Talk:Jonathan Pollard/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Comparative Sentences for American Spies

According to your article below, Franklin received only 13 years and a fine. Pollard received life and no fine because the FBI did not consider him a mercenary-for-profit. yet, you refused this fact in Pollard's article. Don't you believe this is an essential fact? Here is the source. http://www.jonathanpollard.org/factsadd.htm

You are deleting so many essential facts that it appears you choose to lose credibility rather than gain it.

---

Larry Franklin From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Lawrence Anthony Franklin

Lawrence Anthony Franklin is a U.S. Air Force Reserve colonel who has pleaded guilty to passing information about U.S. policy towards Iran to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the foremost pro-Israel lobbying organization in the U.S, while he was working for the Defense Department in what he claims was an attempt to get the information passed on to the United States National Security Council, which he could not do through regular Pentagon channels. Two former employees of that organization are also facing charges that they assisted him in the AIPAC espionage scandal and passing classified information to an Israeli diplomat Naor Gilon. On January 20, 2006, Judge T.S. Ellis, III sentenced Franklin to 151 months (almost 13 years) in prison and fined him $10,000. [1] The case was heard in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Ultimately, Franklin was charged with unauthorized disclosure of classified information, not with espionage.[citation needed]

---

so many other facts i attempted to insert were deleted. here is the source: http://www.jonathanpollard.org/facts.htm

your editors have disappointed me.

Furtive admirer (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I disappointed you, but you should by now know why most your edits were reverted. As for this particular issue: Pollard's website cannot be considered a reliable independent source for, what appears to me, obvious reasons. Also, if you are trying to compare Franklin's sentence to Pollard's you need a reliable source explicitly comparing the two, otherwise this will be original research by means of synthesis. Rami R 14:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Rami, the jonathan pollard website was referenced with a sourced document proving Pollard was not fined,(Franklin was) NOT to compare sentences.

so, i am finished here. i sent you a note on your talk page. if you are interested in Pollard's history and want to make it your "cause celebre" to create a credible Pollard's Page with only the evidence the US Government has released through the Freedom of Information Act AND first-hand witnessess, such as Carol Pollard (Carol.Pollard@yale.edu), Dr. Morris Pollard (mpollard@nd.edu),and Alan Dershowitz (dersh@law.harvard.edu), I suggest you contact them and request their contributions. then you won't have to threaten those benefactors who merely want to get the facts straight. And for the opposing view, you can contact Joseph DiGenova, ("Pollard will never see the light of day!") via Victoria Toensing, who has a page here. They are married and law partners as well. Judge Robinson is dead and he would not comment even if he wasn't, and Caspar Weinberger is deceased also. It appears you have a lot of time on your hands, and I assure you this is a very productive project for you, or in the alternative you can just remove the page completely until it is sourced to your satisfaction. You'll learn quite a bit in the process. As it appears now, like much of the opinion reflected before me on this page, it is simply JUNK!!

l'hedrohot,

Furtive admirer (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Propoganda puff piece

What the Hell ... Upon first reading this article it came off as a cheap piece of propaganda - actually comparing Jon Pollard to Alfred Dreyfus. Utterly disrespectful to Dreyfus, I might add. Among other things, the article failed to note that Pollard sold classified information.

I'm going to be taking a close look at the contribution record. --Duk

It's part of the criticism that was brought in Shaw piece so you may think its propaganda but its pretty much irrelevant because its one of the argument that pollard supporter uses and it should be stated in article also you didn't explain other deletions of sourced materials.--Shrike (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Per your edit summary see talk until there will be consensus we will keep the last consensus version-- The fallacy in your argument is that anything may be added to the article, no madder how biased, where is automatically receives the banner of 'consensus' and is protection from removal until you say so. This article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia - containing a never ending sting of POV pushing quotes from partisan players. I think the best course is to start removing the non-facutal, perception twisting quotes and opinions in favor of factual content. I'll make one more edit later on today, Shrike, and hope you can talk about it instead of blindly reverting. A second suggestion I have is to make these edits on one area of contention at a time, to facilitate discussion. Also, please quit saying I didn't explain my edits - they were explained both here and in the edit summaries. --Duk 14:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You say its propaganda I say it's a different POV and all POVs should be given due weight per Wikipedia policy. We must state what pollard supporters claim. You may of course include opinions of people that state the opposite --Shrike (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

all POVs should be given due weight per Wikipedia policy -- bullshit, using a comparison of Pollard to Dreyfus to mollify Pollard's crimes is a POV abomination that deserves no 'due weight'. And the rest of the article isn't much better; all kinds opinions and quotes designed to paint Pollard as anything but a spy. --Duk 15:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You may not like the comparison but it's used concerning pollard in the source cited. Its sourced information from reliable source so I don't see any valid reason why it should be removed.--Shrike (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Pollard and Dreyfus

The article contained the sentence Shaw also presents similarities between Pollard's case and that of the French officer Alfred Dreyfus but it fails to note what those similarities are. The statement is devoid of substance, used only to compare Pollard, universally acknowledged to be guilty of spying, to Dreyfus, universally acknowledged to be innocently convicted. This just one example of outrageous POV pushing that plagues the entire article. I've removed the statement. --Duk 15:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

So if we add the similarities it would be ok?--Shrike (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? Are they important? Would they improve the article? The statement I removed served no purpose whatsoever other than to connect Pollard's name to a historical figure know for being innocently convicted, thereby unfairly mollify Pollard's criminal image. --Duk 15:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia is not about fairness but about verifiability. There is a reliable source that making this comparison. You can't remove sourced information just because you think it's not fair--Shrike (talk) 07:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You can't remove sourced information just because you think it's not fair -- Oh yes you can.

