Talk:Jonathan Pollard/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

old discussion

Mirror vax what part you dont agree with?

All of it. It's opinionated, unsourced, unverifiable. Not even worthy of an op-ed piece, never mind an encyclopedia. Mirror Vax 18:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

That's an awfully cynical and flip comment. Much of this is public domain info, with specific sources listed in the links, and the prosecutors and judge obviously appear to believe it's very solid and concrete and real. I'd add to Ashley's comment below that some of the Margolis observations should be incorporated as well, although Seymour Hersh's piece is outstanding; he really is one of the finest journalists in America today, and his piece should be required reading for anyone working on this page. Compromising 100 agents overseas and communications codes and security is not friendly, it's high treason. In fact I seem to recall hearing they even had to burn scarce satellite fuel to reroute trajectories Pollard compromised, which represents many millions of dollars in damage just in technology costs. These are matters of fact, not opinion. Maybe somebody can incorporate them too. Chris Rodgers 00:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The unsigned bit was written by User:82.81.66.57, and it is his edits that I was characterizing. If you look at them, you may agree with me. Mirror Vax 02:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

WHO THE FUCK wrote this JOKE of an "article", Jonathan Pollard himself? LOL! This is a new low in self important flatulence. This article was written 100% from Pollard's point of view. What kind of JOKE "encyclopedia" is written from the point of view of the criminal, and NOTHING from the POV of the country that prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced the criminal to prison? Why must wikipedia CONTINUE to make an ass out of itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.164.0 (talk) 08:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

POV

• 1.) Why is it that some "claim" that Pollard's sentence is too harsh, while others "point to" evidence that it is not too harsh? Classic POV tactic.
• 2.) Why is it that Weinberger (of all people) is the most "pro-Pollard" viewpoint in the article?
• 3.) Why isn't Pollard's case contrasted (in the article) with similar cases (espionage for allies), where typical sentencing is 2-4 years?
• 4.) Why hasn't Pollard's alleged poor treatment in jail been discussed?
• 5.) Why does the article make mention of the possibility of Israel's forwarding of information to the U.S.S.R. when the two countries were not on good terms at the time?
• 6.) Why doesn't the article mention that Pollard's appeal was denied by a technicality that Pollard was not responsible for?
• 7.) Why doesn't the article mention that one of the judge's on Pollard's appeal board said that the guilty verdict against Pollard was the worst perversion of justice that the judge had ever encountered?

At least the article has a link to [1], which provides another viewpoint.

This article is neither comprehensive not neutral, and a template must be placed at the top of this article to indicate such (until the issue is resolved). HKT 21:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• 8.) Why not go ahead and edit the article yourself if you feel it is too one-sided? This is Wikipedia, after all. --I am not good at running 06:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• 9.) (A.) This is a controversial topic, so (B.) my edits may spark an edit war (despite NPOV), whereupon (C.,1) I would have to either get involved (which I wouldn't like to do, due to time constraints), or (C.,2) allow my edits to disappear into history, which would make my edits, in retrospect, a waste of time. While I could (D.) spend a whole lot of time meticulously documenting sources for all my edits (which would have the benefits of (D.,1) diminishing the risk of reverts, (D.,2) increasing my trustworthiness in the Wikipedia community, and possibly (D.,3) convincing others to abandon rediculous POVs), (E.,1) I have already mentioned time constraints, and that reason, coupled with (E.,2) the yet existent specter of reverts, is enough to (F.) discourage me from actually editing this article. It is much easier to (G.,1) post a short bit on the talk page, followed by (G.,2) an NPOV template, and hope that (H.) others will deal with the article.

(I.) I thank you for your (I.,1) sarcastic use of the #8, as well as (I.,2) your incisive criticism.

Sincerely, (J.) HKT 21:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC) ;-)

Has anyone else noticed most of the Israel related articles tend to have that NPOV even when they are awfully boring? What gives. gathima 23:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

There's basically two topics that cause edit wars on wikipedia, one's jews and the other's george bush. Gzuckier 03:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Why some say X and others say Y? Nature of language and personal perspective. Russell, Wittgenstein, Popper, lots of peole including Charles Peirce made a major point of showing how language is used and effects perception. You Will Never Get Consensus. So we present as many sides as possible which leads to part two of this quandry "This article is neither comprehensive not neutral" Comprehensive means this thing would be about as detailed and cumbersome as the NYC phone book. One through seven are not really helpful nor do I think they were meant as questions--they are rhetorical as far as I can see. OK, Six WAS an important point --in my view. I think that has been rectified. No, I lie, it is discussed in the talk and not on the article. I think that is important. If there is enough here, I will do what I can to rectify it. Malangthon 23:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Soviet connection

Hersh makes some claims that should probably be mentioned:

A number of officials strongly suspect that the Israelis repackaged much of Pollard's material and provided it to the Soviet Union in exchange for continued Soviet permission for Jews to emigrate to Israel. Other officials go further, and say there was reason to believe that secret information was exchanged for Jews working in highly sensitive positions in the Soviet Union. A significant percentage of Pollard's documents, including some that described the techniques the American Navy used to track Soviet submarines around the world, was of practical importance only to the Soviet Union. One longtime C.I.A. officer who worked as a station chief in the Middle East said he understood that "certain elements in the Israeli military had used it" -- Pollard's material -- "to trade for people they wanted to get out," including Jewish scientists working in missile technology and on nuclear issues. Pollard's spying came at a time when the Israeli government was publicly committed to the free flow of Jewish emigres from the Soviet Union. The officials stressed the fact that they had no hard evidence -- no "smoking gun," in the form of a document from an Israeli or a Soviet archive -- to demonstrate the link between Pollard, Israel, and the Soviet Union, but they also said that the documents that Pollard had been directed by his Israeli handlers to betray led them to no other conclusion.

There's quite a lot more in [www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/576453/posts the article]. —Ashley Y 00:47, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Revert

Mirror Vax, I'm putting back the sentence you removed. Since the previous sentence insinuates that Pollard compromised US codes (POV), I'm leaving the assertion and providing contrary evidence. Furthermore, I'm stating that Pollard probably wasn't suspected of compromising codes, not even that he probably didn't compromise codes. The sentence is appropriate, so I'm reinserting it. HKT 04:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Since i am dont see anyone object I am reinserting HKT statment

I would like to float some information about possibly changing the section on the Soviet connection. He was originally alleged to have compromised US spy information leading to the death of many US spies. HOWEVER 1. He was not convicted of any of those charges. More importantly, 2. The actual perpetrators WERE caught later and convincted. As it turns out Aldrich Ames and Michael Hansen were responsible. Ames wa also in charge of Pollard's investigation and tried to foist his crimes onto Pollard. So, it is technically true to cite earlier articles and reports that he was thought to have done that...but it is also misleading without mentioning later evidence showing it was someone else.