Talk:Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners

Vanlister violation of 1R +falsifying the source by misrepresentation

• Ist revert. No edit-summary for removal of impeccably sourced high quality information
• Second revert. The edit summary runs:’ it is mentioned as a controversy, moved to the appropriate section’.

That is a blatantly spurious justification, because the source you use reads:-

In the wake of the Nahariya atrocity, Raful Eitan, the I.D.F. general, gave the regional commander Avigdor Ben-Gal a simple order: “Kill them all,” meaning all members of the P.L.O. and anyone connected to the organization in Lebanon. With Eitan’s blessing, Ben-Gal appointed the man he considered the I.D.F.’s top expert in special ops, Meir Dagan, to lead the efforts in south Lebanon. The three of them set up the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon From Foreigners. The operation ran almost entirely without the authorization or knowledge of the rest of the military, the defense ministry, the intelligence agencies or the government. Ronen Bergman]], 'How Arafat Eluded Israel’s Assassination Machine,' New York Times Magazine 23 January 2018

The only use of the word controversy/-ial in the text relates to Uri Avnery’s visit to Arafat. In the above text, a major historian of Israeli intelligence states this as an ascertained fact. No scholar has challenged his reconstruction, which was based on detailed information from at least 4 Israeli Mossad/IDF men who were privy to the operation.

That means (a) first you just erased, without explanation, a well known fact, sourced to the foremost contemporary historian of Israel and terrorism. (b) then you provided an edit summary, when challenged, which falsifies the source. (c) All this while breaking 1R. Now I see you try to make out that Bergman's statement of an ascertained fact (see his book) is put on a par with a mer epoint of view of Arafat.

That too is WP:OR and pointy. For all the original NYTs source states is that Arafat realized Israeli intelligence was behind the terroristic bombing spree. He had, unlike Bergman, no knowledge of the secret which emerged only with Bergman's book in 2018, that pointed out the names of the group of 3 who organized the Front.

That makes four serious errors, one after another.Nishidani (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

You guys really got time there :). My edit was to make the summary coherent with the main text. Secondly, your allegation is supported by one source only, and I think that's why it was previously written as a controversy. Well you already know that I assume. And no I don't do "Mistakes" or argue about moving a reference, I know. Happy to see that I bother the team, have a nice --Vanlister (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

'My allegation'? Look. A word of advice. If on just one page you screw up sequentially, and regard facts in sources as allegation etc., you obviously lack knowledge of Wikipedia, its regulations, not to speak of the topic matter. You cannot brand Bergman's views as controversial unless you can prove Bergman's remarks are controversial, which you didn't, and can't document. It was universally praised as a remarkable piece of scholarship, which exposed one of the infinite strings of historical coverups that are normative in that nook of the woods.Read the book, or, if that's too long, Brulin (another expert)'s paraphrase of notable parts of its theses.And, by the way, writing 'you guys in addressing me is an incautious slip that tends to signal something about your approach here. Nishidani (talk) 21:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

This "universally praised as a remarkable piece of scholarship" source would be the same one that in another article one of your fellow travelers has described as 'The Bergman source is the only one which supports that,... which proves it is unreliable.'[1], yes? Inf-in MD (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

If you are going to quote me, you should do it fairly. I didn't accept two sentences that Bergman wrote without source because I knew of facts that contradict them. And I took the time to present those facts in detail. You, on the other hand, have presented nothing but your own dislike of things that Bergman ascribed to witnesses who were involved in it. If you can present information that Bergman's claims are impossible, that his witnesses are lying, or that Bergman is lying, you should do so. Otherwise you have nothing. Zero^talk 08:33, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I quoted you fairly. You described the source itself as unreliable, not that the claim is false. In doing so, you misrepresented what Bergamn wrote, alleging he said the Nazi in question was in Europe during the war, when he did not. He said he collaborated with the Nazis during the war, and brought forth the testimony of a Holocaust survivor (quoted in other sources, too) who claimed the Nazi told him he had been to Auschwitz. We don't know if that claim is true - the witness could be lying, or misremembering, or misidentifying the Nazi; It could also be that the Nazi was lying or exaggerating his role. But none of this matters, because what you claimed- that Bergman said he as in Europe is wrong. Or, if I were to use the more combative language favored by you and Nishidani, you falsified the source by misrepresentation. Inf-in MD (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I should have writing:'remarkable piece of investigative work'. No source, however good, lacks errors. Read any review in the standard quarterlies and literary supplements devoted to scholarly production and you will realize that: all reviewers spot gaps or challenge conclusions. Zero happened to note a contradiction on an unrelated datum, between the historical record and what Bergman reported, and, as he explained, on those grounds, that particular statement, clashing with a known fact, could not be used. I myself checked this before editing: Bergman had three perhaps four informants, all involved in what became a secret operation, all people with a high social and military profile, confirming that datum. There is no evidence his attribution to Israel of the creation of a terrorist group has been challenged, and numerous reviewers have had the opportunity to do so. Nishidani (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

And just a note for the record. If you are aspiring to edit in this area, engaging in as personal attack (bundling myself with Zero as 'fellow travelers', a variation on Vanlister's 'you guys') before you have even straddled the 500 high bar, doesn't look promising. That makes by my count at least 5 recent accounts with a low edit editing profile (roaming (by pure chance of course) into this topic area,(your 322, Vanlister's 539, and a handful in the 656-850 range). 'Fellow traveler' refers to ' persons who are intellectually sympathetic to the ideology of a political organization', and more appropriate to editors who, by their behavior, appear to be defending a known ideological construction of a given state, than to a hodgepodge of editors who know the topic, read widely, and endeavor thereby to ascertain the factual record behind the blow-hard publicitarian rhetoric of what in some quarters is known as hasbara.Nishidani (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no personal attack in noting that you and Zero edits with a similar ideological POV, often in tandem. As a case in point, note how quickly he arrived here, to an article he has never edited before, even though I did not name him in my comment. He is clearly following your edits, and you his. Inf-in MD (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, if he follows me, thank goodness for that. He is the most informed wikipedian we have on the geography and modern history of the area of Israel and Palestine, and seems to have access to every archive in the world bearing on the topic. I don't know how many times he has picked up oversights, errors, or slipshod mistakes I for one have made in the I/P area. What you call a 'similar ideological POV' is the kind of slapdash crack made by a cast of hundreds of editors who have come and gone, invariably to a person removing material deemed 'offensive' of Israel, and adding material that throws the other party into a bad light. That's not a POV of course. It's just protecting a perceived national interest. The distasteful 'ideological POV' you discern here is a methodology, and happens to be a core Wikipedia policy. It's identical to the default method drilled into anyone aspiring to get doctoral, or postdoctoral credentials in any respectable university, namely wide reading of relevant materials, careful verification of facts, and a close application to the logical layout of the topic studied.

