Talk:Naeim Giladi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Naeim Giladi article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments

Contents

[edit] Anti-Zionist

I have already found sources that indicate the man's significance to the Mizrahi and anti-Zionist communities. For example, Ella Shohat, the academic and scholar who identifies herself as an "Arab Jew" notes that "Naeim Giladi, a former Zionist activist in Iraq, gradually came to change his outlook after living in Israel, and has become an anti-Zionist activist. He left Israel in the early 80s and settled in New York, renouncing his Israeli citizenship. (From my diverse conversations with Naiem Giladi taking place in New York, in the late 80s)."[1] Giladi wrote a book entitled, "Ben Gurion's Scandal: How the Haganah and the Mossad Eliminated Jews" that was self-published in the US in 1992, and subsequently banned from both the US and Israel. Dandelion Books released a revised edition of the book in 2003. [2] The book is listed for sale at Amazon.com UK [3] but is listed as not available at Amazon.com in the US. [4]

One of his articles is cited as a source in Operation Ezra and Nehemiah on Wikipedia itself.

I will reformulate this information and incorporate into the existing article. It should not, however, be deleted. Just because one doesn't like his views, doesn't mean he is insignificant. Tiamut 01:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This book is available from Amazon in other countries, and is recommended by them. Giladi is highly critical of the British tactics in Iraq, believing they manipulated the worsening news from Palestine to cause trouble in 1941. Later, the Zionists bombed their own people to get them to flee and populate Israel (some were also caught doing this in Egypt). He went to Israel and found it very discriminatory of "Arab Jews" like himself. PalestineRemembered 14:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
His article is not cited as a source in the Operation Ezra and Nehemiah article, it's just an external link there. okedem 10:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] biased article

from what I understand, all the info on his life come from his book .. not examining everything yet, obviously this telling shouldn't be presented as a fact on what happened to him. this is what he says. Amoruso 22:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is ridicules. It treats whatever this guy says as absolute truth, not a critical word in the whole article, and almost all sources are his own book/article. In it's current form, it's unfit to appear in an encyclopedia. okedem 23:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Amoruso, Okedem! You are most welcome to introduce new sourced material or further improve upon the article in other ways. I noticed it was very poorly sourced and totally uninformative when I first came across it. So I did a little research and expanded it. While there are other sources besides his own work cited in the article, it is true that it is lacking other sources on his life experience, besides of course, Ella Shohat's mention that she spoke to him about his experiences in many conversations - being a respected academic in her field and identifying as an "Arab Jew," we could expect that if she doubted him or the legitimacy of his experiences, she might have mentioned that. In any case, should you feel the need to stress that his autobiographical account is indeed autobiographical, you can do so. I believe I note that his work is autobiographical in the article already, but perhaps you have a formulation that is better. Just a heads up to do a quick read up on WP:BIO to inform your editing changes, since the policy on living persons is quite strict, due to the threat of libel or other legal problems. Source all doubts or aspersions so as not to fall into the trap of original research. These remarks may seem pedantic, but I detect a note of hostility towards the man and his experiences from the two of you (forgive me is I'm being presumptious). Finally, I am going to remove the neutrality notation. The content is taken directly from the sources cited and I could not find sources that have a disparaging thing to say about the man. It is an assumption of your parts that his story in not credible (an unsourced assumption at that) and that is not enough to keep the label in place. Respect. Tiamut 05:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I fixed some of the pov but there's still some inherhent in it, leave it for others... Amoruso 07:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The POV that you find "inherent" is due to the fact that Naeim's views have a POV and they are faithfully represented here. We cannot just change what he lived and experienced so that it ceases to offend people who do not share his views. However, as I mentioned above, you are welcome to find sources that challenge his story or writings. So far, I keep finding more and more sources that support most of what he says. I did include however, the view of Mordechai Ben-Porat of Naeim's thesis regarding the Iraq bombings which he views as totally false. In short, there is no POV in the way the article is written. At least, not in my edits, which had formed the majority of the article to date. Tiamut 08:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the wording of the article makes it look as though whatever he says is true. We don't know that, we don't have corroborating evidence. He makes strong claims, but brings forth no proof but his own words. The words "He wrote about his experiences...", the title "Experiences in Israel", the sentence "In short time, he realized that those Palestinians that were signing such documents were doing so under duress", all of these make it seem as though he truly wrote about what happened, and this is all fact. That may be the case, but we don't know that. The article should make it clear that these are only his claims. Even the sentence "He gradually became disillusioned with Zionism" is badly worded - it implies that Zionism is an illusion, and now he knows better.
The wording is libelous toward Israel and the Zionist officials, in accusing them of serious crimes, without proof, and without counterbalance. okedem 09:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I have scoured the web, trying to find any evidence for his claims. I've tried finding someone who says he's speaking the truth. I've tried finding something simpler - details about why his book was "banned" in the US and Israel (a very strong thing to do) - why was it banned, by who? The only mention I could find was the publisher, calling it "the banned book", and now it appear oh so exciting.
All of the references I could find about his claims are just interviews with him, or people talking excitedly about his book. One of those site, quite typical, talks about the book, and then links to a file called "Hoax or Holocaust. The Arguments" (which is of course a holocaust denying essay). I know this is guilt by association, but I can't find any serious site saying anything useful about this whole matter! okedem 09:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Prove to me that claims made by people in their published autobiographies are ever subject to the kind of character assassination that appears to be going on here.
My reading of WP:BLP suggests it is taboo to imply him to be a liar, or to slur him by reference to Holocaust denial. He's Jewish, for goodness sake!
If I wasn't personally involved in this article, I would revert your changes and take further advice about behaviour potentially so damaging to the encyclopedia.
I'm totally not interested in "edit-warring", despite the cavalier way my work has repeatedly been treated (including the re-writing of entire new articles like this one that I created). I've actually become nervous of making edits, for fear of apparent attempts to get me into fights (or simply to waste my time).
PalestineRemembered 10:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
PS - the use of "disillusioned" in the article was the correct use of an English word. More time-wasting as I research evidence to defend my use of it (it should be up to you to prove I've mis-written and share proof with us before removing the work of others). However, have a look at Watergate Babies. Are you telling me that this article (about a term invented by the Republicans themselves) means that the "Republican Party" is an illusion?
PPS - on this book being "banned in the US and Israel", note that it is available on www.amazon.co.uk. This is despite it being quite harsh on the British, and despite the fact that AmazonUK is a recent, smallish off-shoot of AmazonUS. But the book is *not* available in the US (or not from Amazon), meaning that one of his claims (and one that initially sounds pretty unlikely) is proven. (I love your "tried to find reasons" for it being banned - since when did the black-mailers or just unofficial censors ever give reasons for this kind of action? We know why it was banned - certain people wish to obstruct freedom of expression and cover-up their crimes.)
You seem to have gotten a little confused, as I've made only one change to this article, and that's the "disillusioned" bit. Even in the example you bring, the voters become "disillusioned" with the republican party because it committed a crime - and that's a proven fact, unlike the claims this guy makes.
He makes very strong and controversial claims, and it needs to be clear that these are only his claims, not proven fact, not widely agreed upon by historians. I can publish a book saying I saw Arabs eat babies - will you write an article about me, saying "Okedem writes of his experiences watching Arabs eat babies"?
I didn't say that he has anything to do with "Holocaust denial", and wouldn't write anything like that in the article.
That Amazon lists the book as unavailable is your proof? That means a lot of old sci-fi books I wanted are also banned. Can you prove it was banned? Can you bring forth any evidence to that end, or are Amazon availability details all you have?
You should be more careful when making weak arguments like that, especially since yours is 100% false! The very same book the article links to in AmazonUK is available in AmazonUS [5]. The link the article gives (to the US) is to the old edition (from which you can easily click through to the 2nd edition - I guess you missed that), which probably just went out of print. The 2nd edition is available in the US and the UK. okedem 10:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
To editor Tiamut -> this article seems to have acquired a crop of "alleged" and "supposedly" and "he argues", implying that Giladi's words cannot be trusted. I know of absolutely no reason to treat him in this fashion.
There are other highly objectionable elements that have appeared - it is shameful to add a section "Use by anti-Zionists", and positively slanderous to link the guy to neo-Nazis simply on the basis that he is quoted by them. Nobody does this to supporters of Zionism - how come it keeps appearing in articles on critics of Zionism? What chance have Palestinians, if even non-aligned Jews get this horrid treatment?
Surely there must be some way of treating Giladi fairly? As far as I'm aware, nobody reputable (in fact, nobody atall) casts any doubt on his words. The encyclopedia has no business doing so.
PalestineRemembered 08:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
PS - crazy references at the bottom of the page have appeared, I don't know how to fix them. Nor why they've been added.
Hi PalestineRemembered. I fully agree that it is unfair to try to link Naeim Giladi to neo-Nazis. I will investigate what policy there is regarding that kind of thing. Tiamut 08:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi there. The last edit was mine, got logged out by accident and don't know how to put my name in place of the anonymous IP. Just so there's no confusion though, it's me. About the neo-nazi citation, I don't really see the relevance. The article was posted at an open thread at an obscure site and there are no comments posted to the article in response or any commentary on the part of the poster. It doesn't seem to be an important article to the neo-nazi community and that Amoruso changed the heading of that section, which was originally "Revelance to the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict" to "Use by anti-Zionists", then appending that neo-nazi link seems very POV to me. It a) needlessly slanders anti-Zionists by associating them with neo-nazis, b) it slanders Naeim, considering Naeim's personal history as an Iraqi Jew and a part of the Israeli Black Panthers, I'm pretty damn sure he's not a neo-Nazi, c) it makes an assumption about the popularity of the article within the neo-Nazi community that is not borne out by the one link to an open thread discussion list with no comments, d) it's just not relevant. I changed the heading for now, but I would like to delete the reference and citation. I'm asking first to hear the arguments for inclusion, but failing a really really good one, I'm going to have to go with no. Tiamut 10:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, I'm still struggling to understand the ways of the encyclopedia!
I think the integrity of the encyclopedia would be protected, while remaining fair to Giladi, with a section "Controversy", as follows:
Rename the section "Relevance to the 1948 Arab-Israeli Conflict" to "Controversy".
To have it mainly include:
  1. Giladi writes [6]: "I write this article for the same reason I wrote my book: to tell the American people, and especially American Jews, that Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate willingly to Israel; that, to force them to leave, Jews killed Jews; and that, to buy time to confiscate ever more Arab lands, Jews on numerous occasions rejected genuine peace initiatives from their Arab neighbors. I write about what the first prime minister of Israel called 'cruel Zionism'. I write about it because I was part of it."
  2. Giladi further claims that:"pressure was exerted on the Iraqi parliament, including the use of bribes, to secure the passage of a bill allowing Jews to emigrate to Israel. (Giladi notes that this was also the conclusion of Wilbur Crane Eveland, a former senior officer in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) who outlined that allegation in his book "Ropes of Sand", whose publication the CIA opposed).
  3. Giladi also mentions the name of Mordechai Ben-Porat, a former Israeli Member of the Knesset and a key figure in the Zionist underground, as having been cited as one the figures responsible for the bombings by one of the Iraqi investigators into the bombings, in a book entitled "Venom of the Zionist Viper". (This book is unavailable in English). Mordechai Ben-Porat has vigoursly denied this allegation, which he characterizes as akin to "blood libel", and which prompted him to write his 1998 book, "To Baghdad and Back." [7]. In it, Mordechai contends that the false charge against him was conceived in at Iraq police headquarters. [8].
  4. Giladi's book was originally self-published in the United States of America in 1992. He claims that the first edition was banned in both the US and Israel, though the revised 2003 edition by Dandelion Books is now available [9].
This way we're not guaranteeing any of what he says, but neither are we directly impugning his integrity. (Note - I'm calling him Giladi, I don't know what Wikipedia prefers).
PalestineRemembered 13:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
That is much better. I have no problem with reporting his claims, but it has to be done in an objective manner. I'll try to find some sources for other POVs, and I hope we can find something about this supposed "banning". I just find it very hard to believe. For a book to be banned in Israel is extremely rare, and quite unheard of when it wasn't even published in Israel. Most bannings I can think of were of books written by former military men, that supposedly revealed classified information. I'm not aware of such book-bannings in the US. And yes, we should call him Giladi, just as we would say "Bush said...", and not "George said...". okedem 14:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
In fact, the more I read about this, the more I become convinced that it wasn't banned. I could not find one instance of a book being banned in the entire US. I don't even think that's legally possible, though I could be wrong on that one. All books I found were banned by a local library, or a school, under pressure from parents or religious leaders. I couldn't find even one reference to this book being banned in any of the many lists I found of challenged and banned books (again, banned not on the national of state level, but on one school or local library). okedem 14:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giladi's claim book was banned in Israel and in the US

