Jump to content

Talk:Jonathan Pollard/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

A students website isn't a reliable source

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/ isn't a website by the CIA, it even isn't a reliable website about the CIA. If a "journalist" uses a partisan site as their source about the CIA, it is their word, not the word of the CIA. --80.114.178.7 (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

http://www.jonathanpollard.org isn't a reliable source either. I propose to revert to diff 621,092,265. --80.114.178.7 (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence in question entirely; it's a peripheral point, not worth arguing over. I replaced the pollard.org citation as well. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:American people convicted of spying for Israel

Is there a category for people accused or suspected of spying for Israel? If not, anyone interested in putting one together? Obotlig ☣ interrogate 17:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Petition

Are there any reliable sources that discuss the 2011 petition? How much coverage of the petition is due in this article? VQuakr (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It certainly merits a paragraph, but stripped of POV. For example: "prominent religious leaders from all faiths"; I sincerely doubt that all 500+ were "prominent", and I also doubt that they literally included "all faiths". Perhaps this should read: "religious leaders from a wide variety of faiths". The statement "The petition was noteworthy because ..." is pure POV and should be deleted. Also the note about "signatures from across the entire political spectrum" should lose the "entire", and is not particularly remarkable anyway, because support for Pollard is not a liberal vs. conservative thing. The quotations should be cut back or eliminated because they add nothing new. Plazak (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
What reliable sources have you found that lead you to believe this merits a paragraph? VQuakr (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Itamar

Please review the incident regarding the Itamar attack. It was a heinous terrorist attack. Three children were murdered while they were sleeping in their beds. Please change the it back from killed to murdered. ThanksHasan shemiyo (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Hasan

@Hasan shemiyo: "Killed," in the context of a terrorist attack, does not have a significantly different connotation than "murdered." To compare with other articles on Wikipedia: The attacks killed 2,996 people... The explosions killed 191 people and wounded 1,800... An estimated 22,700 to 25,000 people were killed... The context of the section in question in this article, "Tamar Fogel, a 12-year-old Israeli girl whose parents and three siblings were killed in the 2011 Itamar attack..." leaves no doubt as to the violent nature of the terrorist attack. "Murdered" is equally accurate, but to me it has a less dispassionate tone and does not fit the sentence structure as well. VQuakr (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Unclear Wording with "Passed On Ideas"

One of the paragraphs currently contains the sentence "(The TF-168 group had passed on his ideas.)" which has an unclear meaning in the context. The likeliest reading is that the TF-168 group 'passed on' the ideas in the sense that they dismissed them, but it can also be read in the context that the group 'passed on' the ideas up the chain of command, partially explaining his meeting with someone of such senior rank. I don't know which the author intended, and also I don't know what I'm really doing here with this computer, I hope I'm not disrupting the talk page by posting wrong or anything, but I wanted to say a thing just in case there is a nuclear war and some historian from the year 3025 is wondering why Wikipedia, the only extant source of information in the 31st century, is unclear about information whose sources have been extinct for a millennium.

I guess I type four tildes to sign this? Oh god, if I'm breaking the Wikipedia format, have mercy, 31st century historian. One time I messed up some HTML tags and it broke a website. I don't think anyone ended up dying or anything but count me out when language starts incorporating brackets. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address didn't have any brackets is all I'm saying. 76.118.219.166 (talk) 01:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Date Problems

The Israeli government issued a formal apology to the U.S. in 1987 for its role in Pollard's espionage.[6] Since then, it has made repeated attempts, through both official and unofficial channels, to negotiate his release. Israel granted Pollard citizenship in 1995, but did not publicly admit buying classified information from him until 1998.[7]

What did Israel apologize for in 1987 if it didn't admit to receiving the purloined material until 1998?? "So sorry, we didn't do anything wrong, but we would like to apologize for whoever Pollard was passing the documents to. And by the way, we are granting Jewish Pollard Israeli citizenship in gratitude for the documents he didn't pass to us."

