Talk:Israel and weapons of mass destruction/Archive 1

Archive 1

Various older comments

Your introductory sentence is reduncant given the information is given later anyway. Get-back-world-respect 16:00, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think the current version might be perceived as slightly biased against the Israeli government. Get-back-world-respect 22:28, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Definetly

My only goal with this revision was to make the skeleton of a good article, viz.: an introductory paragraph (which, as you say, needs work), headings, and information in headings. The bio and chem information also needs a lot of work (both have practically the same sentence) but I think making a spot for information will encourage others to fill in the blanks. Leastways that's the hope. Rjyanco 22:44, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My criticism of the redundant introductory sentence was on an old version, I deleted it. I like your work, I just think some might find it biased against the Israeli government. Get-back-world-respect 23:24, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

"[Israel's Nuclear Program] poses a problem to American foreign policy, which by law must sanction Middle Eastern states with nuclear weapons."

I feel unsure about the wording of this. If by "law" it refers to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, well that prohibits the US from "transfer[ing] nuclear weapons technology to other states". Nowhere is the claim made that the US has somehow given the technology to Israel. And this isn't specific to "Middle Eastern states" either. Anyone knows what "law" the piece could be referring to? Otherwise, I propose a rewording. --Gabbe 12:50, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

• I vote for a rewording. Over a week without clarification.

Go for a rewording. In order to find out about that law you might try to find out who added the sentence. Get-back-world-respect 15:22, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

It was GABaker, I asked him on his talk page. Get-back-world-respect 15:29, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

This paragraph is obviously erronious. There is no law that the US must sanction Middle Eastern states with nuclear weapons. User:Cederal 27 May 2004

I think it might possibly be in reference to some provision of some "Foreign Aid Act" of the US. I can't find any specific information about though, and regardless the sentence as it is now has a seriously distorted. I say, leave out for now. --Gabbe 17:57, May 27, 2004 (UTC)

It's not the content of this article that somewhat bothers me, but the fact that there is an "Israel and weapons of mass destruction" entry, but no similar entry for countries like (e.g.) Iran, Libya, Syria, Egypt (which actually did make use of chemical weapons during the 60's, in Yemen) etc.

---

Removed:

As no live nuclear tests were ever performed, as far as known, both the existence and the feasibility of an Israeli nuclear weapon remain questionable.

I think we call this "patent nonsense" on the Wikipedia. See [1] and the numerous links on the topic, or do a google search. Nobody doubts that Israel has nukes. --Robert Merkel 05:04, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"...five leading Israeli bioweapons experts"

The bio part says that "five leading Israeli bioweapons experts" were killed in the downing of the Siberia Airlines plane. The names of the victims were published in the Israeli press. Can anyone please name the "five leading Israeli bioweapons experts"? Looks like a non-substantiated conspiracy theory to me. Eranb 02:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The next is indeed very interesting. What is its source?

"...Indeed, a surprisingly large number of bio-weapon scientists have met violent ends in recent years."...

--Abu Badali 21:09, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Partial answer: http://100777.com/node/235 or http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911q.html same file: "ANTHRAX AND MICROBIOLOGIST DEATHS...

109. Why did the FBI never investigate the case Don Wiley, a Bioscientist who disappeared 11/13/01?

110. Why did the FBI begin to investigate after his body was found on December 22, 300 miles away? Was there an investigation at the military hydro plant where workers found him? Why did the media write different versions about how, when and where he was found? Why did the police report change 2 months later from suicide to an accident?

119. Was the death of Vladimir Pasechnik investigated? He was former director of the Institute of Ultra Pure Biochemical Preparations of the Soviet bio-warfare establishment Biopreparat in November 2001?

120. How are the deaths of scientists Robert M. Schwartz, Dr. Benito Que and Set Van Nguyen explained since all occurred in the same month? Is Set van Nguyen related to the anthrax victim Mia Nguyen?

121. What about the death of Nancy Sonnenfeld (FEMA-Wife)?

64.165.203.35 04:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

better: http://home.comcast.net/~typezero/ "Dead Scientists" http://www.rense.com/general62/list.htm Dead Scientists And Microbiologists, goes back to 198267.124.100.33 18:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rense.com. That's a pretty terrible link. Anyway, how can these claims be verified, and even if true, why is this a "surprisingly large number"? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:03, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Weasel words, Conspiracy theories, and Original research

This article is filled with weasel words and conspiracy theories and what looks like Original research. In addition to the claims regarding "bio-weapon experts" and "bio-weapon scientists" above, the article is filled with phrases like "there are speculations that", "Several sources claim", "may well have required", "It is also possible", "The difference might lie". Can we have some attribution for these phrases and claims please? Otherwise this article will be in violation of a number of Wikipedia policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As you wished, there is now a very good article, with even quotes from those involved. And Rd232, thanks for your changes. I restrained myself from doing major edits as there is going to be major edits war just about now.

---

"A U.S. Department of Defense report made public in 2004 puts the number of weapons at 82." Please supply reference, name of report for instance, and ideally a weblink.64.165.203.35 04:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Two article series boxes...

Anyone else think they are unsightly, and that one should be removed? srs 02:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Other "X and weapons of mass destruction" articles only use the WMD box, and look much nicer. - Rwendland 09:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Mordechai Vanunu

Recently one sentence of detail on Mordechai Vanunu's abduction and arrest was removed (in two edits) with summaries of:

• Guy Montag m (People can read that detestable man's story in his article)
• Jayjg m (Guy is right; that has nothing to do with this article, it's about Vanunu)

First, I have to say that I don't think these changes should have been marked as "minor edits"; the authors should have known this was a POV-related change.

I do have some sympathy with their view that the Mordechai Vanunu article can be referred to for this detail. But I do think the original sentence has relevance to this article in that it shows how far (abduction abroad) Israel would go to defend its policy of "nuclear ambiguity".

I propose that this sentence is partially re-instated, stating he was abducted abroad, but omitting the Mossad/London/Rome detail. My proposed sentance is:

For publication of state secrets, Vanunu was abducted from Europe and sentenced in Israel to 18 years in prison for treason and espionage.

The original version was:

For publication of state secrets, the Mossad tricked Vanunu into leaving London and going to Rome, where they abducted him. When he was returned to Israel, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for treason and espionage.

Another alternative provided by User:Abu_badali was:

For publication of state secrets, he was he was sentenced to 18 years in prison for treason and espionage, after a controversial operation to arrest him led by the Mossad (see the article on Mordechai Vanunu).

which I also like, and would be content with, if others support it.

Does anyone object if I do this? - Rwendland 08:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Just link to the Mordechai Vanunu article in its present state. As in "He was arrested and sentenced blah blah (See: Mordechai Vanunu)..." There is not need to detail anything about his abduction because it isnt an article on him. Saying that this is "how far Israel would go to keep its policy of nuclear ambiguation" is a POV statement left to the readers to decide.

Guy Montag 10:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Norway supplied the heavy water