(I'm placing here a longish clip from the forward of this book, but I think this much is necessary for context and to prove that the book was definitely banned in Israel and effectively banned from publication in the US too. Giladi seems to have left Israel in 1980, already chafing that he couldn't publish. He eventually did so only in 1992, still unable to get the support of any publishers. Even this edition from Dandelion Books is prefaced with dire warnings and a "Readers Agreement for Accessing this Book").

Ben-Gurion's Scandals [How The Haganah and The Mossad Eliminated Jews], Naeim Giladi. Foreword p.xii

........... saw fully-armed soldiers under the command of Ariel Sharon cross the border in the direction of Qibyah that very same night. David Ben-Gurion had indeed ordered the operation in spite of his denials. He also denied subsequent cover-ups, such as the massacre of the passengers of a bus near Maaleh Ha'akrabim. The Israei government wrongfully accused Arabs, while it was a Jewish gang that committed the massacre. With much research, I later found evidence proving the involvement of yet another massacre sponsored by the Israeli government. It was at this point that I decided to write what I had discovered because I knew the truth couldn't be hidden without damaging what I believed at that time to be the refuge for the Jews.

I learned that before one could publish a book in Israel, permission had to be granted by the censors of this so-called democracy. If the censors deemed that a story could be harmful to the state, they would withhold permission to publish it. If one still persisted and gained permission to publish, censorship would make so many deletions, the book would be unreadable. If one managed to publish without the permission of the censors, one would be liable to arrest and incarceration for as long as the authorities would decide.

When I was contemplating writing and publishing this book, two of my colleagues and well known Israeli journalists were arrested and put in jail for exposing the involvement of the Israeli secret police (Mossad) in the kidnapping in Paris of Mehdi Ben-Barka, a popular Moroccan socialist leader. The foreign press throughout the world had already disclosed this information. Maxim Gilan and Samuel Mour were nonetheless charged with crimes against national security and were locked up for six months. Moreover, the Israeli media were gagged and not even allowed to mention that the two journalists had been arrested. If the authorities had wished, the two men would have been kept in jail for the rest of their lives.

My friends advised me to wait until I was out of the country before publishing my book, thus avoiding a confrontation with the Israeli censors. Before making my decision, I contacted a number of foreign reporters based in Israel and asked them if they could publish without being checked by the Israeli censors. They told me that everything they wrote had to be cleared by Israeli censors who were the only ones who could fax their material out of the country. If they tried to circumvent the Israeli censors, they would never be allowed to work in Israel again.

Years later, I immigrated to the United States. I contacted some important American publishers and I found a great deal of interest and willingness to publish my work. But when it was time to sign a contract, the publishers demanded that I give them the right to delete or change any part of the book they wished. For me, this constituted a form of censorship. I turned down their offers even though it meant a substantial loss of income. However, I never regretted my decision. Thanks to the help of many friends, I managed to publish in its integrity the first edition of this book. Now, at last I have found a publisher, Dandelion Books, whose mission is to deliver the truth, uncensored, because they understand the full implications of living in deception and self-denial. Hence, the second edition of my book with additions and revisions.

-Naeim Giladi

  1. His claim is not true. I actually live in the same house with a publisher, who has never had to deal with the military censorship in any way. There's no general requirement for censorship clearance. The thing is, there's a law against revealing state secrets (like in most democratic countries), and if you think your book has such secrets (mainly books written by former military men), you should clear it with the military censorship. If you publish secrets without getting permission, you can be charged with revealing state secrets, again, as is the case with most countries. Foreign reporters can fax whatever they want, they're not limited in that. Note, if you will, that he doesn't say he contacted the censorship and his request denied, according to his own words he never even tried to talk to them! So how can we claim his book was banned?
  2. So it seems his claim of a US ban is completely false. What he says is basically the standard for publishing - most publishers want such editorial privilege. It has nothing to do with banning, and nothing to do with the state. He did eventually just publish it himself, and it is available for sale, thus disproving his claims of censorship. I can also purchase the book in Amazon and have it shipped to Israel - there are no limitations on that. okedem 15:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Because of the preceding arguments - no ban in Israel, and definitely no in the US, I'm removing that claim. okedem 16:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Very true.... books are only "banned" in non democratic states such as the Arab states. Amoruso 16:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Amoruso, Okedem, you cannot dismiss the fact that the book was banned just by citing your personal beliefs and experiences. Giladi was trying to publish at a time of military government and martial law initially. No doubt there were military censors then. Plus, I did provide you with a source that said the book was banned by the publisher Dandelion Books [10] so it's not fair for you tot pretend that there is no evidence to this end. I am reinserting the claim, with the source and will find another source to back it up. It is an important addition to the article and you can't just remove it because you are skeptical about the man's point of view. Respect. Tiamut 20:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about?!
Are we talking about the same universe here? Did you read what I read? Have you any knowledge of Israeli history?
  1. There was never a military government in Israel, nor martial law. Where did you get that notion?
  2. I already explained that his claim that every book needs censorship approval is patently false.
  3. He himself says he didn't even approach the censorship, so how can you possibly say his book was banned? Nobody even looked at it!
  4. His own words also don't support the "banned in the US" claim - he only says publishers wanted the right to edit his book as they saw fit, and he didn't agree with that. That has nothing to do with censorship, that's just publishing business practice.
  5. And how can you say it was banned, when he published it himself (and wasn't arrested or anything)?
  6. Your so called source is nothing but a press release by the publisher. It sure sells more books when you say your book was banned.
okedem 20:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Tiamut, have you read your source ? This is the commerical of Dandelion Books i.e how they market the book to make it sound interesting - "coming this summer... the book nobody wanted you to read...." it's not sourced material. Amoruso 21:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It is funny that you cannot find any evidence for the book being banned when besides the publishing company source I provided you with and the fact that Dandelion Books is well-known as a source for banned books – indeed it’s a raison d’etre. There is also this article by Dr. Samir Rihani [11] where he writes : “Incidentally, Giladi's book was banned in the USA and Israel when it was first published in 1992. It is not known whether his latest edition (2003) has had a better reception.” Plus, your own research and reading of Giladi’s book shows that claim of being banned both in Israel and the US appears in his book. That’s a valid source in itself. Few authors claim to have had their book banned just for the fun of it. As for your claim that there was never martial law in Israel, c’mon Okedem, get serious! Have you never read Sabri Jiryris’ The Arabs in Israel. Don’t they teach you about the military government in school? Or did they just gloss over that little tidbit? See Arab citizens in Israel the section on martial law for more sources. Tiamut 21:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
you're contradicitng yourself. you're saying the book was banned in 1992. you're really being ridicilous now. between 49 to 66 there was military rule over the Arab villages inside Israel as opposed to Israel having a "military government" . What that means is that Israel used some laws inherited from the british for emergency use following the arab support for jewish genocide in 1948 and fear of uprising. anyway, that has nothing to do about book being "banned". Amoruso 22:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