It doesn't make sense. Can someone please research and rewrite this first section so it tells a consistent story? Slade Farney (talk) 08:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Israel acknowledged that Pollard was their spy when he was captured and that is what the formal apology in 1987 was for. What the Nethanyhu government admitted in 1998 was that the documents were purchased, and thus Pollard wasn't engaging in just a general act of espionage. Make sense now? 24.192.200.97 (talk) 06:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Then it should be rewritten to make that point. Why use the word "publicly" in the second sentence? It suggests the first admission was private, but instead it was "formal," and that is not a contrast, so the reader is lost.

People normally presume that low-level assets like Pollard are being paid for risking their lives, so the point is lost. Here is my suggested rewrite:

The Israeli government issued a formal apology to the U.S. for part of its role in Pollard's espionage in 1987,[6] but did not admit paying money for the documents until 1998.[7] Since the arrest, Israel has made repeated attempts through both official and unofficial channels to secure Pollard's release, but without success. Israel granted Pollard Israeli citizenship in 1995.[7]

If you approve, I can edit. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
My two cents: I like the change, except I would substitute "purchasing" for "paying money for" (what else would they have paid him with?) because it's slightly more encyclopedic. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I think "purchasing" puts us back in the same ambiguity, so I used "paying for". Also smoothed a couple of other grammar issues. Let me know if it's not better. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Beginning a sentence with "however" is a pet peeve of mine, and discouraged in most style manuals. "By contrast" is preferable, and also more appropriate in this context. Otherwise I think you're fine. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
"However" is a problem because it requires prior context. "By contrast" does not solve that -- and it is not really a contrast. In other words, I agree about "however," but I don't like the alternatives either. Some English editors complain that the world could survive quite happily without all these connectives. "But" would be better than any of the others, but the same critics condemn BUT for a sentence starter. What would you think of just using nothing? "Numerous US officials familiar with the case resist any form of clemency, including former CIA director George Tenet, multiple former U.S. Secretaries of Defense, a bipartisan group of U.S. congressional leaders, and members of the American intelligence community." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
This page states: "The modern style guides don’t call starting a sentence with however an error. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)." I cannot find the 1-7 style guides being cited, but it says everyone disagrees with Strunk & White. This point is outside my experience. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
It is, in fact, a contrast; the first half of the lede summarizes the argument for clemency, and then, by contrast the second half summarizes the argument against. "Nothing" would certainly be better than "however", but I'm a staunch advocate of relating paragraphs to each other, rather than forcing the reader to figure out their relationship on his own. And yes, there's no "rule" against starting a sentence with "however", but there are almost always better alternatives. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 11:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Have a look now. I have removed the however and touched up that paragraph leaving it without a connective. I don't really like "in contrast" -- it feels wrong to my tongue, but if you want to add it, I'll leave it. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 18:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

A list of verified claims

It appears that either I messed up some references or it got mixed up in some restructuring, but a few of my inclusions were recently removed due to copyediting and failed verification. I carefully revisited the source and re-added (in a different manner) what I could find. Just to make sure, I will source some of the more significant claims in the lead here, so they are carefully verified and understood. I know verification does not indicate notability on itself, but that is another matter (that I believe is less disputed anyhow).

My main source for these edits is this (long but) excellent The Times of Israel article: Why Jonathan Pollard spent 30 years in prison

