Talk:1950–1951 Baghdad bombings

COI?

I've added a COI tag to this article so that a few uninvolved editors are alerted to it - no offence to you both, but you both seem to be very very closely related to this issue, so I'm a little concerned that some unconscious bias may have slipped in. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the article is also taken from copyrighted sources. Remember that you can't simply change a few words when writing articles - it needs to be entirely your own words. Apologies for the hack and slash job, but I don't want to be answering an angry email from someone's lawyers! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of Abbas Shiblak's book

Hmbr has removed the source citing Abbas Shiblak's book (The Lure of Zion: The Case of the Iraqi Jews) from this article on the grounds that Shiblak's publication is not a reliable source. However, Rayyan Al-Shawaf's review of this book in Democratiya magazine says

Shiblak’s book, which deals with the mass immigration of Iraqi Jews to Israel in 1950-51, is important both as one of the few academic studies of the subject as well as a reminder of a time when Jews were an integral part of Iraq and other Arab countries.

.

I am going to restore the citation unless Hmbr has a good reason for doubting the reliability of Shiblak's book. Factomancer (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My bad. Please restore it.--Hmbr (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

POV Check

I've nominated it to be POV Checked, as some content areas are skewed one way, while others could arguably be skewed the other. I have little to no knowledge in the field, so a more specialized editor would be good. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 03:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on your specific concerns? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about NF's concerns, but when I read the original version of the article I was highly troubled by the original editor's wp:undue focus on non-mainstream sources that in essence turns a semi-hoax into a mainstream view.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, some of the focus seemed a little strange, unduly focusing on some non mainstream views. Additionally it focuses on it using those viewpoints, rather than taking a more neutral focus. The possible COI does not help the situation. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 01:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to increase the quality of sourcing. Grateful for views. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Tendentious edits by Hmbr

Hmbr has made a series of edits with the obvious intention of promoting the POV that the bombings were committed by Arab extremists. This goes against scholarly consensus on the issue and is a violation of the WP:NPOV policy. In particularly, his edits of the lede to exclude any point of view other than that of Moshe Gat's is particularly tendentious and a complete contravention of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. I put a lot of effort into writing this article in a neutral fashion and it irritates me to see my work hijacked by someone with an obvious agenda.

The lede should not just represent a single scholar's opinion but should summarize the views of every notable party involved. Let's put the opinion of each party into 3 different categories:

Parties that support Jewish involvement in the bombings

• The Iraqi judiciary
• The British embassy
• Abbas Shiblak
• Naeim Giladi
• Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski
• Wilbur Crane Eveland
• Peter Sluglett - "Shiblak … shows that the bomb attacks in Baghdad against Jewish lives and properties in 1951 were organised by Zionist activists, sent from Israel with the sanction of senior Israeli politicians" p.25 of Shiblak (2005)

Parties that support the testimony of Yehuda Tajar that Yosef Beit-Halahmi organized attacks after his colleagues were arresteds

• Arthur Neslen
• Tom Segev

Parties that are against Jewish involvement in the bombings

• Moshe Gat
• Mossad

Parties that are neutral on the issue

• Rayyan Al-Shawaf

The lede currently presents the views of Moshe Gat and the Mossad (incorrectly described as the views of the Israeli Government), which obviously does not give a balanced view of the subject. Factomancer (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Factomancer had better watch her snide comments, which are not appreciated. Her history as a POV pushing disruptive editor is well documented.--Hmbr (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the article in a highly neutral manner, presenting all points of view fairly including pro and anti-Israeli POVs. You have come along and removed any mention of anything except your pet POV from the lede. All of your edits have been tendentious, an attempt to promote the pro-Israel POV. You're in no position to accuse others of being "disruptive" or "POV pushing" here.Factomancer (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmbr, you cite page 224 in a book that only has 210 pages. What page is this material supposed to be on? nableezy - 18:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)You did not write the article in a neutral manner. Your article read like "the Jews were having a great time in Iraq until the Mossad bombed them, then they all left. some guy thinks the arabs did it but everyone else knows it was the israelis".

Hmbr is also correct about your uncivil interactions with other editors and BATTLE mentality.

Anyway, and to the point, listing every person who wrote his opinion is not what the lead is for. See WP:LEAD. The lead is supposed to summarize. Some people think X, others think Y while still others think Z. That's it. A full list can go in the body of the article.

