Talk:Mordechai Vanunu/Archive 3

Hitler Diaries
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Why? --Uncle Bungle 22:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's an egregious violation of 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)
 * 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 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


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

If you want to jab at me, argue the points instead of the person. If you had read talk, you would have seen that the objection I brought up has been made before by other editors in the past, and for a good reason.

Guy Montag 07:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I put the original reference to the Hitler Diaries based on comments I heard by Andrew Neil, reminiscing about the Vanunu story. (The Hitler Diaries hoax was a major embarrassment for The Sunday Times). My intention was absolutely not to seed the ideas wider of a Zeonist/Nazi conspiracy, but purely to express the climate of suspicion at The Sunday Times with regard to the accuracy of news sources during that period. I also thought that the (indirect) involvement of Hitler adds an ironic twist to the story and for that reason, the reference to the HDs is worth preserving. Regards Ade myers (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

More Guy Montag vandalism
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)

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

Kidnapping vs. Abduction.
Abduction means "To carry off by force"

Kidnapping means "To seize and detain unlawfully and usually for ransom."

Hence, kidnapping is both innacurate and pov because it carries the implied "unlawful" connotation with it.

Guy Montag 17:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You think what happened to him was lawful? Andy Mabbett 18:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes. But that doesn't matter, as the term "unlawful" already implies a pov.

Guy Montag 21:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I am unsure why you are arguing. Kidnaping and abduction mean the same thing to me. Abduction sounds equally as illegal.--JK the unwise 19:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The current U.S. euphemism for the same activity is "rendition". -Willmcw 21:33, July 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any law that allows abduction, kidnapping, or rendition without the approval of the relevant nation's magistrates. In this case the nation was Italy. If it was not lawful, then it is not POV to say so. If it was lawful according to Israeli law but not Italian law than we shold say that too. If an Italian magistrate gave an arrest and extradition warrant making it legal we shold say that. Whatever the verifiable sources indicate. Also, if some people have called it unlawful, and others dispute that term, then we need to report the dispute in an NPOV manner. -Willmcw 22:45, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

It was lawful according to Israeli law, as he was a citizen of Israel not Italy. Guy Montag 01:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * He was not in Israel at the time. He was kidnapped from Italy. --Tony Sidaway Talk 08:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If he was legaly detained then it would be neither abduction nor kidnaping. He was not arrested by Italian agents but by Israeli ones. Since the Israeli agents do not have duristiction in Italy he could not be legaly detained by them. Hence he was abducted from Italy to Israel were they could 'legaly' hold him. This is the default reading of the situation. If there were speical resons why the Israeli agents had power of arrest in Italy please could you point us to an article that shows this. Otherwise abduction/kidnaping/renition it is.--JK the unwise 10:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The words mean more or less the same, although abduction does not imply a ransom. Guy needs to buy a new dictionary. He was not legally seized. Kidnapping is not legal in Italy, even if the person you are kidnapping is your own national. You may feel it's laudable that he was snatched but you can hardly claim it was legal. Guy, these two words are equally negative. Kidnapping is just commoner, especially in connection with Vanunu (6700 Google hits for "Vanunu kidnapping" against 730 for "Vanunu abduction" -- I know it proves nothing, but it does indicate the usage). Grace Note 05:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather use the word which is most accurate. In this case, kidnapping is already innacurate. If you have a problem with the term abduction, another word can be found, as long as we strike kidnapping from our choice.

Guy Montag 18:43, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I am intentionally not reading the preceding comments, specifically because I do not want my predisposition for agreeing with Guy Montag to be used as a misguided weapon against me or my argument regarding what I perceive to be a disagreement over the use of one term instead of another. Let me start out by saying that "kidnapping" morphologically indicates to the native English-speaking mind that the abducted is a child.  This clearly is/was not the case with Vanunu.  Keeping that in mind, the use of the word "kidnapping" seems inflamatory.  At the same time, however, "abduction" implies something that is also not entirely accurate, as it implies pro forma, that Israeli agents acted in violation of international law.  While that may certainly be the case, WP is not an arbiter of whether or not "international law" is legitimate, a claim which Israel, in this case at the very least, would decry as "illegitmate".  In light of this, I propose that we disengage from the blatantly POV names for the action, and instead of either, say that he was "apprehended by Israeli operatives", or something to that effect.  Tomer TALK  07:12, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please read the preceding comments. Plus surely it is not international law but Italian law that is at issule here.--JK the unwise 07:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Fine. So he was "apprehended by covert Israeli operatives in Italy, and smuggled back to Israel". Look at that. No kidnapping. No abducting. No arguing. Let the Italian courts take care of that. Tomer TALK 19:08, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I agree.

Guy Montag 19:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

That's strange, you argue about kidnapping having connotations of the target being a child to native english speakers, which is quite obviously wrong. You then argue that abduction implies illegality, and then put forward a word(apprehended) that implies legality. Everything you said leads one to believe you are not here to promote npov, but to make falsehoods and obfuscate to remove any parts of the article that casts a bad light on Israel's actions here. - Bastion 09:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't waste my time on ad hominem. The word has already been decided.
 * Decided by you, who has the most reverts on this article, not by consensus. 86.2.153.12 17:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Guy Montag 16:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Bastion, I think the external links provided in the article do a wonderful job of forwarding your perspective. "Apprehended" does not imply legality, it implies that the agents did their job.  Even people who are unjustly imprisoned are "apprehended".  Tomer TALK  22:38, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Incorrect, apprehended has nothing to do with "doing their jobs", likewise neither does kidnapping, even though that is likely what their orders were. 86.2.153.12 17:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 

ap·pre·hend  Audio pronunciation of "apprehended" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (pr-hnd) v. ap·pre·hend·ed, ap·pre·hend·ing, ap·pre·hends v. tr.

