The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Palestinian stone-throwing. The principal policy issue under discussion is whether this is inappropriate newspaper-type coverage of current events, or an event of lasting, encyclopedic significance. The discussion's quality is generally poor, with multiple editors on both sides offering opinions that amount to little more than votes. Nonetheless, I think that based on the opinions that attempt to address the policy issue, we have consensus that at this time this ought not be covered at the article level. I am discounting the "keep" opinions by Bolter21, Epic Genius and Sean.hoyland because they do not address the WP:NOTNEWS issue, as well as giving less weight to opinions on either side that are basically "keep/delete per x", but the end result is that relatively few participants here have made a cogent argument for why this is not the NOTNEWS case it appears to be. However, we don't have a very clear consensus for deletion either, and such incidents may well become more important later depending on what consequences, if any, they have. I'm therefore implementing this as a "soft" deletion by redirecting it to the appropriate parent article, to where content may be merged to the extent editorial consensus allows. The article may be editorially restored (and, if then still contested, be renominated for deletion) if, after an appropriate period of time on the order of months, new significant coverage in reliable sources indicates that the event is of a more lasting importance than is now apparent.  Sandstein  18:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Both pr WP:NOTNEWS and pr WP:BIO, Fails WP:EVENT, Huldra (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I understand that Israel/Palestine pages are problem areas on both sides at times, but this is a crime with a national government reaction and in one of the world's pressure points. Coverage extends beyond Israel, Arab source '''tAD''' (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article so far doesn't set the scene of the Al-Aqsa tensions. That can be added if non-partisan sources can be found '''tAD''' (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge into Palestinian rock throwing or wherever the recent Al-Aqsa mosque troubles are being covered: This should not have a separate article. It is very soon, so fails WP:NOTNEWS. It has no lasting impact by itself: the incident happened in East Jerusalem and was very likely influenced by the recent tensions over the Al-Aqsa mosque, many sources present it in this context. The increased penalties for rock-throwing etc. was already in the pipeline, see for instance the Haaretz article here. The proposed changes to the law go way back (see last November), and there was already a law passed in July. At most, this incident added fuel to the fire. Are we going to add an article for every criminal incident which happens in that area? Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read carefully. Article, like the sources on which it is based, claims that this murder was an additional factor in a season of rising attacks on Jews with rocks and Molotov cocktails. It was an attack in which man was killed; an attack covered by newspapers around the world; an attack that the Prime Minister called "one stone too many"; and an attack, therefore, that became notable when it provided the incentive for emergency cabinet meetings to debate changing the rules of engagement for incidents in which young Arab men endanger lives by throwing rocks at moving cars and at people.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed read the article carefully, and more importantly, I have read the citations. All your points have been addressed in my justification. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Significant deadly rock attack covered by multiple reliable sources, just like Asher and Yonatan Palmer, Yehuda Shoham, Adele Biton and others.--Balckagaming (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• struck because: sockpuppet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. We should keep a WP:MEMORIAL violation because there are already other similar memorial violations? Great argument, not. Zero^talk 23:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be disingenuous, Zero, as an experienced editor, you surely know that this is not in any sense a MEMORIAL page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what it is. The whole series of similar articles about individuals from one side of the conflict but almost never about individuals from the other side is an abuse of Wikipedia. And, yes, my long experience here makes this judgement easy. Zero^talk 00:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, your argument is WP:OSE, and WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is with AfDs in this area that bring out people with 10 edits or so out of the woodwork to comment? Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the perceived injustice of deleting an article with this level of sourcing and political impact inspires WP readers to become editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps they are just sockpuppets. I am pretty sure that one is, like the horde of sockpuppets that disrupted your last AfD. (I am not accusing you of anything, just that the subject is similar). Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is so funny how the usual editors have the usual opinions. But is is also good to see a few new editors, on both sides/opinions. Debresser (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Huldra (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions Huldra (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This incident shocked the nation and is quoted often in regards to a discussions about a change of policy in dealing with Palestinian stone-throwing that will be far-reaching. See the Israeli law section there. Maybe, if the law won't change, then in a few months or years this death will receded to the backgrounds, but for now it is notable. Debresser (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, the burden to demonstrate lasting impact is shouldered by the person creating the article. WP:NOTNEWS is policy. One does not have a crystal ball to determine if some incident will be impactful in the future. I have already addressed the argument that this incident will by itself lead to changes in the law. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic is flawed. 1. At this moment it is notable. 2. Maybe and if the law will not be changed, then it will change to be not notable. Ergo, there is no reason at this moment to say with certainty it will not be notable in the future. You reversed the burden of proof in WP:CRYSTALBALL, which at the moment is on you to prove non-notability. Debresser (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what? The way to do it would be to create an article when it actually has lasting impact. That is what WP:NOTNEWS is for. You are reversing the burden of proof, and making it impossible to shoulder it, since one cannot predict the future (my other point is that it is irrelevant whether the law is changed, see my response above). By your criteria, everything currently in the news cycle can be put on Wikipedia. This is absurd. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the article will be read by almost no one, the community has already demonstrated its indifference to the growing systemic bias in the ARBPIA topic area numerous times at AfD with respect to Wikipedia's coverage of the distribution of violence in the Israel-Palestine conflict and its disinterest in implementing policy with respect to the "enduring notability of persons and events". The article history may also be useful for the identification of potentially block-worthy editors if the community decides to address systemic problems at some point in the future. These editors, in my view, repeatedly use a fatally flawed and fundamentally unethical approach to sample information spaces in order to frame and spotlight (or perhaps curate is a better word in E.M.Gregory's case) specific cases, but ignore others. Perhaps they see victim-hood and propensity for violence as functions of ethnicity, presumably through no fault of their own. Either way, this kind of behavior and article is apparently accepted by the community for the time being, regardless of policy, guidelines and discretionary sanctions, hence my keep vote. I see that it has already attracted an IP sockpuppet of blocked editor AndresHerutJaim‎. