Talk:Price tag policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


See Price tagging; one of these should be merged into the other. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 21:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The lead[edit]

The "price tag" actions are illegal actions performed by small groups of radical right-winged Israeli hooligans. These actions have been overwhelmingly condemned by all Israeli leaders including the leadership of the Israeli settlers in the West Bank and the vast majority of the religious Zionist rabbis in Israel. It is very important that we make clear of this fact in the lead and that we would not make our readers mistakenly think that the Israeli government or large organizations in Israel are organizing and carrying out attacks against the Palestinian civilian population and/or against the Israeli security forces. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Who stopped you from saying precisely that in the lead? No one. Who stopped me from writing the lead according to reliable sources. You. No where did I or anyone else say that the Israeli government is behind these attacks. Nowhere do sources say that price tag actions are primarily acts of retaliation against Palestinian militancy attacks (whatever that means. If you are attacked you are attacked, and putting militant/militancy in their may make your POV purr, but it is not objective, nor sourced.-based). In short, your justification here does not explain what on earth the mess you just restored is doing there.Nishidani (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay. You write:

Price tag policy is the name given to the illegal actions carried out predominantly by individuals and/or small groups of right-wing Israeli radicals (mostly Israeli settlers[1]) in retaliation for Palestinian militancy attacks carried out against Israeli settlers.[2]

This is tantamount to vandalism because you have absolutely no basis in the sources for making these generalizations. And the same is true of the damage you did in several other sections.
(1) and (2) the source used to justify this reads:

In recent years, settlers have carried out violent acts under the slogan “price tag”. These are acts of random violence aimed at the Palestinian population and Israeli security forces. They generally follow actions by Israeli authorities that are perceived as harming the settlement enterprise, or follow Palestinian violence against settlers. B'Tselem has documented many acts of this kind, which have included blocking roads, throwing stones at cars and houses, making incursions into Palestinian villages and land, torching fields, uprooting trees, and other damage to property."

Good manners would require you to revert. But I know that won't happen.Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

(B)The main aim of this course of action, which began being used during the mid 2000s, is to deter Palestinian militant organizations or individuals from carrying out violent attacks against Israelis, or alternatively to dissuade the Israeli government from evacuating or destroying unauthorized settler structures, by the means of creating a "balance of terror".[7]

The source is Amos Harel. This is exactly the opposite of what Harel says, 'the balance of terror' is between settlers and the state of Israel, not between settlers and Palestinian militant organizations.
So. Since you either refuse to read the text, or write with total indifference to what sources say, what are you doing here?Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
(2) Marokwitz. Please do not remove reliable sources, as you did with the reference to B'tselem, when the RS noticeboard has discussed the use of this NGO and by a strong majority of respected editors and administrators, has been acknowledged to be a reliable source. Secondly, if you wish to edit unpolemically here, please look at the sources used to justify the text, which, so far neither you nor the Curious Gnome have apparently cared to do. This is the fundamental operative procedure of wikipedia, and all serious editors are expected to act in accordance with it.Nishidani (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
No, the consensus is that reputable and established advocacy organizations are generally ok to cite with attribution. Marokwitz (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Price tag policy lead. The word random should be removed, as it is POV. The word retaliation is POV and should be replaced by the word following, and the word unauthorized should be replaced by the word illegal, as these structures are illegal under Israel law as well as international law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalai lama ding dong (talkcontribs) 16:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Much of the lead is 'randomly edited' according to the sources editors prefer to cherrypick. But 'random' happens to be used by one of the major sources. The word 'illegal' is not in sources. One writes to sources, not according to one's preferences.Nishidani (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Editing this text[edit]

  • The lead is almost all WP:OR.
  • I tried to fix this by gathering many sources, and controlling those already cited, in order to do what wikipedia editors are asked to do, not get one's personal opinions or whimsies in the way of correctly paraphrasing RS relevant to the topic.
  • The lead opens with a definition. This is the simplest thing to do, since several RS will tell the googler immediately that there is a common accepted definition of that term, and therefore private judgements about 'illegal actions' or 'retaliation against Palestinian militancy' of the kind that formed the travesty earlier, should not be tolerated.
  • I provided in the footnotes, the specific source sentences on which the lead's definitions should be anchored. I have a dozen others. They can be eliminated when, duly read, and understood, editors agree to use them, and any other English RS, as guides to writing the relevant sentence.
  • The text is almost wholly sourced to articles in Hebrew, from newspapers Ynet and Haaretz which however have ample coverage of the subject in their English editions. I won't challenge this, or question it. But it should be understood that this is an English encyclopedia, and favours verifiable sources in that language, which exist in abundance. The further use of Hebrew sources that deny the average reader ready access and verification of what is being written would be inappropriate.
  • What both of you, The Curious Gnome and Marokwitz have done, so far is to restore or support (clean up) a text that was demonstratedly a blatant example of WP:OR, one that fabricated 'information' not in the sources as I have shown, while challenging a text which writes to sources. Please adhere strictly to policy in editing this text here on the name given to the illegal actions carried out by radical Israeli settlers in retaliation for Palestinian violence against settlers or in retaliation for action taken against their settlement
Your accusation is false, I started editing the lead after seeing your tags requesting citation (which I felt were correct) and added an English source that verifies the text, as requested. In the sentences which I edited there is no longer need for additional citations. Regarding your addition of B'tselem as a source for facts (A directly involved activist group, not a reliable secondary source) without attribution, you should know better. Marokwitz (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Btselem is a directly involved activist group?????? nableezy - 14:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, more accurately they are an "advocacy group", and as such their statements must always be attributed, just like we do for pro-Israel advocacy groups. Marokwitz (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
How familiar are you with the English language? The citation from Friedman, a source I supplied does not 'verify the text'.

is the name given to the illegal actions carried out by radical Israeli settlers in retaliation for Palestinian violence against settlers or in retaliation for action taken against their settlement enterprise[1],.

The New York Times defines price tag attacks as incidents in which radical Jewish settlers "exact a price from local Palestinians or from the Israeli security forces for any action taken against their settlement enterprise" (others add that the assaults can be in retaliation for violence against settlers).

  • Illegal actions are not mentioned.
  • The source says Jewish not Israeli'
  • The source makes a major generalization 'exacting a price from local Palestinians or from the Israeli security forces for any action against their settlement enterprise.'
This is ignored in order to invent, fabricate and prioritize 'Palestinian violence against settlers', with a link, and the assertion not in the main NYT clause, that this is essentially retaliation for something suffered.
A dozen sources, the BBC, Guardian, Independent, Haaretz and Ynet, while defining the term, do not say this. The NYTs put the point about retaliation in brackets, as a minority opinion.
So, as I said, you are ignoring the sources, and youelided B'tselem when its formulation would have helped you add the blame the Palestinians for provoking us meme.Nishidani (talk) 11:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I have reentered the citation needed tag because there is no correspondence between source and language. Don't remove it until we have several sources which define the term and can justify the language in the lead.Nishidani (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the lead in its current form, is much more informative, sourced and balanced than your original lead. If you still think there is a specific problematic segment in the lead, please explain each case individually here and in detail (instead of giving a short explanation such as "The lead is almost all WP:OR." ), so that the other editors of this article and the rest of the Wikipedia community would be able to address these issues and be able to collaboratively decide how to improve them through consensus.

Though there is no doubt that there are many international non-Hebrew sources that cover this topic - in my opinion, we should attribute high importance to Israeli primary sources in sites such as Haaretz or Ynet which present statements made by Israeli Israeli officials, first and foremost because this is a local event - nevertheless, in my opinion we should definitely use more Palestinian sources as well in the article - especially sources that cover the reaction of the Palestinian officials and the Palestinian public to the price tag attacks.

I am sure that with goodwill and mutual respect we would be able to collaboratively create a good well-balanced and well sourced article. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Mutual means 'two way'. So far neither you nor Marokwitz have responded to the several serious points I raised above. You just persist in editing according to your tastes. You have restored several plainly erroneous, unsourced statements, which I presume are your compositions, while retaining sources that say nothing comparable to what you assert. That is bad faith editing. Persist in it and you will be reported.Nishidani (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem # 1: Dissatisfaction with the source stating that the vast majority of the religious Zionist rabbis in Israeli have publicly condemned the "Price Tag" acts[edit]

Explain, for example,why you manipulated my source saying some rabbis support the price tag policy, reverted my edit, while retaining the source in what I am constrained to believe is bad faith editing.

No Israeli leader or rabbi openly supports this policy' [11], in fact leadership of the Israeli settlers in the West Bank[12] and the vast majority[13] of the religious Zionist rabbis in Israeli have publicly condemned "Price Tag" acts, against either Palestinians or Israeli security forces.[citation needed]

Here you have retained the source (11) which I inserted, while inventing a suitable content which is not in that source, in fact, the source says the opposite.
Chaim Levinson and Amos Harel Shin Bet urges Israeli government to halt funding of West Bank yeshiva in Haaretz 27 September 2011 reads:

The Shin Bet security service is urging the Education Ministry to immediately halt funding to the Od Yosef Hai Yeshiva in the settlement of Yitzhar, near Nablus, saying it has received intelligence information that senior rabbis in the yeshiva are encouraging their students to attack Arabs. The army's GOC Central Command, Maj. Gen. Avi Mizrahi, recently issued restraining orders that forbid several students affiliated with the yeshiva to enter the West Bank. This decision was based on what security sources termed well-founded suspicions that these students had been involved in attacks on Arabs, including "price tag" attacks on Arab property (so called because they seek to deter the army from razing houses in the settlements) and the torching of mosques in nearby Palestinian villages.The head of the yeshiva, Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, was filmed in the past accompanying some of his students to a nearby Arab village; the students then threw stones while the rabbi looked on. Shapira is the author of the controversial work "The King's Torah," which, among other things, discusses circumstances under which Jewish law might permit the killing of non-Jews. The Shin Bet said it has "accumulated a lot of information about the involvement of students at Od Yosef Hai and Dorshei Yehudcha [the yeshiva high school] in illegal, subversive and violent activities against Arabs and the security forces. The information indicates that the yeshiva's rabbis and leaders are aware of some of these activities, but do not prevent them, and even enable students to take part in them."

