Talk:Shin Bet

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

Lack of References[edit]

People, this page may have a lot of good information, but we definitely need more sources/citations. Entire passages should be deleted if we can't find the sources, especially when it comes to legal and historical issues. Mg196 16:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"and even one Al-Qaeda linkman (Iad Al-Bik)"

What is a "linkman"? OneVoice 20:08, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I assume a linkman would be someone with a link to something.

A linkman is a man whoes job is to coordinate the reationships between two organizations. Most often, he is an "ambassador" of one of the organizations who is sent to the second organizations as a representative and address for messages. MathKnight 22:34, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article contains many grammatical errors and poor English

"Rabin pictures in SS uniforms." This must refer to some incident, but it's completely unclear what. Real pictures? Faked? Provocations? needs some explanation. 02:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The picture, was of cource, photoshoped. It was used to compare Rabin to a Nazi and thus delegitimate him. MathKnight 07:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shin Bet is a mistake[edit]

Shin Bet is a mistake. The real name is Shabak. It used to be called Shin Bet 50 years ago.

I abseloutly agree, though the name Shin Bet or GSS is the common in foreign press. I'll move the article to its proper name. MathKnight 21:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

So should it be SHABAK or Shabak? Let me know and I'll move it. violet/riga (t) 19:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

It should be SHABAK - since it an accroynmous in Hebrew (unlike in English, Hebrew abbervation are pronounced with vowels). Thanks. MathKnight 20:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it should be Shabak (not SHABAK) - and the page should also be changed to Shabak.

Isn't it Wikipedia policy to name articles by the most common term used in English? Is "Shabak" more common than "Shin Bet" in English texts? It appears not to be, even this article says "known in English as the Shin Bet".--Doron 12:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, it's been a long time with no responce so I 'boldly' changed it Epson291 14:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference between what is a "most common term" and what is the "correct" term. "Shin-Bet" may be popular, but that is simply not its proper name. Mg196 15:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, the entire article cites "SHABAK," and the sources refer to "SHABAK." Mg196 15:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
You are incorrect on Wikipedia policy, read WP:NAME. For example the country Myanmar, redirects, to Burma, its former name, because its the most common name used in the English speaking press/world, just as it is with Shin Bet. (I agree Shabat is the offical term today, but English media, whether in the U.S., U.K., or the English dailies in Israel, use Shin Bet.)
A simple Google tests shows the large difference.
A search for "Shin bet" -"Shabak" returns 331,000 results
Where as, as search for "Shabak" -"Shin bet" returns only 131,000 results
Similarly a Google news test shows only 15 results for Shabak, and sources from Italy, Turkey, Pakistan whereas for "Shin Bet" -Shabak, 91 results are returned, including Israeli sources, Ha'aretz, Ynetnews (Yedioth Ahronoth), Jerusalem Post, and others, TIME, and the Associated Press.
Read WP:NAME that it is the most popular name, not necessarily the one thats the most "official" or "proper". Epson291 06:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
As well, contrary to your claim, all the links provided at the bottom of the page, say "Shin Bet" NOT "Shabak" except for the Israeli offical homepage, which is entirely in Hebrew. Epson291 07:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

SHABAK on its English home page gives it as Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) Sorry keep forgetting to sign.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The service consists of close to 5,000 employees[edit]

"The service consists of close to 5,000 employees". An anonymous editor has added this. Is there any source for this claim? Jayjg (talk) 3 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)

I don't think their should be a source for this kind of claims. Anyway, without attribution to "reliable" source, this data should be deleted. MathKnight 3 July 2005 10:55 (UTC)


This is all mere speculation. No secret service ever reveals their questioning techniques. Everything written re the 'shabak technique' is merely hearsay and has not enough concrete evidence to warrant inclusion in this article.

