Talk:Jonathan Pollard/Archive 4 – Wikipedia

Comparative Sentences for American Spies

According to your article below, Franklin received only 13 years and a fine. Pollard received life and no fine because the FBI did not consider him a mercenary-for-profit. yet, you refused this fact in Pollard’s article. Don’t you believe this is an essential fact? Here is the source.

You are deleting so many essential facts that it appears you choose to lose credibility rather than gain it.

Larry Franklin From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Lawrence Anthony Franklin

Lawrence Anthony Franklin is a U.S. Air Force Reserve colonel who has pleaded guilty to passing information about U.S. policy towards Iran to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the foremost pro-Israel lobbying organization in the U.S, while he was working for the Defense Department in what he claims was an attempt to get the information passed on to the United States National Security Council, which he could not do through regular Pentagon channels. Two former employees of that organization are also facing charges that they assisted him in the AIPAC espionage scandal and passing classified information to an Israeli diplomat Naor Gilon. On January 20, 2006, Judge T.S. Ellis, III sentenced Franklin to 151 months (almost 13 years) in prison and fined him $10,000. [1] The case was heard in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Ultimately, Franklin was charged with unauthorized disclosure of classified information, not with espionage.[citation needed]

so many other facts i attempted to insert were deleted. here is the source:

your editors have disappointed me.

Furtive admirer (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Rami, the jonathan pollard website was referenced with a sourced document proving Pollard was not fined,(Franklin was) NOT to compare sentences.

so, i am finished here. i sent you a note on your talk page. if you are interested in Pollard’s history and want to make it your “cause celebre” to create a credible Pollard’s Page with only the evidence the US Government has released through the Freedom of Information Act AND first-hand witnessess, such as Carol Pollard (, Dr. Morris Pollard (,and Alan Dershowitz (, I suggest you contact them and request their contributions. then you won’t have to threaten those benefactors who merely want to get the facts straight. And for the opposing view, you can contact Joseph DiGenova, (“Pollard will never see the light of day!”) via Victoria Toensing, who has a page here. They are married and law partners as well. Judge Robinson is dead and he would not comment even if he wasn’t, and Caspar Weinberger is deceased also. It appears you have a lot of time on your hands, and I assure you this is a very productive project for you, or in the alternative you can just remove the page completely until it is sourced to your satisfaction. You’ll learn quite a bit in the process. As it appears now, like much of the opinion reflected before me on this page, it is simply JUNK!!


Furtive admirer (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What the Hell … Upon first reading this article it came off as a cheap piece of propaganda – actually comparing Jon Pollard to Alfred Dreyfus. Utterly disrespectful to Dreyfus, I might add. Among other things, the article failed to note that Pollard sold classified information.

I’m going to be taking a close look at the contribution record. –Duk

The article contained the sentence Shaw also presents similarities between Pollard’s case and that of the French officer Alfred Dreyfus but it fails to note what those similarities are. The statement is devoid of substance, used only to compare Pollard, universally acknowledged to be guilty of spying, to Dreyfus, universally acknowledged to be innocently convicted. This just one example of outrageous POV pushing that plagues the entire article. I’ve removed the statement. –Duk 15:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The article currently has quotes which characterizes Olive’s claims as “old lies… repackaged.” and “false”. These vague and maligning quotes should be removed and replaced with the actual points of contention. For example, the first reference (for “old lies… repackaged”) doesn’t contain anything substantial, it’s mostly hysterical hand waving and should be removed.

The second reference, which our article claims “assert that Olive’s claims and accusations against Pollard are false” doesn’t actually do that. It complains that some of Olive’s claims, such as Pollard attempting to sell classified information to Pakistan, don’t appear on the public docket. That doesn’t mean these claims are false, nor does the reference actually contend as much. And yet the paragraph is summed up with the following; “[Olive’s book is] an exercise in ‘speculation, rumor, myths and lies.'”, without specifically identifying any such thing.

Part of this section is a bunch of vague and maligning quotes arranged into a POV editorial. They should be replaced with the specific points of contention and properly referenced. –Duk 17:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There is also speculation from the book on why Pollard wants a pardon instead of parole. I’m not sure that belongs in the article either. –Duk 18:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The current article version has no fewer than nine references pointing to; 6, 15 ,17, 19, 25, 27, 28, 34 and 37. This website is a poor source; its quality is somewhere between self-published work, to advocacy that doesn’t strive to be neutral, to outright propaganda. It’s also linked in the external links section as “Jonathon Pollard’s Website”. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources for why this website is not a suitable source.

