Talk:Mordechai Vanunu/Archive 3

message: Anxious to avoid being duped by another Hitler Diaries-sized hoax, The Sunday Times spent extensive time verifying Vanunu’s story with leading experts
Is there any evidence that the Hitler Diaries was the reason for thorough investigation performed by Hounam and The Sunday Times? It seems to me to be the POV of an Israel supporter, being sure to invoke the image of Hitler in an article about the brutal treatment of a man who blew open a clandestine nuclear weapons program. Does anyone have a specific quote from Hounam or someone else involved with the story to indicate that this was the case? --Uncle Bungle 16:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything's a Zionist conspiracy, eh Bungle? The Sunday Times: "We explained that the Hitler Diaries hoax had happened just a couple of years earlier. His story had to be verified by nuclear experts." BBC: "It was a very difficult decision for the editor, Andrew Neil, because two or three years before there had been dreadful problems with the publication of the Hitler Diaries" St. Petersburg Times: "The Sunday Times, burned a few years earlier by fake Hitler diaries, decided to fly Vanunu to London so experts could probe his story." Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I take personal offense to the statement "Everything's a Zionist conspiracy, eh Bungle?". Lord knows it's not just "Israel haters" who try to push their POV around here. With such an explosive image, especially considering the subject matter, I wanted to be sure the statement was legit. Thank you for your valuable contribution, I truly appriciate the link. --Uncle Bungle 22:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Instead you should take offense to the statement "It seems to me to be the POV of an Israel supporter, being sure to invoke the image of Hitler"; what kind of mind thinks these notions up? Jayjg (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? --Uncle Bungle 22:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

text: It's an egregious violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith, not to mention incredibly dubious conspiracy-mongering.  Again, what kind of mind thinks these notions up? Jayjg (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: this information is inflammatory and unsupported. Osiesky was a prisoner of conscience of the Nazi government, This is the pov of a lone Israeli hater who wants to compare Israel to Nazi Germany that hardly qualifies as Wikipedia:Assume good faith. To refocus briefly, although way off topic, on the issue at hand: no, I'm not a big fan of the state of Israel. Its not that I'm against zionists, its that I'm against the bulldozing, wall building, and child killing that has resulted from the occupation. I guess the ADL considers it one and the same  Holocaust deniers, Israel critics, anti-Semites, and others are promoting warped conspiracy theories []. That is besides the point. My contention with the statement as described at the begining of this section was legitimate, my assumption was a slight jab at Guy Montag. Again I appriciate your help. --Uncle Bungle 22:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I didn't make that statement, I'm not Guy Montag, I don't care what the ADL thinks, and I'm against killing pregnant mothers and their four daughters as well as  infant killing. I'm also against using the Talk: pages as a soapbox; stick to article content. Jayjg (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg, didn't you know Palestinian militants are blameless and Israel is a fascist, murderous force?  If you get attacked, you should just sit on your hands and do nothing.  Y'know, let them continue gun running and suicide boming pizza parlors and public transportation.  (Just for the record, my previous statements are sarcastic to an insane degree.)  GreatGatsby 22:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Everything's a Zionist conspiracy, eh Bungle? likewise. --Uncle Bungle 23:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler Diaries 

message: Guy Montag keeps removing the reference to Vanunu being the 119th Rector of the Glasgow University.
*http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4100119.stm -- BBC article
*http://www.gla.ac.uk/general/whoswho/rector.html -- official site
*http://www.vanunu4rector.org.uk/ -- campaign site
:*He seems to have left it in lately. In any event, it is already mentioned in the article once, as is the statement by Amnesty International -- it seems that the only real question is whether or not it should be in the introduction. --Fastfission 11:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Guy Montag vandalism 

message: I'd encourage our editors, anon and signed in, to read the Wikipedia policy on Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Fastfission 11:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: No personal attacks

