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: [http://www.amazon.com/1948-History-First-Arab-Israeli-War/dp/0300151128 "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)

After more than a week of silence, I will implement this. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

More grossly unbalanced editing. Try again. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless you are willing to enter into discussion, I will have no choice but to revert you again. I will give you some more time. I have explained the rationale for the new text clearly at the top of this section, please respond to it. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler, I will wait a little longer, then will revert the text back. I have laid out the rationale clearly above - the proposed text is following the weighting and the ordering of WP:RS. If you were to then choose to revert again without entering into meaningful discussion, I will have no choice but to report you for edit warring. Please remember, this page is covered under WP:ARBPIA. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Your edits are gross POV pushing as you've shown a persistent and tendentious pattern of engineering narratives to place the blame at the foot of the Zionists for all matters in the Arab-Israeli conflict. You've once again demonstrated it so obtusely on this page by bringing in the speciously connected Lavon Affair and calls to honor Shalom Salah Shalom and Yosef Ibrahim Basri. This is further shown by you highlighting the allegedly "wide consensus" at the time among the Iraqi Jewish community that Zionist agents were behind the bombings, without mentioning the fact that Gat believes that the attacks were the work of Arab extremists and sees little connection between the bombings and exodus. Please find another topic area to edit given your inability to edit in a neutral manner in I/P. Or just get yourself blocked. However you want it. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Plot Spoiler, I'm sorry you feel that way. For a little context, my edits on this broader topic began with this comment on 1 Dec 2013, after I took the time to read a few WP:RS and became aware that the story of the Jewish exodus as told on wikipedia was unbalanced and not reflective of the scholarly sources. As the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries article now states, this is a politicized history, and we need to be careful and work hard to ensure proper balance. My edits around this area over the last few months have intended to add that balance, with the aim that the various articles follow the weighting used in the most respected WP:RSs on the topic. From reading your comments to date, I do not believe you have read many of the WP:RS on the topic. Could I propose you spend some time reviewing the broad set of sources, because continued baseless attacks will get you nowhere. The only way we can have a constructive discussion is if you are willing to quote WP:RS to support your position.

Which brings me to your comments above. You appear to believe that Moshe Gat is a good source for this article. Well then I recommend you read his book properly:

• Consensus among Iraqi Jews: Gat, p177: "There is wide consensus among Iraqi Jews that the emissaries threw the bombs in order to hasten the Jews' departure from Iraq"
• "Anti-Jewish extremists": Gat, p180: "It should be pointed out in this context that the Hebrew daily Davar wrote on 28 January two weeks after the incident, that Major Jamil Mamo, a Christian officer in the Iraqi army, had been arrested on suspicion of perpetrating the crime in the Mas'uda Shemtov synagogue. A search of his home revealed three explosive devices of the kind thrown into the synagogue. The officer, according to rumours spread in the Iraqi community in Israel at the time, was a member of the Istiqlal party..." (note that the current noting in our article is incorrect - "Gat p224" was a mistake made in this edit You write "Gat believes that the attacks were the work of Arab extremists" - please quote exactly where he makes that statement of his own belief.
• Lavon Affair: Gat, p186: "At the height of the public debate in Israel about the so-called 'Mishap' (Esek Bish) - the throwing of bombs by Jews in Egypt in 1954 - the question of the 1950-51 bombing incidents in Baghdad was also raised."

In addition to the above, and as you will see when you read his work, Gat considers the allegations against Israeli agents before considering alternatives. And note that in order to ensure a balanced position in our article, Gat's position needs to be shown alongside Shiblak's, the other detailed work on the topic. Shiblak also deals with the Israeli allegations first, and only subsequently (and obliquely) looks at other alternatives.

So please kindly respond with WP:RS-based comments, or don't bother responding at all. This needs to reflect the sources, and so far only one of us appears to be actually using them. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you refuse to edit in a neutral manner. I've clearly shown how you've cherrypicked information to create a distorted narrative. We're not going to get anywhere as long as you engage in tendentious editing. You can use reliable sources ... and then just manipulate them to engineer the conclusion you'd like. And that's clearly what you're doing. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler, since you have shown no evidence of having read any of the sources, why shouldn't we just ignore your hollow accusations? Editors earn the right to be taken seriously by bringing evidence to support their comments.

I will wait a little while longer to give you some time to do some reading. Oncenawhile (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll give you as much time as you want to address the neutrality concerns I outlined above. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I interpret your response as a direct refusal to cooperate and collaborate. You have not provided a single reference / source / evidence to substantiate your commentary, so we have no choice but to ignore you. I will wait a few more days in case you change your mind. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Revised proposal for lead

I have fact checked a few more sources in this article, only to find that the support for scholars espousing the "Iraqi culpability" theory have dwindled to zero. So we have a number of scholars who blame Israel or the Zionist underground, and a number of scholars who raise questions around this. Below is my proposed amendment to reflect this:

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.

However, the question of who was to blame for the attacks has drawn considerable disagreement. Whilst the allegations against Israeli agents had "wide consensus" amongst Iraqi Jews and was viewed as "more plausible than most" by the British Foreign Office, such involvement has been consistently denied by the Israeli government, including by a Mossad-led internal inquiry, even following the 2005 admission of the Lavon affair.