This website should not be used as a reference. The individual references need to be replaced with better sources if possible, and removed where appropriate.–Duk 16:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead references of the current article are not needed and appear to have been add to get some Pro-Pollard juice right at the top of the article. The first reference was written by was someone “Of Counsel” on the amicus curiae brief submitted in support of Jonathan J. Pollard’s 1991 appeal. The second reference misrepresents the intelligence that Pollard stole and sold as primarily ‘materials relating to Arab ballistic missile and nonconventional weapons programs’, and then calls him a ‘national hero’, all in the first three sentences. Way to go people.

I’m going to remove them, but will see if there are appropriate parts of the article to add them back. –Duk 22:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This page says that Pollard’s attorneys were allowed to see the Weinberger memo. The Casper Weinberger page says the opposite. Which is it? Binarybits (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This entry alleges that Pollard is sometimes described as a “hero” in the Israeli media. The reference cited is a BBC News article that describes posters and banners seen in Jerusalem, but gives not evidence of the news media describing Pollard as a hero. As worded, the sentence conveys a highly inaccurate impression of Israeli media. Individuals hoisting banners cannot be described as media. The media sentence should thus be erased or replaced with one that refers to pro-Pollard advocacy groups. Preceding unsigned comment added by Kishkushim (talk contribs) 01:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The article currently includes this passage:

“Within two months of being hired, the technical director of the NFOIO, Richard Haver, requested that Pollard be terminated.[9] This came after a rather reckless and somewhat inappropriate conversation with the new hire in which Pollard offered to start a back-channel operation with the South African intelligence service and lied about his own father’s involvement with the CIA.[9]”

Speaking of inappropriate, it is entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia to use words like “reckless” and “inappropriate” except in a quotation or a description of a quotation. As, for example, “So-and-so described the conversation as reckless and inappropriate.”

It is not sufficient that the words be sourced (as with “[9]”). If you find this hard to understand, it is because those words are judgmental words and can never be considered part of statements of fact. Note: I know nothing of the subject matter. And please do not interpret me as passing judgment on the accuracy of the words “reckless” and “inappropriate”; I am saying something else entirely.

Oh, and furthermore, the meaning of labeling an entire conversation “reckless” and “inappropriate” is utterly unclear. Is it what Pollard allegedly said, or what the other guy allegedly said, or both, that was deemed worthy of these adjectives???

Finally, unless the conversation was recorded — so that there is hard evidence — it must be reported in terms of who claimed that certain characteristics described the conversation. This is a second level of un-factualness concerning the statement as it currently reads in the article. Regardless of what a source may say.

Has the writer never read an encyclopedia before? How about a good newspaper? Do they have no idea what a factual description consists of???

I am not the person to fix the article, because I am not knowledgeable about the subject matter. But if someone is, please fix the article to reflect the high standards of Wikipedia.Daqu (talk) 05:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

– Agree with that. Deleting those words. Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In the section on Pollard’s spying, there is a paragraph about an unrelated case, that of Yosef Amit. This material has nothing to do with Pollard’s espionage, nothing at all. It is both misplaced and irrelevant. Why exactly in a section dealing with Pollard’s actions is there a paragraph with “regard to friendly nations spying on each other”? This is placed for one reason, to attempt to portray these actions as “no big deal”. Even if that were true (though it is hard to imagine treason being “no big deal”), it is not relevant to Pollard’s espionage. nableezy – 18:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The Spies: Israel’s Counter-Espionage Wars, Yossi Melman, Eitan Haber–Shrike (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The ‘Public campaigns’ section contains quotes from activists, politicians professors and all kinds of people with no first hand knowledge of the case – they simply have a pro-Pollard agenda to push. These comments have been piling up and up and up.

Meanwhile, the most germane, informed and valuable quote in this section keeps getting trimmed back and suppressed – the response from former Directors of Naval Intelligence. This is blatant POV pushing by people with a pro-Pollard slant.

Compare the magnitude of pro-pollard quotes from people who have nothing to do with the actual case, and the low quality of information contained in those quotes, to the relatively concise response from the former Directors of Naval Intelligence who actually have something valuable to say.

I will be restoring the Directors of Naval Intelligence response and trimming back the pro-pollard propaganda per WP:UNDUE. –32alpha4tango (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

