Talk:Mordechai Vanunu/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

PLO hijacking

Is there a reason the PLO hijacking isn't mentioned in the article? There's a link at the very bottom to the Israle government page detailing the events:

Following the Sunday Times publication of Vanunu's article, on 7 March, 1988, a group of PLO terrorists hijacked a bus transporting workers to the reactor. Three of these workers (Miriam Ben-Yair, Rina Shiratzki and Victor Ram) were killed. Eight other women employees of the reactor were wounded in the hijacking. It is logical to conclude that the terrorists who committed this murderous attack were aided by information revealed by Vanunu.

I see the dicussion here about why not to include such info (since we don't know them for certain) but at least the hijacking should be mentioned. --LeibowitzN

I wouldn't have a problem with something in the article mentioning that, as long as it's NPOV. If there isn't an article in Wikipedia about the particular attack, maybe it would warrant its own article. -Rjyanco 15:02, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Was he a pacifist, or anti-Israeli, or what? The pages I visited after a Google search did not make clear what his motivation was. They hinted that somehow possession of nuclear weapons is bad -- although none of the sites clarified whether they think ALL countries should disarm, or just democracies surrounded by hostile neighbors. --Ed Poor

I think the article made quite clear that Mr. Vanunu was prone to changes of heart (e.g. his rapid-fire religious conversions). Furthermore, I think the article as is does a good job of neither celebrating nor condemning him. - stewacide 11:36 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

Argument for nuclear disarmament

I deleted the following paragraph:

Advocates for Vanunu's freedom feel Israel will be safe only when it pursues nuclear disarmament of all nations including itself. They feel a sane leader would not pollute the Earth with such weapons. They oppose all nuclear weapons on prinicple for the benefit of humanity.

Last two sentences are simply some of the arguments of those opposing nuclear weapons (in general). I think if we had Vanunu's own arguments for nuclear disarmament, they'd belong here, but the fact that some (and I can tell you not all) of the advocates for Vanunu's freedom support his cause and use those specific arguments seems besides the point of the article. Timtzeptel 19:03, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

money/nuclear disarmament

Hello All

I think the part about him supposedly getting an offer of $100,000 is innacurate, as is shown by this quote: The Israeli government position was made clear in 1997 when President Ezer Weizman said at a press conference in London: "He was a spy who gave away secrets, and the fact that he did so for conviction rather than for money makes no difference." from this Guardian article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1193015,00.html

Also, I'm the one who made the changes about the supporters of Vanunu opposing nuclear arms on prinicple for the benefit of humanity (sorry I'm new to this and didn't realize the thing about articles in dispute, didn't mean to do it wrong on purpose). I thought the previous paragraph saying all of his supporters did nothing for Israel's safety was quite inflammatory and innacurate. Its clear (at least many) of the supporters feel the ALL of humanity will be better off without the insanity of radioactive nuclear weapons, i.s. NOONE should have them. You can see the support for what I wrote in his own words from this website: http://www.vanunu.freeserve.co.uk/

"This message is Mordechai's response to a request from the U.S. Campaign for a last statement to supporters before his release.

"We've succeeded in overcoming this long time of silence. Thanks to all the campaigners and supporters in many states. You were my voice, my conscience - you kept all these issues of secret nuclear weapons in the center and followed my path. Very soon I'll be free. I'll be glad to meet you and to share with you my experiences, my views and work to continue that first act - for the abolition of nuclear weapons in all the world [several words censored out of the letter]. That is our mission and future target. We'll not rest until we see a new international agreement to ban, abolish all kinds of nuclear weapons. Thank you for all the help and encouragement you sent me for the past 18 years. The reward you will get is to see me free, alive and very firm, strong in our way for peace and for the abolition of nuclear weapons. We believe it is possible and we can witness it in our lifetime, exactly as we celebrate the end of the cold war. Our message is - The end of nuclear weapons is possible." "

I also do not feel it is accurate to say he is prone to changes of heart from his religious conversion. That can just as easily be interpreted as someone being in a period of spiritual searching, very understandable in this day and age. I think the fact that he has made it through this entire prison sentence without ever going back on his original decision is much more of a case for the steadfastness of his conviction.