Some other problems are - Naeim Giladi is not a journalist. He's a guy from Iraq with an opinion. There are no references for some of the people who allegedly support his opinion. What are Shiblak's credentials, by the way? Why does Segev's statement that documentation appears to show that Mossad agents in Baghdad didn't know who was behind the bombings not appear in the article?

I'm a quite busy right now but I plan to correct these problems when I get a chance unless someone else beats me to it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

COI tag

Seeing that Factomancer and a few other editors have existing strong opinions about the Arab-Israeli "two men in one pair of trousers" issue, with edits almost entirely to that particular subject, I've added the COI tag in addition to the neutrality one. 20:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk • contribs)

Strong opinions are not what the COI tag is meant for. Carefully read WP:COI and please cite what in that policy supports you tagging this article with the COI tag. nableezy - 20:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.". I feel that some editors are more interested in advancing their side of the issue, than creating a neutral encyclopaedia piece. You might want to count yourself amongst them, given your userpage - sorry. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No I dont. My userpage contains one userbox that has my own views, and if you wish to discuss that you can go to my user talk page. But having an opinion on issue does not mean that somebody has a COI. Try that line at the COI/N and see if that gets you anything but a few laughs. Having a connection to the involved parties, having a fiduciary responsibility related to the issue, those are COI issues. Knowing something or having an opinion is not. nableezy - 21:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, then other people do. Either way, I think we can both agree that there're high feelings here on both sides, and someone has a COI. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The first part, yes I agree. I do not agree that means there is a conflict of interest. If that was all that was needed to demonstrate a COI then nearly every page in many different topics would have that tag. The COI tag is to be used in specific instances, having a POV is not equivalent to having a COI. nableezy - 22:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree with CML. A SPA with a clear POV is indicative of a COI (forgive all the acronyms). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

How? nableezy - 01:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

An account created for the sole purpose of writing an article that they then exert heavy POV into could be seen as likely having a COI by some editors. While I don't agree 100%, there is admittedly a certain amount of truth to it. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 01:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

A POV tag covers that. nableezy - 01:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

According to that logic, the whole COI tag is redundant because of the POV tag. POV and COI are two different beasts. POV goes to content and COI goes to the author. While they overlap at times, each of them covers something the other is lacking. The COI tag warns the reader to look out for weasel-wording and other hidden POV's that an experienced author with a clear conflict to the subject may have snuck in to the article. The POV tag just tells the reader to watch out for clear POV-problems, but does not insinuate any sneaky editing by any editors. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the COI tag is for when a user who has some outside involvement with the issues has influenced the content of an article. An example would be me editing a page about myself, or my company, or my company's competitors. Just having an opinion is not a COI. Can you say what the COI is with any of the editors here? What outside involvement do they have with this topic? nableezy - 02:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, COI is when they are involved with a topic. However, a SPA that works with heavy POV on a specific article with little interest regarding other areas could be seen as quite possibly having a connection to the topic. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote!

We need to either a) remove the COI tag or b) add a COI flag to every article covered by the discretionary sanctions because every single one of those articles meets the criteria being used here to tag this as COI. The issue here is NPOV compliance not COI. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

NativeForeigner: Which SPA is that? The one that created Ommatoiulus moreletii and OPV AIDS hypothesis? The one that rewrote Weak reference and State space (controls) to a decent condition? Either give proof or retract your claim that I am a "single purpose account". I created this article to contribute to Wikipedia, taking great pains to be neutral; to have my efforts thrown in my face by ignorant spectators like this is frustrating and disappointing.