  1. There was a military administration for Arabs only, up to 1966. It had nothing to do with Jews, like Giladi, and it was not a military government. Israel was ruled by a civilian government from day one.
  2. Your link only repeats what the publisher claims, but it's beside the point. The author himself doesn't actually make the claim. You don't seem to understand what "banned" means. Giladi himself says he didn't approach the censorship - he didn't even talk to them, so how can you claim they banned his book?
  3. And I say again, there's no need for permission from the censorship to publish a book. That's just a lie, nothing more. You're not allowed to reveal state secrets (like in every country in the world), and if you suspect your book contains such secrets, you should talk to the censorship, so they can determine what's okay to print. It's like consulting an accountant before filling out your tax report - so you don't make a mistake, and end up breaking the law.
  4. Again (and this is very tiring), Giladi's own claims, taken at face value, say that his book wasn't in any way banned in the US. He only says publishers wanted to edit his book. That's usually what publishers want, and most authors don't like it. How is that a ban? If I write a bad novel, and nobody would publish it, could I say my novel was banned? okedem 22:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations, Okedem, you got there in one - Giladi lived under "military administration" in Israel for at least 16 years, and in practise much longer. He arrived in Israel as a passionate (20/21 year old?) Zionist in 1950 - but found that being Jewish didn't entitle him to be an Israeli. He spoke Arabic (an urgently needed skill) - but found himself repeatedly treated as untrustworthy. He discovered that there wasn't freedom to publish in Israel (hence "banned"). As an Arab (something he was proud of, continuing to speak Arabic at home), he was subject to "military administration" - in fact, all Israelis in this period (by the sound of it, well after 1966) were subject to imprisonment without recourse to law, and without anyone knowing they were locked up. Two people he knew served 6 months in prison (administrative detention?) simply for publishing details of Zionist crimes in France.
Even in the US from 1980, his claims were so credible and dangerous that no reputable publisher (in fact, no publisher atall) would print his book. By the time he self-published, the claims in his book were up to 50 years old (and most of them over 30 years old, I'd think).
If you're going to claim that Giladi's book wasn't banned, in both Israel and the US, then it's not much of a step to claim Alexander Solzhenitsyn's book wasn't banned in the Soviet Union.
PalestineRemembered 19:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. Why did he lived under "military administration"? Where did he live? The administration dealt with Arabs, not Jews, not even with Jews from arab countries. There was plenty of those, and none of them had to deal with the administration. In fact, Arabs leaving outside the administration's area of control, like in Haifa, weren't under its restrictions.
  2. You seem to just not understand the meaning of the word "ban". If you need permission, you apply for it, and are declined, then you can say the book was banned. He didn't apply, therefore wasn't declined, therefore wasn't banned. As simple as that. A belief that the book would be banned, don't mean it was banned.
  3. His claim is false - only books dealing with national security need clearance with the censorship, nothing else. And revealing state secret is a felony pretty much everywhere (see, for example, the Official Secrets Act. You make it look like something unique to Israel, but it isn't.
  4. The journalists he talked about, and you mentioned, were trailed for revealing secrets, and got to a plea bargain, for which they were to serve one year, but were released after 4.5 months.
  5. With you final claim, you deviate from his own claims. The publishers wanted editorial privilege. This is what publishers want, even when writers don't like it. It's the publishers job to take a mass of text, and edit it into a coherent book, which would be enjoyable to read. He didn't want to give them the right to edit, and so they didn't want the deal. It has nothing to do with a ban, and of course, how can you say it was "banned", when he published it himself?
No, this whole claim is nothing short of preposterous. okedem 19:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Giladi's real irritation is that, despite being Jewish, he was treated as being an Arab. This is another reason why apartheid nations fail, they're based on discrimination. They devour even their most passionate followers (Giladi was one). Ultimately, almost nobody can tolerate systems so unpleasant.
There are genuine concerns about Giladi's claim that his book was "banned" in Israel and the US. He was virtually prevented from publishing a book on current affairs for c.30 years, but the word "ban" suggests a Soviet style censorship, which is not what he suffered.
However, he was clearly unable to publish, and in circumstances under which he felt he could be secretly locked up.
Under the circumstances, I think it reasonable to to use the word "ban" as short-hand for what happened.
Giladi claims that "two of my colleagues and well known Israeli journalists were arrested and put in jail for exposing the involvement of the Israeli secret police (Mossad) in the kidnapping in Paris of Mehdi Ben-Barka, a popular Moroccan socialist leader. The foreign press throughout the world had already disclosed this information. Maxim Gilan and Samuel Mour were nonetheless charged with crimes against national security and were locked up for six months. Moreover, the Israeli media were gagged and not even allowed to mention that the two journalists had been arrested. If the authorities had wished, the two men would have been kept in jail for the rest of their lives."
If Giladi has lied, then you should provide evidence of it.
Otherwise, we'll think you're acting very much like those old-style Soviet commissars who bluster and threaten those who expose the oppressive ways of their nation.
PalestineRemembered 20:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. First off, this isn't the place for your rants about Israel. Stay on topic, please.
  2. I don't know how Giladi was treated, but whatever his situation was, it had nothing to do with the military administration.
  3. You accuse me of... I don't know what, really. I only cleared up what you said - "...(administrative detention?)..." - I just filled in the details of that case, from the article I read. I didn't even voice my opinion on the matter, only the facts.
  4. The reporters were locked up for revealing state secrets. Not every citizen knows what's considered secret and what isn't, and that's what the censorship is there for - you ask them, you submit your book (about military matters and the like) to their review, so they can tell you what's too secret to publish. There's no crime in asking, and even he doesn't claim he would be hurt by asking the censorship, nor does he claim that anyone else was damaged just by asking. So I say again - you cannot claim his book was banned, when it wasn't even given to the relevant authorities. And no, you can't use the word "ban" for short.
  5. And you continually evade the US issue - all the publishers wanted, by his own account, was to have the right to edit his book. This is what publishers do, and I say this from intimate knowledge of that business. There's nothing out of the ordinary here, that's the way it works. Some people don't like it, so they self-publish. There's absolutely no ban here. Do you know how many aspiring authors can't get anyone to publish their brand new novel? Are their books being banned too? okedem 21:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't suppose Alexander Solzhenitsyn offered his "Gulag Archipelago" for publication in the Soviet Union, either. Are you going to tell us it wasn't banned?
And one of the copies of the Gulag Archipelago was signed on every page to prevent others from modifying it and publishing it in a changed form, so you can't claim that Giladi's wishes/demands were unusual in that respect either.
I think you'll find Solzhenitsyn's book was published more quickly and more easily than Giladi's - and that Giladi's story is not fundamentally different from many other writers living under racist oppression. (Note - I'm not claiming that Giladi is as great an author as Solzhenitsyn or suffered as much - I'm just pointing out that none of your arguments stand up).
PalestineRemembered 19:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there any claim that anyone was hurt just by asking the censorship whether they could publish something? No, all you have is someone who didn't think he'd get permission, talking about a completely different case (in which journalists actually published classified information, not asked about it, and were legally tried and found guilty for revealing state secret - a not uncommon charge in many western countries).
And in the US - look, either you don't have the slightest clue about what you're talking about, or you're pretending. Publishers want the right to edit a manuscript. Really. They do. I know the damn business, I know how it works. I personally know an author who couldn't get his novel published, because most publishers wouldn't take his book, and one that did wanted such heavy editing that he felt it would hurt his creation. If I were a publisher, I'd want the right to edit a manuscript. Giladi isn't an experienced author, and quite frankly, there's a good chance his manuscript was confused and badly written. Even if it wasn't, the publisher wants to edit to make the book more salable - he's not publishing books to "get the truth out", but to make money. Why don't you read this article about the sad state of publishing contracts nowadays, maybe you'll learn something. okedem 20:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] if this is just an article

it shouldn't be this long. one can simply link to the article. at any case, it can be quoted directly. if it's "quoted" this way, one can not report his claims as facts like it did. Cheers. Amoruso 16:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

stormfront featured articles are relevant. Amoruso 21:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] this section doesn't belong in this article

