Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage/Archive2

VfD

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 July, 2005. The result was to keep. An archived record of this vote can be found here.

I leave the decision on disposition: merge, redirect whatever, to the editors. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Original Research

The sections Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage#Decrypted_cables and Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage#Corroboration are original research because they do not report the findings specifically related to Magdoff in published material, but analyze documents and reach conclusions based on an analysis of lists and code fragments. Please provide the actual language where Magdoff is discussed, otherwise most of these sections should be summarized in a sentence or two with lots of references and links for people who want to do their own analysis. --Cberlet 13:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet: Please accept my humblest appologies for a wholesale reversion without apprising myself of their contents. The Navasky & Schrecker materials all were properly cited & footnoted, to wit I humbly appologize. Specifics regarding their insertion will be dealt with in a constructive manner.

If you have time, I invite you to read Talk:VENONA_project#Proceedural_proposal, and will welcome any comments or suggestions, as this appears to be a continuing relationship which I hope may be productive. nobs 22:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Haunted Wood

Haunted Wood pg. 231 reads "Fitzgerald, Kramer, and Magdoff were among those who had complained about the quality of Perlo's leadership." nobs 20:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Note to Nobs

Please remove the nasty personal attack on me from your user page before continuing any discussion on this page. You should be ashamed of yourself. --Cberlet 01:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought it may belong in a class with Huxley-Wilberforce, Lincoln-Douglas, Wm J. Bryan-Clarence Darrow, Cberlet-nobs. I'm just trying to have some fun with this (I can see why McCarthy went berserk, after spending hours on end with this crap). My humblest appologies. nobs 02:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Fairness and Balance

Since most of this page is devoted to the allegations against Magdoff, is it too much to ask that folks resist the temptation to plop more POV material into the one section of skeptical comments? And let's remember this is a page about "allegations."--Cberlet 13:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

So are we going down the paranoid conspiracy theory road again about how the NSA conspired for 60 years against an innocent man? nobs 17:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

No, and please stop being so nasty. There is no reason to relentlessly insert more and more material supporting your side's position. 90% of the page already supports your position. Leave the small skepticism section alone. And the page is about allegations. There was no admission or conviction. That is simple NPOV.--Cberlet 17:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

So we are going to get into the libel per se issues regarding the slander of Joseph McCarthy, I presume? nobs 18:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Now you are deleting references for no good reason other than to provoke? I am tired of your nasty personal attacks, childish tantrums, and boorish bullying. I tried requesting mediation, but the mediation people said to seek outside comments. I suggest we seek outside comments before seeking arbitration. --Cberlet 18:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Simply because you use the phrase "nasty personal attacks" don't make it true. I'd prefer (I will state again) that discussion be limited to substance. nobs 18:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

What utter gall! You have a whole section of your user page devoted to a nasty personal attack on me, User:Nobs01#cberlet v nobs and you expect that people here are only going to notice when you put on your sweet syrupy persona to mask the other side of your interaction with me as an editor? When I asked you to remove this personal attack to show good faith, you replaced a few childish words (see diff: [1]. You and your friends turned my User talk page into a battleground over this page and related pages.[2]. This is just a partial list of your attacks on me rather than good faith editing. And yet you pretend you want to limit the disucssion to substance! It's way too late to pretend. Please, let's just ask for outside comments.--Cberlet 18:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I use my User page, as Al Franken would say, for satire. Outside that, I'm the pure professional. Personally, I respect your talents in your chosen field, even if at times you seem to be chasing imaginary windmills, demons and dragons. We seem to have a difference in outlook, you appear to believe the planet revolves along a Left-Right axis, Left being whatever, and Right being the reincarnated Sons of Satan, assuming Satan exists. I don't see ideology as the primary motivating force in all cases. All I ask is a little less stereotyping of others to fit a prefabricated world view. nobs 19:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Not funny. Not accurate. Irrelevant. I do not believe I fit the description you offer.--Cberlet 22:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[Ed.note:For the viewers at home, under subhead "Fairness and Balance" in a Harry Magdoff article observe how Mr. Cberlet has once again transformed this into a discussion about himself]. nobs 01:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

New edits

To Mr. Cberlet Dear Sir: I thought we had an agreement (1) on the page as is (2) to discuss before making any new significant changes or deletions. Yours truelly, my word is my bond, nobs 20:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. I did a legitimate edit. I rearranged text chronologically. I fixed a subhead that was factually in error. I deleted nothing of substance. I left all criticism of Magdoff intact. I added no new skeptical material. Stop making this personal and try to edit in good faith without personal attacks.--Cberlet 22:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobs: This page is rife with misleading POV, false claims, misrepresentation of underlying sources, and incompetent research. Your obvious lack of "good faith" is amply demonstrated by your repeated nasty personal attacks against me, not just posted on your user page, but brought against me in several others settings.[3], .[4]. The mediator suggested we seek outside input. You have refused. I carry out a reasonable edit, you revert it without discussion. Every time this page achieves some sort of balanced NPOV, you slide back in and change the material paragraph-by-paragraph day-after-day to re-introduce misleading claims and misrepresentations of sources that have been discussed repeatedly in the past. The heading "NSA Findings" is blatantly false. Unverified testimony of Elizabeth Bently is falsely portrayed as a claim of a government agency.

Once again, following the advice of the mediator, I ask that we both agree to seek outside input into the editing of this page. I think this is something we both should agree to, to make it a worthwhile process. --Cberlet 13:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I will challange many of your assertions, particularly if you persist in making this some sort of a personal disagreement. This is not the place for me to list all your sins, and my feigned response to being offended. I will challenge the above statement of yours, that I have "refused" mediation or outside help, and I could demand the evidence which you would be incapable of producing, because it does not exist. So I will hang the question of credibility upon that question right there.

Ultimately, I'm not gonna get down and dirty with you in some personal disagreement, because it serves no purpose. It may serve a purpose of yours, to consume my time and divert my attention from my work.

If you so choose to reaxamine all the evidence, reargue all the same issues, go ahead. But it appears your persistent attempts to paint this as a personal dispute, and label me as something that I am not, is because of the weakness of the case you have addressing the material facts. nobs 17:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

What you do on these pages is patently unfair and demonstrates bad faith. You can pretend that this is not part of the editing problem here, but it just won't wash. You claim to edit in good faith, and yet when you return to this page and re-insert material about allegations of espionage, you insert material that is not only one-sided, but factually false. This is partly about your relentless refusal to seek a reasonable compromise, and your relentless return to these pages after an apparent compromise is reached and your insertion of material that reflects your original, and false, claims when you think no one is paying attention. Then, when caught, you whine and engage in faux courtesy. Nonsense. I propose that we delete all but the most summary espionage material on the basic Magdoff page (and keep the link), and go back to this page and once again go through the text paragraph by paragraph, and when we have discussed all the false, misrepresented, and POV material you introduced to that text, we return to the basic Magdoff page.--Cberlet 18:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Regarding the RfM, as Requests_for_mediation#Cberlet_in_dispute_with_Rangerdude_and_nobs seems to have been moved & I can't find it, I will post a reponse here. I was never contacted by a mediator.