A number of historians also 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 have raised significant questions regarding the guilt of the convicted Zionist agents with respect to the bombings, and have raised other possibile culprits such as a nationalist Iraqi Christian army officer.

Any comments would be appreciated. In the absence of comments, I will add this to the lead. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is another source supporting the same structure, whic is not currently used in the article Bashkin p.207-208. I haven't seen a single source supporting the existing "Iraqis first" structure. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Good source - comparison of Shiblak and Gat

See here for Rayyan al-Shawaf's comparison of Shiblak and Gat. Provides some helpful focus which we can use to ensure the key areas of difference between the two main scholars on this subject are noted. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Meir-Glitzenstein

This article includes a number of statements sourced to Meir-Glitzenstein which I cannot find in her book. I have removed them from the article and brought them here - if anyone can quote from Glitzenstein a supporting sentence or paragraph, we can add them back in. The first two were added by User:Stellarkid in 2010 [7]

• "She believes that the arrests and judgments were part of a ploy the Iraqi government used to demonstrate it was not "helping Israel" by letting Jews leave."
• "According to Meir-Glitzenstein, the "Palestinian Arabs adopted the allegation of Israeli terrorism in order to counter Israeli claims that Jewish survival in Islamic countries was no longer possible due to antisemitism, discrimination, persecution, and even expulsion.""
• "Esther Meir-Glitzenstein [has] found no Jewish involvement in the bombings"

Oncenawhile (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Missing refs

Something has happened to screw up the references in this article, but I can't see what it is, or how to remedy this. The ref list has two tags stating "Cite error: A list-defined reference has no name (see the help page)." However, there seems to be no way to identify which list-defined references are involved. Meanwhile, ref 1, which appears in the edit panel as "ref name=Morris91", appears in the ref list and pop-up as "Morris & Black, 1992". There is no title ascribed in the bibliography to Morris and Black, but there is a title "Morris, Benny (1992), Israel's Secret Wars: A History of Israel's Intelligence Services, Grove Weidenfeld, ISBN 0-8021-1159-9". However, there is no such book, and clicking on the link in the bibliography leads to Ian Black's 1991 book Israel's Secret Wars: A History of Israel's Intelligence Services. It looks as though, in the course of editing, two distinct works have become confused, but I really can't see how this has happened and what was intended. Perhaps one of the editors who has introduced this error during the past week (Randomdice, Ykantor or Oncenawhile) could take a look at this and try to correct the error. RolandR (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not involved or have a knowledge about the mixed / wrong references. As for the 2 errors, it happened as my editions were deleted, but their cites remained as orphans. I am researching the subject and plan to add text, that will be based on those 2 cites too. Ykantor (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The Morris error came from these edits in 2010. The Ian Black book was cowritten by Benny Morris. Agree we should tidy this up. Per a number of my above comments, the referencing in this article has previously been very poor / inaccurate. On the ref errors, I had fixed this in my previous edit which was reverted. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I just fixed these. Ykantor, note that I removed your two cites as they are causing the errors, but per our discussion on the other talk page I have no objection to the sources themselves if you want to add them back in when ready. Am glad you are looking in to this topic - if you can help answer any of the questions raised in the posts above that would be great. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: proposed amendments to the lead

The proposed changes were made to the article after comments from Oncenawhile (talk · contribs), Ijon (talk · contribs), and 130.76.96.145 (talk · contribs).

The discussion had limited participation. Because consensus can change and silence is the weakest form of consensus, if the changes are later disputed, they should be further discussed. Cunard (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A few questions relating to the lead of this article: (1) Should the allegations against the Zionist underground come ahead of alternative theories, or vice versa?; (2) Should the Lavon affair be mentioned at all?: (3) Should the British foreign office's view be mentioned at all?; (4) Should the scholar-attested views of the Iraqi Jewish community be mentioned at all? I have split this into sub-sections below for ease of commenting, and have begun each sub-section with my judgement, sources and proposal on each point. I am trying this route because I have been unsuccessful in encouraging other editors to discuss these point above. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Ordering of allegations against the Zionist underground before alternative theories

All sources who cover this topic conclude that noone knows who the culprits were, but all writers present the claims against Israeli / Zionist agents first, usually beginning with the verdict of the Iraqi judiciary, and then subsequently present the counter arguments / alternative theories. So our lead should follow the same structure. I believe the structure most consistent with the sources is:

1. Two confirmed members of the Zionist underground were convicted for the bombings
2. There is disagreement over whether this conviction was correct
3. Summary of those who believe in Zionist / Israeli involvement
4. Summary of those who disagree and their alternative theories

Does anyone disagree with this proposal? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it makes sense. Ijon (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Oncenawhile (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Lavon affair

Most if not all writers on the topic draw the possible connection between this event and the Lavon affair, given the similarity of the accusations. A selection of those is below.