I've not contributed to Wikipedia before so if I'm not going about this in the right way I apologise. I'm Meirion Jones from BBC Newsnight and it was my story in August last year that broke the news of the British connection to Israel's nuclear weapons program through the sale of heavy water. More recently I produced the story for Newsnight on March 9th 2006 and wrote the accompanying article for New Statesman (see below) which exposed the UK's deals to sell samples of plutonium, uranium 235, lithium 6 and many other nuclear shipments to Israel. I have persuaded the British authorities to declassify over a thousand pages of secret documents which tell the whole story. I have also interviewed a British civil servant who signed off the heavy water deal and the British intelligence officer who detected the Dimona reactor and investigated where the Israelis got the heavy water from. Thanks to my colleagues in NRK (Norwegian TV) Stale Hansen and Hakon Haugsbo I have also had access to the declassified Norwegian documents. You can read the full version of the story in the New Statesman article linked to below - and there is an even longer version which goes through it meeting by meeting with all the references and footnotes if anyone wants that. In short Britain paid £1 million to Norsk Hydro for heavy water for nuclear weapons production. In 1957 they tried to cancel the contract but Norsk Hydro said no. Israel then approached Norsk Hydro for heavy water but Norsk Hydro refused to supply. Noratom - a company set up to do nuclear deals in parts of the world where angels would fear to tread - then tried to get Norsk Hydro to sell heavy water to them but again Norsk Hydro said no. Britain was left with 20 tons of surplus heavy water which would be only worth £500,000 if they sold it to a civilian customer which would accept proper safeguards and Israel had no way of obtaining heavy water for its nuclear weapons programme. Noratom then approached the UK on behalf of Israel in August 1958 with a deal that would solve both countries' problem. Britain knew from the start that the customer was Israel and that they wanted it to produce plutonium. There was then an elaborate charade in which British and Israeli delegations sat in neighbouring rooms on a corridor signing separate contracts so that Britain sold the heavy water to Noratom for £1 million while simultaneously Noratom sold the heavy water to Israel for £1 million plus a 2% "consultancy" commission for putting the deal together. Britain then shipped the heavy water directly from Harwell to Israel - the first consignment in June 1959 and the second in June 1960. By the time Britain made the first shipment to Israel they had been warned that Israel wanted the Bomb and that Simon Peres was confident they would get it. The deal was structured so that the Norwegian government was theoretically responsible for imposing safeguards but since both the British and Norwegians knew that Israel had paid double the civilian price for the heavy water precisely to avoid stringent safeguards this was academic. Britain deliberately kept the USA out of the loop because the Americans would have blocked the deal. Intriguingly a barely readable document supplied to me by NRK which comes from the US archive suggests that the Norwegians told the USAEC about the heavy water deal in 1959 but deliberately fudged the details. USAEC do not seem to have realised the order was for a large quantity of heavy water and in any case the Norwegians gave false assurances that it would be under IAEA safeguards as soon as they came into effect. As a result USAEC do not appear to have passed this on to politicians until after Dimona was revealed in late 1960. At any rate it did not set off any alarm bells in Washington. Newsnightmeirion 13:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding regarding the heavy water, as it was Norway who supplied it to Israel - not Britain. Ulflarsen 20:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not what the sources in the article said. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I know - but the heavy water was produced at Norsk Hydro's plant in Norway and there is a misunderstanding that it was Britain that exported it. This was recently in Norwegian papers, among them Aftenposten, will try to dig up some sources from it. And not that I am happy about it being Norway that did supply the heavy water - but right needs to be right, especially here. Ulflarsen 06:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Got it, here's the article: [2] - what it says is that the British sold back heavy water that Norway previously had sold them and that Norway then sold it on to Israel. It is an inverview with Olav Njølstad, research leader at the Norwegian Nobel institute. Ulflarsen 06:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't read Norwegian; perhaps there is a way you can integrate this into the current article, citing the opinions in both sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Will try to do it, but in short it goes like this: Norway had supplied UK with heavy water that the UK no longer needed. Norway made a sale to Israel, but in order to avoid a renewed export license case in Norway the heavy water was sent directly from the UK. So the British Foreign Department knew, but the sale was organised from Norway and the heavy water was originally Norwegian, produced in Norway. Ulflarsen 07:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Have rewritten the part and hope it better shows the way the deal was handled now. Again, the deal was according to Norwegian sources a Norwegian-Israeli deal, but the UK got mixed in as Norway sent the heavywater directly to Israel from the UK, in order to avoid issuing a new export license for the sensitive material. Ulflarsen 18:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well it simply does not make sense. First it is stated: "Uk bought the water from Norway", then: "Norway then sold that water to Israel". Something is wrong there. I haven't read the entire report yet. But the recently leaked papers seem to indicate that it WAS sold by UK, but was filed as a sale from Norway. But Njølstad a Norwegian researcher stated again the official version of events. BUT he did not rule out that the new leak was true and the sale had taken place from Uk directly, but he still believed the official version. He also did not claim to have read the new document yet, in fact he sounds more like he was responding to the television show, not the report. I short: Njølstad just reiterated how the sale was beleived to have occured before the new leak. That means: the new version must be included, but with the mention that it is solely the Guardian and BBC that claims the report is real. So the sentence "an August 2005 BBC investigation showed that in the late.." must be changed to "an August 2005 BBC investigation claimed that in the lat" or something like that. A human 19:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to get even more interesting. The Norwegian government has reiterated that they sold Israel 21 tons of heavy water in 1959. But are now investigating whether additional water was sold by the UK. They speak of the 20 tonnes as an addition to the 21 tonnes sold by Norway, in all 41 tonnes sold within a year to Israel if the new leaked report are in fact genuine. A human 20:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Norways foreign ministry is investigating BBC claims that UK resold Norwegian heavy water to Israel Aftenposten, 4 August 2005

So I believe Jayjg is right, we must cite the opinions of both sources. And also mention the possibility that the 20 tons in question was in addition to the 21 tons officially known to be sold by Norway that same year. A human 20:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Why does the article state that the US was not informed of the sale when the source states they were?

'Amerikanerne ble informert - på et lavere nivå - om at Norge planla å selge tungtvann til Israel. Man møtte ingen motforestillinger'

Eng.: 'The Americans were informed - on a lower level - that Norway were planning to sell heavy water to Israel. There were no objections made.' Joffeloff 20:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That came from BBC who claimed the americans was not informed. But notice here that if there was in fact two different sales of HW, that makes sense. US was informed of the norwegian sale, but not of the UK one. A human 20:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

As far as this article from the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten tells [3] it was some 20 tons, not 40. Again, seems the BBC have mixed it up - and that the facts seems to be that it was norwegian heavy water, sold/lended to UK, sold/delivered back to Norway (UK and Norway were close allies), and then by Norway sold on to Israel. The UK authorities did knew however where the HW were going, and that the US would not like it. What this article says [4] is that there was a condition on the sale, that the HW was only to be used for peaceful purposes, and that it was inspected by Jens Christian Hauge, one of the most central Norwegian politicians after the war. Regarding the quantity 20 or 40 tonn, Norway, Canada and the US were the only western nations producing HW - the Norwegian production capacity was limited and 20 tonns was probably several years production, maybe even more. Ulflarsen 21:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not reading the article correctly. You are refering to what Njølstad has said, he believes the whole thing is a misunderstanding and talk about the 21 tons Norway sold, and yes the Norwegian government also confirns that it was the one to sell 21 tons. But the new leaked report talk about 20 not 21 tons, and it confirm that 2x10 tons where sold to Israel, and that is why the 41 tons figure is mentioned. And he does not refer to the report, but to the BBC television show. In other words he is not qualified to dismisss the BBC report. Furthermore he also mentions that if it turns out to be true that UK sold HW to Israel that would be something new. IE. he is refering to what he knows to be consensus of what happened, and the report might be right although he thinks it is all a misunderstanding. That he has not read the report becomes more clear from the statement: "Men Olav Njølstad, forskningssjef ved Nobelinstituttet, sier til Aftenposten.no at BBC-programmet trolig bygger på en misforståelse." So he is not refering to the report, and had probably not read it at the time he was asked by the newspaper to comment on the matter. May I also remind you that Norway is now investigating the matter. Why investigate something that you know the circumstances about? Well, the answer is simple; this report is something new. And the guardian and BBC are well respected media outlets, their leaks usually are genuine. Such things are checked before they are published, so the report is almost certain to be genuine. Whether or not it is, BBC and The Guardian stands by it, and therefore acording to Wiki source guidelines it is fine to include that view into the article. As far as your guessing about if 41 is too much HW to be possible that is original research and is not allowed in wikipedia. A human 21:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You are right that original research are not allowed. Counting however is not a problem as far as I know. And given Norsk Hydro's capacity for HW production that is rather easy - no rocket science degree aquired. Ulflarsen 23:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You are counting what? The amount you guess they are able to produce per year or what? And furthermore it wouldn't matter if it had taken 5 years to produce 41 tons. Then its 5 years of production that we are talking about. Not write about it here because you think 10 years of production is unlikely to be available, well that is original research. Find a source for it, and in the mean time the claim must go in. A human 10:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Fact templates