If you don't like the result, there's only one recourse (a) light a candle for the immediate conflagration of Israeli newspapers like Haaretz, (b) pray for the talebanization of Tel Aviv University|TAU, and the closure of all those numerous centers of Jewish studies in the diaspora which provide editors here, week in week out, with peer-reviewed articles, monographs and books on the history of the conflict. We are, mostly, mere dragomans of what Israeli and diaspora scholarship and journalism established, and the real POV pushers here have histrorically shared one tacit assumption: sure, it's true that these things are known in Israel, ascertained by its scholarship, but they should not be discussed, broadcast or used by outsiders, who should stick to that 1% of the reality readers of the NYTs etc. are provided with. Nishidani (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

What I call a 'similar ideological POV' is an obvious pattern of edits, easily verifiable, whereby you and Zero edit articles in the area of the Arab-Israeli conflict from a single perspective, uniformly pro-Arab/anti-Israel. There is no "methodology" to it other than advancing that POV, and the Bergman source is an excellent example of this: Where Bergman makes an extraordinary claim that you like (because it reflects poorly on Israel), you describe his book as a '"universally praised as a remarkable piece of scholarship". When the same author, in the same book makes an extraordinary claim that you don't like (because it provides some reasonable justification for actions by the proto-Israeli military groups) suddenly the entire source is described thusly "'The Bergman source is the only one which supports that,...it is unreliable.". Inf-in MD (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a place where people work, not chat. You joined in mid-July, and with the above have racked up 349 edits, and apparently all this having established that editors with 18 and 15 years experience, and collectively some 130,000 contributions, share a pattern of edits that is pro-Arab/anti-Israel. You are so attentive you haven't read the article: (a) an Israeli investigation under Yehoshua Sagi in 1982 investigated this and found that the suspicions were true (b) Amir Oren mentioned it in a eulogy to Meir Dagan that is highly patriotic at Haaretz in 2016. Ronen Bergman who has to his credit a pretty devastating book on corruption in the PLO, then provided the details, citing testimonies from the Israeli Mossad and IDF actors intimate with the period details, and wrote up the results for the New York Times and Random House. In 3 years, no one reviewer has come forth challenging what he wrote. That makes 3 Israeli accounts. Since that is on the page and you didn't grasp it, since you apparently have a grievance against editors who actually study the history closely and cite these Israeli sources, and since you have, if you are a new editor, no experience to qualify for editing here, I suggest you shouldn't waste editors time arguing your POV pointlessly here. For reverse what you insinuate about two of us here, and a POV on your part becomes self-evident. This place doesn't need POV pushers. It needs literate people who do extensive research, have a thorough grasp of method, and report what they find regardless of the interests of whoever, Israel or its enemies, if enemy is the right word for those corrupt buffoons and thyugs in Ramallah. Nishidani (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I stand by my statement that you and Zero share a pattern of edits that is pro-Arab/anti-Israel. Feel free to prove me wrong, what with your 13 years of experience and thousands of edits.Inf-in MD (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure someone might wangle a headline in the NYTs about you standing by your unexciting opinion about two anonymous slavers at Wikipedia's mill. If so, don't link it. I, like many others, prefer source reading to gossip.Nishidani (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

you seem to be enjoying this "gossip" quite a bit, judging by your inability to let go. Anyway, I don't think the NYT will take an interest in this, but when the time comes for people on Wikipedia to examine your editing behavior, this will be a good exhibit. Inf-in MD (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Stop using this I/P talk page to run up to the 500 edits required to edit here. Do some work elsewhere that will suggest you have something to contribute to wikipedia. The only diffs relevant for the future so far are those showing that before qualifying you bore an animus towards two regular editors.Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

And you still can't let go....Feel free to browse my editing history and see how much work I've been doing to clean up references. I bear no animus toward you or Zero, I just want to see you editing with less POV-pushing, "regular editor" or not. Inf-in MD (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

more sources

A source that doesn't even mention Bergman: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-dagan-s-most-daring-war-was-the-one-he-helped-prevent-1.5420039 . It seems to precede Bergman's book, but it is hard to know about publication timelines. Zero^talk 08:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Here is a list of terrorist attacks attributed to Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners. Zero^talk 08:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I've tabulated their data reversing the chronology, but, being a nong, I can't make an appropriate wikitable. Can someone fix as follows so it comes up as a table?

Terrorist incidents attributed to the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners

date	country	location	fatalities	injured	target type
29 January 1981	France	Paris	1	8	Government (Diplomatic)
27 August 1981	Lebanon	Beirut	0	0	Government (Diplomatic)
17 September 1981	Lebanon	Shika	10	10	Business
17 September 1981	Lebanon	Sidon	23	90	Non-state militia
20 September 1981	Lebanon	Beirut	4	28	Business
28 September 1981	Lebanon	Unknown	18	45	Non-state militia
1 October 1981	Lebanon	Beirut	83	300	Police
2 October 1981	Lebanon	Nabatiyeh	0	0	Educational Institution
29 November 1981	Syria	Aleppo	90	135	Private Citzens/Property
27 February 1982	Lebanon	Beirut	8	35	Military
21 May 1982	Lebanon	Beirut	3	10	Business
21 May 1982	Lebanon	Beirut	0	0	Business
21 May 1982	Lebanon	Beirut	0	1	Private Citizens/Property
28 January 1983	Lebanon	Chtaura	12	20	Private Citizens/Property
7 August 1983	Lebanon	Baalbek	35	133	Private Citizens/Property

Can anyone work out how to make that template work? I've done all the necessary formatting according to the template guidelines so it should be no sweat just to tinker with it and fix some defect that has crept in and destroyed the functional image required before the table is introduced into the article itself? Thanks in anticipation, and sorry for the bother caused by my ineptness.Nishidani (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The trick is to use a vertical bar at the start of each content row. Zero^talk 01:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

POV

Undercover of edit war, users of the Palestine program, have been changing text to imply that allegations made by a journalist, Bergman, and few pro-palestinians on pro-palestinian websites account to "truth". This is getting to far. A correct description of the POV of Bergman and other relevant authors should be separated to the article.

There is a complete lack of information on the veracity of the claims of Bergman and co., there is absolutely no consensus accusing Israel of State terrorism.

I, myself, dislike interacting with this team, I therefore ask for you to join the conversation to ensure balance of POV. --Vanlister (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me but this is (a) totally incoherent (b) a violation of WP:AGF, . since you brand people disagreeing with you a 'team' consisting of 'users of the Palestine program' (what on earth is that?) (c) and a Canvassing violation, since you are addressing someone ('you') asking them to 'join' in a conversation you won't engage in, since 'I . .dislike interacting with the team'.

As I stated in my revert, you need to bullet your perceived POV issues. That dealing with Bergman's book have already been answered: independent sources on the page state that a government investigation found the claims to be true.Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Am I engaging the conversation? Yes so why making assumptions?

Aren't you part of a Palestine program with your fellow collaborators? Yes according to your personal page and your edit pattern concerning Palestine.