Addendum to Response for RfM: Cberlet's identity spoiler qualifies him as a "former vice-president of the National Lawyers Guild" (Chip_Berlet#R.C3.A9sum.C3.A9). Cberlet further stated "I was a professional document analyst and paralegal investigator for several years; reading unredated CIA, FBI, Military Intelligence, and local police surveillance files. I have read more than 100,000 pages of such files." [5] Yet here [6] I am accused of "misrepresentation" in a subhead. The ethicicy of such a statement is highly questionable. It is repeated here as "falsification" [7] and here as "lie" [8]. As stated in response to the original RfM, all personal attacks must be addressed, in point, in kind. nobs 19:02, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Factually False Claims

Round One

• "NSA findings" subheading. This section does not represent findings of the National Security Agency. The heading is factually false.

• Elizabeth Bentley accusations. These are not findings of the National Security Agency or any federal agency. This material belongs in a seperate section clearly identified as unverified testimony delivered during the McCarthy Period hearings.

• "Corroboration" subheading. This section implies that all the material in this section corroborates the claim that Magdoff was a spy. This is false and misleading. What is corroborated is that the Soviets saw Magdoff as a source of information and a potential spy, nothing more. For example, the memo from Dimitrov merely asks: "Please provide any information at your disposal on the following members of the Comparty of America." This hardly corroborates anything. Guilt by association by proxy.

I propose we focus on fixing these false claims first.--Cberlet 18:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Your choice: (a) stop reversion & negotiate (b) merge all material & negotiate. nobs 19:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobs: you do not own these pages and cannot dictate the terms of editing. Please respond to my charge that there are three factually false blocks of text on this page that need to be discussed. --Cberlet 19:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comments

Posted at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics 22:05, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobs: I thought that we should refrain from continuing to edit these pages until there are some comments, Instead you continue to modify these pages in a way that discards all previous compromises and inserts your particular POV. Is this really necesssary?--Cberlet 01:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The above is a factually false claim made by Cberlet [9]. I have made no edits to this page since Cberlet posted RfC. nobs 05:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment

Looking at this recent revert here, the dispute seems limited to the wording of three subsections and one sentence fragment. One titled by nobs as Corrboration seems to be rather POV in its verdict, but is this a view that sees a consensus from the scholarly community or from the intelligence community so as to be titled that? Secondly, as Cberlet asks, where is the evidence that the section titled NSA findings actually relates to findings by the NSA? The contents for this section appear unsourced (risking original claims), despite requests for verifiable cites. El_C 01:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually I changed Corroboration to "Moscow Archives", which is evident if you read even the most recent postings in the discussion. NSA findings refers to the Official History of Counterintellignece Operations in the United States, published by the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (ONCIX), edited by Frank Rafalko. This entire discussion page has been merged to Harry Magdoff, as much of this main article content will likewise. I would encourage you to examine the evidence and discuss. Thank you. nobs 02:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you have a more precise source (passage, page no., year)? Also, is the merge agreed upon by the respective contesting parties? El_C 02:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

If you will compare these two discussion pages, you will see that it is one discussion, which is taking place at Harry Magdoff. This may make it easier for yourself. Cberlet originally divided the espionage contents, it survived a VfD with a vote to Merge. That, basically is what the discussion is about. nobs 02:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can see some problems with it, in being disporportional to what he is notable for (is there still such a consensus at this time?), but for now, I limit myself more to my request for more precise citation. El_C 03:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

All the citations are in the footnotes. Upon examination, you may discover Cberlet suffers from a distinct lack of citations, having introduced pre-Venona materials (copywrites 1980 & 1994), or being forced to use The Nation magazine, a source which itself has two correspondents cited in the Venona decrypts, because that's all he's got for sources. There simply are no other sources to rebut the United States Government's published findings. nobs 03:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

From the Main text;

"According to United States Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (ONCIX) Official History, Magdoff was a member of the Perlo group of Soviet spies (See pg. 31)"

Same as footnote 2. nobs 03:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

That dosen't answer the question at all (in fact, seemingly evades it), though, and whatever it may (or is claimed to) be, it isn't footnoted in that section (named as such -- ed. "Frank Rafalko"). As for the rest, I look forward to reading Cberlet response to your claims, but for now, as noted, my immediate focus remains rather narrow in its referencial scope (or lack thereof?). Please refer to my original question. It's too easy to lose focus here, esp. as per my querry. El_C 03:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

(Moving indent) following extract from the ONCIX Counterintelligence Reader (pg. 31) is printed in the main article as part of footnote 6, reads as follows,

"The following were members of the Victor Perlo group....Harry Magdoff: Statistical Division of WPB and Office of Emergency Management; Bureau of Research and Statistics, WTB; Tools Division, War Production Board; Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce Department."

The Counterintellignece Reader, which is the Official History of counterintelligence operations in the United States, is available both at the FAS & ONCIX websites. nobs 03:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

That's still not what I sought, which is a simple request. Am I to understand, then, that you are unable to answer the question directly? El_C 03:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Please, carry the disucssion over to Talk:Harry Magdoff. The numbering of the footnotes between this version, and the version you just reverted at Harry Magdoff, don't jibe. The text containing all the espionage related material was voted to Merge. The version just reverted at Harry Magdoff is the version in dispute, as to what is to be merged. Thank you. nobs 03:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

If you wish to answer my querry directly there, that's fine. I could not care less where such an answer is provided. Thanks. El_C 03:55, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Original question has two parts: the U.S. Governments case, and Corroboration from Soviet Archives. You asked about "NSA findings", i.e. the Counterintelligence Reader from ONCIX. You coupled your question with "Corroboration", i.e. "Moscow Archives". All the material is properly sourced, and cited, as are secondary sources. nobs 04:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

And yet you fail in responding to my querry regarding just one of these mentioned by you here, which I find puzzling. El_C 04:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well then, given that the discussion is to be continued on this page (which will be remerged later to Talk:Harry Magdoff, would you mind please restating the question. Thank you. nobs 04:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. Date of publication for the work edited by Frank Rafalko (I could not find mention of him), any pertinent passages, and page numbers — and might as well add: any pertinent sources he relies on. Thanks again. El_C 05:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

