many outsiders, Turks included, testify that stoning was indiscriminate, and not Jew-specific. Well, Morris is RS, so we can't nudge him and tell his logic is as stupid as deducing from the fact that any Christian cleric in Jerusalem is regularly subject to being spat on by grown Haredi men, or small boys, that all Haredim or ultrta-orthodox Jews or Jews, spit on Christians as a matter of course. That would be contrafactual, and profoundly even obscenely inane. Even serious historians like Morris can get away with this when caricaturing all Arabs or Islamic culture, but serious editors ignore the abuses of historians. It's discretional. In any case, both furnish further examples of Gregory's ineptitude as a Israeli-victimization-POV push. That said, I am not convinced Morris should be excluded. If he is, it should be clarified that we are talking about Morocco, and the juicy tidbit should be repositioned in the proper chronological section. Nishidani (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It is still OR because no connection is made between them and Palestinian stone-throwing. Just because Palestinians are Arabs and Muslims (mainly), it does mean it is fine to start collecting examples from for example Libya that Muslims there threw stones at Jews there and add it here. In the same time, E.M.Gregory removed a section about Israeli Jews throwing stones, including at Palestinians. That shows a behaviour not consistent with NPOV. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
It is clear from the context but I will clarify that it should be "it does not mean it is fine". --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
E.M.Gregory, can you stop adding that Palestinian stone-throwing is "a variety of Criminal rock throwing", which is not supported by most sources and based on Israel's view, and instead start address the issues raised here? --IRISZOOM (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

In answer to User:IRISZOOM's question. The law is not a matter of "view". It is a matter of law. Stone throwing is a criminal act, stone-throwers are arrested, tried and convicted. Many observers share your "view" that this is unjust. Other observers take the "view" that since thrown stones can kill and maim, stone-throwers are appropriately subject ot arrest. But none of these "views" is relevant. Journalists, even journalists writing articles stridently opposing the arrest of stone-throwing Palestinians, acknowledge that the law as it presently stands treats throwing stones as a crime (whether during demonstrations or at cars) (see [1], [2], [3] for articles highly sympathetic to Palestinian rock-throwere that describe arrest, trial and imprisonment under law) The mere fact that you "view" a fact as unjust does not change the fact.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