The position that the bombings were "perpetrated by Zionist agents in order to cause fear amongst the Jews, and so promote their exodus to Israel" is shared by a number of anti-Zionist authors, (Black Panthers 1975:128-132; Hirst 1977:155-164; Eveland 1980:47-49; Wolfsohn 1980:186-201; Shapiro 1984:37-38; Avnery 1986:135-136; Shiblak 1986:119-127; Shohat 1988:12; Giladi 1993; Cohen 1998:111). [7]

Conversely, historian Moshe Gat argues that there was little direct connection between the bombings and the exodus of Jewish refugees. He questions the guilt of the alleged Jewish bombthrowers who were found guilty in an Iraqi court of having perpetrated one of the bombings. He submits that a Christian Iraqi army officer "known for his anti-Jewish views", was initially arrested for the crime, but was evidently not charged despite the large number of explosive materials matching those used in an earlier synagogue bombing that were allegedly found in his home. He further cites a long history of anti-Jewish bomb-throwing incidents in Iraq. [8]

There is however, little in the way of completely definitive evidence either way. Jewish studies scholar, Philip Mendes suggests that, "It therefore remains an open question as to who was responsible for the bombings," claiming that "memories and intepretations of the events have further been influenced and distorted by the unfortunate discrimination which many Iraqi Jews experienced on their arrival in Israel (Black Panthers 1975:132-133; Shohat 1988; Swirski 1989; Massad 1996)." [9] since it's not about giladi. Amoruso 21:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute Amoruso, of course it does. There is a controvery here and you removed that section before I added the other sides views too that refute Giladi's thesis. Why are hiding information from people? You were the one who cast doubt on his position as a fringe opinion. I provided you with a legitimate source that explains that there is support for his position (he is listed as one of them as well in the article itself). You can't just remove it. I also provided the converse view of Moshe gat that this tehsis is bogus. Please stop removing perfectly relevant, well-sourced and valid material that enriches the reader's knwoledge from this article. It reeks of POV on your part. Tiamut 21:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I did not remove it, your accusations are baseless. I wrote my concern here. Anyway, This belongs in an article about something to do with iraqi jews or the incidents, not here. This is only about him, not about the issue. Amoruso 21:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
The Zionists of the 1948 period (and earlier, they were planning to bomb Hebron in 1929 before the riots - and later, eg Lavon affair in 1954) were experts in explosives and bombings. Were there any Palestinian specialists in bombings before the 1990s? Given the well-attested willingness of the Zionists to terrorise their non-Zionist fellow religionists, even a well-prepared bombing of Jews is not evidence that Palestinians did it.
PalestineRemembered 17:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
PR is referred to the WP:OR policy Elizmr 19:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:BLP and neo-nazi links

Amoruso, as discussed above you cannot continue inserting POV edits in an atttempt to defame Giladi. You kept resinseting the neo-Nazi link to Stormfront as evidence tha Giladi is popular among neo-Nazis. Note that WP:BLP states: "Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." Then, when that did not work you tried to insert quote from Henry Makow, which is non-sequiter, irrelevant and again included only to cast aspersions against Giladi, by associating him unrelated people with dubious views. Note that you removed the citation that linked to the site Jews Against Zionism which was teh appropriate example for those who take note of his anti-Zionists views on the basis of it being harmful to Jews, which is what the preceding sentence said. Accordingly, I have reported your actions at the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Finally, while you accuse me of violating 3RR the policy is clear as regards WP:BLP, "Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel." Please cease and desist from making these kinds of edits immediately.

response. weird WP:POV claim by Tiamut who blanked out WP:RS sources from the article. Stormfront (website) is quoted in the wikipedia articles after many debates as the most prominent neo-nazi web-site in the world. After also pointing out this to Tiamut, it seems he's acting in bad faith in claiming it's "obscure". As for the second source, when you google Naeim Giladi one of the first and most cited sites is [12] Makow [13] a professor who has a prominent web-site regarding the conflict [14] and therefore relevant. and further::::Tiamut's description is faulty and does not accurately represent anything. "claim that Giladi was popular among neo-Nazis" is a false accusation by Tiamut. A featured article in the prominent web-site means his ARTICLE is a regularly quoted, not him. It has in fact nothing to do with WP:BLP. Henry Makow discusses Giladi's article DIRECTLY like explained. It again has nothing to do with WP:BLP - in fact, it's Tiamut who wants to make the page about the ISSUE and not the person , as the article really doesn't deal with the person at all but with his book/article. Finally, his last accusation trying to analyse my motives are a violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. The last "note" of his is also factually wrong, it was simply a double link both dealt with Jews. Amoruso 00:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Side note, I'm a she, not a he. I know you can't tell that virtually, but I prefer to be recognized by my correct gender designation. The person is notable recisely because of the controversial issues he discusses. To not address those issues would be to fail in producing an article that explains to the reader the reason for this person's notoreity. That Naeim Giladi's article was posted by a user an at open-thread on a neo-Nazi website certainly does not constitute a "featured article" nor has Amoruso provided evidence of his being "regularly quoted" at such sites. As I have pointed out in the past, the article posted at the open-thread did not garner even one comment of feedback. Further, using extremist websites to defame a person through guilt by association is deeply frowned upon in WP:BLP, a fact that AMoruso is failing to acknowledge. I made no personal attack on Amoruso and have faithfully described his actions as I see them which is not a violation of WP:AGF or WP:NPA. Finally, the quote from Makow, while in an article in which he mentions Giladi, is not related to Giladi's book, article or any of the arguments he has made; i.e. it is totally irrelevant. Tiamut 00:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Readers of this exchange can easily see who makes personal attacks, and who is doing their best to operate to WP standards. PalestineRemembered 23:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banning section

Hi Okedem. Let me begin by saying that I respect your efforts to accomodate the views of others like myself and PalestineRemembered by including the banning claim, now in its own section. I have a problem however with the following paragraph, particularly the sections in bold: "The 2nd edition of Giladi's book is marketed as "Banned in Israel and the United States...", however, that seems to be a misrepresentation of the facts. Giladi himself, in the foreward to his book, writes about his publishing difficulties, but mentions no ban. Of publishing in Israel he writes: "I learned that before one could publish a book in Israel, permission had to be granted by the censors..." (that seems to be inaccurate, as the Israeli Military Censor's permission is only needed for books concerning matters of national security)." These are WP:OR interpretations in that they are not sourced and involve you making a judgement, even if phrased in ambiguous terms, regarding the validity of Gliadi's claims. The second one in particular is a little misleading, since Giladi's claims that he worked for the Zionist underground smuggling Jews and his claims that he copied unreleased archived material, and the explosive nature of his claims if proven true, make it possible that his book would be considered a threat to "national security". I think that removing the sentences would not threaten the point you are trying to convery about conflicting information regarding the ban between Giladi's explanation in his book and the publisher's press release or the other source I quoted on the banning earlier. What do you think? Tiamut 13:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The first bold is needed to clarify that it wasn't banned. I'm sorry, but both you and PalestineRemembered completely ignore the meaning of the word "ban". His book wasn't banned, period. It's just false, untrue, deceitful. It's a marketing lie, and nothing more. The first bold is required for this whole section - everything after it explains it.
This is not OR, it's just reading what he himself says, and realizing that the "ban" claim is false.
The second bold refers to his claim "I learned that before one could publish a book in Israel...", which says that the permission is required for every book - it's not, and my claim is sourced. I say nothing of if his own book would need clearance. If he copied/stole confidential papers, it would probably need permission, but he didn't even apply for it, so you can't say it was banned. You can add that his book probably would have required permission, if you wish. okedem 19:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Giladi didn't even approach a publisher in Israel for fear of what happened to two acquaintances, they were jailed for exposing alleged crimes of agents of Israel.
Giladi couldn't find a publisher who would print his words in the US.
I'm not sure whether "ban" is quite the right word, but he was silenced for so long (some 30 years between the book being nearly ready and his self-publishing of it) that it seems a reasonable descriptive word that describes what happened to him.
If you object to the word "banned", what would you propose instead? "Silenced"? "Threatened"? "Black-balled"? "Intimidated"?
PalestineRemembered 23:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
PR: every book that is not accepted by publishers does not have a conspiracy going against it. If he couldn't get it accepted, he couldn't get it accepted. If he didn't submit it, he didn't submit it. All else is just conjecture. If a book say it was "banned" and it was not "banned" then it is misrepresenting itself. People publish all sorts of criticism of the government in Israel and America. It is almost a national pastime. Elizmr 23:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Okedem, I'm sorry but my understanding of WP:OR rules out your formulation: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." Now, you can describe the difficulties Giladi describes having in his book and cite the publishing house disclaimer, their Press Release claiming banning or the other quote I cited from the Dr., about the banning. To say "seems inaccurate" is to make an OR assumption, you need a source that says that. Otherwise you must simply juxtapose the claim of banning against the description Giladi gives while pointing out that he does not actually say he was banned so much as initimidated by experience and had standards unacceptable to him posed by the american publishers he first approached. Do you get my drift? Tiamut 23:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The section has been edited to just state the facts without conjecture. One ref is needed. Elizmr 00:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Dear Elizmr. One major problem with your edit. There is a source from the publisher that says the book was banned. Okedem has argued it is not WP:RS (I disagree). I included it at the top of this page and here it is again:[15] I will add it to the article, but Okedem will object since he viewed it as a partisan source with the claim merely to be for selling books (without provigin a source for that OR interpretation). Tiamut 00:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tiamut, Yes, the Web page you sent says the book was "banned" but my point was that no details or evidence that the manuscript was ever supressed in any form are given. I thought what I had written reflected that, but let me check and make it clearer in the text. It is a really strong claim to say that a book was banned in the US. Do you know if the book itself gives any more facts about the details of that? Elizmr 01:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Elizmir. I think the version as it is, between your and my latest edits on the subject is okay for now. (I realized your point about "detailed" information when I went in to edit and I think I respected that point. Let me know if I'm wrong.) Unfortunately, I don't have access to his book, only the sections that were cited here by PalestineRemembered and snippets here and there on the net. For now, I propose we leave the section as simply as a "he said, she said" kind of thing until we can find more definitive sources. Agreed? Tiamut 02:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tiamut. I agree that the section is ok now. If PR has more info, she could always add it. I'm happy with it at present. Elizmr 03:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to remove NPOV tag