• Cohen / Yigal Allon (p111)
• Gat (p186)
• Mendes (article)
• Avnery (p135)
• Shiblak (p159)
• Al-Shawaf (p73)

All these writers discuss the connection prominently, so I propose adding a reference to this into the lead. Does anyone disagree with this proposal? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree it a reference to the Lavon affair should be added. Ijon (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Oncenawhile (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

British embassy quote

Most writers on the topic state the views of the British on the topic when considering the views of the various constituencies. It should be noted that the British were at the time still quite involved in Iraqi affairs, at least more so than other Western countries.

• Al-Shawaf (p72)
• Shiblak (p153)
• Segev (article)
• Gat (p177)
• Meir-Glitzenstein (p257)

Again, all these writers discuss the British view prominently, so I propose adding a reference to this into the lead. Does anyone disagree with this proposal? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Oncenawhile (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Views of Iraqi Jews

Most writers on the topic state the views of the Iraqi Jews. The views of the victims, whether right or wrong, is highly relevant as a perception at the time, and are well attested. This is shown by the number of sources who refer to them in this context:

• Gat (p177)
• Mendes (article)
• Meir-Glitzenstein (p257)
• Klausner (p180)
• Al-Shawaf (p72)
• Shenhav (p605)

Again, all these writers discuss the Iraqi Jews' view prominently, so I propose adding a reference to this into the lead. Does anyone disagree with this proposal? Oncenawhile (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Strange. I come from an Iraqi-Jewish background and I have not heard anyone from my extended family say that they personally believe that Israel engineered the bombings, certainly not the ones that resulted in deaths and injuries. When further questioned on the matter, the usual answer is "Some people say..."

By the way, I just observed the external link in the main article that shows a video of the historian Benny Morris speaking about the Baghdad bombings. He also concludes that Israel most likely was not involved. Strange that you are trying to portray this side of the debate as the minority opinion, while simultaneously citing the opinion of Naeim Giladi, who is not a historian per se and is extremely anti-Zionist and anti-Israel.

JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.145 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read wikipedia's prohibition on original research. We follow sources only. I have not referred to Giladi above.

I have put six Reliable Sources above, all of whom cite that many / most Iraqi Jews at the time had this belief. Perhaps you could ask your extended family for suggestions for other sources which represent how they remember it? I am not aware of any saying the opposite (ie most Iraqi Jews believed that Iraqi nationalists were the perpetrators). If you can find any, please share them. In the absence of that, the overwhelming evidence here, by six sources to zero, is that many / most Iraqi Jews blamed Israel or the Zionist underground. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't suggest making changes to the the aticle based on my personal family commentaries. I'm just saying that's what I have heard from my family. I don't know what Iraqi Jews were saying in 1950-51, because I wasn't alive then. But I should caution that a substantial number of these Jews had been economically well off in Iraq, and took a major step down materially and in standard of living upon their arrival in Israel, and many of the older generation had great difficulty adjusting to life in Israel. There was a tendency to blame their personal ills and misfortunes on the Zionist emissaries, and this does appear in some of the references you have cited. JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.145 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Completely agree, and also because it was known to be Israeli policy to "eliminate the Iraqi exile". I totally agree that just because many / most Iraqi Jews believed something to be true at the time, it doesn't mean it was. We can add a caveat to this effect to any statement in the article if we can find a reference to support it (I'm sure someone will have published a view like this somewhere). Oncenawhile (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done Oncenawhile (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gat - failed verification

I have added a couple of fv tags to key statements attributed to Gat in the article. For example, I can't see where in Gat he states his "belief" that it the perpertrators were Iraqi nationalists. Unless anyone can source these, the statements will be removed. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ykantor:, in your edits today you provided cites for these but they do not support the text:

• Text 1: "there was a tendency to blame their ills and misfortunes on the Zionist emissaries"

Source provided: Black: "As for Salah and Basri, many of the Iraqi Jewish immigrants in Israel, who lived for long periods in shabby tent camps with poor services, expressed either indifference or pleasure at their fate. This is God's revenge on the movement that brought us here,' some said. Many continued to believe that Salah and Basri had thrown the bombs 'in order to encourage the emigration from Iraq"

Problem: The word "tendency" suggests that this "blaming of their ills" was used in other unrelated situations. This quote does not support that.

• Text 2: "Gat believes the perpetrators were members of the anti-Jewish Istiqlal Party"

Source provided: Gat p. 224 as well as Al-Shawaf and Mendes

Problem: These are sources for the second half of the sentence "sees little connection between the bombings and exodus", but do not support a view on who Gat personally believes the perpetrators were.

• Text 3: "According to Gat it was highly unlikely the Israelis would have taken such measures to accelerate the Jewish evacuation"

Source provided: Gat 2013, p. 186

Problem: This appears to be a duplication of the quote added at the top of the section from p.185 of Gat, but with the words "highly unlikely" incorrectly attributed to Gat. I suggest we delete this text as unnecessary / duplicative.

Please could you either put back the citation needed, or amend the article text, or provide more supportive sources? Oncenawhile (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ykantor:, we're ok on 1 and 2. On 3, it's in Mendes who says "highly unlikely" not Gat. Also the two sentences are definitely referring to the same thing so they should be combined. Oncenawhile (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Some comments on this article

• The amount of quotation in the references is excessive. It should be abbreviated.
• There is an article of Mendes extensively cited and excessively quoted, but the only citation is a dead link.
• It looks silly to write that Mendes says that Gat says something when we have a long article and a whole book of Gat to let Gat speak for himself. It just makes the claim look suspicious.
• Was the material from 1966 Haartez taken directly from the newspaper or from an intermediate source? Who translated it?