See WP:Undue. You can't go and collect every nasty quote ever printed about a guy and dump them on his article just to assassinate his character, and you can't do the opposite. This article is full of factless editorializing quotes and opinions that add nothing to the article except to try to paint Pollard as something he's not. --Duk 15:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Ron Olive book

The article currently has quotes which characterizes Olive's claims as "old lies... repackaged." and "false". These vague and maligning quotes should be removed and replaced with the actual points of contention. For example, the first reference (for "old lies... repackaged") doesn't contain anything substantial, it's mostly hysterical hand waving and should be removed.

The second reference, which our article claims "assert that Olive's claims and accusations against Pollard are false" doesn't actually do that. It complains that some of Olive's claims, such as Pollard attempting to sell classified information to Pakistan, don't appear on the public docket. That doesn't mean these claims are false, nor does the reference actually contend as much. And yet the paragraph is summed up with the following; "[Olive's book is] an exercise in 'speculation, rumor, myths and lies.'", without specifically identifying any such thing.

Part of this section is a bunch of vague and maligning quotes arranged into a POV editorial. They should be replaced with the specific points of contention and properly referenced. --Duk 17:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the 'criticism' that lacked any specific points of contention. --Duk 20:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

There is also speculation from the book on why Pollard wants a pardon instead of parole. I'm not sure that belongs in the article either. --Duk 18:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it - speculates on Pollards intentions and didn't seem very encyclopedic. --Duk 18:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

jonathanpollard.org

The current article version has no fewer than nine references pointing to jonathanpollard.org; 6, 15 ,17, 19, 25, 27, 28, 34 and 37. This website is a poor source; its quality is somewhere between self-published work, to advocacy that doesn't strive to be neutral, to outright propaganda. It's also linked in the external links section as "Jonathon Pollard's Website". See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources for why this website is not a suitable source.

This website should not be used as a reference. The individual references need to be replaced with better sources if possible, and removed where appropriate.--Duk 16:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead references

The lead references of the current article are not needed and appear to have been add to get some Pro-Pollard juice right at the top of the article. The first reference was written by was someone "Of Counsel" on the amicus curiae brief submitted in support of Jonathan J. Pollard's 1991 appeal. The second reference misrepresents the intelligence that Pollard stole and sold as primarily 'materials relating to Arab ballistic missile and nonconventional weapons programs', and then calls him a 'national hero', all in the first three sentences. Way to go people.

I'm going to remove them, but will see if there are appropriate parts of the article to add them back. --Duk 22:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've salvaged these references to use as examples in the 'pro pollard public campaign' section. --Duk 15:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Weinburger memo

This page says that Pollard's attorneys were allowed to see the Weinberger memo. The Casper Weinberger page says the opposite. Which is it? Binarybits (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Israeli Media Allegation

This entry alleges that Pollard is sometimes described as a "hero" in the Israeli media. The reference cited is a BBC News article that describes posters and banners seen in Jerusalem, but gives not evidence of the news media describing Pollard as a hero. As worded, the sentence conveys a highly inaccurate impression of Israeli media. Individuals hoisting banners cannot be described as media. The media sentence should thus be erased or replaced with one that refers to pro-Pollard advocacy groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kishkushim (talk • contribs) 01:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this too, and changed it. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

"Reckless" and "inappropriate" conversation???

The article currently includes this passage:

"Within two months of being hired, the technical director of the NFOIO, Richard Haver, requested that Pollard be terminated.[9] This came after a rather reckless and somewhat inappropriate conversation with the new hire in which Pollard offered to start a back-channel operation with the South African intelligence service and lied about his own father's involvement with the CIA.[9]"

Speaking of inappropriate, it is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia to use words like "reckless" and "inappropriate" except in a quotation or a description of a quotation. As, for example, "So-and-so described the conversation as reckless and inappropriate."

It is not sufficient that the words be sourced (as with "[9]"). If you find this hard to understand, it is because those words are judgmental words and can never be considered part of statements of fact. Note: I know nothing of the subject matter. And please do not interpret me as passing judgment on the accuracy of the words "reckless" and "inappropriate"; I am saying something else entirely.

Oh, and furthermore, the meaning of labeling an entire conversation "reckless" and "inappropriate" is utterly unclear. Is it what Pollard allegedly said, or what the other guy allegedly said, or both, that was deemed worthy of these adjectives???

Finally, unless the conversation was recorded -- so that there is hard evidence -- it must be reported in terms of who claimed that certain characteristics described the conversation. This is a second level of un-factualness concerning the statement as it currently reads in the article. Regardless of what a source may say.

Has the writer never read an encyclopedia before? How about a good newspaper? Do they have no idea what a factual description consists of???