And this is a blatant misuse of the COI tag, as no real conflict on interest has been suggested. Everyone on Wikipedia has a POV and that is not the same thing as a COI. Chase me ladies etc etc also incorrectly removed a great deal of material from this article as copyrighted; he seems to be on some kind of a campaign against me or this article. I am going to take this dispute to RFC; he definitely needs to be de-admined if this is his idea of using tags. Factomancer (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is a misuse of the COI template, if you are that concerned CMLITC I suggest that you seek assistance at WP:COIN. Unomi (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Heck, I didn't agree with the tagging. I merely pointed out the reason the tag was placed. Although this shouldn't be the subject of discussion, I would like to point out none of the SPAs expressed their views through strong views when writing those articles, and there is no need to be WP:POINTy Nor do I wish to throw your efforts in your face. Nor do I even claim that you are an SPA. I merely responded to Brewcrewer and his critics in a theoretical way, to make a point that Brewcrewer's points do indeed have uses in certain publications. Again, as stated above, I don't understand this topic very well, and am not making any judgements, just that some of the aspects of hte article seem to be a bit overemphasized in compared to others which could come across as violating NPOV. Note that I did not tag the page for COI. If you have any quesitons feel free to query me on my talk. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 04:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have gone to WP:ANI about Chase me ladies behaviour, which I believe is unacceptable for an admin. Factomancer (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Now why on earth would you do that? This can be dealt with without drama. nableezy - 04:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Please consider this line at the header of WP:ANI: Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 04:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I did attempt to discuss the copyright issue on their talk page; they ignored me. Regardless I have decided against pushing the issue for now. If they continue to restore the COI tag I will ask for outside assistance, because they are clearly wrong. Factomancer (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't agree with the COI tag either. I can't imagine many people having a COI regarding 60 year old incidents. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Misleading tag

This tag must be removed unless specific factual problems are listed below. Using this tag to sabotage this article because it disagrees with your POV is unacceptable behaviour, Brewcrewer. Factomancer (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

They won't be listed below, because they have been well-amplified above. Please don't edit-war, especially against a consensus, Factsomanser.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the discussion above is about COI. It has nothing to do with specific factual problems. If its so obvious to you what they are it shouldn't be difficult to list them below. Of course since you are simply being disruptive and trying to sabotage this article and not improve it, you won't.Factomancer (talk) 04:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Giladi is not a RS

<comment by sock of banned editor redacted>

After reading the article on Wikipedia. (A real RS...) it seems he was very Anti-Zionist, and should not be used as a factual reference. Citing his opinion, and writing on it in context seems much more reasonable. I'll look into it some more. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 04:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I share SK's concerns, and also note the WP:UNDUE reliance on Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski, who in the best case scenario, can claim expertise in Polish history. AFAIK, this conspiracy theory has yet to engulf anything related to Poland.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What is striking is that he started out as an activist zionist, and only later became critical of the GOI. Unomi (talk) 04:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

<comment by sock of banned editor redacted>

Yea, I would also tend to agree he's not an RS, though his opposition can be noted -- without making references to his own fringe claims. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Pogonowski article not RS

I would argue that Pogonowski's article, "Jews killed Jews to create the state of Israel," is not an RS either. He makes WP:Fringe claims, summed up in the last paragraph: Thus, according to Naeim Giladi “Jews killed Jews to create the state of Israel,” the author of the book: “Ben-Gurion’s Scandals: How The Haganah and Mossad Eliminated Jews.” Provides ample proof for that statement. In the process of creating, enlarging and consolidating the state of Israel more than million two hundred thousand Jews were cruelly and brutally driven by terror from their homes in Europe and in the Middle East. This was planned and done in order to create a Jewish state in Palestine at the expense of the Palestinian Arabs."

Such a fringe piece does not belong as a source. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski is a mainstream historian who has published popular works on Polish history and the history of Jewry. Your personal judgement of him as a fringe figure is not reflected in his biography or any reliable sources and as such is original research, I am afraid. Factomancer (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight toward fringe claims

There "responsibility" section is absurdly weighed toward fringe claims that Israel itself was responsible for those bombings. This must be addressed. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing fringe about those claims which have been supported by mainstream academics (e.g. Abbas Shiblak of Oxford), the British embassy at the time, and a multitude of involved figures from CIA agents to Iraqi Jews. In fact, even one of the Zionist activists convicted of the bombings, Yehuda Tager/Tajar, has admitted that Zionists were culpable for at least some of the bombings. Factomancer (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You see whatever you want to see in the source. Tager mentions a wholly different set of bombings. Not a set of bombings against Jewish targets. Yaaaaaaaaawn. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler, your removal of the description of the relevant research of an Oxford historian on the grounds that is a "fringe claim" is truly biased and indefensible ([1]). I intend to follow this up at the appropriate noticeboard if you continue this disruptive and contra-policy attempt to whitewash the article of anything you deem to be anti-Zionist. Factomancer (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Factsontheground, you seem to have difficulty understanding the Wikipedia policy WP:Undue weight. You have placed an overwhelming amount of information, tendentiously leading readers to the conclusion to the contentious claim that Zionist agents were responsible for the bombings, with very few opposing viewpoints. I ran into the same problem with you on the Martin Kramer article in which you decided to push the tendentious point that he advocated "genocidal policies." WP:Undue isn't about whether the information comes from an WP:RS, but the balance of sources, of which this quite inadequate. I recommend you review the policy before screaming bloody murder again. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

So have you or have you not conceded that I was correct that Abbas Shiblak's book is not a fringe source?

