Content deleted Content added
Plot Spoiler (talk | contribs) →Lack of edit summaries: new section |
|||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
:::The result was - Only incidents which has their own articles are notable enough to be included in the article about the subject. Other incidents are considered minor and thus should not be included. 07:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC) |
:::The result was - Only incidents which has their own articles are notable enough to be included in the article about the subject. Other incidents are considered minor and thus should not be included. 07:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
* '''YES''' - The arguments brought up by [[User:Roscelese]] about [[WP:NOTABILITY]] etc' are as relevant to this article as they were a year ago on the other RfC and thus, the incident list should include only incidents with their own Wikipedia article according to the old consensus. [[User:Settleman|Settleman]] ([[User talk:Settleman|talk]]) 12:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC) |
* '''YES''' - The arguments brought up by [[User:Roscelese]] about [[WP:NOTABILITY]] etc' are as relevant to this article as they were a year ago on the other RfC and thus, the incident list should include only incidents with their own Wikipedia article according to the old consensus. [[User:Settleman|Settleman]] ([[User talk:Settleman|talk]]) 12:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
== Lack of edit summaries == |
|||
Where are the edit summaries in the revisions here? What are you objecting to here {{ping|Dan Murphy}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_Israeli_stone_throwing&type=revision&diff=683616999&oldid=683567983]? This is just devolving into a naked edit war as the last 4 reverts have not had any edit summary. [[User:Plot Spoiler|Plot Spoiler]] ([[User talk:Plot Spoiler|talk]]) 16:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:04, 1 October 2015
Why is this are necessary? It's a very limited phenomenon which has caused zero casualties and should not be given weight comparable to Palestinian stone throwing. Seems to me like moral equivalence. --Monochrome_Monitor 18:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- It was hived off from the Palestinian stone throwing page, where it stood for some months, on the advice of another editor. Settlers throw stones every other day, though it's not newsworthy. The article is not supposed to give weight compared to the Palestinian article. It looks at this phenomenon in its own terms. Nishidani (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- "Not newsworthy" according to whom? Deaths from Palestinian stone throwing are almost never reported outside of Israeli media, if you meant to imply media bias. I do understand your reasoning, but then why does Palestinian stone throwing give it a see also? I'm guessing it's because the information used to be on that article, but it should be given an in-line link rather than a "see also". --Monochrome_Monitor 20:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- The Israeli police do not keep statistics on Israelis injured from stone throwing for some strange reason. They only index incidents. I suppose I should get over to the other article and give the statistics. Never have much time in here to do what I'd like. Look under the voice 'video' on the PST talk page. Videos of settlers throwing stones, while the IDF stands by, are endemic on Youtube, but I can't find many newspaper mentions. It is false to assert that Israeli deaths from stoning are never reported abroad. Or at least, we have wiki articles on nearly all victims of such acts, and each such event is widely documented in the foreign press.
- 'but then why does Palestinian stone throwing give it a see also?' I don't understand that. 'See' as a noun has the sense of a a diocese or bishoprick (not bishop's prick - you never know these days if those chaps have flashing habits:)) Nishidani (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
- "Not newsworthy" according to whom? Deaths from Palestinian stone throwing are almost never reported outside of Israeli media, if you meant to imply media bias. I do understand your reasoning, but then why does Palestinian stone throwing give it a see also? I'm guessing it's because the information used to be on that article, but it should be given an in-line link rather than a "see also". --Monochrome_Monitor 20:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
RfC from Palestinian stone-throwing
Should the result of RfC on 'sister article' (Palestinian stone-throwing) be applied to this article as well? (Result:There is a consensus against inclusion of incidents without their own Wikipedia articles) 20:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - What are you saying was the result of the RFC? What changes are you proposing to this article? Please specify. -- Andrewaskew (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- The result was - Only incidents which has their own articles are notable enough to be included in the article about the subject. Other incidents are considered minor and thus should not be included. 07:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- YES - The arguments brought up by User:Roscelese about WP:NOTABILITY etc' are as relevant to this article as they were a year ago on the other RfC and thus, the incident list should include only incidents with their own Wikipedia article according to the old consensus. Settleman (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Lack of edit summaries
Where are the edit summaries in the revisions here? What are you objecting to here @Dan Murphy:[1]? This is just devolving into a naked edit war as the last 4 reverts have not had any edit summary. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)