Zero^talk 08:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

- I agree with your comments.

-Concerning Mendes, I found a live link to the article.

- "Mendes says that Gat says ". I suggest to return to the previous citing . i.e. directly to Gat. Ykantor (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Ykantor, I agree also - we should refer directly to Gat. Particularly as the "highly unlikely" comment is not (as I read it) Mendes quoting Gat, but rather Mendes' interpretation of Gat.

The 1966 material is quoted in Gat - I will fix the source.

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Mendes' article was published in a journal, see here, though I only have online access to that journal from 2006. I'll get it anyway to see if it is the same. Zero^talk 12:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence "According to Mendes, it was highly unlikely.." is wrong, since here Mendes is reporting on Gat's opinion. On the other hand, the published version of Mendes' article starts the Gat section like this: "In contrast, the historian Moshe Gat argues convincingly (in my opinion) that there was little direct connection...". The words "convincingly (in my opinion)" are extra. Zero^talk 23:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• The incidents on "5 June 1950" and "5-6 June 1951" are clearly the same, with one having a mistaken year. This is in the strange list of 9 incidents which is introduced by a statement that there were 5. Zero^talk 05:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• I have the book of Neslen and will edit that part. Actually it is important enough to become a subsection. Zero^talk 05:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

JPS and Mendes

TheTimesAreAChanging:

1. I put the Mendes quote in a different section to reflect your comment, so I would like an apology for your accusation
2. You should have done the same (ie moved it) rather than deleting it (twice)
3. On JPS, please bring your source to Talk:Journal of Palestine Studies. The "PLO-controlled" statement does not belong here unless you can get consensus for it at the JPS article first.

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

"Tried before in Iraq"

TTAAC's comment on JPS shows ignorance of how journals work. The claim is to be attributed to the author, not to the journal. But in any case I don't like this source as it is too derivative. The "tried before in Iraq" story comes from Marion Wolfshon, who (according to al-Shawaf) cited the 22 February 1978 edition of Jeune Afrique. There's a chance my library has that; I'll take a look. Zero^talk 09:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Now I have the Jeune Afrique article from 1978. It attributes the admission to Lavon by any reasonable reading (checked with a native French speaker). However, no clue is given which would let anyone search for a more original source. Frankly I'm dubious, but this claim is famous enough (repeated lots of times) to include with attribution. If anyone notices this story from before 1978, or with a source before 1978, please speak up. Zero^talk 13:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Is he Shalom Cohen (politician) ? there were other persons named shalom cohen. If this is the person, then he was a senior journalist in the weekly "Haolem haze" (this world) which was not known to be a reliable source. However, this is my personal opinion only and I do not know what rule should apply here. Ykantor (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's him. Like I said, I find the story suspicious (though not obviously false). However, since the story is repeated in lots of later sources, including academic sources like Shiblak, I think it is better to have the original with attribution. We can't just ignore something that many reliable sources didn't ignore. Zero^talk 01:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

8 April / charge sheet

Ykantor, please could you add the quote for [8] the text underpinning this on p.183? I think we have it mixed up - the charge sheet exclusion refers to a different one? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Meir-Glitzenstein 2004

Anyone have this book in paper form? I want to confirm the page number. In the e-book the bombing incident is on page 208, the refs here (at least in the lead) talk about page 257. Anyone? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 04:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

See the quote I added one year ago sourced here [9] shown on p.257. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Naeim Giladi

Is this guy a reliable source? He is not an academic or a journalist. He is not an expert in anything. He's just a guy with an opinion. Why does he appear 3 times in the article? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion Naeim Giladi views should be ignored. Reading the article Naeim Giladi, he had a tendency for conspiracies. e.g. The British initiated the infamous Farhud pogrom. Ykantor (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

His views are only used in "attributed" form in the article. So the question is whether his views are notable, and if so, what is due weight. It's worth bearing in mind that his views have been referenced by scholars such as Ella Shohat [10] and Yehouda Shenhav [11]. Oncenawhile (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

He is used "attributed" 3 times which seems a bit excessive (Shenhav for example only notes him once in a footnote). He is also used 3 times as a ref for actual facts. I assume we all agree those refs should be removed? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 03:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

-Agreed. Ykantor (talk) 08:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfounded?

No More Mr Nice Guy, can you please explain your edits [12] and [13]. Both are unsourced, and the second is the worst kind of unsourced - the text was added just ahead of five existing sources, to make it look like it was supported by those.

The claims regarding responsibility for the bombings that you suggest are "unfounded" is a judgement which goes right to the heart of this article. In the first edit you mentioned Gat and Meir-Glitzenstein, but then chose not to do the same in your second. I have read both Gat and Meir-Glitzenstein, and their works have been discussed in great detail above - neither make such blanket statements. They question the claims against the two specific activists who were sentenced, but as to the general sense held by Iraqi Jews and others at the time (i.e. that the bombs were thrown by or on behalf of Jewish organizations), they do not take a firm view either way. What they do is report the claims and then suggest that noone knows whodunnit, which is what we say. It seems your edits were "wishful thinking" at best.

