policy on placing Dimona images here?
There are a few images of Dimona, some by Mordechai Vanunu, others by spy satellites, that I'd like to use to illustrate what it looks like.
There is no problem from the website owner, I asked her permission and here's the text of her reply; I've munged the email addresses on request for anti-spam reasons:
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:29:38 -0700 (GMT-07:00) From: <webmistress> To: <me> Subject: Re: nuclearweaponarchive.org - permission to use images of Dimona? It's all right with *me*, but I claim no rights to those images. I am of the opinion that it would be impossible for anyone to claim rights to the Vanunu photograph, except maybe for the Israeli government in whose facility the photo was illegally obtained. But no one legal body seems interested in enforcing that right, including the Israeli government itself. So it I think it is clearly in the public doman. -----Original Message----- From: <me, Wikibob> Sent: Apr 22, 2004 1:10 PM To: <webmistress> Subject: nuclearweaponarchive.org - permission to use images of Dimona? Dear <webmistress>, I found your email address on the nuclearweaponarchive.org website and would like permission to use 2 images from the Israel section for use in the Wikipedia article on Dimona. Wikipedia can only use public domain (or GFDL) material. The two images I have in mind are: The two images I have in mind are: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Israel/Dimona_compare.jpg and http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Israel/Dimona1s.jpg (courtesy Mordechai Vanunu)
God bless BBC!
BBC Newsnight yesterday revealed everything about UK's sale-out of much nuclear goodies towards the 1960's zionist bomb. Nobody else dares to ask Vanunu nowadays for fear of the Mossad but BBC. BBC quotes Vanunu Israel made lithium H-bombs not just A-bombs. Of course only Iran gets invaded ... the zionists are untouchable.
Read it all here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4789832.stm and here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4743493.stm and here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/israelbomb.pdf
Maybe its just me, but this article talks awfully lot about Israel's nuclear programme, though its supposed to be on the city of Dimona. Bless sins 02:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Just as the Windscale article barely bothers to mention the town. Possibly the reactor needs its own page. Rsynnott 16:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Seperate into 2 pages - Dimona and Negev Nuclear Research Center
Why does this article include the nuclear research center? I think it should be divided into two articles: Dimona and Negev Nuclear Research Center, especially given that the Nuclear center isn't in Dimona but rather a few miles away. Any objections? Eranb 12:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I object, the nuclear research center is the thing dimona is most known for. thats what i tihnk of when i hear the name.18.104.22.168 09:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The last paragraph reads like a plug for Black Hebrews, and was written (poorly) by someone who either belongs to or sympathizes with the movement. Either rewrite the last paragraph so that it is NPOV, or I will delete it. Narsil27 22:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The following coordinate fixes are needed for lat 31.002447, lon 35.146493
- Not done. The coordinates currently in the article are the correct ones for the settlement of Dimona. The coordinates you've given are those of the Negev Nuclear Research Center. Deor (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- However, Israel's nuclear storage facility has been transferred to Rafa (a change which, mysteriously, does not appear on Google Earth) - due to the increasing number of Alawites among the Bedouin tribesmen who have considerable experience with explosives.
The parenthetical remark sounds more like a polemic than something you might expect in an encyclopedia. But the whole sentence does not make much sense as long as we don't know which "Rafa" is meant here. The border town Rafah in the Gaza strip sounds like an implausible choice for storage of nuclear material, but what other place could be meant? Also, no sources are given, so I deleted the sentence.