As for your claim that my edits have been tendentious, when I originally wrote this article ([2]) I included Moshe Gat's argument and Mendes and gave their claims the same amount of space as the sources that claimed Zionists were culpable. Unlike the pro-Zionist editors who have edited this article I did not try and remove one side of the debate entirely and made it clear that the claims were still a matter of dispute. There simply aren't many sources that claim that the Zionists weren't culpable apart from Gat and Hmbr and yourself still haven't added any additional pro-Zionist sources. So, rather than being tendentious I went to a great deal of effort to write a neutral article that gave both sides equal weight. It's a shame that the pro-Zionist editors working on this article can't manage the same commitment to NPOV.

By the way, accusing a fellow editor of "screaming bloody murder" is a personal attack. Please redact it. Factomancer (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. Not any more so than accusing a fellow editor of being pro-Zionist (that's an insult now, didn't you know?) or unable to "manage the same commitment to NPOV". Give WP:AGF a try. It's not a hard concept to grasp. Breein1007 (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

A factual and truthful description of a fellow editors' behaviour is not a PA. Truth is an absolute defence against claims of a PA. Dishonestly mischaracterizing an editors civil comments as shrill and "screaming" is, since it cannot be defended as a truthful statement. Factomancer (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Calling someone pro-Zionist is a personal attack, and I suggest you redact it. And truth is a funny thing. That's the end of my discussing this matter. Thanks, Breein1007 (talk) 06:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Your concession of this point is welcome. Thank you. Factomancer (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Just because somebody doesn't agree with your POV on I/P articles doesn't make them "pro-Zionist." In addition, don't call me that again as you implicitly employ it as a slur. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Move to Persecution of Jews in Iraq

<comment by sock of banned editor redacted>

This article has too much material to be a section. However it would make a good "spin-off" article for a summary section in Persecution of Jews in Iraq. Factomancer (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Some small points

• Firstly; this article is presently obviously still a work "in progress", therefore, too remove sourced material with the reason given as "Undue weight" is simply premature. Let us collect all sources (which satisfy WP:RS) and when *that* work is done: then we can see what is undue. Therefor: I am going to reintroduce material which was removed, citing such reasons.
• Secondly; about the article; should we not move the "Background" -section to the beginning? I personally always like articles to describe events in the order they happened.
• Thirdly, twice the article refer to the Israeli 1960-commission, but once it is called "a 1960 inquiry by the Mossad", another time it is called "a 1960 investigation committee appointed by David Ben Gurion". In fact; it was only one inquiry, (with Mossad/Shin Bet people appointed by Ben-Gurion). It is described in detail in the Morris-book (Israel´s secret wars), p 85-95. I wonder if we should not have subsection on that? ..as a lot of what came later (Meir-Glitzenstein ets) AFAIK just basically reiterates the results of the 1960 inquiry. Regards, Huldra (talk) 07:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Neslen

The article said:

Arthur Neslen's recently published book "Occupied Minds" contains an interview with the convicted bomber Yehuda Tajar in which he reveals that fellow Mossad agent Yosef Beit-Halahmi organized attacks after his colleagues were arrested in order to cast doubt on their guilt.

While the source says that Neslen says Tager says Beit-Halahmi's widow said Halahmi speculated that, if a bomb were thrown, it would exculpate the falsely-imprisoned Jews.

I removed this gross misrepresentation of the source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 07:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don´t have the book available just now, only the Segov-article...which you, User:No More Mr Nice Guy, are not representing quite correctly. Nowhere is the word "speculated" used. I suggest that we stick to the wording of the article, something like:

Arthur Neslen's recently published book "Occupied Minds" contains an interview with the convicted bomber Yehuda Tajar in which he recalls a conversation with the widow of Beit-Halahmi, a fellow Mossad agent. She implied that Beit-Halahmi, on his own initiative, and without orders from Israel, organized attacks after his colleagues were arrested in order to cast doubt on their guilt.