I am not the person to fix the article, because I am not knowledgeable about the subject matter. But if someone is, please fix the article to reflect the high standards of Wikipedia.Daqu (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

- Agree with that. Deleting those words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.252.21 (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated noise

In the section on Pollard's spying, there is a paragraph about an unrelated case, that of Yosef Amit. This material has nothing to do with Pollard's espionage, nothing at all. It is both misplaced and irrelevant. Why exactly in a section dealing with Pollard's actions is there a paragraph with "regard to friendly nations spying on each other"? This is placed for one reason, to attempt to portray these actions as "no big deal". Even if that were true (though it is hard to imagine treason being "no big deal"), it is not relevant to Pollard's espionage. nableezy - 18:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the claim that BRD is a reason for retaining material that was placed in the article a week ago boggles the mind. nableezy - 18:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It has to do.As the source that talk specifically talking about Pollard talking about USA spying on Israel.If you want to move it some other section.I will not object.--Shrike (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What does "it has to do" mean? How is this related to Pollard's spying. If you want to create an article on espionage among allies fine, go do that. But Amit has nothing to do with Pollard. nableezy - 18:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The WP:RS don't agree with you it talk about about a Pollard case and mention US spying on Israel too with conjunction with Pollard case.Did you read the sources? --Shrike (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read your sources. The first one when discussing why Israel would spy on the US, makes a general point about friendly nations spying. The second one mentions, in passing, that the Congressman was sharply rebuked for telling a Jewish group about an American spy in Israel while there was an uproar about Pollard's life sentence. I cant access the third. Could you please tell me how it relates Amit to Pollard's espionage? The other two do not in any way relate Amit to Pollard's espionage. nableezy - 19:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Because Amit it was the spy that Jewish congressmen talked about there are other sources that both mention Amit and Pollard [1] and there also a book in Hebrew that I have that about Amit case with conjunction with Pollard.

The Spies: Israel's Counter-Espionage Wars, Yossi Melman, Eitan Haber--Shrike (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What does Amit have to do with Pollard's espionage? Why is this paragraph in that section? Besides the obvious reason of attempting to downplay an act of treason, why is this paragraph in that section? nableezy - 20:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Like I said I agree that you will move it to other part of the article.Maybe some background section should be created about American-Israeli relationship and that paragraph should be part of it.--Shrike (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed it, as it's a distraction. If it's re-added, it will also need to be reworded, and placed elsewhere, where it can fit in. I think most readers know that everyone in the spy game does to others what they consider a grave crime when done to themselves. You would have to do more than just move it, to justify its inclusion. You would need to clearly word it, to show the direct connection. I really don't want to see every spy's article polluted with stories of other spys. --Rob (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think its pretty simple many WP:RS connect two stories together.So it should be mentioned. If WP:RS think the events in certain article are connected so of course it should mentioned.Also please read WP:JDLI--Shrike (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to add it back, then you need to put it in the right place, and the wording should make clear it's relevance. If the source makes the connection, than you need tow write content based on that source, and show the connection to the reader. You can't just put any random fact anywhere because a source mentions it. There is an organization to the article. Also, because it's contentious, you should attribute the source in the body of the article. --Rob (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think its on the right place in the article.If you think its not you just could move it and not delete properly sourced material.Also on what you base you assertion that is "contentious".Its backed up by several sources.--Shrike (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not contentious in terms of the facts, but the connection is contentious. So, if you mention it, you need to tell the reader (in the body) who is making the connection, and explain what they're saying. And it's obviously in the wrong place. We need to efficiently explain to the reader what Pollard did. If we starting writing about other cases, the facts of Pollard's case will be less clear, and harder to follow. --Rob (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Directors of Naval Intelligence response - Public campaigns

The 'Public campaigns' section contains quotes from activists, politicians professors and all kinds of people with no first hand knowledge of the case - they simply have a pro-Pollard agenda to push. These comments have been piling up and up and up.

Meanwhile, the most germane, informed and valuable quote in this section keeps getting trimmed back and suppressed - the response from former Directors of Naval Intelligence. This is blatant POV pushing by people with a pro-Pollard slant.

Compare the magnitude of pro-pollard quotes from people who have nothing to do with the actual case, and the low quality of information contained in those quotes, to the relatively concise response from the former Directors of Naval Intelligence who actually have something valuable to say.

I will be restoring the Directors of Naval Intelligence response and trimming back the pro-pollard propaganda per WP:UNDUE. --32alpha4tango (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I should add, much of the pro-Pollard public relations campaign spills over from the 'Public campaigns' section into the rest of the article, such as the 'Official requests for clemency' section. --32alpha4tango (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Combining 'Official requests for clemency' section with 'Calls for release' section, still needs tidying and possibly re-ordering - and definitely trimming. --32alpha4tango (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the quotation is important. The first paragraph of the quotation which I blanked and you restored seems already to be included, in part, in the paragraph immediately prior to the quotation. Also, in lieu of the last paragraph, I added a different paragraph from the Directors' response, which outlined the American national security interests that would be harmed by a pardon, which your revert blanked. The other text I cut seemed inessential to me, and was an effort to meet Shrike's concerns of an overlarge quotation. DBaba (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about my revert blanking the paragraph you added. It was inadvertent. My concern is a simple one of magnitude, which is even more clear now with the duplicate sections combined; there is an enormous amount of Pro-pollard rhetoric being added all the time, while the Directors of Naval Intelligence response, which has much more substance, keeps getting deleted (it's already heavily truncated). I think some of the pro-pollard rhetoric needs to be trimmed, and the 'Directors response' states certain things that aren't reflected elsewhere in the article. I will back off from this article for a while. --32alpha4tango (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)\

We should present both POVs as their presented in WP:RS.Also major changes such as this generally should be discussed in talk first.--Shrike (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

1) We should present both POVs... . No, we should strive for a neutral article, not to give a forum to pro-pollard propaganda. There is a public campaign to mis-represent Pollard in a positive light and gain his release. A lot of this is empty rhetoric. So empty and misleading, in fact, that the four past directors of Naval Intelligence felt compelled to address the issue. This is also reflected in the recent history of Wikipedia's article, where the pro-pollard rhetoric has accumulated while the response from the directors of Navel intelligence has been repeatedly suppressed. Wikipedia is not a forum for political activism.