Now, less about you, I am talking about the total lack of fairness, the way you choose your reference is cherry-picking since you generalize a thesis based on a specific opinion. You ignored the cautious regarding the POV choice of Bergmann, therefore calling for contributors to join this issue is perfectly in line with your actions. The other appropriate measure is reverting what you added in a one sided way, while there was a disagreement. As far as I am concerned, Bergman can only speculate about an issue that is controversial, and you cannot present it as a truth on Wikipedia cross-referenced with selective anti-Israel allegations to make up a story. --Vanlister (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You are now edit-warring again, while indeed a case regarding your suitability of your editing in this area is still under discussion at AE.

If you want to engage, try and write comprehensible English.

• You clearly have not read the article as recently edited, nor the sources, not Bergman's book. Neither have you responded to the demonstrations on the talk page that Bergman's direct reportage of remarks admitting responsibility for the FLLP by high Israeli intelligence and IDF cadres is confirmed by sources independent of Bergman. So, you are just repeating your unsubstantiated claims. There is no known 'controversy' as you assert, about Bergman's reconstruction of the history of this Lebanese episode. Lastly apropos the extremely tiresome bellringing about 'selective anti-Israel allegations to make up a story', history is neutral to the past: it strives to ascertain the facts. No one here 'cherrypicked' evidence to 'make up a story' (by the way that phrasing also is a WP:AGF violation since it asserts that editors here have deliberately falsified their reportage of documented facts to skew them and create an unverified counter narrative. So, to repeat:-

• Provide evidence that Bergman's reconstruction on the basis of oral histories of the men involved in the FLLP's creation is challenged or 'controversial'. If you can't, then you should drop your unsubstantiated personal claim.
• List, bulleted, specific passages that violate WP:NPOV. If you cannot, then the tag has no policy warrant.Nishidani (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Refrain from ad-hominem attacks. If you dislike my "unsubstantiated claims", do not answer to this message in this manner.

There is no academic nor official recognition of Bergman claims. It is therefore an allegation.

The criticism has been addressed above, no need for listing (refer to my previous remarks).

I want other people to join the conversation, so I will be waiting for that. Talk to you in few days maybe, cheers--Vanlister (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

One of the criteria for removing a POV tag is "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given." That clearly applies, as all of your complaints amount to "I don't like it". You don't have long to provide evidence for the tag before it is removed. The involvement of Israel in FLLF has been on the public record for about five years and its reasonable to assume that there would be some pushback by now. Where is it? Zero^talk 11:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The Neutrality issue that was raised is clear, and an explanation has been given - the complaint is that Bergman is not a reliable source (You made this argument, elsewhere, when you didn't like another claim of his) , not academic, not widely covered by other sources. That you don't agree with this in this case doesn't make it an "I don't like it" argument. WP:MAINTENANCEDISAGREEMENT is every clear that the tag shouldn't be removed when "There is ongoing activity or discussion related to the template issue", which is clearly the case here. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

If you disagree with the world that cites Bergman, then the place to argue that is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Requests have been made to clarify the issue of the putative NPOV violation have been met with repetitious undocumented assertions that Bergman's book is controversial, and treated by the usual WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT tactic of POV warriors. There is no evidence of some 'ongoing activity or discussion' here, just blague. If no one else removes the tag in the meantime, I will do so tomorrow.Nishidani (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's a "world that cites Bergman" - in fact, I haven't seen anyone cite him on this. The claim that this is an unreliable source was made by Zero himself (At least with regard to claims he doesn't particularly like). This discussion is ongoing, and if you remove the tag before it is resolved, expect to be reported. Inf-in MD (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You are wasting editors' time by being unfocused and intentionally ignoring prior comments. Zero correctly stated (it is a general principle) that when an otherwise RS source gets a datum wrong - something established in other sources - it cannot be used for its version of the datum. This in no way undermines Bergman's book as a whole. Traditionally in jargon, such lapses in high quality works are known as Homer nods. So there is still no serious indication that the text has POV flaws. Therefore the tag will be removed. And as to being reported, you probably shall be for this edit, a wholesale removal of RS as a 'smear'. WP:BLP does not apply to the dead, and Remnick dutifully noted what was widely believed, in Israel.Nishidani (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The main problem here is that you present Bergman thesis as a proven fact, which cannot be the case, since his thesis isn't academically or officially accepted. It is typical of the flawed process of conspiracists. --Vanlister (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Inf-in MD, if you haven't seen anyone cite Bergman you have been remarkably unlucky in your extensive searches. Here is a recent academic citation. Such citations wouldn't add to our article, but they do add to the status of Bergman. Zero^talk 04:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I can't access your document.--Vanlister (talk) 11:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I fixed it. The URL has a ridiculously long token attached. The original is here but there's a paywall. Zero^talk 12:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the token system is clever enough to keep the peasants on the outside looking in.     ←   ZScarpia   13:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

All this niggling is pointless, based on an evident unfamiliarity with Bergman's book. The story contested, without evidence, as being unreliable comes from direct oral testimony by some of the major actors in the operation, who are cited verbatim from the interviews they gave the author. If Bergman were making it all up, or inventing stuff, someone would have challenged his account. There is no evidence they have done so.Nishidani (talk) 13:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The unfamiliarity appears to be all yours. Bergman, for the most part, does not quote his sources verbatim, but rather provides a narrative of his own. There are a few issues that have been raised : (1) where he does quote sources, the sources are anonymous - "One Mossad officer of the time said", "Another Mossad man who was in Lebanon at the time said,". Anonymous sources in a book published by a popular press are hardly the stuff to base an encyclopedia article on . (2) The article is very one-sided. The Bergman book, for example says: "Dagan and Ben-Gal strongly denied that the front ever intended to harm civilians. “The targets were always military targets,” said Ben-Gal. " that's nowhere to be found in the article. Inf-in MD (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

You are wasting people's time with misleading blather. For this episode our article directly links to Avigdor Ben-Gal's, um, ipsissima verba. He was there. To remark that Bergman for the 'most part' in several hundred pages doesn't transcribe all of his interviews is totally irrelevant. I've fixed your second point. Of course, when the truth emerged, both denied any such intention. A disclaimer was legally necessary. To admit civilian targets, as the record shows, were consistently hit and deliberately, would have made both liable to arrest on war crime charges. Nishidani (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

(1) Stop the personal attacks. (2) I am not referring to Bergmans's several hundred pages, but to the two pages (235-6) where he discusses the FLLF. These are predominantly made up of long paragraphs of Bergmans's narrative, not quotes. And where he does quote a handful of sources, they are anonymous. (3) the article does not include any reference to Ben-Gal's strong denial that there was ever any intent to target non-military assets. That is a POV violation.Inf-in MD (talk) 15:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Uh, ask anyone how historical works, which also use interviews, aside from archives and other books, are written. You have straight narrative, interleaved with quotes from your informants. So, sorry, that argument is ridiculous. Don't trust my word: ask around. (b) The page does note Ben-Gal's denial. (c)Thirdly, you don't appear to have the slightest inkling of wiki policy. No one speaks here of a POV violation. The word is NPOV violation, and nothing you have said, extremely vague, impressionistic, or misleading, indicates there is a problem of neutrality. Sources are listed, paraphrased, and, while the emerging facts might be troublesome (like those on any historical article documenting violence) for some of the state actors, that is not a POV problem, unless the historical reality is POV. Indeed, the page notes that these rogue operations were done without the knowledge or consent of other major figures in Israel's military and political institutions. That's there because that is what sources say. A POV twist would have been to repress this datum.Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