I have placed several {{fact}} templates in the article to statements that are not referenced to reliable sources. It is the responsibility of editors adding material to the article to provide appropriate references. If such references are not given, the material may be considered original research and subsequently deleted. Pecher ^Talk 14:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Israel is KNOWN to have atomic bombs since 1968, when CIA director Richard Helms reported President Richard Nixon. Besides, there is a lot of testimony and evidence that has never been denied by any Israeli officials. http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj06cohen http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Israel/ http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/ http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm Therefore it is no longer a BELIEVED fact. It a KNOWN and widely established fact. Besides, there is no reason for User Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg to completely remove all links references that are relevant in showing the point. Mickyx65it 02:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but your proof clearly does not meet the criteria for a reliable source as it is neither reputable or reliable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, after this edit, I wouldn't be taking too much notice of your judgement on what constitutes a reliable source. You deleted, on the basis on the unreliability of the source, a paragraph that claimed that the Ben Gurion had told the Canadian Prime Minister, in 1961, that the Israelis had a pilot plutonium separation plant, and that British intelligence believed that the Israelis intended to produce nuclear weapons at that time. The paragraph linked to a declassified compendium of intelligence reports that went to the British Cabinet, which say precisely that. The documents are on the UK Cabinet office website, so I can hardly see that there's any dispute as to their authenticity. I don't think there is a more credible and reliable source for the information possible. --Robert Merkel 05:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't clear to me that the source was the British cabinet website. I was under the impression that it was just a random website with a copied document on Adobe. In the future I would appreciate it if you could engage me in a less flippant manner.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

removed a bit

In the process of changing to the standard reference system I removed this:

On October 12, 2003, The Observer reported that the United States had equipped Israeli submarines with nuclear tipped Harpoon missiles. [5]

On reading both, it is clear that the Observer story is based entirely on an LA Times report linked earlier in the article, and contains no new information - the only difference is the spin placed on the degree of American involvement in the alleged conversion of Harpoons to nuclear payloads. --Robert Merkel 02:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

An odd BBC News citation problem

I had to replace a BBC News citation "Israel says El Al crash chemical 'non-toxic'" with a Wayback Machine link. Oddly, while it turns up in the BBC search engine, if you try to access the article itself you get a 404 link. I've contacted the BBC to ask where the article's gone. --Robert Merkel 03:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Scientific researchers publish

I reinstated a sentence about no papers being published based on research at Dimona. If it was really a scientific research establishment, you'd expect papers to be published based on research there. And that includes military organizations; DSTO scientists regularly publish research, as do various US defence institutions. For that matter, ANSTO also publishes a lot of research. Israel does not have any nuclear power stations, so it can't be for a nuclear power program. The only sensible conclusion that one can draw is that Dimona is doing either weapons research or weapons production. --Robert Merkel 23:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Robert, I find your reflections fascinating...now can you point me to a reliable source that states that Dimona has not produced any scientific papers, and that this is significant in the light it sheds on the nature of the research there? Otherwise, that sentence amounts to original research, and it really needs to go. Thanks. Babajobu 17:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the person who wrote that statement originally, and I can't confirm it online. However, does have some equivalently useful statements, such as:

The complex was variously explained as a textile plant, an agricultural station, and a metallurgical research facility, until David Ben-Gurion stated in December 1960 that Dimona complex was a nuclear research center built for "peaceful purposes."...United States inspectors visited Dimona seven times during the 1960s, but they were unable to obtain an accurate picture of the activities carried out there, largely due to tight Israeli control over the timing and agenda of the visits. The Israelis went so far as to install false control room panels and to brick over elevators and hallways that accessed certain areas of the facility. The inspectors were able to report that there was no clear scientific research or civilian nuclear power program justifying such a large reactor - circumstantial evidence of the Israeli bomb program - but found no evidence of "weapons related activities" such as the existence of a plutonium reprocessing plant.

I propose to change the relevant section to reflect these quotes. --Robert Merkel

Okay, yeah, that would be better because we can confirm that a secondary source (I presume that site counts as a "reliable source") has actually made those points. Still, though, it'd be best to find out if other reliable sources interpret the same event differently. If so, the other interpretations should also be included to ensure we're covering the issue in an NPOV way. Babajobu 00:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's some of the source documents Avner Cohen used to write his book on the topic (which we should probably quote). From my quick perusal, documents seem to tell a tale of sham "inspections" where the American inspectors are told not to pry too deeply, and the Israelis are actively covering up. --Robert Merkel 11:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The declassified UK intelligence reports list the various early Israeli claims for what Dimona did. The prospective director first said he was to take charge of a "technological university" under the Minstry of Defence[6]. Early on Dimona had a sign saying "Soil Research Institute" on the entrance road[7]. In 1958 they told the Norwegian heavy water supplier they wanted a reactor to "recover minerals from the Dead Sea" and make a little plutonium[8]. In 1960 an Israeli General says the site was a factory to produce Manganese[9]. The Isreali Prime Minister finally announced the existance of the reactor at the "Negev Research Institute" for "arid zone research"[10]. Various more early Isreali quotes about Dimona are in Annex C of that document. Rwendland 15:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Arab DNA Biological Warfare

Isn't the idea of a biological weapon taylored to Arab DNA a little rediculous and improbable. Fully half of Isreal's populatoin is decended from Arab Jews and due to the large intermarrige between Jews in Isreal regardless of ethnic background the amount of jews with "Arab DNA" will only rise. An Arab killing biological weapon would only result in over half of Isreal's population being destroyed in the proses and It's hard to belive that the "jewish state" would have a genocide against it's own people.

When the russian Tu-154 airliner was famously shot down by the ukrainian army during "errenous" surface-to-air missile training in the Black Sea, there were five prominent israeli biology researchers on-board. They were en-route to "Vektor State Research Lab", the russian bioweapons centre. These israelis had already worked with apartheid South Africa during 1970-80's on bioweapons. They were trying to make ethno-targetting germs (against the negro and against the arabs). There were trials on live people, prisoners. Anti-Negro part worked (80% of them diseased, with only 25% collateral loss among whites) but arab part did not (60% of arabs and 45% of jews diseased, too high collateral loss). This was before DNA chip was invented, so it was done by traditional germ biology. Arabs are 99.7% like jews in DNA, the two closest related distinct nations on earth, no wonder they failed with germs. BTW, Israel had a very lucrative long term weapons deal with apartheid, selling / cooperating them on all kind of traditional and WMD arms banned by UN against apartheid.

With current technology, an anti-ethnic bioweapon is probably doable, but not trivial for a major science power, although it is a shame to call this science. Anyhow, those five scientists: in Europe many think the airliner was downed on purpose, because those guys were deemed way too dangerous to mankind, justfiyng killing the 120 other innocent passangers also. A whole lot of bioweapon researchers have been killed or died suspiciously lately, some argue a benevolent cabal is exterminating them for global good. 195.70.48.242 16:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

For what's it's worth, I think those stories are highly implausible as well. I'll clean up the references to it.--Robert Merkel 06:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the entire story, it just read like ridiculous conspiracy theory, I do not think it added anything to the article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, Moshe, it appeared in The Times, which is often regarded as Britain's paper of record. So, while it sounds like some kind of bizarre combination of beat-up and outright fantasy, given the prominence of the source I don't think it's appropriate to dismiss it from the article quite so preemptorily. --Robert Merkel 10:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It only appeared in the source that the article provides so that they could show how ridiculous it is, the wording seems to misleadingly imply that the source was more neutral about the story. I think it is ridiculous to insert into this article, if it should appear in wikipedia at all then it should be in some page about "Baseless accusations levied against Israel".- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, no. The Salon article pours cold water on the feasibility of the idea; the original Sunday Times article (which I got from the Factiva article database; I'm happy to send in full to you or anyone else) has the following fairly unequivocal lead sentence:

"ISRAEL is working on a biological weapon that would harm Arabs but not Jews, according to Israeli military and western intelligence sources. The weapon, targeting victims by ethnic origin, is seen as Israel's response to Iraq's threat of chemical and biological attacks."