1. To take into custody; arrest: apprehended the murderer. 2. To grasp mentally; understand: a candidate who apprehends the significance of geopolitical issues. 3. To become conscious of, as through the emotions or senses; perceive.

Has clear implications that this was in some way legal. It was not. 62.252.0.7 23:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we should stick with kidnap. All the other words, even (oddly) abduction, seem to be part of attempts to push some point of view into the article. --Tony Sidaway Talk  08:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps most of us can agree at least that, being carried out without any kind of warrant or extradition hearing, the taking by force of Mordecai Vanunu from Italy to Israel was illegal.

If so then perhaps it follows that we can replace kidnapped/abducted whatever with "unlawfully apprehended". --Tony Sidaway Talk 08:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This was the most rational recommendation yet, but I see even its proposer has chosen to disregard it. Tomer TALK  10:27, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree "Apprehended" is wroung it implies legal authority something which is at best at issule here. Not sure whats wroung with "Abduction"? That said I'm happy with "Kidnapping" I just thought it would be easyier to come to a consensous over abduction as Guy Montag seems to have a specific problem with "kidnapping".--JK the unwise 08:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well I don't particularly care about Guy's problem because he obviously can't even bring himself to admit that it's unlawful to mess around taking people by force from one country to another without even asking permission. On the distinction, I think kidnap is a plainer, better understood word than abduct.  Therefore it's the better word to use here.  Vanunu's own word, "hijack", would also be plain and easily understood. Would that be acceptable? --Tony Sidaway Talk  08:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The absurdity and POV-pushing is now patently obvious. I'm happy to leave it alone, if for no other reason, than that the POV-pushers have succeeded in their efforts to make the entire section grammatically incorrect.  Good job on making Wikipedia sound like it's being written by illiterates.  "His kidnap" indeed.  Tomer TALK  10:27, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * How is kidnapping POV pushing? I purposely left several "abducts", where it was specifically mentioned in the same area that he was abducted in italy, but illegally taken to Israel(i.e. smuggled).

Legal dictionaries and historical usage all lead to the conclusion that kidnapping is more correct for when someone is abducted from one country to another. If the entire section is grammatically incorrect, perhaps you should blame Guy's frequent edit's. (btw, 82.80.39.166 is an IP from bezeqint.net and whose only contribution has been two reverts on two articles) Oh and before accusing others of POV pushing, look at your patently absurd first edit on this page(kidnapping" morphologically indicates to the native English-speaking mind that the abducted is a child.) -Bastion
 * "patently absurd"? Is there something you fail to understand about the morphology or etymology of the word "kidnap"?  Or are you just being a troll?  Tomer TALK  06:19, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * There's something you fail to understand about the word kidnap, by your logic, kidnapping implies that the person kidnapped is "Young, black, from Africa and kidnapped to be sold to plantation owners in North America". If that was true, the word would never be used in modern times, however your usage of the worlds "morphology" and "etymology" show that you quite clearly dont understand what these branches of linguistics actually are, or what their purpose is.
 * Morphology indicates nothing to the native english speaker, nor is its purpose(studying where words came from) what you stated it was.
 * Morphology is the study of word structure in all possible languages.
 * How that indicates anything to native english speakers, I would love to know.
 * Etymology may be more applicable, but even that doesnt make people suddenly start treating a word as meaning the same as it did in historical times.


 * To sum it up: You seem to have used the morphology argument purely in the hopes that no-one would actually know enough about the subject to point out your falsehoods.


 * Next time you try BS people to make the article more POV, get an argument that isnt so obviously flawed. --Bastion 10:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * (p.s., sorry for the rant, but I hate people who POV-Push, and I especially hate people who lie when they POV-Push)
 * So now you impute bad faith to my assertion. I submit to you that nobody thinks Vanunu was a kid, and that anyone who does, according to your ideas regarding morphology and etymology, would have no idea what a "dognapper" has done.  Tomer TALK  10:09, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Great, should have known you would respond with a strawman. "My ideas" regarding morphology and etymology can be seen as correct by simply googling either, or looking on wikipedia.
 * You "submit" to me that no-one thinks Vanunu is a kid, yet your objection to using "kidnapping" was that it morphologically implied that he was a child.(despite morphology having nothing to do with it, kidnapping being a word widely used in law and media).
 * Please dont insult yourself more by using strawman arguments, or other logical fallacies. --Bastion 10:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Whistle-blowing?
The term "Whistle-blowing" cannot be correct. "Whistle-blowing" is exposure of fraud by an employee. Publicizing state or military secrets is not "whistle-blowing"; depending on your point of view, it's treason, espionage, or heroism. I don't see Jonathan Pollard's actions described as "whistle-blowing". Jayjg (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course it is Whistle blowing. Your definition is might convenient.  The expresion comes from the action of a referee in a footbal match when he spots a foul and there is no doubt that Vanunu spotted a foul. Israel's actions were in violation of the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty --Red King 20:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Israel is not a member of the Nuclear non proliferation treaty.