  • Lead claim: Benjamin Netanyahu argued that he (Jonathan Pollard) did not work for anyone but Israel.
  • Source quote: For the next few hours, within earshot of a National Security Agency monitor, Netanyahu and Pollard spoke about the anguish of his imprisonment and practical ideas to set him free. “Contrary to perfidious rumors about his manner,” remembers Netanyahu in a telephone interview, “Pollard was absolutely clear and in control—both intellectually and emotionally. Remember, he did not work for anyone but Israel, yet continues in jail after 17 years. However, others did work for other countries, and they were set free long ago. A great injustice has been perpetrated by keeping Pollard endlessly in jail.”
  • Lead claim: Since the arrest, Israel has made repeated attempts through both official and unofficial channels to secure Pollard's release, but without success.
  • Source quote: Netanyahu’s crusading tone is now a common feature of the Jonathan Pollard saga. Since that tumultuous afternoon, March 4, 1987, when federal Judge Aubrey Robinson stunned his courtroom by imposing a life sentence, Pollard has been the cause célèbre of an international movement to free him. The roster of the renowned passionately advocating for Pollard’s release, or the overturn of his sentence, is nothing less than spectacular. It includes every Israeli Prime Minister since the crime, from Yitzhak Rabin to Ariel Sharon; Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel, who has visited Pollard twice in prison; numerous members of Congress led by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY); a collection of distinguished law professors, such as Harvard’s Charles Ogletree and American University’s Michael Tigar; a cast of Hollywood luminaries; and an armada of America’s most celebrated defense attorneys, including Harvard’s flamboyant Alan Dershowitz and Theodore Olsen, now the U.S. Solicitor General. Legions of grass-root supporters both within America’s Jewish community and the Israeli electorate, emotionally agitate as well for Pollard’s immediate release.
  • Lead claim: Numerous past and present US officials oppose any form of clemency
  • Source quote: At the same time, Pollard’s continued lengthy incarceration is fiercely demanded by an equally vocal multitude. Virtually the entire U.S. intelligence and defense establishment, with CIA director George Tenet acting as point man, want Pollard to rot in jail forever. Few are as adamant as senior intelligence officers who happen to be Jewish, contacted by this reporter. Numerous ranking members of Congress, such as Sen. Joseph Lieberman, an extraordinary number of America’s best placed and most respected Jewish communal and pro-Israel activists, such as the leadership of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, also do not object if Pollard remains behind bars.
  • Lead claim: Pollard and his key spokesman have continuously declared as his motives that "the American intelligence establishment collectively endangered Israel’s security by withholding crucial information."
  • Source quote: At the same time, Pollard and his key spokesman have continuously declared that he committed espionage only because the American intelligence establishment collectively endangered Israel’s security by withholding crucial information. This has motivated the senior intelligence community to energetically oppose early release for Pollard.

Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Economist coverage

The Economist this week has an article on Pollard. It mentions "American intelligence chiefs counter that Mr Pollard was uniquely damaging: some of what he gave to Israel ended up in Soviet hands."[1] A letter to the Economist by Kark Polikfa (Deputy director of intelligence, US Central Command 1989-91) gives more details: "You state that “some of what he gave to Israel ended up in Soviet hands”. Well, yes, a very large amount of it was used by Israel to facilitate the large emigration of Soviet Jews to Israel. This severely damaged America’s cryptology system to the extent that by 1990 the damage-control bill had hit $2.5 billion. Although this may have been judged by the Israelis to be in their national interests, it was not in the interests of the United States." [2] This claim also appears in Seymour Hersh's "The Traitor"[3].John Nagle (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The Soviet Union connection is already mentioned in the article, in the "Opposition" section, citing Hersh's article as the source. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 00:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Jonathan Pollard. 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 to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 22:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Objectivity of Jonathan Pollard page.

This article seems to me highly slanted in tone, content, and references. For example, none of the lengthy comments by high US officials opposing P's release are cited at all, but Israeli newspapers and the P defense team are cited extensively. This is especially significant because the subject is so controversial. Someone should look into this, if possible. Tireisias (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Tireisias, perhaps you should re-read the article. There is a section called "opposition" that outlines the case against Pollard at some length, with links to more detailed sources, such as Hersch's New Yorker article. Many of the more prominent Pollard critics, including Joe Biden, Spike Bowman, Ron Olive, and four former directors of naval intelligence, are quoted verbatim. Frankly, I'm not sure what more we could do. If you have any specific suggestions for improving the article, please share them. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
As an opponent of Pollard's release, I find the article satisfies my sense of objectivity. None of the arguments for Pollard's release are substantive or require real answers. They are all based on emotion or self-interest, and fall of their own weight. I oppose long prison sentences generally, but not Pollard's in particular -- once the premises of the system are accepted. And the article in its current state ties Pollard's fate into that system with a score of cites and inarguable facts that his supporters do not dispute. Those facts are stronger than any sermonizing by Pollard's opponents. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, after he is paroled next week, the "for" and "against" arguments will be moot. Once his release is a fait accompli, I thought I might streamline both the "advocate" and "opponent" sections to give them a more historical perspective -- i.e. eliminating the more tedious details. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I would not support that edit. "Details" are tedious only to those who have no curiosity. To those who come to this page looking for detailed history, the edit you propose would be a disservice, not an improvement IMHO. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I was only talking about consolidating some of the information to make it more readable, which is the usual procedure once the outcome of a prolonged dispute is known. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 23:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
OK. np Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