If anyone who is more expert at this would like to change the article for me I would appreciate that, because I'm not sure how to make a footnote...thanks Dawn

Dawn, I agree with your objection to that previous paragraph discussing Vanunu's supporters. But as I said, I think the paragraph you wrote instead characterizes some global nuclear disarmament supporters more than it characterizes Vanunu's supporters, so I don't think it belongs here. I think it might be a good idea to quote a few sentences from Vanunu's letter in order to let him speak for himself.

P.S. regarding the money, I can only note that Israel does not have a presidential regime, and that what the president said (especially that president) might not have been the government's position. Still, I can't say that I can point to a reliable source for the money story. Timtzeptel 20:13, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I concur with the question about the money. The $100,000 was added by 198.20.32.254 ("Added Nepal, money for story."), who seems to be more or less active on WikiPedia, but I'd like to see a source for the information. Barring any source, I would vote for removal, particularly in light of the "conviction" quote cited above. Rjyanco 22:13, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

From some page on the internet [1], the following rather ambiguous quote:

The interrogator "Yehuda" said that he spoke with Vanunu about the motive for revealing the nuclear secrets. "I said to him: 'You were prepared to sell out the State for £100,000?' And he said to me: '£100,000? There was just talk about 100,000 dollars.' He said that he wanted to expose the true face of Israel, an insane state."

That doesn't make it clear if $100,000 was ever actually offered, but seems to imply that it wasn't. --Delirium 10:17, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

Dr. prefix removed

It seems to be Wikipedia style and/or policy not to use the "Dr." prefix in the opening sentence of a biography.

I personally agree—it's too subjective which prefixes to use, and gets too flowery if we use a lot of them. No reason to call him Dr, just like there's no reason to call Clarence Thomas The Honorable Clarence Thomas. --Delirium 10:19, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

HOw about this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill

"The Right Honourable Sir Winston Churchill"?

or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Johnson

or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avul_Pakir_Jainulabdeen_Abdul_Kalam

or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Paisley

or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Glotz

Prefixes other than "Dr." are outside the scope of this discussion. As the articles about Vaclav Havel, Bill Gates, Kofi Annan, Stephen Hawking and many others demonstrate, it seems to be Wikipedia style and/or policy not to use the "Dr." prefix in the opening sentence of a biography, regardless of whether they are honorary doctorates. Timtzeptel 19:05, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you check out the links. Why are you removing the title? He is "Dr"!

I haven't been taking part in this discussion thusfar, but I do have to agree with Sjaim. (Sjaim: Please indicate who you are when you post!). If it is a wikipedia policy, it's very inconsistantly applied. --Rei

I checked out the links. Have you checked out the articles about Vaclav Havel, Bill Gates, Kofi Annan, Stephen Hawking, Bill Clinton, Henry Kissinger, Jonas Salk, Buzz Aldrin, George W. Bush, and Mikhail Gorbachev? All are "Dr", but none of their articles mention it in the opening sentence. Of the links your provided, all but one are "Dr" not only by honorary degree. Rei, it seems to me that Wikipedia is quite consistent about not using "Dr" in the opening sentence of a biography of a person whose only doctorate is an honorary one, as the Gates, Annan, Clinton, Bush and Gorbachev demonstrate. Timtzeptel 19:49, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

"...he managed...to reveal...the date and location of his kidnapping, by means of writing it on the palm of his hand... This act singlehandedly changed Israel's standard procedures for transporting prisoners..." (Emphasis mine)

I just thought that this pun somewhat undermines the tone of the article, so perhaps some paraphrasing is appropriate?

Ha! I didn't even catch the pun when I added that, and noone else had pointed it out since it was added. Sure, feel free to paraphrase. In case you're curious, the message written was, 'Vanunu M was hijacked in Rome. ITL. 30.9.86, 21:00. Came to Rome by fly BA504'. After Vanunu, they changed transportation of prisoners so that they're moved in vehicles with blacked out windows and are loaded/unloaded in a concealed staging area. --Rei

Here's a picture --Rei

That's ridiculous! "Dr." should be in the first reference if anywhere. Maybe someone doesn't think he's a doctor.

