This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
Lavon Affair is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.
With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:
Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hi. Informative article about the Lavon Affair. Just finished re-reading "The Spymasters of Israel" by Stewart Steven, where the Lavon Affair is described blow-by-blow. A citation could be added to show the inefficacy of official Israeli denial.
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It says: "Avri Elad allegedly informed the Egyptians, resulting in the Egyptian intelligence agency following a suspect to his target, the Rio Theatre, where a fire engine was standing by."
Who are the egyptians here? Does Elad inform egyptian police or the egyptian jews and the police intercepted the information?
Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Is that it does not make any sense, that isolated attacks here and there would justify a major shift in British policy, unless the British government were in favor of the shift in policy, and needed a pretext. Otherwise the first sentence in the Lede fails basic logic. There's no way this operation could have had it's intended outcome without the willingness of the British to use it as a pretext for the change in policy with regard to the Suez.
It's a different world now. We're aware, and we remember, and your bullshit doesn't work anymore. You should consider stopping with your bullshit, and tell the WHOLE truth. At minimum, the Lede fails basic readablility standards, because it's fucking bullshit, but at worst it's just a straight-out lie. Wikipedia should stop pissing on the heads of it's Readers, while trying to pretend that it's raining.
Now apply that same reasoning to the 9/11 attacks, and how they were used as a pretext to invade Iraq, and find the common denominator.
You may or may not be right, but in Wikipedia we are obliged to follow what sources say and this is cited to a strong source that has a large amount of content on this affair. You should also consider why this risky operation was undertaken at all if there was no overriding motivation. Zerotalk03:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)