The article then goes on to quote various alleged experts who claim the idea is feasible, and Dedi Zucker, who was a member of the Knesset at the time apparently, denouncing the research. The Times was most emphatically not debunking the claim; it was making it. Here is a blog post discussing the article, which makes it very clear that the Times article was making the claims we're discussing here. --Robert Merkel 12:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, User:Guy Montag removed this again, on the arbitrary basis that it was "not legitimate". I don't believe the story either, but the Times is a credible source, and the article was unequivocal in its claims. --Robert Merkel 23:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You haven't shown any links to the times article, even if you had though I still would think that the story would be innappropriate for this article, it just sounds like conspiracy theory. As long as it is even presented then the article is inherantly suggesting that it might be true, which is just ridiculous. If you really want to you can continue with this argument then go ahead, but I suspect nobody is going to agree with you.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There were a number of followups, including one which establishes a likely source for the story. Haaretz wrote a followup (which I can't find, but I can find the description of it in a NY Post article) which states that the probable source for the story was a piece of fiction written by an Israeli academic, Doron Sanitsky. --Robert Merkel 00:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There you go, original story, and debunking, which repeatedly appeared in the mainstream press. It's certainly noteworthy enough to be mentioned, and we now cover the debunking. --Robert Merkel 00:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As I have just said, when you include the story at all, even if you also show how unlikely it is, you will inherantly imply that it might be true. It is needlessly inflammatory to even mention it and I don't see why you want to include it so much considering the fact that you admit it is obviously false.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it has gotten wide coverage. And comparing the Sunday Times to David Duke, as Guy Montag has done on my talk page, is nonsensical. I think the article is bunk, but it appeared in one of the world's best-known newspapers, the same one responsible for the Vanunu story, and is therefore notable. --Robert Merkel 01:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't comparing the sunday times to David Duke as you suggest, he was comparing the story to something that David Duke would say which is a valid comparison. I must admit it is beginning to become hard to assume good faith in this situation since many times you have stated that the story is ridiculous and yet you still continually reinsert it into the article, and now you have actually inserted a pov tag because you couldn't get your way. Why don't you file a complaint at the incidents noticeboard and see how many people agree with you?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics.

In any case, you're missing my point. While I think the story's bunk, The Sunday Times, one of the world's most famous newspapers, thought it credible enough to publish, and has never retracted the story. If you google around, it is referred to repeatedly. The appropriate thing to do in this situation, in my view, is not to simply ignore the claims but place them in context with ample evidence to show their dubiousness. --Robert Merkel 01:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, and the Sunday times is not one of the world's most famous newspapers, in fact they probably have one of the smallest amounts of credibility of all non-tabloid type newspapers. It certainly shouldn't go into an article like this, if anything it should be in an article about "Controversial or unlikely accusations against Israel" or something. You have also yet to provide the original article from the sunday times.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I should let you know that you are in danger of violating the 3RR rule. If you revert one more time you could be blocked from editing wikipedia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty dubious about this "ethno-bomb" idea, but it is worth noting that U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen in 1997 referred to the concept, giving it some credibility: "some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic-specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races ..... there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real ..." [11]. So maybe it should not be instantly dismissed as a ridiculous conspiracy theory. Rwendland 01:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, in that quote he seems to be getting his ideas from Alvin Toffler, a futurist, rather than actual researchers in the area. In my experience, futurists don't always have the clearest grasp of the subjects they pontificate about...--Robert Merkel 01:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Should the accusations that Israel was responsible for 9/11 go in here too (followed, of course, by debunkings)? I'm sure you can find at least *one* serious source which mentions such accusations without listing the problems with them, and airplanes flown into buildings may be considered weapons of mass destruction. Ken Arromdee 02:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting you should raise that comparison. See the article Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks, which briefly notes the wide circulation of such claims in the Arab media and notes the total lack of evidence supporting them; I believe that the treatment in that article is appropriate, neither ignoring the claims or giving them undue prominence. --Robert Merkel 02:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Robert Merkel. The story should be raised briefly with its original source and then dismissed with the debunking. The entire process shouldn't be much longer than two sentences--or even one with a "but" or "however"--but it should be in there. By not including it, Wikipedia editors aren't taking a stance on the truthfulness of an important accusation where it could, especially where there is clear editorial consensus on the content of the accusation.67.101.3.12 21:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Reason for the NPOV tag on "Biological Weapons"

For the record, I am placing a tag on the Biological Weapons section of this article as I believe the removal of the section on the Times article is unjustified. For more details read the extensive discussion above.--Robert Merkel 07:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess pointing out the fact that nobody else agrees with you is irrelevant.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

On present evidence, a grand total of one other person agrees with you. Give people time to respond one way or the other. --Robert Merkel 07:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is Guy Montag, HOTR, and the anonymous editor at the top of the previous section, plus one other editor who agreed it was very dubious but didn't state his position. Considering the fact that nobody has expressed agreement with your actions I would say that there is consensus against including the stupid story. At this point, I really must to question your motivation for adding the story since you have tenaciously reinserted it and now have added the pov tag even though you admit it is ridiculous. There is one newspaper article (that you have yet to produce) of questionable reliablity that supposedly agrees with the story, while ever body else in the academic establishment agrees it is ludicrous, you can just not claim that it should be in the article because of its notability.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want a copy of the relevant articles I'm more than happy to send you one (I can't post it online, it's a copyrighted article I retrieved from a commercial article database). And please quit it with the questioning of my motivations; it is unhelpful, and I could just as easily question your own dedication to neutrality on this issue.

Back to the substantive point, plenty of articles have brief mention of viewpoints that the prevailing wisdom thinks are ludicrous; for instance, try AIDS, which has a brief section on the nutters that think it's caused by something other than HIV. Whether you like it or not, claims have been made in a very prominent source (the same source where the information publicly confirming the Israeli nuclear program came from) regarding a purported Israeli biological weapon. These claims are repeated widely. My version (I'll have you note I didn't insert the original claim) contained a stronger statement of the debunking, and I then dug up another source which explains a probable source for the story which strongly indicates the claims are fanciful. In my view, this is a much better idea than simply ignoring the claims entirely. --Robert Merkel 14:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the reliability of the Sunday Times in regard to Israel, the Jerusalem Post on December 12, 2005 had an entire column devoted to "spurious scoops" of the Sunday Times and this featured prominently there. Here is the free abstract: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jpost/access/941828921.html?dids=941828921:941828921&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Dec+12%2C+2005&author=Jerusalem+Post+staff&pub=Jerusalem+Post&edition=&startpage=05&desc=The+%27Sunday+Times%27%3A+A+mixed+record+of+%27scoops%27

I have access to the entire article if necessary. -- Avi 17:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Stopping by in response to the RFC, I tend to support Robert's edit. Wikipedia's policy, unfortunately, is verifiability, not truth. Also, I think Robert's most recent paragraph is helpful to readers - if a reader checks the encyclopedia to fact check rumors of a "gene bomb," he or she will get the most accurate information available (i.e., that the accusations are laughably absurd.) With that said (1) I don't think NPOV is the right tag, and (2) an edit war isn't really going to help people. Robert, the RFC was a good idea. My overall suggestion would be to negotiate for a day or two to see if you can reach consensus, or try mediation. TheronJ 19:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

But the verifiability, not truth policy requires use of reliable sources. If this particular source, while reliable in general, is unreliable on matters related to Israel, then it should not be used as a source. Ken Arromdee 21:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. You make the Times sound like it's the Weekly World News or Al-Queda Monthly. It is, while imperfect (it has made some howlers over the years, as have all news sources) , one of the best-known and most influential quality papers in the English-speaking world, ranking up there with the NYT and the Washington Post. Frankly, I think you may be confusing "unreliable on Israel-related matters" with "taking an editorial line other than the one I would like it to". --Robert Merkel 05:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You are greatly inflating the importance of this newspaper, if so many people know about it then I would bet most of them are only familar with the paper's bias. The fact that the only paper that isn't dismissive of the accusations is one with such questionable reliability makes the accusations themselves even less noteworthy and plausible than they already are.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