As noted, quite a bit has been revealed due to related Supreme Court cases. Even apart from that, claims supported by extensive research by several human-rights organizations deserved to be included (as claims, naturally). --Zero 04:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
As long as there are legit sources, I have no issues w/ Zero's comment. Though the term "SHABAK Technique" sounds a bit contrived. I am guessing in Israel they call it the "CIA Technique?!" Mg196 16:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Krushchev's Speech[edit]

The fact that Shabak and not Mossad were responsible for getting a copy of Krushchev's speech has been known for quite a while, but now for the first time some of the insiders have told their version of the story to Haaretz. See [1] and [2]. I didn't add these links to the article because links to Haaretz always go dead after a few weeks. Maybe someone else will post the articles on the web more permanently so we can link to those. --Zero 04:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

not a NPOV statement[edit]

This is the quote in the passage: (in regard to Shin Bet monitoring pro-Soviet groups in Israel)

"Today, this kind of activity is considered harmful to democracy."

from who's point of view?


I think a transliteration of מגן ולא יראה would be helpful and interesting, in addition to the translation. LordAmeth 06:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

'Magen V'lo Yerah' literary means 'defender and unseeable' implying a warrior draped in invisible cloak. Mkobi 07:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC) mkobi

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose a merger of the page Shabak_technique with Criticism section of this page. The textual content of the separate page is almost identical to the content of the Criticism section. No further or better information is conveyed by the separate page, which is itself a stub. The information provided in the Criticism section is more fully referenced.Khavakoz 09:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Israel Security Agency[edit]

The official English name of the Shin Bet, according to its official website, Israel Security Agency (ISA) is missing in this article. I Think it has to be mentioned. (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

More Wikipedia one-sided hogwash[edit]

I think Wikipedia's editors no longer can tell the forest from the trees, when it comes to objectivity and factual information. When you repeat ad nauseam charges and allegations made by 'human rights organizations', it is normally considered good practice to include the replies or rebuttals made by the side which is being accused. As usual, Israel is constantly "in the dock", and guilty until proven innocent in Wikipedia. Pity. ---Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Raviv and the SS incident[edit]

The issue of Avishai Raviv is mentioned as well as the embarrassment it caused, but there is no particular reason to mention the SS picture. First it is hardly the most controversial thing he was involved with - he physically attacked an MK and student union chairs and whether he incited Amir as well as report as he should. In the SS case he did not even create the image. So describing this gives it undue weight and is misleading in several respects. Also the source is inappropriate (some article from the middle of the trial which wasn't even concerned with this issue). Mashkin (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Peculiar that you claim that the NY Times is an inappropriate source? At least bring another source refuting what is printed in black and white for all to see. And where is your source that he did not fabricate the SS image? You can't just delete information depending on your whim. --Shuki (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
You are not addressing my main point. The main issue is that this particular incident is given too much weight, whereas it is far from representing the problematic issues in the Shabak handling of this informant. As to the my point about the source not being the right one, it is that this point is mentioned there in passing. The Shamgar committee said that he took the image from two minors. Remember that you should be civil in wikipedia! Mashkin (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
You have reinserted it again without referring to this discussion and with no reason. This is inappropriate. Please read the Shamgar report (which I linked) and say whether you think that this incident is the one to report. Mashkin (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The Shamgar Report is 'the' official report of the government trying to cover up a major fiasco (Prime Minister assassination). I do not think that the Shamgar Report is supposed to be the guideline to editing articles on WP. I fail to understand why you feel that your opinion is the only opinion. --Shuki (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Stop the personal attacks and debate to the point. What you think of the Shamgar report is not really relevant. The question is whether of all actions Raviv caried out this is the most remarkable one or worthy of mentioning. Mashkin (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, you do not know what a 'personal attack' is. Anyway, that is the question indeed. It is not what I (or you) think of the Shamgar Report but rather what facts are available to reference to. Your POV is that it is not important to include the extremely provocative actions of a government agent. This information is factual and sourced to a major newspaper. There is no undue weight in the relevant section. --Shuki (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
You are not reading the sources and you are not reading the arguments properly. Of all of Raviv's actions transferring the Rabin image is hardly the remarkable one. He physically attacked several people including an MK. Mashkin (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Please add that in as well. It's not just 'remarkable', it's exceptional and controversial too. --Shuki (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing remarkable about this action. His violent actions are described before. Mashkin (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Your POV only. Please stop your continued hijacking of this and other articles. I remind you that you do not OWN any article on WP. --Shuki (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Bad Faith Edit by User:Shuki[edit]