Guy Montag 18:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

My definition comes from the dictionary, so it's hardly "convenient", and Israel is not a signatory of the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty, so its actions are entirely legal, just as the actions of the United States, U.K., France, etc. in creating nuclear power and/or nuclear weapons are also legal. It is only if a country signs the treaty, gains access to nuclear power, and then produces weapons, that its actions are illegal. Jayjg (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Israel is not a side to that treaty. Will revert. Please explain yourself if you still think Vanunu is a whistleblower. gidonb  20:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Red King is missing the point. A "whistleblower" is a person within an organization who makes public some information which that organization would like to keep secret, irrespective issues of legality. Jonathan Pollard was a spy, so obviously he didn't make anything public. It's not an ideal word, but obviously none of the words you mention are suitable, and neither were any others I could think of. – Smyth\talk 20:57, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * A "whistleblower" is not just a person who makes any information public, but makes information regarding illegal activity public. Legality is at the heart of the definition.  People convicted of insider trading are not "whistleblowers", nor are people who publish unflattering information about their companies on their blogs. Jayjg (talk)  21:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * By this logic any journalist who makes information public would be a whistleblower. gidonb  21:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that people who publish information about their companies on their blogs which would be widely perceived as wrongdoing would be whistleblowers, whether or not the acts were legal. – Smyth\talk 21:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * And if they just talked about internal politics, and who was sleeping with how, and how cheap the company was, and how bad the coffee tasted, would that be whistleblowing? How about if they published internal documents outlining the company strategy?  The specs on unreleased products?  Source code? According to the Columbia Encyclopedia, whistle-blowing is "exposure of fraud and abuse by an employee." Not just exposure of secrets. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  21:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * None of the things you mention have anything to do with wrongdoing. From our old friend the OED: To blow the whistle on (a person or thing): to bring an activity to a sharp conclusion, as if by the blast of a whistle; now usu[ally] by informing on (a person) or exposing (an irregularity or crime). – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 21:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly. That's why none of them are whistle-blowing. If Israel is indeed making nuclear weapons, that is no more a crime than if the United States or France does so. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That is completely beside the point, even ignoring that US may be in current violation of the NNPT by developing new nukes (again calling into question your analogy). Just because John can hit Carol doesn't mean that Bob is justified in hitting Carol or Marcy.  That a country can opt out of the non-proliferation treaty at any time or choose not to join it also makes the issue of "legality" somewhat arbitrary.  It is as rediculous as someone who stalked a woman not getting punished for it simply because he "never promised not to stalk her" in the first place.  What isn't arbitrary is morality, and even more appropriate, internal consistency.  Israel is now drawing up battle plans against Iran (a signatory of the NNPT), for developing a reactor that is incapable of producing weapons-grade plutonium let alone allowing covert removal of fuel.  In contrast, Israel's nuclear reactor is ideal for weapons production and covert removal of fuel.  Israel's position is inconsistent in this respect and even hypocritical, because it is punishing Vanunu for holding a position similar to its own international policy.  If whistle-blowing doesn't apply to this double-standard (which Israel hid by keeping its program secret and punishing...whistleblowers), then something else certainly does.
 * Your Carol/Mary analogy is faulty. John may not hit Carol or Mary becuase that is a crime known as Assult (and/or Battery). Developing nukes is not similarly a crime. You are welcome to the POV that is should be a crime, but there is no intrenational law that says this. You are incorrect with regard to the "arbitrary" nature of NNPT. What makes the Iranian action sillegal under International law is that they signed on to the NNPT, which meant hey took an obligation NOT to develop nukes, recieved international aid for their peaceful nuclear research under that agreement - and then developed nukes using that aid. That is illegal. COuntires that did not sign on to the NNPT to begin with are not under simialr obligations. Isarig 18:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Your position is one of parroting propaganda that coincides with Israel and US gov't POV. See the following, and the credentials of its authors.    EthanAY 19:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything there that contradicts what I wrote, nor am I impressed with the credentials of a nuclear engineer as an expert on international law. The article contains at leas one clear falsehood - 'all of Iran's nuclear facilities are open for inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in compliance with treaty guarantees." - see Isarig 19:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because something wrong and/or secret (serving to hide any inconsistencies) isn't illegal yet doesn't mean whistle-blowing doesn't apply. In fact, it makes the job of the whistle-blower that much more difficult and dangerous.

I believe the matter of consistency is relevant to this article--whether that includes whistle-blowing though is another discussion. Certainly it is worth mentioning that Israel's continued punishment of Vanunu stands in contrast to its international policy stance--that it effectively is saying that Israel can have nuclear power and weapons while other countries that it labels as enemies cannot have nuclear power.EthanAY 18:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion on whether Israel's nuclear weapons are illegal. What matters is that a very large number of people believed that they were wrong, and so Vanunu's was a whistleblower just as would be, say, an employee who revealed that an executive was sleeping with his wife, even though nobody would suggest that that was illegal.


 * However, like I said above, I agree that it's a clumsy word, so if someone can suggest another title for that section that avoids the whole "kidnapping" argument, I'd be very happy. – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 21:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Our article on whistleblowers includes Daniel Ellsberg, whose case seems analogous in some respects to Vanunu's. -Willmcw 21:15, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps in some respects. Perhaps he should be removed as an example in that article. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  21:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Usage of "Whistleblower" in media and common usage are of more interest to me than an outdated encyclopedia or dictionary.(which are reknowned for being slow to update according to newer usage/definitions) (  and a few hundred more just off google) Common usage of whistleblower seems to be more: One who reports on conduct/action/flaws within a company(or governmental entity) or it's product, that the company already knows but has failed to report - that is of significant interest(for varying reasons, to varying people/entities). Considering Israel has never acknowledged it has a nuclear program, and that it must know it has one, and that it's of great import to public knowledge to everyone in the middle east, and in large parts of the arab/western world - it's fair to call what Vanunu did whistleblowing.