(1) Again, stop the personal attacks (2) I have no doubt Bergman interviewed some people, but I dispute your characterization of book as "come[ing] from direct oral testimony by some of the major actors in the operation, who are cited verbatim from the interviews they gave the author" - that is plainly false, as anyone reading 235-236 can see. Most of it is Bergsman's narrative, which we do not know the basis for, interspersed with a few quotes. We have no idea if the anonymous people quoted are "the major actors in the operation' - in fact they are most likely not, as the anonymous sources quoted are allegedly Mossad people, and Bergman takes pains to distance the Mossad from the FLLF ('The Mossad was in fact vehemently opposed to what Ben-Gal and Dagan were doing'. This, incidentally, raises another issue - using an anonymous source acknowledged to be in vehement opposition to Ben-Gal and Dayan, as source for criticism of them as if they were facts, using the encyclopedia's voice.) (3) thank you for correcting my policy terminology, and for , finally, addressing the NPOV issue I raised. Contrary to your claim that "nothing you have said, extremely vague, impressionistic, or misleading, indicates there is a problem of neutrality. ", it seems you did see the neutrality issue, and corrected it. Inf-in MD (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I've said what I had to say in response. I.e. you misrepresent Bergman and don't know how such books are written. By all means continue, without me, to repeat yourself. But you are a minority of one with this objection, which, as indicated, lacks substance.Nishidani (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah, no. There are two editors here who think this article suffers from issues, and the arguments I've made do not lack substance. You need to address them. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

One editor like yourself has just over 500 edits to Wikipedia. You've been reverted by editors who have over 100,000 edits, and who have demonstrated a comprehensive knowledge of both Wikipedia polioies and the area's history. Your problem has been addressed and, to deny that is an egregious example of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHATNishidani (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

When there's a policy that says that editors with 100,000 edits trump editors with 500, that might be an argument. Until then, you will have to address the issues raised - a nonacademic author in a popular press using anonymous sources, being used to make claims in the encyclopedia's voice. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

"A nonacademic author in a popular press."

The description of Ronen Bergman on On Amazon:

"Ronen Bergman is the senior correspondent for military and intelligence affairs for Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel's largest daily paid newspaper, and a contributing writer for The New York Times Magazine, where he reports on intelligence, national security, terrorism, and nuclear issues. Bergman is the author of five bestselling Hebrew-language nonfiction books and The Secret War with Iran, which was published in the United States by Free Press. Bergman is the recipient of the Sokolow Prize, Israel's most esteemed award for journalism, and the B'nai B'rith International Press Award, among other honors. A member of the Israeli bar, he graduated with honors from the University of Haifa Faculty of Law and clerked in the attorney general's office. A winner of a Chevening Scholarship from the British Foreign Office, he received a master's in international relations from Cambridge University, where he was also awarded his PhD in history."

So: he writes for news organisations which would be regarded as reliable on Wikipedia; he has won awards for his journalism; he has a relevant specialism, military and intelligence affairs; he has a history PhD from Cambridge University.

"Rise and Kill First" is published by Random House, part of the Penguin Random House group. I shouldn't think that Random House is at the bottom end of the quality scale.

According to Amazon, "Rise and Kill First" was a winner of the National Jewish Book Award in History. It was named one of the best books of the year by, among others, The Economist, The New York Times Book Review and BBC History Magazine. The New York Times described it as "an exceptional work."

Given all that, perhaps you're being a bit too negative?

    ←   ZScarpia   10:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. Yes, he is respected journalist, that is not in dispute. I also don't doubt that he's reporting faithfully what he was told. The problem is, since we don't know who we he spoke to, there is no way for us to cross check claims he makes, and he himself acknowledges that those he spoke to have both the motivation and the skills to present a narrative that is not necessarily true. As to Penguin Random house, the point is that it is a popular press, not an academic one that peer-reviews material , or even fact checks (other than to avoid legal issues related to libel). A subsidiary of Penguin Random House (Putnam) published Chariots of the Gods?, do you think we can quote material from that book in Wikipedia's voice? Inf-in MD (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

we don't know who we spoke to.

Slow down. You've had your say. Repetition just clogs and obscures clarity.Nishidani (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

New editors making new arguments deserve a response, and he specially asked me a question. Perhaps you should slow down, and take note of the fact that the discussion →thaddaway has so far been going in the direction (from comments by editors who are not involved here) of (a) fully attributing to Bergman and (b) excluding material for which he is the only source. Inf-in MD (talk)

[This is a response I wrote to the now- deleted comment made here - [2] before it was deleted. I realize it is unfortunate for you to have made a comment that basically undermines what your fellow-travelers have been doing here, but you did make it, and it's good to keep people honest.]

Zero has been doing this (cross checking claims made by published sources in order to discredits them) - for this very source, for claims that they don't like as much. So perhaps that idea has more currency than you think. But no, I don't think it is our job to cross-check what sources say, but it is our job to recognize that extraordinary claims made by single authors, using anonymous sources, and published in popular, non-academic presses that do not perform fact checking or peer review, can't be made in the encyclopedia's voice. At best, they must be attributed, but probably should be excluded altogether. I refer you again to the case of Chariots of the Gods?, published by a Penguin subsidiary. Do you think Egyptian pyramids could state as fact in the encyclopedia's voice that they were built by aliens? Or even give credence to the pseudoscientific claims of Von Däniken by having an "Origins" section that attributes this theory to him? I mean, Penguin is not exactly at the bottom end of the quality scale. Inf-in MD (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Barrel-scraping in short. For Chrissake, what sort of silly sand-in-your-eyes argument is that? (Apart from the fact that it is apparent you spent a long time studying Zero's edit history before entering the I/P area.) I once collected books in the fringe-idiotic vein for a sociology of stupid ideas, so I picked up (dutifully second-hand to avoid paying the author a percentage) Von Däniken's Chariot of the Gods, published by Ernest Hecht in 1969, then passed onto Corgi Books, an imprint run by Bantam Books then owned by National General Pictures. It only came under the Penguin imprint, dead on its feet but still a minor money-earner, when Bertelsmann made a merger in 2012. It's utter folly to try to use that argument by false analogy to conflate an award winning 'metioculously researched' (aa your fav review by a San Diego lawyer puts it) historical work like Bergman's with fringe-lunatic crap because the vagaries of business incorporated the publishing rights of one with the other in a merger. That is called guilt by association. This was already farcical, but now we are in Monty Python territory. The things serious editors have to put up with here. Nishidani (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

"Rules for thee, but not for me", again. I spent no time researching Zero's posts, I ran across his removing sourced material (from Bergman) on another article [3] (this was one of my first , if not the first , interaction with him) based on his personal cross-checking of it for accuracy. If he has done that elsewhere as you seem to be indicating, that just reinforces my comment that the idea we should be cross checking sources has more currency than ZScarpia thinks (or thought. He was quick to delete the comment once its implications became clear to him/her). Inf-in MD (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Keep your bad-faith attempts at mind-reading to yourself.