Restrictions

Do you have any evidence he is allowed to go within 100 meters of an embassy or practice his religion where he wants? And I think the new wording does not allow to see that he actually considers his revelations worth 18 years of his life. Get-back-world-respect 11:10, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/417230.html says: "The ban on going near embassies was also altered; Vanunu was told that he could go near them, but not enter them". We don't have "evidence that he is allowed to...." a zillion things, simply because authorities only say what he's not allowed to do. And that does not include going near embassies, nor does it mention places where one practices one's religion (and if those places happen to be outside Israel, then that he can't go there is already implied by the previously mentioned restritctions). I'll also correct the distance from border crossings according to that article.

Regarding how he sees things, I think reliable quotes to that effect are most welcome. Timtzeptel 11:35, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I just wondered because the article had previously mentioned the church and the 100 m embassy things. Get-back-world-respect 13:03, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Exact Information Revealed

I was reading the official statement by Israeli MFA and I wondered, why the wikipedia's article doesn't clarify what kind of secrets Vanunu exactly revealed? The article says that he only revealed his "knowledge" of the nuclear program and his photographs.

But according to the MFA, he revealed "the security arrangements for the reactor, procedures for hiring personnel, the routes that employees take to work every morning, and the exact place where workers are picked up by buses" which is pretty important piece of information in my opinion. I'm not asking to include the information about the 1988's PLO attempted attack on the reactor workers (even though it would be right to include it). But at least provide the full information on the released secrets.

Anton Adelson, WA, Australia (adelson@mail.ru) --203.166.57.12 14:15, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am against including Israeli government information as facts here. What he really revealed can only be found in what the press published. Given he did this for pacifist reasons the PLO plans have nothing to do with him. You would not blame it on a reporter either if he investigated Israeli human rights violations and Palestinian terrorists later attacked officers covered in the reports. Get-back-world-respect 15:23, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Do not believe Israeli government? Israeli propaganda? What is this? I thought this site was supposed to be unbiased.

In any case, how come no one knows the exact contents of that article? I think it's a very important peiece of information and it shouldn't be omitted.

Regards, Anton Adelson, WA, Australia (adelson@mail.ru) --203.166.57.12 03:58, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is not our task to decide whether the Israeli government statements are truthful or not. We should treat them neutrally and just report them but report them as Israeli government information and not as facts. Why do you not create an account? Get-back-world-respect 13:08, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But even that is not reported. I mean, there's nothing wrong is saying "According to Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Vanunu provided such and such information in the article." Even better is to actually find a reliable source which has the original article and use it as concrete facts, and not to speculate. But until then, any information about the article is necessary.

P.S. IF Vanunu disclosed the information for purely pacifistic reason and IF that information was as detailed as the MFA says, then he should be totally charged for providing information to the enemy which that enemy can use to harm people. You are a pacifist not for the sake of being a pacifist, you're a pacifist for the sake of saving lives.

--Anton Adelson, Western Australia 15:25, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There do exist different opinions on which would be the right approach to save lifes. I personally cannot see how providing information about weapons of mass destruction should cost any lives. Unless he provided a plan of how to steal them, which seems hardly possible. Weapons of mass destruction only exist for the sake of killing masses of people, they are a bigger threat to lifes than terrorism. Not only when used as in Japan or Iraq, their production and storage is also a threat to the environment. Get-back-world-respect 07:55, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You forgot my quote from the MFA. According to them, he didn't just prove anyone that there's a nuclear reactor in Israel. He provided such unecessary information as "the security arrangements for the reactor, procedures for hiring personnel, the routes that employees take to work every morning, and the exact place where workers are picked up by buses". Now, tell me, what is the pacifist reason to include THAT detailed information which can be easily used by enemies to exploit the security and harm the staff? And according to MFA, that's what they did.

But it's not important for this context, we're not arguiing about facts, we're arguing about morals here. What IS important though is the content of the original article. I wish I was living in UK so I could pop into a library and check that 1986 news article in archives. I also wish I knew english good enough in order to include the "According to MFA" paragraph in the wikipedia article myself.