The Counterintelligence Reader is a collected and collaborative work by the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (formerly NACIC). Rafalko is the editor. This is the complete official site [10], and it is also available on the Federation of American Scientists (which everybody knows, is a CIA front organization). Vol. 3, chap. 1, pg. 31, specifically cites Magdoff as a member of the Perlo group. The CI Reader appeared sometime after 1998, and I can nail that down for you tomorrow. The Acknowledgements give some idea on sources, and the FAS site refers to it as the "Official History" of CI operations in the United States. The ONCIX cite explains who they are. nobs 05:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, please do. Are you able to link the acknowledgments? Back on topic soon. El_C 06:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

(Moving indent) The History New Network provides a good introduction dated 5 October 2004 [11] with a link to the FAS site. (HNN is part of George Mason University). Here are the Acknowledgements, a 1 page pdf file [12]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS read in part,

"Director of the National Counterintelligence Center, Michael J. Waguespack, Dr. Louis R. Sadler, head of the History Department at New Mexico State University, Emma Sullivan, CIA’s Historical Intelligence Collection librarian, Dr. Sadler and to Dr. Charles H. Harris III, also from New Mexico State University, Dr. Timothy Naftali, of Yale University, and Wayne Goldstein, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Dan Lovelace, former CIA officer, Louise Sayre, National Security Agency, Christopher Lyons, Department of State, and Eric Rafalko at Radford University, Tom Shirey of the CIA and Charles Emmling, a former CIA officer, CIA’s Lisa Lupton, staff at the National Counterintelligence Center’s Community Training Branch, SA G. Anna Kline, Air Force Office of Special Investigations, SA Robert Breitenbach and SA Catherine M. Kiser, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Diane Harper, Central Intelligence Agency and Thomas Xenakis, Defense Security Service, Stephen Argubright, Naval Criminal Investigative Service.

The now defunct NACIC stands for National Counterintelligence Center, which has been replaced by ONCIX. nobs 18:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Can we please start over with a clean slate?

I do not think that the claims by User:Nobs01 accurately reflect what I have agreed to regarding the two pages under discussion, nor the actual outcome of the vote, nor where the discussion should be taking place. I would very much appreciate it if User:Nobs01 would refrain from making claims about what I have agreed to or not agreed to.

These are the last two pages that I believe are a proper starting point for further discussion:

• Harry Magdoff [13]
• Harry Magdoff and espionage [14]

There was an ongoing debate on the Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage page that was unilaterally terminated by User:Nobs01, who then (without my consent), unilaterally moved the ongoing discussion to the Harry_Magdoff page. See diff: [15].

This is the actual summary of the result of the vote regarding the page Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage:

"The result of the debate was keep. The disposition of content should be worked out by discussion, but there seems to be strong support for merge with Harry Magdoff. --Tony Sidaway User:Tony_Sidaway Talk User_talk:Tony_Sidaway 16:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)"

The issues resulting from the vote are actually quite simple:

If we merge the pages, what material should be merged, and what material should be discarded?

If we do not merge the pages, what summary text regarding the allegations of espionage belong on the page?

What User:Nobs01 has done is to only "merge" material that supports his POV from the Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage page onto the main Harry_Magdoff page. All skeptical material User:Nobs01 has simply discarded.

In addition, User:Nobs01 continues to post and defend text (now on both pages) that I think does not accurately reflect the underlying material User:Nobs01 has cited. The most recent examples of this I pointed out at [16]. This ongoing discussion was moved by User:Nobs01 from the Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage page to the Harry_Magdoff without my consent.

I think we should proceed in a series of steps that follow a democratic process.

1) Restore the Harry_Magdoff page to the version that has a simple NPOV summary and link to the Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage page. This one: HarryMagdoff [17]

2) Restore the Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage page to the last version before this controversy. This one: Harry Magdoff and espionage [18]

3) Move the current discussion concerning the accuracy and NPOV nature of the espionage-related text back to the Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage page. When these factual issues are somewhat resolved...then:

4) Open up a broader discussion of these two questions:

• A) If we merge the pages, what material should be merged, and what material should be discarded?
• B) If we do not merge the pages, what summary text regarding the allegations of espionage belong on the page?

I would like to make it clear that I now support option "B" because the Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage page has much valuable research material, and I see no reason to lose that work, even though the bulk of it I find unconvincing and POV regarding Magdoff. As long as there is skeptical material, I think there is some balance. I would prefer it if the Harry_Magdoff page merely has a very short NPOV and balanced summary discussion about the espionage controvery, and a link to the Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage page.--Cberlet 09:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Simplified response: This appears to be a very similiar proposal to what has been on the table for nearly two months. Regarding item 1) above, I would counter-propose this version [19], which contain two paragraphs and addresses point A) above "what material should be merged". This is only reasonable, as that version has existed on the Harry Magdoff article for two months already, it is the previous concensus version (not the censored version Cberlet proposes above), there is no indication if the censored version is allowed that good faith efforts to resolve the issues Cberlet has just outlined will continue.

There is no reason to change the previous censensus version to Cberlet's censored version now. A vote to Merge has already occurred. Cberlet has well defined the steps and process that could lead to a collaborative effort, if the editors would agree to work together. As to starting over, there should be a simple agreement regarding which discussion page to use, and only use, till issues are resolved. Two days ago, an RfC went out for Comment on both discussion pages, only to set off more confusion among new contributors. This must now be addressed before we proceed.

Specific proposal to User:Cberlet: if you will agree to revert to this tentative version [20] of the Harry Magdoff article, contact all the people you personally solicited for RfC and explain the RfC & discussion only applies to Harry Magdoff and espionage, and yourself will enforce and subsequent changes to the Harry Magdoff article from the version I propose containing the two paragraphs, you yourself will revert the editors you solicited for comment.

This may seem cumbersome, however during the VfD all issues regarding the POV-folk User:Cberlet created were disucssed. Now we must live with its consequences. All that has occured since then is snipeing around the edges with attempts to insert "alleged to's" in both articles, and now the wholesale attempt to censor all the evidence, once again. Needless to say, good faith could have (a) assisted, and (b) resolved, most all these issues in the past. Based on User conduct, it may be possible to demonstrate good faith once again. nobs 17:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Ten votes to merge versus six to keep does not amount to consensus (at worse, a supermajority of ~80% or so) to merge, nor any decision the contesting parties are bound to live with. I challenge that it is a gross misinterpertation of policy to argue otherwise. El_C 18:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It's actually 12 to 6 to Merge; and the Merge, as per the vote, doesn't need 80% as I understand. nobs 19:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It dosen't requiere anything, nor does reverting it; I do not count the votes of banned members, only those in good standing. El_C 19:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I will contact the Admin who tallied the vote and ask for input.--Cberlet 19:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, can you explain to me why you think it is fair to only merge into the Harry_Magdoff page that material from the Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage page that represents your point of view?--Cberlet 19:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