I would like to hear your thoughts on removing the NPOV tag. I think the article has gone through some serious editing since the label was applied and it no longer reflects the content accurately. Your thoughts, feelings, support, reservations, concerns? Tiamut 02:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't watching the article when the tag went on, but the article seems ok now and I would vote for it coming off. Elizmr 03:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The tag should stay permanently as long as this controversial article exists in this format giving ONE article so much undue weight and relevance and discussing the "issue" of iraqi jews and mossad as if this is what the article is about. Seems like a permanent tag unless re-written from scratch. Amoruso 03:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Amoruso, I have explained to you previously that Naeim Giladi has a strong POV, and his notoreity is in large part based of that POV. A neutrally written article about him might in fact seemed biased to those who reject such views completely. Note that WP:NPOV states clearly that: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." While you may prefer to try to slander Naeim Giladi by inserting links to neo-Nazi websites that quote his work and otherwise cast dispersions upon his character with tenuous linkages, you cannot do this, particularly under WP:BLP, without finding WP:RSthat express that opinion. I went to much to trouble to locate such sources like that of Mordechai Ben-Porat and Moshe Gat who disagree with Giladi's claims to provide the opposing viewpoints re: the controversial claims for which Naeim Giladi is known. Instead of acknwoledging this good faith editing, you tried to initiate a discussion to delete that section. I still hoping that you might one day concede that my efforts and those of others with whom I have both disagreed and agreed on content, have in fact radically improved the article, so that the tag should be removed. Respect. Tiamut 15:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not know much about this man, Amoruso, but it appears the POV here belongs to the subject of the article, and not the editors. Now, if it can be shown that this man serves as an inspiration for Neo-Nazi's, that is relevant, and I believe should be added to the article. It is not a violation of WP:BLP, for it is not libel if it is true, and well cited. Poorly cited statements must be removed, of course. Then again, much of this article is poorly cited to begin with, so someone may have to remove wholesale chunks of it until it can be properly sourced. However, describing the facts and opinions that this man has as very anti-Zionistic and that he serves as a role model for virulently anti-Israeli people (see the source where I found his picture) is not a violation of WP:NPOV any more than having a large section on the anti-Semitic feelings of Hitler. WP:NPOV is a warning against editors placing their POV's in an article, not against having articles about people with documented strong POV's. -- Avi 16:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Avi. I'm a woman. Tiamut is the name of a female Babylonian deity. Nice to meet you here on the talk pages instead of merely exchanging messages via edit headings. As you can see from the talk discussion above, the link to neo-Nazis that Amoruso was trying to make was exremely tenuous. He used Stormfront's open-thread as a primary source to make the WP:OR claim that Giladi's work was popular with neo-Nazis. One user posting to an open-thread without generating any comments, on a website that is not a reliable source under WP:RS, cannot support this WP:OR conclusion. I should note that since I reported his repeated attempts to insert this unfounded claim, he has since desisted from trying to include it. Tiamut 17:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I meant the man, Naeim Giladi. I saw your reference to your gender earlier, and I vaguely remeber Tiamut as well image:smile.png. Regarding the link to the NN's, I have not followed it. Regardless, if it is well-sourced, then it can be added. If it is poorly sourced, it cannot be, due to WP:BLP. I think this man's opinion about Israel is well known, regardless. -- Avi 17:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been convinced of the merit of the article due to its undue weight. Also, I agree with Avi that the fact Neo Nazis promote his book/article should be mentioned. This is very popular in articles like these anyway and not a violation of WP:BLP of course. Your report Tiamut was faulty and didn't make any sense. It's also sad that a user who repeatedly violates WP:3RR and WP:NPA and WP:NPOV thinks it's ok to report bogus reports. The reason I stopped inserting vital material to the article is because of your obssesive war-editing over the article. The tag will remain until my cocerns can be met and it's properly balanced with the neo nazi fact (stormfront being the most prominent nazi web-site in the web, and not anyone can post articles, it was just a user, it's part of the policy of the site). Amoruso 18:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is better now, though still not completely NPOV. One of the issues I have with it - quoting Gildai's claim ("Before one can publish a book in Israel, permission had to be granted by the censors") without explaining that it only applies to books about military issues would give readers the wrong impression. We can add that clarification without contradicting Giladi himself, but it needs to be there. okedem 18:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
indeed. also, the removel of the words "alleged" make it impossible to remove the tag. still many issues. Amoruso 18:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I would support the inclusion of the information of the military censorship as an endnote explaining the situation (like the situation of Jerusalem on the Israel article page which is endnoted, this point is should be explained in detail, but it's inclusion right after Giladi's recalling of what happened would break the flow.)Tiamut 19:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Amoruso, if you feel the article is innappropriate for wikipedia, for any reason, that is why we have WP:AfD. You can always nominate it and see what happens. Also, I'll try and look into some of the Nazi connectioins. Amoruso, if it is one guy posting on one webforum, that may not be a WP:RS. If Stormfront had it as a featured article or something, that may be different. -- Avi 19:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, agreed. Thanks Avi for your valuable input, I don't personally have other issues with it as of now, Cheers. Amoruso 20:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Okedem/Tiamut -- agreed that the clarification needs to be mentioned. Most books in Israel do not need permission. Also, that is not exclusive to Israel; I believe most former British colonies retain some form of censorship. Freedom of the press, etc., is something special about the United States of America; it is the exception, not the rule, worldwide, unless I am mistaken. -- Avi 19:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd recommend reading this: [16]. okedem 20:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The article should have an editors note saying what the actual policy in Israel was at the time for clarification. I know that the situation now is that national security could preclude publication of something (I looked it up while researching another article), but given what appears in the MSM in Israel it doesn't seem this is often invoked. I am ok with removing the NPOV tag. Elizmr 23:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Shall I go ahead then and remove it? Tiamut 21:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Fine with me. -- Avi 21:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restructure