(All in my opinion of course.) Bastion 06:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

This is silly. Of course he's a whistle blower. --Tony Sidaway Talk 07:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Personal opinions, beliefs that dictionaries and encyclopedias use "outdated" definitions, or assertions of the "of course he is, arguing differently is silly" don't really stand up against Wikipedia policy. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * What's silly is the "Oh no he isn't" response. The facts speak for themselves. --Red King 17:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * More important than assertions are evidence; bring some. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I hope Jayjg won't keep clinging to his one dictionary definition that limits whistle-blowing to cases of fraud; I refuse to get into dictionary wars on this because modern usage of the term is such as to place the likes of Vanunu squarely within the class of Whistleblowers. Vanunu blew the whistle on the secret development of weapons of mass destruction by Israel. --Tony Sidaway Talk 18:49, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Not just one dictionary definition; several such defintions, and encylopedia definitions as well. Vanunu revealed state secrets, which is usually called "treason"; he didn't "blow the whistle" on any illegal activity.  If you have evidence that "modern usage" of the word includes Vanunu's actions, please bring it forward. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  21:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Oxford University Press: Blow the whistle on: colloq. bring (an activity) to an end; inform on (those resonsible) Quod erat demonstrandum. --Red King 22:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * He doesn't appear to have brought anything to an end, nor informed on anyone in particular. The Israeli government itself had hinted for decades that it might have bombs, as part of its policy of "Nuclear ambiguity". Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Since our article on whistleblowing is being regarded as authoritative, instead of one published in a dusty crusty dictionary some editors would like to conveniently classify as "outdated" simply because it doesn't jibe with the way they want to see the world, let me quote from that article:
 * " A whistleblower is an employee or former employee of an organization who reports misconduct to people or entities that have the power to take corrective action. Generally the misconduct is a violation of law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest -- fraud, health, safety violations, and corruption are just a few examples. [...] "

So how unsafe did you want? In the hands of a nut-case, the potential to destroy the planet! --Red King 22:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Until someone can say what the misconduct was, Vanunu was not a whistleblower. He's a criminal for violating his vow of secrecy.  If there were misconduct going on, then clearly a higher law comes into effect, but no claims of illegal conduct were ever reported by Vanunu.  Since his violation of his vow of secrecy undermined his country, he is also a traitor, so he should be included in Category:Traitors.  The only way I can see our definition being used to describe Vanunu as a "whistleblower" is if people are arguing that the existence of Israel's alleged nuclear program (something which has yet to be proven) is a direct threat to public interest.  That's a POV, however.  WP has a policy against POV writing.  Consequently, until someone can bring forward the evidence requested by Jayjg above, I'm re-re-re-re-removing this erroneous category.  Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK  21:59, August 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * The assertion that Vanunu "undermined his country" is POV of the Israeli gov't, as it could easily be argued that he is supporting his country by discouraging nuclear proliferation (as is Vanunu's POV). At least both these POV's should be represented in the article, especially as they are part of an ongoing and unresolved trial.  Moreover, standard whistleblower protection clauses protect whistleblowers from punishments that would otherwise be incurred from violating "codes of secrecy."  For instance, divulging corporate secrets is also a violation of law, until it is done in the context of accusing the corporation of secretive wrongdoing.  That is to say, the central question here is:  Did Vanunu divulge secrets just for the sake of divulging secrets, or did he do it in the context of accusing Israel of wrongdiong?  The evidence IMO points to the latter, though we should certainly open this up to debate.  If we look at historical precedent of whistleblowing, we see that the first whistleblowers went public about secrets that were not necessarily illegal, but became illegal when they were discovered.  Again, the same with protections.


 * Even though the above requires that the world have an international body that can keep individual rogue nations in check on a fair and just basis, this is applicable becuase of my aforementioned argument that, based on available information, Israel has an internally inconsistent stance on nuclear technology (as does the US, et al). This point remains relevant to this article until Israel adopts an internally consistent position, at which point it remains historically relevant.  While the matter of whether Israel has nukes is unresolved, it is certainly proven that Israel has opted for the capability to produce them on a whim, and yet speciously denies other sovereign nations should have that same capability without giving up its own ability to do so (i.e., changing its reactor type).EthanAY 19:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your public confession of 3RR vio.  --Red King 22:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Is this another case of something being "self evident"? Who violated 3RR?  Who confessed to it?  Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK  22:53, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Huh? Perhaps you should read WP:3RR. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, please note: Categorization "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.". Clearly this is neither self-evident nor uncontroversial. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  21:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It is self evident and uncontroversial to the entire rest of the free world. --Red King 22:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * LOL! Love these kinds of assertions.  Somehow it doesn't seem so to the editors of this page. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  22:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine, in that case I agree that he should be left out of Whistleblowers, and by the same token, left out of Traitors if anyone tries to put him in there. – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 17:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

People are so hung up on labels, I don't get it. Sigh. If he exposed illegal behavior (for example if Israel had ratified the non-proliferation treaty and was secretly violating it), he would be a whistleblower. He didn't. If he exposed delicate information which his own country wanted to keep secret, he was a traitor. He did. Both these decisions are got by applying the definitions without any sort of moral reasoning. Legally he was a traitor; that doesn't prevent you from regarding him as a hero if you wish. --Zero 01:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. From an Israeli POV he may be a traitor. I guess most Wikipedia users may agree that divulging information (like he did) is generally a good thing

Well.. If he is not a whistle-blower, then the issue is on what he then is to be called. By some considered a traitor, by others a hero, but the term 'hero' is not spesific enough to describe so. Neither is traitor, i would say.. 'By some considered a spy, by others considered a i.e. conscientious objector or similar?' Whistle-blower is indeed the best term so far. But remember: both wiews should be included in the article. Martinor


 * No, WP should not use sensationalist headers in the newspapers for categorization. Per Categorization: Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Im no expert but the fact that Israel is a memeber of the UN and its weapons policy is at least some degree governed by the UN I think they are doing something illegal by creating nuclear weapons in violation of the UN's policy of non-proliferation. Since Israel is not a part of this treaty then of course it isn't as bad is if they were and then went on to produce nuclear weapons. However, to some degree, I still think Israel creating nuclear weapons without declaring waht it is doing to the UN and covertly hiding this fact they are actually breaking some form of international law or other, if they produced nuclear weapons and declared they were doing so I think it would be legal, if so then Vanunu was a 'whistleblower'.


