Talk:Stone throwing

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 May 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Photo

The photo on the page is a photo of rioters engaged in criminal rock throwing at an anti-Sarkozy demonstration in Paris. Although I cannot speak to motivation, I fail to see the justification for User:Debresser's repeated removal of image from page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a dark picture and doesn't show much. Simply low quality. Please do not restore it. Surely there must be many other pictures out there which are better to use for illustration in this article. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See for example: [1], [2] and [3]. I especially like the 2nd picture. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Debresser Nice images, can they be used on Wikipedia? I'm happy to add photos, if they are legally available for WP use.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a bettter image than the others on wikimedia commons. It's dark, but it's not fuzzy. It shows rock throwers rioting in Paris, with typical scarves covering their faces against the prospect of police tear gas. I think it makes sense to use it. Athough i am open to adding others to the page if somebody finds other good images.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is too dark. Feel free to search for other images that are free for use, including the ones above. Debresser (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The photo of a riot in Paris in dispute shows rioters, their faces covered with scarves against tear gas. DBresser insists that I find and use another, although alternatives he presents are not on wikimedia commons. He also insists hta tit is "fuzzy" althouth it is to me a clear, close-up image of rock-throwing rioters at night. As this is the only photo now available, I am putting it back on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it's fuzzy. I said its unclear. It is too dark. There is no obligation to have a photograph. There is an obligation not to edit war. Debresser (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to be constructive, bringing new material to this page, or proposing new photos - rather than removing a good illustration of rioters at night in Paris throwing rocks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the rhetoric, please. The picture is not good; it is lousy. Ergo, removing it is being constructive and re-adding it is not constructive (and is also bad because you shouldn't edit war). Debresser (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rock throwers at a political riot in Paris.
Anyone want to weigh in on this photo?E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing photo on page, since no one has commented with the exception of the single editor who does not like it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summarily reverted, and a big trout for you for violating WP:OWN. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not understanding what the problem is with the image here. Is this really a case of WP:OWN? I say put it back, the image is a bit dark but it really does contain typical mannerisms of rock throwers, including flipping off the camera while holding the rock. I'd revert it myself to put the image back, but then I might end up involved in an edit war for the first time, I have no intentions of that. Gatemansgc (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is a violation of WP:OWN. Just see who is the almost sole editor of this article. I still think it is too dark, and a plethora of better pictures could be found, if somebody were willing to upload one which is freely available. Debresser (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would still like to see this this photo of youthful stone pelters in Paris on the page, it's a good image imho, vut I have now found and added one of youthful stone pelters in Kashmir. I suppose I should start an RfC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could do that, People start an Rfc about almost anything nowadays. Debresser (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

peacock

Are we really using terms such as "celebrated jurist and authority" despite WP:PEACOCK? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't. Debresser (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you add it?--TMCk (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add it. I undid an edit that removed it, because of another problem with that edit. Thanks for removing it. Debresser (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the rocks

This edit added an incident of throwing a block of ice. Is that fitting for this article? Debresser (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is close enough - I would classify just about any heavy object thrown for blunt trauma under "rock throwing" even if technically it is a solid object that is not a rock.Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giving a whole new dimension to "whiskey on the rocks". :) 19:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Criminal rock throwing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article title discussion

Greetings, all. Per the decision in the relevant AfD, discussion on any [title] change can continue on the talk page. So, after reverting the hasty but in good faith change by the page's creator, I open here a discussion about the article's title. What should it be?

Clearly the current title, as has been widely acknowledged, does not amount to much. Here are a couple of suggestions: Rock throwing (simple and all covering). Rock throwing (weapon) (more focused).

What do others think? -The Gnome (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: There has been no consensus. Move it back to Criminal rock throwing or Rock throwing (crime), or start an RfC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 June 2018