From Newspaper of record

Traditionally, The Times: London has been considered as "without rival, the paper of record" (and gave its name to a typeface). --Robert Merkel 06:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ken, I agree that sources need to be reliable. However, AFAICT, the Time meets RS criteria. Getting two stories about Israel wrong isn't nearly enough, IMHO, to call a mainstream paper unreliable. Are we going to stop running NYT stories about George Bush? TheronJ 10:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In most cases it would be reliable, however, when the Times is the only paper that expressed any sort of agreement with a story that any rationale and knowledgable person understands to be ludicrous and when the Times itself has a reputation of bias in that same subject, then I think it is safe to say that without another supporting source the single Times' article is just not enough to say the story is so notable it needs to be inserted into the article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 12:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello all. I saw the RFC and wandered to see what all the hullabaloo was about. May I suggest including the (admittedly bizarre) Times reference but following it up with a statement to the effect of "However, the Jerusalem Post has questioned the credibility of the Times' coverage of Israeli issues" or something like that. Additionally, if any others have questioned the credibility of this report then those sources should also be included. I think that TheronJ is right that WP:V demands we include the Times' article. I would further suggest that this issue be revisited in the not-too-distant future (a month or two) and if no other sources have reported anything about this it be deleted to prevent from giving undue weight to what would then appear to be a very minor issue. --ElKevbo 03:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is fairly easy to find a semi-acceptable source for all kinds of ridiculous accusations. The entire concept of an "ethno-bomb" has been completely discredited, and yet if we even present the accusations, no matter how much information we have following the story that shows how ridiculous the charges are, the mere fact that we have the story at all implys that it might be true, which is needlessly inflammatory and unencyclopedic. Also, a few editors here have vastly overstated the importance of the times itself, it is well-established that they have a demonstrable bias against Israel, and in fact they frequently print anti-Israeli articles that turn out to be based on innappropriate and politically bias sources.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This seems pretty clear cut to me. The Times passes WP:RS easily. Period. If the ethnic bomb claims have been mentioned by other notable media (e.g. Jerusalem Post), this only increases the need to mention the claims on this page. Deuterium 08:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Does it really pass WP:RS? It's quite possible for something to be a reliable, even a well-respected, source for some subjects and an unreliable source for others. If, as is claimed above, the Times is unreliable on matters related to Israel, then it shouldn't be used. The fact that there is other kinds of information for which it is reliable doesn't change this. Ken Arromdee 23:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does, it's even mentioned as an example of a reliable source at WP:RS and is considered at the extremely high end of the reliability spectrum.

Besides the fact that Moshe has presented no credible evidence that the Times is unreliable about Israeli issues, whatever that means, policy does not make any allowance for selectively picking and choosing when you consider a source reliable, depending on the topic at hand and whether or not you agree with it. Sources are either considered reliable or they are not, full stop. And the Times is reliable, period. Deuterium 00:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is false that sources are reliable or not. WP:RS gives several examples, including stating that people can be authorities in a field (implying that they are not authorities outside the field) and that sources can have an agenda (agendas, of course, typically applying only to certain subjects). It's absurd to imply that someone's a source either on all subjects or none; a nuclear physicist who is also a member of the KKK could be used as a source for nuclear physics, but not for race relations.

It's also misleading to describe this as deciding a source is reliable "depending on whether or not you agree with it". Would you trust a source which claims the Earth is flat? If not, on what basis would you call the source unreliable *other* than that you don't agree with it?

And including it violates the instruction in WP:RS to check multiple sources. It's going to be a lot harder finding two otherwise reliable sources that uncritically publish race-baiting than finding one, and there's no way you're going to find enough sources for it to even be a minority view. Ken Arromdee 05:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Deuterium: STOP ADDING THIS BACK!

-- WP:RS clearly contains an admonition to check multiple sources for reliable accounts, which you didn't do.

-- Your claim that a source is either reliable or not and that it's not possible for a source to be reliable in one area and unreliable in another, is unsupported by Wikipedia policy. If you really think this is policy, then please point to a policy which says so.

-- Because you are not trying to source a statement that Israel has really done this, but rather you are you trying to source "Israel has been accused of doing this", you need to watch out for notability. A single accusation is non-notable unless the accusation is commonly made, widely reported, used in court, etc; having a source for the accusation itself isn't enough. This accusation isn't notable (though widespread accusations in the Arab media are notable).

-- As has been pointed out above, many sorts of accusations are routinely made about Israel. If you really think this belongs, then you should also add paragraphs about Israel being responsible for 9/11, Israel being responsible for AIDS, etc. Ken Arromdee 03:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: I've found another article about the program in Wired news, an RS, so can you really justify removing the information from TWO sources? The wired article also mentions that it was discussed in "Foreign Report". I'm adding this back in. Deuterium

Try harder. It's a reprint of Sunday Times in a blog. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct, it's the Sunday Times, "Israel planning 'ethnic' bomb as Saddam caves in". The actual article makes the following claims, comparing Israeli scientists to Nazi doctors who used Apartheid-era research:

"Israel is working on a biological weapon that would harm Arabs but not Jews, according to Israeli military and western intelligence sources. The weapon, targeting victims by ethnic origin, is seen as Israel's response to Iraq's threat of chemical and biological attacks...In developing their "ethno-bomb", Israeli scientists are trying to exploit medical advances by identifying genes carried by some Arabs, then create a genetically modified bacterium or virus...The programme is based at the biological institute in Nes Tziyona, the main research facility for Israel's clandestine arsenal of chemical and biological weapons....The research mirrors biological studies conducted by South African scientists during the apartheid era and revealed in testimony before the truth commission...The idea of a Jewish state conducting such research has provoked outrage in some quarters because of parallels with the genetic experiments of Dr Josef Mengele, the Nazi scientist at Auschwitz...Dr Daan Goosen, head of a South African chemical and biological warfare plant, said his team was ordered in the 1980s to develop a "pigmenta tion weapon" to target only black people. He said the team discussed spreading a disease in beer, maize or even vaccinations but never managed to develop one....The "ethno-bomb" claims have been given further credence in Foreign Report, a Jane's publication that monitors security and defence. It reports unnamed South African sources as saying Israeli scientists have used some of the South African research in trying to develop an "ethnic bullet" against Arabs...It also says Israelis discovered aspects of the Arab genetic make-up by researching on "Jews of Arab origin, especially Iraqis."

Now, let's get a copy of the Foreign Report and examine those claims. So far, nobody can be named, and all the controversial arguments appear to be based on rumor and innuendo. Notice how they are able to name a Dr. Daan Goosen, but nothing in relation to the Israelis. No evidence, just wild speculation, mixed in with comparisons to Nazi's and Apartheid. This is the same source that published the faked Hitler Diaries. —Viriditas | Talk 00:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember that in the unlikely event Foreign Report is actually a source, there's still the notability problem (which may also be considered an undue weight problem). It's clear that the claim that Israel has nuclear weapons is widely made, widely believed, and reported in hundreds of places. The accusation of Israel having an "ethno-bomb" is not (except in the Middle East). Ken Arromdee 02:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Jane's Foreign Report story is quoted by this UPI report [12]: "cited unnamed South African sources saying Israeli scientists used South African research in a bid to develop an 'ethnic bullet' against Arabs. ... Foreign Report says Israelis discovered specific aspects of the Arab genetic make-up that could be used to produce such a biological weapon by researching 'Jews of Arab origin, especially Iraqis.'". It would be intersesting to read the full report. The question isn't the existance or quality of the news sources, but if it is notable enough in current times to be worth bothering with in this article. (I'd suggest someone writes and refines an Ethno-bomb article first.) Rwendland 19:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that is some guy named Francis Boyle typing on the University of Buffalo's listerv. You have no idea whether it is accurate or not. -- Avi 19:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, be real. Are you seriously suggesting someone in 1998 typed up this UPI news report, full of checkable detail, as a spoof? I wouldn't use this listserv version from an article, but it's reliable enough to inform this background discussion. Rwendland 22:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My point is that it is not a reliable enough source for the article. -- Avi 22:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I introduced the UPI quote from Jane's Foreign Report to refute the previous "in the unlikely event Foreign Report is actually a source" talk comment. Rwendland 23:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

May I point out http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jpost/access/941828921.html?dids=941828921:941828921&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Dec+12%2C+2005&author=Jerusalem+Post+staff&pub=Jerusalem+Post&edition=&startpage=05&desc=The+%27Sunday+Times%27%3A+A+mixed+record+of+%27scoops%27 once again? I have the entire article somewhere, I believe. -- Avi 01:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The partial quotes I pasted above are taken from the full article, which I have as well. —Viriditas | Talk 01:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: Back door attempts to try to include this material: [13] Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Now Deuterium is trying to add it to the Ethnic bioweapon page. [14] Jayjg ^(talk) 00:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Syria accuses Israel

Deuterium, is there anything that Syria does not accuse Israel? Syria sponsored publications of the Protocols of Zion, why not report this as well? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Chemical Weapons suggested edit

I suggest that the following sentence be edited to a) remove the passive voice and b) maintain neutral POV

"Professor Marcus Klingberg, deputy director of the institute, was sentenced in 1983 to 18 years in prison for being a Soviet spy, a matter so sensitive that it was kept secret for a decade."

