Jump to content

Talk:Death of Ben Zygier

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Mister X (prisoner))

Life of Ben Zygier

[edit]

I'm making a few notes here about Zygier's life. They may not quite fit in to the article yet as Israel has not yet admitted that Zygier is Prisoner X (although this seems likely).

In contrast to most of the earlier reports (which stated he arrived in Israel around 2000), Zygier had apparently been in Israel as early as 1996, while serving in the IDF. He resided at Kibbutz Gazit as a lone soldier.

After serving in the IDF he apparently returned to Australia around 2000-2001 and was an articled clerk before returning to Israel. He moved back to Australia around 2009 to do an MBA in Melbourne before again returning to Israel in 2010, shortly before he was arrested/detained.

Robert Brockway (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]
  • Avinatbezeq: you have added a paragraph that is pure POV. It has been removed by two different editors for the same reason. Do not restore this paragraph as it has nothing to do with the article and is purely propagandistic & speculative. You have no way of knowing whether the Shin Bet's detention of Mr. X is a legitimate or illegitimate act and whether it makes the Israeli legal system proud as you claim.--Richard Silverstein (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
dear mr. Richard Silverstein, your blog and your name is in this artical. you are anything but objective on this issue - so bug off. you are anti-israeli persona- and everything you write concerning israel has a POV. YOU wrote that artical and YOU insert your blog insid. stop advertising your ego and your blog !79.176.51.253 (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is pure crap that has nothing to do with a respectful encyclopedia. More suitable for tabloids. It's a shame what the English wikipedia has turned into. Idobi1 (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless your point is a veiled attempt at WP:CENSORSHIP, instead of ranting, get rid of the argument by emotion WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and make the case for WP:NOT#JOURNALISM or request a move to WikiNews.

Unreliable, self-published sources

[edit]

Half of the sources here are referenced to Richard Silverstein's Tikkun-Olam blog -- an unreliable, self-published source not acceptable for Wikipedia. They must be removed. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed ... this is not Wikipedia worthy at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.76.35 (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

News update 12 Feb 2013

[edit]

He's an Australian, and reportedly has suicided. The Australian Foreign Minister is on the case.

http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2013/s3686243.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.73.72 (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that this is somehow not worthy of an entry on Wikipedia is ridiculous, and the ABC's investigation broadcast today is proof of that. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 10:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transcript of Australian TV program: [1] Zerotalk 12:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An earlier prisoner X

[edit]

Please note that the placeholder Mr. X is not a 2010 invention, rather a 1950's nickname of a prisoner later revealed to be an Israeli spy called Mordechai Kedar (not scholar Dr. Mordechai Kedar). See also hebrew article: he:מרדכי קידר if you read hebrew. DGtal (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mossad Changing Information

[edit]

In light of mossad blocking information from being released, can you all please post everything here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.241.131.24 (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

https://mega.co.nz/#!3RQxgBab!LlI1HT8ZSVq0qKO1q5vkBTYsU_BwS24fuiGtRI4W0CA <-- the documentary... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.241.131.24 (talk) 17:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion?

[edit]

This page would violate Israeli gag orders if viewed within Israel. For that reason, I think wikipedia should delete it. 208.54.39.161 (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that adds its its notability. Zerotalk 23:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has never regarded government censorship as a reason to delete information. Should the governments of Belarus, Venezuela or any other single government be able to unilaterally dictate the content of WP? Robert Brockway (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that local censorship should not be grounds for deletion. In any case the gag order has been lifted. See Israel confirms existence, suicide of ‘Prisoner X’. Saul "benqish" Davis 09:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Wherever someone suppresses information/the truth the reason for bringing it into the open grows - because they admit they have something to hide. It should be in their interest even the truth be published or speculation grows like cancer. It's like that banned book "Sydney Inc" by Kate McClymont with the deceased Michael McGurk on the cover. Who has an interest in banning that book and why: who's got something to hide? In whose interest is endless speculation? 2001:8003:AC60:1400:F899:D3E0:FDF3:289E (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BLP?