My reply was in response to your comment, "The problem is ... there is no way for us to cross check claims he makes." It is not necessary for us to be able to cross-check a source in order to use it. However, if other sources are found (perhaps by a process which may be termed "cross-checking") which contradict the source in question, neutrality requires that sourced information is set out in the form of narratives. You continued with a statement about your perception of what our job supposedly is and assumptions about how Bergman's book was written and published. Newspapers are widely used as sources on Wikipedia. Should it be a problem that they are non-academic, articles not usually subject to peer review and they often don't name their sources? Let's take another example. Penguin also famously published Deborah Lipstadt's "Denying the Holocaust," a non-academic book (though written by an academic). Any fact-checking process it was subject to was entirely opaque. Should it be discarded as a source for those reasons? Or should anything sourced from it necessarily have to be attributed?

    ←   ZScarpia   17:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what your motivation was when writing, and them deleting your comment. Perhaps there's an explanation for it which is different from what I suggested- it would be good if you restored your comment, then, so can we keep track of what points you are making.

As I pointed out, using Zero as an example, there are editors who do believe we should be cross-checking sources, and removing material sourced to them if our personal analysis leads us to believe they are wrong. You can take this argument up with him, not me, because as I wrote, I do not believe it is our job to do this. But you seem to be coming at this starting with an assumption that sources are reliable by default unless we (or some 3rd party) proves them wrong. That is not the case. There are reason to doubt some of the material in Bergman's book which I have enumerated several times- it makes extraordinary claims relying on anonymous sources; the author acknowledges his sources had motivation and skill to deceive him and that he was limited in his ability to verify everything he was told - and was criticized on this very point by reliable sources; many of the claims are not corroborated by other sources; and the publication they appeared in is not academic and not peer reviewed. This means that at best, we should attribute such claims to the source, not present them as fact. Some of these arguments may apply to Lipstadt's book, I don't know, feel free to bring them up in that article's discussion page.Inf-in MD (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

"I don't know what your motivation was when writing, and them deleting your comment." But that didn't stop you writing down your bad-faith speculations did it?

"But you seem to be coming at this starting with an assumption that sources are reliable by default unless we (or some 3rd party) proves them wrong." You really should curb your imagination. Did you read the bit where I listed Bergman's qualifications and experience and prizes won by and praise given to the book?

"There are editors who do believe we should be cross-checking sources." There is a choice when sources contradict each other. You can either write down what both say and let the reader make up their mind what to believe. Or you can omit the information altogether. Often, that's probably the best course. Alternatively, if one of the sources is much more likely to be correct, you can argue for its version to be used. A situation where this frequently arises in Wikipedia is where claims are made about what somebody has said, but comparison with what they actually did say shows that the claims are incorrect or have taken what was said out of context. Cross-checking is good. However, what I was addressing in the comment I deleted was your assertion that there is a problem due to difficulty cross-checking Bergman's book which should lead to the book being treated with exceptional caution.

    ←   ZScarpia   18:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Bergman has some things to commend him, and others that caution against the use of this material, unattributed. Take the example you bring up "A situation where this frequently arises in Wikipedia is where claims are made about what somebody has said, but comparison with what they actually did say shows that the claims are incorrect or have taken what was said out of context. Cross-checking is good." - in this case, some of Bergman's more controversial claims are attributed to anonymous sources - how then would it be possible to check them? This is why they should be treated with caution, and attributed or removed. Inf-in MD (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

You haven't noticed that the text already contains attribution to Bergman? Read article before discussing it.Nishidani (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Some of it is attributed to Bergman but much, if not most, of it is not. Inf-in MD (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Look. I prerer to read sources not waste time on chat. I asked you a day ago to consult the RSN board. Since you haven't, I've done your work for you. Go →thaddawayNishidani (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I will comment there. Inf-in MD (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

WRMEA

I refer you to this discussion of its reliability - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_135#WRMEA - The consensus there is that it is not reliable. One editor, in particular, had this to say 'WRMEA is an activist organization and should not be used as a source for factual information' Want to guess who that was? Inf-in MD (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The consensus you imagine is one of three banned editors, including one who was banned at the time and socking. The source is an interview, and the subject of the interview is a reliable source for his experiences. nableezy - 14:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Is Zero0000 one of the banned editors? Or was he the one socking? It would certainly be interesting to hear his opinion. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The specific discussion you allude to is one of several discussions. When it was first raised in 2009 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_48#Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 48]), there were no sockpuppets in the discussion, and authoritative editors like User:Blueboar accepted its relevance as a useful source. The 2012 discussion was stacked with sockpuppets or notoriously POV-driven editors, and the parallel with Camera was obviously wrongfooted, since WRMEA draws on numerous notable public figures in American diplomacy and policy for its work. It disagrees with the general US policy re the Middle East. So what? Andrew Killgore wrote the piece. He was US ambassador to Qatar, and John Gunther Dean, the then ambassador in Beirut, was a close colleague. Killgore is reliable for reporting what Dean had recalled in both public speechs and in private. One could document Dean's reconstruction of the period in even greater detail, but not on this page. So there is no ground whatsoever to impute to his remarks any unreliability or mendacity, nor to Killgore. It is Killgore, and Dean, whom we are quoting, and both had an intimate knowledge based on their diplomatic roles, with the topic area. The venue Killgore used to publish his piece is irrelevant. And, in itself, not impeachable on sight, as your edit suggested. And, a word of advice, drop the hammer re Zero. The more you use it, the odder this familiarity with his record, going back years, looks. Nishidani (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion I'm referring to had Jethro B say "they have extremely one-sided views and a clear purpose. They are not RS" ; shrike said "This not peer-reviewed not academic journal.Its clearly has an agenda.So it can not be used for statement of fact" Tom harrison said "I would not use it as a source for any controversial material." IZAK said "I agree with the above users[Jethro B, Tom Harrison] who strongly doubt the motives, accuracy, neutrality, and reliability of this organization and its publications as a "RS" for the reasons cited" ; Opportunidaddy said "they should be avoided per RS" and as already noted, Zero0000 said "WRMEA is an activist organization and should not be used as a source for factual information. "

Describing that as "The consensus you imagine is one of three banned editors, including one who was banned at the time and socking" is a gross misrepresentation of the results of the discussion, and a possible personal attack on the editors I called out , above. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate when people still quote socks of banned editors even when pointed out that they are quoting a sock of a banned editor. It brings me joy. nableezy - 18:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

which of the editors quoted above are socks of banned editors? Inf-in MD (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh shoot, never opened an SPI on one when they stopped editing. Whoops. nableezy - 01:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