The last part of the sentence parrots the Israeli govt's official position on the matter as if it were a universally-held belief. Perhaps another sentence would be more accurate such as the following (all suggested edits therein):

In 1983 the Israeli government tried and sentenced former deputy director of the institute Professor Marcus Klingberg to 18 years in prison under charges of being a Soviet spy. The government kept the matter secret for a decade, arguing it was a sensitive issue. OR The government justified keeping the matter secret for a decade by arguing that it was a sensitive issue.

I feel the above sentences clarify the issue, making it much more accurate. No information taken away, some information added. The POV is now undisguised. EthanAY 21:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Another option "In 1983 the Israeli government secretly tried and sentenced former deputy direct.....The government justified keeping the matter secret for a decade by arguing that it was a sensitive issue."EthanAY 21:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. And since no one commented or did anything, I've been bold and made a change myself Nil Einne 17:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

nuclear subs

It is very unlikely that they are planning to launch nuclear Harpoon missiles as the Harpoon missile's warhead compartment was designed to carry at 500pound warhead as is rather small. The US navy had nuclear Tomahawks but no one has ever had nuclear Harpoons as their range is only around 80 miles. Tomahawks can go around 1000 miles. It seems more likely that a new cruise missile(similar to tomahawk) will be designed for this purpose by the Israili's.

The Israeli cruise missiles are not similar to the tomahawk. They do have the same range and the same accuracy, but as many other weapons that were designed in Israel, from pistols through satellites and air crafts, it's a pure original Israeli technology.--Gilisa 07:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Israeli PM Israeli PM in nuclear arms hint

From the BBC:

'Mr Olmert added that the Iranians were "aspiring to have nuclear weapons as America, France, Israel, Russia" - on the surface, an explicit acknowledgement, the BBC's Simon Wilson in Jerusalem says.

But Israeli officials moved quickly to deny that Israel had changed its long-held policy of ambiguity on the issue. Not sure how to add this to the article. —Dylan Lake 04:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is being generally read to mean that Olmert was referring to Israel as a nation which possesses nuclear weapons, not one that "aspires to possess them." I think that would be a normal understanding of the grammar he used. I am changing the wording in the intro accordingly. --MaplePorter 01:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles Manson maintains a policy of 'murder ambiguity', so really, all the evidence of his involvement should be discounted, and the article in question changed to read 'Manson is widely believed to have organized the Tate murders'. Give me a break... --Uncle Bungle 22:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If Manson maintains a policy of murder ambiguity, evidence of his involvement *from Manson's own statements* certainly should be discounted. Ken Arromdee 16:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we all agree israel has nuclear weapons and has admitted it?

no Goalie1998 06:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

lol always the british behind everything

it was the french who gave the technology to israel according to the protocol of sevres agreements. the uk official only came at the sevres meeting the second day of the negotiations. the gaullists gave a detonator in the 50/60s and the socialists gave the bomb in the 80s. by the suez crisis era the french were a closer ally to israel than were the british. there was a tension between uk and israel, it was reported by shimon perez who was there at sevres in a documentary. Shame On You 16:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's always the british, the british started WW2 as well, check it's page lol

Neutrality

I added neutrality disputed and citation needed based on the very opening line which says, "Israel possesses a substantial arsenal of nuclear weapons and maintains intermediate-range ballistic missiles to deliver them." This is unsourced and clearly not a neutral opinion. In the hopes of keeping this article up to the high standards that this wikipedia project holds, I have held off on deleting this intro line in favor of discussion on how to properly reword it. Please discuss. Bstone 04:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly where it should be discussed. Sensible approach. The sources for the statement - not mine - are clearly given later in the article. I would say there is an overwhelming mass of evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons and intermediate range ballistic missiles to deliver them. We can list some of that if you are unaware of it - photos of weapons, missiles, inside Dimona, satellite photos of Dimona and the missile bases, eye-witness testimony, admissions by Peres and inadvertently Ehud Olmert. Every historian and scientist who has looked at this has come to the same conclusion. All that is missing is an official admission by the Israeli government. They no longer deny that they have the Bomb and unofficially they have admitted it. So all that is needed is that the line saying something like "...although officially the Israeli government refuses to confirm or deny possession of nuclear weapons" should be moved up immediately next to the statement. Pakistan was in a similar position between 1987 when it produced its first nuclear weapons and 1998 when it tested. I ask the simple question: have you ever met anyone who was well-informed about nuclear weapons who doubted that this statement was true "Israel possesses a substantial arsenal of nuclear weapons and maintains intermediate-range ballistic missiles to deliver them" I haven't and I've talked to Israelis, Americans, Brits and people from nuclear weapons programmes all over the world. I suspect if you did find such a person you would find they were sharing a room with the only individual alive who genuinely believes Iran is putting all that money into nuclear technology in case they unexpectedly run out of oil. It would be interesting to ask the individuals who keep changing the intro whether they genuinely believe Israel has no nuclear weapons. The question of whether it is a good or bad thing that Israel has nuclear weapons is completely separate and has no place in an article about what Israel does or does not have. Newsnightmeirion 17:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I edited the article to say that. Previously it said something weasely like "Israel is widely believed...".

Israel's nuclear arsenal is very well known and no serious commentator would dispute its existence. The only reason (as I understand it) that Israel doesn't simply announce its nuclear capabilities is that it would embarrass the Americans, their vital patron state which provides massive military and economic aid. It's illegal in the United States to provide such aid to countries which violate the nuclear NPT.

I don't really feel like looking for a citation for such a widely known and obvious point. Somebody else can do it. Or, more likely, the WikiZionists will just keep reverting it, regardless of how well-cited it is.

As an aside, it's interesting that facts which are uncontroversial in Israel itself (we have nuclear weapons, we are occupying Palestinian lands, etc) are highly controversial among North Americans who identify strongly with that state.

Eleland 18:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The American economical aid to Israel and the massive military aid-are actually the same...each year, since Israel sign the Camp David agreements (in which Israel gave a way sinay desert and lost at least 15 billion$ income per year) America support Israel with 2.5 billion$ in which Israel is obligated to but only American made weapon. However, the entire military budget of Israel is about 16-18 billion$ (this year), and the entire budget of Israel is about 90-100 billion$- so, actually Israeli is pretty in depended country from the economical point of view.More, aside from most of the manned air crafts Israel buy most of it's weapon from the Israeli weapon industries (which are the 4 in their size after those of USA,Russia and France) and sometimes from the European industry. USA mostly support Israel from the political side.--Gilisa 07:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved the fact tag because the delivery systems are not in dispute. As for the weapons themselves, whatever the attitudes of the people, and the speculation of experts, it can never be known with 100% certainty that Israel posesses nukes. I have quotes from Clinton, there is the story of Vanunu, etc, but without a confirmed test, declaration, or inspection, it's not confirmed. Can we please return to the original "Israel is widely believed" and remove the fact tag? Thanks and best regards. --Uncle Bungle 20:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Uncle Bungle - I would suggest things have changed in recent years. For a start Avner's Cohen's continuing research leaves no room for doubt. Secondly, Iran's aspirations to build nuclear weapons have resulted in more open remarks about Israel's bomb. The Prime Minister of Israel HAS confirmed that Israel has nuclear weapons. On December 12th 2006 Ehud Olmert said "Israel is a democracy, Israel doesn't threaten any country with anything, never did. The most that we tried to get for ourselves is to try to live without terror, but we never threaten another nation with annihilation. Iran openly, explicitly and publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as America, France, Israel, Russia." Three days earlier the American Secretary of State for Defense told a Senate committee why he thought Iran was after nukes “They are surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons—Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west and us in the Persian Gulf”. It is still important to mention Israel's official position of declared ambiguity in the same way that we would report Iran's claim that it is only interested in the peaceful use of nuclear power. Uncle Bungle - there is overwhelming evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons - can you quote anyone who still believes that Israel does not have nuclear weapons? In other words is there a serious dispute about the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons? Newsnightmeirion 08:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And on Septmeber 20, 2006, former US President Bill Clinton told CNN "So, when we go to Iran and say "You can't have nuclear power that has the potential of producing materials that can be turned into a bomb," they say, "Well, why? You have it. The Israelis have it. The Indians have it. The Pakistanis have it. And we're a great country, why can't we have it?" That's where the citizens are, even the pro- western citizens." [15].