I've restructured the article into biographical and controversy sections, added citations for his being used to support white supremacy positions (not that he himself may be one), and updated/combined some of the existing citations. -- Avi 20:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a shameful thing to do (and almost certainly a contravention of WP:BLP).
Almost any authorship that mentions race can be seized on by extremists (one reason I try never to do so, not always successfully). But when the author is (in this case) a proud Iraqi, then a proud Zionist, then lives in Israel, then denounces Zionism and Israel, then of course his writings will be picked up and quoted approvingly by racists.
The fact that this goes on does not justify slurring the author, and the encyclopedia should have nothing to do with it.
PalestineRemembered 22:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure it is unfair to say that the White supremacists are fans of Giladi if it is true. Elizmr 23:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC) But it is not an especially neutral point to make. Elizmr 23:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
No one is slurring the author. His works have unquestionably been used by anti-semites, white supremecists, and neo-nazi's. Facts are permissible under WP:BLP if they are properly cited. I don't think anyone ever used Winston Churchill's writings to support neo-nazism, white supremacy, and anti-semitism. No one, including himself, may LIKE the fact that his work is used by these people, but it is being used nonetheless, and reputably so. This is exactly what an encyclopædia is supposed to do: bring uncensored, unvarnished, unedited facts and let the reader decide on his or her own. -- Avi 00:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me. Elizmr 01:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I might argue that Jesus' teachings or the Bible have also been quoted by neo-Nazis, but we don't go out of way to mention that in an article on Jesus or the Bible. I'm still not fully convinced about the relevancy of this statement, particularly since Giladi does not have a chance to respond by stating how he feels about that kind of use of his work. Tiamut 15:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Avi, would you mind commenting on this section of WP:RS?: "Widely acknowledged extremist or even terrorist groups, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should never be used as sources for Wikipedia, except as primary sources, that is to say they may be used in articles discussing the opinions of that organization. Even then they should be used with great caution, and should be supported by other sources." Doesn't the sourcing of neo-Nazis groups reprinting of Giladi's article violate this clause of WP:RS? Thanks. Tiamut 20:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Those websites are not being used for a source for anything in wikipedia, other than that they exist. Nothing from the website has been quoted, nor is anything supported in this article from those websites, other than the fact that those websites reference Giladi. To use those websites to say Giladi is an anti-Semite would be a violation of that rule. To use those sources to support the opinion that the Mossad is responsible for killing Iraqi Jews would be a violation. But to use those sources to say that "anti-Semitic groups use Giladi as a source" is completely different. -- Avi 07:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Avi, thanks for responding. Respectfully howver, I have to disagree. I just don't see the relevance. That one anti-semitic group reprinted part of Giladi's article on its see to support its dubious assertions about the Holocaust just doesn't seem important enough to include in the article. This site also quotes material from Geogre Galloway. Should we be inserting that into the George Galloway article too? In other words, do we go around monitoring the content of anti-semitic sites to see who they wrote in order to include it in articles on Wikipedia? I think the appropriate place (if any) to mention this would be on the page for that site, not in Giladi's article. It gives these groups more prominence than they deserve to mention them everythime they mention someone or something. Tiamut 12:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Tiamut. Firstly, there were two links brought (Adelaide and National Vanguard). Secondly, I think it is relevant that he is being used to support virulently anti-semitic and anti-Israeli sentiment. If you read the Strom piece, I think you would see that it is not merely Holocaust denial. I understand your point about the appropriateness, and I would welcome further outside comment. -- Avi 21:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, regarding WP:RS#Extremist_websites (=Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals and their activities. Even then they should be used with caution.) ...I had a question/discussion about this on WP:RS back in July, see here:[17]. The result was quite clear (IMO), you can not quote "fringe opinion" -or even mention it- directly. If it is noteworthy, then a RS (say, a major newspaper) will have written about it. If you cannot find such a RS, then you can delete it. I think we can all agree that, e.g. National Vanguard and the Adelaide Institute are "widely acknowledged extremist organizations"? However, if a more "main-stream" organization has mentioned it, then it can be included. And by "main-stream" we include organizations like Anti-Defamation League, Stephen Roth Institute, American Jewish Committee (as a side-note: I suspect that some, e.g. Norman Finkelstein would strongly oppose the label "main-stream" on these organizations.....;-) ) I wouldn´t be the least supprised if any of those organizations have mentioned it...(I haven´t looked) ....if so: we can include a ref. to that organization.

If anybody disagrees with me on this, I suggest we take this question to the talk-page on WT:RS, and get some more opinions on this. Regards, Huldra 02:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference here. We are not quoting the opinion of the fringe groups, just that there exist fringe groups that use this man's writings as support. -- Avi 02:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Avi; as far as I have understood it we are not even allowed to mention the existence of these creeps ehh, these organizations, unless somebody "with authority" have mentioned them. It makes sence, actually, anybody can start an organization +website and say anything they like ("the world will end the 24. Dec", "Bush is an anti-semite"), but they are really not noteworthy if nobody else can be bothered mentioning them.
But anyway; if we don´t agree I suggest that we´ll take it to the talk-page on WT:RS, ok? Regards, Huldra 03:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Huldra. That's exactly the point I was trying to make, unaware of the policy discussions on the matter that you have so clearly elucidated. On the basis of your clarification, I propose that the sentence quoting neo-Nazi groups be removed. Further discussion ont he issue can take place where yous uggested and if the consensus there is different, then perhaps we could consider reinsertion. Until then, considering the rather strict guidelines informing WP:BLP, I do not think this contentious and indirectly slanderous piece of information should remain in place. Tiamut 10:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. I have brought it to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Question about fringe site citations, and would request that we wait a suitable amount of time for response before making significant changes to the article. I couched the question in respect to a ficticious case, to try and prevent sunconcious bias in either direction. -- Avi 15:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
It's quite definitely a slur to say that Giladi's words have been picked up by racists. It adds nothing to the debate (that I can see) - and these are not "facts" that anyone would appreciate finding in the encyclopedia. The implication is pointlessly unpleasant to the "Iraqi Jew" who is the subject of this article and I'm pretty sure it's misleading to the reader.
You've just told us that "The result was quite clear (IMO), you can not quote "fringe opinion" -or even mention it- directly. If it is noteworthy, then a RS (say, a major newspaper) will have written about it. If you cannot find such a RS, then you can delete it."
So what on earth is going on in this case?
PalestineRemembered 18:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether that section of WP:RS is applicable here is what is under discussion; we have requested input as shown above. I do not believe it is as simple as you are claiming. You cannot use a fringe site to justify an exogenous opinon. You CAN use a fringe site to discuss the site itself. The issue here is we are discussing the SITE itself in another article. As mentioned, the question has been raised in the proper place (thank you, Huldra!) and we weill hopefully have some clarity pretty soon. In the interim, I urge all of us to exhibit some patience and forbearance to forstall edit warring. Thank you. -- Avi 18:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Avi, for raising the issue here: [18]. However, there seem to be a problem that the "regulars" there are not very willing to say somethig spesific, as long as they do not know which article and which sources we are talking about. Lets wait a day or two, shall we? If there has not been more input I would strongly suggest that it is made clear on WP:RS which article we are talking about. In the meantime; I am following the suggestion on the WP:RS talk-page (" It sounds controvercial enough that the material should probably be removed to the talk page while full discussion takes place."). Regards, Huldra 00:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC) Cut it out and "parked" it here: "His views have also been quoted as support by white supremacists, neo-nazis, and other people and organizations accused of anti-Semitism such as Kevin Alfred Strom of National Vanguard[6] and the Adelaide Institute.[7]" Regards, Huldra 00:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it irrelevant that neo-Nazis and white supremacists love this guy? I don't get it. Elizmr 00:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
oh, it´s quite possible that they hate Sharon or Olmert...if so, do you want it inserted into the Sharon /Olmert articles? Anyway: the point here is: this is being discussed at [19]. The advice from there was to remove it to the talk-page until agreement was reached, ok? And that was what I did (and will do again). Please wait for consensus before inserting highly contentious links. Thank you. (PS: and please read the discussion in those two links). Regards, Huldra 00:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It is irrelevant in this case that extremists pick up on the testimony of Giladi. (It's pretty much impossible to imagine any circumstances in which it might be relevant).
Furthermore, it's a vicious slur on him, such as must be removed per WP:BLP.
PalestineRemembered 03:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
You're contradicting yourself. If it's irrelevant how is it a "vicious slur". Obviously, what you just said makes no sense. Amoruso 03:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS says we cannot use extremist sites as sources. It does not in any way shape or form prevent us from mentioning that extremist sites and opinions exist, nor from describing the fact the Giladi's works are a staple on them. Isarig 18:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Concluding from two passing references to Giladi's work in neo-nazi sites that his work is a "staple" on them, is WP:OR. You need a secondary source that meets WP:RS to make this conclusion. We are attributing inflated importance to the mention of Giladi's work twice in such sites and making a conclusion about a definitive link between them that does not bear out in reality. Tiamut 11:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Giladi article

Tiamut, I disagree with your changing back the link to the HTML version. The PDF version is the actual newsletter, as it was printed, complete with pictures and editorial comments by John Mahoney. It is not a version of the original article, it is the original article. It is not as if both were HTML sites, but one has ad borders and one does not (ala Yahoo and CNN). Today, it is extremely uncommon for computers not to have Adobe reader installed. If anything, I would suggest you add a "printer-friendly" link to the ref, but I am very against any movement from original source, unless there is very good reason. I am taking the liberty of putting it back to pdf for now. Thanks. -- Avi 22:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Avi. Considering this edit [20] that contains a version of the article with different content posted at a website that does not pass WP:RS, I would have to agree. By attributing Giladi's name change upon arrival in Israel to "the English" rather than Israeli immigration officials, and being followed by the sentence in which he describes that this was his first indication of how "the Israeli caste system works", that edit effectively cast Giladi's credibility into doubt, needlessly and incorrectly. By the way, I do apologize for not simply adding the HTML link. I wasn't aware that you could cite two web references for the same reference, nor of how to go about doing that. After some tweaking with the "show preview" button, I realized I could append it to the page= line in the code and that it would appear as a hyperlink. Tiamut 22:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I read carefully, and I just checked, but am willing to be corrected. Giladi says in his own article that the romanized version on his Iraqi passport (that he somehow managed to get ahold of after his jailbreak) had the "ashkenazi" version of his name placed there by the English. This is the quote I was using. Is it inaccurate?