How you manage to retain this source as an endorsement of your fantasy that 'No Israeli leader or rabbi openly supports this policy' begs the imagination, or would, were it not for the fact that now you have done this several times, and if you continue, the behavioral refusal to respect sources, pretend they say what you want them to say, will come up before arbitration.
The Israeli intelligence assessment which alleges that some rabbis who were involved in the attacks is definitely important and should be added in one form or another to the article – nevertheless, we still must carefully consider how to integrate it into the article since these are very serious charges and as of yet they are considered unproven suspicions. In my opinion, at this point and based on that source alone, we must not specify explicitly or even hint, based on a suspicion only, that a substantial part of yeshiva rabbis in Israel are leading violent attacks against random Palestinian innocent civilians. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
That does not answer the question. The article said rabbis were involved, according to the Shin Bet, the best informed Israeli source. They may be 'unproven suspicions' for you, but not for Yuval Diskin, and therefore, once again, I would remind you that this is not a place for you to play arbiter to what can and cannot be said. When you say 'we', you are saying 'I'. The point is, wikipedia writes to sources, and the source says what I said it said, and you kept the source, and made it say the opposite. You still fail to explain why you kept a source and attributed to it a statement it does not contain, indeed, a statement that the source contradicts. I will add it back, since it is perfectly legitimate, with attribution if you like.Nishidani (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Secondly, please translate the section in note 13 from the Hebrew Haaretz article by Nadav Shragai (10 March 2008) which you says justifies the comment it footnotes. If you are referring to the last paragraph, I can see nothing there which justifies the conclusion you drew. To the contrary, and it fingers two rabbis suspected of being an inspiration for those pursuing a price tag policy.Nishidani (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The source contains the following paragraph:

"הממסד של המתנחלים והרוב המכריע של רבני יש"ע מסויגים מדרך התגובה הזאת."

which means:

"The settlers establishment and the vast majority of the Yesha Rabbis are disapprove of these types of acts." TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

'are disapprove of' should be 'disapprove of'. I checked the original, and dictionaries, and ran in through google translate, and what I got was 'were reluctant'. I asked User:RolandR:RonaldR and he says he would translate 'express reservations about' rather than disapprove (מסויגים). There is a vast difference betwen these various possibilities, so you'd better thrash the nuances of the idiom out here. It is one think to 'be reluctant about' or 'feel reservations about' and another to 'disapprove', which means unqualified dissent.Nishidani (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Um, please first check the title 'Dissatisfaction with the source stating that the vast majority of the religious Zionist rabbis in Israeli. As you have translated the text, the source does not mention rabbis in Israel. It mentions Yesha rabbis. The Yesha is a West Bank institution, and is not in Israel. Secondly, you still not have replied to my serious question above. Why have you consistently retained a source while eviscerating the text it paraphrases, and replacing it with the opposite of what the source says? This behaviour is sanctionable, and I would appreciate you explaining why you've repeatedly resorted to this.Nishidani (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem #2: Is it permissible to state that the "price tag" acts are illegal?[edit]

The user Nishidani claimed that we must provide a source indicating that the "price tag" acts are illegal under Israeli law. In my opinion, there is no real question on whether harming innocent random people in Israel is considered a serious criminal offense according to the Israeli law - and therefore I believe that supplying online sources that prove the "price tag" attacks are illegal according to the Israeli law is unnecessary, in my opinion. What do the rest of you think? Is this demand of is justified? Must we choose between adding a source for the word "illegal" or removing it completely from this article? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Neither your nor my opinion counts. We should never go beyond what sources tell us. You have consistently written the text way beyond what sources say, and therefore I suggest that it would be sensible if you learnt to do what most of us do, paraphrase sources without providing your interpretations.Nishidani (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Is the Kennedy's assassination also legal in your opinion unless proven otherwise? Here's one source that proves these acts are considered illegal. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Um, it's a matter of clean prose style. It is absolutely obvious that all of the acts described are illegal. Use 'legal' as a qualification of 'violence' and all you do is generate in the readers' mind the idea that there are varieties of violence which are legal. This is quite true, especially on the West Bank, and in terms of state theory, but in the ordinary world, good writers do not emphasize and boldly scream out the obvious. Please restrict yourself to English articles when editing over questions of customary English usage. The link is to Hebrew, and is, apart from the supererogatory use of the adjective, not relevant to my point. Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for someone to read the first sentence and correct the English but in the meantime[edit]

what does this mean in English?

The acts of random violence are part of a clear pattern and can be predicted.

Please check a dictionary of English.Nishidani (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of bold text[edit]

There was nothing inappropriate about bolding a clear example of slipshod language in a translation that, in a passage several editors have changed, without attending to the obvious problem. I see you acted to correct it. Thanks. But had I not bolded, who would have noticed? (2) Could I ask Hebrew-language editors to fix the problems they mark? It's quite simple. If there are weasel words put in by someone editing from a Hebrew-language source, you simply check the source and rephrase the statement so that weasel words disappear. Marking problems out without fixing them when the solution is at hand is not very collaborative.Nishidani (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Lead is too detailed[edit]

The lead is quite long and detailed considering the overall length of this article. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This is normal in building article since everyone tends to prefer leads to the main article, which most editors don't read either. There seems to be an unfortunate tendency to believe only the leads are read, and therefore. . .We have the main points sketched, and, I agree that we can now plan to pare it down. Rather than us all jumping in to edit to taste, what about sketching what we could excise and where to put it? I hope you don't mind me putting what looks to me like a recent settler expression 'mutual responsibility' into the definition section. It is sectarian usage, not the term favoured by most major news services. If any of you guys can do a search for this usage and get more details on it, that would be very useful. I'm a linguist and love that kind of background: it'ìs perfect for the 'Definition' section. Nishidani (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

One thing that the ANALYSIS makes clear, but which hasn't been attended to, is the development of the meaning of 'price tag policy' in this area. We are told by most sources it dates to 2005 (one source I have says 2004). The phrase clearing referred to a specific kind of act, and then was extended to other acts, until the settlers now use it themselves to describe goverment acts. Trying to access early newspaper reports 2005-2007 could help a lot.Nishidani (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The lead thematically

  • (1)Term and its most succinct, generally accepted, definition. (2 cites NYT and WSJ so far)
  • (2)Range of actions covered by the term. (demonstrations, blocking of roads, throwing stones, uprooting trees or burning olive groves, arson of mosques, incursions into villages, vandalism of Palestinian property or Israeli infrastructure, attacks on people, Palestinian people and Israeli police officers).
  • (3)Origins of term in Gaza withdrawal.
  • (4)Public denunciations of Israeli leaders, secular and religious
  • (5) Legal prosecutions.
  • (6) Shin Bet analysis
  • ((7) Ynet Gesher poll

Probably the order should be (1) (3) (2) (6) (4) (7) (5). Suggestions? Other preferences? Nishidani (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

No replies? Well, I'll propose a trimmed down version, hoping for feedback.

Price tag policy (Hebrew: מדיניות תג מחיר) is the name given to "acts of random violence aimed at the Palestinian population and Israeli security forces" in the West Bank to exact a price for any action that hinders their settlement enterprise.[2] The term covers both actions of retaliation against government decisions to demolish unauthorized outposts and settlements, and reprisals for Palestinian violence. It includes the blocking of roads, stone-throwing, vandalism of Palestinian property, random assaults on Palestinians, arson of their mosques, fields, vehicles and houses, uprooting olive groves, incursions into Palestinian villages, attacks on members of Israel's Border police and the Israeli Defense Force, wreckage of government property and defacing the homes of left-wing activists with graffiti.[15]

Government demolition of unauthorized settlements and curbs on West Bank construction trigger many price tag operations. Official estimates of those involved vary: one figure calculates that upward from several hundred to about 3,000 people implement the strategy,[11]while a recent analysis sets the figure at a few dozen individuals, organized in small close-knit and well-organised cells[12] and backed by a few hundred right-wing activists.[13]

The roots of the policy have been traced to the August 2005 dismantling of settlements in the Gaza Strip as part of Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, which induced extreme settler groups to establish a "balance of terror" by countering every state action aimed at them with an immediate violent reaction.[16]

The concept and practice of price tag actions have been publicly repudiated by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.[17] Many people across the political spectrum in Israel have denounced recent incidents, such as the firing of a mosque in Israel.[18] The settler leadership has "fiercely condemned" the price tag policy,[21] and the vast majority of Yesha rabbis have expressed their reservations about it.[22] According to Shin Bet, the vast majority of the settlers also reject such actions.[23] Despite a 57% upswing in such attacks in the first seven months of 2011, no charges have yet been laid against suspects,[20] and government spokesmen admit they have not been successful in catching 'the scoundrels'.[19]] In September 2011 the Shin Beit advised the government to withhold funding from one yeshiva, Od Yosef Chai in the settlement of Yitzhar, on the basis of intelligence reports that its rabbis encourage students to engage in 'price tag' attacks against Arabs.[24]

According to a Ynet-Gesher survey conducted in March 2011, it was found that 46% of Israelis support settler “price tag” attacks. A breakdown of attitudes among religious-national and ultra-orthodox respondents revealed that a large majority are supportive of such attacks, with 70% of Orthodox and 71% of religious nationalist Jews surveyed justifying the policy.[25]

Israeli settlers have occasionally claimed that Palestinians stage "price tag" attacks as provocations to incite violence against the Jewish settlers.[26][27][28][29]

I think this works out as 445 words vs the 542 we have now, about a 18% reduction.? Nishidani (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

While an improvement, it's still too long per the "no more than four paragraphs" advice at WP:LEAD. Remember that the purpose of the lead, ideally, is serve as an introduction. Going into the kind of detail the current lead and the one proposed above go into means editors don't have a solid enough grasp of the topic to be able to present it to readers succinctly without unnecessary digressions. Firstly, the lead should discuss "price tagging" and not "price tag policy," because it's easier to construct sentences around "price tagging" than it is about "price tag policy." Consider, for example,

  • Price tagging is a policy adopted by...


  • Price tag policy is...

