![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I was surprised not to see anything about the Ed Said rock throwing incident here. From the NYTime [1]
'Mr. Said's action drew some sharp criticism last summer. Mr. Said said he was having a stone-throwing contest with his son and called it a symbolic gesture of joy at the end of Israel's occupation of Lebanon."
I don't know how to add a picture but this is the famous one. [1]
So besides being what it is, it is considered a symbolic gesture. Rather hard to get behind rock throwing as symbolizing joy. I guess some Palestinians are just naturally joyful since there is a fair amount of rock throwing going on.
References
This can't be a memorial page for anybody killed by a thrown stone. Since reliable sources discuss this as a phenomenon, we should primarily be reflecting their coverage, rather than listing a bunch of incidents that can't support their own articles. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 14:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I've looked through this, and I think the material should go back in. There's value in having a clear identification of exactly how many people have been wounded, how, by the stone throwing. That's something people are likely to debate, and having a clear and well-sourced answer here would add value. ShulMaven How many more do you need for consensus? Djcheburashka ( talk) 01:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Roscelese, with all due respect. You have a point, but the only other editors I see here all disagree with you. May I point you to WP:DEADHORSE? Debresser ( talk) 20:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
This page needs more photos. Slingshot section particularly in need of a photo of a Palestinian wielding a professional slingshot, I have seen such Bil'in. A photo of a crashed car, it's window smashed by stones would also be useful. ShulMaven ( talk) 21:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's correct to be framing these as individual incidents; that's newsy. We have a statement from the military about SOP; we should be able to cut the section down further in order to include that, without a blow-by-blow of every time it's reported, which would get tedious. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Use of the endash is incorrect in this context, per MOS:ENDASH.– Gilliam ( talk) 01:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Should this article contain a list of non-bluelink incidents (incidents without their own article, eg. where no article has been created or where an article has been created and consensus was to delete it) in which people were harmed or killed by thrown stones? Supporters say that this demonstrates that the phenomenon of stone-throwing is widespread and that showing the extent and type of harm is useful, especially in a short article; opponents, that the use of news rather than scholarly sources is inappropriate and that the existence of the phenomenon does not justify a memorial or news repository. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 07:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: I reverted Roscelese's edit from today, who couldn't wait till this RFC was closed. Debresser ( talk) 14:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
This makes me wonder if the source connects those things? I do see that it points out that Israel argues that stone throwing is equivalent to murder someone. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 00:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
'Israel's attitude towards the use of phosphorus as a military weapon compared with its attitude towards stone throiwing is striking.'
(I can't see how book is related though) The book traces the practice back to 1936 (background), and on p.26 specifically gives an example from a survey in The Independent, of such undercover figures joining riots. A pedant might complain that 'stone-throwing' is not specifically mentioned, but contextually it throws light on the phenomenon, often complained of by Palestinians, of Israeli undercover agents in their ranks who provoke the worst (that itself can be a pretext or excuse of course) by challenging their own troops. Incitement is a key term of Israel's rhetoric, but in the Ist Intifada, some of the most extremist pamphlets calling for insurrection proved to be written by Israel's secret services (well documented), then distributed by these undercover troops to Palestinians. It is an important if minor element in the background, esp. for Bil'in villagers who see their peaceful protests rocked by people in their ranks they can't identify. Nishidani ( talk) 15:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
This edit summary, like many you make in habitually reverting my work, is abusive. you can't find a better, more reputable source than a university thesis? you're really grasping at straws for your POV pushing. That is a (a) false justification based on ignorance of policy (b) done without any inquiry or collegial requests on the talk page (c) a WP:AGF violation. I'm used to it, and won't react, except to note that: You missed the section in WP:RS that runs: WP:SCHOLARSHIP
Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties
The ProQuest source is the doctoral thesis of Amani Ismail, lecturer at the American University in Cairo. She did that under the doctoral supervision of Daniel A. Berkowitz, professor in media studies at Iowa State University, and a leading authority in his field. The doctoral thesis is not a primary source, but a secondar source analyzing primary sources, academic, and peer-reviewed. Ismail later re-edited the book as Mission Palestine: The Second Intifada in the American Elite Press, Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrucken 2010, which unfortunately is not available. So, it is perfectly respectable as a wiki source, per the above policy statement. The onus on you would have been to take it to RSN and question it there, since a prima facie policy case appears to validate its use.('the iconic stone throwing by Palestinian youth during the First Intifada')
2.More grievously, what you removed, about 'iconic', is readily ascertainable in one of the sources you didn't contest, the same language is used on the linked page (so you reverted without examining the sources added) I.e.