"Later I made my way to the new state of Israel, arriving in May, 1950. My passport had my name in Arabic and English, but the English couldn't capture the "kh" sound, so it was rendered simply as Klaski. At the border, the immigration people applied the English version, which had an Eastern European, Ashkenazi ring to it. In one way, this "mistake" was my key to discovering very soon just how the Israeli caste system worked.

Elizmr 23:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OK I was able to look at the PDF version, which is a photographic copy of the original newsletter and many other sites, the version I noted above is the original version and the one which appears most often on other sites:

(on the first few pages of a google search...it goes on and on):

SO, I don't think my edit "effectively cast Giladi's credibility into doubt, needlessly and incorrectly", but will give Tiamut the benefit of the doubt and assume that she read a different version then I did and will AGF. RESPECT! Elizmr 00:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Elizmir. I'm sorry if you took offense at that formulation. When I originally inserted the reference for the article, I used the printer friendly version of the article that is identical to the PDF format, both provided by the American for Middle East Understanding. So of course I had only ever read that version. I never saw the article version you had linked to later on (it had disappeared when Avi tidied up the references) until I was fact-checking the article, read the section on Giladi's name change, and remembered that it was presented differently earlier. I checked the PDF linked article and found that the information was not supported by the PDF article cited. So I went back through the edits to see how that version got formulated. That was when I found the other article version that you had linked to [24]. When I saw that, I realized how important the point Avi was trying to make about "original sources" and thought I'd share. Forgive my verbosity. Respect. Tiamut 21:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Elizmir, in the edit you made that I just reverted, you wrote: “Giladi states he subsequently had difficulty finding employment because of discrimination against Arab Jews. He says that he became especially aware of this because of his Hebrew name. The Iraqi passport he brought with him to Israel listed his name incorrectly as "Klaski" in romanized letters and correctly as "Khalasch" in Arabic script, because, he says the "English" could not grasp the Arabic "kh" sound. At the Israeli border, the Ashkenazi-sounding romanized rather than the Arabic script version of his name was adopted by immigration officials. [1] This "Ashkenization" of his name is claimed by Giladi as his first indication of how "the Israeli caste system worked."[1]”

Why would you write this after the discussion we have been having on this very subject? As I pointed out, the article version currently cited (i.e. the original article in PDF and printer-friendly format) clearly states: “Later I made my way to the new State of Israel, arriving in May, 1950. At the entry point they had trouble in Hebrew with my name Khalaschi. There is no “kh” sound in Hebrew, so they came up with an Eastern European, Ashkenazi conversion, Klaski. In one way, this “mistake” was my key to discovering very soon just how the Israeli caste system worked, but I didn’t know that then. I accepted Klaski as my new surname.” Perhaps the question of whether you are you trying to Giladi's credibility into doubt, needlessly and incorrectly" should read instead, “purposefully and stubbornly.” Or was this (too) simply an honest mistake? Respect. Tiamut 21:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Tiamut, please read the PDF version and the links. The two versions are NOT identical. The PDF is different than the link that goes to HTML. The PDF is the original newsletter and the HTML is a later version. The PDF, and all of the other links I put above, read as follows:

""Later I made my way to the new state of Israel, arriving in May, 1950. My passport had my name in Arabic and English, but the English couldn't capture the "kh" sound, so it was rendered simply as Klaski. At the border, the immigration people applied the English version, which had an Eastern European, Ashkenazi ring to it. In one way, this "mistake" was my key to discovering very soon just how the Israeli caste system worked".

Which is what I quoted above, and edited based upon, and which you have now reverted twice. Are we looking at the same document? I checked and rechecked. Please confirm that we are looking at the same document. I am not trying to make Giladi look bad, I am just writing based on his own writing. And I am certainly not doing anything on "purpose" and not being "stubborn", so please stop assuming bad faith and when you demand respect please consider giving some back in return. Elizmr 21:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC) (the infidel)
I'm sorry Elizmir. That was my mistake. I should have checked the PDF version better. But I do prefer Avi's edit (see below). I felt that yours gave the impression that Giladi's conclusion didn't follow. Respect. Tiamut 00:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys, from what I see, both of you are trying to edit in good faith, and y'all are getting a bit frustrated, understandably. Perhaps if you both took a step back for a bit (keeping 3RR in mind too ;) ) and thought it over and talked it out here, you'ld work it out. Both of you are meaning well, and wantto do the article justice -- don't let some misunderstandings get both of you upset with each other for no reason. The article isn't going anywhere image:smile.gif -- Avi 22:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

AVI, please check the PDF. I'm sure this is a misunderstanding, but the version I used to write from is the PDF version and the original version. It would help if other editors on the page downloaded the PDF and read it. Elizmr 22:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I basically copied the PDF's paragraph, and then re-wrote it as a paraphrase instead of a direct quote. Do you both find this acceptable? -- Avi 23:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. It states that the passport listed the Askenazic-sounding name rather than the wrong name being given to him by (colonalist evil racist Ashkenazi-centric) Israeli immigration folks. I'd prefer the term "romainzed" rather than "english" to describe the script (as I had it in my paraphrased version), because that's a more correct way to state that roman rather than arabic characters were used in his passport. Failing that I"d prefer a direct quote to a paraphrase. (I had paraphrased in the first place to improve clarity). However, basically as long as Israel is not incorrectly implicated for the mistake I am ok with it. Elizmr 23:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Your edit is the most faithful to the original. It improves upon Elizmir's edit which made Giladi's conclusion about the "Israeli caste system" seem non-sequiter, and my own, which implied the deficiency was in the immigration officials grasp of Arabic rather than fully describing the choice of Israeli immigration officials to use the more "Ashkenazic-sounding" English transliteration of his name, over his name as it is faithfully transcribed in Arabic. Thanks for sorting that out Avi. Tiamut 00:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, Tiamut's version was a distortion which blamed the Israeli immigration official, rather than his passport, for the mistake. She did this because the HTML version was wrong, not out of bad faith, but she should apologize to me for accusing me of bad faith because I wanted note that the incorrect transliteration was actually on his IRAQI PASSPORT and not an invention of the immigration official (who might not have known how to read arabic). Tiamut's version:

"Upon his arrival in Israel, immigration officials, who could not grasp the Arabic "kh" sound, rather than his actual name "Khalasch," transliterated his name as "Klaski"

. I won't hold my breath for an apology, but one would certainly be collegial. Elizmr 01:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I did apologize above, right under your description of how the PDF matches the printer-friendly version, saying also that I should have read the PDF version better. It seems that we both have problems assuming good faith with one another. Respect. Tiamut 01:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I apoligize, Tiamut, I totally missed your apology and totally accept it. I was working late and just read the bottom comment. Please accept my apology for not reading carefully and accusing you of bad faith. I really feel strongly that the article should state that the "english" version is transliteration, however, and did say that above when Avi proposed his version. I have some background in linguisitcs and to see a transliteration of Arabic called "English" really irks me. Could you accept the version I just did, or could be have some of it in quotes to show that Gilad used this term to identify incorrectly transliterated arabic? Elizmr 03:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey. I just made come minor changes to the version you put in. I think it respects what you are trying to get across while keeping it clean and simple. I don't see the need for quotes around "English", since it is foregrounded by your sentence on how the name was transliterated from Arabic into English. I assume the Brits made that transliteration though it could have Iraqis, but either way I don't think that's the main point. The point is that the Israeli immigration officials, chose to go with the English version, rather than the Arabic original. At least, that's the point to Giladi and that's what the write-up should faithfully convey. Tiamut 15:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
My only problem is that when something is tranliterated from Arabic script into Roman letters, is is still Arabic. Just because it uses the same script as English, it is not the English language. That was why I put "English" in quotes. Does that make sense? Elizmr 18:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I do understand your point, but it's speculatory. If a British Mandate official recorded his name in English, he may have done so by asking him what his name was and writing it down. We cannot assume that this is even a transliteration, which is why I resisted that addition to begin with. We don't know how Giladi's name got to be written in English alongside the Arabic on his passport or by whom. Your edit would imply Arab responsibility for his incorrectly transcribed name which isn't necessarily supported by the account that Giladi gives. His main point is that the immigration officials liked the Ashkenazic version of his name, not that Iraqi or British officials screwed up when they transliterated it. Do you understand my reservations? Tiamut 18:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't make sense to me. There is no such thing as his name in the English language--he name is not an English word. It was just written down using the same letters that is used to write english, ie romanized or transliterated. It was done in IRaq. What makes this English language? Elizmr 22:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Any by the way, I don't see my version as implying that anything is anyone's fault--Arab, Israeli, etc. It is strange to take the finger pointing that far. I'm just trying to be true to the situation. Elizmr 22:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC) It is also weird to think that anyone at the Isralei border would give anyone an Ashkenazic name since names were being changed to more sephardi sounding ones at that juncture in history (but this IS speculation on my part and should not bear on the edit). Elizmr 22:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear Elizmir. This is what it currently reads as: "Giladi states he subsequently had difficulty finding employment because of discrimination against Arab Jews. He recalls that when he arrived in Israel, in May of 1950, his Iraqi passport had his name as written in Arabic, and as transliterated into English. In English, there is no “kh” sound", so it was rendered simply as “Klaski”. Israeli border immigration officials applied this English version of his name, which had an Eastern European, Ashkenazi sound to it. Giladi writes that “in one way, this ‘mistake’ was my key to discovering very soon just how the Israeli caste system worked.”" How would you change it to incorporate what you are trying to say? Doesn't it already? Tiamut 23:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Tiamut: I would change to: "Giladi states he subsequently had difficulty finding employment because of discrimination against Arab Jews. He recalls that when he arrived in Israel, in May of 1950, his Iraqi passport had his name as written in Arabic and transliterated using the Latin alphabet. Gilad states that because, "the English couldn't capture the "kh" sound,..it was rendered simply as Klaski." At the border, the Israeli immigration officials applied what he calls the "English" version of his name, which had an Eastern European, Ashkenazi sound to it. Giladi writes that “in one way, this ‘mistake’ was my key to discovering very soon just how the Israeli caste system worked.”"
I put the section that states that it was rendered this way because english has no kh sound into quotes because it is linguistically inaccuate so either we should use "[sic]" which always seems kind of rude to me, or just quote what he said, which seems nicer. Thanks for your consideration on this. I know it is a subtle point. Elizmr 23:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
It's fine with me. I would take out "the" before "Israeli immigration officials", but it's fine that way otherwise. I prefer things to simple and more direct, but I understand your interest in nuance, re: the linguistics issue. Tiamut 22:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I changed it and took out the "the" as you suggested. Thanks for agreeing to this point. Elizmr 15:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category: Mizrahi Jews vs. Iraqi Jews