(A) It is not my point of view; (B) the two paragraphs in question are straight forward literally cut and pasted citations from ONCIX & other primary & secondary sources; (C) the censorship you propose of the United States Governments published references reflect your unsourced, original research claim that the United States Government, through various Commissions and agencies, has been involved in a conspiracy to slander Harry Magdoff. (D) we've been over this ground before. nobs 19:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

A key question, though, relates to proportionality; as in, what Magdoff is notable for during his life and work. El_C 19:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Amen. And this [21] does just that, without all the "alleged to have's". nobs 20:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, as per Cberlet's question of fairness. Can you explain why it is necessary to call Elizabeth Bentley a liar, despite the evidence to here veracity. Simply because she was unfairly called a liar 50 years ago, and now the truth emerges, does not justify continuing to do so. nobs 20:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, these polemics about truth and so on aside, the point is that these issues remain subject to debate. El_C 20:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

(Moving indent) As to truth, there is only one point to that, the evidence exists. From day one there has only been an attempt to either deny the evidence exists or censor it from Harry Magdoff's bio page. nobs 20:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand that you feel this way, but it might not be so simply reduced from the vantage point of other editors who contest your position. El_C 20:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Response from vote "janitor"

Here is the response from Tony Sidaway, who closed the vote:

"Yes, I recall closing that one. I even notice that User:Francs2000 inadvertently did a parallel close, with the same result, shortly after mine, and then politely reverted it. He called it "no consensus", I called it "keep", but our reason was identical: there was no consensus to delete or to merge, and Deletion policy specifically requires that an article be kept where there is no consensus to delete, although this does not preclude a merge. In my close, I mentioned that "there seems to be strong support for merge with Harry Magdoff." Someone had already tagged the article for merge. I have no personal preferences on this, I'm just the janitor who looked at the debate and decided what to do. Really you should discuss it between yourselves and see if you can agree on whether it should be merged. There didn't seem to be what amounted to a consensus when I closed, but people's opinions change over time and with reasonable discussion. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)"

A reasonable response, and one that throws us back into collective editing.  :-) I love irony.--Cberlet 20:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobs: NPOV and fairness is not censorship. We have to work out a compromise here. I took a break and did an attitude readjustment. How about you?--Cberlet 20:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not here to trade insults, etc. I suggests, tentatively, we leave the two paragraphs in the bio page, while we work out whatever problems may exist on Harry Magdoff and espionage. That means no more reversion on Harry Magdoff till languauge is hammered out here. And discussion should be on this page (means anyone responding to the RfC for over there should be encouraged to join here). nobs 20:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I totally disagree. The small summary is sufficient. We need to focus on starting over. I have no interest in merging the two articles at this point.--Cberlet 20:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree as well. One would think we were still living in the 1950's with Nobs01. He created the Harry Magdoff article on June 6th, which was three paragraphs which mention nothing of how Magdoff is an editor of the Monthly Review, but go into great detail about how he was a Soviet spy, which it does not state as a question but a fact ("Magdoff was a member of the Perlo group of Soviet spies.") This is about as unencyclopediac as one can get. Then he says Venona "proves" Magdoff was a spy. Well Venona does talk about a spy code-named TAN, and perhaps Venona proves TAN was a spy, but it does not offer proof that Harry Magdoff was a spy, unless you take as an article of faith that TAN was Harry Magdoff. Even considering the systemic bias that most Wikipedians recognize exists due to English Wikipedia being written mostly by English-speaking people with access to the Internet, Nobs01 is at the far end of bias in terms of xenophobia, fear of red under every bed, imagining vast communist conspiracies (lucky for him he didn't live in France, where the largest political party in the 1950's was the communist party, or Italy where the communists almost came to power via the ballot box in 1976) and so forth. On the William Remington page, he mentioned how Elizabeth Bentley accused him of being a spy - I spent weeks trying to insert a sentence saying that Remington then sued her for libel and she lost the case - finally he relented, after he reworded it to where it would seem the jury who decided that was duped.

I should point out that Nobs01 has ruined hundreds of articles with his nonsense, I figure Nobs01 is more for ArbCom to deal with, whenever they get around with. I, and others, like Chip Berlet, have taken a stand on a few pages. I am not going to let Nobs01 unfairly sully, in a POV way, the names of Harry Magdoff, IF Stone, and a few more people. And while we're letting him post his POV screeds in dozens of other articles, he has no ability to compromise with me, Chip and the others who have tried to work for compromise in articles such as this one. If ArbCom wasn't so over-burdened, Nobs01 would have been dealt with already. Ruy Lopez 01:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Response to the above outrageous personal attack: this user has been warned previously his postings are not considered in good faith. The specific above personal attack is duly noted. nobs 03:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Again with the bullshit claim that "Bentley ... lost the [libel] case". What a fascinating light on your disdain for the truth, because no matter how many times your error is pointed out to you (I think this is about the 5th time I have to refute this bogus propoganda, on as many Talk: pages). Once again, let's see what the real story is:

It would cost more to win the case than it would to settle it .... The NBC lawyers moved to settle. ... 'Meet the Press' producer Lawrence Spivak wrote a long and vehement letter to NBC's insurance company begging them not to settle. Spivak told the press that he did not believe a libel had been comitted on his show.. (Clever Girl, pp. 201)

So much for "lost". It's also worth noting that Remington was later convicted of perjury and jailed for his testimony on precisely the issue on which she was sued - whether or not he had been an active Communist. Noel (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Good Faith

Unfortuneately, if the two paragraphs are not Merged within Harry Magdoff, there is no evidence that a compromise will be sought on this page. The two paragraphs in question are less than a 2400 word limit Cberlet proposed 29 July 2005, 6 weeks ago (see(Talk:Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage#Summary, above). Myself, in good faith six weeks ago, Merged the two paragraphs, not the full text, nor the 2400 word limit as per Cberlet's proposal. This clearly demonstrates that efforts to remove the two paragraphs now, without actively pursing resolution are not in good faith. nobs 20:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

This is all water over the dam. People change their minds. New information has arrived stating that your interpretation of the vote (and mine for that matter) were not totally accurate. It is a new day. Great the sun with a smile and a determination to find a new and creative solution. Cheers.--Cberlet 21:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

McCarthy Era

Cberlet: Use of McCarthy era is purely POV and an appeal to prejudice. Magdoff left government service 30 December 1946; Joseph McCarthy was not even sworn in as US Senator until the next week, first week of January 1947 and didn't go on a crusade for several years yet. There is virtually no connection whatsoever between this individual, Henry Samual Magdoff, and Joseph McCarthy.