3. If you thought that statement dubious, you could have checked on google books and found instantaneously any number of other sources noting that stone-throwing was iconic of the First Intifada (like the IDF practice of breaking legs of protesters). I.e.
I've seen numerous photos of settler youth using the same rock slings Palestinians use. I don't think the title, ethically focused, is appropriate, and suggest a title change to 'Stone-throwing in the Palestinian territories'. Nishidani ( talk) 20:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
And both sides in the conflict use stones. “This tactic of stone-throwing has been adopted by particularly extremist Israeli settlers who also throw stones at Palestinians,” Estrin said. “In the West Bank, rocks are aplenty. It’s a very rocky terrain, and all you have to do to fight someone is to bend down and pick up a rock.”
Between 2008 and 2013, the number of young Palestinians arrested by police for throwing stones was 1,142, while the number of young Israeli settlers arrested was 53. The consequences for a Palestinian, he said, can range from three to eight months of a military prison sentence, while the typical outcome for an Israeli is release without being convicted.
Settler violence, lately characterized mainly by masked young men roaming the West Bank and attacking Palestinian farmers with stones, clubs or rifles and burning their olive groves, their fields, and occasionally their schools, mosques and homes, is a unique feature of the occupation.
Over 20 masked settlers armed with slingshots invaded the West Bank village of Burin on Tuesday afternoon, a field worker from human rights organization Yesh Din reported.
Video handed to B'Tselem shows Itzhar settlers throwing rocks at Palestinians; soldiers standing aside. Itzhar spokesperson slams video as 'blood libel'; IDF claims was not given opportunity to investigate incident
B'Tselem May 31, 2013
Settlers in the area store rocks in plastic bins on their rooftops to throw at Palestinian residents, according to DCI-Palestine sources.
Harriet Sherwood, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/21/israeli-settler-fires-gun-stone-thrower Israeli settlers filmed firing guns at Palestinians Tbe Guardian 21 May 2012.
According to B'Tselem, which uploaded the footage to YouTube, a large group of settlers, some masked and armed, approached the village from the nearby settlement of Yitzhar and began throwing rocks and starting fires. After a group of Palestinians gathered and threw rocks in return at the settlers, Israeli police and soldiers arrived on the scene.One of the settlers is seen crouching while aiming and then firing his pistol at the group of Palestinians. Two other settlers are seen firing assault rifles.
'in the old city in al-Khalil (Hebron) settlers from the illegal settlement of Beit Hadassah threw rocks and water at Palestinians living on Shalala Street. This is a regular occurance for Palestinian families living close to illegal settlements in al-Khalil. The majority of the time the Israeli military watches from a distance and does not do anything to intervene in the violence and property damage.One Palestinian, a 35-year old man, documented the stone throwing only to be detained and then arrested by the Israeli military. The man was taken through a yellow gate to an area where Palestinians are restricted from, where the soldiers pushed him around.
Are any images like these free to upload? Nishidani ( talk) 20:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
A quick look through reliable sources doesn't seem to support the addition of this category, with a number of good sources explicitly defining these acts as non-terrorist. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 21:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Apndrew: it's incredibly probable that you're a sockpuppet, but on the off chance you're not, perhaps you could explain why you blanked what appears to be adequately cited and relevant content with no explanation? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 05:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Roscelese: Sure. I removed what was clearly biased language which appears to justify stone throwing by Palestinians, or suggests that Palestinians only throw stones after the police have attacked them (not the other way around, which all of the references state is the case). Other language was simply entirely unrelated to "Palestinian stone-throwing" (the title of this Wikipedia entry) or merely reflected the opinion of the editor.
For example, the first sentence under "Conceptualizations" states: "While Israel has justified its use of phosphorus munitions in areas where the civilian density is high, as in Gaza, as legitimate in international law, it criminalizes stone-throwing as a threat to the security of the State."