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to stone throwing. Consensus is all over the map here, but it is clear that there is no other topic ambiguously named to this topic, so a disambiguator is not needed. The article should be expanded slightly to note that non-criminal stone throwing exists, but that the legal ramifications are what makes this topic significant. bd2412 T 03:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rock throwing (weapon) → Criminal rock throwing – Page about a politically fraught topic was moved from the longstanding title without obtaining consensus. The possibility of a title change had been raised at the recent AfD. After the AfD closed, I changed the title to Rock throwing (crime), a name that had gotten some support during that AfD. A user who had made many hostile and uncivil comments at the AfD reverted that new name (I did not object.) He started a discussion, which no one participated in. He then moved the page to a new title with a very different scope (a "weapon" is a different than a "crime".) E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who defines the 'crime'. You developed this also to link into the Palestinian stone throwing article a definition of their throwing stones as a crime. Well, anyone anywhere who throws stones at a car causing injury or death has committed a crime in anyone's book. It is a completely different kettle of fish when a disarmed and occupied people throw stones at a military body armed to the teeth that customarily defends the expropriation of land, and shoots them, and defines their 'resistance' as a criminal offence. If so, then both parties are accessories to crime: the first for throwing stones, the second, as virtually every independent human rights organization has repeatedly stated, because they use excessive military force to repress an occupied people whose protests consist in objecting to the crime of forced population transfer. Unless you deal with that, crime is inappropriate if the page touches on such phenomena, and weapon more accurate.Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I think the wider weapon focus is better and still allows us to treat criminal enforcement. Limiting this to crime would exclude cases in which this ws performed in the course of armed conflict (modern, ancient, or Mesoamerican), and create complications in the grey area between armed conflict and crime. I do think this should on weapon or violent use as opposed to stone skipping or stone throwing for sport.Icewhiz (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Am I am anomaly? Stone throwing was a standard feature of my early life. Not rock, but small stones were used every weekend in pitched battles among friends, split into 'enemy' sides. Kids came home bleeding: once a rock thrown by my brother caused a serious gash to my cousin's forehead, but basically the technique was honed to show one's toughness, and learn to stand and dodge 'missiles'. Now I learn that we were engaged in criminal behavior, an intrinsic felony. Life ain't what it used to be.Nishidani (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing stones (at people) is a crime regardless of whether it's a "standard feature of early life" and whether the law is enforced or not. If it's kids doing it they won't be liable to prosecution, but that's because of their age, not the nature of the conduct. jamacfarlane (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I would exclude recreational or sporting use.Icewhiz (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support or move to Rock throwing (crime). We can't have Rock throwing (weapon), as rock throwing isn't a weapon. It's very poor English. The weapon is the rock. The proposed title describes exactly what the article is about. Throwing rocks at people is considered to be a crime in most cultures! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Rock throwing (assault) would be another alternative. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I second Rock throwing (assault)- assault covers non-crime (e.g. war) use as well, and describes the action.Icewhiz (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree with @Necrothesp: on moving to Rock throwing (crime) as the article is concerned with rock throwing as a form of assault, not as sport, etc. However, Rock throwing is currently a redirect to this article, so why don't we move to there? jamacfarlane (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse a move to Rock throwing (assault), and thank @Necrothesp: for his thoughtful suggestion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hyphenate, whatever the words. The hyphenated form is twice as common in books; also, "stone-throwing" is twice as common as "rock-throwing", see this Ngram. I favour moving it to Stone-throwing, as sporting, judicial or religious acts (stone put, stone skipping, stoning, stoning of the Devil) are not usually called simply "stone-throwing". – Fayenatic London 08:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that "rock throwing" is the term commonly used by police in Australia, New Zealand, and the United States in the tragically common criminal persecutions of young hooligans who throw rocks at vehicles on highways.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think voting one way or another is premature until the article goes beyong the stub stage and tries to (a) clarify exactly what the field covers: is it rock throwing at vehicles, or more, or everything regarding hurled stones? (b) the WP:SYNTH problem. Many examples are given from cases illustrating a type that, in one district court, of the USA generally, led to a conviction. The editor extrapolates this as a principle for the US or for rock-throwing generally. This means that, rather than drawn up the article on the basis of an extensive use of secondary sources discussing the legal principles (which vary from country to country) we have a hodge-podge of individual cases, arbitrarily picked (googling) and then used to formulate a principle. That is completely flawed. The only sign that legal principles govern the issue,, varying from tradition to tradition, is the one sentence from Blackstone (which I think I added).Nishidani (talk) 09:04, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORUMSHOP, this argument was made at recent AfD, garnering no support. It is also disingenuous. You might have simply template the page for expert legal input, which I have now done. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT grows tedious.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Note that this stems from an apparently undiscussed move (by nom) 20:33, 12 April 2015‎ E.M.Gregory (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (52 bytes) (+52)‎ . . (E.M.Gregory moved page Rock throwing to Criminal rock throwing: more accurate title) and no less than three subsequent moves. The base name rock throwing redirects here and always has. There is no rock throwing (disambiguation) page and never has been. Andrewa (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, Article was moved from rock throwing to criminal rock throwing at the moment of its creation. It stayed at Criminal rock throwing for years, until recent AfD, where several editors suggested title change. I attempted to comply by moving it. Was immediately reverted. Then - with no discussion - article was moved by Nishidani to present title. And I started this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, in fact it was moved after its creation. Andrewa (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seconds after. As a probable search term.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Rock throwing [or stone throwing, see below] per WP:OVERPRECISION and WP:CONCISE. As jamacfarlane and Andrewa have mentioned, rock throwing already redirects here and always has, and there's no other article that needs the title at present. This also negates the issue as whether criminal or weapon is the better qualifier; we simply don't need to choose because the title isn't ambiguous. Station1 (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I note that this was also the suggested move at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criminal rock throwing. Andrewa (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic. This is a page about throwing rocks with the intent of causing physical damage to persons or property: a crime. The page is defined in the lede: Rock throwing is a form of criminal assault. Whereas "rock throwing" encompasses Catapults, Steinstossen, Stone put, Stone skipping and similar. I think this crime - assault by thrown rock - is a separate thing from sport, or ancient military catapults.E.M.Gregory (talk)