 * Humus, is an article titled "List of ..." a defacto category? --Uncle Bungle 03:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Guy Montag
Is there a wikipedia method of requesting an admin to deal with him? He has consistently ignored others views(including when they are in the majority) and insisted on reverting. Just now, he reverted a much cleaner intro for no reason other than he wanted to ignore opinion and vandalise some more. -Bastion 06:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Your best option is to put his "recent changes page" on your watch list and if you think what he has just done is vandalism edit the article accordingly. 62.252.0.7 10:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Care to tell a poor plebe how? :) --Bastion 11:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Special:Contributions/Guy Montag, although in this case, I think "n00b" is more appropriate than "plebe". Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK  06:20, August 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Plebe isnt offensive, n00b is designed to be. So who's trolling? --Bastion 10:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know where you are, but "plebe" has always been used as a denegratory term for "peon". There's nothing offensive about n00b, it simply means "someone who doesn't know the system yet".  If you'd clicked on "My contributions" in the upper right of your window and replaced "Bastion" with "Guy_Montag" you'd have gotten the same thing.  And, guess what, you wouldn't have had to accuse me of belittling for trying to help you out either.  Tomer <sup style="font-size:x-small; color:#129DBC;">TALK  10:12, August 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * newbie/newb arent offensive, noob and especially n00b are. If you dont agree and want to state more "facts", just look at definitions and word usage at places like large forums, or urbandictionary.com(and check the ratings).

Plebe comes from the roman working class, but became popular because of the naval academy. Both can be insults, but considering I called myself a plebe, who am I to feel insulted? --Bastion 10:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedians seem to find ANYTHING possible to argue about. Exasperation.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.67.202.168 (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Two comments.
(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)


 * 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\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 19:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)

Why doesn't it make any sense?

Guy Montag 18:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Because he has always been bound by his non-disclosure contract, but he has not always had these restrictions placed upon him. – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 19:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, now that he has released classified information the Israeli government feels that he is still a national security threat and have used his non disclosure agreement, that didn't stop him the first time from revealing information, to get a court order to insert additional restrictions for security measures. I think that makes plenty of sense.

Guy Montag 19:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 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)

That too, makes sense.

Guy Montag 02:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Reverts
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\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 11:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Israeli criminals
A criminal is a person who has committed a crime. A person who has been convicted of one is a convict. Many criminals have never been convicts, and many convicts have never been criminals. If the category is to stay, it has to be reworded.

Lapsed Pacifist 17:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Then to be consistent, you must make the wider proposal to rename Category:Criminals by nationality and all of its many subcategories. – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 18:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

OK.

Lapsed Pacifist 19:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

There's thirteen national subcategories in Category:Criminals by nationality. Only Israel and Poland have this definition, which I consider subjective: "citizens or permanent residents who have been convicted of crime by an independent court of justice." The others have none, so I don't see the problem with them.

Lapsed Pacifist 19:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * One cannot subjectively decide who is or isn't a criminal, certainly not on Wikipedia; the only way it can be decided is if someone is convicted of a crime in a court of law by an independent judiciary. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

A criminal does not suddenly become a criminal when he is convicted. He becomes a convict. The definition given for Poles and Israelis is inaccurate, and cannot stand.

Lapsed Pacifist 01:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There must be some objective criteria for deciding who a criminal is, otherwise people just make subjective judgements, and soon we have George W. Bush in the list of American criminals, Fidel Castro in the list of Cuban criminals, Yasser Araft in the list of Palestinian criminals, etc. You can't decide on your own who a criminal is or isn't, and any attempt to apply your own purely subjective critera cannot stand. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  02:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the problem here is that LP thinks that "criminal" = "a person who has committed a crime", while Jayjg thinks that "criminal" = "a person who has been convicted of a crime". Both definitions are reasonable, and whether you support Vanunu or not, you must agree that he fits both of them. – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 16:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"Criminal" is still a subjective term. Many contend that Vanunu should be celebrated for what he did, as others do for Castro, Bush and Arafat. In order to have "objective criteria for deciding who a criminal is", we must have similarly objective criteria for deciding what a crime is. In Iran, adultery is a crime. In Singapore, chewing gum in a public place makes one a criminal. This is not the case in the United States or most of the western world. Most people would consider Adolf Hitler a war criminal, yet as he was never convicted of war crimes, by Jayjg's definition he is not. I have no intention of deciding on my own who is and who is not a criminal, which is why I am writing these lines. If some believe I'm being subjective, well, you're entitled to believe what you like.

Lapsed Pacifist 13:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, but if "Israeli criminal" means "person who has committed or been convicted of a crime in Israel", doesn't he still fit? I'm not sure if it is a useful category, but it could certainly be a valid one. (I have nothing against Vanunu, mind you) --Fastfission 14:01, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

That's the definition given for just Israelis and Poles, but no other nationalities. My points are that someone convicted of a crime is not necessarily a criminal, and that many criminals (e.g. Jack the Ripper) have never been convicted of any crime, which is why I consider it a subjective definition.

Lapsed Pacifist 14:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If you don't go by people who are convicted of crime, then you have no possible way of coming up with anything objective. Who decides, if not a court of law; Wikipedia editors? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 05:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

If we go by people who are convicted of a crime, then we have exactly that: people convicted of a crime. Courts of law don't make criminals. Crimes do. Don't underestimate Wikipedia editors, we're not doing too badly so far.

Lapsed Pacifist 14:12, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me make this very clear: are you proposing that:
 * the "... Criminals" categories all have a restriction placed on them that the person in question is currently viewed as being a criminal by the legal system of any country whatsoever; and
 * people not fitting these criteria, including Jack the Ripper, but not including Vanunu, are removed from the categories?
 * I think a more sensible proposal would be to rename the categories to "People convicted of a crime in (country)", and then recategorise them by the convicting country, rather than the convict's nationality. – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 17:10, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Independent courts are the bodies best suited to determining whether or not people have committed crimes; certainly far better than Wikipedia editors, who are, in any case, forbidden from making these determinations under the WP:NOR rule. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * But how can we determine whether a court is "independent"? Isn't that making a judgement about the integrity of a country's legal system? – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 16:41, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The U.S. State Department produces an annual report on Human Rights in countries, which includes how independent their judiciary is:. I'm fairly sure Freedom House does as well, but right now their website is hanging my browser. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Vanunu was convicted of a crime. Jack the Ripper was not. I don't think it's very original research to accuse someone who cuts up women of being a criminal. Why not present the facts without unnecessary labels, and let users make up their own minds? I'm not going to go into how independent the State Department's view might be. Did it consider the British courts in India to be independent? That would make Gandhi an Indian criminal.