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  In fact, when hooligans pick up rocks and throw them at human beings - and the event generates national coverage - I create articles irrespective of ethnicity, faith or other personal status attributes of the criminal. See, just for example, Death of Chris Currie, Darmstadt American rock-throwing incident, Interstate 80 rock throwing, and Criminal rock throwing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to discuss user conduct, but I am reminded of the quote by Anatole France: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread." Guess which side engages in rock throwing in this conflict? A cursory look at the articles you have created is enough to see what is going on. It is ok to have POV and interests, but please don't insult my intelligence with such comments. Kingsindian ♝♚ 15:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not blaming you, I'm sure you think you are making Wikipedia better, but I don't think it is the case that you "create articles irrespective of ethnicity, faith or other personal status attributes of the criminal". You have created 2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing, Death of Binyamin Meisner, Death of Adele Biton and List of deaths and critical injuries by Palestinian stone-throwing. I'm no expert on the spatial or frequency distribution of fatalities caused by stone-throwing, but I'm guessing that your efforts in this regard don't reflect it and tend towards a focus of Palestinian throwing stones and Israelis as victims. And again with the skewed sampling, even of your own efforts. You missed the 2003 Route 60 Hamas ambush, 2015 Shvut Rachel shooting and Kidnapping and murder of Moshe Tamam articles you created. Where are your articles about professional soldiers, border police, young Israeli men and woman using more refined and respectable methods (like bullets) to kill and injure human beings? If you enjoy writing articles, is there anything stopping you from trying to tackle some of those topics so that the systemic bias in Wikipedia's coverage is reduced? If there is, perhaps you should try figuring out what it is and getting rid of it before someone who cares decides to test whether ARBCOM are willing to block editors based on evidence of systematically biased editing in ARBPIA. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• False statement and sloppy assertions by Sean.Hoyland, KingsIndian. I did not create an article on the Kidnapping and Murder of Mosher Tamam. I started to write such an article and deleted it after, I recall, about an hour - long before any other editor had seen it. I did so because I decided that the incident was not notable. I have created over 100 articles - my first was created last December. Above I was explicitly discussing articles about notable incidents of malicious rock throwing. If you know of such an incident that would pass WP:GNG but that I have not written an article about, I would be happy to look at it and consider whether it is sufficiently noteworthy to support an article. I do so in that topic area, as I stated, without regard to ethnicity, etc. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no lasting impact, WP:NOTNEWS. nableezy - 15:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep and close now. (Yes, I created the article, but hear me out) AFD tags on stories in the news make Wikipedia look silly. This article is about a criminal rock throwing in which a random driver was killed. See links in my comment above for other stories in this category. When a hooligan throws a rock at a car and kills or maims a passenger or driver, it is often becomes a big news story whether it happens in New Zealand, Germany, Pennsylvania or Jerusalem. Random murders of total strangers - especially when the weapon is unusual and the situation one that many people can imagine themselves in (riding in a car) when hooligans decide to start throwing rocks at cars - sometimes generate enough media attention to pass WP:GNG even if there are no political or policy consequences. In this case, however, the killing triggered, led to, was the pretext for, or was a contributing factor in (take your pick) a decision by the Israeli government to change the rules of engagement with regard to the handling of rock-throwers. The arguments being brought at this AFD having now deteriorated into rants about ARBPIA bias, personal attacks, and voting by sockpuppet, I move that we keep this article and move on.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That explains it. You have worked hard, creating several articles, to try by interlinks, to push a thesis that stone-throwing by an unarmed occupied people against either settlers occupying their land or an army defending that theft is comparable if not identical to the murderous hooliganism evinced in Western countries. Thugs chucking rocks in Italy or the US are one thing, youths challenging a colonial power another. Binjamin Meisner, in the article you created, was indeed killed by a block of stone thrown at him while he was patrolling a Nablus casbah: what you don't want to know is that anyone in that casbah who raised a Palestinian flag on his home roof, or launched a balloon with Palestine's colours, could be shot dead by those occupying soldiers. The examples you give are from inside properly constituted states, not from countries which, as in the West Bank, are under occupation and where 60% of the population has been incarcerated or has had some family/kin member shot at. Your constant linking of these Palestinian events to criminal rock throwing is farcical because of the conceptual confusion between colonial resistance and infranational delinquency. This is the context (not a justification for the tragic incidents that obsess you - though the parallel to it all, the daily maiming or murder of young protestors by a professional army is of no interest whatsoever). Nishidani (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Debresser. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per GNG and sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As Wikipedia is not a newspaper, this article should be deleted. It is just the latest of several WP:MEMORIAL articles (some background on that can be seen here). --IRISZOOM (talk) 06:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge there are a rather staggering number of individuals who have died as a result of actions of others, in Palestine, China, and other areas of war or domestic unrest, which receive a flurry of media coverage at the time but which do not demonstrably have any sort of long-term impact or even discussion. At this point, unfortunately, there is no very good reason to believe that this will not be another such, although, should it prove otherwise, the article could be recreated. I think a very good case for a List of civilian deaths in the Palestinian conflict or similar might cover this topic at this point and still include all the really encyclopedic content. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article was a falsification from the outset, since sources either affirm he died as a result of stone-throwing or as a result of a heart attack. The editor who created the page suppressed the heart-attack theory, and pushed the view, because it was quickly put up by the Israeli Foreign Ministry and many copycat newspapers, that stone-throwing had been proven. Al most nothing E M Gregory does in this line can be trusted (compare just one entry on Esther Ohana before I had to correct it ) and requires repeated editorial corrections to either fix erratic selectiveness in source use or sheer POV pushing. Numerous sources ignore reliable reports that the police 'suspected' stone-throwing as the cause or were investigating the cause. Since we don't (yet/perhaps never) know what the 'truth' is, the article has no justification for inclusion as one of Gregory's series of 'stone throwers are murderous Arabs' articles. Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I didn't plan to participate but some comments are completely mistaken. This event will most probably contribute to a change in Israeli legislation for stoning punishment and 10 days later, there are still articles which refer to the incident. This event is just slightly less notable than Duma arson attack which was never AfD and I bet all those voting delete would have voted keep in a heart beat. Am I wrong? Settleman (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Settleman: I specifically answered this point. As the Haaretz article mentions, the change in the law (if it happens) was already in the pipeline following the tensions of the Al-Aqsa mosque. Governments seize on certain events for publicity purposes, we don't have to go along with it. Even if the law is changed, it is a routine matter. See for instance the Reuters source in July which increased the punishments to up to 20 years. This kind of criminalization of rock throwing has been going on for years, indeed decades. Such kind of hype is common in news stories, this is precisely why WP:NOTNEWS applies. And if you are talking about WP:NPOV and double standards, please take a look at the number of articles in the same vein for Israeli civilians killed, and compare it to Palestinians. Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian: The fact it was in the pipeline for very long time and got boosted after this event means it did have a direct affect. Personally, I wouldn't have started an article yet but some of the arguments for deletion are superficial (or less). How is this different than Duma in a meaningful way? The fact that stones are thrown at Israeli cars every day and now they got 'lucky' while extremists rarely put families houses on fire? 3 fatalities vs 1?