google

why when i looking for isreli traitors in us gov this page smoke up any results? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.209.194.98 (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Run your question through Google translator for your native language and post it again, please. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of 16 Nov. 2015

bbb23 (talk · contribs), Let's talk before reverting each other's work. What kind of non-neutral to you see in that edit? Without some explanation here, the explanation is little more than personal opinion. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

As an aside about it, it also made no sense contextually. You just kind of throw it in there. It needs more information than that. Were they spying for an allied country? Its not clear to the reader why its there. - GalatzTalk 22:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
OK. But spying for a allied country is also very rare -- the statement that Pollard is the only spy for an ally who received a life sentence is like saying that he is the only spy born on 7 August 1954 who ever got a life sentence. It is a false basis for comparison. Though a number of sources weep and cry about the ally connection, there is nothing in the espionage law about spying for allies, else those polemics would be quoting the law all over the place. But no one mentions any legal exception -- it's all just emotional. I added the comparison between Pollard and Rosenberg with a solid RS who compared Pollard with Rosenberg, a RS who says everyone compares Pollard with Rosenberg. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The Tablet is not a reliable source. It is essentially a Jewish blog that posts pieces submitted by others. The particular post cited is obviously an opinion piece. It doesn't even try to be objective, e.g., "Decades into this tragic and pathetic tale, American Jewry’s continuing allergy to defending Pollard says more about our communal fears and the price we are willing to pay for social and political acceptance than it does about Pollard and his crimes." In addition, the piece states clearly that Pollard "has earned the dubious record of serving the longest prison term in American history for spying for an ally." Without the rhetoric, that is what the article said before it was changed. The comparison to the Rosenbergs is clearly WP:COATRACKy. Regardless of what the opinion piece says, it is in so many ways a poor comparison. The Rosenbergs were accused of being Soviet spies, and the Soviet Union was hardly an American ally.
The phrase "effectively commending his crime" that was also added (and all of to the lead), was WP:OR where Sfarny drew their own conclusion about the events and expressed it in Wikipedia's voice.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The page states about the author, "Gil Troy, a professor of history at McGill University in Montreal, is the author of eight books on American history, including Moynihan’s Moment: America’s Fight Against Zionism as Racism." This is the kind of material that is accepted as RS throughout Wikipedia for statements of fact. There is nothing in Wiki policy that says a RS is completely unusable because it contains a unusable statement of personal opinion in addition to the usable statements of fact. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Someone is trying a bit to hard to put him in the best light possible.

Two sentences one right after the other..

  • "Pollard filed for divorce after Anne's release, explaining that since he expected to be jailed for the remainder of his life, he did not want Anne to be bound to him."
  • "After finalization of the divorce Pollard married Esther "Elaine" Zeitz, a Canadian teacher and activist based in Toronto who had organized a campaign for his release."