The first sentence is a lot more natural to finish than the second when. Secondly, the lead should address the following points:

  • What is the definition of price tagging, according to reliable third-party sources?
    • Who engages in price tagging?
    • Who is the target of price tagging?
    • What is the motivation behind price tagging?
  • When did price tagging start, as a coherent policy?
  • What has been the response of Jewish and Arab leaders to price tagging?
  • What have other responses been, if notable enough?—Biosketch (talk) 10:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • 'means editors don't have a solid enough grasp of the topic to be able to present it to readers succinctly without unnecessary digressions'
No. It means several editors with different approaches edit the same material, and disagree.
  • 'the lead should discuss "price tagging" and not "price tag policy"'
The lead must gloss the term which defines the article, which is 'price tag policy', the name given to the article.
  • 'What is the definition of price tagging, according to reliable third-party sources?' done.
  • Who engages in price tagging?done
  • When did price tagging start, as a coherent policy? done
  • What has been the response of Jewish and Arab leaders to price tagging? done
  • What have other responses been, if notable enough?
Responses or 'cover my arse' details are all very well, but they are not particularly significant, compared to details on what actually happens. They boil down to a big name list of people giving their opinions. It is enough to note that these acts are widely condemned by the big list in the article below, which expands on Netanyahu's condemnation.Nishidani (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Note 11[edit]

People citing Hebrew articles are not helping other editors here by refusing to identify the source in English, date it, give authorship, and above all convey its contents. Unless there is some responsiveness here I will take this up with the appropriate forum, the issue of privileging sources in wikipedia's English voice which cannot be verified by English-speakers, and the refusal to help them- Take note 11. It has paragraph 6 referring to a survey by Shin Bet on the attitudes of the population with regard to violence. Curious Gnome, since you are introducing these sources could you please translate that paragraph? Thank you Nishidani (talk) 20:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Also see WP:NONENG. When citing non-English sources you should provide an original quotation from the source and a translation for the material that the source is being used for. nableezy - 21:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
I guess our rule of thumb should be, where the information exists in English (or European languages) we use that as the source. Marokwitz has been finding some good English sources as substitutes. Where the information is only available in Hebrew then, as you say, the relevant source section should be quoted. The citation format should in any case provide in English the author, the title of the article translated while retaining the Hebrew link, the newspaper source in English and the date, in whatever template one prefers.Nishidani (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the following paragraph:

"מבדיקה שערך השב"כ יש נכונות גדולה מאוד בקרב הציבור הזה לנקוט באלימות לא ברמה של אבנים אלא של נשק חם על מנת לעצור תוכנית מדינית כזו או אחרת . "המצב מטריד מאוד. אנשי הבטחון חשופים להטרדות קשות ע"י אותם אנשים ואין לנו במדינה מענה לטפל בסוגיה הזו"."

it translates to:

"An investigation conducted by the Shin Bet indicates that there is a great readiness among this population to use violence, not is the extent of throwing stones, but rather in the extent of using firearms with the aim of stopping political policies from being carried out. "This situation is very disturbing. Security personnel are exposed to severe harassment by these people and we have no available solution to deal with this issue". TheCuriousGnome (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Nishidani (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Unless an English source is provided for this claim , In some cases it was indeed discovered that the settlers were falsely accused of carrying out price tag attacks.[54] then I intend to remove itDalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
You don't have to provide sources in English.Read WP:NONENG.--Shrike (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes you do, Read WP:NONENG. 'When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy.' Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
No problem with that what do you want to be translated?Shrike (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Great. Each paragraph supporting the text in the hebrew sources. Take your time, though. No one works by the clock here. Thanks Nishidani (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the translation offerDalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Support and opposition among Israeli Rabbis[edit]

The vast majority of Yesha rabbis and settlers reject it and/or have expressed their reservations of it.[74][75] both on moral grounds, prohibiting harm to innocent people and due to the Halachic prohibition which such actions, and on practical grounds, due to the fear that such acts are actually harmful to the settlement movement in the West Bank.[76][77]

This looks like WP:OR. At most of the rabbi and political condemnations listed, one is struck by how recent, and often event-specific (esp. the attack on the IDF) these condemnations are. We are dealing with a 5-year period in the article, and there is a huge rush of condemnation generated by the 5th mosque burning in OPctober 2011, i.e., recently (WP:Recentism), the one that took place in Israel. A neutral approach would put date markers in, and clarify who said what and when, about which incident. Above all, one must not confuse generic condemnations, of the beautiful one, much prized, you just added concerning the halakhic violation, with many circumstantial condemnations of specific incidents, often by Rabbis whose reading of halakha are quite fundamentally different from those of many other rabbis. Halakhic rulings and interpretations, notoriously, can differ from rabbinical school to school.Nishidani (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC) Take this fropm Yaacov Medan.

A prominent settler rabbi on Monday slammed so-called "price tag" acts of violence against Palestinians and the Israeli army, saying they undermined Jewish presence in the occupied West Bank. "We condemn the actions termed 'price tag' against the IDF (army), mosques and innocent Arabs," says a petition penned by Rabbi Yaakov Medan, one of the heads of the Har Etzion yeshiva, or Jewish seminary, near the southern town of Bethlehem.

In normal language, that innocent adjective would mean that the point is, price tag acts against guilty Arabs (revenge) are quite acceptable. If that is the meaning, then, it is not a condemnation of 'price tag policy' per se, but of certain kinds of acts (fields, groves, harvests, houses, cars, etc., are not mentioned) Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


So we're getting a gallery of photos of Israeli people who have never in 5 years lifted a finger to stop the attacks, a photo of distressed Israelis who have lost their homes, and finally a pic of a Palestinian olive tree allegedly cut down by settlers. Great job, WP:NPOV at its best. I knew it, the real suffering and outrage here is Israeli.Nishidani (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable source tagging[edit]

This was tagged as possibly an unreliable source.

'Israeli Settler Violence Report: March and April 2011,' in Alternative Information Center, 12 June. 2011.

I think rather than pitting a page like this one should first justify the suspicion or assertion or query before other editors. The fact is that this whole page, which deals with press coverage of acts of violence, predominantly against Palestinians, uses Hebrew sources in abundance, and quite a number of them could be questioned. If you tag the only Palestinian source provided as perhaps 'dubious' in terms of reliability, the impression is that anything in Israeli sources is reliable, anything in Palestinian sources questionable. At least the same parameters should be used. There is no prima facies reason why AIC should be regarded as less trustworthy than many articles from Ynet, not to speak of Arutz Sheva, 'Knitted,' 'News1' etc.etc.etc. Mark them all if you like, but don't single out the sole source that is Palestinian as instinctively subject to doubts about its reliability. Argue the case, above all, before smudging the text. WP:NPOV also requires balanced coverage, and not unilateral sourcing from the dominus.Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I agreeDalai lama ding dong (talk) 20:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Too much detail[edit]

This section is too detailed for this article.

'According to a Ynet-Gesher survey conducted in March 2011, it was found that 46% of Israelis believe that “price tag” attacks are justified to a certain extent. A breakdown of attitudes among religious national and ultra-orthodox respondents revealed that a large majority are supportive of such price-tag attacks, with 70% of Orthodox and 71% religious nationalists Jews surveyed justifying the policy.[25] Ori Nir of Peace Now evaluated the poll as indicating significant support for violent actions among the Israeli public, yet estimated that it is likely that the timing of the poll influenced the respondents' views. Israelis were still under the influence of the Fogel family massacre, when five Jewish family members, including young children, were massacred in their beds on a Sabbath.' [75] I intend to remove the reference to the Sabbath and the reference to young children, and the number of family members. This is simply irrelevant to this topic which is Price Tagging. The topic is not the Itamar attack, which is covered elsewhere in wikipedia.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No, don't do that. The lead should read something like.

A recent Ynet-Gesher poll has found that 46% of Israelis believe price tag attacks have a certain justification, and that a larger majority support them among the orthodox (70%) and religious nationalists (71%). The poll's timing, soon after, a settler family was murdered, may reflect a reactions to that incident.

The relevant section elaborating on this should elaborate, on the basis of the section you question.I.e.

'According to a Ynet-Gesher survey conducted in March 2011, it was found that 46% of Israelis believe that “price tag” attacks are justified to a certain extent. A breakdown of attitudes among religious national and ultra-orthodox respondents revealed that a large majority are supportive of such price-tag attacks, with 70% of Orthodox and 71% religious nationalists Jews surveyed justifying the policy. 68% of the sample thought rabbis had the power to stop price tag attacks. [25] (Ori Nir's account of poll more refined= While 48% said "Price Tag" attacks were unjustified, 22% said the actions were "perfectly justified", and 23% defined them as "quite justified." While most secular Israelis Jews said they opposed "Price Tag" activities (36% in favor, 57% against), most traditional, national-religious and ultra-Orthodox Jews said they believed these actions are justified (55%, 70% and 71%, respectively). Ori Nir of Peace Now evaluated the poll as indicating significant support for violent actions among the Israeli public, yet estimated that it is likely that the timing of the poll influenced the respondents' views. Israelis were still under the influence of the Fogel family massacre, when five Jewish family members, including young children, were massacred in their beds on a Sabbath.' [75]

I disagree with mentioning the Fogel family in the lead (Marokwitz) as I strongly disagree with your proposal to delete its mention anywhere. It is important to note, as per RS, that these things occurred close together, and the details of the family, children, and the Sabbath are relevant. Nishidani (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The details of the Itamar attack are well covered elsewhere, the details are not relevant here, they have nothing to do with Price Tagging, and should be removed. There are plenty of other RS for this poll, and they do not go into such detail, they just mention the Itamar attack. I will replace the RS if you want.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
If you are talking of the lead, fine. If you are talking of the subsection detail, I disagree. It would certainly be useful to have another RS on the poll. I'm quite aware of the tactical aspect of thrusting in details about Jewish families, (while systematically ignoring the background of what occurred in Awarta which was subject to chronic assaults by Itamar settlers). The Sabbath can go out, but words to the effect that a family of five settlers were killed, linmk Itamar, is indispensable, because (a) that RS mentions it (b) Polls are notoriously rubbery, and must always be read in terms of the immediate context of events, and that event was important for this poll. Ori Nir makes the connection.Nishidani (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Nishidani. The poll was taken on the day after that incident in order to measure Israeli response to that murder, this is how the reliable sources we are citing cover it, so we cannot mention the poll out of context. Marokwitz (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Well,2 to 1. DLDD, so I think it best we just hash out a consensual version here, and save all three of us the trouble of wrangling in reverts, which so far we haven't had, and it's nice to work pages that way. Marokwitz adds what I didn't know (I looked at the publication date) namely it was taken the day after the Itamar attack, which means all the more necessary. Rather than edit the text, I'll add some of Ori Nir's info, to the provisory text above (for the relevant subsection). We can tweak away, and when we've agreed, just add it to the text. Okay? Nishidani (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I would accept this Israelis were still under the influence of the Itamar attack, when five Jewish family members were killed. [75] This has all the relevant detail. Is this Ok?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to niggle. But 'under the influence of' is too strongly biased by usage towards the idea of alcoholic intoxication and its aftermath.