Lapsed Pacifist 19:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * ... and all of this would be avoided if the categories were by the convicting country rather than the convict's country of origin. I'd guess that 9 times out of 10 these will be the same. – Smyth\<sup style="color:gray;">talk 21:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it seem the issue has been discussed. Yeah, I saw the article and almost went nuts. I was planning to whine bitterly here, but then found a lenthy discussion. I don't think conviction by country is also far. Just be real please, if you look at the other people in that category, they have taken someone else life. How can you put this guy in that group? If he is a criminal, are we supposed to call Aung San Suu Kyi criminal too?

Unless someone wants to rename it, I'm going to get rid of it.

Lapsed Pacifist 16:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Please don't do so, as it will just be restored. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It will just be restored? I should walk away?

Lapsed Pacifist 15:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, you've proposed a rather unworkable scheme whereby you get to decide who the real "criminals" are, and who aren't, as opposed to some sort of outside body (e.g. an independent Court of Law) making that determination. I don't see how your POV could possibly be compatible with Wikipedia policy. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 04:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Where was this scheme proposed? I don't recall doing so. And don't you consider a scheme whereby you get to decide what makes a court independent similarly unworkable? How could anyone's POV be compatible with Wikipedia policy?

Lapsed Pacifist 14:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest sticking to the criteria of "who is an Israeli criminal" which I defined in this category that I created. Again, the inclusion or non-inclusion in this category is not a value judgment on the character of the individual, only a statement that the person was an Israeli at the time of his trial or any time before and that he was convicted in an independent court. This is the most NPOV way of defining who is a criminal. I do believe there are more criminals out there. They did not pass the same or even similar legal procedures to the three which are now in the category - I am thinking of including Baruch Goldstein - and therefore it would be POV (in the case of Goldstein also my POV) to include them. The criteria maximize the objectivity of the category, whereas our opinions are valid POV, but not more than that. gidonb 02:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You may not have intended a value judgment, but that is how it reads. If the title of the category was more closely related to its definition, perhaps this could be avoided. Neither am I happy with the criteria of using "independent courts". Independent from whom? Politicians? If Iran's courts can be shown to be independent in this way, must Wikipedia consider all Iranian adulterers and homosexuals criminal?

Lapsed Pacifist 20:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist, I am very glad you give the example of Iran, because it perfectly illustrates my point. In a non-democracy a court can never be independent, because of the consequences to the judges when acquitting the "wrong" "criminals". gidonb 18:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I will repeat my edit summary here: Mordechai Vanunu meets the criteria of the category. It is clear POV to only include convicted criminals of one side of Israel's political spectrum, even if one sympathizes with that side of the spectrum. gidon 18:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't claim Iran's courts were independent, I asked, if they were, would Wikipedia then consider Iranian adulterers and homosexuals criminal? Your reference to sympathy with one side of Israel's political spectrum tells me you're not getting where I'm coming from. Yigal Amir shouldn't be in this category either. Both of these men, in different ways, affected modern Israel. Both were politically motivated. To include them in a category that would be more fitting for pickpockets and pimps trivialises the men, their actions and the consequences of those actions.

Lapsed Pacifist 15:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've asked about this on the mailing list, and so far the only working definition of a criminal that has been forwarded is someone convicted of a crime by an independent judiciary. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 21:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Vanunu said Israel behind JFK assassination
The link to:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer&cid=1090725927691&p=1078027574121

does not work. Did it ever work? Was it a guess by him, or what did he base those statements on?


 * I move the whole thing to this page. The link does not work and it should probably not be included in the page, and most definitely not the way it was included. Perhaps someone can make some use of it on the JFK conspiracy theory page. gidonb 03:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

See also: Kennedy assassination theories .''
 * (copied by gidonb on 03:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC) and not written by me) ''The arrest came three months after Vanunu said in an interview that Israel was behind the John F. Kennedy assassination. In the interview he had said the assassination was due to "pressure [ Kennedy ] exerted on then-head of government David Ben-Gurion to shed light on Dimona's nuclear reactor." (see .)


 * Wiki help states that the link should stay in the article: What to do when a reference link "goes dead"


 * There is a seperate policy on trivia, conspiracy theories and sortlike wisdoms. It can be included in wikiquote, if it isn't already there. gidonb 12:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Images
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)

Mordechai Vanunu vs. Abdurrahman of Afghanistan
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)
 * 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)

Hoaa! Fully translated to portuguese! Mordechai Vanunu / Simoes

Early Life
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)

today in the history
"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)

Introduction
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)