@Settleman: No, it was in the pipeline means that it was already going to be done, and the government (like every other in the world) will maybe use this to push the law through. As I said, it is a routine matter, and does not need a reason either (see the July Reuters report, for instance). As to your other comments, you say "I would not have started it", yet you !vote "Keep"? And you cite the Duma arson attack for this as some kind of "balance"? As the UN notes "Israeli settlers have perpetrated at least 142 attacks against Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem/West Bank since the beginning of 2015". I am sure those articles are on Wikipedia, in contrast to the horde of similar articles like this. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian: Do we have articles about the 1000s of stone throwing incidents? They have been talking about legislation for long time and now it was expedited. In addition, there were discussion about required minimum punishment that wasn't discussed before. On Susya deletion page you mentioned WP:OSE which is valid for this whole discussion. This article go beyond NEWS or MEMORIAL. Settleman (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They not only talked about it, they passed the legislation in July, with sentences up to 20 years, as the Reuters source states. It is an absolutely routine matter, with roots going way back. See this article from last November. To claim that this incident is the cause of the proposed change in the law is disingenuous at best. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The deletionists familiar with the I/P area refrain from jumping at every report of a murdered Palestinian to make articles on them. They regularly say in AdFs that this kind of WP:NOTNEWS violation has one justification, pursing victimization theories for an ethnic party to the dispute. Were editors prepossessed by the propaganda possibilities of this abuse, you would see dozens of articles on Palestinians shot by IDF snipers, or seriously injured by settler stone-throwing written up to ostensibly 'balance' the POV thrust. Thankfully, no one follows the bad example being set here.Nishidani (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per arguments above. See also, as minimum, such article as 2014 Beitunia Nakba Day deaths. --Igorp_lj (talk) 12:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Invalid parallel. The 2014 Beitunia Nakba Day deaths was created over a month after (16 June 2014‎) the incident, sufficient time to see if the issue had notability over time. This page was created within 4 days of the event, so the editor had no interest in the policy indications regarding WP:NOTNEWS or WP:NOTABILITY.Nishidani (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "youths challenging a colonial power another", etc. (@Nishidani)