A recent Ynet-Gesher poll has found that 46% of Israelis believe price tag attacks have a certain justification, and that a larger majority support them among the orthodox (70%) and religious nationalists (71%). The poll, taken just after a family of 5 settlers were murdered, may reflect also a public reaction to the attack.? Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Failed verification[edit]

Template:Failed verification (October 2011):

  1. "Price tag policy" isn't the name B'tselem gives to "acts of random violence..." etc.
  2. "exact a price from local Palestinians or from the Israeli security forces for any action taken against their settlement enterprise" isn't anywhere at the New York Times link given in the ref. Anyway, if the quote is from Ben Schott, that needs to be made explicit in the text. He doesn't report for the NYT; he writes blog columns.—Biosketch (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Your edit, in which you explicitly attributed to Schott, disregards WP:NEWSBLOG which says: Several newspapers host columns they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. nableezy - 14:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
That passage from WP:NEWSBLOG doesn't apply as I'm not disputing the blog as a source. To attribute an observation made by a NYT blogger to the NYT is to lend the observation an authoritative weight that NYT doesn't itself confer on it. There's a difference between newspaper articles/reports and newspaper editorials/blogs.—Biosketch (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
But you miss the point of that bit. If the blog is under the editorial control of the NYTimes then attributing it to the NYTimes is perfectly legitimate, just as any article with that contains a byline is not attributed to the reporter. nableezy - 15:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary. Keep reading what it says at WP:NEWSBLOG. And the real point of this discussion is that the passage cited in the article isn't anywhere on the page that the link directs to. Instead of engaging in this vain bickering for the past hour+, one of us could have probably tracked down where that quote actually came from and done something constructive to improve the article's sloppy sourcing.—Biosketch (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Friedman, Uri. The Atlantic 3 October 2011: The New York Times defines price tag attacks as incidents in which radical Jewish settlers "exact a price from local Palestinians or from the Israeli security forces for any action taken against their settlement enterprise"
  • And the piece cited by Friedman: Kershner, Isabel. NY Times 3 October 2011: The attack followed a series of similar assaults on mosques in the West Bank by arsonists suspected of being radical settlers as part of a campaign known as “price tag,” which seeks to exact a price from local Palestinians for violence against settlers or from Israeli security forces for taking action against illegal construction in Jewish outposts in the West Bank.
Now, will this "disruptive tag bombing" be reversed? Pins and needles Im on. nableezy - 15:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Just for the record I didn't see this section while doing my recent edit, but the one below. It took just 10 seconds to find a source saying this is what the NYTs says, and the original source where the definition was made, which I now see are the same as Nableesy fished up. Biosketch, please be more attentive.Nishidani (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
You didn't see this section while performing your edit and you're asking me to be more attentive.... When you have a moment, please look up the definition of word irony in your preferred dictionary.
Now, is anyone going to address the fact that WP:NEWSBLOG is being blatantly disregarded in the article, per the above exchange between User:Nableezy and myself, and that "Price tag policy" is not the name given by anyone in the sources cited in the lead for where that expression comes from?—Biosketch (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Blatantly disregarded???? I gave two sources above, neither being "blogs" or "opinion pieces" that directly support the material you tagged. One of them attributed to the NYTimes what you attributed to a lone blogger, and the other is a NYTimes news piece says what was attributed to it. We dont even need to attribute to the NYTimes in the text. The source currently cited for the NYTimes definition says: The New York Times defines price tag attacks as incidents in which radical Jewish settlers "exact a price from local Palestinians or from the Israeli security forces for any action taken against their settlement enterprise". Would you care to say how exactly that either "blatantly disregards WP:NEWSBLOG" or "fails verification"? Im guessing you wont because it doesnt. nableezy - 14:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Uh, since you want to make an issue of sources and blogs and reliability, by all means clean up all the wiki-rule infractions made in the massed use of Hebrew sources without indications to non-Hebrew speaking editors to assist them in judging such things as their adequacy to RS. I've asked several editors to do this, and they just shrug off and ignore the rule-compliant request. Once you've done that, get back to me on Newsblog, and read beyond the first paragraph of B'tselem, which obviously you failed to do.Nishidani (talk) 14:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, let's see if we can discuss the Friedman, Uri piece in The Atlantic in a cool and composed fashion. Friedman says the NYT describes price tag attacks as incidents performed by "radical Jewish settlers." Friedman is misrepresenting the NYT and therefore shouldn't be used here as an RS for what the NYT says. To wit, the Kershner, Isabel article that's the source for Friedman's claim only uses the modifier "radical" in describing suspects arrested in one of the incidents. Otherwise, it calls them simply "settlers" or "Jewish settlers." What's in the article now and attributed to the NYT – "radical Israeli Jewish settlers" – isn't part of how the NYT defines price tag incidents.—Biosketch (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Fix up the 22 citations from Hebrew language sources and I'll be happy to discuss the point you raise. The most obvious infraction of the rules here is the massive uncheckable use of sources whose reliability non-Hebrew speaking or reading editors cannot check. I've asked this several times, and no one replies. If you are seriously concerned with the reliability of this article, I suggest you address the outstanding issue, before splitting hairs, which you are doing here because the NYTs ('s Isabel Kerschner) uses 'radical' 'hard-core' 'settlers' to describe 'extremist tactics' in 'price tag' operations 'Radical Settlers Take on Israel' here, to name but one example.Nishidani (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Nishi, I think he is right on one point. I say remove "radical", but I also say remove the attribution to the NYTimes. Despite the efforts of some to pin this on a fringe group of settlers, these actions do have a support from more than just "radical" settlers. Also, given the vast majority of these attacks resulted in no arrests, we dont actually know if these people were "radical" settlers. And what is a radical settler? One who feels justified in destroying Palestinian property, throwing rocks at Palestinian children walking to school, setting dogs on Palestinians harvesting their olive trees? If that is the case, I cant say I see a difference between "radical settlers" and "settlers". nableezy - 15:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's examine the sentences:
(a) The attack followed a series of similar assaults on mosques in the West Bank by arsonists suspected of being radical settlers as part of a campaign known as “price tag,” which seeks to exact a price from local Palestinians for violence against settlers or from Israeli security forces for taking action against illegal construction in Jewish outposts in the West Bank.' (Kershner)
(2) 'The New York Times defines price tag attacks as incidents in which radical Jewish settlers "exact a price from local Palestinians or from the Israeli security forces for any action taken against their settlement enterprise".' (Friedman)
I've noted several times here that Biosketch doesn't construe sentences or use words correctly. He argues:

:To wit, the Kershner, Isabel article that's the source for Friedman's claim only uses the modifier "radical" in describing suspects arrested in one of the incidents. Otherwise, it calls them simply "settlers" or "Jewish settlers." (Biosketch)

Uh, whaa?
Kershner says that the arsonists who torch mosques are suspected of being 'radical settlers'. She nowhere uses the 'modifier' "radical" to refer to suspects arrested in one of the incidents in that article. Arsonists did the job. They may hail from among the radical settler community. Kershner by that is affirming that the radical settlers are suspected of those specific acts of pyromania: she is not denying that radical settlers exist. My confidence in Biosketch's ability to construe what Friedman wrote in synthesizing Kershner's article for his own is below zero.
This is all rather comical, but I've had a good day, so I will waste five minutes here to explain why it's wrong, and why I don't mind if the mistake Biosketch is trying to create sticks or note. Biosketch is challenging Uri Friedman as an (RS) on the NYTimes because Biosketch is asserting his interpretation of Kershner is correct (it isn't) and Friedman's is mistaken. It's news to me that editors can trump their sources by asserting they understand professional journalists better than they understand each other, esp. when Friedman is not 'misrepresenting' anything, he is interpreting Kershner to mean that those who conduct pricetag operations are radical Jewish settlers. Since like many of us, Friedman notes down the way journalists express themselves over time; he googles round when in doubt as to meaning, and is perfectly entitled to construe the sentence in that way, as not attributing acts of violence of this type to all settlers, but to a group which over time Ethan Bronner, and Isabel Kershner have defined, often speaking of pricetag operations, as 'Radical settlers'. Friedman knows, as I do, and Biosketch does not, that Kershner wrote on the same topic 4 months earlier that Arsonists Damage and Deface Mosque in West Bank Village “Price tag” refers to a policy adopted by some radical settlers in which they respond to attempts by the Israeli military to curb their building or other actions with attacks on Palestinians. (New York Times, June 7, 2011). So Friedman's construal is absolutely correct: that is the natural way to construe what Kershner understands to be the agents of those acts she then goes on to define, taking arsonists suspected of being radical settlers to be the people who engage in pricetagging. For they are the people she explicitly fingered for these actions a few months earlier.
What right do wiki editors have to challenge one RS (Friedman), on the grounds that it (Friedman in the Atlantic Wire) is not RS for another RS (The New York Times), when the writer of the second RS, Isabel Kershner has verifiably written up the same definition in a way which corroborates almost word perfectly what the first RS, Friedman, construed her as saying?
I think Biosketch is shooting himself in the foot, as you cleverly suggest. By removing 'radical' we can then 'mispresent' against all the evidence, the New York Times as holding that price tag acts are conducted by settlers generally, and not by a minority. Friedman's words are correct, reflect Kershner's position, which has passed the review of the senior home editors at the NYTs, which has invariably described pricetaggers as a 'radical militant hardcore fringe element of violent settlers' (See (a) Isabel Kershner Radical Settlers Take On Israel NYTs, September 25, 2008;(b)Isabel Kershner Arsonists Damage and Deface Mosque in West Bank Village, New York Times, June 7, 2011; (c)Ethan Bronner, 'Israeli Army Investigates Video of Soldier and Prisoner,' NYTs, October 5, 2010;(d)Ethan Bronner, Amid Statehood Bid, Tensions Simmer in West Bank New York Times, September 23, 2011.)
The record will show that I've always objected to using the word 'Jewish', as opposed to 'Israeli' against The Curious Gnome's insistence. But 'radical' is what 4 NYTs sources say, and a further 30 from other RS repeatedly write. I think attribution is silly as tits on a bull if good editors show commonsense in these instances, but that's why we have this inanity. THere are dozens of sources McClatchy's etc. that corroborate these definitions, and to highlight just two is just publicity for them, when they are not necessarily better than the others.Nishidani (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


Regarding this revert, kindly show me where in the source cited it says that the term "price tag" can be used metaphorically, or where any such linguistic observation is suggested by the author.—Biosketch (talk) 14:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Kindly show me where in my edit I said that the term can be used metaphorically. Also kindly remove my username from the section heading. nableezy - 14:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I withdraw my comment, but this is childish and you know it. You didn't undo my edit as your summary claimed: you removed the editorializing that I objected to in the edit of the previous contributor. In other words, you concede that my objection was valid but won't admit it in your edit summary.—Biosketch (talk) 14:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Article talk pages are for discussing article content. If you would like to discuss a specific user or a specific edit summary I invite you to do so in a more appropriate place. There we can discuss what is childish, what is disruptive, and what is hypocritical. However, here the focus should be on, and only be on, the content of the article. nableezy - 14:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Your invitation is noted and declined. And do note this for future reference: "The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits. If one of your edits has been reverted, and you change it back again, it is good practice to leave an explanation on the talk page and a note in the edit summary that you have done so. The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes. If someone queries one of your edits, make sure you reply with a full, helpful rationale."—Biosketch (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
You have gone well past querying about my edit and into discussing things that are not in any way relevant to the content of the article. Please cease doing so. Comment on content, not on the contributor. nableezy - 15:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
That policy applies to comments of a derogatory nature. I've restrained myself from making any derogatory comments toward you. Kindly restrain yourself from quoted passages that imply I've done so.—Biosketch (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Im sorry, I was not aware that calling another person childish was not of a derogatory nature. It is a simple concept, comment on content, not on the contributor. Please do not continue to ignore that basic policy. Thank you. nableezy - 15:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Biosketch, your revert effectively removed RS on a hairsplitting point, and your tagging of sources several other editors have controlled and accepted, as failing verification cannot be explained except by the presumption you didn't read the sources. Any problem you think you have sighted and detected is best just noted on the talk page, and if action is not taken, or a reasoned reply not given, within a few hours, by all means slap tags on, or even revert. Not to do so, is to just waste editors' time on a page that is closely followed.Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
(2) For assistance on understanding the quite proper use of 'metaphorically' (in my edit) and 'analogous' in my edit-summary, Biosketch, please slowly read the O.E.D. definition:

'The figure of speech in which a name or descriptive term ("price tag policy") is transferred to some object ("government permission to build a settlement, Har Homa") different from, or analogous to, that to which it is properly applicable ("settler violence against the government (or Palestinians)").'