What is the point of stating that Israel has "justified use of phosphorous munitions in areas where civilian density is high" other than to attempt to lend support to rock-throwing. Do the Israelis shoot phosphorous munitions for reasons unrelated to rock throwing? If so, it does not belong here in a "Palestinian stone-throwing" entry. If, alternatively, Israel has approved phosphorous munitions in response to such stone-throwing, then this sentence should state it. The way it's currently written (i.e., stating first that Israelis have approved phosphorous munitions before discussing stone throwing) serves only to suggest that stone-throwing is a justified or reasonable response to such actions, and that Israel is in the wrong for approving one but not the other. Also, there is no point to state "where civilian density is high" other than to inflame tensions. Israelis respond to stone throwing. The stone throwers are throwing stones in areas "where civilian density is high." Why does this sentence accuse Israelis for responding to stone throwers and not the stone throwers for choosing areas "where civilian density is high."
As another example, the entry states: "90% of the 271 Palestinian minors shot dead on the basis of these criteria in the six years of this intifada were killed at moments when they were not actually throwing stones." While there is a citation to a reference, that reference provides no evidence to support this statistic, other than to state it is based on eyewitness testimony. The sentence, if it remains, should be reflected to acknowledge this fact. Also, this sentence is highly misleading. Stone throwing is not a constant action. You throw a stone, take a break, and then throw another stone. There are very few "moments" in time when you are actually in the act of throwing a stone. It would be virtually impossible to coincidentally shoot stone throwers at the exact "moment" when they are throwing stones. Instead the implication of this sentence is clearly meant to suggest that they were not throwing stones at all, which is not supported by the reference.
Another sentence states "In response to the wave of protests beginning in December 1987, the Israeli government appears to have sanctioned the adoption of lethal or seriously damaging gunfire..." This is blatantly false. The reference cited clearly states "non-lethal" force was sanctioned.
Further, it is highly deceptive and reflective of bias to state "the de facto rule permitted the use of lived ammunition against children..." First off, what's the relevance of mentioning "against children," other than to inflame individuals. Also, the article clearly states that "plastic bullets" are used. To state "live ammunition" is used is highly deceptive.
Finally, every mention of a statistic involving people injured always begins with the number of Palestinians injured or killed, and ends the sentence (as if an after-thought) with the amount of Israeli's killed. For example, the entry states: "Rock throwing to protest Ariel Sharon's visit to the Haram al-Sharif in 2000 led to a clash in which 6 Palestinians were killed, and 220 wounded by Israeli gunfire, while 70 Israeli police were injured by rock-throwing." To put the number of Israelis at the end (every single time injuries or deaths are mentioned in the entry) suggests that Israelis first killed the Palestinians, who then in response killed the Israelis. In this particular incidence, it was not that case that the Israeli police killed 6 Palestinians before the Palestinians began throwing rocks, as suggested by the phrasing. These statistics need to me amended through-out the entry to make it clear, deaths and injuries occur of Palestinians occur as an Israeli response to stone-throwing, not the other way around. The entry makes it seem that all Palestinian rock-throwing happens only after there is police action, when the opposite is true.
All changes were made to make this entry more neutral and remove the obvious and extreme bias of whoever previously edited this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apndrew ( talk • contribs) 17:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Debresser
(1) I warned you on your page you are edit-warring and breaking 1R (ARBPIA)
(3). And then again broke 1R immediately afterwards
Technically, any editor would be in her rights to take this to AE and get you suspended. I dislike that, as it is an extreme recourse for socks or recalcitrantly obtuse bad editors. One can't argue one's way around these things, but more seriously, don't accuse other editors who don't break the rules, of breaking the rule you repeatedly infringe. Nishidani ( talk) 11:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
First of all, let me stress that you are edit warring.
Regarding the first point, as you said yourself above: "Rock throwing is most frequently done in riots." Debresser ( talk) 22:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I adjusted the text for the obvious reason that (a) most rock-throwing occurs in clashes with IDF and Border Police forces. Description of a list in this case should follow an order of incidence. To place 'civilians' at top is, arguably, to suggest that they are the primary targets: they are not. (b)I removed 'babies' /'children' from the lead. It is true that several Israeli children have been killed as a result of stone-throwing. It is true that of several thousand incidents, these constitute an exiguous minority. It is true that the IDF has a distinguished record for shooting at large numbers of Palestinian children, a policy officially endorsed by Rabin, but not for that do I worry the Israeli Defense Forces page trying to plug in this bit of information. Nishidani ( talk) 20:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
the fact that the notability of a Palestinian child killed by an Israel soldier is indeed no higher than of a Palestinian adult being killed in the same circumstances.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I was surprised not to see anything about the Ed Said rock throwing incident here. From the NYTime [1]
'Mr. Said's action drew some sharp criticism last summer. Mr. Said said he was having a stone-throwing contest with his son and called it a symbolic gesture of joy at the end of Israel's occupation of Lebanon."
