Talk:Refaat Al-Gammal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comment 1[edit]

Came to this from the ar.wikipedia article and found that its a little messy. Could use some citations, NPOVing, et cetera. You know, the works. Elijahmeeks 18:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

No problem. Elijahmeeks 18:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Last reverts[edit]

Please bring source that Mossad admitted anything. The source should be a Mossad press release or official response to Israeli press.--Shrike 13:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


Double agent[edit]

AND THIS DEDUCTION IS CAMEL SHIT!!!!! yes a camel shit!! jack beton went to Israel as originally ashkenazi jew with a french father so it is very logical that this man could simply speak french . also all Egyptian jews did speak English and French fluently as they had several connections with jews outside Egypt Also YOU TELL ME WHAT AGENT TAKE SECRET INK WITH HIM FROM THE FIRST DAY!!!??? it is known everywhere that in intelligence every new agent has a DORMANT stage with no activity at all till this agent can make connections in the new environment and to start at least a small work so that he could earn living.

and also Israel never needed to use double agent at this critical time of its history as it wasn't any safe also Israel already had millions of Egyptian jews who unfortunately totally forgot everything about being Egyptian and stood to help Israel in a strange petrayal scene!!! so Israel didn't need a muslim spy at all!!! it would have been easier to kill him and announce that as public opinion in israel was so afraid from Egypt and several trials to arrest Egytian spys and all these trials were published on public

If Jack was double agent as they say: then why did he reveal the real identity of Elie cohen the famous Israeli spy who was about to became a minister in syria. as both worked together in Alexandria in the Jewish organisation

Again The Double Agent Issue[edit]

Shrike, we're not here to judge whether Al-Gammal was a double agent or not I presented the way Egyptians think of him according to the information published by our Intelligence and let you publish the information published by your book

But the problem is you're arguing that the court rejected the Egyptian Citizenship for his wife and son because "Probably!" he was a double agent, that's what you say.

but actually that's not true and even illogical, if our government thinks he's a double agent then why would they publish his story and make him a national hero?? why didn't they arrest him in any of his visits to Egypt?? why are our retired intelligence agents still speak proudly of Al-Gammal even now.

I hope you're now convinced that Al-Gammal was not a double agent, at least that's what the government believes, the court believed and we believe! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usama707 (talkcontribs) 17:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of information by Passionless[edit]

Why do you present Egyptian pov as a fact and delete a sourced information?And use WRMEA Pro-Arab site as WP:RS as it clearly a POV site.--Shrike (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this a direct translation of the other haaretz article that was a source in hebrew?, if so, it never once mentioned Refaat Al-Gammal. I cannot find any source that verifies the existance of the referenced book The Spies: Israel's Counterespionage Wars by Yossi Melman and Eitan Haber other than that single haaretz article and that it is listed as a source for someone's essay posted online. So I'm not sure how I can verify the contents of the source that supposedly backs up this contentious section.
I have the book.The book it is in Hebrew.We can use not english sources too per WP:RS.--Shrike (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if you had a reliable source, to put the fringe theory, that he was a traitor, into the intro would be undue weight, it would be placed in the body. Also, there is no doubt that WRMEA is an WP:RS and that it is pro-Arab is only your POV. Passionless -Talk 09:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Why its a fringe?I think the theory that he wasn't double agent is a fringe one.WRMEA is clearly pro-Arabs side and can only present Egyptian POV.--Shrike (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Great, I'm having a terrible time trying to find anything in English written about Al-Gammal/Jack Beaton. The idea of Refaat being a double agent seems to go against the rest of the poorly cited article, especially that he is a national hero in Egypt. Although I lack knowledge on Refaat I think to add the statement that he was a double agent is a fringe theory, and should only be added if you were to gain another RS-in whatever language- that also stated that he was a double agent, independent of the first source.
From WP:FRINGE- "An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." Passionless -Talk 23:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't get it - you say that the well sourced information provided by Shrike (sourced to a book by two prominent Israeli journalists) goes "against the rest of the poorly cited article" - but you prefer the poorly cited version to the well sourced information? There are two views of Al-Gammal/Beaton - one from an Egyptian TV show claiming he's a great spy, another from Israeli journalists who claim he was uncovered and turned into a double agnet by the Israelis. We need to present both versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Why Me Why U (talkcontribs) 03:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Please read WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, than can you please read WP:HOUND to see that if you continue to hound me I will bring you an an WP:AN/I. Passionless -Talk 03:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I've read both. You are relying on a 5-sentence paragraph from an article in a pro-Arab magazine, from 25 years ago. The material SHrike quotes is from a mainstream book by two noted journalists. YOU are the one pushing a FRINGE position. Why Me Why U (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
He present a EGID claims as fact but its disputed there should be neutral version also revert without discussion against WP guidelines--Shrike (talk) 11:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Just because someone disputes a fact does not mean it can no longer be written in Wikipedia's voice as fact. If the fringe theory is only shared by a minority of people or does not seriously cast doubt on the facts, than widely held facts are presented as facts. So fringe theories like the conspiracy theories of 9/11 do not affect the widely believed facts on the wikipedia 9/11 page, and pages on evolution are still written as factual even though many still believe in youth earth creation or intelligent design. Al-Gammal is widely known to have been an Egyptian spy-even those who believe he was a double spy must admit he was an egyptian spy. That a minority believes he was a double spy does not challange well known facts about Al-Gammal. Passionless -Talk 21:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes so we should write as a fact that he is a double agent and add the claims of EGID as allegation.There was no doubt that he was a spy but he was at first Egyptian spy and then he was turned to be double agent.And why do you claim its a minority do you have WP:RS that say that is a minority?Shrike (talk) 06:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
How can I be expected to reply to such a statement, it makes no sense. Passionless -Talk 18:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
When you will have something meaningfull to add to the article using WP:RS let me know.--Shrike (talk) 07:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
If you wish to challenge the sources you deleted as non RS, you have to go through Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, your POV is not what makes a source RS or not. Passionless -Talk 07:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I didn't deleted any sources all the sources are in the article.You deleted sources too and didn't go through Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard--Shrike (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I never deleted any source, I simply moved them per WP:UNDUE. Passionless -Talk 20:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Early life,Working for the EGID[edit]