Cheers, Huldra (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That works. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Expert tag

NativeForeigner, can you explain why you added the expert tag? The material is pretty well cited and I think we've reached an acceptable balance between the various points of view. Factomancer (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to remove. It's good that it's come together, but at the time of the tagging quite a few edits ago there were issues and quite honestly little progress was being made. Now that it's been resolved I'll remove it. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 02:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Now all we need to do is resolve the supposed NPOV issues. Can the person who added that tag please list the issues below? Factomancer (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe it was me as well. However, others such as brewcrewer had similar concerns, and I tagged it realizing that COI probably wasn't ideal. Others had more sever concerns than I. I'm not the one to talk to. If other users on the talk page establish consensus that it is neutral, then by all means remove it. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs/^Vote! 03:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Pogonowski

The Pogonowski reference is a self-published site. Can anyone show that his "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" per WP:RS? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Right. This has been discussed in numerous threads above. There seems to be a clear consensus that he is not reliable for this subject. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Truth. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If nobody is going to explain how Pogonowski is a RS here, I'll remove all the content that's sourced to him. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to be correct (however, the same rule would take out much of, say, Jewish Virtual Library, would´t it?). Having said that; I´ll ask you *not* to remove what is sourced to him, but instead put a "citation needed"-tag. If a "proper" citation is not forthcoming in the near future; *then* we can remove it. I believe that is normal procedure, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Huldra. Anything not contentious can stay in the article for the time being with a CN tag. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this correct?

<comment by sock of banned editor redacted>

Photos

I found a couple of relevant photos on random sites on the web. [3] [4]

I have no idea what to do to get them on wikipedia, so if anyone's interested... No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That second link was interesting: Scroll down to the section "Einstein: Jewish Refugee Camps a Disgrace"...but the picture is ......almost garanteed- from a Palestinian refugee camp...as that women is using a Palestinian costume..look at the "Quabbeh" (=front-piece) of the dress. I have worked enough over at the Palestinian costume-article +been looking at the Jewish costumes in Arab countries, to know the difference... Not really a WP:RS, is it? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that picture. I'm not sure Palestinian women were the only ones in the Middle East to use dresses with embroidery on the front, but really I'm no expert and that's not the photo I thought relevant for this article. I was thinking about the one titled "Baghdad Jews register to leave for Israel". No, it's not an RS by any stretch, but a photo is a photo. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You are quite right: Palestinian women were not the only ones who used dresses with embroidery on the front...Some Jordanian, and other groups did the same. But *never* Jewish, AFAIK. And I have read quite a bit about it. (By the way: the Jewish women in some of the Arabic states (pre-1948) had very distinct & interesting dresses, and I have been surprised that no more research has been done into about them -but that is another matter.) Anyway, I will say with 99.9 % certainty (I am virtually never 100% certain about anything;) ) -that dress is Palestinian. Look at the V-form of the embroidery...I would guess the lady is from the District of Ramla-area...As for the rest (pictures): I have no knowledge of copy-rights...sorry, cheers, Huldra (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Picture

I don't care that much, but the background section specifically speaks of Operation Ezra and Nehemiah, which the picture I added is relevant to. The section it's in now is something general about emigration. Thoughts? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"controversially"

Here are some of the sources for saying that a Zionist underground movement was responsible for these bombings:

• Morris, Benny (1992), Israel's Secret Wars: A History of Israel's Intelligence Services, Grove Weidenfeld p. 91

  Wilbur Crane Everland, a former advisor to the CIA who was in Iraq at the time, later gave a classic expression to this view ... "Just after I arrived in Baghdad, an Israeli citizen had been recognized ... his interrogation led to the discovery of fifteen arms caches brought into Iraq by the underground Zionist movement. In an attempt to portray the Iraqis as anti-American and to terrorize the Jews, the Zionists planted bombs in the US Information Service library and synagogues.