I don't know how to add a picture but this is the famous one. [1]
So besides being what it is, it is considered a symbolic gesture. Rather hard to get behind rock throwing as symbolizing joy. I guess some Palestinians are just naturally joyful since there is a fair amount of rock throwing going on.
References
This can't be a memorial page for anybody killed by a thrown stone. Since reliable sources discuss this as a phenomenon, we should primarily be reflecting their coverage, rather than listing a bunch of incidents that can't support their own articles. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 14:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I've looked through this, and I think the material should go back in. There's value in having a clear identification of exactly how many people have been wounded, how, by the stone throwing. That's something people are likely to debate, and having a clear and well-sourced answer here would add value. ShulMaven How many more do you need for consensus? Djcheburashka ( talk) 01:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Roscelese, with all due respect. You have a point, but the only other editors I see here all disagree with you. May I point you to WP:DEADHORSE? Debresser ( talk) 20:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
This page needs more photos. Slingshot section particularly in need of a photo of a Palestinian wielding a professional slingshot, I have seen such Bil'in. A photo of a crashed car, it's window smashed by stones would also be useful. ShulMaven ( talk) 21:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's correct to be framing these as individual incidents; that's newsy. We have a statement from the military about SOP; we should be able to cut the section down further in order to include that, without a blow-by-blow of every time it's reported, which would get tedious. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 18:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Use of the endash is incorrect in this context, per MOS:ENDASH.– Gilliam ( talk) 01:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Should this article contain a list of non-bluelink incidents (incidents without their own article, eg. where no article has been created or where an article has been created and consensus was to delete it) in which people were harmed or killed by thrown stones? Supporters say that this demonstrates that the phenomenon of stone-throwing is widespread and that showing the extent and type of harm is useful, especially in a short article; opponents, that the use of news rather than scholarly sources is inappropriate and that the existence of the phenomenon does not justify a memorial or news repository. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 07:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Note: I reverted Roscelese's edit from today, who couldn't wait till this RFC was closed. Debresser ( talk) 14:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
This makes me wonder if the source connects those things? I do see that it points out that Israel argues that stone throwing is equivalent to murder someone. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 00:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
'Israel's attitude towards the use of phosphorus as a military weapon compared with its attitude towards stone throiwing is striking.'
(I can't see how book is related though) The book traces the practice back to 1936 (background), and on p.26 specifically gives an example from a survey in The Independent, of such undercover figures joining riots. A pedant might complain that 'stone-throwing' is not specifically mentioned, but contextually it throws light on the phenomenon, often complained of by Palestinians, of Israeli undercover agents in their ranks who provoke the worst (that itself can be a pretext or excuse of course) by challenging their own troops. Incitement is a key term of Israel's rhetoric, but in the Ist Intifada, some of the most extremist pamphlets calling for insurrection proved to be written by Israel's secret services (well documented), then distributed by these undercover troops to Palestinians. It is an important if minor element in the background, esp. for Bil'in villagers who see their peaceful protests rocked by people in their ranks they can't identify. Nishidani ( talk) 15:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
This edit summary, like many you make in habitually reverting my work, is abusive. you can't find a better, more reputable source than a university thesis? you're really grasping at straws for your POV pushing. That is a (a) false justification based on ignorance of policy (b) done without any inquiry or collegial requests on the talk page (c) a WP:AGF violation. I'm used to it, and won't react, except to note that: You missed the section in WP:RS that runs: WP:SCHOLARSHIP
Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties
The ProQuest source is the doctoral thesis of Amani Ismail, lecturer at the American University in Cairo. She did that under the doctoral supervision of Daniel A. Berkowitz, professor in media studies at Iowa State University, and a leading authority in his field. The doctoral thesis is not a primary source, but a secondar source analyzing primary sources, academic, and peer-reviewed. Ismail later re-edited the book as Mission Palestine: The Second Intifada in the American Elite Press, Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrucken 2010, which unfortunately is not available. So, it is perfectly respectable as a wiki source, per the above policy statement. The onus on you would have been to take it to RSN and question it there, since a prima facie policy case appears to validate its use.('the iconic stone throwing by Palestinian youth during the First Intifada')
2.More grievously, what you removed, about 'iconic', is readily ascertainable in one of the sources you didn't contest, the same language is used on the linked page (so you reverted without examining the sources added) I.e.