Yes, your thoughts on this have been clearly expressed. But even as the article's creator and main contributor, you don't own it, and if we can arrive at rough consensus that a different scope would improve Wikipedia, that's what should (and hopefully will) happen. Andrewa (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, the scope of the article is defined in the lede, and nuances are covered in the body of the article. Titles, on the other hand, should be as concise as reasonably possible and no more precise than necessary, per WP:AT. If Catapults, Steinstossen, Stone put, and Stone skipping aren't mentioned in the article, they can be added to the See Also section, but it's unlikely anyone would be expecting those topics under the title "rock throwing". Station1 (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With further consideration, I believe this should be moved to Stone throwing. This is the more generic term, as it can cover any size of projectile, whereas rocks only refer to larger chunks. In general, it's actually stones that are thrown in these circumstances, not really rocks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stone redirects to rock (geology), which doesn't make that distinction, nor does dictionary.com, but I have no objection as long as one redirects to the other. Station1 (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford English Dictionary, however, does:

Rock: "3a. A large detached mass of such material; a boulder or large stone."; "3b. orig. N. Amer. A stone of moderate size, esp. one used as a projectile."

Stone: "1a. A piece of rock or hard mineral substance (other than metal) of a small or moderate size."

Which makes me think this is probably a WP:ENGVAR issue. In Britain, we'd talk about people throwing stones, not usually rocks (we'd consider they were generally too big to throw any distance; a rock, to me, is a chunk of stone that requires two hands to pick up, if it can be picked up at all). Okay then, back to Rock throwing (assault) or just Rock throwing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize it might be an ENGVAR issue. If "stone throwing" is universal but "rock throwing" might not be, stone might be the way to go. It could also fit better with Palestinian stone-throwing and Jewish Israeli stone-throwing. - Station1 (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Stone throwing. No need for disambiguation as there are no other topics of this name.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stone throwing

From the above there seems a possibility of consensus to move to stone throwing, currently a redlink. Andrewa (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Stone throwing and repeated metallic noise clanging at houses as intimidation and psychological torture to silence opponents

Certain undercover operatives pelt stones under the cover of darkness or even in daylight like how Bagheera warns Mowgli about how the Monkeys throw sticks and rubbish in Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Book. Also, a sleeper cell operative may take up residence nearby a political opponent and keep disturbing the peace and quiet whenever things go wrong for the operative and his or her team which may continue for years, and if this gets done by an government agency, may not be stoppable. Such pelting and clanging and nonsense messages are also used as by Agent Provocateurs to drag the political opponent in to an unequal or biased conflict where the Agent Provocateur has an advantage, perhaps with law enforcement on his or her side. Also, it's been said that those who want to break Black Magic or spoil meditation try to do so by creating disturbances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.178.66.12 (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]