Such comments seem me more suitable for forum desks than for Wiki's dicussion. Sorry. --Igorp_lj (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read some books (i.e. Ian Lustick). Wikipedia is optimally based on scholarship. That Isrfael's occupation is 'colonial' is a commonplace, not a point of view. When a state occupies another land, and begins to settle on its territory, in English as in all languages this is called 'colonization'. Ian Lustick has done a great 4 country study of the practice. read it.Nishidani (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or keep. Apparently, the murder of Israelis in attacks is not uncommon. Also, this is a great issue in Israel. However, could it be proved that the car's driver spun out of control because of the attacks? Epic Genius (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Epicgenius, it can certailny be answered to the satisfaction of a trial judge, but not that in this case government authorities and all working journalists agree. (the only sourced uncertainty was in breaking news reports in the immediate aftermath). The sequence agreed upon by all sources is that this car was hit by thrown rocks; the driver lost control; the car crashed. The driver suffered both a heart attack and critical injuries in the crash. Nishdani is relying on a press report [1] dated to the hours immediately after the crash. It states that after the car was hit by rocks, the driver/victim "had convulsed before losing control of the car." This sort of course of events is not unusual: rock hits car, driver suffers shock or heart attack and steers wildly, or drives too fast, or jams the gas pedal - or the break, or has to reach across dead or wounded body to gain controls, or a critical mechanical element is hit making the car hard to steer, for any of these reasons or others he then loses control of car, and crashes. Know, however, that even when a heart attack is known to have followed rock throwing at a car but preceded crash an American or other Common Law court would rule second degree murder caused by rock throwing. Reasoning that shock rocks being thrown and hitting car caused a heart attack that led to the crash. Note: medical forensic evidence cannot establish precise moment of heart attack. i.e., the car could have crashed first causing the shocked driver to sustained a deadly heart attack. No autopsy will be able to fix timing whit this degree of precision. What Nishdani proposes (with flimsy-to-no support from sources - pure OR) is a distinction without a difference, since the rock hit first, it caused both heart attack and deadly injuries in crash, whether the crash or the heart attack happened first, a judge will assume that both were the result of being pelted with rocks. Once the car is hit by rocks, in the eyes of the law, the thrown rocks are the cause of death. Death by thrown rock. Note also that it is not necessary to have a heart attack, perfectly fit, experienced drivers swerve and crash after being hit by rocks.

