Talk:Mordechai Vanunu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Mordechai Vanunu is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 15, 2005.
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Contents

[edit] Honorary Doctorate

The honorary doctorate from the University of Tromsø is mentioned twice - once as having been awarded in 2000, and again in 2001. Which was it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by YusufMJH (talk • contribs) 07:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

vanunu.org indicates 2001, so I will adjust this.YusufMJH (talk) 07:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] removal of Issam Makhoul quote

I'm removing the quote from Issam Makhoul. It is from a fringe group, and while technically legitimate, it does not represent a large cross section of Israeli society. If there was something like an independent poll, it would be different. --Uncle Bungle 22:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Low level technician?

Can anyone describe the basis for calling him a "low level technician" rather than simply a "technician"? Frank Barnaby, ex-Atomic Weapons Establishment physicist who interviewed Vanunu, wrote that Vanunu's detailed descriptions of lithium-deuteride production were beyond that available in unclassified sources [1]. This suggests to me he wasn't "low level". Rwendland 17:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

He was a failed philosophy student - he could hardly be anything but a "low level technician" - usually, to be a nuclear "technician" requires a PhD in nuclear physics, or at the least, a degree in physics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.41.37.157 (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
Do you have a source for "nuclear technician" (as opposed to "nuclear physicist") requiring a degree or PhD in physics? My experience in UK University Physics labs was that "technicians" were assistants who did not have a degree. Note that the Isreali government call him a "former nuclear plant technician" at [2]. Rwendland 14:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Even UK lab technicians have some related education - usually they have at least an undergrad degree, or a couple of years of related education (without completing a degree). Vanunu seems to have had no related education - in any case, he was apparently a cleaner - not someone who did lab work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.41.58.233 (talk) 09:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
If he was a cleaner, shouldn't we describe him as such - if you can provide a reputable source for your belief? But how do you explain the report that he understood lithium-deuteride production beyond that available in unclassified sources? Or that the Isreali government call him a "former nuclear plant technician"? Rwendland 10:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Israeli or Former Israeli?

I just saw the BBC feature on vaanunu; there he is shown saying he is no longer israeli, therefor I think it would be more accurate to say he is a "former israeli", not Israeli.

[edit] Israeli public opinion

I think it is only fair to mention in the article that most of the Israel citizens regard Vaanunu as a traitor, who put the very existence of the state of Israel in jeopardy. Facing the nuclear threat from Iran these days only stresses the feeling we, the Israelis, have about what he did. From our point of view he joined the forces who are planning the elimination of our country even today.

[edit] Lengthy "Latest trials/Human rights" section removed

I've just removed a lengthy section copied directly from http://activistmagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=689&Itemid=56 and inserted by 67.142.130.48 on April 16. Aside from the fact that this material was clearly non-encyclopedic in tone and content, it should have been obvious it was a Copyvio. Yet User:ILike2BeAnonymous has been carefully maintaining this material, even though he recognized it was a clear candidate for deletion: [3] [4] [5] This is supposed to be a Featured Article, folks! It's shameful enough that this copyright violation has been allowed to stand in the article for two and a half months; but when the material is as obviously inappropriate as this, it's a complete embarrassment. Please, if you're watching this article, be very careful about ensuring that new material doesn't degrade even further what was once a Featured Article. Jayjg (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Put whistleblower category back

Most news sources categorise Mordechai Vanunu as whistlebower [6], there is no way to deny this. Secondarily Vanunu matches also Wikipedia's own description of whistleblower: "... member of an organization, especially a business or government agency, who reports misconduct to people or entities ..." and "Generally the misconduct is a violation of law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest". Denigrating Vanunu is simple POV pushing, as he is clearly reported by Reliable Sources as whistleblower. --Magabund 09:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If Israel is creating nuclear bombs, it is not "misconduct" nor is it "a violation of law", any more than if the United States or United Kingdom or France do so. There's a word for someone who reveals military secrets, but it's not "whistleblower", and in wartime it's generally a capital offense; I'm sure you can think of the appropriate term. Jayjg (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Nonetheless; the term "whistleblower" is widely used in reporting on Vanunu. Your opinion on the appropriateness of that usage doesn't override its overwhelmingly common use... Georgewilliamherbert 23:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The use is not "overwhelmingly common", its appropriateness is disputed, and WP:CAT is clear: "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Jayjg (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Thats what I'm saying, it is self-evident that Mordechai Vanunu is a nuclear whistleblower. It is used without quotes by Reuters, AP, et al. Your point that "it is not misconduct" is moot. US, UK and France are bound by NPT and do not produce nuclear bombs. Countries not parties to NPT are of concern to all others. Clandestine production of WMD is controversial, not whistleblowing about it. If Abdul Qadeer Khan was blowing whistle about Pakistani nuclear weapons, he too should be in this category. However, he helped in nuclear proliferation and while Pakistan is not party to NPT, IAEA, US and other concerned parties have taken this up nevertheless. --Magabund 21:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
However, in fact, this claim is not "self-evident". A whistleblower is someone who reveals illegal activity; Israel's alleged nuclear activities, while they may be "of concern" to you and others, are in no way illegal. As I pointed out before, there's a word for someone who reveals their country's military secrets, especially for a country still technically at war with several neighbors, and the word is not "whistleblower". Jayjg (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sentence about