message: (No point in editing the article at the moment.)
* The article claims "The death penalty is forbidden in Israel."  This is incorrect.  In addition to the clause under which Eichmann was executed, section 99 of the Penal Code says "A person who, with intent to assist an enemy in war against Israel, commits an act calculated so to assist him, is liable to the death sentence or to imprisonment for life."  One of the books about Vanunu says that the prosecution discussed using this clause against him, but decided against it.
* One of the versions says that the restrictions on Vanunu after his releases were imposed "as he was still bound by his government non-disclosure contract."  We should not present the official excuse as if it is a fact, especially when it doesn't make any sense. --Zero 11:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Use of death penalty worldwide Eichmann is the only person ever to be executed by Israel, and he was accused of crimes against humanity, not treason. – Smyth\talk 19:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That doesn't negate my point.  Israel has two civil capital crimes, the article says none.  So it needs fixing. (As an aside, Israel also has military capital crimes and once executed a solidier in very doubtful circumstances.  I've been meaning to write an article about it.) --Zero 01:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Because he has always been bound by his non-disclosure contract, but he has not always had these restrictions placed upon him. – Smyth\talk 19:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Vanunu is free to walk around and talk to people (just not to certain people like journalists and foreigners) and to write letters.  If he wants to make more classified exposures, he doesn't need to violate these new restrictions.  If he was actively trying to do so, he'd be behind bars.  The restrictions are more to prevent him from becoming a celebrity and public-relations nuisance.  But this argument is beside the point; the article should not present the official reason as a fact but only as the official reason.  --Zero 01:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two comments. 

message: Anyone have any complaints with reverting to 07:28, 13 August 2005 version? While a few good changes will be lost, a lot of pov pushing has been added in(closed to the public/secret trial, returned/smuggled or kidnapped, and a few others.)
As usual Guy obliterated a lot of good NPOV changes when he reverted to versions he liked.
:Don't do that, reverting dozens of versions is exactly what Guy did the other day; it's annoying and loses other small improvements that have been made. If you have problems with the current version then talk about them here. For instance, the secret trial / closed trial: I assume it was well known by the time of the trial that he had been captured and that a trial was going on, so it's not as if he just "disappeared". – Smyth\talk 11:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: Some of the images in the foreign language wikipedia's seem good and appropriate. In particular the one with Vanunu pressing his hand against the car window with the writing on it (). Is there a reason why they were not included? savidan(talk) (e@) 19:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: It would be interesting to write-up on the comparison of hero Vanunu and Abdul Rahman, the afghani christian, who barely escaped execution for conversion last week. The israeli prison personnel did try to force Vanunu to renounce christianity with psychological torture, including world record 14 years of solitary confinement and disclosing to him that Mossad killed JFK over Dimona coverup to imply that the christians' God is a weak god which was unable to protect the catholic president. Yet Vanunu remained firmly in Jesus, but the world ignored his plight and noone dared to speak about it except the BBC. Now everybody over the globe is talking and demanding about Abdul Rahman and offering him asylum. This shows double standards, freedom of religion does not apply so strictly to "friends" of America. 195.70.32.136 09:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sory Wikipedia is not the place for original reasearch, however if you know of any reputable publications that have discused this issule then you could referance them.--JK the unwise 10:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mordechai Vanunu vs. Abdurrahman of Afghanistan 

message: I removed the unsourced statement "Vanunu admired his professor, Evron Pollakov, a left-wing professor at Ben-Gurion University who had refused to serve with the IDF in Lebanon and had been jailed because of it" - because it seems implausible in terms of the timeline. Vanunu served in the IDF from 72-75, and went to BGU from 75-78  or even 79 - a full 3 years before the Lebanon war.  Isarig 02:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Life 

message: "Knowing Vanunu's interest in women, on September 30, an Israeli Mossad agent, Cheryl Bentov, operating under the name of "Cindy" and masquerading as an American tourist, persuaded him to fly to Rome with her on a holiday." Doronef 07:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  today in the history 

message: What was wrong with the introduction when this was a [featured article]? The current version adds no new information and seems to be rather inflamitory. Any objections to just rolling back 18 months? --Uncle Bungle 22:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: You may have noticed I started giving the article real references, using the  and  templates. Could someone else help do this? I don't feel like slogging through the whole article.
The only thing I'd ask is that you follow the style I'm using, which is to put the elements of the template (url, title, publisher, etc.) on separate lines. This makes maintaining the references a whole lot easier.
Thanks! +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I finished them up, the only one I'm not comfortable with is the last one which doesn't fit easily in any template. Cheers. --Uncle Bungle 04:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I used  for the last one (University of Glasgow), which seems to be pretty much a catch-all for all non-news citations. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for help w/references 

message: Your user talk page is showing up here :Category:Nazis please dampen your links, thank you Octopus-Hands 10:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —Angr 13:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: +cat