• I have twice had the experience of having been in the front seat of cars hit by rocks. Once on a major superhighway. Once in a dicey neighborhood in a city with a crime, gang and delinquency problem. One stone was hurled directly at me by a youth, one was kicked up by the wheels of an enormous truck moving at highway speeds. Swerve? Of course I swerved ! The rock hits, the window shatters, the impact jolts the whole vehicle, shards of glass hit your face, you try to stay at speed and in lane and if you are very, very lucky, if the rock hasn't smashed your face or hand, if you don't get rear-ended by the car behind you, and if, by God's grace, you swerve not into incoming traffic, but into a space not occupied by another vehicle or by a telephone pole, you may survive.

• I follow these cases closely in recent years, and Nishdani's point is irrelevant. Whether the impact of the rock caused the driver to have a heart attack and then swerve, or to swerve, hit a post, and then have a heart attack doesn't matter - in both scenarios his death was caused by the thrown rock(s). As news reports agree. See: [2].E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat E. M. Gregory is engaged in source distortion, repressing evidence uncomfortable for his premise, and misrepresenting my point. One of many examples.

'Nishdani is relying on a press report [1] dated to the hours immediately after the crash. It states that after the car was hit by rocks, the driver/victim "had convulsed before losing control of the car.'

False. I didn't rely on one press report, and the Ynet source in question (Roi Yanovsky, 'Driver dies in accident possibly caused by stone-throwing,') is not dated to 'the hours immediately after the incident' which occurred at 11 pm 13 of September

The Ynet article bears the timestamp 09.14.15, 19:0) 7 pm, i.e.20 hours after the incident. Within 45 minutes of Ynet's article we have

Nir Hasson's Haaretz article Driver in Jerusalem Car Crash Dies From Injuries; Police Suspect Stone-throwing Caused Crash 14 September 7:46 PM which reads

An Israeli man died Monday morning after sustaining critical wounds in a car crash in Jerusalem late Sunday night, which police suspect may have been caused by stone throwing. Police suspect 64-year-old Alexander Levlovitch lost control of the vehicle near the Palestinian neighborhood of Sur Baher in East Jerusalem when his car was hit by stones. The car then hit a power pole and landed in a ditch. Two passengers were lightly wounded in the crash.

The Ynet report 45 minutes earlier says much the same

Man returning from Rosh Hashanah dinner loses control of car; police investigate if crash was result of stones being thrown at car or if driver had heart attack. A man in Jerusalem was fatally wounded on Sunday night, the eve of Rosh Hashanah, when he lost control of his car after it was reportedly pelted with stones. The vehicle struck a power line and tumbled into a roadside ditch. Police said they were investigating if stones thrown at the car caused the accident. Jerusalem police said the passengers were returning from a Rosh Hashanah holiday dinner when they drove on a route on which Arabs were throwing stones. However, questioning of the other passengers suggested that the driver had convulsed before losing control of the car, and police decided to continue investigating the cause of the accident.

Note that however, which grammatically challenges the innuendo in the police's correlation of a possible link between stone-throwing and the accident. The 'however' cites the passengers' testimonies in the immediate aftermath of the crash, where they do not testify to rocks, but to convulsions. All later reports in newspaper drawing on this elementary data of course 'make a narrative' based on journalistic spin to reflect the political narrative, which in the immediate aftermath, despite police wariness, classified this as an ascertained stone-throwing episode.

A gag order was imposed on police investigations, so what had been collected in those 20 hours is what we have in these two articles from the two Israeli mainstream newspapers with the best reputation for 'balanced 'reportage.