I.e. the term is customarily used of settler violence against the government or Palestinians. SK used it of government 'violence' against Palestinian territory on behalf of settlers. The rhetorical move is one of metaphorical transfer, for ironical effect. Of course if you prefer dull prose, please just persist in thinking that stating the obvious is WP:OR, and of course reread Borges's relevant tale for illumination.Nishidani (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
User:Nableezy, did I call you childish? No. Why then do you insist on continuing these mendacious accusations? I may have characterized your behavior here as childish, though even that's more of an inferential deduction. What's disturbing is that you're still not able to distinguish between comments that characterize your edits and comments that characterize you. In reference to you personally, I haven't disclosed my feelings as to whether I think you're childish or not. If you ask me directly, maybe I will, though I caution you against it since you'll probably not like what I'll have to say. To get to the point then, reverting an edit without indicating that it was a partial revert, seemingly in reprisal for earlier friction between us at another completely unrelated article and seemingly, as another editor put it, to "poke" me, is childish behavior.—Biosketch (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
What is childish is removing an entire edit when you only have a problem with a small part of it. Some might call such a removal agenda driven in a way that strongly suggests advocacy for a political cause. If you had an issue with the simple deductive sentence The phrase may be used analogically sourced to the phrase being used analogically you could have removed that sentence. But you instead, childishly, removed the entire edit on specious grounds. An editor selectively removing content in a manner indicative of a biased agenda is a pattern that needs to be taken stock of and dealt with. Oh, and characterizing someones behavior is in fact commenting on the contributor, not the content. Again, try to stop doing that. Ill be glad to return the favor. nableezy - 14:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
After elucidating your misprisions about what 'metaphorical' is, you now throw to me 'inferential deduction'. An inference is one thing, a deduction another, and in logic the processes are distinct and in some senses antithetical. An inferential deduction is a non-sequitur. I won't call this thing 'childish': but poorly educated grownups would, however, have to stew the brain pan to come up with that kind of phrasal farrago. Nishidani (talk) 13:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I was deliberately ignoring you, which was the appropriate response to what struck me as an exceedingly pretentious oration, and which you ought to have understood from the indentation and "User:Nableezy" at the beginning of my comment. I appreciate your insight into the rules of formal logic, but it's a feature of natural languages – i.e. those not meant for use in communicating with machines – that casual discourse and formal logic don't necessarily overlap. Consult, if it interests you, the scholarly literature on idioms, for example.—Biosketch (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Nice try, but I'm a linguist by profession. You confuse the operation of formal logic, with the words used in natural languages to describe these operations. You ignored the former, and fail to use correctly the latter. To illustrate, if in reading some editor on Quantum Mechanics, I see him using the phrase as if it meant engineers with a spanner and jemmy trying to tinker with a wave-particle duality, then I know he doesn't grasp the meaning of the words he is using. Don't bluff. Just move on.Nishidani (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
You're a linguist by profession? Your edit summary here wasn't particularly professional. Anyway, if you think I'm impressed by titles, that isn't the case – certainly not here. You've made your argument. Whoever thinks I used the expression "inferential deduction" to describe operations of formal logic'll buy your analysis. Whoever subscribes to the more pragmatics-oriented schools of linguistic theory won't. I frankly don't care who does what, so I'll be moving on now, thank you very much.—Biosketch (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Uh, again, 'linguist' isn't a 'title' in natural languages. It describes a profession. The title one would attach to such a profession would be,BA/MA/Phd/Dr etc. 'thank you very much'? My pleasure.Nishidani (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
User:Nableezy, this was the edit summary of the edit I reverted: "Example of it being used analogically for government policy." In other words, the point of the edit and of the source added therein was to illustrate that the expression "price tag" was used "analogically." That observation constituted original research. That you don't deny that the observation was original research makes me doubt the sincerity of your intentions in persisting with this dispute. That you insist on describing an edit that applied the policy of WP:NOR to this article as childish is potentially another matter, but all's I care about is that the OR component of User:Nishidani's edit is now out of the picture. I even appreciate that you cooperated in keeping it out of the picture. Now, had you just summarized your edit honestly as a "partial revert," as is common practice in reverts such as the one you performed, this whole quarrel could have been easily avoided.—Biosketch (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Again, the "quarrel" could have been avoided if you had, instead of mendaciously pretending that the entire edit violated some policy and as such removing it completely, you had just removed the only part of the edit that you apparently take issue with. As for the rest of your comment: wow. Just wow. nableezy - 14:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
What you did, Biosketch, is an example of uncooperative editing. The substance of that edit is a technically unchallengeable reference to Kreimer's opinion. What you might question is the way I introduced it:'It can be used metaphorically.'
Good manners, and correct editing require that you either challenge that on the talk page or remove it as WP:OR. No, you deleted the whole edit, removing the uncontested part from an RS source.
Above all rules, there is commonsense. Look at the definition.

the name given to "acts of random violence aimed at the Palestinian population and Israeli security forces"[1] by radical Israeli Jewish settlers,

The example I introduced does not fit the definition.

According to Sarah Kreimer, Prime Minister Netanyahu constructed the settlement of Har Homa over the Green Line in 1997, 'as a kind of “price tag” for Israel’s withdrawal from parts of Hebron.'[39]

Netanyahu is not a settler. In approving Har Homa he is not engaged in 'random violence' at the Palestinian population. He is not engaged in random violence against the Israeli security forces.
The example given fails the definition.
You would prefer the technical austerity of not introducing this as an anomaly. Commonsense would suggest one call attention to this semantic innovation. My description was correct, and only someone with a very curious sense of what words mean in English could construe the act of calling a spade a spade, a matter of 'original research'. Every alteration in the language of a source in our paraphrases is, in this light, 'original research.'
One can edit towards textual improvement, and one can edit to be a nuisance, which in deleting the Rs because you objected to a snippet of it, is what you did. Good manners go along way- Nishidani (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

List of attacks[edit]

After my recent revert, I have noticed that in fact many of the attacks listed were only suspected price tag attacks, and there is no evidence that these were real price tag attacks (i.e. attacks by Jewish extremists against Arabs or extreme left figures). Adding 'Reported as' to the section does not help it become more neutral. I believe we should only list attacks where it was proven that they were price tag attacks (like the one with the Rabin memorial), although I wouldn't object to adding a section with very prominent suspected price tag attacks (although this is a problem because there are no inclusion criteria, i.e. inherently non-neutral and/or OR). —Ynhockey (Talk) 12:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The attacks are "reported" as price tag attacks. How exactly would we limit the list to "proven" attacks? Many of the attacks resulted in no arrests and certainly no convictions. To limit the list to attacks that the Israeli justice system has seen fit to actually investigate and prosecute would reduce the list to almost none. nableezy - 13:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, yes, that would help the neutrality of the page. This has nothing to do with WP:OR. One can change the header to 'Reported', as a reasonable compromise. One certainly cannot press for the erasure of a huge bunch of incidents reported as 'Price tag' attacks because the investigations are sub iudice and not confirmed as such by an Israeli court of justice. I'm still waiting for some fair-minded editor to reformat the hebrew language sources in order to enable the rest of the world to know what we are citing here, by the way. Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I think both editors are missing the point. The question is how each entry in the list is relevant to the article, which I remind you is Price tag policy. When there is an attack that we know is part of the price tag policy, it's relevant to the article. When there is an attack that we don't know is part of a price tag policy, it's not relevant to the article.
More over, this is not limited to cases under discussion in court. There are some cases where no indictments/charges were filed at all, and it is just as likely that a lawyer and a gang from Jaffa (you get the idea) perpetrated the attacks as an extremist Jewish nationalist. At the very list, even while this discussion is ongoing, we should limit the list to attacks where the police is sure that it was a real price tag attack.
Ynhockey (Talk) 08:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I haven't missed any point. Hey, you've had long service here. You're an administrator. You know the rules. You know that we verify sources, we do not hold material in WP:RS in quarantine from the pages on the basis of the judicially established truth. (WP:V). We have a heading that specifies what the list contains, reported or suspected examples of the Price Tag Policy culled from almost invariably Israeli sources. Your 'truth' criterion (based on what police determine, is not even valid. The police themselves in law do not make determinations, they mount cases, which form an accusation against suspects, which is then taken before a court of law, by the way, where a magistrate makes a ruling.
The problem with the page is not this, but the consistent silence, after repeated requests, for native speakers of Hebrew to work on the many obscure sources in that language, describe them and translate them, in such a way that other editors can see what's going on. So?Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
And since you are an administrator, let me remind you that you are under obligation not to violate WP:OR, nor WP:BLP in the way your link to the Jaffa gang and lawyer (reported on May 19, 2011, i.e., over five months ago) does. You there insinuate a personal inference or suspicion about possible alternative perpetrators, even hazard to finger them. Your views, like mine, should play no role in the way we evaluate sources or determine how a page is to be written. You might consider, for the record, striking that BLP insinuation out.Nishidani (talk) 10:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
What are you talking about? What quarantine? What truth? Who said anything about truth?
My argument is based on no original research. The sources you or others provided do not always say that the incidents are part of a price tag policy, and they also generally state the fact that the involvement of right-wing elements is suspected. It is your original research and WP:SYNTH that links suspected cases to some kind of policy. If no one knows who the perpetrators are, including the authors of the sources, then it is original research to assume that the unknown perpetrators were doing this as part of a "price tag policy". I can't really understand how your argument is related to this point. —Ynhockey (Talk) 12:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Thats a bit overly literal, dont you think? If you really want to take it there I suppose a rename to Price tag attacks would be justified. nableezy - 12:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Ynhockey, you said what I said you said. It's in print, above. Construing English is not that difficult, surely.
Every addition I have made, and Marokwitz has attentively examined them all, contains the word 'price tag' which is reported by the press, the police and the Israeli government, to be examples of the policy the page defines. If they don't please indicate those that fail the test, instead of beating about the bush with a generic assertion that lacks empirical elements to endorse its thesis.
You are, in any case, hairsplitting. There is a policy, by consensus of sources, by the admittance of its theoreticians among the settlers, and many individual incidents of destruction are described as executions of that policy. To try and (To try to, if User:Aetheling is reading) separate policy from its execution is patently ridiculous. It's like asking the One-child policy, economic sanctions, Containment pages to withhold illustrative details. If you think there's some merit, other that emptying the page of ugly details, for the equivocation between "Price tag policy" and reported instances of implemented "Price tag attacks" the best way to get consensus is to take it to a wider wiki forum, and see if neutral non I/P hands can discern a rationale for such a 'jesuitical' cavil.Nishidani (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, I have changed the indentation of your comment to make the structure of the discussion clearer. If your indentation had a purpose that I missed, I apologize in advance.
Regarding the issue at hand: I will try to check every single incident and the relevant sources, although to be honest I have better things to do. The reason I came to this discussion is that I was particularly annoyed by the latest addition, where it was reported in more than one news source that the police has no idea if it's a price tag attack, including: Israel's #1 online news source and 2nd largest print newspaper (English version), Israel's #1 print newspaper (p. 21 bottom-left), Israel's #1 English-language newspaper, both online and print. I suppose I can't fault people for reading Haaretz instead of Israel's leading news sources, but even in Haaretz it doesn't make it clear that only a real price tag act is suspected. I believe that adding this attack as a price tag incident serves a very specific agenda and violates WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH (as I have already stated).
It appears that you addressed the issue I raised only in this sentence:
There is a policy, by consensus of sources, by the admittance of its theoreticians among the settlers, and many individual incidents of destruction are described as executions of that policy.
Can you give me an example from the latest attack you added where it was "by the admittance of its theoreticians among the settlers" described as an execution of that policy ? What about the other incidents? I am sure you can find some where this is true, but this does not make it true for all suspected incidents. As I said, I will go over each article if I have time, but expect you to understand the issue I raised and also check that each entry in the list complies with policy.
Regarding Nableezy's comment: renaming the article would be a good start. It would certainly make some incidents relevant to the title (e.g. the incident at the Rabin memorial, which was an individual act, but proven to be a real price tag attack). However, looking at the biggest picture, it is wrong to try to rename the article in a way that accommodates all the listed incidents. Instead, we should be focusing on listing incidents which are relevant to the underlying topic (which I am sure we all understand well).
Ynhockey (Talk) 21:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
So what would you have happen with actions called "price tag attacks" that are not identified as part of some overarching policy by settlers and their supporters? Just removed, end of story? nableezy - 22:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, we're having trouble communicating. My remarks which you question. ie,. 'by the admittance . . .' refer to the heavily documented page we are editing. Your remarks give me the distinct impression you'd have a Price tag policy page devoid of examples of implementation, reported or suspected. This seems to be the gravamen of, if you will allow, the quibble. What is on this page is absolutely normal for wiki articles on policies, which include examples of implementation. We have gone so far as to describe these events as 'reported' or 'suspected'.
Haaretz now reads. 'According to a Tel Aviv-Jaffa city council member, the phrases "price tag" and "Kahane was right" were scrawled on walls at the location.' I don't question RS sources. If Jack Khoury reports what a Jaffa councillor said was written at the site, I add it. I don't think this was the article I read earlier, but I'll add it now.
I fail to see what you wish to mean by 'agendas', except in the old remark: 'Ideology is what other people think'.
Please don't throw policy clichés my way, unless you can provide a precise analysis that will demonstrate the point. There is nothing of synthesis or original research in paraphrasing RS. Unless you can show I have distorted the sense, it would be sensible to retract that.
I see no issue over Haaretz versus other newspapers. Ynet and Haaretz are RS fullstop. It's that simple. If you have a source that says police doubt it is a pricetag act, put it in.
The argument about retitling is a needless equivocation. It hasn't been challenged by several other policy-cluey editors, including Marokwitz over the past month, and I fail to see why you are so uneasy about it. (ps.we all have better things to do, like reading Proust, or cleaning out the road grids before the rains. But committed editing means being thorough, not just tinkering, even if it costs time better spent elsewhere)Nishidani (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The lead 2[edit]