It's still not the same as the IAEA listing Israel as a "Confirmed Nuclear Power". I think it's a hopeless battle to fight here... Cheers, --Uncle Bungle 11:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Eleland, simply because "everyone knows" that Israel has nuclear weapons does not mean it can make it's way into this wiki project as a fact. Everything must be sourced. As it currently sits, that statement is only supported by a lot of independent and rather unrelated evidence. If it cannot be verified, then I believe the intro should read "Israel is widely believed..." with the case for Israel having nukes in the article below. Bstone 02:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the intro back to the original and removed the NPOV tag. I think this discussion clearly illustrates why we can't definitively say Israel has nuclear weapons (even if the lid is off the cookie jar and their hands covered in chocolate). --Uncle Bungle 14:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

IAEA Director General did say "Nine countries are known to have [nuclear] weapons" in his 2007 Nobel Laureate lecture. [16] (Also "27 000 nuclear warheads remain in the arsenals of nine countries" in [17].) I wonder which the ninth country is, if not Israel? Is there a serious independent expert who disputes it? I do think a form of words firmer than "widely believed" would be desirable for this situation. Rwendland 22:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Trust me Rwendland, I know... Maybe [this] will help :) --Uncle Bungle 22:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Atom Bomb Sour Grapes

The above discussion & results just go to show that if enough people don't want Wikipedia to say something which is true, it won't -- Wikiality is alive and well.

Eleland 19:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Eleland, you are missing the point. Everything must be sourced. If it is not sourced then it cannot be part of an article on this wiki project. Your thinly veiled personal attack is not appreciated nor it is professional. Please see Ad_hominem for more information. Bstone 23:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, pal.

First of all, the article is full of sources which discuss Israel's possession of the Bomb. Take your pick of them. I mean, there's an intelligent, sourced discussion of the entire program from the fifties to the present day. How can you say there's no source?

Secondly, it's difficult to know how that was a "personal attack", or even what person is being attacked. And what's this about "professional"? Professional what? Wikipedia editor?

Let me rephrase my original point. Saying that something is "widely believed", when all evidence indicates that it's not just widely believed but TRUE, is a cop-out. The Pope is Catholic. I'm sure there's a whole community of people who believe the Pope is really a reptile from the hidden land under the South Pole, but there's no reason to indulge them by saying "The Pope is widely believed to be a Catholic."

As a side note, you might do best to interpret my comment in light of the title "Atom Bomb Sour Grapes". Do you think maybe that indicates something about the attitude I'm taking towards this?

Eleland 01:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What the introduction (and in fact the article itself) should perhaps do is make clearer why we have this "widely believed" issue. The situation is more precisely that everybody knows they've got them, it's just that the major powers, Israel's neighbours, nor Israel itself don't want to say so out loud. --Robert Merkel 01:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the belief is apparently universal, it is easy enough to find a citation for the belief's universality. Just google on Israel nuclear "universally believed" or something similar. E.g.

"Israel has not publicly conducted a nuclear test, does not admit to or deny having nuclear weapons, and states it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Nevertheless, Israel is universally believed to possess nuclear arms." [18]

I propose that a sentence like "Israel is universally believed to have nuclear weapons although it does not confirm or deny this." (with a long string of cites) should be in the article and in the intro. Changing this to "widely believed" in the intro is then clearly speculative OR, as it hints there is someone who does not believe it, contradicting the article. The burden would then be on those who want "widely believed" to find a reliable source who has doubt.

One could even say "Israel possesses nuclear weapons, although it does not confirm or deny this" as many would like to, and footnote it with a cited explanation that the belief is universal. In the absence of contradictory cites, disagreement or weakening would still amount to OR, in my opinion. But the first proposal might cause less dispute.John Z 04:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In the above discussion, we agreed that "widely believed" is the proper way to introduce this topic. I am changing it to that previously agreed intro. Bstone 19:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please just roll back to the original, before all this started. --Uncle Bungle 20:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion on that point had been going on intermittently for years. As I pointed out above, how is "widely believed" not OR? Where is there a source that doubts or does not believe that Israel has nuclear weapons?John Z 22:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the Israeli government has not admitted this in any clear and unambiguous terms. Widely is stays.Bstone 04:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting - the only argument anyone can advance against the obvious wording is that Israel has not made a full admission - just unclear and ambiguous admissions - according to Baruch Stone. Up till 1994 the British Government had the same policy not to admit to the existence of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and Security Service (MI5). Wikipedia wasn't around in the '40s, '50s, '60s, '70s, and '80s but presumably if it had been all through those long decades we'd be saying "MI5 and MI6 are widely believed to exist". Likewise from 1974 when India exploded its first bomb - Smiling Buddha - till 1998 India maintained that it did not have nuclear weapons - 1974 was a "peaceful nuclear explosive" officially. Again proto Wikipedians would be saying "India is widely believed to have nuclear weapons".Newsnightmeirion 18:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

To the user "Newsnightmeirion"- I am unsure of who you are but you seem to have some vague idea as who I am. In any case you seem to have a personal issue with me. The most appropriate place to discuss that it my talk page. I invite you to discuss it there. Bstone 05:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Baruch - I assure you I don't have any personal issue with you - you seem like a nice guy from your various blogs and pages. I just don't see the need to maintain the fiction that the world doesn't know whether Israel has nuclear weapons. Newsnightmeirion 10:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, Newsnightmeirion, you are making personal comments to me. I ask that you refrain from writing about my blog and various webpages on this discussion page and instead take it to my talk page. This is not the proper place to discuss such things. I hope you will respect this. Bstone 18:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Baruch - you still seem like a nice guy - but I assure you that explaining where you've got things wrong is not a personal attack. This is the proper place to discuss Israel's Weapons of Mass Destruction - in fact by some zany coincidence the page is even called Israel and Weapons of Mass Destruction. In response to THF's more serious point there is no major point of view which holds that Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons - can you find anyone anywhere on the political spectrum who believes that Israel does not have nuclear weapons? Newsnightmeirion 00:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Newsnightmeirion, I agree with you about the topic, but I agree with Bstone that you are being less than perfectly polite to him. You are tutoyant him as the French say or thou-ing him as was once said in English. As he says, the place for that sort of conversation is user pages or email, here I think one should write a little differently unless one knows the other person well.John Z 03:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

John (or perhaps I should call you Z for fear of being thought less than perfectly polite) the last time "thouing" was memorably used as an insult in English was during the trial of Sir Walter Raleigh. Being less than 400 years old it didn't even occur to me that Baruch would find the use of his first name offensive. But that's enough about protocol. Returning to the subject of this page I'm glad to see that on the important point you (v form obviously out of respect for your many contributions on the middle east) agree that pretending that there is doubt about the fact of Israel's possession of nuclear weapons is absurd. Newsnightmeirion 12:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Newsnightmeirion- As you know, this wiki project requires that all statements of alleged fact be properly sourced. In the case where there is no clear source, something cannot and must not be presented as fact. While there is a fair amount of independent, albeit mostly unrelated, evidence that Israel may contain weapons of mass destruction, there currently is no admission or absolute proof. In that case, the intro line of "widely believed" must remain until an admission of fact comes from the Israeli Government or other irrefutable information comes along. I trust you will abide by the rules of this wiki project. Bstone 17:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(Reverted to revision 135119370 by Carwil; Restore cite and official position per WP:NPOV. using TW) All this effort to get "widely believed" changed to "does have" has resulted in getting Israels lie up in the intro. Good effort, but it's better to let sleeping dogs lie. --Uncle Bungle 15:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD requires all major points of view to be reflected in the lead paragraph, not just your favorite one. If I had to make a bet, I'd say Israel has nuclear weapons, but my opinion isn't the one that counts. THF 15:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead paragraph is perfect the way it is and in the opinion of this editor, it should not be changed. Changing it to make any absolute or concrete statements would cause it lack neutrality, lack sources and be unsuitable for wikipedia. Bstone 18:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Olmert Dec 2006 gaffe

Olmert's statement is quoted in the article twice redundantly. I leave it to others to decide which sequence belongs in the article and where. (There's a lot of repetition in general.) THF 20:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Location of HQ

I was just wondering why immediately after the section on Nukes it mentions the location of the Mossuad HQ, for no reason. It's like someone added it there so strike could be made if need be, lol. Shouldn't this be removed as it's completely irrelevant?