This reference is precisely what Senator Moynihan speaks of when he "began to wonder about McCarthyism's flip side: the reaction against McCarthy that took the form of a modish anti-anti-Communism that considered impolite any discussion of the very real threat Communism posed to Western values and security." Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Secrecy: The American Experience (New Haven: Yale University Press 1998), p.15.

Starting with a clean slate, we should focus upon factual matters, not subjective references with subtleties. To be truelly NPOV, there is nothing wrong with early 1950s. Lets focus on facts, and argue the shaded meanings later. nobs 03:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think we should be doing those things.--66.65.63.154 17:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of new edits

Text:"The FBI reports that Magdoff and others were probed as part of "a major espionage investigation spanning the years 1945 through 1959" into an alleged "Soviet spy ring which supposedly had 27 individuals gathering information from at least six Federal agencies. However, none of the subjects were indicted by the Grand Jury."[22].

Comment: No consideration of Venona materials; suffers from lack of relevance and cannot be considered apart from Venona.

"Several sources indicate Magdoff was investigated as a member of what was called the Perlo group.

Comment: "what was called"; significance?

"provided this information to the FBI and later testified to that same effect during McCarthy era hearings[23]

Comment: "and later testified to that same effect during McCarthy era hearings", the intext quotation is from FBI deposition, not testimony before a hearing, as rewritten is factually incorrect; secondly, "McCarthy era", see above, Talk:Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage#McCarthy_Era

"According to Raflako"

Comment: should read "The National Counterintelligence Center's, "Counterintelligence Reader", cites Magdoff as a member of the Perlo group", unless some case can be made to depart from the primary source and insert "what was called" also.

"Critics of Bentley point out that some of her claims were disputed at the time, and that the testimony of Bentley and others before various Congressional committees during the McCarthy period was sometimes exagerated or involved guilt by associations assertions.

Comment:"Critics of Bentley" unsourced; "disputed at the time", relevence?; "testimony of Bentley and others before various Congressional committees" how does that relate to Magdoff? I see no reference to Magdoff being summoned to testify; "others", who are 'others', and how does that relate to Magdoff?

Deleted:"government agencies as well as independent

Comment: what is the purpose of deleting NACIC reference. nobs 03:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

As per replacing Rafalko with NACIC, please reference your question "What cite should we actually be using? The primary document." and see Talk:VENONA_project#Rafalko:_54_Google_hits; Rafalko is not mentioned in the primary source document. Also see your statement "The FAS website is not affiliated with the government. It's just a website, not the publisher. The proper website to link to for the text is the U.S. Government website"; thus NACIC becomes the intext citation as Rafalko is not cited by the US government as the primary source editor. nobs 04:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion has temporarily been moved to another page - Talk:VENONA project

Nobs: You have been asked repeatedly to take this discussion to Talk:VENONA project so that we all do not have to have the same debate, over and over, on numerous pages that you have created/edited relating to your claims. These matters are being discussed collectively on the Talk:VENONA project page. If you continue to insist on running the same discussion on the same matters and same language on Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage and Talk:Harry Magdoff and other pages, instead of having one discussion at Talk:VENONA project, I will ask for Page Protection on the appropriate pages until you agree to follow the group process.--Cberlet 17:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet:Then per your request, please do not edit this article without concensus. Thank you so much. nobs 20:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Revert: Active discussion at Talk:VENONA project

Magdoff's gallbladder

The original merged version of 02:58, 27 July 2005 [24] read,

"Magdoff at the time was ending a prolonged leave of absence due to a gall bladder operation, and was unsure of the type of material he could deliver.", sourced to FBI Silvermaster group file, Part 2c, pgs. 182-188 (pgs. 3-9 in PDF format)

The text and meaning was altered to

"the Soviets were unsure of the type of material he might be asked to deliver."

Primary source was made available; this obviously was not consulted or considered with the above POV original research insertion. The specific editor could be identified, and this could be used to illustrate a POV edit. nobs 01:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

To be Noted: the recent RfC [25] asks, "to what extent can the VENONA documents be said to "confirm" or "support" the various allegations of espionage mentioned in this article, and in other related articles"; the original above material was reverted, spunoff into a new article which survived a VfD, remerged, sourced to primary documents, and extensively discussed. Yet the POV edit that changed the meaning from first person primary source documentation, of Magdoff willingly acceding to furnish information, to ascribing the action to a third party not present, ignoring the source information (1) demanded (2) made available, illustrates more than imposing POV upon this article. And it speaks directly to the current RfC. nobs 02:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC

Request for Mediation filed

I have filed a request for mediation on this and related pages, see here:[26]--Cberlet 18:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

629 Venona

It appears the issue of "how to cite and summarize information from various government agencies and secondary sources" that will "serve as a model" may require expanding this article now. I thought the summary of primary sources here was adaquate, but now it appears Cberlet is asking for a complete examination of the primary source material relevent to Venona decrypt #629, which was moreless stepped over for the more relevent portions of #687. Here's a thumbnail synopsis that we'll have to craft language from:

• 629 5 May 1944 discusses about the "possibility of a meeting with KANT" (insert primary source citation); NSA analysts (insert primary source citation) and numerous secondary sources read this to mean KANT already had a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence, i.e. he already was recruited.
• 687 13 May 1944, one week later, in John Abt's apartment, with others, KANT and others were reassigned, i.e. "they had been neglected" since previous contact, it is not a first time recruitment meeting. "Initial meeting" is a reference to Bentley taking over the group, not thier recruitment. Perlo was taking over a newly formed sub-group of Soviet operatives who previously reported through Silvermaster.(insert numerous secondary sources)
• Elsewhere (insert primary source citation) Magdoff is described as a "longtime" member.
• 1948 Gorsky Memo (insert primary source, KGB Archives) lists Magdoff #3, behind Jake Golos, head of CPUSA secret apparatus 1921-1943 & NKVD officer, and Elizabeth Bentley, who served Soviet intelligence from 1938-1945. According to the US-Canada Insititute in Moscow (insert primary source citation), KGB Officer ranked thier assets chronologically, first recruited to most recent. Magdoff is number 3 on a list of 42 names. This means Magdoff was recruited between 1938 and the date of Venona #629 5 May 1944; it could be further isolated within a range because of the 39 remaining names on the list, we could identifiy a specific or approximate date of recruitment among some of those individuals. The Gorsky Memo also uses code name TAN, which fits the #179, 180 Venona (insert primary source citation), and is consistent with Magdoff (insert secondary source citation).