The lead needs work. It seems that as the article developed, the lead was not updated and condensed. --Shuki (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The simplest way to do this is to past it into a section, and either raise critical issues, or suggest an alternative version, which we can all work on.Nishidani (talk) 23:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

For consideration[edit]

According to a November 2008 report by Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot, security officials recorded 675 cases of violent activity perpetrated by Israeli settlers against Palestinians and Israeli security forces from January to November 2008. These incidents include assault, causing damage to property, trespassing, violating orders, using a weapon, and "causing death." Prosecutors opened 515 of these criminal cases so far this year, an increase of 11 percent from 2007. Of these, 13 involved what the newspaper termed "left wing anarchists," while 502 involved "right wing radicals." The majority of alleged perpetrators were adults with no prior criminal record and were not, as widely assumed, teenagers. Of these, 197 people were jailed and 105 indictments filed, compared to 61 in 2007. Israeli officials are disturbed by the focus on Israel Defense Forces (IDF) personnel involved in dismantling settlement outposts; at times, they are being attacked or held at knifepoint. This violence appears to be 'part of a deliberate campaign by a committed core of fringe settlers to prevent the dismantlement of settlements and outposts. They are using a strategy called the "price tag," which is a retaliation for government efforts challenging the settlement enterprise in the West Bank. Largely perpetrated by members of the "hilltop youth" -- a loosely organized group of belligerent young settlers -- this tactic attempts to pin down troops in various locations by blocking traffic, setting fields on fire, throwing rocks, and other acts of small-scale violence against local Palestinians and members of the Israeli security forces. Matthew Levitt and Becca Wasser, Violence by Extremists in the Jewish Settler Movement: A Rising Challenge, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, November 25, 2008. Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Ordering sections[edit]

My impression is that a 'Reactions' section is normally located after the rest of the detail on the page. Secondly, many if not the majority of 'reactions' are not reactions to the phenomenon but to the incidents concerning mosques, and should be differentiated into general condemnations and condemnations of specific incidents. The major information on the page concerns both the definition of the phenomenon, and its occurrences, and locating the incidents below those of reactions (to a few) seems highly arbitrary. Nishidani (talk) 10:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Unbalanced article[edit]

This article is looking more like a "breaking news" bulletin, updating itself to each verified and non verified event. This is not how a Wikipedia article should look like and there is no need that each incident which are assumed to be "price tag" to be described here. There are journals, television and other means for reading the news, Wikipedia is not supposed to be misused in this way.Tritomex (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree there is a lot of context in each source and should be added to each incident.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Tritomex is correct about the article having been degraded to the level of a breaking news bulletin in a manner inconsistent with Wikipedia's raison d'etre as an encyclopedia, hence I've removed the lists. If someone wants to add the circumstances that provoked each incident, they can always try to get consensus for restoring the lists here.—Biosketch (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
There is absolutely no justification for the wholesale removal of the list of attacks. To address the concern of the list overwhelming the article Ill create a new article List of Israeli price tag attacks. That would be similar to Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel and the lists 2001, 2002–2006, 2007, 2008, 2008 cease-fire, Gaza War, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 or the article List of Palestinian suicide attacks. Holler at me when those are just news bulletins and those articles are misusing Wikipedia. nableezy - 19:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
What's the problem, are you challenging the actual removal or just venting frustration at having to invest two minutes and a few keystrokes to create a new article? Lists, particularly ones that metastasize to the point where they become an article's center of mass instead of actual content, as was the case here, shouldn't be there as they're of marginal or no encyclopedic value. This was the position of User:Tritomex, Shrike offered a reasonable suggestion that no one appeared interested in implementing, and after a few days of no further activity I took a consensus-based initiative and took out what editors felt was problematic in the article. That's all the justification that was required. Your comparison of the other list-themed articles to the one we're talking about here doesn't really make any sense. It would only make sense in a context where your new article was being proposed for deletion.—Biosketch (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
You didnt say the material should be somewhere else, you just removed it. That was my problem. One person not wanting material to be in an article (without offering a policy-based reason for why it should be removed) and you agreeing is not "consensus-based". But no worries, the problem is solved and Id like to try being more positive with you, so please disregard the tone of the first comment. It came after a long flight and upon seeing tens of kB removed from an article. nableezy - 15:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
It's always nice to suggest such a radical move first. A separate article is a good idea. But just reading partway through I found a claim that one incident represented more than one, and the Hebrew language source is a dead link. So let's be more careful. CarolMooreDC 14:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The list should not have been removed without patient discussion. It was, with no section link to the List page then created, so that unless you go to the bottom of the page, you miss the list. and thus the operation neatly buried the corpera delicti. Worse, there is another list that was not removed, the list of Israeli figures, over 20, who ostensibly protested the price tag policy, a list composed predominantly of figures, notable and not, whom the press mentioned as expressing criticism of one, at the most two, specific price tag incidents, to do with mosques. The actual list, given that these sorts of sprayings and assaults occur twice a day, virtually every day of the year, is restricted to those incidents which received major focus in the Israeli press, and it is therefore nonsense to caricature it as a "breaking news bulletin".
When I first looked at the page, there was almost no mention of specific incidents, but a huge showcase of distinguished condemnations from Israeli political, religious figures. It seemed as if the page existed more to illustrate the moral probity of such people, than the facts of price tag assaults. I could have, were I a POV warrior, created a separate page 'List of Israeli figures protesting the price tag policy' and preemptively excised this crap to relocate it elsewhere. No, I supplemented the POV tilt of this name parade by providing a provisory list of incidents, so that it would have at least balance. That balance has disappeared.--Nishidani (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

For those who have trouble construing plain English (nota bene Shrike)[edit]

  • (a)Professor David Assaf, . . broke word of the flier distribution on his blog Oneg Shabbat after his son witnessed the event at the induction center,</blockuopteref>
'to break word of' means to be first to come forth with information on an incident.
  • (b)Assaf's son Mishael . .said they spoke between themselves for a few minutes, handed out the fliers, and left.
I.e. he was there, witnessed a brief distribution, after which the two left the base, (he went home and reported the event to his father who then posted the fact on his blog.)
  • (c)'The Israel Defense Forces issued a statement condemning "any attempt at political propaganda within the framework of the army, on an army base."
Shrike. Your edit, accusing me of a POV violation, had it the army statement condemned the two. You wrote:

The IDF condemned their actions and stopped the distribution of flyers.

::The source has:

The Israel Defense Forces issued a statement condemning "any attempt at political propaganda within the framework of the army, on an army base."