(Boy, I wish you guys would take the same sensible line on Gerry Gabler or David Irving--both snakepits of activist special pleading.) 74.104.38.189 (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

2) Also major changes such as this generally should be discussed in talk first. . I didn't make any 'major changes'. I restored a quote, deleted a dead link, corrected a reference, combined duplicate sections, and started a talk page section. You, Shrike, then went on a wholesale reverting spree; you failed to address any of the points in my edit summaries, and you failed to participate on the talk page until you saw your reverts not sticking. --32alpha4tango (talk)

Major changes

Major changes to the articles should be discussed in talk first to gain consensus. So I am reverting all the changes back to stable version.Please propose your changes first at the talk page.--Shrike (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not how that works, Shrike. If you have a concern, you need to name it, not just play games. Where the subject is a nationalist activist campaign to obscure the facts, well, kooky reverts like this don't look good. DBaba (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have a concern of doing major changes on controversial subject without discussing them first for example why you blanked requested for clemency also deleted quote from Netanayhu if Clinton deny it we may mention if you have WP:RS.don't delete material just because you don't like or think it not true bring WP:RS,also consider WP:BRD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrike (talk • contribs)

Where is the quote from Netanyahu in the article? I dont see that in the diff of your revert. If you have a specific problem with the edits then fix that specific problem. Blanket reverting to a past version without explaining what those problems are is not acceptable. nableezy - 18:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the diff [2] this was removed although there is a WP:RS to support it.This quotes were blanked too [3] and this [4] with no apparent reason.Please explain those changes and why this text should be removed but this quotes should be part of the article[5]?--Shrike (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The latter two are explained in the edit summaries, which you've linked to(!), and the Korb quote comes from an op-ed which you presented as unattributed fact despite its being challenged by Bill Clinton himself in his autobiography, as cited in the article (this should be clear to you from the edit summary, too). DBaba (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't accept you explanation please elaborate further saying just that is WP:UNDUE isn't enough.About the quotes : If its challenged we may add it and not just remove it also autobiography is primary source. We need secondary source that Clinton challenge it and then we may incorporate it in the article.--Shrike (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There are many people who believe he should stay in prison. Why would there be a section on people (such as Dan Quayle) who believe he should be pardoned, and no section on people who believe he should not be pardoned? I have confidence that you'll find that secondary source representing Clinton's take. I appreciate your sincerity on this issue, Shrike. DBaba (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I made a string of changes recently to this article, though I wouldn't call them 'Major'. Each change was explained in the edit summary, and I started a new talk section. Shrike then reverted wholesale, with no discussion whatsoever. He didn't even bother addressing the individual edits and reasons for those edits. The largest change I made was simply restoring an important quote that keeps getting suppressed. After looking through the edit history of this article It's clear that Shrike is happy with anything that's 'Pro-pollard', but he engages in interference tactics with anything that doesn't suite his POV. I don't think Shrike should be editing this page. --32alpha4tango (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikifan12345

Hi Wikifan12345! When you restored the Korb quote, you suggested that it was deleted without rationale.[6] I provided a rationale when I blanked it, though perhaps it was unclear to you.[7] The reason being, if Rumsfeld is saying don't release Pollard,[8] it seems selective and imbalanced to me to include Korb, who is a much less significant political figure. I don't really think Rumsfeld needs to be in there either, barnie-frankly. What do you think? DBaba (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Pollard justified?

I'd be grateful if some of you Pollard case experts would have a look at a specific issue that has arisen over how the Pollard case is presented in our article on Israel - United States relations. The language in use there currently makes it sound like Israel had the right to the intelligence that Pollard stole because, as that article currently claims, the U.S. had withheld intelligence that Israel was entitled to. Many thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Citizenship

Cite 7 is a review of another article, not a primary source, that says Pollard has renounced his US citizenship. I would point out such a renounciation is meaningless unless made in front of and accepted by a US official. Is the cite good enough to keep the sentence in Para One or so? It seems he has said he intends to renounce his citizenship if he were ever to be able to do so. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses reliable sources, not primary sources, when possible. At any rate, obtaining foreign citizenship automatically is considered renunciation or loss of American citizenship, if you are at least 18. There are additional possiblities listed in I believe Title 8 § 1481 of the US code (forgive me if that is the incorrect section) which offer other ways, including the one you described above. There are about 6 listed I think; appearing before a consulate while abroad is only one. Thanks for you attention to facts and citations on this. Wikipedia should be about truth not reliable sources but the reverse is the best system so far. Obotlig (talk) 08:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. US law has long allowed dual or multiple citizenships. many Jewish-Americans and oddly Irish-Americans take advantage of this. I know several such persons. On the other hand nationalty law is the rhelm of wizards and lawyers and I fear to comment further. So is he is or is he ain't a US citizen? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 09:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Gosh darn it, we have an article on the subject [[9]]. Just clicking one's heels together does not seem to make US citizenship go away. While Pollard is most certainly an Israeli (under Israeli law), he seems to not have Certificate of Loss of Nationality from the US. Unless I am wrong. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, we have many sources which indicate he has renounced his citizenship. The existence of such a certificate is a mere affirmation that the person performed one of the acts with the intent of giving up their citizenship. As to your personal knowledge of or acquaintence with people who take advantage of the possibility of circumventing the law or who held such dual citizenship before adulthood, I will refrain from commenting, but I do not find it surprisng. Clicking your heals three times and saying "I renounce my US citizenship" after performing one of the listed acts, or performing them merely with the intent of doing so, makes it so. It does not require any further legal process. If it were later called into question, then proving your intent would be a legal matter. Anyway, numerous sources say he renounced it. Take your pick. #7 looks good. I do appreciation your concern and efforts in ensuring that this article is factual. Too many statments are made in articles without proper verification. Obotlig (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Something strange?