No one disputes that Israel criminalizes it so I think you are making a straw man and it is not about how I view it either. This is about stone-throwing commited by Palestinians and I agree with Nishidani's argument about it: "(which is quite distinct) is linked to an article Criminal rock throwing to prejudice the issue by obtaining the WP:OR unsourced generalization". You made an article about that and are now trying to replicate it in this article. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The law of occupation is governed by The Fourth Geneva Convention and, in this case, Israel's military courts and the laws they have developed (there is often a considerable area of conflict between the two). The laws in the United States, Australia, Canada, Italy and elsewhere on stone throwing are state laws not governed by the Geneva Conventions, and are applied regardless of the nationality of the thrower, who however, unlike this area, are almost invariably citizens of the state whose law they violate in throwing stones at cars. (Italy had a huge spate of this some years ago by delinquent youths). If Gregory can't understand that fundamental difference, he shouldn't be creating articles on the subject. If he cannot understand that, (a) stone throwing at moving cars and (b) stone throwing in popular strikes is distinguished, and that in Western countries, it is not the norm to shoot live ammunition at people who throw stones at cops,or fire rubber bullets into crowds, then he shouldn't be editing here, because a vast amount of literature underlines the distinctions made between the two. There are numerous statements by IDF soldiers who let off settlers caught throwing stones with a caution, if not a paternal word of wise advice to be more careful. The pattern therefore is not capable of being subsumed under a general universal 'criminal stone throwing' approach.
    • this edit is incompetent because of the reasons given extensively below. The link is to an stub created for the purpose of skewing the complex definitions of a deeply nuanced phenomenon to one POV. It is not thus defined in any of academic sources so far listed for the article. Many of those sources do not define its major form, throwing stones at an occupying army as ipso facto criminal. They may not justify it (anyone can justify anything) they do seek to understand it, something that a blanket pseudo assertion of the 'truth' fails to do. The statement is an Israeli POV, and cannot be passed off as a general truth definition of the subject, etc.,etc.etc. It was added while the point was contended, without talk page justification.Nishidani (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I think you have argued well, which you base on reading several sources, and think the insistence to link to Criminal rock throwing is astonishing. One can't mix different cases and then go make an article about that to try justify its inclusion here when it is really not about the same topic. Nothing has been presented that override for example the point made by the cited book Protection of Children During Armed Political Conflict: A Multidisciplinary Perspective (quote given both here in the article and this talk page). --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
User:IRISZOOM Arbitrary of you to remove that link. DBresser and others supported keeping it. Why don't you act in good faith and put it back, then, if you like, solicit a wider range of opinions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
What? Why should your description which is based on the Israeli view be kept there? You are saying it is "arbitrary" to remove such a thing you added and was reverted by both me and Nishidani, and that so far only you and Debresser want to keep, but it is not "arbitrary" to have a description that has been extensively argued against while the arguments in favor are thin as it is now. The arguments given against are just some sentences above. If you agree with keeping the rest of the sentence, why not leave out your addition that it is "criminal" while it is sorted out? --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC Should the article be renamed to something like 'Stone throwing in the Palestinian territories'/'Stone-throwing in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict'? to comply with NPOV?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The proposal did not achieve consensus. --GRuban (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Input would be appreciated by editors, preferably with a neutral attitude to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, regarding the appropriatness of the title of this article. Stone-throwing in the I/P area is often associated with Palestinian behavior. It is also widely attested for settler behavior. Should the article's focus be changed to include stone-throwing behavior by both parties to the dispute?Nishidani (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose This is an article about a coherent topic, rock throwing by Palestinian activists, that has generated significant attention over many years not merely in news reports, but by academics and in analytic journalism, as well as inspiring representation by artists, filmmakers, and in novels, stories and memoirs. It is discussed as a symbolic representation of the Palestinian struggle. And it is described by both pro- and anti-Israel analysts as having been a significant factor in the First intifada and in the course of the Israel-Arab conflict more generally.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral, under certain conditions I don't mind, as long as proper weight is given to each of these phenomena, by which I mean that Palestinian stone throwing is by far more widespread and has, as the "conceptualizations" section shows, deep roots in Palestinian culture (by lack of a better word). Another question is, if there are no cases of Palestinian stone throwing in areas that are not in the Palestinian territories, or all incidents were only there? If there are at least a few incidents outside that area, then I think a rename would be out of the question.Debresser (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
To reply here to both you and Galatz (below), of course stone-throwing occurs in Israel from time to time. I think a sniper was used to take out a stone-thrower in Umm al-Fahm during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, though I can't remember the year (2000, I think). In that regard, clearly, were a different more broader title to be used, it would have to be 'Stone -throwing in the I/P conflict', since that embraces also stone-throwing inside Israel by Palestinian Israelis.Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see two very big issues with the move. (1) You are ruling out any and all possibilities of any mentions of stone throwing outside of the west bank and gaza. Can you prove that there has never been a case of this outside of there? Not one of these roits take place in west jerusalem? 2 I think the proposed title is misleading. It would lead one to believe that both Palestinians and Jews are using stone-throwing as a form of rioting. Unless you have sources saying this is equal, than it is extremely misleading. - GalatzTalk 19:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I hope 'partisans' will abstain. We need fresh eyes, and disinterested editors (though I think both 'sides' have editors who meet this criterion) The title is up to grabs, my suggestion is not to confirm one of many possible titles like the one I proposed heuristically, but to suggest we find a title that reflects the phenomenon in that area, irrespective of who throws stones. I, for one, will not be voting, in any case, since my views are known and I am an interested party.Nishidani (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Take a look at my edit history of this article [4]. You will see I have only added one court case, requested a citation and moved the article for formatting. I pretty much have been removed from this article. I really don't follow this topic, although as you know from other articles I do have an opinion on the topic itself. You can tell from my edit history though however I very often make changes to remove POV.
Either way though I don't think either point I made really shows POV in either direction. My point is you are trying to limit it to a more specific area than need be and to include people that really dont make sense to include.
Did you examine the list of Palestinian attack articles created by User:ShulMaven, like this one, from September last year, all specializing in material on injuries done to Israelis or preemptively attributed to Palestinians (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Netanel Arami ). Do you think he was interested in a topical issue looked at neutrally, or in framing a statement for an Israeli POV?Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
So what? What does WP:OSE have to do with this move? You have to look at this article as is, on its own. - GalatzTalk 21:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
So two wrongs make a right then in your book Nishidani, because this article that you've OWNED for retaliatory POV purposes is a disaster: Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2015. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
That it is a "retaliatory POV" is harsh to say. I think Nishidani's point is that the one who created this article, including naming it like this, was not neutral. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I think the article should include both sides but if most think it should only be about Palestinians, which will more or less suppress mention of Israelis here, I think an article about Israeli stone-throwing should be created. There is much info about especially Israeli settlers in Hebron throwing rocks and stones at Palestinians and foreigners visiting the area. --IRISZOOM (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think the non-newsy sources discuss this as a Palestinian phenomenon with particular symbolic resonance. It doesn't mean that Israelis don't do it or that we shouldn't also mention Israeli violence in the article, particularly given the sources that compare the two. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Roscelese. The fact that this is even being seriously proposed underscores the unfortunate POV pushing, battleground mentality, and gaming that plagues this topic area. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Verb + Noun, pretty straight forward. Is there an argument here that there is no such thing as the Palestinian territories?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Second thought, is the argument being made here that stone-throwers are combatants in the conflict? If so, that has serious consequences.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Arabs"