The material in those sections not sourced at all with any sources and thus should be removed from the article unless WP:RS found to source it properly.--Shrike (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no rule against unsourced information, 90% of wikipedia is unsourced. If you made these edits they could only be seen as purposefully disruptive. See: WP:POINT. Passionless -Talk 20:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The opposite is true if you restore chalenged unsourced information your edit may be considered purposefully disruptive see WP:V--Shrike (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I never restored challenged unsourced information, I restored one unsourced part that was deleted without a given reason, but I have since sourced it. Passionless -Talk 07:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I never said you did.All the information about him that is not sourced properly is challenged as it contreversal issue.In the book there are also story of his life I will compare it later with Egyptian POV.
I have reverted your deletion of perfectly good sources and sourced information. Please try to help make this a better and better sourced article rather than deleting information and re-adding WP:CLAIM, WP:UNDUE, spelling and grammar, and WP:MOSCAPS violations. Passionless -Talk 21:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Its you adding WP:UNDUE and pushing WP:FRINGE Egyptian version.But I am compromised with the former editor that both versions should be in the article although Egyptian version is a fringe one.But you keep adding pusHing Egyptian POV as a fact.If you have specific style and gramatic issues you may help and correct them but please don't break the consensus that was reached earlier.
consensus? you got to be kidding me, that Usama707 gave up against your POV pushing is not a consensus. Passionless -Talk 07:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I see that your insist on breaking consensus which going against the guidelines and keep pushing your POV.--Shrike (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You still continually remove the uncontested and multi-sourced fact that he was a spy, why do you continue to do so? You also keep breaking WP:CLAIM, WP:UNDUE and WP:MOSCAPS, what is it that you do not understand about these policies? These are not recommendations, these are part of wikipedia policy. Passionless -Talk 23:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not removing anything contrary to and you keep posting fringe opinion of him being a spy breaking various Wikipedia policies WP:CLAIM, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV,please read all the policies and stop pushing your fringe POV.--Shrike (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Compromise[edit]

I see we not going to reach a compromise lets ask a third party or mediators' help to reach a consensus--Shrike (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