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll get back to this article when the AE is closed. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Why wait unless you are worried about incriminating yourself? Oncenawhile (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

What a stupid question and ridiculous accusation. There's a slim chance they might want me to self-revert my previous edits, so I don't want to add on top of them, that's why. If I do something "incriminating" I'm sure you'll scurry back to AE to open a new report in no time. With similar results. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hit a nerve, did I?

If you are so confident enough to make this assertion at the AE, please prove it here.

And yes, please self revert. Since you have added unsourced text, the WP:ONUS is on you to verify it. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

No, you just asked a stupid question. You'll have to work a lot harder to hit a nerve considering I could not possibly care less what someone like you thinks about me. Wait a couple more days, the AE will be over, and we can continue here. I prefer not to edit an article that brought me to an administrative board until that issue is resolved. Is that really so hard for you to understand? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You have made an important claim at the AE, and then refused to substantiate it on a different page.

If your claim that "Both the sources I mentioned support the edit I made" is disproven in discussion here, will you agree to go back to AE and admit that you were wrong, even if it has closed? Oncenawhile (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy, I'll wait another day or two, and will then revert your edit. Since your track record shows an inability to admit to your own mistakes, I have no choice but to assume that your silence means you are unable to support your edits (since you continue to edit on other articles). Oncenawhile (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I explained to you why I didn't edit this page. I see now that your silly AE report has been archived we can return to this issue.

Kindly explain why you want to remove sourced material. "It's more nuanced than that" is not going to cut it. Go fish google books and come back with some quotes at least. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy, Your edits that I linked to at the top of this thread are not sourced. Provide a source, including page number and quote, or they I will remove them. I have been very patient, but if your next comment does not provide a source, I will not wait any longer. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean they're not sourced? They're on the same pages where the sources discuss the bombing. The same refs at the end of the sentence where I put it. I don't have Gat at the moment but in Meir-Glizenstein it's pp 207-208 in the ebook, so I assume still 257 in the paper copy. I got the word "groundless" from her. Do you deny both sources reject the idea that Israeli agents did it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear oh dear. Would you care to read that text a little closer? Your edit referred to a belief amongst the British government and Iraqi Jewish civilians that Jews / Israelis were involved. The Meir-Glizenstein "groundless" statement you have pointed to refers instead to the charges in the Iraqi court proceedings against two specific agents. Gat does exactly the same, in different words. You have tendentiously extrapolated their statements to fit your own personal narrative - this in the most insidious type of editing. Now you have finally been called out, I look forward to your revert, retraction and apology. Oncenawhile (talk) 11:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You're a funny little guy. Do Gat and Meir-Glitzenstein reject the idea that Israeli agents were responsible for the bombings? Yes or no? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"Funny little guy"? I find this extremely offensive. Oncenawhile (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Meir-Glitzenstein carefully leaves open the question of who threw the bombs. The most definite statement is that the charges laid against a few Jews were "groundless". They were only a few people and they were charged with respect to only a few of the bombings, so one certainly should not infer from this that "Meir-Glitzenstein rejects the idea that Israeli agents were responsible for the bombings". Meir-Glitzenstein does no such thing. Incidentally another source is Norman Stillman, Jews in Arab Lands in Modern Times who explicitly states that the matter remains unresolved. Zero^talk 18:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you are mistaken about MG. When she says "Nevertheless, henceforth the emigration of Iraqi Jewry was linked to the bombs." what do you think she's contrasting with? She says the charges against the Israelis and others were groundless (meaning they didn't do it). She then says that bombs didn't hasten Jewish immigration. She explains what the British thought and then gets to the nevertheless part. What do you think she's saying? Seems quite clear she's saying the Israelis didn't do it but nevertheless Iraqi immigrants (and others) thought they did. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Quote: "In a series of trials held in late 1951, two of the detainees, Yosef Basri, an attorney who headed an Israeli intelligence network in Iraq, and Saleh Shalom, who had been in charge of an arms cache for the Haganah, were charged with throwing the grenade at the Mas’uda Shemtov synagogue in January 1951 and several subsequent bombs at Jewish and other centres in order to sow panic and spur Jews to move to Israel. Basri and Shalom were executed in January 1952, Tajer was sentenced to life imprisonment, others were sentenced to various jail terms, but Ben-Porat managed to escape from jail. The charges were groundless for several reasons." --> MG's "groundless" refers directly to the charges against Basri and Shalom (neither of whom were "Israelis" as you state above - they were Iraqi Jews working as agents for Israel).

To your specific question, MG is focusing on the question of the supposed motive:

1) She says the trial charges suggested that the 1951 bombs were "...in order to sow panic and spur Jews to move to Israel..." ...then talks about the same alleged motive in different ways suggesting they had not "...hastened the Jews’ departure..." ...nor... "...influence large numbers of Jews to emigrate..." ...nor... "...a major impact on registration to leave Iraq...";

2) But as an aside she then says the British suggested "another explanation" whereby the motive for the 1951 bombs was instead more specific: "to focus the attention of the Israeli Government on the plight of the Jews in Iraq so that they would keep the airlift moving quickly, and, possibly as a second object, to induce those well-to-do Jews who had decided to remain in Iraq to change their mind and emigrate to Israel."