I didn't think such tedious details were necessary originally when I was looking to summarize information, but now it appears they must be included. It seems everytime Cberlet trys to suppress information getting out, the information that gets out is expanded. nobs 00:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's a portion of the Russian text:

Группа "Звука" - "Мирное"

1. "Звук" -- Яков Голос [Jocob Golos] (Рейзин) [Rezin], наш быв. нелег. сотр-к в США. Умер в 43 г.

2. "Мирна" -- Елизавета Бентли [Elizabeth Bentley], быв. вице-президент компании "Юнайтед Стейтс Сервис энд шиппинг корпорейшн," предатель с 45 г.

3. "Тан" -- Гарри Могдофф [Harry Madgoff], быв. чиновник мин-ва торговли

Magdoff is #3. We could add a img but I haven't figured out how to convert a Quicktime to an img yet. nobs 02:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Please note regarding Magdoff's recruitment, which (a) did not occur 13 May 1944 in John Abt's apt. (b) both citations above are primary source (i.e. corroboration), and difficult to refute, i.e. examination of secondary source is required. Who is the secondary source? To be properly qualified to give testimony, a secondary source must be subjected to criticism if it is to refute a primary; thus the dilemma, can The Nation magazine survive crossexamination to give the fig leaf of NPOV. nobs 02:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobs: let's just get on with the mediation.--Cberlet 02:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Clarification of "fig leaf of NPOV": the unchallenged The Nation is a fig leaf I've allowed Cberlet to wear to provide "balance" and "NPOV", in his use of the terms. However, a secondary source can never refute a primary source, without proper qualification. I don't beleive "the model" should be written with this article. nobs 02:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

(Moving indent) Cberlet: there is a simple way to speed up the process; withdraw your Summary of Dispute and rewrite it to address specifically the problem of sourcing. nobs 04:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate Deletion of critical material

So much of this page is devoted to attacking Magdoff that the deletion of a highly relevant portion of text is an absurd POV attempt to silence counter criticism.--Cberlet 23:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The full discussion belongs on this page, not on both pages. I am delighted to remove both sides of the discussion from the Harry Magdoff page and have it here, where the quote being deleted clearly should be allowed out of basic fairness and NPOV.--Cberlet 23:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

First, the use of material has absolutely nothing to do with "basic fairness and NPOV" if it is completely 100% irrelevant to the article. As far as it not belonging on both pages, you have seen fit to include the same tired strawmen from Navasky and Schrecker on 3 pages relating to this subject. It is inconsistent for you to argue that the material on Magdoff's KGB lap-doggery, only belongs here, but the defense from Navasky and Schrecker belong everywhere. DTC 01:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "KGB lap-doggery" makes it unlikely you can edit any of these pages in an NPOV way. It is fair and appropriate to delete all the references to the controversy on the Harry Magdoff page and include them all here. That's what I did. Thus removing one of the references to Schrecker. That should make you happy. Instead you filed a false 3RR complaint against me. Why is is fair to repeat mountains of Venona-related material on numerous pages, and yet complain that a few pages attempt to refute the massive POV spread across Wikipedia as part of an effort to re-argue the Cold War and the McCarthy Era? If one side can re-argue, then both sides can re-argue. Ons-sided POV on this matter is obvious in the nasty personal attack on Magdoff--who has been dead only a few days--in the phrases such as "tired strawmen from Navasky and Schrecker" and "Magdoff's KGB lap-doggery." --Cberlet 01:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion about "Magdoff's KGB lap-doggery", will be kept on the talk page, unless I can cite it, something which I am afraid you are unable to do. How can you even justify that it is fair and appropriate to delete all the references to the controversy?!? I mean seriously, who in God's name are you kidding?

And, for the record, lets review what a 3RR violation is all about.

The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within 24 hours of their first reversion

A reversion bieng:

A revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time.

Seems pretty clear to me thats what you did, so drop the line that I am "filing false charges against you" and get back to the point.

Why is is fair to repeat mountains of Venona-related material on numerous pages, and yet complain that a few pages attempt to refute the massive POV spread across Wikipedia as part of an effort to re-argue the Cold War and the McCarthy Era?

Becasue Venona and its contemporary historical analysis deals with hundreds of different subjects in great detail. VENONA named hundreds of individuals, and its inclusion into articles dealing with them is valid. Mitrokihn and other Soviets named hundreds of individuals, the ammount of evidence is staggering, and only blind Stalinist hacks like Navasky refuse to take their blinders off and the see the truth for what it is: McCarthy far understated the extent of Soviet infiltration.

If one side can re-argue, then both sides can re-argue.

I am not re-arguing anything, don't confuse me with Nobs. DTC 02:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

<--------The entire section titled "Significance of Venona" does not mention Magdoff. Shall we delete that entire section based on your argument? The Schrecker quote raises skepticism of the claims made in the "Significance of Venona" section. It balances the biased POV of that section. Implying that I am a "blind Stalinist hack" is sort of a personal attack, eh?--Cberlet 17:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I had not even really looked into that section. Lets us do away with that as well. And I was specifically referring to Navasky as being a "blind Stalinist hack", as you well know, so stop putting words in my mouth. BTW, I will accept your belated apology on the 3RR violation. DTC 18:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, as much as I liked him, I am not Nobs. I am not going to goaded into saying or doing something inappropriate and wind up getting booted. I am here for the long haul and will pick up where he left off, so you had best come to terms with that.DTC 18:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

An imaginary apology for an imaginary 3RR violation. Seems appropriate. By all means lets remove both. And lets leave only the link on the Harry Magdoff page, rather than duplicating material. It was Nobs01 who insisted on stamping his Venona text all over Wikipedia. All I did was argue in favor of balance. --Cberlet 18:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but as to that 3RR violation, unfortunately your opinion is contradicted by those who have reviewed the incident. DTC 19:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

