![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Mirror vax what part you dont agree with?
WHO THE FUCK wrote this JOKE of an "article", Jonathan Pollard himself? LOL! This is a new low in self important flatulence. This article was written 100% from Pollard's point of view. What kind of JOKE "encyclopedia" is written from the point of view of the criminal, and NOTHING from the POV of the country that prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced the criminal to prison? Why must wikipedia CONTINUE to make an ass out of itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.164.0 ( talk) 08:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
At least the article has a link to [1], which provides another viewpoint.
This article is neither comprehensive not neutral, and a template must be placed at the top of this article to indicate such (until the issue is resolved). HKT 21:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Why some say X and others say Y? Nature of language and personal perspective. Russell, Wittgenstein, Popper, lots of peole including Charles Peirce made a major point of showing how language is used and effects perception. You Will Never Get Consensus. So we present as many sides as possible which leads to part two of this quandry "This article is neither comprehensive not neutral" Comprehensive means this thing would be about as detailed and cumbersome as the NYC phone book. One through seven are not really helpful nor do I think they were meant as questions--they are rhetorical as far as I can see. OK, Six WAS an important point --in my view. I think that has been rectified. No, I lie, it is discussed in the talk and not on the article. I think that is important. If there is enough here, I will do what I can to rectify it.
Malangthon
23:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hersh makes some claims that should probably be mentioned:
There's quite a lot more in [www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/576453/posts the article]. — Ashley Y 00:47, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
Mirror Vax, I'm putting back the sentence you removed. Since the previous sentence insinuates that Pollard compromised US codes (POV), I'm leaving the assertion and providing contrary evidence. Furthermore, I'm stating that Pollard probably wasn't suspected of compromising codes, not even that he probably didn't compromise codes. The sentence is appropriate, so I'm reinserting it. HKT 04:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I would like to float some information about possibly changing the section on the Soviet connection.
He was originally alleged to have compromised US spy information leading to the death of many US spies. HOWEVER
1. He was not convicted of any of those charges. More importantly,
2. The actual perpetrators WERE caught later and convincted. As it turns out Aldrich Ames and Michael Hansen were responsible. Ames wa also in charge of Pollard's investigation and tried to foist his crimes onto Pollard. So, it is technically true to cite earlier articles and reports that he was thought to have done that...but it is also misleading without mentioning later evidence showing it was someone else.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Mirror vax what part you dont agree with?
WHO THE FUCK wrote this JOKE of an "article", Jonathan Pollard himself? LOL! This is a new low in self important flatulence. This article was written 100% from Pollard's point of view. What kind of JOKE "encyclopedia" is written from the point of view of the criminal, and NOTHING from the POV of the country that prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced the criminal to prison? Why must wikipedia CONTINUE to make an ass out of itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.164.0 ( talk) 08:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
At least the article has a link to [1], which provides another viewpoint.
This article is neither comprehensive not neutral, and a template must be placed at the top of this article to indicate such (until the issue is resolved). HKT 21:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Why some say X and others say Y? Nature of language and personal perspective. Russell, Wittgenstein, Popper, lots of peole including Charles Peirce made a major point of showing how language is used and effects perception. You Will Never Get Consensus. So we present as many sides as possible which leads to part two of this quandry "This article is neither comprehensive not neutral" Comprehensive means this thing would be about as detailed and cumbersome as the NYC phone book. One through seven are not really helpful nor do I think they were meant as questions--they are rhetorical as far as I can see. OK, Six WAS an important point --in my view. I think that has been rectified. No, I lie, it is discussed in the talk and not on the article. I think that is important. If there is enough here, I will do what I can to rectify it.
Malangthon
23:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Hersh makes some claims that should probably be mentioned:
There's quite a lot more in [www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/576453/posts the article]. — Ashley Y 00:47, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
Mirror Vax, I'm putting back the sentence you removed. Since the previous sentence insinuates that Pollard compromised US codes (POV), I'm leaving the assertion and providing contrary evidence. Furthermore, I'm stating that Pollard probably wasn't suspected of compromising codes, not even that he probably didn't compromise codes. The sentence is appropriate, so I'm reinserting it. HKT 04:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I would like to float some information about possibly changing the section on the Soviet connection.
He was originally alleged to have compromised US spy information leading to the death of many US spies. HOWEVER
1. He was not convicted of any of those charges. More importantly,
2. The actual perpetrators WERE caught later and convincted. As it turns out Aldrich Ames and Michael Hansen were responsible. Ames wa also in charge of Pollard's investigation and tried to foist his crimes onto Pollard. So, it is technically true to cite earlier articles and reports that he was thought to have done that...but it is also misleading without mentioning later evidence showing it was someone else.