I.e. no mention of a statement condemning their actions', but reference to a principle. I.e. Your WP:OR violation.
  • (d)'The IDF said that apparently a candidate for the Shin Bet security service who had come to the induction center for procedural purposes was responsible for distributing the fliers, without permission from any IDF officials.'
This is an IDF clarification of their investigation into the reported incident, which happened to be first reported on Assaf's blog.
  • (e) Senior officials at the induction center were notified of the incident,
Means that the IDF, when alerted to the incident, notified the officials at the induction center. The IDF therefore acted some time after the incident began or took place.
  • (f) 'and the distribution of fliers was halted.' Gili Cohen's report conflicts with Assaf's son's evidence that the event took place for a few minutes and then stopped when the distributors left.
So the article's time sequence is completely screwed up, as is your reading of it. So do fling POV violation charges my way while (1) making them yourself and (2) misreading the source. Nishidani (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
You didn't included any IDF statement thus there were POV violation.Your second edit introduced [[[WP:OR]] as there is no indication in the source that there are any connection between blog and IDF statement.If you want to include information about the blog I have no objection but its not connected to IDF condemnation--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There is fairly solid backing for moving the article, but there's no consensus to move to the either the proposed title or another alternative. Additionally, it's been shown that the term "price tag policy" is well established in sources on the topic. This close is made prejudice against another RM down the road. Cúchullain t/c 21:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Price tag policyPrice tag attacks – I'm concerned that the current title is incompatible with WP:NPOV, primarily through its use of euphemism. The recognizability part of WP:CRITERIA may also apply, as "price tag policy" sounds like something you'd read at Walmart. Using the -wikipedia qualifier, the proposed title is more common in Google Books (114 to 78) and Scholar (25 to 20), though slightly less common in a general Google search (355k to 492k). Finally, I would argue that this article is really more about a series of attacks than it is about a "policy" of those that commit the violence. BDD (talk) 06:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

So, if euphemism implies a violation of WP:NPOV, then we change all articles on Israeli settlement to Israeli colonization, which is how it is often referred to in the higher scholarly literature on comparative studies?Nishidani (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually a "policy" is something a government arranges and therefore is not random "attacks" by hot headed persons working on their own. But we should use one or the other, because we also have... List of Israeli price tag attacks. Hcobb (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
On the usage of 'policy', no, it is not that simple. Any group or club can establish a 'policy' regarding its internal workings and outsiders. I'm sure BDD is familiar with Melvil Dewey. He set up a club that denied Jews access, and this caused a furore, yet

No one denied the legal right of a private club to set its membership policies,'Richard S. Levy (ed.)Antisemitism: A Historical Encyclopedia of Prejudice and Persecution, ABC-CLIO, 2005, Vol.1 p.174.

'The New York Athletic Club, (was) known to hold anti-Semitic membership policies and to disciminate against African Americans,' Pamela Cooper The American Marathon, Syracuse University Press ‎1999 p.99.

'Most Jews knew about the anti-Semitic rantings of Henry Ford and the limitations policy of Harvard University.' Steven M. Cohen, Gabriel Horenczyk (eds.) ‎National Variations in Jewish Identity: Implications for Jewish Education, SUNY Press 1999 p.160

Small subversive movements develop policies.

'"I do not believe that the policy of the Red Brigades allows for the cold-blooded killing of a man.' Robin Wagner-Pacifici, The Moro Morality Play: Terrorism as Social Drama, ‎ University of Chicago Press ‎1986 p.156

These questions mattered and IRA policy was viewed as something sacrosanct.' Tim Pat Coogan The IRA, ‎Palgrave Macmillan 2002 p.45.(passim)

'their policy of ruin and destruction, divide and conquer, is a gangster policy that will someday be repudiated by the American worker.' Mark McColloch White Collar Workers in Transition: The Boom Years, 1940-1970, Greenwood Publishing Group ‎1983, p.47.

'Yakuza were so incensed at this violation of their long-held "understanding" with authorities that they responded by adopting the so-called Three No's Policy: no police allowed into their offices; no evidence offered or criminals delivered; and no confessions or offering information when arrested.' David E. Kaplan, Alec Dubro,Yakuza: Japan's Criminal Underworld, University of California Press,(2003) 2012 p.151

The term 'price tag policy' is standard usage. It is a 'policy' set forth quite explicitly by settler groups who stated that they would harm Palestinians in retaliation for any government acts that endangered their claims to live on the West Bank, and was bruited around in 2008.
'Settlers: We're launching 'price tag' policy across West Bank,' at Ynet 4 December 2008

Sources in the extreme Right have said that they have launched a "price tag" policy across the West Bank, hurting Palestinian residents and damaging their property in response to the evacuation of the disputed Hebron house.

The change suggested would make the whole concerted series of actions, random, i.e., devoid of a logic in the face of widespread RS testimony that it is planned. Netanyahu himself defined it as a 'concept' and 'approach'. Therefore the change suggested POVs a programmatic set of actions as just, well, repeated happenstance unconnected to anything, reducing it to meaningless vandalism. We even have sources identifying a place like Itamar as the 'epicenter' of the PTP movement.
The list of attacks used to be in the article itself, until it was split off. The article explains the 'policy' behind the attacks which are listed. Nishidani (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  • This is a horrible topic, and I am disgusted after having read it--should not have done this prior to going to sleep, this is going to stick with me tonight. Ugh. After reading it, I still have no idea why on earth these have this name. I only can support move to Terrorism by Israeli youths or some other descriptive title that excludes the words "price tag". Red Slash 05:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The appropriateness of these attacks being called 'terroristic' has been widely discussed in Israeli civil society and within government circles. Many share your view but tireslashers do not normally blow up cities or shoot innocents. In so far as these are symbolic acts to inculcate fear, they inculcate 'terror', but it is dangerous to blur the boundaries. However, wikipedia is about neutrality, and we cannot preempt sources by changing the descriptions the majority of them gives. In Israel's English press as well as in the New York Times, London Times and many other mainstream newspapers it is almost universally known as 'price/tag policy' and that should be the only criterion that dictates our choice here.Nishidani (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I mean, clearly the current title is 100% unacceptable as per nom and "attacks" is better. But it's still a ridiculous title. If Kanye West releases an album called Alphabet and says "this isn't an 'album', it's a 'fashion statement'", we're not going to title the article Alphabet (fashion statement). Even if certain reliable sources do so. This is a horrid metaphor but I am having a deep emotional reaction to acts of violence or destruction intended to cause terror not being called terrorism. In the history of stupid euphemisms, "price tag policy" is right up there at the top. The article doesn't even explain why the name exists. It's stupid, stupid, stupid. This article should be named Terrorism by Israeli youths or some other similar title. Red Slash 01:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
(Let me also say I have nothing against you and no disrespect is intended on a personal level towards you or anyone else here. I do not want to say something I will regret that will cause hurt or offense and so I will probably not respond. I again mean nothing against you personally. Thank you.) Red Slash 01:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
An opinion is all very well. The proposer gave reasons for changes, I provided reasons for retaining the title. Disliking what all the mainstream press says, and collapsing a distinction made by the mainstream press, between poliy and acts executing that policy, boils down to emotional antagonism. The euphemism argument doesn't work, because 'euphemism' is also a POV: what is a targeted assassination for some is state terror for another. Further, because it is a mainstream descriptor, which covers both major terror, petty harassment or minor vandalistic damage to property, it should be accepted. Thirdly, the proposer's argument is a contradiction in terms. A grounds for changing the title is that it is euphemistic. But the proposed change simply elides 'policy'. The euphemism remains. The effect of the proposed change is to insinuate that there is, contrary to what our sources say, no 'policy', and thus the change falsifies the facts. We use many 'euphemisms' in the I/P area, because the mainstream press has adopted them. I gave one instance: I could give many.Nishidani (talk) 12:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The targeted assassination/state terror distinction is a good one, because we would only call something state terror if it were described as such in reliable, independent sources. And such sources do refer to these as attacks (really, I don't think it can be disputed that they are). Just looking at the references in the article, we have Haaretz, The Atlantic, the Associated Press, Reuters, Jerusalem Post, and The Times. And those are only among the first half of references, and those that I could notice without even opening the links. It's hardly euphemistic, or even POV, to refer to these as attacks. --BDD (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
It may be because I've had a long hard week, but I'm having great difficulty in understanding how dropping 'policy' makes this neutral. The only effect I can see in implementing your proposal is the elision of a distinction between (a) a page that sets forth the history of an idea, and Israeli responses to it, and (b) a page which lists attacks. It was originally split to get, I presume, the evidence of the attacks off the policy page, leaving a page which is heavy on one-off critical statements by an assortment of Israeli figures. I've noted this, but not objected to it, though I do believe this kind of thing destabilizes NPOV.Nishidani (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. As a descriptive name, the current title is misleading. It should either be capitalized as a proper name, or preferably given the more accurate descriptive name as proposed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
That's not a policy-based reason. These proposed changes are reviewed by he closing administrator on the basis of the cogency of arguments adduced and the evidence supplied. So far there is no contrary evidence, but a set of opinions, which is not adequate.
This page describes what authoritative sources call a 'policy'. The sister page lists the 'acts' implementing that policy. To rename the policy page 'price tag acts' is to confuse the neat seaparation between the two, created not by myself but by an editor who managed to split the oroginal article. No one objected to his hiving off 'policy' from 'attacks'. Now it is proposed that the policy be called 'attacks'. This is completely irrational and goes in the face of the textual evidence.
  • Sources in the extreme Right have said that they have launched a "price tag" policy across the West Bank, hurting Palestinian residents and damaging their property in response to the evacuation of the disputed Hebron house.Settlers: We're launching 'price tag' policy across West Bank, at Ynet 4 December 2008.

  • It is a euphemism? So? If 'euphemism' is the problem, call it by its real name 'Israeli Settler campaign of terror', as per, the sources that note it is a euphemism:

(a) As part of their "price tag" policy—a euphemism for a campaign of terror—the settlers have for the past two years been intermittently setting fire to mosques in the West Bank,’ Jonathan Cook, [1] Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs Dec 14, 2011.

The IDF identifies the 'euphemism' as referring to 'terrorism'.

(b) [ 'IDF Spokesperson: Settlers' 'price tag' policy is terrorism,'] at Israel Hayom

  • Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday condemned a “price tag” policy initiated by some West Bank settlers, which has led to violent protests as well as attacks on Palestinian property following Israel’s demolition of unauthorized settlement outposts. “The concept of price tags is unacceptable - one cannot take the law into one’s own hands,” the prime minister said during a tour of the Jordan Valley, days after the evacuation of structures at the Havat Gilad outpost sparked violent clashes between security forces and settlers. . . . Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovich echoed Netanyahu's statement and publically condemned the "price tag” policy initiated by some of the West Bank settlers.'Netanyahu: Settlers' Price Tag Policy Is Unacceptable,” Haaretz March 8, 2011

I.e. for Netanyahu it is a concept or an 'approach'. Such doctrines are policies, which are implemented concretely in attacks.
It is referred to as a policy in books
  • ’Some militant settlers, in fac, have formalized this violence in something called the “price tag “ policy. For every Israeli government attempt to restrict settlement growth, they vandalize Palestinian homes, torch Palestinian fields, beat Palestinian men. For every act of law, a little pogrom.’ (p21); (Effie Eitan)’neglected to mention that Yitzhar is the epicentre of the “price tag” policy,’ Peter Beinart, The Crisis of Zionism,, Melbourne University Press, 2012 pp.21,166,217.