Wow, even his divorce is an act of generosity. Even if he was the greatest guy on the planet this stuff just makes you doubt the whole article. --MarsRover (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you reached that conclusion. He spun his divorce of Ann as a selfless act of liberation, then almost immediately married another woman! That hardly shows him in the "best light possible" — more like the hypocrite that he was, yes? Note also that the article doesn't draw any conclusions, one way or the other; it merely reports what sources have reported, without any editorial comment — just as the guidelines suggest it should. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 09:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree, I dont see that putting him in the best light. The first sentence states just what he said, the second shows what he did. To me I read that as him being a liar giving a false reason for divorce, since he wanted to marry another woman. - GalatzTalk 14:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Divorcing someone who has found herself in a given situation involuntarily and then proceeding to marry someone else whom he did not know previously and who would do so voluntarily somehow makes him a liar? --Wiking (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Again, the article draws no conclusions; it merely states what occurred. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 15:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, for what it's worth, the divorce was apparently a complete surprise to his first wife. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Sure, I agree that the article draws no conclusions and is neutral on the issue. As far as the article in Times of Israel you just linked, it does not say that Pollard had an opportunity to discuss his planned divorce with his first wife, so of course it came as a surprise to her. --Wiking (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Few BLP articles relate the subject's spin on the various events in his/her life. "I divorced her because ... I left school because ... I emigrated because ..." We do not include the scandal mag. speculation because it is too often invented. By the same token, the reasons given by a person for his/her own actions are also invented/oversimplified/sanitized in many cases. The probability of truth drops even further when that person has legal and PR advisers in the quantity of those that hung around Pollard. I vote for removing the explanation. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jonathan Pollard. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 05:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Name ?

Where is the source of the name "Thomas Richered Pollard Jr" ? I have been unable to come up with one reliable source. I feel like i'm most likely missing something but was simply unable to find anything to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightapplesoup (talk • contribs) 01:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

You are right. There is no source for that alas. I have commented it out so it does not show. It shouldn't be restored until a reliable source is provided. -- GB fan 11:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jonathan Pollard. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jonathan Pollard. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Your links are a joke. The "The Facts About the Jonathan Pollard Case" link is pure propaganda. Who the fuck runs this page, Hasbara?


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jonathan Pollard. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Anne Pollard quote does not exist in 60 Minutes video

The 2002 article by Edwin Black states: In her interview, Anne told the nation, "I feel my husband and I did what we were expected to do, and what our moral obligation was as Jews, what our moral obligation was as human beings, and I have no regrets about that." 60 Minutes aired just a few days before the scheduled sentencing. https://web.archive.org/web/20060107223010/http://www.forward.com/issues/2002/02.06.28/news.pollard.html

However the actual 60 Minutes airing from 1988 viewable on their online archive does not include that quote at all. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jonathan-pollard-60-minutes-2020-11-21/

Where did Edwin Black get this quote from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlSerafino (talk • contribs) 21:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Pro Pollard Slant

This article is clearly a pro-Pollard puff piece. I find the fact that there is a section entitled "Official reactions and public pro-Pollard campaigns," clearly attempting to conflate Official Reactions with those that are pro-Pollard. But this pales in comparison to the small subheading titled "Opposition." Whatever one's thoughts are regarding the justification of his espionage, the damage his passing on top-secret intel caused, or the severity of his sentence, this article discusses a convicted criminal who spied on his home country and delivered confidential material to countries that were not supposed to receive them. An article that was at least pretending to be moderately unbiased would have the facts of the accusations, the convictions, the sentencing... followed by a critique. By placing the much larger pro-Pollard section in the main category and leaving the "opposition" section as a response to the pro section is unacceptable (particularly given that the fact of the matter is that the pro-Pollard camp is itself a response to the charge and sentence Mr. Pollard received, making it all the more clear that by placing the defense first, the foundation had been laid for the questioning of the legitimacy of the "opposition" section. Such structure and whitewashing is inherently unencyclopedic and should be remedied. (4tildes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.125.143.178 (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm mostly a copy editor, and have only superficial knowledge of this story, so I have no knowledge of the correctness or incorrectness of the above, but I can make suggestions.
  • Suggest places where the positive statements are wrong based on reliable sources, while providing links to those sources.
  • Suggest other facts that support your view, which are based on reliable sources, while providing links to those sources.
  • Suggest specific ways the article could be reorganized.
  • Sign up as an editor and get a username so you can establish a reputation and people can learn to trust you, then edit the article yourself.
Let me know if I can do anything to help. Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jonathan_Pollard/Archive_5&oldid=1149079771"