Hi

Some sentences seem a bit strange in the article:

"The Israelis created a schedule designed to wear down the Americans, including many hours per day of commuting in blacked out buses on rough roads, and frequent switching of buses. This left the Americans without adequate time to sleep and prevented them from sleeping on the commute." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.142.224.141 (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am glad I am not the only one who noticed this. The inclusion sounds suspect just as the statement, itself.FlaviaR (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

NIS / NCIS

So, when did he join the NCIS and when he joined the NIS? The Early Career section is clearly confusing with mentions to a double join on the NIS:

A month later Pollard applied for and received a transfer to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) surface ships division while keeping his TF-168 position.

and

In October 1984, after some reorganization of the Navy's intelligence departments, Pollard applied for and received a position as an analyst for the Naval Investigative Service (NIS, later renamed NCIS). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.125.115 (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

My recent corrections to this article give proper names to the departments of naval intelligence for which Jonathan worked. I have this knowledge because I knew Jonathan Pollard and worked at NOSIC and TF-168 at the time. I also made some minor changes to Jonathan's employment process from what I remember of the process.Joe Haskins (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Jonathan never worked for Naval Investigative Service (NIS) or its reincarnation, the Navy Criminal Investigative Service. (NCIS), but did work for NIC and NISC. I believe that the contributor got wound around the axle on government alphabet soup. I remember the reorganization of '84, but do not recollect having to reapply for my job. Perhaps Jonathan did because of the circumstances.Joe Haskins (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

It's great to have someone with personal expertise work on an article. The rules of wikipedia require us to have a published source for the information. Perhaps you can help find one? Obotlig (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Access to District of Columbia case documents

Hi, all. In these two edits I've reinstated the external link to the docs from Pollard's D.C. court case. Biosketch (talk · contribs), had removed our readers' access to them, in this edit. I understand that the organization that obtained these docs via FOIA requests and such, and which hosts them on its servers, may or may not be wp:rs itself, but no one seriously doubts the origin or authenticity of these documents. There's no reason we should keep readers of this article from accessing them easily.

Editors of any opinion on this might like to note that Biosketch performed similar deletions of access to primary source docs related to Israel that are hosted to the web by this same organization. I've posted a list of each deletion diffs in collapsed format, below.

Rather than discuss this in seven other threads on the talk pages for each of the other articles, editors might like to wait a day or two while we cast about for a central discussion location for this matter. If that happens, someone will post a subsequent note here so those who might be interested in this issue more broadly will be able to join in that discussion.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC) ( modified by strikthrough at 18:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC) )

Shortly after I reverted the initial removal of the external link to the Pollard section of The Israel Lobby Archive, the same user removed the link a second time, criticizing the hosting organization, with the aggressive edit summary:

Rv 2 edits by User:Ohiostandard. You're wasting your time and mine. Find a reliable publisher of this document or presume it's a hoax. IRmep is anti-Zionist garbage and this is a WP:BLP.( emphasis added )

I've added emphasis to parts of user Biosketch's edit summary because I'd like to point out a few things about it:

First, whether the organization hosting the 175+ pages of official documents can be appropriately described as "anti-Zionist" or not, it should be apparent that not everything that conflicts with a user's own political opinions is "garbage". Political opinions are just political opinions, and I suggest Biosketch consider how he'd respond if another editor were to refer to some web source with a political orientation he prefers as "Zionist garbage". I haven't the least doubt that he'd shout "Anti-Semitism!" and haul the malefactor off to AN/I.

Second, the comment, "find a reliable publisher of this document" shows that he didn't trouble himself to even look at the target of the link to The Israel Lobby Archive that is the subject of this dispute. If he had done, he'd have seen that its Pollard case section includes not just the single document that his edit-summary phrase assumes, but 22 PDFs comprising more than 175 pages in approximately 19.3 megabytes from the Pollard case.

Third, the suggestion that it's a BLP violation to provide a link to relevant documents in so extremely high profile a case of a man who admitted in court to spying and who was convicted for doing so is, in my opinion, absurd. Besides, the Pollard section of the document archive includes material favorable to Pollard.

For example, the archive includes the separate letters of appeal supporting a Presidential pardon for Pollard that were written by such folks as former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, former U.S. Secretary of State George P. Schultz, and Jewish dignitary/luminary/author and holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel ( his heartrending book Night should be required reading for sixth form school kids, imo ) along with other very prominent Jewish figures and groups. All these documents would be highly valuable to the article, highly relevant, and also wholly admissible, within the bounds of wp:primary, for that matter, although we're not currently citing any of them. And they don't seem to be available on-line hosted elsewhere, not anywhere that any Wikipedia editor has yet discovered, anyway, and certainly not all in one place.