3) The "nevertheless" is referring to her main thread in (1) related to sowing panic amongst Iraqi Jews, not the separate British explanation relating to the Israeli government angle.

I continue to look forward to your revert, retraction and apology, with an added apology for your personal insult against my physical stature.

Oncenawhile (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep reading the source.

Nevertheless, henceforth the emigration of Iraqi Jewry was linked to the bombs. The claim that there would not have been any substantial emigration had Israel, through its emissaries (including Mordechai Ben-Porat), not sown terror in the Jewish street was voiced not only by the Iraqi authorities but also by Palestinian Arab spokesmen and by many Iraqi Jews in Israel.

She makes a case why the bombing did not influence the immigration, including the facts that the charges against the Israelis were false and that the British didn't think Israelis did it either, and then says that nevertheless some people thought it did influence the immigration, including the involvement of the Israelis. These are part of the same paragraph and talk about the same thing. Doesn't seem so difficult. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

My goodness, you are struggling here:

• You repeat again the "charges against the Israelis". What are you referring to here? As I said above, the two Zionist agents put on trial were NOT Israelis.
• Nowhere does she say that "the British didn't think Israelis did it either" - you are again just fallaciously inferring that from the fact that the British thought the 1951 bombs may have been carried out by "certain [Iraqi] Jews" who wanted to influence Israel
• These paragraphs of MG's refer to the 1951 bombings only, not the 1950 bombs. As to the 1950 bombs, she suggests they may not have influenced the emigration, but nowhere does she suggest a belief that they were not thrown by Zionist agents or supporters. The 1950 bombs may well have been thrown by activists with that intent, even if they failed to spur the emigration they hoped for at the time.
• She makes a case against the perceived motive for Israelis (note, not Iraqi Jews) to have thrown the bombs, but that is not the same as saying the idea that any Israeli agents were involved is "groundless". As is well known in international affairs, intelligence agencies and governments are not always coordinated in their actions.
• Your tendentious edits (underlined below) suggest that MG and Gat have SAID that the idea that Israeli agents / emissaries threw the bombs is unfounded. The best you could come up with above is a suggestion that MG may have been inferring that, and even that supposed inference has now been debunked.
  • The allegations against Israeli agents had "wide consensus" amongst Iraqi Jews in Israel, although some academics say this belief is unfounded
  • "wide consensus among Iraqi Jews that the emissaries threw the bombs in order to hasten the Jews' departure from Iraq", although both Gat and Meir-Glitzenstein say this belief is unfounded.

I continue to look forward to your revert, retraction and two apologies, per above. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

By "the Israelis" I meant the Israeli government or people working for them.

MG (and to my recollection Gat, but I don't have it right now) is quite clearly saying that despite what she described people still thought there was a link between the bombs and the immigration. See where she says "nevertheless"? So indeed, she thinks the allegations that Israelis threw the bombs in order to hasten immigration is unfounded. She doesn't think they threw the bombs and she doesn't think the bombs hastened the immigration. I stand by my edits.

By the way, I find your repeated whining that I owe you an apology quite amusing. Do continue. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The "in order to" are the key words in your penultimate sentence above - MG's "nevertheless" refers to the motive, not to the identity of the perpetrators. Now, please answer the points made above which you keep sidestepping:

1) 1950 vs 1951

2) MG's "groundless"

3) The difference between your interpretation of what MG infers, and what she actually says she believes (i.e. regarding your wording "some academics say this belief is unfounded"). "Say this belief" needs to be supported by a clear quote, which you have shown yourself unable to provide

4) Here Is Gat with most relevant pages online and a full search function. Please point to the relevant quotes.

Oncenawhile (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

MG's "nevertheless" refers to all the points she raised before and to the rest of the paragraph. That the charges were groundless, that the British though it was probably someone local working on their own initiative, and that the bombs did not influence the immigration rates (she addresses 1950 there as well, so you can stop bringing it up all the time). Again, the immigrants believe that Israeli agents threw the bombs and that hastened the immigration. She says specifically that it didn't hasten the immigration, that the charges against the Israeli agents were false and that the British though it was something local. Nevertheless the Iraqi immigrants believe what they believe.