--Anton Adelson, Western Australia 13:11, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The Times Vanunu article text is linked to at the bottom of the article, I am not sure why this is even a debate. Link. --Fastfission 22:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I've read the articles and I don't see any factual security information inside them. Does anyone know what MFA was talking about? --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 23:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

vanunu dot org link

The first external link is to a single-page site that does not contain any substantial further information about Vanunu, but rather links to another site [2]. Its main purpose seems to be fundraising, so it doesn't help our readers. I suggest removing it (might have been added to improve pagerank) or replacing it with the site it links to. Timtzeptel 15:41, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Also, thanks for your article about the update to Vanunu's restrictions - I hadn't seen that yet. --Rei

For people who want or may want to support Vanunu (that is, most people outside Israel, I suppose) the site is important. While keeping Israeli propaganda links, it is inappropriate to remove vanunu.org / Sjaim

Sjaim - you missed the issue. The link simply redirects to another link that is already on the page. We either need to remove vanunu.org, or the other link. --Rei

For people who want or may want to support Vanunu (most people outside Israel never heard of him, I suppose), that site is important, however Wikipedia is not a web directory or a link repository, it is not here to help people help Vanunu, but rather to let people learn about Vanunu. Thus, an Israeli MFA memorandum regarding Vanunu is appropriate, and so is a site presenting the POV of Vanunu's supporters. Timtzeptel 17:52, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Which link do we already have, then? I'm not sure I understand. Anyway, many people in Europe know who he is. Most educated people in Norway do, at least. /Sjaim

I've removed the links for now. What evidence is there that any of the money raised actually goes to Vanunu, and not the antiwar organization that publishes the appeal, or someone's personal pockets? Wikipedia should not endorse fundraising efforts of dubious credibility.--Eloquence* 17:44, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

The International Vanunu Committee, headed by Fredrik S. Heffermehl and Meir Vanunu, and The Norwegian Peace Alliance, are not of dubious credibility. According to activeisp.no, the domain vanunu.org is owned by Fredrik S. Heffermehl, the president of the Norwegian Peace Alliance (Norges Fredsråd, www.nowar.no) and a well-known Norwegian lawyer, peace activist and long-time supporter of Vanunu, and one of the few foreigners Vanunu was allowed to speak to upon his release this week, according to Norwegian newspapers [3]. /Sjaim

Why this article didn't go on the front page: gross POV bias

This is a well-written article on an important subject. But it's horribly POV-ridden ... to the point where it was in the queue for the Main Page feature and was removed until the article can be fixed. (see [4] for the discussion, objections and removal.)

I've tried to hit some obvious problems, but there's a lot:

• Reread NPOV. No editorialising, no original research.
• The outrage and editorialisation has to go. Understate, let the facts speak for themselves (see NPOV's advice on, e.g., Saddam Hussein or Hitler).
• The Israeli Government POV is largely not present. As per NPOV, try "writing for the enemy" - see if their POV can be represented fairly.
• References, references, references! In the article!

I submit that if it's enough to have kept the article off the Main Page, it's a real problem. I'd really like to see it there, and I'm sure you would too - David Gerard 16:04, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This article did appear on the front page for at least 24 hours in April 2004. Anyway, the fact that the Haaretz website is listed under both "Supporters' websites" and "Anti-Vanunu websites" is yet another example of the seriousness of this article. 217.132.23.220 16:35, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also, I don't think this article should be on the main page until the Wikipedia:Request for Comment regarding Media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved, as drawing attention to this article will probably exacerbate that issue. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:41, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

This article doesn't have anything at all to do with Palestine, does it? I think if the Israeli government POV can be represented fairly, the editorialisation cleaned up and references added, this could be an exemplary article on how to write about a current controversial issue or feature - David Gerard 18:30, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On a lighter note...