[edit]

Mister X is a placeholder name so it may belong to several prisoners and even one of them is now dead there maybe others.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has settled down to be the story of one of them. Unless we want to widen it to include others, maybe we should rename it to "Prisoner X" since that seems to be the name most used now. Zerotalk 09:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like I wrote above, the name was also used in the 1950's in Israel. I suggest we change the name to "Ben Zygier" or "Ben Zygier affair" or "Prisoner X (2010)". DGtal (talk) 09:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this article should really have its named changed to Ben Zygier. It is really the story of one person. As I remember a change of name is a really complicated thing to do. How would this be done? Saul "benqish" Davis 09:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the current title "Prisoner X" is fine, as the article is (currently) more about the Prisoner X affair, rather than a biography of Ben Zygier. Also I would think that this article is probably the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so any other uses can be shown in a hatnote. - Evad37 (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV?

[edit]

The first paragraph says he committed suicide. Wouldn't it be more NPOV to say he was found dead or was found hanged in his cell? Kellymp (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change it to "alleged to have committed suicide." --Jprg1966 (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation

[edit]

Israel confirmed today the existance and death of Prisoner X, though his name was not mentioned.[1]

References:

  1. ^ http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4344808,00.html

Move to Ben Zygier?

[edit]
Per a request at WP:RFC, this discussion is closed. The result was that the article was moved from Prisoner X to Death of Ben Zygier. Discussion continues about whether it is more appropriate to be at Death of Ben Zygier or Ben Zygier. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possibly the article should be moved to Ben Zygier as this person is now known. Possibly Prisoner X should be a disambiguation page for all (the poor) souls incarcerated without a name.... Regards, Ariconte (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Evad37's analysis in BLP? above seems the most appropriate to me. The article is wider than just Zygier, and 'Prisoner X' is the phrase being used all over the media when referring to this 'affair'. Perhaps a section could be added that looked at other so-called Prisoner X's in Israel?, subject of course to good quality refs being found.–219.89.58.144 (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any media that still refer to the suspect as "prisoner X", unless they mention the past reference in the press. The move is no less than a total no-brainer. The current name conflicts with our policies and is undignified. gidonb (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What specific policies does it conflict with? Also, just because the latest reports don't refer to Prisoner X doesn't mean we should ignore all the sources going back to 2010 that do. Finally the article is set up as being about Prisoner X, rather than a biography of Ben Zygier, in terms of headings used, the order of information presented, and the WP:WEIGHT given to information related to Prisoner X. - Evad37 (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[1.] Needs to be Ben Zygier per WP:COMMONNAME among others. [2.] Sources that used Prisoner X when the suspect's name was unknown may still be relevant for other information. There are also policies on the use of information. [3.] Prisoner X should be a regular disambiguation page per WP:DISAMBIG, after the article is moved. gidonb (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[1.] I would argue that Prisoner X is the more common name: Prisoner X is still being used in media reports on the case, as in Israel's deputy PM weighs into Prisoner X case from ABC News from only 2 hours ago.
Also, most of the refs in the article use Prisoner X in either the title or the first paragraph. I counted only 8 out of 37 that didn't.
[2.] I didn't mean to imply you thought they shouldn't be used. I was making the point that they are relevent in determining the title of the article.
[3.] As I said in the BLP? section above, this article is probably the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and other uses can be shown in a hatnote.
[4.] A point above you didn't reply to: The article is mostly about the whole Prisoner X affair, rather than a biography of Ben Zygier. - Evad37 (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He has been officially recognised as Ben Zygier by Australia. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/israeli-officials-say-asio-knew-all-about-ben-zygier-case/story-e6frg6so-1226579732496--Otkdna (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Anecdotal [2] Note: "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria)." "Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:

  • Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later
  • Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious"