Currently there is such sentence in the lead: "Vanunu told his Shin Bet interrogators that he opposes the existence of a Jewish state, stating the world needs a Palestinian state instead." According to sources this "interrogation" was aired before Vanunu was freed and seems to be attempt to smear him. This information is available below, it should not be repeated in the lead. --Magabund 21:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest arrests

I suggest chaning Latests Arreses to Recent Legal Activity (or something to that effect, my vocabulary is not so diverse) and rolling in the 2007 court appearances. Having 2004 under "latest" seems kind of strange. Comments? --Uncle Bungle 07:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2004

The article states that he was arrested by police carrying 'machine guns.' Were they actually using machine guns, or is this referring to assault rifles/ submachine guns? Hotshot977 06:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] His name

It says that Vanunu has was baptized as John Crossman. Does anybody have any information if he changed his name officially or it was just his baptized name?
It is important because then the whole article needs to be changed to John Crossman. If John Crossman is his official name, then calling him Mordechai Vanunu is an insult to the person. Northern (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There are many cases of people being given baptismal names that are different from their legal names. Whatever he was baptised as has no bearing on his legal name, unless he changes it according to the law of his country. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eileen Flemming - 2008 arrests

Good afternoon Eileen,

Thank you for your enthusiasm for this article. Wikipedia encourages it's editors to be bold.

In order to maintain the encyclopedic integrity of the article, it is important that you follow the manual of style with regards to your contributions. It is not appropriate to include personal correspondence or to use the first person tense.

Additionally, please remember that we are not allowed to include original research. I understand that you've been in contact with Vanunu, however, if it has not been published in a reliable source it can not be included here. Self published sources are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia guidelines.

Thank you for your understanding.

Best regards,

--Uncle Bungle (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Hijacking"

Vanunu can be forgiven for not knowing the difference between "hijacking" and "kidnapping" as he's scribbling things on his hand. We don't have that excuse, and so the term "capture" is not just neutral, it's also semantically correct. --Leifern (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Kidnapping is the correct term as the capture in Italian sovereign territory was illegal. I would also accept abduct. If Italian or British authorities had done it, it would be capture. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Vanuunu-Article.jpg

Image:Vanuunu-Article.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Vanunu has never been convicted for anything approaching a political view, and though some might consider him a whistleblower, this is a controversial category. What is not controversial is that he disclosed information that he knew to be classified and that he voluntarily agreed to keep secret. He did not disclose any illegal activity, merely activity that he found disagreeable. There are many individuals in Israel who fully agree with Vanunu's political views, and they are not in danger of criminal prosecution. People are entitled to their opinions about the merits of his activities, but let's not stray from the facts here. --Leifern (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The act of whistle blowing has nothing to do with political views. Vanunu has been called a whistle blower by numerous reliable sources. He has been convicted of treason, but his classification as a "traitor" is as contested as his status as a "whistle blower". This article belongs in either both categories or neither. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
No, actually not. A traitor is someone who is convicted of treason, and in this case the facts aren't in dispute. A whisteblower is someone who makes public something that is illegal. Vanunu's disclosure of classified information was not to put an end to an illegal activity, but - according to him - to make a political point. --Leifern (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:CAT is very clear: Categories that are not self-evident, or are shown through reliable sources to be controversial, should not be included on the article. When I get some time, I'll find some reliables sources which contest calling him a traitor, cite them here, and remove the cat with the full intent of the guideline behind me. In the mean time, I'll let it ride. Thank you. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amnesty International

If we are going to quote Amnesty International, it is essential that we provide the full context for the quote. Amnesty has not, as far as I can tell, opined on the basis for Vanunu's original conviction and sentence; only on his being imprisoned for violating the terms of his probation. Incidentally, they're on very thin legal ground, as any lawyer will tell you. He voluntarily agreed to be released under those terms, and his choice could have been to fully serve out his sentence. --Leifern (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "speaking with foreigners" because there were fully 14 violations and listing them all would be ridiculous. I included that it was considered unusually harsh because we need to maintain the full context of the quote. --Uncle Bungle (talk) 05:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)