![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 |
I edited the controversy section, specifically, I removed inflammatory and unencyclopedic language. In addition, I added requests for citation for some of the (seemingly) verifiable claims. I strongly suspect my edits will be reverted, but I hope that someone will simply add the citations instead of reinserting POV.
In the section on sentencing the link for United States of America v. Jonathan Jay Pollard (747 F. Supp. 797); 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11844 file is no longer functioning. Has anyone got a working link? I know where to get all Supreme Court decisions going back to the 18th century but getting District Court links is a problem since most of them are not on the web. Malangthon 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The statement: "The sentence was comparable to that of Aldrich Ames, the chief of CIA counterintelligence in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, who was indicted for treason, convicted of passing critical defense secrets to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and found responsible for the deaths of at least 11 U.S. agents" should be validated using a reliable source. It is currently unsourced and not even clearly supported by the WP article on Aldrich Ames.
I removed the statement: "The US refuses to allow Pollard's security cleared attorneys access to their own client's sentencing file in order to challenge his incarceration" and accompanying comments in References as POV and unsupported by the Edwin Black article referenced. [1] The Black article clearly says that Pollard's attorneys were denied access to the documents they sought because "they don't possess a 'need to know' security clearance for the secret documents." If they were "security cleared" I don't see the evidence for it in the Black article. Further, I wonder if this even belongs in a section entitled "Controversy over severity of Pollard's sentence"-- DieWeibeRose 07:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Shrike 18:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what the relevance is of the following:
This entire paragraph seems like an attempt to justify Pollard's spying activities. It does not belong in the Pollard article because it has nothing to do with Pollard. It belongs in an article about spying, not here. Anyone have a reasonable justification for the inclusion of this info?
Even worse, what is the point of this:
This is a non-cited item that not only has nothing to do with Pollard but doesn't even make clear that this "former US Naval Commando" was even spying. Many American Jewish people go to Israel to attend a university and just because this gentleman has US military experience does not make him a spy. Both of these paragraphs should be deleted. I would appreciate some defense of these paragraphs or deletion should occur. Jtpaladin 21:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Fixed the npov problem shrike keeps reverting---this whole article reads like it came from the Pollard fan club. -- 24.214.167.195 23:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 |
Although Durenberger did SAY the US did gather intelligence in Israel, no sources I found said it was actually TRUE. Durenberger was at a fund raiser for a Jewish group and for all I know he was just trying to court contributions. Thus "alleged".-- 199.91.37.33 18:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on spy Aldrich Ames is very clear -- He covered his tracks by implicating Pollard in his own crimes. For this reason it does appear that the Margolis and Hersh rehashing of Ames' charges are simply not useful. They violate policy, so I eliminated them.
I suggest that anyone wanting to restore this stuff use less biased sources, if they exist. Margolis is a professional Islamist (he claims that "islamic fascism" doesn't exist, everyone who disagrees with him is a "neoconservative," etc.) and Hersh is veracity-challenged. (And don't bring up that Pulitzer. Duranty also won one for lying about Stalid.) Personally I find the obsessive desire of so many to accuse Pollard of acts he never committed -- compared with the realtive silence that the far more damaging Ames case has received -- to be indicative of an ulterior motive. 68.5.64.178 12:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
a public denial of something that is true is a lie. so israel lied about it. Ethmegdav ( talk) 20:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 |
I edited the controversy section, specifically, I removed inflammatory and unencyclopedic language. In addition, I added requests for citation for some of the (seemingly) verifiable claims. I strongly suspect my edits will be reverted, but I hope that someone will simply add the citations instead of reinserting POV.
In the section on sentencing the link for United States of America v. Jonathan Jay Pollard (747 F. Supp. 797); 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11844 file is no longer functioning. Has anyone got a working link? I know where to get all Supreme Court decisions going back to the 18th century but getting District Court links is a problem since most of them are not on the web. Malangthon 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The statement: "The sentence was comparable to that of Aldrich Ames, the chief of CIA counterintelligence in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, who was indicted for treason, convicted of passing critical defense secrets to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and found responsible for the deaths of at least 11 U.S. agents" should be validated using a reliable source. It is currently unsourced and not even clearly supported by the WP article on Aldrich Ames.
I removed the statement: "The US refuses to allow Pollard's security cleared attorneys access to their own client's sentencing file in order to challenge his incarceration" and accompanying comments in References as POV and unsupported by the Edwin Black article referenced. [1] The Black article clearly says that Pollard's attorneys were denied access to the documents they sought because "they don't possess a 'need to know' security clearance for the secret documents." If they were "security cleared" I don't see the evidence for it in the Black article. Further, I wonder if this even belongs in a section entitled "Controversy over severity of Pollard's sentence"-- DieWeibeRose 07:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Shrike 18:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what the relevance is of the following:
This entire paragraph seems like an attempt to justify Pollard's spying activities. It does not belong in the Pollard article because it has nothing to do with Pollard. It belongs in an article about spying, not here. Anyone have a reasonable justification for the inclusion of this info?
Even worse, what is the point of this:
This is a non-cited item that not only has nothing to do with Pollard but doesn't even make clear that this "former US Naval Commando" was even spying. Many American Jewish people go to Israel to attend a university and just because this gentleman has US military experience does not make him a spy. Both of these paragraphs should be deleted. I would appreciate some defense of these paragraphs or deletion should occur. Jtpaladin 21:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Fixed the npov problem shrike keeps reverting---this whole article reads like it came from the Pollard fan club. -- 24.214.167.195 23:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 |
Although Durenberger did SAY the US did gather intelligence in Israel, no sources I found said it was actually TRUE. Durenberger was at a fund raiser for a Jewish group and for all I know he was just trying to court contributions. Thus "alleged".-- 199.91.37.33 18:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on spy Aldrich Ames is very clear -- He covered his tracks by implicating Pollard in his own crimes. For this reason it does appear that the Margolis and Hersh rehashing of Ames' charges are simply not useful. They violate policy, so I eliminated them.
I suggest that anyone wanting to restore this stuff use less biased sources, if they exist. Margolis is a professional Islamist (he claims that "islamic fascism" doesn't exist, everyone who disagrees with him is a "neoconservative," etc.) and Hersh is veracity-challenged. (And don't bring up that Pulitzer. Duranty also won one for lying about Stalid.) Personally I find the obsessive desire of so many to accuse Pollard of acts he never committed -- compared with the realtive silence that the far more damaging Ames case has received -- to be indicative of an ulterior motive. 68.5.64.178 12:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
a public denial of something that is true is a lie. so israel lied about it. Ethmegdav ( talk) 20:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)