There is no consensus regarding the issue of mentioning the transferring the image to the TV station by Raviv (it is anti climactic comapred to his other actions which are mentioned) and hence it should remain out until the end of the discussion. Mashkin (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This is now beyond the article. You simply cannot accept other editors making changes you object to. It is just another place where you do not even want to attempt to reach a compromise and reject it. Your last accusation that my edits are bad faith are preposterous. --Shuki (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Just another example of you using your own personal standards. On the Rabbi Amnon Yitzhak page, you get frothy at the mouth when I try to remove a misrepresented derogatory label that has one POV source, but here you refuse to accept (as if you are the WP:OWNER of the page) something sourced from the NY Times. --Shuki (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There was false information (that you agree was false) on the page. Then you try to insert another version, not to restore. Mashkin (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Section on Controversial Detentions[edit]

The section on Controversial Detentions needs to be rewrutten or deleted altogether. It contain three unrelated and not particualrly notable events. The first one is clearly out of scope - it does not deal with detention but with denial of entry (the detenion was simply for a number of hours until Finkelstein was deported. user;shuki keeps reinserting, without ever bothering to say why this material as to appear in a general article an in this section. Does the FBI article contain details of every (notable) individual that was denied entry to the US? Mashkin (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the issue of refused entry is not relevant. Every country in the world has the right to deny entry to citizens of foreign countries. Fuzbaby (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
The Controversial Detentions section still consists of wholly unrelated an unsourced matters. While I have no problem per se with there being a criticisms section, the page as it stands does not pass NPOV.Khavakoz (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Kav 300[edit]

You have "Kav 300 affair in which two terrorists who hijacked a bus and took hostages were executed without trial". I would like to change to "Kav 300 affair which began when two of the four hijackers of a Tel-Aviv bus were killed after being taken prisoner." It is mainly because "executed" does not describe getting your head smashed in with a rock. But also because, as Israeli history shows, one man's "terrorist" is another man's...Padres Hana (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rename[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Shin BetShabak — Proper name of organization, see discussion above and WP:NAME. – Fuzzy – 08:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose Propername is Shin Bet. Shabak is merely an acronym that is easier to use and sounds more biting. --Shuki (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:UCN, and yours isn't the proper name either (see "Israel Security Agency"). (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:USEENGLISH. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose what Number 57 said. Poliocretes (talk) 09:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose by WP:USEENGLISH. Flamarande (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Shabak is certainly the more prominent term in Israel (ie: in Hebrew). I can confidently say that most people today don't know what you mean if you say Shin Bet. However, in English it is true that the prominent name has remained Shin Bet, for who knows what reason. It is still a Hebrew name, and for all intents and purposes, the wrong one. Until that term is phased out and Western media begins using the correct name, Shabak, I guess Wikipedia policy calls for us to continue using the current (wrong) term. Breein1007 (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, even if it is in the incorrect name in Hebrew....That said, if someone can find English language sources that call it Shabak it might change things....but right now the current sources use Shin Bet. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 22:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose We should use whatever reliable Israeli English sources use. For some strange reason, those sources appear to still use Shin Bet. The rest of the world will usually follow those sources. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.


When was Shin Bet renamed to Shabak? I couldn't find this information in the article. Also, the article seems to switch back and forth between the two names, it should be made consistent: either to settle on one form of the name, or to use Shin Bet for events prior to the name change and Shabak afterwards. And what was the full original name, anyway? Shin Bet is only an acronym, just like Shabak; does it mean that the agency was originally called שירות הביטחון, or was it something different?—Emil J. 15:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Major clean up[edit]

I did some major clean up and pruning of this article, which was full of original research and unsourced claims, long lists, cherry picking of material to demonize the organization and present a certain POV, irrelevant links and bad English. Much more needs to be done to get this entry into shape.--Geewhiz (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Shin Bet's special operations unit is Yamas?[edit]

That is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


Could someone please remove the red category Category:Specialist law enforcement agencies of Israel? Rathfelder (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)