Is this a pun? This act singlehandedly changed Israel's standard procedures for transporting prisoners, to prevent it from happening again. And even if it's not, ought it to be removed as it's a little, well... Angmering 11:25, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I noticed the (unintentional?) pun too, but personally I think it should remain. Gave me a little chuckle in an otherwise serious (and well-written) article. - biggins 00:05, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize nomination is not notable

The mere fact of having been nominated is in no way notable or remarkable, and it certainly doesn't belong in an intro as if it's one of the most important things about a person. Anyone can be nominated, and frequently is - David Gerard 15:46, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WRONG! Anyone cannot be nominated. Usually around 140 persons [5] are nominated each year. Only members of the Norwegian parliament and government, Nobel prize winners, certain Norwegian professors as well as members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee and some others, have the right to nominate a person for the Nobel Peace Prize. A nomination is per se notable. George W. Bush was nominated last year, which was well covered in the press.

It belong in the intro because it is the most important prize in the world.

I do not care about the nobel prize mention (since it's NOT the most important prize in the world) but I think the Ossietzky remark should definately be removed since THAT remark certainly is not notable or remarkable. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 09:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What pray tell is the most important award in the world, if not a Nobel? The American Music Awards? -- user:zanimum

The problem with Nobel Peace Price nomination is, IMHO, the nominated list contains both @$$holes and saints. Usually, the former ones are so aboundant, they are frequently awarded. And some @$$holes with a deep pocket (fueled by their countries' taxpayers) may buy nominations year after year. There are

• Kings and Queens from any Banana Republics → Possibly will never be awarded.
• Leaders of some wacky religions → Possibly will never be awarded.
• Whoever really wants to see peace happen → Some of them may carry the money, move to the U.S. and just forget about her own suffering people and the receptionist job.
• Whoever that made the world a bad place to live → Awarded year after year.
• People disliked by some powerful governments → Only if the gavernments do not include the U.S. and possibly Israel.

Nomination is no big deal. It may be used to humiliate any country disliked by some people (e.g. they may not like China or USSR). However, Jane Fonda will never receive the prize. Nor will any American Indian Movement member be awarded. I don't think Mr. Vanunu will ever be awarded. -- Toytoy 01:17, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

• I think it's interesting that he is nominated each year -- interesting in that some people obviously think he has done a great service to the world and this is just a reflection of it. I don't see why this is not notable on his biography page, though I'm not sure it needs to be in the first paragraph about him. It's an interesting little fact about his life and how it is perceived, I think that's worth including. --Fastfission 22:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I think Toytoy miss the point. Nobody said that Nobel prize doesn't have its own problems. All that was asserted was that relative to all other world awards, it stand out as the most important. Taking that first step of being nominated is therefore a big deal, in my opinion

I think the importance here is that, for an individual, to be nominated for a Nobel Peace prize is very notable. If this were the page on the actual prize, then his nominaton would be inconsequential. If I were nominated for such a prize so many times I would consider it worthy of my introduction.

* I'd say it his nomination is notable, but should not be given undue prominence. I wouldn't object to a "softening" line, such as "Along with X individuals, Mordechai has been nominated every year". --Joshtek 13:38, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nobel prize nomination notable or not, the nomination for Glasgow University Rectorship is definately not notable in the introduction. --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 16:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever corrected my paragraph

I wrote an additional paragraph towards the top with some updated information, and someone took the text and integrated it VERY well into the previous paragraph. At first I didn't know why someone removed the text, and only then did I realize they did a very nice job at editing it and making it flow with the previous text.

Thanks to whoever did that!

security 16:09, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

List of neutral webpage listings

Is there really such thing as a neutral webpage? Many conservatives would probably consider Amnesty International to be an organization of the left. They have an agenda, so how can they be neutral? That is like calling the ACLU or NAACP neutral.