3. If you thought that statement dubious, you could have checked on google books and found instantaneously any number of other sources noting that stone-throwing was iconic of the First Intifada (like the IDF practice of breaking legs of protesters). I.e.
I've seen numerous photos of settler youth using the same rock slings Palestinians use. I don't think the title, ethically focused, is appropriate, and suggest a title change to 'Stone-throwing in the Palestinian territories'. Nishidani ( talk) 20:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
And both sides in the conflict use stones. “This tactic of stone-throwing has been adopted by particularly extremist Israeli settlers who also throw stones at Palestinians,” Estrin said. “In the West Bank, rocks are aplenty. It’s a very rocky terrain, and all you have to do to fight someone is to bend down and pick up a rock.”
Between 2008 and 2013, the number of young Palestinians arrested by police for throwing stones was 1,142, while the number of young Israeli settlers arrested was 53. The consequences for a Palestinian, he said, can range from three to eight months of a military prison sentence, while the typical outcome for an Israeli is release without being convicted.
Settler violence, lately characterized mainly by masked young men roaming the West Bank and attacking Palestinian farmers with stones, clubs or rifles and burning their olive groves, their fields, and occasionally their schools, mosques and homes, is a unique feature of the occupation.
Over 20 masked settlers armed with slingshots invaded the West Bank village of Burin on Tuesday afternoon, a field worker from human rights organization Yesh Din reported.
Video handed to B'Tselem shows Itzhar settlers throwing rocks at Palestinians; soldiers standing aside. Itzhar spokesperson slams video as 'blood libel'; IDF claims was not given opportunity to investigate incident
B'Tselem May 31, 2013
Settlers in the area store rocks in plastic bins on their rooftops to throw at Palestinian residents, according to DCI-Palestine sources.
Harriet Sherwood, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/21/israeli-settler-fires-gun-stone-thrower Israeli settlers filmed firing guns at Palestinians Tbe Guardian 21 May 2012.
According to B'Tselem, which uploaded the footage to YouTube, a large group of settlers, some masked and armed, approached the village from the nearby settlement of Yitzhar and began throwing rocks and starting fires. After a group of Palestinians gathered and threw rocks in return at the settlers, Israeli police and soldiers arrived on the scene.One of the settlers is seen crouching while aiming and then firing his pistol at the group of Palestinians. Two other settlers are seen firing assault rifles.
'in the old city in al-Khalil (Hebron) settlers from the illegal settlement of Beit Hadassah threw rocks and water at Palestinians living on Shalala Street. This is a regular occurance for Palestinian families living close to illegal settlements in al-Khalil. The majority of the time the Israeli military watches from a distance and does not do anything to intervene in the violence and property damage.One Palestinian, a 35-year old man, documented the stone throwing only to be detained and then arrested by the Israeli military. The man was taken through a yellow gate to an area where Palestinians are restricted from, where the soldiers pushed him around.
Are any images like these free to upload? Nishidani ( talk) 20:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
A quick look through reliable sources doesn't seem to support the addition of this category, with a number of good sources explicitly defining these acts as non-terrorist. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 21:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Apndrew: it's incredibly probable that you're a sockpuppet, but on the off chance you're not, perhaps you could explain why you blanked what appears to be adequately cited and relevant content with no explanation? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 05:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@ Roscelese: Sure. I removed what was clearly biased language which appears to justify stone throwing by Palestinians, or suggests that Palestinians only throw stones after the police have attacked them (not the other way around, which all of the references state is the case). Other language was simply entirely unrelated to "Palestinian stone-throwing" (the title of this Wikipedia entry) or merely reflected the opinion of the editor.
For example, the first sentence under "Conceptualizations" states: "While Israel has justified its use of phosphorus munitions in areas where the civilian density is high, as in Gaza, as legitimate in international law, it criminalizes stone-throwing as a threat to the security of the State."