To your points. 1 is addressed by MG. Read closely. 2. Not sure what you want here. 3. We're supposed to summarize sources, which is what I did. 4. That is missing a lot of relevant pages. Please tell me you read them elsewhere? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding M-G, you don't have a case. Your analysis is stretched well into OR territory. Around here we have to report what sources actually say, not what we believe they meant to say. Your argument isn't even logical, since it assumes that the trials were the only evidence on which the Iraqi Jews based their beliefs. Zero^talk 02:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Gat also doesn't say that the case against the Jews was unfounded. He says that it was based on circumstantial evidence (discovery of arms caches and similar, which is not in question) as well as a confession that might have been forced. This causes him to doubt the verdict but he doesn't ever (that I can see) state that the defendants were innocent. Actually he says that the issue will probably never be resolved. Unfortunately an important part of his analysis is the unusual nature of the last two bombings, which Tajar later (i.e. later than Gat's book) admitted to. Zero^talk 02:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

So would it be better if I worded it along the lines of "MG says that charges were groundless, the bombs did not hasten the immigration, the British thought it was something local, nevertheless Iraqi immigrants in Israel think the Israeli government was responsible and that it did hasten immigration"? That assumes nothing and is directly supported by the source (and amounts to the same thing only wordier). The "nevertheless" there is contrasting two things. What do you think they are? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

"Nevertheless" contrasts two opposing things but doesn't mark them as opposites. Consider "No proof of Joe's guilt was found, nevertheless he remained the chief suspect". It doesn't imply that Joe is innocent. I also question "something local". The British quotation both Gat and M-R bring is "One theory which is more plausible than most is that certain Jews have endeavoured, by throwing bombs at certain buildings, to focus the attention of the Israeli Government on the plight of the Jews in Iraq so that they would keep the airlift moving quickly, and, possibly as a second object, to induce those well-to-do Jews who had decided to remain in Iraq to change their mind and emigrate to Israel." It is a theory that the bombings weren't done on a directive from Israel, but it doesn't say that the "certain Jews" were Iraqi. Zero^talk 04:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

OK - "MG says the charges were groundless, the bombs did not hasten the immigration and the British thought they were not done on a directive from Israel, nevertheless the Iraqi immigrants in Israel think the Israeli government was responsible and that it did hasten immigration". Is that so different than what we have in the article? To the point of being "well into OR territory" or "the most insidious type of editing"? Gimme a break. How would you word it? Not "MG says these beliefs are unfounded" but "MG strongly implies these beliefs are unfounded"? Because that's what she's obviously doing here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Almost exactly a year ago, I added this text. It is still broadly in the article, in an unchanged fashion. It goes as far as I believe we can go based on her quote. What do you want to add above this - please provide specific drafting, and explain where in the article? And please self revert your OR from the article asap. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll wait to hear from Zero if you don't mind. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Great. I have removed your unfounded edits while we agree on new language. Oncenawhile (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless someone comes up with a reasonable suggestion on how to summarize those opinions, I'm just going to put the text you removed back, replacing "say" with "strongly imply". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It amazes me that you haven't yet figured out that such a statement would be a very basic form of WP:OR. Oncenawhile (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

While enjoying your amazement, feel free to offer another suggestion. MG clearly is contrasting two things here. Come to think of it, I could reorganize the lead, move the part about what Iraqi immigrants thought to a more DUE place lower down, and "nevertheless" it like she does. Do you prefer that? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to be a slow contributor to this exciting debate, but I just arrived on my 3rd continent in 2 weeks and I'm a bit short of proper thinking time. I'll try to make a sensible (ha!) suggestion when I next wake up, if nobody gets to it first. We've resolved tougher problems, so I don't see too much drama coming. Zero^talk 13:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No politics

The lead's last paragraph mentions nowadays politics and implies that the fault for the bombing is a matter of opinion. In my view it is better to eliminate nowadays politics from the lead and rewrite it as a wp:rs opinions. e.g. According to wp:rs Shiblac, Segev, etc... it was a Zionist plan since ... But According to wp:rs Meir, Gat, Mendes etc ... it was not a Zionist plan since... There are sufficient amount of wp:rs who analyze the case, so why should we cite primary sources. Ykantor (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Faisal and Nazism

This is unjustified removal of sourced content. Per The Telegraph: "In the Thirties, the rise of pan-Arab nationalism coincided with the second King Faisal's admiration of the Nazis."--Khenigsberg (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

They probably talking about Faisal the first [14] so it probably editor error.--Shrike (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I've restored the sourced content and corrected it per this discussion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

But the Telegraph article says "second King Faisal's admiration". We can't just change that on the basis of "probably". Frankly for a claim of this nature, we need a better source. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

You're right. I don't know how I missed that. Not to mention the first Faisal was unlikely a Nazi supporter. I removed it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

You also removed the words "after the declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel" that are properly sourced and obviously relevant. If you can't justify that you should restore those words too. Zero^talk 21:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

That looked like something an editor who is not allowed to edit here added. Did you check the source? I don't have access. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

What the source says is this: "On 15 May 1948, three months after the Wathba, the state of Israel was proclaimed, the Arab armies invaded, and al-Said imposed martial law. A week later, newspapers in Iraq were calling for a boycott of Jewish shops, to ‘liberate’ Iraqis from the ‘economic slavery and domination imposed by the Jewish minority’. This suspicion of Jews was encouraged by a weak and reviled government for whom Arab nationalism was a crude but effective weapon, distracting attention from its colonial docility, and from its poor military performance in Palestine. The freezing of Palestinian assets by the Israeli government and the arrival in Iraq of eight thousand Palestinian refugees in the summer of 1948 did nothing to calm things. Responding to a wave of popular anger, the Iraqi government declared Zionism a capital offence, fired Jews in government positions and, invoking Stalin’s support of partition, found another pretext to round up Communists of all sects." I checked in another source that the criminalisation followed Israel independence; in fact it was in July 1948 (but I didn't find out exactly what was made a capital offence). I think the text is adequately supported. Zero^talk 07:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 1950–51 Baghdad bombings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20415625&BRD=2731&PAG=461&dept_id=574902&rfi=_%27
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061210085816/http://www.ameu.org/uploads/vol31_issue2_1998.pdf to http://www.ameu.org/uploads/vol31_issue2_1998.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090314053000/http://www.babylonjewry.org.il/new/english/whats.htm to http://www.babylonjewry.org.il/new/english/whats.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.merip.org/mer/mer248/fischbach.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090314053000/http://www.babylonjewry.org.il/new/english/whats.htm to http://www.babylonjewry.org.il/new/english/whats.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Excessive quoting?

