Talk:Mossad

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 January 2024

In the section, "In popular culture", I would like to add the reference to the Max Einstein series by James Patterson. In the series, the characters Charl and Isabl are former agents of Mossad, and Mossad helps the main characters escape danger multiple times in the series. 2600:8802:3A0B:3000:288F:416:9A89:A73F (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2024

On "alleged operations" could you remove the "For a more comprehensive list, see List of Mossad operations."; as that only leads back to a redirect to the exact thing you're clicking on Thanks <3 Marissa TRS (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Mossad v. The Mossad

The article calls it 'The Mossad' multiple times, which is unsurprising considering that is the clear common mode of reference, as a quick look through the majority of article references will show. However in the lead it is referred to simply as 'Mossad', with a note that sometimes 'The' is used. I should further note that the native language article (Hebrew) consistently refers to it as The Mossad. This isn't to say the page title should be changed, see CIA. I cannot edit the article right now, but can someone please enforce consistency and refer to it as The Mossad throughout, with a note in the lead that it is sometimes referred to as simply Mossad (as per minority of external references). If you need help fixing the romanization and other languages in the note, let me know. JoeJShmo^💌 18:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, only Mossad is absolutely fine. News channels, YouTubers, and print media commonly refer to it as 'The Mossad'. If we use 'The', we can tweak the sentences to say 'The agency'. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 12:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the fact that I suggested the change means I'm allowed to reply here, but I'm assuming it does.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'in my opinion etc.' if common usage is 'The Mossad' we should refer to it as such. There is no reason to change the sentences to read 'The Agency', they should just read 'The Mossad'. Think of it in all contexts like 'The CIA'. JoeJShmo^💌 15:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Common usage of 'The Mossad' is not as frequent. If you look through news channels, YouTubers, and print media, they most commonly use the term 'Mossad'. There are chances they might have used 'The Mossad' a couple of times. Anyway, since this article itself states that it's the national intelligence 'agency', I recommend using the term 'the agency'. Just like with the CIA, let's refer to other similar articles, such as the Secret Intelligence Service, Research and Analysis Wing, and ASIO. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 15:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I have looked through the sources and the common usage is clearly 'The Mossad'. Perhaps you're referring to the fact that some sentences will read 'Mossad director Joe says etc.' or 'Mossad agent Shmo says etc.' but this does not contradict the fact that when referring to the Mossad as its own entity the common usage is 'The Mossad is an intelligence agency etc.'

I've checked through the major news sites and other sources brought in the article. CNN, NYT (don't be confused by a sentence in midst of the article that means to read 'Mossad defense officials etc.'), CBS, Haaretz (I won't list any other Israeli newspapers because they all say 'The Mossad' as it's undebatable that that is the common usage in Israel), Reuters, CBC, etc. I only provide one link, but a look through all the above publications' articles will show that practically every article will use 'the' in reference to the Mossad.

On the other side we have BBC, the Telegraph, The Guardian (uk) and possibly others. Perhaps its some sort of British thing.

There are other publications that are generally split, but even then I found that the most common usage was 'The Mossad'.

By the way, headlines that say 'Mossad does something dramatic etc.' are not examples against common usage being 'the', its just a headline thing (similar to 'CIA does something almost as dramatic etc.' where common usage is obviously still 'the CIA').

A simple search on whether Mossad is found with the word 'the; before it is not enough, because articles will often read 'Mossad agent Joe etc.' as I mentioned above.

As for using 'the agency', stylistic literary sense determines when it's an appropriate time to use 'The agency' instead of 'The Mossad'. I think the article is well written stylistically, so I recommend changing it to read The Mossad, instead of replacing it with 'The agency'. JoeJShmo^💌 19:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

On further reflection, its quite possible the Brits refer to it as Mossad because they're used to "MI6", while Americans are used to "the CIA". Either way, especially considering that the Israeli mode of reference is 'The Mossad', and the simple population advantage of the USA, I believe the common usage is indeed 'The Mossad' though a note is definitely called for to explain that the 'the' is sometimes dropped. JoeJShmo^💌 21:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not referring to entities attached to Mossad, such as the Mossad director or Mossad agents. Since Wikipedia is read worldwide, it's important that articles consider a global audience rather than focusing solely on the United States and Israel.

To provide clarity, let's refer to other articles and observe how they are written. I recommend reviewing the List of intelligence agencies to see the terminology used there. The term 'agency' can be used interchangeably throughout the article, as Mossad is an intelligence agency. If it were an organization like the OECD, ASEAN, or even the UN, I might recommend using 'organization' instead. Consider Canada, where 'nation' has been used as an alternative term, or Uttar Pradesh, where 'state' serves as an alternate term.

From a stylistic standpoint, this approach may attract tags like "written like a manual or guidebook", " tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia", or "personal essay" etc. Additionally, it's important to note that 'Mossad' is an abbreviation, similar to ASIO, CIS, NATO, or even SAARC. It could be written in all caps as 'MOSSAD' in the same way these organizations are presented.

Hope it helps! 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@25 Cents FC You seem to be misconstruing my argument. I was not arguing to refer to it as 'The Mossad' solely because of the USA and Israel, as I brought a Canadian news station link that also used 'The Mossad'. In light of the fact that only British newspapers seem to use 'Mossad' it is clear common usage is to use 'the'.