To editor Inf-in MD: Above I took you to task for not quoting me properly and now I have to do it again. It's true that I wrote "WRMEA is an activist organization and should not be used as a source for factual information", but immediately after that I wrote "It might be admissible as a source for the opinion of a named person if the opinion appears under the name of that person (not as an indirect report of that opinion)", which is a completely accurate description of Killgore's article. You should make your own arguments and not distort mine. That said, I would prefer to have a different source. Dean's belief that Israel tried to assassinate him is reported in multiple places. Zero^talk 14:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I quoted what you said about the source - not reliable for facts. In the article, we have this source used to state, in Wikipedia's voice that 'At Dean's request, Arafat and Abu Jihad had intervened by traveling to Tehran in November 1979, to secure the release of 13 Americans taken hostage in Iran in 1979' and "The convoy of cars taking Dean and his family to their residence was ambushed and struck with a fusillade of 21 shots, while Dean's limousine was also hit by two light anti-tank canisters with American markings that, after an investigation, were traced back to a shipment sold to Israel in 1974". We do not say this is the opinion of Kilgore, and don't even name him as the source of this info, so there was no point in addressing the part of your opinion that said "It might be admissible as a source for the opinion of a named person if the opinion appears under the name of that person (not as an indirect report of that opinion)". Inf-in MD (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Its clearly cannot be used for facts. Its propaganda outlet that have a clear agenda --Shrike (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

As I've asked you to do repeatedly Shrike. Don't just barge in and drop your 'vote' regardless of the article, the talk page and everything else. The standard meme recitation above is meaningless, showing no care to analyse the issue in question. Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

lol a propaganda outfit? Do you guys hear yourselves? There isnt any dispute about Dean's belief that Israel was behind the assassination attempt. It's literally what Dean wrote in his memoir. Here is The Nation covering it. You can check out his book in a library. nableezy - 18:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Dean's belief is just that, his belief. To the extent he connected the belief to the FLLF, we can mention that this is what he believes in this article. And if he presented the belief in other sources, let's use them instead of this unreliable source. But right now, we have in the article , in the encyclopedia's voice and stated as fact, that Israel was behind the attempt, and it is sourced to an unreliable propaganda outlet. Inf-in MD (talk)

You've said what you believe sev eral times. Don't repeat yourself, and read the page evidence, since you are opining without doing so.Nishidani (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

You do your thing, I do mine. I could say the same about you, regarding repetition. There is clear consensus that WRMEA is not a reliable source for facts, yet you are using it to state controversial facts in Wikipedia's voice, and edit warring this material back into the article with not consensus, after it has been objected to. Inf-in MD (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

As I said, read the article, which you evidently haven't done. The only consensus that con vinces you here is the one you have with yourself. Nishidani (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I read the article, more than once, and most recently a few hours ago. As I wrote, Dean's belief is stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice, and sourced to this unreliable propaganda outlet Inf-in MD (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

If you've read and reread the article, and still think 'Dean's belief is stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice', then you have serious problems with interpreting straightforward prose, since, as every other reader can see, it is presented as his point of view in the article.Nishidani (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The article currently presents Dean's belief that Israel was behind this as Dean's belief. Also reported in his obituary in the Times. Can also see the Washington Post saying that the FLLF was responsible for the attempt. Can also read Rashid Khalidi writing about the FLLF claiming responsibility and Khalidi saying in his voice that the FLLF was later identified as an Israeli front. That actually should be included in further depth here come to think of it. And I very much disagree that this specific sources is unreliable for this specific fact, and repeating the entirely specious claim that WRMEA is a "propaganda outlet" makes it difficult to take the rest of the argument seriously. But Ill add considerably more on this from these other sources, no problem. nableezy - 00:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

That said, we should write that FLLF claimed credit for it rather than that they did it. You are quite right that this is not just Dean's assessment but a fact that was widely reported at the time. Zero^talk 02:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The article currently sates as fact, in Wikipedia's vice that "The convoy of cars taking Dean and his family to their residence was ambushed and struck with a fusillade of 21 shots, while Dean's limousine was also hit by two light anti-tank canisters with American markings that, after an investigation, were traced back to a shipment sold to Israel in 1974." - ands sources this to WRMEA, and there is consensus that WRMEA is not a reliable source for facts. You can ask me to read and reread the article, but until that is fixed, my claim stands. Inf-in MD (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no such consensus, a source is not unreliable for all facts on the basis of one discussion at RSN. That would take something much more like an RFC to determine. It would take an entry at WP:RSP. You cant just assert that a source is unusable off of an eight year old discussion no more than I can take this discussion as proof it is usable in all aspects. If you want to challenge this source feel free. But you cant just claim a consensus and expect anybody else to abide by it. nableezy - 17:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

you've misrepresented the previous discussion, twice. There was clear consensus in that discussion (which is later than the one you linked to) that WRMEA is not reliable for facts, a consensus supported by at least two people involved in this current discussion (Zero, Shrike). If you want to start a new discussion, go right ahead, but for now the consensus is clear. Inf-in MD (talk)

I have not misrepresented a thing, unlike yourself multiple times here in quoting Zero out of context, and absent an RSP entry that says WRMEA may not be used an eight year old discussion with a handful of users, among them several now banned, will not be used as though it were proof of a consensus that a source may not be used. Sorry. Beyond that, several other sources have been brought backing up these statements. None of the facts in the article are even in dispute. I do wonder how users who have been here for less than a month and a half and have some 600 and change edits have come to be so accustomed to the catch phrases like "the consensus is clear" and reference 8 year old discussions. Curious. Might have to spend some time figuring that one out too. nableezy - 18:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

You have TWICE misrepresented the previous consensus, initially claiming "The consensus you imagine is one of three banned editors" - which I immediately disproved by quoting SIX editors, none of whom were banned who said it is not reliable. Then you doubled down, claiming my list still included banned editors, when it didn't. "misrepresentation" is actually a mild term for what you did. Users who have been here a month and half can easily go to WP:RSN, search there for WRMEA and quote the last discussion. It might be hard for you, but people with more than average intelligence can figure it out. Inf-in MD (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

lol one of the people you quoted said you quoted him out of context. And yes, banned editors were in that discussion. I can quote several editors from the other discussion saying it is reliable. There is in fact no consensus that WRMEA is blanket unreliable for facts. Again, that would take more than one discussion at RSN. Youd be able to point to an entry at WP:RSP. If youre above average intelligence that you claim has helped you become an old hand at the Wikipediaisms in a month or two can grasp that great. If not, oh well, not a problem I need to solve. nableezy - 22:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