The article is named 2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing, which means that the article assumes what both the lead and the first main paragraph deny, since, after pressure from other editors, has now been altered to admit that sources state we are dealing with a suspicion, not a certainty. I don't know how E.M. Gregory manages to reconcile his title, which asserts as a fact just one of the hypotheses in the article, but one things is obvious even to blind Freddy and his dog. Until we have evidence or an official conclusion that this death was caused by rock throwing, posting the article was premature, for the simple reason that a possibility remains that the man may not have died as a result of a stone-throwing episode, but a car accident. If it was a car accident, it has no place here. If it is just a suspected stone-throwing incident, it has no place yet as an article.

The regular line-up of editors supporting the article have no answer to these problems, and neither does Gregory.Nishidani (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. Breaking news reports often get the details wrong. The Israeli government and the international and national press agree that this death/crash was caused by rocks thrown at the vehicle.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'B. .'. . .In a cow's paddock. I provided evidence, and you come back with vituperation and an inconsequential assertion. Newspapers do not determine facts, ask the New York Times.

This is the page as you created it 3 days after those two articles, each written 20 hours after the incident, and each embodying what was known from enquiries before the Israeli gov placed a gag order on the investigation. As anyone can see, you totally ignored the major Israeli sources and used the New York Times’ piece for its headline, not its content, which is more nuanced:

Hadid Diaa wrote, like Nir Hasson and the Ynet journalists

A Jewish man died early Monday morning after attackers pelted the road he was driving on with rocks as he was returning home from a dinner celebrating Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, . .Luba Samri, a police spokeswoman, said the rock-throwing appeared to have caused the accident but that “nothing is 100 percent sure”. The police, with a court’s permission, said no more details about the case could be published while an investigation was continuing.

Since 14th investigations are under a gag order, meaning 'no more details' will be forthcoming until a police report is made and magistrates' decisions are taken. The official government view clashes with what the investigative police say, and is a political point of view.

Worse still, you patently knew that even the sources you harvested contradicted your selective narrative.

You quote for this statement

'Levlovich lost control of his car when it was hit by rocks thrown by Arabs while driving on Asher Viner Street in East Jerusalem, near the Palestinian neighborhood of Sur Baher'

Barak Ravid Netanyahu Calls Emergency Meeting on Stone Throwing in Jerusalem

What Ravid wrote, apart from the Asher Viner Street, was

Discussion on 'war on stone throwing and fire bombs in Jerusalem and its vicinity' follows deadly car crash which police suspect may have been caused by stone throwing. . . The statement followed a deadly car crash in Jerusalem late on Sunday night, which police suspect took place after stones were thrown at the vehicle.

You write that the international press agree on the ‘facts’. Untrue. Your article cites Jack Moore's Newsweek article, which however states 3 days later,

'Hundreds of Israelis attended the funeral on Wednesday of a man who died in a car crash suspected to have been caused when stones were thrown at his vehicle. The incident occurred on Sunday as 64-year-old Alexander Levlovitz was traveling home after celebrating the beginning of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year.