• Tessler, Mark (1994), A History of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Indiana University Press p. 310

  A number of bomb attacks were directed at Iraqi Jewish targets during 1950 and 1951, while the evacuation was taking place, and Iraqi authorities and some foreign observers charge that these attacks were the work of an underground Zionist network seeking to frighten local Jews into leaving for Israel. Although Israeli spokesmen deny these allegations, they have received some support from recent archival research.

Why exactly is it "controversial" that some people have blamed a Zionist underground movement for the attacks yet it is simply an assignment of blame that anti-Jewish Arab extremists were responsible? nableezy - 03:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "controversially" is the right word to use. Why? Because the author himself is controversial: "Morris himself is a controversial figure in the conflict over the conflict" (scroll down to the review from "The Washington Post")."Controversial" authors write "controversial" books. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Benny Morris is one of the best sources on early Israeli history. I can find a source calling pretty much anybody "controversial" (and you skipped the next paragraph of that review which says "Despite his personal views, Morris strives to give a balanced view of the conflict"). And he is reporting what Everland said. And Tessler's book is published by a university press and says there is support in the archives for the view that the bombs were planted by an underground Zionist movement. And a number of sources also bring up some of the acts of terrorism committed by Zionist groups across the Arab world as analogous to these attacks, such as the Lavon Affair in which Israeli agents planted bombs in a number of sites in a failed false-flag mission. Could you please explain to me why the view that the Arabs planted the bombs is not "controversial" while the view that Zionists did so is? nableezy - 14:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Wilbur Crane Eveland was a friend of a double (Soviet) agent Kim Philby. This fact actually ruined Eveland's career in CIA, and IMO makes his statements not very reliable.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No it does not, but either way there are plenty of sources saying that a Zionist group was responsible for these bombings. Could you please explain why it is "controversial" to accuse a Zionist group of being responsible but not "controversial" to accuse an Arab group of being responsible? nableezy - 17:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, as with any crime, the first question to ask in order to find out who did it is: "Who benefited from that crime". As it is explained at the page 19 Israelis had no need to speed up the emigration at all, while on the other hand as it is stated at the page 20 of the same source, there were lots of attacks against Jewish targets made by Arabs.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There actually was a reason to speed up the emigration of Iraqi Jews, the law that allowed for their emigration to Israel if they gave up their Iraqi citizenship had a deadline. And yes, there were attacks by Arabs on Jews, but there were also false flag missions by Jews attempting to portray the Arabs as anti-Jewish and anti-American/British. But nobody has yet answered my main question. Why is it "controversial" to accuse a Zionist group of planting these bombs and not "controversial" to accuse an Arab group? I do thank you for engaging on the issue, whereas the two people who reinserted that phrasing have yet to make an appearance. nableezy - 19:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Did Morris say that this is what happened or that this is what Eveland said happened? There's a pretty big difference. I'm a little busy today but I assure you I intend to engage on the issue. I didn't know we had a deadline to respond here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Morris says that Eveland says that. And Tessler says that there is evidence for that. And in your revert you say pending discussion on talk. A discussion on talk was opened 10 hours prior to your revert, yet you felt no need to explain it at the time. nableezy - 20:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe restoring the longstanding version while discussion is going on is pretty common around here (see BRD for example). In fact, I seem to recall that's what you personally do when you prefer the longstanding version to a new one. Consistency, etc. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if you actually discuss the content, which so far you have failed to do. Not just revert and say "pending talk" without going to talk. You have yet to provide a reason for your revert. nableezy - 13:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

POV-check tag

Anyone object to removing this tag? If you do, please state specific problems. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Reverting

I am reverting NPz1's edit. This is not meant to show my approval or disapproval of the edit but it was clearly in breech of 1/rr and BRD is good. Since another editor mentioned poisining the well in an edit summary it means it is time to use the talk page. Please feel free to contribute after your block.Cptnono (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up: Second one. Oops. Already reverted by someone else.Cptnono (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

PlotSpoiler revert

Plotspoiler, please explain your revert in detail. You have removed a number of high quality sources. The lead is very clear that culpability is both disputed and unknown, so your edit comment is meaningless.

Oncenawhile (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I have partially reverted your revert, but adding back only the tidy-ups and additional description and sources in the body of the article. This is on the assumption that the parts you did not like were (a) the amendments to the lead, (b) the reordering throughout of the Israeli culpability ahead of the Iraqi culpability. This should make for a more focused discussion. I am looking forward to your detailed explanation. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Onceinawhile: As you have unfortunately done in the past, you rewrote the entire article with your typical POV of minimize-destruction-to-Jews while-blaming-the-Zionists. You did not make any edits to the talk page until now where you demand that others explain their reverts. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

What destruction was minimized? Please be specific. And where does the article conclude who is to blame? Again, please be specific.