We agreed to cut the Schrecker quote and the "Significance of Venona" section. Now you have deleted most of the Navasky quote as well, including the direct mention of Magdoff. Misrepresenting a compromise to engage in POV pushing is really not appropriate.--Cberlet 20:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Thats because most of it is irrelevant and wrong. Navasky claims that Haynes and Klehr not to call up either of them (or any other living person on their list) to get their version of what did or didn't happen., when that is patently false. Haynes and Klehr do back up the inclusion of Magdoff with a corroborating source. Have you even read the material in question? If not, I don’t know how we can even have this discussion. DTC 20:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You can't cut published quotes just because you think they are "wrong." That's not the criteria for editing. This page is not about establishing the "truth," it is about accurately representing the research of one set of researchers, and providing the skeptics with some room for disagreement. I think Haynes and Klehr pile too many assumption on top of each other. Do I get to go and delete their contentions simply becasue I think they are "wrong?"--Cberlet 21:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, Navasky claims something which on its face is not true. He says that Haynes and Klehr don’t offer supporting information, when anyone who has read The Secret World of American Communist knows that they do. Do you want to tit for tat with he said she said quotes, or just cut away all the bullshit. I am not here to establish truth, but something this blatantly and verifiably false, cannot stand without comment. And if you can prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that one of Haynes and Klehrs statements is false, then I would have no problem with removing it. Remember though, by false, you have to show that the information is incorrect, not just that there is a differentiation on analysis. You belief that Haynes and Klehrs simply pile too many assumption on top of each other is just the thing they addresses in their book “In Denial”, and is a disagreement with their “interpretation” of facts, not the facts themselves. Might be useful for you to check it out of the library. And just for the record, don’t you even for a moment doubt Navasky’s motivation sin this debate? I mean, how many individuals fingered over the past decade has “The Nation Magazine” had on its payroll at some time? At least a dozen or so. I swear, its like the left is suffering from some form of collective cognitive dissonance over the issue of Soviet cold war penetration in the US. DTC 21:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have read The Secret World of American Communism, and The Soviet World of American Communism, and The Haunted Wood, and The Venona Secrets, and Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, along with over 200 other books on intelligence, surveillance, and espionage. We disagree. --Cberlet 21:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

<--------You know, its is all right to say all of the following are true, “the Soviets had hundreds of operatives in sensitive areas of the US government”, “Joe McCarthy said that the Soviets had a large covert presence” and “point by point Joe McCarthy got it all wrong and yet was closer to the truth than those who ridiculed him”. People like Navasky believe that by simply agreeing with all three of these know facts, that it will somehow validate the mean spirited nature of McCarthy the man. For all these years they have been able to hide behind the old mantra that the “right” has been exaggerating the threats as well as the actions of the Soviets. Recent revelations significantly weaken this position as the information can no longer be written off as the unreliable testimony of defectors with axes to grind.

Or perhaps it is because if Navasky believes the above three things to be true, then he might have to reconcile his other long held belief that the Soviet Union posed no real tangible threat to the West.

There were a lot of exchanges of information among people of good will, many of whom were Marxists, some of whom were Communists, some of whom were critical of US government policy and most of whom were patriots. Most of these exchanges were innocent and were within the law. Some were innocent but nevertheless were in technical violation of the law. And there undoubtedly were bona fide espionage agents--on both sides.

Here is prime example of Navasky downplaying the significance of the threat. “There were a lot of exchanges of information among people of good will”; WTF is that all about? Seems to me that all the exchanges were decidedly one sided, after all its not as if the KGB handlers were revealing any sensitive information about the Soviet Union. It demonstrates what a morally and intellectually weak person Navasky is because if he had to admit the truth, namely that he was wrong in a fundamental way about the Soviet Union’s motives and activities, then he would have to come to grips with the idea that he has wasted his talent and time defending a like. Or as my man Goeth once said:

“We are so constituted that we believe the most incredible things; and, once they are engraved upon the memory, woe to him who would endeavor to erase them.”

Woe indeed! But I digress. DTC 22:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that’s why he (Navasky and the left) hates the neo-cons. They are, after all, defectors … no no, heretics from the faith. Think about it, they were all like him at one time, young, progressive, Jewish, Marxists, but they awoke from the dream and have been some of its strongest critics. But, it takes a lot more balls for a ex-Maoist like Joshua Muravchik ( a personal favorite of mine) to see that light than for Nevasky to fumble in the dark like a decrepit Vampire.

Anyhooo… back to the meat of this debate.

The Navasky piece, in my opinion, is commensurate with its relevance to an article on Harry Magdoff. He only mentions Magdoff once in passing, and it was combined with a haphazard defense of Alger Hiss.

Schrecker's Book

Cberlet, I must repeat, there is only one mention in "many are the crimes" of Magdoff, and she says nothing about his guilt or innocence. I thought this was settled. Please explain DTC 16:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Propose a compomise wording, I promise no more edit wars. DTC 22:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, hasn't Schrecker agreed with Haynes and Khler on all the main points about VENONA and espionage?

"it is now abundantly clear that most of those who were identified as Soviet agents in the forties and fifties really were—and that most of them belonged to the Communist Party" and "as Venona and the Moscow sources reveal, the party recruited dozens, perhaps hundreds, of its members to spy for the Soviet Union." - Nation magazine, The Right's Cold War Revision, July 24/31, 2000, pp. 21, 23-24

"I explicitly acknowledge that the 1999 publication of Allen Weinstein's The Haunted Wood finally convinced me of the guilt of the major communist spies. In a recent article for The Nation that, no doubt, appeared after Haynes' piece had gone to press, Maurice Isserman and I describe the significance of the new archival materials and how they have changed our view of Soviet espionage. There is now just too much evidence from too many different sources to make it possible for anyone but the most die-hard loyalists to argue convincingly for the innocence of Hiss, Rosenberg, and the others'."[27]

Schrecker is not arguing that people like Magdoff were innocent, she is arguing that the espionage is not the primary defining nature of the CPUSA and its members.

Your use of Schrecker is completely without merit. DTC 16:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I worded the text poorly, and have changed it. Here is what Schrecker wrote: "Ellen Schrecker agrees: "Because they offer insights into the world of the secret police on both sides of the Iron Curtain, it is tempting to treat the FBI and Venona materials less critically than documents from more accessible sources. But there are too many gaps in the record to use these matrerials with complete confidence." This has merit as a cite on this page, and a full quote on the Venona page. I realize that Klehr and Haynes have some serious evidence, but I think the skpetics hava a point that deserves mention. But Schrecker is claiming that scholars such as Klehr and Haynes take the documents at face value, and make assumptions that are overly broad. I realize that the new documents provide evidence of the size of the Soviet intelligence operation in the U.S. I am not disputing that. I am trying to find an NPOV way to talk about the handful of people where there is a dispute as to whether or not they were Soviet spies. That's a reasonable thing to do. I am not some apologust for the CPUSA of the 1940s and 1950s, not am I a fan of Stalin. Seek compromise. Assume good faith.--Cberlet 16:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The criticism section is a small crumb given the POV one-sided Venona posse lynching.--Cberlet 23:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is far from a lynching, it is a well sourced, well documented encyclopedia article. We could only hope that every user was as much of a stickler for writing a good article as Nobs was.

Have you ever thought that the reason it is such a small crumb is because there is not much to defend? Seriously, much has been written about Magdoff's invovlvement with the KGB, aside from Haynes and Klehr, there is Christopher Andrew and Vasill Mitrohhin, who also confirmed that Magdoff were part of Perlo's RAIDER group, Nigel West, Elizabeth Bentley, and Herbert Romerstein.

Bentley said it in the 50's, VENONA and Mitrohhin confirmed it in the 90's. End of story.