[3] Primarytopic is irrelevant for the Ben Zygier as the article deserves to be on the suspect's name. After that Prisoner X should connect to all relevant articles. There are no other notable Ben Zygiers. [4] There is much to be said for adding affair to the person's name, but little to be said for substituting it with monikers. See point 1. The article does need to be rearranged as is common for new and evolving topics. gidonb (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] It is not ancedotal that a large majority sources, including current media reports, use Prisoner X. Per WP:COMMONNAME, "The most common name for a subject,[3] as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources", where footnote [3] says "Where the term "common name" appears in this policy it means a commonly or frequently used name, and not a common name as used in some disciplines in opposition to scientific name."
[2] What you left out of your quote were the examples: "(e.g. the Boston Massacre or the Teapot Dome scandal)". This part of the policy does not exclude using "Prisoner X" or "Prisoner X affair" or similar as a title.
  • Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later." - though of course anything regarding future events is a bit WP:CRYSTAL, I do not think Prisoner X is likely to be forgotten or become disconnected with the case. As above, it is still included in current media reports.
  • Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious" - "Prisoner X" is not a colloquialism
[3] What other relevant articles? This keeps getting brought up as a reason not to have an article at Prisoner X, but no hatnotes have been added to the article so far, and the current article does seem to be the Primarytopic for Prisoner X
[4] See my response to point 1, Prisoner X still commonly used. Of course the article might be rearranged, but at the moment, it is about Prisoner X - early reports, detention, identification, reactions to the whole affair.
I still don't see any merit for keeping the article under an ambiguous moniker and placeholder name for the period when Zygier was in prison. Per WP:COMMONNAME, we are supposed to move the article to the common name, Ben Zygier (you bring the quote yourself, the fact that previously a place holder name was used doesn't change the policy), WP:NAME clearly warns against using monikers, Prisoner X is ambiguous as the name has been used for other prisoners and for a book in the X-Men series that was already mentioned on Wikipedia. Since increasingly the deceased is called (and respected) by his real name there is an increase in support for the common and real name, Ben Zygier, even as this discussion progresses. Even though the idea that we'd go back to the placeholder name used when Ben Zygier was in prison seems silly, there is absolutely no need for crystal balling. It is sufficient to look at common name at present and at our policies with respect to names in order to draw conclusions. gidonb (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is irrelevant for this case as Ben Zygier may have been the most famous Prisoner X, but Prisoner X has only been his moniker, placeholder, and formerly common name. This is a sidetrack to the discussion where the article should be. Moreover, there are no other no other notable Ben Zygiers. The unambiguous name (per WP:DISAMBIG) is also is also his real, non-moniker name (per WP:NAME) and common name (per WP:COMMONNAME). gidonb (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened an RFC below to get input from more editors. I will accept whatever the resulting consensus is. - Evad37 (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! gidonb (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Move to Ben Zygier?

[edit]

Should this article be renamed from "Prisoner X" to "Ben Zygier"? Evad37 (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The three wikiprojects with banners on this page have now been notified - Evad37 (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think WP:BIO1E would be the relevant guideline. WP:BLP1E specifically states: "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people" - Evad37 (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent point. I stand corrected. Though frankly, WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E seem to say exactly the same thing. They seem to overlap a bit. NickCT (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are similar, although WP:BLP1E only applies to low profile living persons. As I've said in the section above, I think this article should be about the Prisoner X issue (and the ongoing reactions/consequenses), not a biography of Ben Zygier. The {{Infobox person}} and "Biography" section should probably be removed from the article, but lets sort out the title first. - Evad37 (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:BIO1E has guidance on the title:

Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and is all that that person is associated with in source coverage. For example, Steve Bartman redirects to Steve Bartman incident. In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved.

This seems to indicate that article should be named "Prisoner X affair" or "Prisoner X incident" or similar, although there aren't any reliable sources to support such names. - Evad37 (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Death of Ben Zygier?

[edit]

Proposal by Bjenks

[edit]
Sure—I'm not proposing any change other than to the top heading. As an example, Death of Caylee Anthony contains sections on the deceased's family, media reports, all the circumstances. Bjenks (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: I believe it would be more productive to continue the title discussion in the Article Title section below, rather than split the discussion between two sections - Evad37 (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article by Ron Ben Yishai

[edit]

Ynet recently published this analysis by Ron Ben-Yishai. I think that this should be included somewhere in the article, maybe under Israeli reactions, or reactions by 3rd party, or make a section of analyses or whatever. The reason is the Ben-Yishai is one of the most senior and highly respected Israeli military correspondents. —Ynhockey (Talk) 15:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, provided his speculations are presented as his speculations. And we can do without his prejudices, such as that Australian intelligence officers would only act in Australia's interest if they were anti-Israel. Zerotalk 10:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, naturally it would have to be made clear that this was an opinion/analysis by a journalist, not any proven fact. In any case I wasn't even thinking about the anti-Israel part, and did not plan on including it. The crux of the article is that Ben Yishai believes that the Australians leaked info on Zygier, including the reason why he believes they did it is (IMO) going into too much detail. —Ynhockey (Talk) 23:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons For His Arrest

[edit]