This means the article was constructed in defiance both of the complexities of the reports you read, and that you are on a mission to make a statement about both Palestinians and realities with this nonsense. I asked you a direct question: how do you reconcile the title, which asserts as a fact what the body of the text admits is a working hypothesis. No flaming abuse please. Answer the questions.Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, you bolded so much text, that it is unclear what you want. In any case, this is material for the talkpage of that article, not for a deletion discussion. You only prove that this incident was reported in many sources. Debresser (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I bolded the numerous texts from 14-17 September that said this was a suspected rock-attack. Since sources also say it is 'suspected' not proven, you cannot retain the title '2015 Rosh HaShanah death by stone-throwing'. If you do, the raison d'etre for the article collapses. That is what Gregory won't do, and what a remarkable number of editors refuse to see. Is that simple enough?Nishidani (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support name change. I don't see 'by stone-throwing' at Death of Adele Biton or Deaths of Asher and Yonatan Palmer etc'. As for the suspicions, the stones are confirmed and the rest is integral part of the story. Settleman (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani I see. No problem here, per Settleman. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Settleman said:'the stones are confirmed,' which in English means that rocks have been baptized into the Catholic faith. That is not an argument, and no link is made to evidence that police and magistrates have determined stones caused the incident. If I sight such evidence, I will race any other editor to enter it here or in related articles. This is about policy compliance, not competing passions about who is the victim, and memorializing victimhood.Nishidani (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I remind User:Nishdani that WP:BLUDGEON is a form of WP:WIKIHOUNDING.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your consistent refusal to explain how you can justify even today editing in that this is an ascertained stone throwing attack, when several sources on the page saying that is a suspicion. Weaseling out of a legitimate query about a patent contradiction in an article you are responsible for by policy tags suggesting I hound you is itself s WP:AGF violation. The contradiction on the page and in your edits is there, verifiable, so answer the question.Nishidani (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The recent change in Israeli law regarding the punishment for stone-throwers, which was still unsure at the beginning of this discussion and has now unanimously passed in the Israeli parliament, proves the impact of this incident. Debresser (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the entirely standard WP:EVENT failure. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Come back in two years and see if anyone is still talking about this, because I'm not seeing any significant discussion of this from a week later. The sources clearly indicate that the crackdown on stone-throwing was already in the works before this happened. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Today's news: "The issue took on additional urgency this month when an Israeli man, Alexander Levlovich, 64, was killed during the Rosh Hashana holiday after Palestinians hurling stones at passing cars caused him to lose control and crash into a pole." New York Times, 24 September, 2015 [3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  So, exactly what I said - no new significant coverage, and documentation of the fact that this did not precipitate a policy change. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  In fact, Netanyahu introduced this measure last week at a media event held at the site of the attack on Levlovich.[4] Not unusual for dramatic killing to spur lawmakers to actually pass long muted proposals, as in this case, which is why it is back in the news today, and will continue to be mentioned in the future - whatever the impact of today's new rules of engagement between Israeli security forces and rock-throwers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge - Although tragic, this incident is not noteworthy enough to warrant its own article. WikiMania76 (talk) 16:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Palestinian rock throwing Breathing can fight tears (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Palestinian rock throwing. In any event, the POV title needs to be changed. Carrite (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that it cannot be merged because that article prohibits the addition of the death of Jews by rock-throwing except for instances that already have stand-alone articles. the editor who created that rule is, not surprisingly, voting to delete this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV title? Debresser (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Up until some hours ago the title was an example of WP:CRYSTAL. Now that the police have arrested and formally charged 4 suspects, and leaked to the press the confessions at least one of them gave (the boy who threw that particular rock which caused Levlovitch's death), the title is 'vindicated', even if for a week it was a policy violation to frame it that way. Dovid, this is elementary.Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, as somebody said here or on a related page: it doesn't matter if you die from the stone smashing your skull, the heart attack it gave you, or the car crash you went into because of it. In all these scenarios is would by murder by stone throwing. So I repeat, where is the POV? Debresser (talk) 21:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for fuck's sake! If you are going to comment on anything Dovid, study it for Chrissake. Some notable reports initially said the car may have crashed from either rock throwing or from a heart attack. The gag rule came in, and several newspapers then said, 'rock=heart atytack = crash'. No one knew till yesterday. The title therefore is not POV now, as it was until yesterday. Jeezus, this is kindergarten ABC stuff!Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roosh Hashanah rock attack is what the newspapers are calling it. Here is a google search on: "rosh hashanah" + rock + attack [5].E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as the arrests get national and international coverage [6], [7] and with the new legal measures enacted, I hope that some of the earlier editors who claimed lack of impact will rethink opinions that have proven to be unsupported. Here is today's short Washington Post/AP take on incident's impact: [8]..E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply repeating your points does not make it any more convincing. The law was already being debated, and the proposal goes way back - since at least last November (see my first comment). There was a similar law passed in July, which increased maximum sentences. This increased the minimum sentence. Simply linking to newspaper reports on the followup (one for the crime, one for the arrests) does not make it any less WP:NOTNEWS. If you want to talk about the impact: increased penalties for rock throwing, there already exists an article. This article is purely created as a WP:MEMORIAL for a context-free discussion, without any serious discussion of the Al-Aqsa troubles, or the rock-throwing history. Kingsindian ♝♚ 04:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes it convincing, to an objective reader, is the sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Thanks to new reports we can learn that the perpetrators were arrested and admited so this is indeed a confirmed terrorist attack. As for how important this attack is? Well, in Israel's reality, pretty much every terrorist attack from both sides that kill someone has deep impact on both sides. There are also many attacks that are not too big and they don't need to have an article for them selves, most attacks this year doesn't need an article but this one is a distinct one because it had a siginificant impact on both sides. --Bolter21 19:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Roscelese. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or at best merge into Palestinian stone-throwing. NOTNEWS. --Randykitty (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.