Whistleblower
I've noticed that some editors want to categorize Vanunu as a "whistleblower." It is not uncommon for spies and traitors to believe that they are serving a higher purpose - see Arne Treholt, for example, but it is not our business to determine whether they are or aren't. What is known is that Vanunu disclosed information that was entrusted him as state secrets, and that he was convicted of treason for doing so. Nothing of what he disclosed could be construed as illegal activity under the WP definition of whistleblower. Unless we are prepared to give Vidkun Quisling, Kim Philby, Benedict Arnold, etc., the benefit of believing their rationalization, we should not do that much for Vanunu. --Leifern 20:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Leifern, it is not up to us to determine wether or not something is true. Vanunu has been called a whistle blower by a number of reliable sources (see below). --Uncle Bungle 06:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your assertions&mdash;which, by the way, are positively dripping with what's known as "POV" around here&mdash;coincide with that small group here that seems to have seized control of any aspects of this article that may impugn the pristine reputation of the State of Israel (not). You've proposed some examples which support your argument of traitorous conduct by Vanunu; by the narrow definition of "whistleblower" that you and others want to restrict us to, not even Daniel Ellsberg would be considered a whistleblower (which is how he is regarded by practically every historian), since, technically speaking, the Vietnam War was not illegal when he stole and published the Pentagon Papers. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I won't bother to exchange insults with you. The facts of the matter are that Vanunu did not disclose illegal or even immoral information; on the contrary, his disclosures were illegal in Israel, as they would be illegal in every country. The Pentagon Papers did indeed disclose illegal activities and several other matters that were in the public interest. Ellsberg did not, by contrast, disclose information that related to American national security interests, though he presumably had access to these as well. --Leifern 21:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ILike2BeAnonymous, your neutral and civil post (not) says more about yourself than about the subject. OTOH, Leifern makes sense. But hey, I must be in "that small group here that seems to have seized control". Boo. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Are there sources complying with WP:RS that label him as whistleblower? --tickle me 23:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How about Haaretz? --Uncle Bungle 00:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Or the BBC and their documentary "Israel's Secret Weapon"? . Re-add to cat. --Uncle Bungle 00:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And to remove any doubt, this reference from the article Cohen, Yoel. The Whistleblower of Dimona: Israel, Dimona & the Bomb.. --Uncle Bungle 00:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You can easily find hundreds of sources calling George W. Bush a "Nazi", but you'll still violate WP:NPOV by placing him into Category:Nazis. Beit Or 14:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any dispute about what he did, i.e., disclose information that he consented to have entrusted to him. But in order for it to be whistleblowing, the information had to fulfill certain criteria. Whether they do, is - to put it mildly - a matter of dispute. Some people might want to categorize Vanunu as a "self-hating scumbag," but that would be equally POV as to label him as something remotely heroic. As for the BBC, it's a sensationalist polemic, nothing else. --Leifern 14:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, Hamas is categorised as a "designated terrorist group," because no matter how much someone may support them, they cannot deny that certain states do designate Hamas in that manner. However it is just a POV to call them terrorists, and the same is true of calling Vanunu a whistleblower.  Tewfik <sup style="color:#888888;">Talk 16:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There are reliable sources describing Vanunu as a traitor; should he be included in that category? Logically speaking it is more accurate. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What would one call someone who illegally discloses state secrets? As I said, virtually every traitor thought that he/she was serving a higher purpose by betraying his/her state. Maybe some were, but that's not for us to decide. As for Tewfik's point, it is worth noting that the category is "designated terrorist group" rather than "terrorist group." If I had it my way, we'd set up a category called "anti-Zionist propaganda front figures," too. But if that's POV, so is the term "whistleblower" for Vanunu. --Leifern 17:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of issues raised here, so lets quickly discuss.
 * Beit, thats not entirely accurate. You could, for example, write "George Bush has been characterized by some as being a Nazi" and link reliable sources to that effect. All you have to do to balance it is write "George Bush claims he is not a Nazi" and reference another source. See the long running discussion here. Is this not accurate Jayjg?
 * Jayjg, by all means, if you have a number of reliable sources calling him a traitor, then put him in that categoy as well. As you have aptly put, the mission here is verifibility, not truth.
 * Leifern, whatever you call him doesn't matter because thats not what we do here. It's all about verifibility, not truth.
 * Vanunu has been called a whistle blower by a number of reliable sources (Haaretz and BBC, see above), so I see no reason why he shouldn't be included in that category.
 * --Uncle Bungle 00:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Replying to Leifern Jayjg above, who I think was the one who broached this: I don't care if you go ahead and create and stick this article in it. Go ahead if it makes you feel better. I'm sure it would run into lots opposition, but not from me.
 * Just for a couple other counter-examples: I'm sure you could find lots of folks who would brand John Brown a "terrorist" in retrospect, as well as Sacco and Vanzetti, even though the weight of historical opinion would not support that view.
 * In the end, all that really can be said is that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"; perhaps it should be left at that. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. Terrorism has, as it should, have an objective definition, namely the tactic of deliberately targeting non-combatants for the purpose of furthering a political means. Whether one thinks Sacco and Vanzetti, or John Brown, pursued worthy causes, it is still possible to examine their methods for pursuing those causes and ascertain whether they amounted to terrorism. To me it's clear that Vanunu is made a hero for the sole reason that he vilified Israel, and it's telling that there are people out there who think that in itself is a worthy cause. You may disagree. But there should be objective standards for characterizing him as a whistleblower. --Leifern 04:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Leifern, you seem to be making an argument, that isn't what we do here. Wikipedia relies on verifiable, reliable sources. We don't do our own analysis of comments made in reliable sources, we simply repeat what reliable sources have said. The BBC and Harretz aren't just random websites publishing POV without oversight. Here we have legitimate sources calling Vanunu a whistle blower. Regardless of the cause Vanunu pursued, or the means by which he pursued it, he has clearly been identified as a whistle blower. I would kindly ask that you refrain from further removal of the category, as the grounds for its inclusion have been firmly established. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle 05:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The issue of "verifiability" vs. "truth" is a red-herring here. Claims placed in the text of an article must be verifiable, and controversial claims should be attributed to their source. The footnotes and qualifiers in article allow for a nuanced reading of exactly what a term means; categories are simply bald assertions. Categories are only used for undisputed items; there's a reason Categorization states Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. Given that Vanunu does not actually meet the technical definition of a whistle-blower, and considering the wildly divergent views regarding his actions, it's obvious that this non-self-evident and highly controversial categorization should not be made. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To add to Jayjg's explanation, I am not disputing that some editors/journalists/pundits call Vanunu a whistleblower, and that this point of view is presented in credible sources. But that still isn't an indisputable assertion. We can find other characterizations of him in equally credible sources, but that doesn't mean we should slap every one on him because they appeared there. --Leifern 16:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur. In order to categorize him there should be a public consent on the label's applicability. Is he more often qualified as whistleblower or as traitor? As far as I can see, some sources and authors present in the article call him whistleblower, which is warranted insofar as they are notable. However, I fail to see a consent, it's a matter of POV in the end. --tickle me 16:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In addition, I note that editors found it impossible to add Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to Category:Anti-Semitic people, even though I provided almost 20 reliable sources stating that he was an antisemite. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 16:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So for categories, it's truth and verifibility''? Thats fair enough. Thanks for the clarification. Cheers. --Uncle Bungle 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Alternative
I propse replacing