I noticed that too, "Israel's Mossad (the equivalent of the CIA)'s headquarters is located at "Tzomet Geliloth", or "Geliloth intersection" on highway 1, which is between Tel Aviv and Hertzlia.", and also a bit further at the end of the "Nuclear weapons capability" section, there is a similarly odd / out of context statement: "Unit 8200 located in Ramat Hasharon, is not far away from the Mossad HQ. Its main function is to relay intelligence with the CIA. Watch the satellite dishes sprouting from the roofs.". These 2 statements should be deleted since they have no relevance with their respective sections, nor with the article in general. XanderCDN 03:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Article Needs Nuclear Strategy Section

I'm beefing up Samson Option to include how the strategy seems to be changing from the threat of massive destruction as a deterrent to that of first strike, as upon Iran. See wiki article on a relevant strategy meeting under Project Daniel and the various articles over the years you can google by Louis Rene Beres, including this 2007 one at a US military site Israel’s Uncertain Strategic Future and a similar one at a pro-Israel site Learning from Ancient Chinese Military Thought: Israel and Sun-Tzu's Art of War.

Someone suggested whole Samson Option be integrated in here, but I have discovered that the phrase also increasingly is being used to describe other nation's strategies of nuclear and non-nuclear self-destructive and/or massive retaliation strategies. But obviously a shorter version of the longer article (than even the existing one) that I'm preparing would be relevant. Carol Moore 05:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

From the Hebrew Wikipedia you can gain some information on that subject. The Israeli strategy is truly detailed and it consist the use of Nuclear weapon only in this scenarios:

1. The total destruction of the Israeli air-force.

and/or

2. Regular enemy army forces cross the green line into the cities of Israel

and/or

3. Using Weapons of mass destruction against Israel

and/ or

4. Massive attack, with heavy casualties, against the civilian population of Israel

Israel would use tactic nuclear weapon against large enemy forces if it will be necessary to stop them from entering Israel.

Under severe situations Israel would use it’s thermo nuclear weapons against hostile countries cities in a manner that would give them the option to surrender and/or stop attacking Israel.--Gilisa 22:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Jordan Times

In 1998, former Prime Minister Shimon Peres admitted publicly that Israel "built a nuclear option, not in order to have a Hiroshima but an Oslo."

As far as I can tell, the quotation came ultimately from the Jordan Times. Is it a fairly reliable newspaper?

(Side note: "said" instead of "admitted publicly"?)

Wikipedia's problem

You know, when wikipedia began, it was actually quite good. But this article is symptomatic of the problems that have gradually developed with it. You fanatics who refine these articles obsess about the minutiae to such a degree that the articles become nothing but a series of tangled obfuscations. I used to use it all the time but I think I'm gonna go back to the old fashioned kind of encyclopedia that is actually readable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.79.252.192 (talk • contribs)

Declassified: 1974 Special NIE "Prospects for further proliferation of nuclear weapons."

Source:

• Amir Oren. CIA: We said back in 1974 that Israel had nuclear weapons. Haaretz. 11/01/2008.

Key assessments / conclusions from this 1974 "Special NIE" on nuclear proliferation...

By 1974, Israel has produced and stockpiled a "small number" of nuclear weapons.

• "The Central Intelligence Agency, backed by bodies including the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and the Defense Intelligence Agency, determined in August 1974 that Israel had nuclear 'weapons in being,' a 'small number' of which it 'produced and stockpiled.'"
• "...the entire [US] intelligence community determined, 'Israel already has produced nuclear weapons.' This analysis was based on 'Israeli acquisition of large quantities of uranium,' in part covertly; on Israel's ambiguous efforts to enrich uranium; and on the huge investment in the 'Jericho' surface-to-surface missile 'designed to accommodate nuclear warheads.'"

'Jericho' nuclear surface-to-surface missile

• "The 1974 document describes the Jericho project, from its inception in France through its migration to Israel to the replacement of the original inertial guidance system by an Israeli design 'based on components produced in Israel under licenses from U.S. companies."
• "Israel Aircraft Industries is responsible for the development of the missile and has constructed a number of facilities for production and testing north of Tel Aviv, near Haifa, at Ramle and nearby it 'a missile assembly and checkout plant.'"

Israel is "susceptible" to nuclear proliferation to then-friendly Iran and South Africa

• "Israel was also suspected of providing nuclear materials, equipment or technology to Iran, South Africa and other then-friendly countries."
• "The authors of the NIE wrote that the U.S. helped France expedite its nuclear program, France in turn helped Israel, and much like France and India, Israel, 'while unlikely to foster proliferation as a matter of national policy, probably will prove susceptible to the hue of economic and political advantages to be gained from exporting materials, technology and equipment relevant to nuclear weapons programs.'"

--Caradine (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, v.interesting. The declassified document itself is on the CIA FOIA page[19], "PROPECTS FOR FURTHER PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS". Also ArmsControlWonk[20] has made a more covenient PDF of it.[21] Rwendland (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither Confirm Nor Deny

The latest edits were about whether Israel has a policy of neither confirming nor denying it has nuclear weapons, or whether it simply denies having them. I don't think either is quite correct. Back in the 1960s Israel adopted the policy that it would not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East region. As far as I know, that policy remains in effect.

However, as Avner Cohen reported in his book "Israel and the Bomb," Israel (then Ambassador Rabin) gave a very coy response to a U.S. request for clarification (from then Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Warnke). Rabin said he thought "introducing" would require testing. Israeli officials generally refuse to discuss the matter publicly. Public debate is stifled by heavy-handed legal sanctions. This is why Cohen has called Israel's policy "opacity" rather than "ambiguity." NPguy (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

United Nations resolution

Need to mention the RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY DURING ITS TWENTY-NINTH SESSION, UN resolution 3263 (XXIX) of 9 December 1974: ESTABLISHMENT OF NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE ZONE IN THE REGION OF THE MIDDLE EAST http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/29/ares29.htm

This was used to destroy nuclear facilities Irak (Osirak), Syria (Al Kibar) and now Iran (Natanz, Isfahán, Arak y Busher). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alehopio (talk • contribs) 19:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear section heavily shortened

I see no reason to have two articles with largely the same text. I thus moved unique nuclear content to Nuclear weapons and Israel, the main article, and deleted almost all of the rest. Please make future nuclear-related adds/edits there. YLee (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Redundant, sort of POV, possibly merge with Nuclear weapons and Israel

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus Aervanath (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Nuclear weapons and Israel is far more in-depth and contains the same general ideas as Israel and weapons of mass destruction. Compared to other articles, such as United States and weapons of mass destruction, Russia and weapons of mass destruction, Iran and weapons of mass destruction, and Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, this article is relatively short and fails to meet neutrality standards. For example, the article appears to be slightly forkish. I believe several editors have made a persistent effort in selecting sources while reducing and ignoring official responses by the Israeli government and outside supporters/commentators. Consider this: It not so much of a "length" issue as it is a proportional dispute. I bet we could merge this with Israel and nuclear weapons into a separate section, with a title like "Israel and biological/chemical weapons." A general lead could potentially be something similar to, "Israel has admitted manufacturing and including biological weapons etc..." You get the idea. Either that, or the article needs to be expanded exponentially and eventually rewritten. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The redundancy is why I drastically shortened this article and moved most of the nuclear text to Nuclear weapons and Israel. If the merge happens that article, in turn, should be renamed Israel and weapons of mass destruction. That said, I don't see any glaring POV problems with this article, or with the other one, but then I don't have any particular vested interests. I definitely oppose the alternative of expanding this article, though (especially if, as Wikifan12345 implies, it's meant to be some sort of "alternative" to Nuclear weapons and Israel); I doubt there's much more that can (or needs to be said) about Israel's chemical or biological weapons, and adding more to the nuclear section should, again, be done in the other article until there's a merge. YLee (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Cautious support as long as the proposed article remains thorough and nuetral. YeshuaDavid (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose — there is already Nuclear weapons and Israel... why do we need Israel and nuclear weapons? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose — The X and weapons of mass destruction is a Wikipedia convention, so this article should be retained. And how would the chemical weapons aspect of this article be retained in a nuclear weapons article? And as per Twas Now's reason. Rwendland (talk) 11:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep at least ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thirty days is awfully short. But there are threads dating back to 2004, which is ridiculous. I find threads dating back as much as two years are often informative. NPguy (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

They won't be deleted, and the archive will be indexed. Of the last ten threads the oldest one currently would be over two years old, well meeting the archiving guidelines.--Oneiros (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done with 90 days.--Oneiros (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)