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

MoSSad Acts of Terror?[edit]

Should'nt there be a section on Mossad Terror? or at least "controversies"? to at least not be to pro-israeli.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Though it's a legitimate question, thanks for revealing your POV intentions. I suggest that you browse through multiple articles at List of intelligence agencies for comparison. Some have controversy sections while many others do not. In the case of this article, the controversies are included within the subsections on the various operations. In some articles, there is a controversies section because the article does not have much information on operations, and most others are stubs. I don't think that the lack of a 'controversy' section implies a clean slate or being 'pro Israel' or 'pro anything'. Please suggest how a separate section would improve the article. --Shuki (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree, the exhaustive list of known operations is the place for any potential issues of controversy. I am not familiar with what ongoing practices of the Mossad are considered "controversial" and this article should not be affected by the Israeli-Arab conflict contentious editing, 1RR and other continual problems. If you have reliable sources for some ongoing practice of the Mossad that is not listed and is controversial, we can include a balanced discussion of it in a new section. POV pushing will cause problems for the article, not get the outcome you want as far as content, and will drive away editors who might otherwise have been willing to help you organise material. As tempting as it may be to attack or libel organisations you dislike, it is extremely disruptive of the effort to build a fair and neutral encyclopedia. This is a good article. I would suggest that it is in the best interest of your apparent POV to leave it as is. Same goes for various other anon commenters above. Obotlig (talk) 07:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It is obvious from the three posts above that each member has their own POV. The OP for believing that article is pro-israeli, Shuki and Obotlig for being easily offended by this. Maybe someone who doesn't have a POV should step in here and answer this one. I myself would not be suitable to answer this as (I can admit that) I have a POV in this issue believing that some of Mossad's actions amount to State-sponsored terrorism. However I would like someone who is emotionally unattached to this topic to weigh in here. Tcla75 (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Many covert intelligence agencies utilize methods that would appear to be terrorist methods. One must then analyze the action to see if it does meet the current definition of terrorism, violence or the credible threat of violence being used to force a nation or society to comply with the wishes of the terrorist. Most Mossand actions do not fit that category, as they were limited scale actions to remove a perceived or real threat. While the action may be controversial, it is not that an unusual thing that is clandestinely done by many intelligence agencies throughout the world. Whether one agrees with it or not, it is what actually goes on on occasion all over the world.Wzrd1 (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Or maybe Wikipedia isn't the place for making such a political assertion as that. Acts of terror are acts of terror, regardless of the agency which committed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of all the Foreign Intelligence Agencies with pages on here, only 7 have a subsection specifically called "controversy" or "controversies". Many of the other agencies (more than half) have differently named subsections that are about negative actions, or very clearly list in specific fashion famous operations of said agency. The Mossad page is one of few others that list their operational history by location or time, rather than by specific incidents. This was likely done because it was easier, but it does give the appearance of "covering up" unpleasantness surrounding Mossad. However, the information is still there, it just isn't immediately obvious from the table of contents. It is my personal opinion that the organization of pages of this small minority be brought to the standard of the rest of the Foreign Intelligence Angecies'. This can be done by making the table of contents more descriptive, no more listing operations by date or location (The mossad page is the only one that uses date to sort operations, oddly). Maybe break operations down by type or make individual pages for notable operations and then make a disambiguation page for them to save space. On a page about a (perceivedly) especially controversial group measures should be taken to make it EXTRA CLEAR that there's no secret JIDF coverup going on. It will save us a lot of time in the long run.Skeletos (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

"Voennaia Rozvedka " +Mossazd+ "turks Diaspor" are over aggressive alliance .This in Western countries hostile act. The truth they are always relativ. His action's explain the repeatedly as "a friendly remedy".WikiUser235657689097 (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I would not call it "Acts of terror" because the language is imprecise and not in general use for intelligence agencies that are U.S. partners, and it would be hard to find WP:RS - but I agree with Skeletos, if there are WP:RS for the "unpleasantness" then making the table of content more descriptive would improve WP:NPOV Seraphimsystem (talk) 08:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 August 2013[edit]

I'm reporting an incorrect translation of Hebrew to English. In section 1.3 Motto, the Hebrew expression בתחבולות תעשה לך מלחמה is alleged to mean , "For by wise counsel...." When the correct meaning is, "By way of deception....." (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. RudolfRed (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Nonsense, הלבחת has no evil or deceitful connotation in and of itself. You impugn the translators of the King James as much as Mossad. Cpsoper (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Alleged operations > Asia > North Korea[edit]

I fixed the substandard reference here - but I still think this should be removed - "Gideon's Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad" is not really a solid source - maybe if there were some leaked intelligence reports it would be something - but that book is speculation which cites even more speculative sources...

Aucampiwan (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done Maybe you're right, Aucampiwan, but it's hard for me to tell. From his Wikipedia bio the author seems to be credible, but then Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself... Perhaps you could start a new thread about this at WP:RSN and see what other editors have to say? If there is a consensus in a discussion there to remove the claims, then please make another request here. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Gideon's Spies is a ripping yarn, full of interesting anecdotes, much taken from loose-lipped former operatives. However even its title shows how careless the author is with details, Gideon had no spies (unless one counts the brief reconnoitre with Phurah in Moreh - why then plural?) - he may be confusing him with Joshua or others. There are other examples where his carelessness can be easily demonstrated from open sources. Cpsoper (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Mossad[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mossad's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Thomas":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 02:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)