Fourth, I find it disturbing that Biosketch's edit summary asks editors here to take seriously the suggestion that he considers these documents "a hoax". He's an intelligent person, and he doesn't believe that himself, I'm sure: To ask the rest of us to believe that he does strains credulity to the point of impacting the good faith and candor that editors with opposing political views need to be able to rely on in each other.

Biosketch didn't try to discuss the matter here before repeating the deletion. None of us is compelled to adhere to wp:brd, of course, although doing so is good for the consensus process; perhaps he didn't comment because of my suggestion, above, which I've now rescinded by strikethrough, that we all wait to discuss this until some centralized location is agreed upon.

Now, I hardly ever respond to situations like this with a second revert, but in this instance I've chosen to restore the link a second time, and have invited Biosketch to discuss this, here, hopefully in a calmer way than his latest edit summary would suggest. That will put us back to the "bold, revert, discuss" place we should be with respect to this matter.

Comments from other editors who've previously shown interest in this article would be most welcome. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No one else has commented, and the consensus that IRmep is an unreliable publisher stands as it did when I originally removed the link. Do not again restore the link to IRmep without prior consensus as you did here and here. You've already violated WP:Blp#Restoring_deleted_content twice. I advise you not to do so a third time.—Biosketch (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

User Biosketch has removed the contested link a third time now, at 15:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC), without any attempt to discuss the dispute here: His token comment above was made at the same timestamp as his third removal. I believe he's already made his motives in this matter perfectly clear in his previous edit summary: He considers the Israel Lobby Archive to be "anti-Zionist", so it must necessarily be "garbage". Likewise, his previous suggestion that we should consider the thousands of image-scanned documents in the Archive to be the product of some vast "hoax" is frankly ridiculous. He now echoes that "hoax" assertion in his new edit summary and with a claim of consensus while the corresponding RSN discussion (link/permalink) of this matter is ongoing and, in fact, very far from presenting anything even close to the "consensus" he claims. All this notwithstanding, I don't edit war, so I'll leave this as is, for now, pending subsequent comments and participation from non-partisan editors.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Name of Pollard's Second Wife

In the summary box under Pollard's photo, his second wife's name is shown as Elaine Seitz. This is incorrect. As correctly noted near the end of the article, his second wife's name is Esther Zeitz. There is a person closely related to me named Elaine Seitz, and I do not want there to be any confusion as to the fact that she has nothing to do with Pollard. 169.252.4.21 (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

She was born Elaine Seitz, but she apparently Hebraized her name. By the way, tell your relative not to sweat it. Most people don't know too much about Pollard, and I doubt whether or not the majority of Americans even knows there is an agent from Israel still in prison. And there are a lot of people with the same name, so anyone who questions her will understand. She should be OK.--RM (Be my friend) 04:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Job transfer

The article reads: "The technical director of the NFOIO, Richard Haver, requested that Pollard be terminated." As this is an article about American spooks, I suggest using the word "dismissed" instead - "terminate" has a more permanent and sinister meaning. It is also stated that this request came after a conversation "with the new hire in which Pollard offered to start a back-channel operation with the South African intelligence service and lied about his father's involvement with the CIA." Please do not call a new employee a "new hire". Appalling slang. And why fire an employee for offering to start a "back-channel operation with the South African intelligence service"? What is wrong or inappropriate about that suggestion, and so inappropriate as to justify instant dismissal (or termination)! The lies about his father's involvement with the CIA didn't become apparent until later.

I doubt that Haver's boss reassigned Pollard to a human-gathered intelligence operation "because Pollard had a friend from graduate school in the South African intelligence service". I presume the alleged friendship was the reason for the proposed back-channel operation (whatever that is), not for Pollard being reassigned to humint rather than dismissed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnC (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2011

Uh, "spooks" is far more appalling slang than "new hire." One can think of many reasons why someone in a sensitive intelligence position offering to start a "back-channel" operation with a foreign government on their own would be a prime candidate for termination (which is a perfectly valid employment term - very, very, very, very, etc. few people engaged in the intelligence field are James Bond-like characters with a license to kill - he said fully tongue in cheek), not the least of which is the guy either sounded like a real flake in making such an offer if he couldn't actually do it or was extremely dangerous as in having no morals if he could. Either way, he should have been dropped at the speed of light at that point. It is astounding that he slipped through the cracks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.12 (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Alleged renunciation of citizenship

The lede of the article currently states: "Pollard renounced his United States citizenship and is now solely an Israeli citizen. He would be deported to Israel if he were released from prison". This information is cited to a film review (hardly a reliable source for matters of nationality law), which itself states "Jonathan Jay Pollard was a US citizen (he has since renounced his birthright and taken Israeli citizenship)". At best this sounds like the author is under the misconception that taking Israeli citizenship means renouncing U.S. citizenship. At worst this is complete legal nonsense.

Especially in a WP:BLP, Wikipedia needs a very strong source indeed for a statement that has such an obvious contradiction with how the law operates. And an article in a film review journal does not cut it when it comes to a question of law. "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content" (WP:RS). Immigration and Nationality Act Section 351 is very clear:

Except as provided in paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 349(a) of this title, no national of the United States can lose United States nationality under this Act while within the United States or any of its outlying possessions, but loss of nationality shall result from the performance within the United States or any of its outlying possessions of any of the acts or the fulfillment of any of the conditions specified in this chapter if and when the national thereafter takes up a residence outside the United States and its outlying possessions.