This article employs a very large number of very large quotes - Is the level of quoting excessive?Nigel Ish (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request 14 March 2021 Broken ref names

Fixing broken ref names; Reference 67: Add <refname="gat178"> before the citation.

Reference 68: add <refname="gat178"> if not already present. Sennecaster (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Volteer1 (talk) 04:57, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit request: Misleading paragraph distoring Gat

I've been reading the Gat and I think there's some things that could do with clarification.

I think this paragraph in the "Claims for Israeli or Iraqi Zionist involvement" section is misleading and should be cut:

According to Gat, Avnery wrote "without checking the facts...Marion Woolfson ... goes on to distort the dates of the explosions and the number of registrees, in order to prove her contention...Avnery’s article and Marion Woolfson’s book served as the basis for the arguments of the Palestinian author Abbas Shiblak".

I've copied the full footnote it shortens below for reference.

The Lavon Affair was used by some journalists and writers as proof of criminal actions carried out in Iraq by the Israeli representatives there. Uri Avnery, without checking the facts, wrote, ‘Suddenly some thing mysterious happened. Bombs started exploding in synagogues [he does not specify] and elsewhere at places frequented by Jews. Panic occurred, and the number of those seeking to leave grew overnight … After the disclosure of the Lavon Affair, … the Baghdad Affair became more conceivable.’ Avnery, My Friend the Enemy, pp. 135–6. Avnery wrote that the Baghdad Affair was first disclosed by his newspaper Ha-Olam ha-Zeh on 20 April 1966, where it was claimed that the explosions were the work of Israeli agents sent by Ben-Gurion. A similar position is cited by Marion Woolfson in Farewell to Babylon, pp. 183–201. She bases herself among others on Avnery's article in Ha-Olam ha-Zeh. She goes on to distort the dates of the explosions and the number of registrees, in order to prove her contention. Avnery's article and Marion Woolfson's book served as the basis for the arguments of the Palestinian author Abbas Shiblak, who wrote: “It is clear that the explosions came at a critical time, when other factors seem insufficient to ensure mass emigration … Whenever the fears [of the Jews] abated, a new explosion shattered the sense of security, and the chances of remaining in Iraq appeared bleaker.’ Abbas Shiblak, The Lure of Zion, pp. 123–4. See also: W.C. Eveland, Ropes of Sand, pp. 46–9; O. Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch, pp. 155–70. A similar position, though from a totally different viewpoint, is expressed by Shimon Mendes in his article ‘The Immigration from Iraq and the Government of Israel’ published in Ha'aretz on 22 May 1966. Mendes wrote: ‘Whether they did not know what to do or whether they did not wish to risk any initiative, the community leaders remained silent. Someone had to act, and he took the appropriate action at the right time. For only an act like the explosions would have brought them to Israel. Anyone who understood politics and developments in Israel was long aware of that. But not everyone sees it as a mishap, and those who called it this do injustice to David Ben-Gurion and to the memory of Shalom Salah “and Yosef Basri, whose names should be remembered alongside those who gave their lives for the country.”

The footnote is from a section of the book discussing the impact of the bombings, and whether they lead to mass migration(see taking issue with Woolfsons supposed distortion of the number of refugees, which is not relevant to attribution)- it's problems with the Woolfson and Avnery are whether they are correct about the impact of the bombings on imigration, not attribution of the bombings to Israeli or Iraqi Zionist.

I don't think it makes substansive points either way on attribution, and the material should be added in the "Effects on Iraqi Jewish emigration" section(which seems in need of extension)

If people aren't ok with that a possible replacement paragraph, focusing on his contention of factual failiures in the Avnery and Woolfson could be:

Moshe Gat asserts that Avnery wrote "without checking facts", that Woolfsons writing serves to "distort the dates of the explosions" and that these works "served as the basis for the arguments of the Palestinian author Abbas Shiblak"

Adacable (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Clarify "trial" section with information on the convictions from JTA bullitin

The trial section cites the Gat, however the Gat asserts that only they “were charged only with throwing the last three bombs (on 19 March at the USIS and at Jewish firms importing American cars).”

The Jewish Telegraph Agency notice from the time states that they were charged with both the jan 14th 1951 synagogue bombing and the 19th march grenade attack.

We should cite JTA report(possibly note the difference with the Gat) and note that neither source suggests they were charged with all bombings listed in the section above. Adacable (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

References