If the article is about the secret custody of someone then isn't the reason for his arrest a valid first heading introducing the piece. Considering the reason for his arrest is sensitive to a government shouldn't we make sure to include it early and clearly. I am reinstating the heading reasons for his arrest considering the investigation the is beginning into the incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.11.51 (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:V. Everything in the article must based on information that has been published by a reliable source and the source should be cited. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli "Admissions"

[edit]

The statement by a rep that "'Following recent publications, the prime minister's office stresses that the late Mr Zygier had no contact with the Australian security services and organisations,' the office said, in Israel's first mention of Zygier by name." does not amount to admission by the Israeli government that Zygier is X. The "surrounding context" in you edit note is provided by the writer of the article, not the Israelis. It's entirely possible that the Israelis have said someting else, but you have to have a reference. (It also helps to format it as a footnote; the first time is the hardest.)--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

Surely we can use a non-free image now that he's dead, right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of images out there, but source is always "contributed" or such. Can anyone find one with a source name, or maybe a Facebook image? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Title

[edit]

Death of Ben Zygier is a very awkward title in and of itself, but especially considering that a rather small section of the article is actually about his death, as opposed to him, his life, and his story. I read over the move discussion above and it appears to me, and perhaps I am wrong, that there was a fairly strong consensus for a move to Ben Zygier and very little consensus to support the moved title. Even aside from my perceived consensus, however, is just WP:COMMONSENSE: the article is not fundamentally about his death, it is about him. I recognize that most sources still refer to him as Prisoner X, or some such variation, but (a) since we now know his name it makes sense to refer to him in the article title, and (b) the sources don't explicitly say "death of Ben Zygier" any more than they simply say Ben Zygier and so the current title is both made up and not reflective of the subject. Even Prisoner X, although with fault, is a better title than the current. Sædontalk 11:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, his name would be more appropriate. The next section gives yet more detail about his life as a Mossad agent and his subsequent downfall. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the new Spiegel and SMH disclosures lift this guy's notability enormously. His work and the failed cover-up of his liquidation also seem to be lifting the lid off Mossad, whose WP article can now also be expanded and improved. I proposed the present title parsimoniously on the basis that he was not very notable as an individual, but I now see that his name (or whichever one is finally settled on) could indeed live for ever, like that of Mordecai Vanunu!! Bjenks (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would now be willing to support a move to Ben Zygier, now that a lot more information about his life is available (see section below), rather than just on his imprisonment and death. There is also a biography being written, [2], that should greatly assist this article when it is published in November. - Evad37 (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major review articles in 25 March Sydney Morning Herald

[edit]

See:

Koutsoukis, Jason (2013-03-25). "Double agent disaster led to spy's downfall". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2013-03-25. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Koutsoukis, Jason (2013-03-25). "How life of spy Ben Zygier unravelled". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2013-03-25.

Regards, Ariconte (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, there's a substantial amount of information in those reports. The whole article will need to undergo a major rewrite/reorganisation. I'm thinking the sections should be something like:
(0. Lead)
  1. Early life
    1. Australia
    2. Israel
  2. Mossad recruitment
    1. Double agent
  3. Detention in Israel
    1. Death
  4. Media reports
    1. Early reports of Prisoner X
    2. Identification as Zygier
  5. Reactions
    1. Israel
    2. Australia

- Evad37 (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References to the recent Spiegel report should cite the original, not indirect reports in other newspapers. I notice a few inaccuracies: Spiegel does not say that he gave Hezbollah the names of the Lebanese informants, only that he gave information leading to their exposure. It also does not say that he had left the Mossad at the time, but the opposite. Zerotalk 05:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly we should cite both and illuminate the differences. I have only read the SMH report and it leaves the impression that the reporter (Koutsoukis in Beirut) wrote the article - Fairfax (publisher for the SMH) "initiated" the month long investigation. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 06:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spiegel identifies Koutsoukis as an employee, but Koutsoukis' 2013 article in SMH isn't cited either. Most of it is cited to Jerusalem Post, which as well as being second-hand is subject to censorship. Zerotalk 07:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

more revelations/claims

[edit]

Now Australian TV is claiming that Homsi was assisting Israel in repatriating the remains of MIAs Baumel, Feldman and Katz from Lebanon, and that Ben Zygier sabotaged the mission. See here. Zerotalk 13:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Death of Ben Zygier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_of_Ben_Zygier&oldid=1204705984"