I'm not sure what underlies the problem here, but it looks like [[Category:Iraqi Jews]] is a subset of [[Category:Mizrahi Jews]] and is populated with many individuals. Please see [25]. According to guidelines, it is better to use the more exact category when possible. Maybe I,m missing some political agenda here, but it is not true that the category of IJ does not exist. Also, incidentially I know many Jews whose families originally came from the Arab world and they usually identify themselves based on the country their family originally came from--Syria, Morocco, Egyptian, etc. rather than calling themselves "Mizrahi". It may well be different in Israel, which may well be why Tiamut has a different preferred category. Elizmr 23:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not any different in Israel. An Iraqi Jew would describe himself as "Iraqi". Isarig 23:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
So what's the problem here, I don't get it. Elizmr 23:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
My mistake, I thought "Iraqi Jews" wasn't a category. I had been entering it as "Iraqi Jew" and it wasn't coming up as a cat, so I changed it "Mizrahi Jews" in another article too because that refers to both Iranian and Iraqi Jews. I will accept the smaller cat, since I realize that I was wrong in thinking it did not exist. Apologies. Tiamut 19:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Tiamut, I didn't see this before. No problem. Thanks for explaining. Elizmr 13:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black panther reference

The reference #10 for the black panther pamphlet is rather malformed. There seems to be four works referenced, and which one supports the paragraph is questionable. Can someone please bring the source that supports the paragraph, and then it can be verified? Thanks. -- Avi 00:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I created this entry (Black Panther (Hebrew journal), 9 November 1972, see Documents from Israel, Ithaca Press, London, 1975, p.133. - according to "'Cruel Zionism'--or The 'Ingathering' of Iraqi Jewry" By David Hirst, Excerpts from his book: The Gun and the Olive Branch, 1977, Futura Publications) from something I had in my notes, and there shouldn't be a problem with it, I think I know what it means. When I'm back with my books in a few days I'll fish it out and clarify. Don't let me forget - or just accept it's in Hirst's book and he's WP:RS.
However, I wrote that it was quoted by Giladi, and on reflection, I'm not sure about that. I'll take out that part (I'm leaving in the [verification needed] label for now).
PalestineRemembered 16:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Which source do you actually have a hard copy of? If haven't seen the orig source, but have the Hirsh book, the thing should read "as quoted in David Hirsh's blah blah blah..." so you don't give the impression you've read the orig. I'm not doubting that that's what the original said, but to use "as cited in" when that is the case is important. Elizmr 16:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
As long as the support is properly cited, so that anyone can verify it at will, that's fine. But if this is actually quoting a book quoting another book quoting a pamphlet, then both the text and the reference should reflect that, and WP:RS and WP:V need to be kept in mind. Thanks. -- Avi 17:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Now you've really blown things ..... I could swear that his name is David Hirst, not Hirsh! However, if you have the book to hand, then you could re-write the reference and save me scratching around for it in a week or twos time.
Avi - I think we'll find the existing reference is correct, just give me time to confirm.
PalestineRemembered 21:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
?really blown things? Sorry for my quick and inexact typing. Elizmr 21:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Understood, PR. I don't think that the statement as it stands is libelous, which is why I assumed good faith and asked for verification here instead of reverting it image:smile.gif. Thanks for looking into it. -- Avi 21:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naeim Giladi is lying

The executors of the Shem Tov synagogue and other bombings in Iraq belonged to the 'al Istiqlal' Arab ultra-nationalist group, whose members were known, and who were officers in the Iraqi army using army-issue explosives. One of the injured, who died shortly thereafter, was adamant that the bombs were thrown from Arab houses across the street. They were directed at people who were lining up to register for emigration to Israel, and that's why they were targetted. The Iraqi state covered up for this crime by executing innocent Jews. Giladi is aiding and abetting this cover-up, and his accusations are colored by the bad experiences he had in Israel in later years. He should be ashamed.

NOTE: the above comment was placed by an anon editor with the following edit summary : (cur) (last) 15:30, 13 November 2006 132.250.135.204 (Talk) (Naeim Giladi is lying) and later removed by editor PalestineRemembered with the following edit summary: (cur) (last) 16:41, 13 November 2006 PalestineRemembered (Talk | contribs) (rv Vandalism, breach of WP:BLP)

NOTE: the title of this section was changed for NPOV reasons. Elizmr 00:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: It was changed to "Shem Tov synagogue bombing". It shouldn't have... claiming that someone is lying is not a violation of WP:BLP and there's no requirement for NPOV in the talk page - the user is apparently doubting the factual accuracy of the whole article, talk pages should be reverted only on rare cases. Amoruso 12:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His experience in al-Mejdil

Just a small note: Giladis experience in al-Mejdil fits quite well with what Benny Morris writes about it the book 1948 and after; Israel and the Palestinians, in the chapter: The Transfer of Al Majdal´s Remaining Arabs to Gaza, 1950. Regards, Huldra 08:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks interesting Elizmr 21:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sentence removed from the cover banner section

I removed the sentence about the reader "informed consent". It is not a legal thing; it is just provacative and makes the content of the section overlong. Elizmr 21:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I put that in deliberately in the interests of NPOV. It's either puffery, or it could be puffery, just like the claim that the book was banned.
Both claims were there in order to empower people and allow them to make a better impression of the situation, based on 100% RS sources, without passing any form of judgement on the author or its book.
It's a great pity you didn't think this through before interfering. The honourable way forward now is for you to put it back.
PalestineRemembered 21:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you are being overly dramatic here. It not a law that people sign consent before reading a book in the US, and the passage does not fulfill any legal requirement. It is just there as puffery, and Wikipedia shouldn't be participating in attempts to create provacative advertising for this book. There is no evidence the book was ever banned anywhere. Giladi himself says that he didn't even submit it in Israel and didn't go forward with any attempt to publish in the US. Saying the book was banned when it wasn't is a slur on two governments which support freedom of speech. Why should I put it back? Elizmr 22:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Considering that the banning is a subject of controversy, we have to include all information that might support or detract from the allegation. The readers' agreement is evidence of the publisher's concerns regarding the content of the book as conroversial and perhaps even subject to banning. It should be included as one of the pieces of evidence supporting that conclusion. Without it, it looks like there is no such serious concern on the part of the publishers and that the banning claim is just PR to seel the book. To fairly represent the publisher's and author's POV, it should be included. Tiamut 11:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The "agreement" is nothing but fluff. It has no legal standing, and they all know it. It is no more than a marketing ploy. okedem 12:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Do we put in all rediculous marketing ploys in wikipedia? I don't think so. -- Avi 12:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Tiamut--If this agreement thing supported the book being banned, I would say you were absolutely right and it should be included for NPOV and I would fight on your side to include it. And I can totally understand how you would think that it would support such a thing, since I'm assuming you're not all that familiar with the US since you have said you are an Arab Israeli Palestinian. I don't think you are trying to put anything in the article you don't think it true. BUT Honestly, the passage doesn't support the book being banned. Freedom of the press is a huge thing here in the US. It is completely legal to speak against the government here. I have been in hundreds of protests throughout my life. Someone who speaks against the government might attract attention and analysis (which is reasonable ethically) but anyone can say whatever they want and read whatever they want. (Altho it is illegal to sell pornography to minors for their own protection). If one does a violent act or breaks the law in another way then that is a problem legally, but speech is 100% free. Think about the basic things you would like to see as fundamentals of your ideal government. How seriously do you feel about those things? This is how we feel about freedom of speech. It is one of the basic things about our government. I'm not lying to you. Elizmr 15:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/e/Talk%7ENaeim_Giladi_101f.html"