We can't move forward unless it's clear what you don't like.

Oncenawhile (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's one diff [5] where you add like 7 quotes pertaining to the alleged Israeli involvement but could not find any quotes in connection with the alleged Iraqi involvement. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

This is just horrendous WP:tendentious editing. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

You have misread it - that was only half an edit. You can see the full edit by combining it with the subsequent edit [6]. As can be seen, this is adding only 3 new areas, giving Gat's description of what the victims believed, the views of the Iraqi policemen interviewed in the trial, and the view of Shimon Mendes which provides another angle not already covered. The rest were just additions to pre-existing sources, and one paragraph move.

I agree we should add more substance to the "alleged Iraqi involvement" section actually relating to the topic of that section. I haven't seen much yet but we should provide detail on all sides of the debate. The issue we have with that section is, if you bother to read it, it currently provides almost no information on the "alleged Iraqi involvement", but instead just refutes the "alleged Israeli involvement", which is not the same thing. Hence my proposal to reorder it - it doesn't make sense the way round we show it, as we refute the claims before explaining them (which is also, of course, inconsistent with the order in which our WP:RS discuss the topic).

Can you please provide constructive comments on why you don't like the lead I proposed so we can move forward? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I have gone through the sources again to double check that my editing was balanced, in light of your concerns. I read both Gat and Meir-Glitzenstein, our two main sources who do not lean towards suggesting Israeli involvement. Both of those works start with explaining the allegations, and then refute them. Neither begin with "alleged Iraqi involvement" and follow it with "and by the way some crazies suggested the Israelis were involved". We should also note that Gat and Meir-Glitzenstein's conclusions appear to be in the minority, when considering scholars who have considered this topic in detail. So, Plot Spoiler / Brewcrewer, have I missed something and if so can you justify (based on WP:RS) putting "alleged Iraqi involvement" ahead of "alleged Israeli involvement"? Oncenawhile (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Here are some more sources which follow this same theme: Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora, Quigley, Marqusee. Again, if you think that explaining the allegations against Israel first is not representative of WP:RS, then you need to actually provide some sources which support your position. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the order after a week of silence. I haven't changed the lead - we can discuss below. Oncenawhile (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed amendments to lead

The lead does not adequately summarise the article, and puts undue weight on the allegations against "Arab extremists". All our sources spend the vast majority of text space debating whether or not Israeli agents were behind the bombings, with only a small amount devoted to who else might have been behind it. I have no view as to "whodunnit", as frankly it is not our place to speculate. We should simply follow the weighting of the sources. My proposed rewrite of the two main paragraphs is below.

The question of who was to blame for the attacks has drawn considerable disagreement. Whilst the alleged involvement of Israeli agents has "wide consensus" amongst Iraqi Jews[ref name=GatBelief/] and was viewed as "more plausible than most" by the British Foreign Office,[ref name=BritEmb/] such involvement has been consistently denied by the Israeli government, even following the 2005 admission of the Lavon affair. Historians also differ on assigning responsibility, with some assigning responsibility for the bombings to anti-Jewish Arab extremists while others charge a Zionist extremist underground movement of carrying out the attacks in order to encourage Iraqi Jews to immigrate to Israel.

The question of who was to blame for the attacks has drawn considerable disagreement. Some historians assign responsibility for the bombings to an Israeli or Iraqi Zionist underground movement in order to encourage Iraqi Jews to immigrate to Israel, while other historians blame the bombings on anti-Jewish Arab extremists.

Two suspected Iraqi Jews were found guilty by an Iraqi court for the bombing, and were sentenced to death. Another was sentenced to life imprisonment and seventeen more were given long prison sentences.[ref name=Morris91/] There have been calls to honor the two executed Jews, Shalom Salah Shalom and Yosef Ibrahim Basri, "whose names should be remembered alongside those who gave their lives for the country."[ref name=Mendes]

User:Brewcrewer and User:Plot Spoiler, could you please let me know your thoughts? Oncenawhile (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)