The "except as provided' refers to two conditions in Section 349 neither of which are fulfilled in Pollard's case:

(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of national defense; or

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, United States Code, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, United States Code, or violating section 2384 of said title by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if an d when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

The U.S. is not in a state of war and Pollard was not convicted of treason or the other crimes listed, so I see no way he could have renounced or deemed to have relinquished U.S. citizenship. At minimum this information needs a much stronger source than a film review -- and not one of those circular citations that keeps popping up after this "information" was added to Wikipedia.

I also notice that the last time this was discussed, User:Obotlig made the comment "At any rate, obtaining foreign citizenship automatically is considered renunciation or loss of American citizenship, if you are at least 18." However, this is not correct; see US State Department Services Dual Nationality. Applying for foreign citizenship only results in loss of U.S. citizenship if you go to a consulate in person and fill out a bunch of forms affirming that your intention was to lose U.S. citizenship (the technical term for this is "relinquishment"). Absent that visit, the State Department cannot develop a loss-of-nationality case except in very specific circumstances none of which apply to Pollard; their own standards for this can be found in the Foreign Affairs Manual (7 FAM 1222 et seq).

In short, for Pollard to lose U.S. citizenship, he must not only first leave the U.S. for Israel voluntarily (not "be deported", as it is impossible to deport a U.S. citizen), but he must also make an in-person visit to the US embassy in Tel Aviv. quant18 (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, there seem to be a greater number of mainstream new sources which continue to explicitly identify Pollard as a U.S. citizen than which mention his alleged renunciation. To give one example, here's CNN last week reporting on Obama's trip to Israel: [10]

Obama also is likely to face questions during his visit about the possible release of convicted spy Jonathan Pollard, a U.S. citizen sentenced to life in prison for giving American military secrets to Israel ... The president also did not commit to reviewing the case other than to ensure that Pollard, as a U.S. citizen, is "accorded the same kind of review" given to all Americans.

At minimum this means we should be describing the competing claims per WP:WEIGHT rather than simply making an unequivocal declaratory statement in the lede that he renounced citizenship on the basis of a single source. Thanks, quant18 (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do not use overwrought unreliable opinion piece as a reference

I removed this quote-let that has crept in more than once: despite the fact that Israel was releasing convicted murderers at his behest.<ref>Jerusalem Post editorial, [http://www.jpost.com/International/What-about-Pollard-Mr-President-320776 What about Pollard Mr. President].</ref>. The ref is opinion full of overwrought language and is not a reliable source. Please do not use this opinion piece as a reference.—Anomalocaris (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

"Criminal"?

The first sentence of this article states that "Jonathan Pollard is an American criminal ..." This seems to me to violate, in spirit at least, Wikipedia's NPOV requirement. Of course, anyone who is in jail/prison in a particular country is technically a "criminal". So Martin Luther King was a "criminal", dissidents in prison in Cuba or North Korea are "criminals", etc. But the gratuitous use of this adjective here seems designed to convey more than the fact that this man pleaded guilty to espionage. I propose that it should be removed, but I would like to hear arguments for retaining it.

By the way, I think it's perfectly reasonable to make the private judgement that this man is a "criminal", in more than the technical sense. Or that he is a disturbed personality, a misguided immature idiot, a treasonous rat, or whatever. But such judgments don't belong in a Wikipedia article. Doug1943 13:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug1943 (talk • contribs)

What you said is absolutely correct. Apparently the word "criminal" was removed from the lead but was recently added by an anonymous IP address. I fixed it again now. Shalom11111 (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

So spying against your country is not criminal? Being convicted of the offense is not evidence of one being a criminal?

96.250.240.250 (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

No one here is saying that Pollard isn't a criminal, by definition of course he is. But that doesn't belong in the very first-sentence-description of him. Just like, for example, we wouldn't say in the lead that Pollard is an American Jew convicted of ... These are discussed later in the article, and if it says he's convicted of, then that's enough, just like in other articles. Shalom11111 (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Misleading and factually wrong sentence

A user partially reverted my edit, bringing inaccurate and incorrect information back to the lead section. It now says that "according to former F.B.I. deputy general counsel M.E. Bowman Pollard "has never expressed regret or admitted to harming America’s national security, and he has not applied for parole even though he is eligible."

First, this sentence is misleading because it sounds like it's saying that Pollard is eligible for parole, which is not true - he's eligible to apply for it. Having explained this, that statement is apparently not even true. Pollard and his lawyers have applied for parole a few times in the past, as these two sources confirm: 1 and 2. Any comments? Shalom11111 (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that you have already deleted the Bowman quote, but Bowman brought up some valid, if contested points. First of all, this paragraph in the lead should summarize pro and con views without getting into such details as quoting this person and that document. All these quotes and details should be farther down in the article. That said, the quoted statement by M.E. Bowman makes three points: 1) lack of regret, 2) no acknowledgement of damage to U.S. security, and 3) no application for parole. Your challenge to the third point appears to be valid, and could have been accomplished by either truncating the quote or noting that Pollard has, in fact, applied for parole (perhaps quite recently; your sources do not give dates). However, the other two points are still open questions, and should not be censored. The paragraph quotes Pollard’s rabbi that he has expressed regret, but regret for what? The best source would be a public statement my Pollard himself, but lacking that, we’ll make do with his attitude expressed secondhand through the cited article by Rabbi Weiss:

”Jonathan deeply regrets the tremendous cost of his actions. The cost to the health of his ex-wife Anne; the cost to his marriage; the cost of his incarceration, the agony of isolation and the mental torture he has been forced to endure.