I was about to post something along these lines; since they have been acting as advocates for his release, I think this precludes them from being considered neutral on this subject. Also, the remaining link under "neutral sites" should perhaps be listed before the supporter or detractor sites, rather than between them. MisfitToys 20:38, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

"state terrorism"

I removed the link to "see also" State terrorism#Extrajudicial execution, because I don't think it discusses a relevant issue. That section discusses what it describes as "illegal" killings by paramilitary militia that governments turn a blind eye to. The issue here (and with Israel's assassination policy in general) is rather different, in that it's a matter of Israel governmental policy actually legally sanctioning and ordering such killings (although in Vanunu's case they only considered it). We ought to have an article about that somewhere, but IMO it's an important difference, because in one case the government is essentially turning a blind eye to lawlessness that happens to be in its benefit, while in the other the government is embarking on a controversial but openly acknowledged policy. (Which is better or worse is arguable, but they're definitely distinct issues.) --Delirium 10:54, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

The "See also" is now changed to "Compare with." Since execution was only discussed, we will never know how they would do that if they decided to do so. I don't think there will be an open trial because it was all about national secrets. Even if they decided to kill Vanunu, it would have been very different from the execution of Adolf Eichmann.

One thing I disliked was Shabtai Shavit's words "Jews don't do that to other Jews." What if Vanunu is not a Jew? Would Shabtai Shavit kill him? This is not tolerable. -- Toytoy 14:08, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, you are a little bit baised. Why the statement "One thing I disliked was Shabtai Shavit's words" It is not for us to like it or not, but our purpose is to write a neutral history of this guy. The sentence above is a quote and there should be no controversy, otherwise we will have started questioning facts. I hope you will avoid your opinion when editing the actual article please

Assassination Option

Is this needed? Relavent?

On February 5, 2004, former Mossad director Shabtai Shavit told Reuters that the option of killing Vanunu was considered in 1986 but "Jews don't do that to other Jews." [2] (http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1043340.htm) (Compare with: Forced disappearance).

The whole "forced disappearance" addition... just noticed it, thanks for your input. JoeHenzi 17:36, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Benedict Arnold?

A kid vandalized this page by adding Benedict Arnold and other nasty words to Vanunu's name. It looks fun to me. -- Toytoy 02:47, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Ossietsky/Arnold

Can we delete these unsourced and odious comparisons Deuxmachina 13:15, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Xed, do you own this page? Sorry if you do. Deuxmachina 13:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You've used 3 different usernames (perhaps more) to vandalize the page. Go play somewhere else. -Xed 13:33, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not true. I reverted to a version you deleted (not written by me). I have removed much of the emotive language from it, there was too much in yours to even start, I'm sorry. Not playing, creating a strong article. I disagree with what you're doing. Deuxmachina 13:50, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You used three or more sockpuppets (Deuxmachina, JumboWeenie, JumboDick, Rohbite) to insert phrases like "mad-left Jewish students" etc. You even used the same wording in the edit summaries for these usernames. Then you have the audacity to talk to me about Wikipedia rules (which as a "new user", you seem to know a lot about....). Stop throwing the toys out of your cot - Xed 13:59, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not true, as it happens. I have deleted the one pov expression I missed, you can't get them all but frankly your version is much worse. Read the rules as I did. Your attacks of a personal nature are unwelcome. Deuxmachina 14:02, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So you want an ad hominem personal attack? -- Toytoy 14:05, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

LOL, No, I'd prefer none at all. Deuxmachina 14:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Someone with admin privileges please rv to neutral version. Admins with a conflict of interest shouldn't lock articles. Jayjg has done this a few times. Strangely, articles which he regards as under attack always attract sockpuppets with the same point of view as him - Xed 14:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you request protection then you have to live with the admin's decision of which version to protect. That's the price of escalation. Deux's edits appear to have been in good faith. It is not his fault if the version he started from was of poor quality. Give him the benefit of a doubt and open discussion. Gazpacho 14:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Admins with a clear conflict of interest shouldn't protect articles. - Xed 14:26, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have no "conflict of interest"; I know nothing about Vanunu, or this edit war, I've never even seen this article before. If you don't want an article protected, you shouldn't list it for protection. I encourage you to work out your differences with Deusexmachina. Oh, and please see Wikipedia:The Wrong Version. Jayjg 14:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request for revert and protect

Please revert this page to last sensible edit by Xed (21:54, Nov 14, 2004 Xed) and protect it. Toytoy 14:13, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Xed requested protection he now doesn't want