Igorp lj, you changed from "Palestinians" to "Arabs" and wrote in the edit summary "(Palestinian) Arabs - as in RS". So why did you then not change to "Palestinian Arabs"? If you look in the two sources, they use both terms many times. Why not specify it and only say "Arabs"? It is not like any Arab, like from Bahrain or Tunisia, is referred to but those in Palestine. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

IRISZOOM, IMHO, it's enough for these two paragraphs:

Stone throwing played an important, if secondary role, after firearms,[42] in the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine (thawra) against the British Mandatory government. 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 Arabs that not only boy stone-throwers but also their fathers and guardians would be punished.[43] British Mandatory forces shot into a milling crowd when stones were thrown at Barkley's Bank in Nablus in October 1933, as Arabs went on strike and demonstrated out of fears they would be replaced by a nation of Jewish immigrants, large numbers of whom had recently entered the country. Several protestors were wounded. On the same day, in Haifa, 4 protesters among a stone-throwing crowd swarming around a police station were killed. Similar incidents occurred in Jaffa. In all 26 Palestinian Arabs were shot dead, and a further 187 wounded as the nation-wide strike was suppressed.[44]

Where and what else would you like to add? --Igorp_lj (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I am referring to your change from "Palestinians" to only "Arabs". The reason given was "as in RS". Can you expand on that because I see both "Palestinian Arabs" and "Palestinians" used frequently in those two sources? In that warning, they don't mention any group at all, though it is understood who because it was in the revolt. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I do not find "Palestinians" at mentioned link, only Arabs. What about you?
"though it is understood who because it was in the revolt" - surely.
So what was the reason to add what wasn't mentioned ('Palestinians')? --Igorp_lj (talk) 20:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
In that page and the two other pages of the section, they say both "Arabs" and "Palestinian Arabs", while in the section about the warning they don't mention anyone (as it is about Palestinian Arab stone-throwing it is clear who it was about and it doesn't have to be mentioned here either), but as I said both books use both "Palestinians" and "Palestinian Arabs" frequently. So there is no reason to settle for only "Arabs" just because you can find many instances they say so when they mention the other two terms many times too. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Of course, they even say Palestinian Muslims, Arab nationalism, etc. Let's only recall that all this is retroprospective from 2000th back to 1920th+. It'll be interesting to view some Mandate documents concerning Palestinian Arabs only, as Palestinians. In other words, let's not reinvent a history. --Igorp_lj (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
The issue is that you changed to only "Arabs" and said it was according to reliable sources. I have said both RS use "Palestinian Arabs" and "Palestinians" frequently, as do many other sources. So if you base it on RS, there was therefore no reason to change it to only "Arabs". --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I have changed it now. --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Grinberg was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinian_stone-throwing/Archive_3&oldid=678398357"