 * The Israeli government still considers him a traitor. Some in Israel disagree. Issam Makhoul, head of the Communist Party of Israel and a former member of Knesset, calls Vanunu "not a traitor," but "an Israeli hero."

with


 * Vanunu has been characterized by some as a whistle blower (references here), but the Israeli government still considers him a traitor.

I think this reflects the discussion above, where a common theme was "cat traitor and cat whistle blower are both inapropriate". Regardless, I don't think the remarks from the head of the Communist Party of Israel belongs in the lead.

Given the contention within this article, I figured it was easier to discuss first. Comments?

Cheers

--Uncle Bungle 05:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've NPOVd it and added sources. It's not just the Israeli government who considers him a traitor. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it, won't argue. BTW I only said Israeli Govt because they're an authoritative source qualified to label him as a traitor. Cheers, thanks, --Uncle Bungle 03:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. Do you really need four references? I just think it looks cluttered. Maybe pick your best two and leave it at that? --Uncle Bungle 04:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

His being a traitor is not just a matter of opinion. Someone who discloses state secrets - especially when he/she has voluntarily committed to keeping them - is a traitor also by objective, legal standards. Now, I recognize that some people think that Vanunu complied with a moral obligation that supersedes the legal, and we should obviously include that in the picture. But if someone thinks that what he did is not treason, they have to explain why not. If they think he committed treason, but for a morally justifiable reason, they should explain that.

Also, I want to point out that most of the international community deplores what Vanunu did, but object to the circumstances of his arrest and the nature of his confinement. --Leifern 12:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of the international community? Wow, thats impressive. Someone surveyed the human race on this one insignificant issue. Can you please provide a link to that stastic? "Most of the international community".


 * Now lets cover this "objective, legal standard". The laws for Treason vary from state to state. For example, in Australia and New Zeland the disclosure of state secrets isn't listed as a an act of treason. In Canada it could be argued in court that the photographs don't, on their own, endanger the country. Seems to me that there is no such thing as an "objective, legal standard". Especially one adopted by the "international community". Cheers. --Uncle Bungle 14:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Being said to be "convicted of treason" has a very different moral valence than simply saying someone is "a traitor". Wikipedia's NPOV policy makes very clear that the former is to be preffered over the latter in any controversial circumstances. --Fastfission 20:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Q: Isn't Vanunu first and foremost guilty of breach of contract? I mean, he did sign a confidentiality agreement, no? This aspect, not even mentioned in the article, would give a much better NPOV view - breaching confidentiality is undisputed, and I've yet to hear of a country where you can just forgo a signed agreement at no consequence(though the specific consequence may vary by country). 84.229.65.248 22:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for help w/references
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Vanunu as Mossad patsy
Many Israelis I have spoken with believe Vanunu is actually a Mossad patsy, put in place to unknowingly deceive the world about Israel's nuclear weapon capabilities.

Many Israelis are also very surprised that the world was so easily convinced by Vanunu.

Consider the evidence:

1. He was an anti-government activist while at university;

2. He did not have a technical education (he studied philosophy); and

3. Anyway he dropped out before finishing his degree.

He seems to be the exact wrong person to give a job in a nuclear weapons facility.

Another Israeli friend says that "low-level technician" is euphemism for "cleaner."

The point is, Vanunu wouldn't know what a nuclear weapon looks like, let alone be a reliable witness if asked to testify on the matter in any court.

Many Israelis believe that Vanunu was told: "here is the nuclear weapons room, when you clean it, don't touch anything..."

Actually, it might have been a room full of dummy weapons, with the intent of tricking Vanunu.


 * Interesting. Can't say I believe it, but interesting nonetheless. Find some supporting citations and maybe put something in the article. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Vanunu wouldn't know what a nuclear weapon looks like, let alone be a reliable witness if asked to testify on the matter in any court." — this is incorrect. There is nothing in the type of info that Vanunu gave that wouldn't be easy for someone with only an encyclopedia entry's worth of knowledge about nuclear weapons design and production to put together if they were interested in it. In any case, yes, one can make up many creative conspiracy theories but in the absence of hard evidence there is usually no reason to find them any more plausible than the others. --Fastfission 20:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well the Mossad would probably assume Vanunu's information would be scrutinized by experts, so they deliberately made it convincing. The problem is, as a (failed) philosopher, Vanunu would be unable to reliably say that what he saw were nuclear weapons rather than dummies.


 * I for instance have no idea if an auto engine would work or not--show me a dummy engine and I couldn't say if it would really work. Show Vanunu a convincing dummy nuke, how would he know if it would really work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.95.102 (talk) 08:36, 18 November 2006


 * Have you even looked at the type of data that Vanunu released? None of it is beyond the capacity of someone with an encyclopedia about nuclear weapons and nuclear power. --Fastfission 14:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Frank Barnaby, ex-Atomic Weapons Establishment physicist, who interviewed Vanunu took a different view: "His detailed descriptions of lithium-deuteride production, however, could have been gained only firsthand. Particularly convincing was his explanation of how lithium-6 ... is separated from ordinary lithium." Rwendland 01:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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