you really like to repeat what other people say, it is really annoying, please stop it. Passionless -Talk 19:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
About your Third Opinion request: I'm a Third Opinion Wikipedian and I've studied your dispute with a view towards issuing a Third Opinion. Because I neither speak Arabic nor Hebrew, and because one of the primary sources supporting the dispute is not available for examination online, I have chosen not to do so. In case some other 3O Wikipedian cares to issue an opinion, I thought that I might set out here what I've learned so far and invite the disputants to comment in the event they disagree with any part of this summary:
1. There is no substantial dispute that Al-Gammal was a person of Egyptian birth who lived in Israel and acted as an undercover agent for the Egyptian General Intelligence Directorate (EGID).
2. There is also no substantial dispute that some sources say that Al-Gammal was discovered to be a spy by the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet), was turned into a double agent by that agency, and was used to feed substantial amounts of disinformation to EGID. There is also no dispute that this information should be included in some way in the article.
3. There is also no substantial dispute over whether the sources cited to support point 1 and point 2 are, in general, reliable sources.
4. The true focus of the dispute is, in keeping with WP:UNDUE, where, how, and to what extent the information mentioned in #2 should be reflected in the article.
If either Shrike or Passionless disagree with any of the foregoing conclusions, it would help to resolve this dispute with the least confusion possible if they would state and explain their disagreement briefly after this message.
Finally, it appears to me from an examination of the page history that both editors are — if barely — currently complying with the restrictions set out in {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}. I note, however, that a continuous history of reverts back and forth on this issue dates back to at least 2008, if not before. (Prior to the current dispute between Shrike and Passionless, the revert pattern was between Shrike and Usama707.) I, therefore, give a warning to both editors: An edit war is defined as editors trying "to force their own position by combative editing (making edits they know will be opposed) and repeated reverting." The three revert rule is merely a bright-line rule and it expressly says, "Remember that an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." What's going on here is clearly an edit war and I must warn you that you stand a risk of having this page protected and/or being blocked from editing if it continues. I commend your decision to take the matter to dispute resolution, but the reverting needs to totally stop until the matter is either resolved by discussion or through the dispute resolution process.
Note to other 3O Wikipedians: I have not yet "taken" this request, removed it from the active request list at the WP:3O page, or otherwise "reserved" it, and will not do so, so please go ahead and opine on it if you care to do so.
Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I think there are two main views that have the same weight the EGID view that Arabic sources base their version(including WRMEA though not Arabic but clearly can't be called neutral source) and book that was written by two prominent Israeli journalists and several Hebrew articles that claims the opposite. I really wanted to get this article NPOV as possible and not present as either theory as a fact.Though I think claim by EGID have less value (they will of course never admit their faults) that well researched book by two journalists.Another point that article is really poorly sourced and there a lot of mistaken data for example that he posed as Ashkenazi Jew with last name "Biton" while its clearly Sephardi name.--Shrike (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Also I have reached some agreement with Usama707 that both versions should stay in the articles but as time passed several anonymous editors deleted the information I have restored deleted information but Passionless reverted and deleted all the information about being him double agent [1] after I have argued with him on some other articles.--Shrike (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
A single book which claims Al-Gammal was a double spy is not equal to the numerous RS I have provided to back up the facts of his life. Per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, I at first removed the claim made by a hebrew-only book as too insignificant-especially for the intro. I than found another israeli source which made the same claim, so I added a balanced section on the theory, this progressive move was completely rejected by shrike. I also do not understand in the least why shrike keeps reverting spelling, grammar, and capitalization fixes, but he seems quite adament about it and will not discuss, same with him continually breaking WP:CLAIM, he will not speak on the matter.
Besides that, thank you for your time TransporterMan, I did realize it was an edit war, which is why I made the request for a 3rd opinion days ago, and was planning to go to WP:AE today if no reply came (Banu hoshech was blocked as a suspected sock of Shrike's, and shrike continued to go against ARPBIA principles even after formally warned). Oh, and I don't speak arabic or hebrew, so that did make finding all those sources more difficult, and I also did make a request for a Arabic->English translator as the Arabic article is a featured article, though no one has responded to that request yet. Passionless -Talk 21:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
You was warned too.So don't pretend that you didn't knew about ARPBIA principles.Also except of the book there are several Hebrew articles.--Shrike (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I was warned of ARPBIA long ago, for something unrelated to ARPBIA and this article, and I have not gone against ARPBIA in this article, while you have, you have shown no good faith at all. Passionless -Talk 21:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
There are nothing in the warning about this article.Of course you are, you deleted sources like I showed earlier also be careful about personal attacks.--Shrike (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────── Thank you for backing off the edit war for the last few days. If you are unable to get a Third Opinion, or it fails to settle the dispute, let me suggest that you very quickly move upwards in the dispute resolution process to a RFP, perhaps using the {{rfctag|hist|pol}} tag to list it in both of those categories. An alternate step would be to take it to the Mediation Cabal, but I'd recommend the RFP first. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I just discovered that both editors in this dispute have been topic-banned from this article for long periods of time, so I have removed the request for a third opinion from the Third Opinion project page. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Refaat Al-Gammal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Name of Jack[edit]

Is it Jack Beton, Beaton, or Bitton?

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Refaat Al-Gammal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)