(Boy, I wish you guys would take the same sensible line on Gerry Gabler or David Irving–both snakepits of activist special pleading.) (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Major changes to the articles should be discussed in talk first to gain consensus. So I am reverting all the changes back to stable version.Please propose your changes first at the talk page.–Shrike (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I made a string of changes recently to this article, though I wouldn’t call them ‘Major’. Each change was explained in the edit summary, and I started a new talk section. Shrike then reverted wholesale, with no discussion whatsoever. He didn’t even bother addressing the individual edits and reasons for those edits. The largest change I made was simply restoring an important quote that keeps getting suppressed. After looking through the edit history of this article It’s clear that Shrike is happy with anything that’s ‘Pro-pollard’, but he engages in interference tactics with anything that doesn’t suite his POV. I don’t think Shrike should be editing this page. –32alpha4tango (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wikifan12345! When you restored the Korb quote, you suggested that it was deleted without rationale.[6] I provided a rationale when I blanked it, though perhaps it was unclear to you.[7] The reason being, if Rumsfeld is saying don’t release Pollard,[8] it seems selective and imbalanced to me to include Korb, who is a much less significant political figure. I don’t really think Rumsfeld needs to be in there either, barnie-frankly. What do you think? DBaba (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I’d be grateful if some of you Pollard case experts would have a look at a specific issue that has arisen over how the Pollard case is presented in our article on Israel – United States relations. The language in use there currently makes it sound like Israel had the right to the intelligence that Pollard stole because, as that article currently claims, the U.S. had withheld intelligence that Israel was entitled to. Many thanks, OhioStandard (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Cite 7 [1] is a review of another article, not a primary source, that says Pollard has renounced his US citizenship. I would point out such a renounciation is meaningless unless made in front of and accepted by a US official. Is the cite good enough to keep the sentence in Para One or so? It seems he has said he intends to renounce his citizenship if he were ever to be able to do so. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


Some sentences seem a bit strange in the article:

“The Israelis created a schedule designed to wear down the Americans, including many hours per day of commuting in blacked out buses on rough roads, and frequent switching of buses. This left the Americans without adequate time to sleep and prevented them from sleeping on the commute.” Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

So, when did he join the NCIS and when he joined the NIS? The Early Career section is clearly confusing with mentions to a double join on the NIS:

A month later Pollard applied for and received a transfer to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) surface ships division while keeping his TF-168 position.


In October 1984, after some reorganization of the Navy’s intelligence departments, Pollard applied for and received a position as an analyst for the Naval Investigative Service (NIS, later renamed NCIS). Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

My recent corrections to this article give proper names to the departments of naval intelligence for which Jonathan worked. I have this knowledge because I knew Jonathan Pollard and worked at NOSIC and TF-168 at the time. I also made some minor changes to Jonathan’s employment process from what I remember of the process.Joe Haskins (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Jonathan never worked for Naval Investigative Service (NIS) or its reincarnation, the Navy Criminal Investigative Service. (NCIS), but did work for NIC and NISC. I believe that the contributor got wound around the axle on government alphabet soup. I remember the reorganization of ’84, but do not recollect having to reapply for my job. Perhaps Jonathan did because of the circumstances.Joe Haskins (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, all. In these two edits I’ve reinstated the external link to the docs from Pollard’s D.C. court case. Biosketch(talk contribs), had removed our readers’ access to them, in this edit. I understand that the organization that obtained these docs via FOIA requests and such, and which hosts them on its servers, may or may not be wp:rs itself, but no one seriously doubts the origin or authenticity of these documents. There’s no reason we should keep readers of this article from accessing them easily.

Editors of any opinion on this might like to note that Biosketch performed similar deletions of access to primary source docs related to Israel that are hosted to the web by this same organization. I’ve posted a list of each deletion diffs in collapsed format, below.

Rather than discuss this in seven other threads on the talk pages for each of the other articles, editors might like to wait a day or two while we cast about for a central discussion location for this matter. If that happens, someone will post a subsequent note here so those who might be interested in this issue more broadly will be able to join in that discussion. OhioStandard (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC) ( modified by strikthrough at 18:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC) )

In the summary box under Pollard’s photo, his second wife’s name is shown as Elaine Seitz. This is incorrect. As correctly noted near the end of the article, his second wife’s name is Esther Zeitz. There is a person closely related to me named Elaine Seitz, and I do not want there to be any confusion as to the fact that she has nothing to do with Pollard. (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The article reads: “The technical director of the NFOIO, Richard Haver, requested that Pollard be terminated.” As this is an article about American spooks, I suggest using the word “dismissed” instead – “terminate” has a more permanent and sinister meaning. It is also stated that this request came after a conversation “with the new hire in which Pollard offered to start a back-channel operation with the South African intelligence service and lied about his father’s involvement with the CIA.” Please do not call a new employee a “new hire”. Appalling slang. And why fire an employee for offering to start a “back-channel operation with the South African intelligence service”? What is wrong or inappropriate about that suggestion, and so inappropriate as to justify instant dismissal (or termination)! The lies about his father’s involvement with the CIA didn’t become apparent until later.

