Talk:Israel Institute for Biological Research

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Israel Institute for Biological Research. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121115121847/http://www.iibr.gov.il/ to http://www.iibr.gov.il/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Israel Institute for Biological Research. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090611165900/http://www.bsos.umd.edu/pgsd/people/staffpubs/Avner-CBWart.pdf to http://www.bsos.umd.edu/pgsd/people/staffpubs/Avner-CBWart.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Gideon's Spies
The book has some serious credibility issues. It makes colorful and questionable claims about Mossad spying on the U.S. in connection with the Monica Lewinsky scandal (see: ) (pp. 100-105), the Lockerbie bombing (p. 316), the death of Princess Diana (p. 11), and other such subjects. See for example:


 * "Forget (largely) about the 'history' part; this is an anecdote-rich, if sometimes factually questionable, series of tales... Thomas contributes to the mythologizing of the Mossad... How many of his tales are true? As Thomas doesn’t document, aside from a short list of 'primary interviewees' and other sources, it’s hard to say. Nor does he build credibility by getting certain basic facts wrong or by occasionally offering hyperventilating prose. In short, this fun read... should be approached with a skeptical eye by readers interested in serious history." (Kirkus)
 * "Astute readers, however, will question whether these unnamed informants have given [Thomas] the straight scoop... his use of unnamed sources and his reliance on conjecture will leave readers intrigued but determined to reserve judgment." (Publisher's Weekly)
 * "Welsh author Gordon Thomas has written more than 50 books, several of them on the British, American, and Israeli intelligence agencies. His books on these agencies share features that, for serious readers of intelligence literature, have become Thomas's trademark: they are well written, badly documented, and packed with errors. The revised and updated edition of Gideon’s Spies does not disappoint... The work is entertaining but not reliable." (Studies in Intelligence)
 * "[Thomas] has obtained a lot of tall stories... retells some famous stories very well, but is disfigured by molehills of gossip and mountains of tosh. If Thomas is to be believed, Mossad has been involved in every murky happening anywhere in the world for decades... Basic mistakes about those cases whose facts are known do not encourage confidence in the author's other revelations." (The Spectator)
 * "[I]t will probably go in the fiction, rather than the non-fiction section. Thomas describes events without providing references or revealing his sources. While this may make it difficult to refute his account, it hardly bolsters the book’s authority... one should take his conspiracy theories and some other of his tales of the Mossad’s exploits with a pinch of salt." (The Jewish Chronicle)

Regards, GABgab 20:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks User:GeneralizationsAreBad for those sources. But some of that should go into the Gideon's Spies, and possibly the Gordon Thomas (author) article first, no? The problem with Gideon's Spies article is that the only review is by  Daniel Pipes, and he isn't really counted as a RS in the IP area. As for Mossad, have you read Rise and Kill First? I believe it is generally considered reliable. Lots of those "outlandish stories" were confirmed,
 * However, I don't feel strongly about this, except that if we remove it here, then Gideon's Spies, and possibly the Gordon Thomas (author) articles should also be expanded: if you do that, feel free to remove it again! Cheers, Huldra (talk) 20:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the book's own article could perhaps incorporate some of this. Regarding Mossad, Rise and Kill First is on my reading list and I understand that there are plenty of wild and true stories (a couple of particularly interesting ones: ). But much of the criticism of this particular book revolves around two issues: 1) Thomas makes errors regarding even the well-documented cases and 2) Thomas relates some dubious "scoops". We could even use RaKF to replace Thomas where necessary, or find some other sources to corroborate whatever content was from Thomas. Thank you for your suggestions. Regards, GABgab 21:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, User:GeneralizationsAreBad I thought the "toothpaste murder" was pretty "far out" (and right in line with IIBR work, incidentally) (see Wadie Haddad). The poison in the Khaled Mashal probably also came from them.
 * Also, some of those reviews might not be correct. In the The Jewish Chronicle Ahron Bregman makes a lot of not mentioning Ashraf Marwan, but I think the "jury is still out" in that case. Some (like As'ad AbuKhalil) say that Marwan never had an important political role, ie, he never knew any sensitive secrets. Others say he was a double agent, etc, etc. The case there is anything but clear. And even RaKF have its mistakes, I have mention one on its talk page,  Huldra (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)