Talk:Jonathan Pollard

First paragraph has an omission that jumps of the page

As of the date/time of this talk-page edit the first paragraph of this article begins "Jonathan Jay Pollard (born August 7, 1954) is a former intelligence analyst for the US government. In 1984, Pollard sold numerous closely guarded state secrets, including the National Security Agency's ten-volume manual on how the U.S. gathers its signal intelligence, and disclosed the names of thousands of people who had cooperated with U.S. intelligence agencies". The omission is glaring. Presumably if Person A sells something, then there is some greater-than-50-50 chance that another party was the Buyer of what Person A sold. To whom did Pollard sell these secrets? To whom did he sell out the U.S.'s helpers? The ground? The sky? Birds chirping in trees? In-between "Pollard sold" and "numerous closely guarded state secrets", text is missing and it can't be for any legitimate reason. If the missing text is ", to Israel", then the deletion exists so that the reader will, by default, assume that Pollard betrayed the U.S.A. to the Soviets, and will regard Pollard in a more negative light than if the reader learns that Pollard betrayed the U.S.A. to a staunch U.S.A. ally. If, on the other hand, the missing text is something like "variously, to Israel, to the Soviets, and possibly to other countries" then the text has been deleted for the purpose of showing Pollard in a BETTER light, i.e. to avoid dislodging a reader's belief that Pollard cooperated ONLY with staunch U.S.A. ally Israel and had benign motives. I don't know what the missing text should be because I don't know all the facts. (If I knew all the facts, would I be reading on-line encyclopedias?) But either way, text is missing, either to make Pollard look worse or to make him look better. It is "spin". Pollard sold something. That means he sold it TO someone. Yet Wikipedia doesn't say (in the quoted beginning of this article) TO WHOM he sold, and, worse, thinks nobody's going to notice that Wikipedia has omitted the "to whom". (Another possible nefarious reason to omit the "to whom", if indeed (I don't know) the missing "to whom" is Israel, is to avoid showing ISRAEL in a negative light by allowing the reader to hold onto their default assumption that the missing "to whom" is the Soviets. But again, that would still be a lie by omission.)2600:1700:6759:B000:511D:59D7:1BE7:EAEF (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

@Iskandar323: I don’t see anything nefarious, but I think the IP is talking about your recent edit here. -Location (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Termination

In this sentence: "Haver became wary of Pollard and requested that he be terminated", particularly in the context of international spying, terminated means killed. That's extremely "wary" of Mr Haver, given the developments up to that point, unduly so, I think. Or was it his employment that Mr Haver requested be terminated? I don't know who I'm asking, but I think it's better for me to be asking here than making the edit myself. Nick Barnett (talk) 10:29, 12 April 2026 (UTC)