  • ‘These radical settlers, . .launched a new tactic called euphemistically “price tag”. This policy is based on the idea that any withdrawal from the West Bank bear a significant cost for Israeli decision makers.'David Khalfa, ‘After the Gaza Withdrawal: The Settlers’ Struggle over the Meaning of the Israeli National Identity,’ ,’ in Elisabeth Marteu (ed.),Civil Organizations and Protest Movements in Israel: Mobilization Around the Israel/Palestinian Conflict, Palgrave Macmillan, 2009 pp.27-51 p.42

  • “The settlers implement a policy which they have termed the 'price tag'”, according to Firas Alami, researcher for Yesh Din.' Cited Lara Jazairi The Road to Olive Farming: Challenge to developing the .economy of olive oil in the West Bank, Oxfam 2010 p.18

  • 'Militant settlers, who often act independently, in defiance of the official settlers leadership, confirmed that a 'price tag' policy exists under which revenge attacks will be carried out against Palestinians every time the government acts to remove outposts.' Jim Zanotti, Israel and the Palestinians: Prospects for a Two-State Solution, 2010 p.36, citing Mark Weiss, ‘Settlers Destroy Trees in the West Bank,’ The Irish Times, July 22, 2009

  • 'They call this the 'price tag' policy.' Raja Shehadeh, Occupation Diaries, ‎2012 p.18 :::*

    'When settlers began to believe that peace negotiations might move toward final-status talks and lead to the abandonment of major settlements, they adopted what has become know as the price tag policy, meaning that they would make Palestinians who lived near a settlement pay for any anti-settlement act-by committing violence against them.’ Moriel Ram and Mark LeVine, ‘Two generaions of Conflict in the Nablus Region,’ in Mark LeVine, Gershon Shafir (eds.)Struggle and Survival in Palestine/Israel, University of California Press 2012 pp.318-336 p.333

The instances from RS can be multipied. Evidence, gentlemen. Not opinions.Nishidani (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Small changes proposal[edit]

The opening of this article is a bit convoluted and I propose a few changes.

1. I am not advocating a name change, but it doesn't make sense to me that it says a "policy" is the name given to "acts of random violence." That simply is not true: the policy is the reasoning behind the attacks, while the attacks themselves are the results. I don't think the policy IS the the attacks, though maybe you can say there is a policy to attack. And to take a slightly different tack, I'm not sure how accurate "policy" is as it connotes an organized set of rules, while it states these are "random" acts of violence. Also, whose policy is this exactly? I don't think we should say that attacks from extremists are derived from a "policy."

2. The attacks are defined multiple times in the lede, and differently. It says, "Price tag attacks now extend to acts of vandalism, suspected to be the work of lone individuals, against the Israeli army and security services, as well as against Christian and Muslim places of worship, and also against leftist institutions." Also, "The price-tag campaign includes attacks on Palestinian villages and property by Israeli settlers as retaliation for attacks on Israeli targets and for government demolition of structures at West Bank settlements and the removal of outposts which are variously described as being either unauthorised or illegal, and in recent years (2012-2013), dozens of such attacks have targeted Christian sites and the Christian community in Jerusalem." (Side note: "dozens" is an exaggeration.) Also, "The 'price tag' incidents include demonstrations, blocking of roads, vandalism of Palestinian property, violent attacks carried out against random Palestinian civilians, burning of mosques and fields, stone throwing, uprooting trees, making incursions into Palestinian villages and land, damaging the property, or injuring members of the Israeli police and the Israeli Defense Forces, and defacing the homes of left-wing activists." This is confusing and unnecessary. These lists are not equivalent.

3. Similarly, this seems repetitive: "retaliation for attacks on Israeli targets and for government demolition of structures at West Bank settlements and the removal of outposts which are variously described as being either unauthorised or illegal," and "The roots of the Price tag policy were traced to the August 2005 dismantling of settlements in the Gaza Strip as part of Israel's unilateral disengagement plan."

And moving on to later parts in the article... 4. The "Support and opposition among Israeli rabbis" section title is a tad ridiculous. The section outlines how every rabbi denounces these attacks ("According to the Israeli journalist Nadav Shragai, there is no Israeli leader or rabbi who openly supports this policy"). It lists multiple Halachic reasons why these attacks are prohibited. So why is this titled "Support and opposition"? As far as I can tell, there is ONLY opposition. So I propose we change these sections to "Reactions of the Israeli public" and "Reactions of Israeli rabbis" (a) to be accurate, (b) to be consistent with the other page titles, and (c) to justify the information that is not directly in opposition (or support) of these attacks, but is related nonetheless (like the book thing).

5. Other problems I have with this section: - The whole part about the book "Torah Hamelech" is unnecessary. First of all, this is a page about the "Price tag policy." This is at most slightly related information, and as such it should either have its own page or be omitted (like any good encyclopedia, not every piece of mildly related info needs to be listed). The link given is broken. When I Googled the book (which I've never heard of, which already tells you something because I would definitely have heard about this if it was actually a big deal), I only found ONE credible news article (from JPost), which does not link this book to the Price Tag attacks (and thus it should be deleted). Also, the book is at best the opinion of a handful of people, and one that has no actual effect on the "Policy" of these settlers. (Clearly they have been doing the violence without Halachic justification.) - Several inconsistencies in the "According to ynet news" paragraph. "Ynet" is capitalized differently here than the rest of the article. Information about the "Od Yosef Chai" yeshiva is repeated unnecessarily. Even the rabbi's name is spelled differently (is it Ginsburgh or Ginsburg?). I suggest just deleting this as well. --Bobjohnson111980 (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Title struck, wikipedia broken[edit]

I just arrived on this article for the first time. I am 'surprised' (astonished really) about the title. Having read the #Requested move above, from last December 14th, I see that there are not enough involved editors who can see, handle & solve the obvious issue, so I deem arguing useless. Given that this arbcom guided RfC produced an lead text written by commission & compromise, help from arbcom is idle.

What remains is another, and another, POV pushed off-title that makes this encyclopedia laughable. And bad. Anyone a suggestion? -DePiep (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I suggest that instead of using negative expostulations you inform the page why the standard use of the term 'price tag policy' in mainstream newspapers like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times shouldn't be reflected in our article. Those conservative papers do not indulge, esp. in this area, with 'POV pushed off-title'(s) , whatever that odd piece of English is supposed to mean. Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
They have a brilliant record on Iraq too. -DePiep (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
And on Palestinians. I have to live with that bias, though I can see constant source bias. Nishidani (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
... but still you name them RS here? Please solve that with yourself first. Then let me remind you that the #Requested move already concluded that the title is wrong despite sources. -DePiep (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No. There was no conclusion that the title is wrong. 'it's been shown that the term "price tag policy" is well established in sources on the topic.' (admin's concluding comment). I don't need to solve or resolve anything. I follow policy, and RS, even if I think they are wrong, because that is the condition under which we are asked to work. Those who object to the name do so in the face of mainstream usage, and have no notable policy to back their argument, so the temptation to change the name tends to become a numbers' game versus a RS-grounded argument-, and policy-based defence (WP:CONSENSUS) of established usage. All I can see is sheer dislike of the fact that this article does not use the same term adopted in the Hebrew wiki article. So what? Nishidani (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2014[edit]

Please change "B'Tselem has documented many acts of this kind,," to "B'Tselem has documented many acts of this kind," (remove the superfluous coma) (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 03:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


Trying to stack further details into the staged incident section violates WP:Undue. Of several hundred incidents, we have several reports of presumed or apparent stagings. So please look at the paragraph size compared to the rest of the article. If there are contested incidents, of which many of these are, then they should be added to the reports on the list page.Nishidani (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


Srugim is described as a ‘an Israeli news website geared toward religious readers,’ (Shoshana Kordova Word of the Day / Srugim: A knitted patchwork of religious Zionists,’ Haaretz 8 June 2014 Like 0404 and HaKol HaYehudi this cannot be used to source facts. The putative fact reported is anomalous since so far I can find no foreign or Israeli English newspaper reporting the shepherd of Majdal Bani Fadil blaming settlers for the death of his flock.

The rule here must be that a report in mainstream newspapers initially claiming a price tag attack, but later challenged as in fact not being so, either done by Palestinians or, in one case, and Israeli, for ulterior purposes, fit the profile of 'staged' attacks. This is not being observed.

I will remove the Srugim hearsay unless a reliable source can be found for it.Nishidani (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Restructure the lead section[edit]


Price tag policy (Hebrew: מדיניות תג מחיר), also known as "Mutual Responsibility" (Arvut Hadadit), also referred to as a "tactic", "strategy", "doctrine", "campaign", or "principle", is the name originally given to acts of vandalism aimed at the Palestinian population, Christians, left-wing Israeli Jews, Arab-Israelis, and the Israel Defense Forces and Israeli police by Jewish fundamentalist settler youths who "exact a price from local Palestinians or from the Israeli security forces for any action taken against their settlement enterprise" according to the New York Times.


Price tag policy (Hebrew: מדיניות תג מחיר), also known as "Mutual Responsibility" (Arvut Hadadit), is the name originally given to acts of vandalism by Jewish fundamentalist settler youths, aimed at the Palestinian population, Christians, left-wing Israeli Jews, Arab-Israelis, and the Israel Defense Forces and Israeli police. The youth claim to "exact a price from local Palestinians or from the Israeli security forces for any action taken against their settlement enterprise" according to the New York Times. The acts also referred to as "tactic", "strategy", "doctrine", "campaign", or "principle".

I think that the current lead section is too messy and consufing, therefore I suggest to put the main idea in the first words and only later the rest. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 09:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Since the lead was arrived at after and during a long edit war, I suggest, if you are not satisfied with it, that you propose an alternative here, which can be discussed and, if appropriate, used to modify the text.Nishidani (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
That is exactly what I did. But since it seems you missed it (not blaming you), I made it clearer. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 15:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for missing that. I've been working on other topics with several smaller window frames open, and from memory, only caught your last comment. Yes, that's fine. I don't think you need attribution to the New York Times, and that could be expunged. I'd rewrite also 'Israeli defense Forces and Israeli police' as 'Israeli security forces', just to cover both for succinctness, but I'll leave that for you to decide, which is better. As far as I'm concerned, you can go ahead and make the alteration. Thanks. Nishidani (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
    • ^ Cite error: The named reference atlantic was invoked but never defined (see the help page).