What is the point of stating that Israel has "justified use of phosphorous munitions in areas where civilian density is high" other than to attempt to lend support to rock-throwing. Do the Israelis shoot phosphorous munitions for reasons unrelated to rock throwing? If so, it does not belong here in a "Palestinian stone-throwing" entry. If, alternatively, Israel has approved phosphorous munitions in response to such stone-throwing, then this sentence should state it. The way it's currently written (i.e., stating first that Israelis have approved phosphorous munitions before discussing stone throwing) serves only to suggest that stone-throwing is a justified or reasonable response to such actions, and that Israel is in the wrong for approving one but not the other. Also, there is no point to state "where civilian density is high" other than to inflame tensions. Israelis respond to stone throwing. The stone throwers are throwing stones in areas "where civilian density is high." Why does this sentence accuse Israelis for responding to stone throwers and not the stone throwers for choosing areas "where civilian density is high."
As another example, the entry states: "90% of the 271 Palestinian minors shot dead on the basis of these criteria in the six years of this intifada were killed at moments when they were not actually throwing stones." While there is a citation to a reference, that reference provides no evidence to support this statistic, other than to state it is based on eyewitness testimony. The sentence, if it remains, should be reflected to acknowledge this fact. Also, this sentence is highly misleading. Stone throwing is not a constant action. You throw a stone, take a break, and then throw another stone. There are very few "moments" in time when you are actually in the act of throwing a stone. It would be virtually impossible to coincidentally shoot stone throwers at the exact "moment" when they are throwing stones. Instead the implication of this sentence is clearly meant to suggest that they were not throwing stones at all, which is not supported by the reference.
Another sentence states "In response to the wave of protests beginning in December 1987, the Israeli government appears to have sanctioned the adoption of lethal or seriously damaging gunfire..." This is blatantly false. The reference cited clearly states "non-lethal" force was sanctioned.
Further, it is highly deceptive and reflective of bias to state "the de facto rule permitted the use of lived ammunition against children..." First off, what's the relevance of mentioning "against children," other than to inflame individuals. Also, the article clearly states that "plastic bullets" are used. To state "live ammunition" is used is highly deceptive.
Finally, every mention of a statistic involving people injured always begins with the number of Palestinians injured or killed, and ends the sentence (as if an after-thought) with the amount of Israeli's killed. For example, the entry states: "Rock throwing to protest Ariel Sharon's visit to the Haram al-Sharif in 2000 led to a clash in which 6 Palestinians were killed, and 220 wounded by Israeli gunfire, while 70 Israeli police were injured by rock-throwing." To put the number of Israelis at the end (every single time injuries or deaths are mentioned in the entry) suggests that Israelis first killed the Palestinians, who then in response killed the Israelis. In this particular incidence, it was not that case that the Israeli police killed 6 Palestinians before the Palestinians began throwing rocks, as suggested by the phrasing. These statistics need to me amended through-out the entry to make it clear, deaths and injuries occur of Palestinians occur as an Israeli response to stone-throwing, not the other way around. The entry makes it seem that all Palestinian rock-throwing happens only after there is police action, when the opposite is true.
All changes were made to make this entry more neutral and remove the obvious and extreme bias of whoever previously edited this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apndrew ( talk • contribs) 17:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Debresser
(1) I warned you on your page you are edit-warring and breaking 1R (ARBPIA)
(3). And then again broke 1R immediately afterwards
Technically, any editor would be in her rights to take this to AE and get you suspended. I dislike that, as it is an extreme recourse for socks or recalcitrantly obtuse bad editors. One can't argue one's way around these things, but more seriously, don't accuse other editors who don't break the rules, of breaking the rule you repeatedly infringe. Nishidani ( talk) 11:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
First of all, let me stress that you are edit warring.
Regarding the first point, as you said yourself above: "Rock throwing is most frequently done in riots." Debresser ( talk) 22:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I adjusted the text for the obvious reason that (a) most rock-throwing occurs in clashes with IDF and Border Police forces. Description of a list in this case should follow an order of incidence. To place 'civilians' at top is, arguably, to suggest that they are the primary targets: they are not. (b)I removed 'babies' /'children' from the lead. It is true that several Israeli children have been killed as a result of stone-throwing. It is true that of several thousand incidents, these constitute an exiguous minority. It is true that the IDF has a distinguished record for shooting at large numbers of Palestinian children, a policy officially endorsed by Rabin, but not for that do I worry the Israeli Defense Forces page trying to plug in this bit of information. Nishidani ( talk) 20:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
the fact that the notability of a Palestinian child killed by an Israel soldier is indeed no higher than of a Palestinian adult being killed in the same circumstances.