I doubt that Haver’s boss reassigned Pollard to a human-gathered intelligence operation “because Pollard had a friend from graduate school in the South African intelligence service”. I presume the alleged friendship was the reason for the proposed back-channel operation (whatever that is), not for Pollard being reassigned to humint rather than dismissed. Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnC (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2011

The lede of the article currently states: “Pollard renounced his United States citizenship and is now solely an Israeli citizen. He would be deported to Israel if he were released from prison”. This information is cited to a film review (hardly a reliable source for matters of nationality law), which itself states “Jonathan Jay Pollard was a US citizen (he has since renounced his birthright and taken Israeli citizenship)”. At best this sounds like the author is under the misconception that taking Israeli citizenship means renouncing U.S. citizenship. At worst this is complete legal nonsense.

Especially in a WP:BLP, Wikipedia needs a very strong source indeed for a statement that has such an obvious contradiction with how the law operates. And an article in a film review journal does not cut it when it comes to a question of law. “Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content” (WP:RS). Immigration and Nationality Act Section 351 is very clear:

The “except as provided’ refers to two conditions in Section 349 neither of which are fulfilled in Pollard’s case:

The U.S. is not in a state of war and Pollard was not convicted of treason or the other crimes listed, so I see no way he could have renounced or deemed to have relinquished U.S. citizenship. At minimum this information needs a much stronger source than a film review — and not one of those circular citations that keeps popping up after this “information” was added to Wikipedia.

I also notice that the last time this was discussed, User:Obotlig made the comment “At any rate, obtaining foreign citizenship automatically is considered renunciation or loss of American citizenship, if you are at least 18.” However, this is not correct; see US State Department Services Dual Nationality. Applying for foreign citizenship only results in loss of U.S. citizenship if you go to a consulate in person and fill out a bunch of forms affirming that your intention was to lose U.S. citizenship (the technical term for this is “relinquishment”). Absent that visit, the State Department cannot develop a loss-of-nationality case except in very specific circumstances none of which apply to Pollard; their own standards for this can be found in the Foreign Affairs Manual (7 FAM 1222 et seq).

In short, for Pollard to lose U.S. citizenship, he must not only first leave the U.S. for Israel voluntarily (not “be deported”, as it is impossible to deport a U.S. citizen), but he must also make an in-person visit to the US embassy in Tel Aviv. quant18 (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed this quote-let that has crept in more than once: despite the fact that Israel was releasing convicted murderers at his behest.Jerusalem Post editorial, [ What about Pollard Mr. President].. The ref is opinion full of overwrought language and is not a reliable source. Please do not use this opinion piece as a reference.Anomalocaris (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence of this article states that “Jonathan Pollard is an American criminal …” This seems to me to violate, in spirit at least, Wikipedia’s NPOV requirement. Of course, anyone who is in jail/prison in a particular country is technically a “criminal”. So Martin Luther King was a “criminal”, dissidents in prison in Cuba or North Korea are “criminals”, etc. But the gratuitous use of this adjective here seems designed to convey more than the fact that this man pleaded guilty to espionage. I propose that it should be removed, but I would like to hear arguments for retaining it.

By the way, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to make the private judgement that this man is a “criminal”, in more than the technical sense. Or that he is a disturbed personality, a misguided immature idiot, a treasonous rat, or whatever. But such judgments don’t belong in a Wikipedia article. Doug1943 13:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug1943 (talk contribs) (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

A user partially reverted my edit, bringing inaccurate and incorrect information back to the lead section. It now says that “according to former F.B.I. deputy general counsel M.E. Bowman Pollard “has never expressed regret or admitted to harming Americas national security, and he has not applied for parole even though he is eligible.”

First, this sentence is misleading because it sounds like it’s saying that Pollard is eligible for parole, which is not true – he’s eligible to apply for it. Having explained this, that statement is apparently not even true. Pollard and his lawyers have applied for parole a few times in the past, as these two sources confirm: 1 and 2. Any comments? Yambaram (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

As of today (April 1, 2014), the lead section of this article is in need of clean-up.

Agreed. In more detail: “Pollard is the only person in US history to receive a life sentence for spying for an ally, and the only American citizen convicted of such a crime.” First, “spying for an ally” is not a crime on the books, so the language “such a crime” is incorrectly applied (and transparently POV). Second, it is not clear what the significance of spying for an ally as opposed to an enemy is. I can see arguments for either being more heinous. If it is supposed to be less heinous, a reference needs to be provided, especially if this is to go in the lead.

“Currently, the punishment for such a crime is set at a maximum of ten years.” This is an incorrect statement of the law. Espionage is of course a capital offense. There is a federal statute with a maximum sentence of 10 years, but that is not what this defendant pled guilty to. This is clear from the NYT provided reference. So this should go. Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

View post:

Talk:Jonathan Pollard/Archive 4 – Wikipedia

Related Post

February 4, 2018  Tags:   Posted in: Jonathan Pollard |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."