One of the people I quoted, who now finds it inconvenient to have previously stated very clearly that WRMEA is not reliable for facts, said there was some additional context - he added that it could be used for attributed opinions. And I explained that since it wasn't being used that way in the article, that addiotnal part was not relevant in this case. Yes, there were some banned editors in that discussion, but I didn't include their opinions, and there was clear consensus without them. You misrepresented the results of that discussion as "three banned editors" - and when proven false, doubled down repeated a false claim. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Ankh.Morpork and Soosim and Plot Spoiler are all banned editors. Another editor in that discussion is almost certainly a sock of Dajudem. So no, no misrepresentation. Whereas you taking an editors argument out of context very much is. And right here on this page youll see that there is general agreement that this source can be used for this material. Zero says he'd like a better one, but that this use meets his criteria. So does Nish. So do I. So a majority, or "most", editors at the most recent discussion about this source (here), find it fine to use. Cool. nableezy - 23:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope. This is boring. But in any case, I'll go one further mile. Are you saying that the WRMEA report as written by Andrew Killgore, former US ambassador to Qatar cannot be trusted for conveying the gist of what his colleague John Gunther Dean, former ambassador to Lebanon, is purported to have stated in a talk given in Washington on 6 September 2002 before an audience made up mainly of retired American diplomats? That is, is Killgore to be disbelieved in his account of Dean's talk? Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I am saying what most editors have said about WRMEA - it can't be used for facts. The article currently uses WRMEA to state the following as fact - "The convoy of cars taking Dean and his family to their residence was ambushed and struck with a fusillade of 21 shots, while Dean's limousine was also hit by two light anti-tank canisters with American markings that, after an investigation, were traced back to a shipment sold to Israel in 1974." - not as something said by Dean to Killgore. Inf-in MD (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

5 editors is by no definition "most editors", and one discussion 8 years ago is not binding on all future uses of a source. You can keep blabbering about this, but there isnt consensus that this source cannot be used in this way. nableezy - 23:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

So, all this huffing and puffing over attribution? Fixed!. So , now we can all turn our attention to more important things, okay?Nishidani (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Most editors have not said any such thing. nableezy - 22:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes , they have, per the latest RSN discussion. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Will also add this interview with Dean in which he covers the assassination attempt. nableezy - 22:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a better source for Dean's opinion than WRMEA. We should use that and remove the unreliable WRMEA which adds nothing to Dean's account. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Nah, the WRMEA source is fine too. nableezy - 23:58, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course, a primary source is fine, but we are advised always to privilege secondary sources, of which Killgore's article in WRMEA is one. By the way, Dean's statements are not an 'opinion', Inf-in MD. He was shot at, had immediate access to Lebanese intelligence on the weapons' markings, and had them identified in Washington by experts, who supplied him with the details, buyer, shipment, Israel 1974. Of course you could still assert this is his 'opinion', but he went on record knowing that there will be a significant documentary trail in US archives to corroborate his recall. I think we're done here. Most of this whingeing has been pointless, since any complaining editor, rather than chew noisily the ruminative cud of skepticism, could have saved everyone time by simply adding 'according to Dean's account', and no one would have objected. Indeed, sin ce you failed to do so, I did it for you.Nishidani (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

WRMEA is not a reliable source, and adds nothing to what's available in other sources. There's no reason to use it. I asked you repeatedly not to state as fact something which is opinion sourced to WRMEA. All you had to do was read what I was asking for, instead of repeatedly denying that that article was doing this, before you fixed it. And you didn't do this "for me" -you did it because that's what's required. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This source seems to be perfectly reliable, given the various other sources that have since been found backing up all the material. nableezy - 02:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

This source is not reliable for facts, per the latest RSN discussion about it. If sources which are reliable say the same thing, we should use them, not it. Inf-in MD (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Untrue. nableezy - 15:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Perfectly true [4]. Inf-in MD (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

One more time, a single RSN thread 8 years ago cannot disqualify a source as unreliable for all facts. If such a thing were true you would find an entry in WP:RSP, but you cant, so you bluster . nableezy - 23:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Unreliable propaganda site. Sometimes they publish things that aren't false, so does the Daily Mail. They also publish dodgy figures. Should not be used for anything. Free1Soul (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC) sock

Predeictable. Drop in, vote in lockstep, no argument (consensus is based on intelligent engagement with the topic, not vote stacking.Nishidani (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

As predictable as your knee-jerk response to anyone disagreeing with you. Inf-in MD (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

You are evidently spoiling for a fight. So I'll ignore you.Nishidani (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I am answering you in kind. Your insulting response to Free1Soul is typical of your behavior toward anyone disagreeing with you. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Additional sourcing has been provided, there is literally nothing in dispute here. nableezy - 23:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

there are still some things in the article sourced only to WRMEA. Inf-in MD (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

And do you dispute any of those things? nableezy - 14:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Sources are not reliable by default, and there's consensus that this one's not reliable for facts. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

It very much is how it works, and there is no such consensus. What content do you dispute the accuracy of? nableezy - 16:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Its clear from this discussion that WP:ONUS for the source was not met and hence it should not be used --Shrike (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

ONUS is about content, not a source. What content do you dispute? nableezy - 16:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Any content without a reliable source may be removed, as this will be, shortly. Inf-in MD (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This material is undisputed, and removing undisputed material is tendentious and disruptive and will be reverted. nableezy - 19:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course it is disputed, and has been for several weeks now. Inf-in MD (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

What exactly do you dispute? nableezy - 21:46, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

The only thing I see cited to WRMEA and nothing else is that the PLO had intervened in the Iranian hostage crisis. This can be further supported by [https://mideast.prio.org/utility/DownloadFile.ashx?id=3&type=publicationfile this (p 12-15), or the interview with Dean pointed to above. Exactly what content are you challenging? nableezy - 22:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I dispute that this entire section belongs here- it is simply undue, as a I noted when I removed it. Inf-in MD (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

lol wut? You dispute that a section covering an assassination attempt by the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners belongs in the article on the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners? nableezy - 23:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I dispute that the blow-by-blow account of Ambassador's Dean's dealing with the PLO - whom he consulted, what they did in response, where they flew to, how US recognized or didn't recognize those actions, or Dean's Askenazi ancestry - is relevant to an article about the FLLF, yes. A hint would be that none of these accounts even mention the FLLF. A one line sentence that says Dean believed he was targeted by Israel because of his dealings with the PLO (in contravention of a US commitment to Israel) would suffice, if such background is needed. Inf-in MD (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Wait, first this was about WRMEA. Which of those is only cited to WRMEA? nableezy - 01:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

'his dealings with the PLO (in contravention of a US commitment to Israel)'

Great example of neutrality of course, hopefully removing the details that necessarily background those dealings as dictated by direct authorization from Cyrus Vance in order to protect US as opposed to Israeli interests. Better still, it casts Dean as the maverick rogue of the peace, uh, yes 'piece', Beautiful hasbara.Nishidani (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Dean may or may not be the maverick rogue of the peace, but this article is not about him. It is about the FLLF.Inf-in MD (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Undue weight

