Category talk:Soviet spies

Please post comments on bottom of page

George Koval aka DELMAR should be added to a number of lists. ==List quality==

This list of "Soviet spies" is contentious, and has probably been compiled by a neo-conservative who wants to justify the old and new McCarthyism. I would certainly delete Lauchlin Currie's name from the list, and would mention that someone edited my original Wikepedia entry on Currie to embellish Elizabeth Bentley's charges against him. The edit was poorly written and included spelling mistakes, and I resented its insertion into my own article. If people want to dispute an article it should be done in a separate memorandum, not by adulterating someone else's writing. Please note that in my own article I explicitly drew attention to work that does claim that Currie was a spy (Haynes and Klehr, 1999), so the edit was gratuitous as well as ugly. - Roger Sandilands —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sandilands (talk • contribs) 01:12, 22 July 2005.

This entire category is filled with assertions that put Wikipedia at legal risk. Persons accused of being Soviet Spies, perhaps. But in many cases the evidence is thin. Calling a citizen a spy means they are being called traitors, which is "libel per se," and the burden of proof shifts. This is a dangerous game being played here by ideological right-wing editors who fail to recognize their own POV.--Cberlet 04:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

If you follow the links, this category was evidently created as a subcategory of Category:Spies by nationality, using a Hollywood/fictional writing type definition. There are steps being taken to work on the problem; again, I would invite you to participate in a structural approach, rather than this constant fueding over contents, which can be dealt with later. nobs 06:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Where is the discussion concering these "steps being taken to work on the problem" taking place? Certainly not on the page you cited, since there is no discussion for that page. I prefer facts to a structural approach that seems to consist of attempts to validate only one narrow POV concerning U.S. intelligence agency issues, when, in fact, in real scholarship, the area is quite broad and often contentious. I am not constantly feuding over contents. I point out inconsistiencies, POV, and misrepresenteations of underlying documents and secondary sources. That's called editing. It's what we do here at Wikipedia. If someone who worked where I work brought this list for publication in one of our reports or periodicals, they would probably be terminated for incompetence.--Cberlet 12:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not seeking an arguement, however let me cite two instances from recent history. (1) A group of editors didn't like the dirt on Harry Magdoff, so they tried to pretend it didn't exist. It appears they requested the services of Mr. Cberlet to challenge the gubmint's findings. Mr. Cberlet's first (probably emotional) reaction was to create a new page rather than deal with a structured approach on the existing page. Final result: although the effort was to eradicate any of the gubmint's findings, now you have TWO pages with the evidence. (2) Mr. Cberlet didn't like Category:Soviet spies; nobs & Noel were in agreement w/Cberlet and were actively discussing the problems with the Category, and looking for a structured approach for a solution; Mr. Cberlet, in quite hasty fashion put up a CfD. Now the Category exists whether we like it or not.

So my friend, given the record, I suggest the hand of cooperation offered to you may be worth some consideration. nobs 17:20, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Definition

Should defectors really count as spies? That seems pretty bizarre to me, should we call Albert Einstein and Enrico Fermi American spies? What about the thousands of people who left East Germany for the West? Are they all West German spies? Lots of famous people defected from the Soviet Union to the USA, if this definition made any sense wouldn't there be a category:American spies? We could put Detroit Red Wing Sergei Fedorov on it. Maybe he brought secret Soviet hockey tape technology with him... The problem could probably be solved by creating a category for defectors from and to the USSR, and purging anyone from this list who wasn't known to be a spy. Flying fish 00:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've pointed out consitently that "spy" is more of a Hollywood & fictional term, and there is a need for better classifiication. The proposals now to add "alleged", or "accused", likewise are ill advised, as that now necessitiates placing Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer within the group that the NSA identified and the FBI concluded were spies. Such is the status of the debate when partisan extremists become recognized "expert" contributors to Wikipedia. nobs 18:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

"to the satisfaction of some scholars" - which scholars? This is not a good category to be ambiguous about. Point 8 from Wikipedia:Categorization says Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. I really think that this category should at minimum be split into spies and defectors. Flying fish 23:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a long history of dispute concerning this and related pages. The page has already been split. See: Category:Accused Soviet spies. Many names are relatively uncontroversial, others are still controversial. see: Significance of Venona.--Cberlet 00:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's a good move. The last thing I would suggest is that a category of defectors be created (for both sides), and that people who defected without spying be removed from this list. Flying fish 17:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea -- but I am in the middle of struggling over the Significance of Venona material.--Cberlet 19:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Come now, these individuals were either convicted, confessed, or massive ammounts of information has come to light proving thier guilt. DTC 18:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

<----The argument that guilt is established when a handful of scholars and government reports say that "most" of these people are probably guilty is insufficient.--Cberlet 19:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The sources you list don’t say "probable", "might be", "suspected", they categorically and unequivocal say that they were guilty. DTC 19:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet there is still a debate over Alger Hiss in some academic circles, so why is his name on this page?--Cberlet 21:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone is convicted, or confesses, they are only "accused", regardless of how much information there is to support the accusation. -Will Beback 22:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Definition II

None of the posts above responed to my point about defectors - they should not be considered spies. If a serious explanation of why defectors should be on this page doesn't come about soon I will simply remove "defectors" from the definition, and Bruno Pontecorvo from the list.

russian spies post-cold war?

where do articles go on russian spies in the post-cold war era?

e.g. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060325/ap_on_re_eu/russia_us_iraq_war Sat Mar 25, 8:15 AM ET Russia Denies Giving U.S. Intel to Iraq

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189050,00.html An unclassified Pentagon report released Friday cited two confiscated Iraqi documents as saying the Russians collected information from sources "inside the American Central Command" and that battlefield intelligence was provided to then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein through the Russian ambassador in Baghdad.