As for your referencing other agencies where we don't use 'the', that's because common usage is not to use 'the' in reference to those agencies... It's not a Wikipedia objective decision, we just consistently follow common usage. As demonstrated above, common usage in regards to the 'Mossad' agency is indeed to use 'the'. (When I linked the CIA it was not meant as proof to common usage by the Mossad, I was only showing that even when common usage is 'the', the article name will not use 'the')

As for your suggestion to just refer to it 'the agency' instead of 'the mossad': deciding when to replace the subjects name with words like 'agency' is determined in every instance on a stylistic basis based largely on context, to clarify word choice. E.g. in the Canada article plenty of sentences begin with "Canada etc." while others will read "the nation". Besides, in the first few introductory sentences the decision must already made to use 'the' or not. JoeJShmo^💌 15:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I see you even suggested that the Mossad can be referred to in all caps as it is an abbreviation. Not a single source uses all caps. Please remember common usage dictates these decisions. JoeJShmo^💌 15:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@JoeJShmo Thank you for your response. I must clarify that using "The Mossad" is acceptable when referring to entities associated with it, such as its director, leaders, or operations. However, when referring solely to the national intelligence agency, like its budget, strength, or formation years, recommendation would be "The agency", "The organization" or simply "Mossad". Moreover, benefit of using "The agency", or "The organization" simply that it can be used for not only Mossad but also for its entities without changing its meaning.

Also, if we again check, Canada for example, we will see that sentences begin with or uses the term 'Canada', not 'The Canada', and uses 'The nation' instead of 'Canada'. Similar with Uttar Pradesh, the nation is used in place of Uttar Pradesh, (interchangeably). Allow me to suggest another article Research and Analysis Wing to be used as an example. Hope it helps!

Another important point I would like to highlight is that, I am not sure if we are writing Wikipedia articles based on -what terms have been used in references or -common usage on other platforms. Thank you.25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 13:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@25 Cents FC. I appreciate your responses but I'm tired of going back and forth endlessly. I'm fairly sure you're just not fully understanding the arguments I'm making. You bring Canada as an example that doesn't use 'the', but please, please, understand that common usage (among sources/population) dictates the way we refer to any subject. I believe I've demonstrated that common usage is to say 'The' Mossad. The fact that other intelligence agencies' articles are written differently is completely irrelevant. They are written differently because the common usage by those agencies is different. Every article is evaluated on its own. And again, I'm unclear if you're even trying to suggest this, but to blanket replace every mention of the 'Mossad' with 'the agency' is not a solution. So my conclusion is to edit the article to read 'the Mossad' in all places relevant. The only relevant respone to my comment would've been a reply demonstrating, with links to multiple news orgs or similar sites, that common use is in fact not to use 'the'. However, I firmly believe that will not happen, short of a dishonest selective display.

I say all this respectfully; perhaps I'm at fault for being unclear earlier. I hope the bolded text make things easier. JoeJShmo^💌 15:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

JoeJShmo is correct that common usage and not analogies with different examples is what should decide the question. It's also easy to see that such analogies don't help us to decide. "Canada" is way too different to even consider. Much more similar examples are CIA and MI6. Whereas "CIA" is almost always used with "the", "MI6" is almost never used with "the". So all we learn from these examples is "it depends". Back to the Mossad, in sources originating from Israel (press, journal articles and books), I nearly always see "the Mossad". In sources from other places, my subjective impression is that "the Mossad" still predominates though less overwhelmingly. Zero^talk 02:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@JoeJShmo: You have been extended-confirmed for several days now, so there is no need to restore or reactivate the edit request template at the top of this section which requires extra time and work from uninvolved patrollers like myself. You have the technical ability to implement your desired edits so long as there is editorial consensus here to do so; disagreements can be resolved through normal talk page discussion. Thank you. Left guide (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Correction of misleading wording in the International Court of Justice paragraph

In the paragraph it is claimed as a fact that the mossad harassed prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, although this claim is based solely on the Guardian's artical, in addition, the article claims that this was carried out through meetings held by the head of the Mossad (yossi cohen) with the prosecutor, this is not an operation by the Mossad, so I do not think that the paragraph should be under the topic of alleged operations. I suggest to create a new topic under the title "press coverage" perhaps, where it will be possible to detail accusations and journalistic articles connected to the Mossad, there we can write about the Guardian article and also about the accusations of the American journalists regarding Epstein, and maybe other similar things that I may have missed and could be included in the topic. In addition, at the beginning of the paragraph on the Guardian article, it is necessary to note that this was claimed by the Guardian in cooperation with Local Call (Hebrew: "שיחה מקומית", an Israeli-Palestinian newspaper that deals with conflict) Guy452009 (talk) 09:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed 67.86.156.103 (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

US activities

Section is incredibly sparse considering the history and level of ongoing Israeli intelligence activities within and against US intelligence and counter-intelligence operations as well as against the US itself. Nandofan (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Epstein allegations

The allegations regarding Epstein being a Mossad agent, sourced to a “journalist” from the National Enquirer and a bunch of speculative articles citing cranks, are dubious at best and blood libel at worst. They should be removed. 2603:8000:D000:3B6B:AC0E:96C3:C993:CE44 (talk) 07:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Trnslation of באין תחבולות יפול עם ותשועה ברוב יועץ

On the page it currently translates it to: "Where no counsel is, the people fall, but in the multitude of counselors there is safety." or "Where no wise direction is, a people falleth; but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety."

I tried a google translate and it gave this: "If there are no tricks, a people will fall and salvation will come from a majority of advisers"

so it it "counsel" or "tricks" E.hamam (talk) 10:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know where you're seeing the two versions in your first sentence; they seem to appear nowhere in the article. The translation both in the infobox and in the "Motto" section is "Where there is no guidance, a nation falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety," which is clearly identified as coming from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. I would trust that far more than Google Translate. Deor (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)