This article is not about ambassador Dean, nor about the relationship between the PLO and US administration. To provide some context for why Dean believed he was targeted by Israel, it may be ok to list a couple of instances where his actions made the Israeli government unhappy, but there's absolutely no need to detail Dean's ancestry, his solicitation of advice form Khalidi, or the US non-recognition of PLO efforts. All of this is massively undue for this article. Inf-in MD (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC) sock

You began this tirade against the article by challenging Bergman for making an 'extraordinary claim' and waged a campaign to invalidate him as a source. The absurd lengths you have gone to, edit after edit, to raise suspicion about Killgore's as a source for Dean idem. So, a practiced editor like myself, seeing even skepticism (predictable) in Kai Bird's footnote dismissing the idea as 'ìnconceivable', a position a passing reader like yourself appears to share, obliged me, for one, to give a comprehensive account of the incident, sourced to multiple scholars and embedded in the historical context, which means background on Lebanon and Israel to allow the reader to see why such a level-headed and distinguished figure arrived at the conclusion you find absurd. If you put a skimpy:

On 27 August Dean was the target of an assassination organized by the FLLP and for the rest of his life expressed his belief Israel was behind it

the reader will be told nothing. Precisely because someone like yourself has made a massive fuss about this being at sight unbelievable, a responsible editor will provide readers with the full material available to allow them to judge for themselves, and actually grasp through the details why Dean believed that, and why, contextually, his claim that Israel had a motive to do was not an opinion imagining the 'inconceivable'. You appear from your editing to have a decided POV of challenging material that might impugn an all-but-perfect image of one of the nations these articles deal with. So, while I'm sure the wisdom of a poet will be lost on you, nonetheless I'll recite the obviously pertinent lines regarding all this:-

The critical intelligence

Undermines the State's defence,

While the loyal heart refuses

To reform the State's abuses;

Yet all Being needs the blind,

All Becoming the unkind. (W. H. Auden,New Year Letter 1941 note to line 520.

So undue? Nah, stet, to borrow a marginal note from Maxwell Perkins.Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

It is undue, per the arguments above. Let's hear others' opinion on whether or not Dean Ashkenazi ancestry is relevant to an article about the FLLF Inf-in MD (talk)

I always take the word 'argument' in the sense used in logic and philosophy. I see no evidence that you have ever made an argument of that kind. The proper word is 'argufying'. I've said my piece, and am not a gudgeon in the Thamas snapping at every fly on a trolling hook. But I'll just note that Dean's Ashkenazi ancestry is important because he was personally asked by Cyrus Vance's personal assistant before his Senate interrogation whether the fact that he was Jewish would be a problem working to represent American interests in Lebanon, where Israel was nearby and involved. Because I'm very aware of WP:Undue, I didn't add, and won't add (overegging the pud) a lot of stuff about the way he was grilled by Stephen Solarz a highly active pro-Israeli congressman in the Senate Hearings the following day, all circling around the latter's need for assurances that Dean would behave, um, 'responsibly' in the area. The fact of his ancestry therefore was something people took very seriously at the time as potentially problematical - dual loyalty suspicions: would he act in America's interests (Vance et al) or Israel's (Solarz et al.) - and, since the Israelis were highly upset about his default view that they should not meddle in the affairs of a neighbouring sovereign state, that throws light on why he concluded what he did.Nishidani (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

It is undue, per the arguments above. I've heard you, let's hear others' opinion . Inf-in MD (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC) sock

"List of incidents, claimed or attributed" -missing incidents?

Ther seem to be many incidents missing, see [5]. We should check the sources he gives, cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, newspaper searches give quite a few more. Zero^talk 06:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Can't see that H. But if you want more stuff included give me the details here. I've not had time to finish this comprehensively.Nishidani (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is some more stuff from a newspaper archive.

• My source says the Paris attack was 1980 not 1981. Could be checked in a French newspaper.

• Globe and Mail 29 Aug 1980, says FLLF claimed attack on Dean.

• Nov 29, 1981. Globe and Mail, 1 Dec, p14. "The death toll in Syria's worst car-bomb attack climbed to 90 yesterday as more bodies were recovered from debris and several injured victims died in hospital, medical sources said. ... "While Damascus blamed the brotherhood, telephone calls to news agencies in Beirut on Sunday attributed the blast to a mysterious group - the Organization for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners. A group calling itself the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners - probably the same group - has claimed responsibility for a bombing campaign to drive Syrian peacekeeping forces and Palestinian guerrillas out of neighboring Lebanon."

• Irish Times 11 Nov 1980. FLLF promised to respond in kind to two car bombs in Beirut. (Note that they didn't claim to have done the bombs, but rather swore revenge.)

• Globe and Mail 15 Feb 1982. The blast of a car bomb outside a Palestinian refugee camp in the southern Lebanese port of Sidon killed at least four people and wounded about 15 on Saturday [13th]. An organization calling itself the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners claimed responsibility.

• Guardian 24 Feb 1982. Some bombs in Beirut were claimed by both FLLF and "Organization of Holy Struggle" (previously unknown). FLLF also claimed a bomb in the Helweh refugee camp near Sidon (at least 4 dead) and attack on the Syrian Ministry of Information in Damascus on Feb 18.

• NYT 6 Feb 1983. "At least 18 people were killed and 115 wounded today when a car packed with explosives blew up in front of the Palestine Liberation Organization Research Center, setting the building on fire. ...A shadowy group calling itself the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners, which has taken responsibility for several attacks on Syrian and Palestinian institutions, said it was responsible for the bombing."

• Globe and Mail 7 June 1983. "Colonel Gadaffi's senior envoy in Beirut, Abdul Kader Ghoka, was still fighting for his life in the American University Hospital yesterday. He was reported in stable but critical condition with seven wounds after a gunman pumped several bullets into him in a Beirut hotel lobby late Sunday. The shooting was claimed by a shadowy group calling itself the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners."

• Times of India 20 Sep 1982. Also Globe and Mail 21 Sep 1982. FLLF claimed credit for the Sabra and Chatila massacre. (This emphasises that like all terrorist groups they didn't necessarily do everything they claimed credit for.)

• NYT 24 Dec 1982. A caller claimed credit in the name of FLLF for three small bombs against Israeli and Jewish targets in Australia. A cleaner was injured.

• Globe and Mail 7 Dec 1983. "Beirut's Moslem western sector was largely closed by a strike yesterday to protest against a car bomb explosion that wrecked a nine-story apartment building Monday, killing 16 people and injuring more than 100. A group called the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners claimed responsibility for the bombing in West Beirut's neighborhood of Tarik Jedida."

Zero^talk 05:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Chtaura

The bombing 28 January 1983 at Chtaura; did it kill 40, or 12? Was the target "Private Citizens/Property", or PLO headquarters? Huldra (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Lee OBrien's observasions made in 1983

worth reading and adding to the article: in this link. Seems like OBrien has had a detailed knowledge of the issue and his book is worth reading. NilsHolgersson2 (talk) 06:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)