”Moreover, on more than one occasion Jonathan acknowledged that he broke the law and has expressed regret that he did not find a legal manner through which he could pass lifesaving information to Israel. But when confronted with the possibility that his failure to act could result in a physical catastrophe of potentially devastating proportions, Jonathan acted instinctively in defense of the Jewish people.”

To a cynic, the above sounds a lot like “I regret that I got caught.” Given Pollard’s ambivalent attitude, to quote one side or another that he has or has not expressed regret is quite misleading. Rather than say per Weiss that he has expressed regret, or per Bowman that he has not, the article should include the above quote from Weiss, so that readers can read for themselves the nuances of Pollard’s regrets.

You also added a sentence about the declassified damage assessment, about what Pollard’s handlers asked for, apparently to challenge Bowman’s point that Pollard has never acknowledged the damage to US security. You accurately cite a source, but unfortunately, your source itself is misleading for two reasons. First, the document does not make the unqualified statement that the Israelis never asked about info on the US military; instead, it hedges this with the important qualifier (page 43) “According to Pollard.” Second, as it is used here, this cherry-picked factoid falsely implies that the document concludes that Pollard caused little or no damage, when the truth is quite different. From the Executive Summary (page xiv):

“Conclusions

“16. Pollard's espionage has put at risk important US intelligence and foreign-policy interests.”

In summary, when you removed a quote that was misleading on one point, you removed two of Bowman’s legitimate points, and yourself inadvertently introduced a misleading statement about the US damage assessment. Given your concern to avoid misleading statements in this article, I hope that we can reach some consensus. Regards. Plazak (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this input, Plazak, sorry I only see this response now. You made some good and constructive points in the above analysis.

If you think the lead currently presents more (so called) pro-Pollard facts, then we could give the other narrative more space - see the discussion below for more on this.

I indeed touched only upon point #3 of those three - the other two being " 1) lack of regret, 2) no acknowledgement of damage to U.S. security ". But these first two are also refutable: If reliable sources quote Pollard as having expressed regret for his actions, and having acknowledged the damage he has done, they refute that claim simply by contradicting it. If there's a clear proof that he said something, then he said it, it's quite simple. Only interpretation can be disputed. Shalom11111 (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead section clean-up needed

As of today (April 1, 2014), the lead section of this article is in need of clean-up.

• The first two paragraphs summarize the Mr Pollard in regards to his espionage case. However the last paragraph summarizes the views of the Pro-Pollard efforts. Since there is a significant section in the article regarding the opposition, it would create a bias to only include one side.

• The third section also contains an inaccurate claim about the maximum length of his conviction ("Pollard is the only person in US history to receive a life sentence for spying for an ally, and the only American citizen convicted of such a crime to be sentenced to more than 10 years in prison"). According to 18 U.S. Code § 794 - Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government, the maximum conviction is "imprisonment for any term of years or for life". The code does not distinguish between spying for an "ally" vs. "non-ally", it simply is a "foreign government". Furthermore, the claim is referenced from a letter written by the Center of Middle East Peace to President Obama, the letter's author does not substantiate the claim and thus would disqualify it as being an appropriate reference to Wikipedia's guidelines.

• In conclusion, I am proposing to adding statements summarizing the opposition's view and removing the aforementioned nonfactual sentence from the lead section. Please reply to share your thoughts. Thank you. Djrun (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. In more detail: "Pollard is the only person in US history to receive a life sentence for spying for an ally, and the only American citizen convicted of such a crime." First, "spying for an ally" is not a crime on the books, so the language "such a crime" is incorrectly applied (and transparently POV). Second, it is not clear what the significance of spying for an ally as opposed to an enemy is. I can see arguments for either being more heinous. If it is supposed to be less heinous, a reference needs to be provided, especially if this is to go in the lead.

"Currently, the punishment for such a crime is set at a maximum of ten years." This is an incorrect statement of the law. Espionage is of course a capital offense. There is a federal statute with a maximum sentence of 10 years, but that is not what this defendant pled guilty to. This is clear from the NYT provided reference. So this should go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.169.68 (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree as well. It’s true that most espionage convictions do fall under a statute that provides for 10-year sentences -- unless the espionage involves the disclosure of information that “directly concerns nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information.” Pollard's espionage involved most, if not all, of that, so the "no more than 10 years" reference is clearly misleading. Other portions of the lede also fail WP:NPOV; changes are clearly needed. I can have a go at it, if Djrun or others don't do so first. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, Djrun. You and the anonymous person are apparently correct, and the source you provided does challenge some information in the lead. So I've now removed this from the article, per your explanation and source: "and the only American citizen convicted of such a crime to be sentenced to more than 10 years in prison. Currently, the punishment for such a crime is set at a maximum of ten years.[11][12]" But I see absolutely no problem with the important and relevant sentence you quoted, i.e. that Pollard is the only person in US history to receive a life sentence for spying for an ally, so I left it as is. You may have confused this, but your source doesn't challenge this claim, which (if it's true, and it apparently is) is very notable and should be included in the lead section.

DoctorJoeE, go ahead, feel free to edit/add more information to the lead if you think it's not balanced enough at the moment. Shalom11111 (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the previous edits made to the lead section. Today I have noticed that the second paragraph of the lead section primarily contains information about Pollard in support of his clemency, without any statements from his critics in the entire lead section. Since there is a significant section of the article dedicated to opposition, I felt it would add more objectivity by summarizing the opposition in the lead section. I believe now the lead section provides more balance. Please feel free to share your thoughts.Djrun (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)