I am not a sockpuppet for Jumbodick or Jayg or anyone else. My changes stand scrutiny. Unexplained reverts from Xed don't, his claims that his version is "neutral" is crazy, it is riddled with partisanship and emotive words. The earlier version he deleted was a better place to start although it too was partisan and full of pro-Israel propaganda. I removed it and presented a pretty good article I naively thought. Can others read and take a considered view, I think Toytoy and Xed are rather committed to their own version. Deuxmachina 14:15, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules (which even as a "new user" you seem to know a lot about), state that those with a conflict of interest shouldn't protect a page. - Xed 14:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have a conflict of interest and I didn't protect the page or ask anyone to. You did. I have no idea whether you or anyone else has a conflict of interest in the sense they have duties or opinions that are in conflict with editing impartially. I won't accuse you of that because it would be based on guesswork. You are entitled to your view but not on Wikipedia where neutrality should infuse the article, as it now does. On this page I will point out the specific problems I had with your "neutral version." Deuxmachina 14:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is no such rule, Xed. The policy says that an admin involved in an edit dispute (i.e. making edits) can't protect the disputed page. That is all. Now I could claim, with as much evidence as you've given against Deux, that Toytoy above is sockpuppetting for you (but I'm not). Can you please consider the possibility that you've overreacted? Gazpacho 14:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Check my past history and take your words back. -- Toytoy 15:21, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, that I shouted at you. My fault. -- Toytoy 15:54, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

You could claim that, but a brief look at the user contributions would prove it to be false. On the other hand, Jumboweenie/Jumbodick/Deuxmachina/Rohbite aliases used similar edit summaries and made the same edits. They all have very few edits and have the same agenda. Their edit summaries included things like "RickK not really interested in what you want, what you think or your shit edits. Fuck you." They inserted things like "mad-left Jewish students" into the article. - Xed 14:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Anyone looking at the history can see that Deux left exactly zero edit summaries of the kind you cite. He inserted nothing; he reverted your changes and then started editing from what was already in the article. Please join discussion. Gazpacho

The usernames User:JumboWeenie/User:JumboDick/User:Deuxmachina/User:Rohbite are the same person. I urge everyone to examine the history of the article, and their user contributions, to confirm this. None of them have more than a handful of edits, all have the same agenda, and all edited this article recently, using similar language in edit summaries. - Xed 15:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I did examine the history and I tend to agree with Gazpacho --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 20:15, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another user with a handful of edits, mostly of the pro-Israel variety. - Xed 20:24, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Did anyone mention "ad hominem" above? --Anton Adelson, Western Australia 20:31, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the last day Xed has accused a half dozen editors of being sock-puppets of me, as well as claiming that various wildly different IP addresses from different countries were me as well, even though I revealed my IP address to him. Apparently in his eyes you are my latest sockpuppet. To be fair, some of the editors do appear to be one-offs, perhaps sockpuppets, but others (including you) obviously aren't, and the accusations are getting more than absurd at this point. Jayjg 21:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Which ones do you think are puppets? And which ones are you? - Xed 22:27, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All Wikipedia editors besides you are my sockpuppets, Xed, as are all anonymous IPs. Keeping track of and editing as thousands of IDs is such a trial, it takes all my time. ;-) Jayjg 01:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In a "tomAHto/tomAYto" edit war, feel free to stop it at any moment. In this case, I believe you are required to make certain minimum judgement. And that judgement has to be wise. If I repeatedly say "The Earth is flat, shrimps are ruling the Earth" in the article Earth, would you do me a favor by stopping that edit war minutes after I made my point? If you cannot make a wise decision, restrain yourself from entering next dispute like this. Thank you. There are many admins online at any given point of time. Someone else would do the job. -- Toytoy 22:27, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Admins are really not supposed to make these kinds of judgement calls, as has been made quite clear to me. It's one thing if one version of the article says "JOHN DOE IS A SISSY" and the other is a reasonable article. In this case, the existing article at first glance did not look like a case of vandalism. Editors on this page have confirmed that. Please review Wikipedia:The Wrong Version, which was written specifically to respond to statements like yours. Jayjg 01:40, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)