Your "authoratative" source, Victor Navasky, will not even categoricaly deny the charges! I am suprised I even allow this criticism, since you have not provided even one person who will address Magdoff's activities. Instead, you turning this into a debate on the interpretation of VENONA, repeating Navasky's bullshit charge that a poor reading of VENONA is the only thing that identifies Magdoff as a KGB agent. Schrecker, does not even talk about Magdoff, only Haynes and Klehr's use of VENONA material, she is of zero relevance to this article. DTC 03:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Schrecker and others do not accept the interpretations of the Venona documents and other intelligence raw files that make up the giant portion of this page. It is totally appropriate to mention that some historian question the entire Venona Posse project. Published, reputable, related, and cited. Please stop reverting and deletion.--Cberlet 14:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

How many times to I have to reiterate this point: Schrecker does agree with the interpretation, as cited on the related article. Also, you are turning this section into another indictment of McCarthism, which is off topic. DTC 17:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not think you are accurately representing the views of Schrecker, and I think McCarthyism is 100% related to this discussion and the Harry Magdoff pages. Please stop casting our disagreement in terms that you have the "facts" and I am ignoring them. That is not the case.--Cberlet 17:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I dont recall Magdoff bieng called in front of the HUAC. Seems to me that McCarthyism is related to the topic in so much as some commentators want to use it as a smokscreen to deflect the charges against Magdoff. Or, in other words, it has no relevance to the subject, and your sources do not connect Magdoff to McCarthyism. DTC 18:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

<---Don't be obtuse. Would you prefer the phrase "hysterical Cold War Witch Hunts"?--Cberlet 19:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, that’s funny, but once again wrong and off subject. As usual you attempt to steer the conversation in the only direction you can defend, regardless of how irrelevant it is to the subject at hand .But just as an exercise, lets break it down.

• hysterical Cold War Witch Hunts

Hysteria refers to an excessive or uncontrollable emotion, fear in this case. Considering that it is now a well know fact that the Soviets had hundreds of agents in all levels of government, many with direct influence on US foreign policy, (ala Hiss) it does not seem reasonable to portray a reaction to a threat as excessive, in retrospect, considering the nature of the threat, it appears that it did not go far enough.

A “Witch Hunt” refers to an investigation whose aims is to uncover a witch, a non existent entity, but even by your own (belated) admission, there were many Soviet agents working covertly in the government. DTC 19:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments filed

• Talk:Significance of Venona, Talk: List of Americans in the Venona papers, Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage. Revert war. How best to report claims of espionage and skeptical counterclaims -- all by various published scholars, journalists, and analysts.17:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Schrecker

You continue to use Schrecker’s comments, even though they are no longer valid. She has come to the following conclusions:

Schrecker does not deny that their, Haynes’ and Khler’s, analysis is wrong, and she in the primary conclusion of their, Haynes’ and Khler’s, work

We now know, based on information obtained from the archives of the former Soviet

Union and the VENONA documents, that most of the people Bentley identified, had in fact been giving information to the KGB. The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents

As Venona and the Moscow sources reveal, the [US] party recruited dozens, perhaps hundreds, of its members to spy for the Soviet Union. The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents

it is now abundantly clear that most of those who were identified as Soviet agents in the forties and fifties really were—and that most of them belonged to the Communist Party" and "as Venona and the Moscow sources reveal, the party recruited dozens, perhaps hundreds, of its members to spy for the Soviet Union. - Nation magazine, The Right's Cold War Revision, July 24/31, 2000

Schrecker sees their conclusions as a way of rehabilitating McCarthyism

whatever harm may have come to the country from Soviet sponsored spies is dwarfed by Mc-Carthy's wave of terror

And McCarthyism is not what this article is about. Stop quoting Schrecker as a critic of the VENONA, because she is not, she is an anti-anti-Communist and primarily a critic of McCarthyism. Stop using dated material from 1998, which is no longer representative of Schrecker’s current position. DTC 19:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Your POV is noted. We are awaiting comments through an RFC. Please stop the revert war and edit rather than blindly deleting.--Cberlet 19:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Schrecker has a complicated view that has changed over time. I am not misrepresenting her concern over the use of the documents. Magdoff is one of the few people where such doubts are legitimate. Most of this page is full of material critical of Magdoff. Leave a few crumbs of skepticism out of simple fairness and NPOV.--Cberlet 03:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, changed over time, that means a position she once held, she no longer does, so what is more relevant, quoting a position she held or quoting a position she holds? You ask me to "leave a few crumbs of skepticism out of simple fairness and NPOV", I seriously have no objection to that. Let me repeat, I have no objections to having the voice of those who feel that the charges against Magdoff are incorrect, but for the last time Schrecker it not one of them! She does not pass any judgement on the specific charges against Magdoff,and does not offer an opinion on the specific charges against Magdoff.

Answer this question, honestly, with a yes or no and this whole debate can end:

Has Ellen Schrecker ever doubted the charges against Magdoff specificaly

If the answer is yes, then I have not problem with the information remaing. If the answer is no, then its use here is not appropriate. Thats why, although I may criticize his motives on talk, I have no issue with using Navasky, because he actualy does categorically defend Magdoff. DTC 04:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed concerning this and related pages.[28]--Cberlet 15:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment filed

A Request for Comment for this page and Significance of Venona has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Politics--Cberlet 22:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The debate centers on whether or not this material is appropriate: See: this edit--Cberlet 01:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's not have a revert war while a RFC has been filed. At least have the common courtesy to discuss matters here.--Cberlet 02:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You filed an RFC on this before and it did not turn out exactly the way you had hoped. Why is this time different? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary. Nobs01 was banned for a year for being a fanatic. Why is this time different? --Cberlet 02:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No, as I have said before, as well as Fred Bauer, nobs was banned for his personal conduct, not his contributions, and that was a RfArb, not an RfC. Please do not confuse the two. Now, you have yet to adequately explain how Schrecker's comments are relevant, considering that she has changed her opinion on the subject. "Balance" is not a good enough reason to include material into an article if the material in question is not relevant to the topic at hand.Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been beaten into the ground. Schrecker's vague musings on Klehr and Haynes have no relevance to this article. Navasky is inconsequential but he at least explicitly addresses the question. I don't know where you got the idea that a boilerplate Schrecker snippet at whatever length is justified at any and every page having to do with Soviet espionage or Venona but it's ludicrous and I don't intend to accept it. YINever 21:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

<---Schrecker has a complicated view that is being outlandishly misrepresented here. She is very critical of some interpretations of Venona. I am not trying to put her views on every page. Dubious assertions, false claims, and threats to not negotiate in good faith will not move constructive editing forward. Klehr and Haynes are cited repeatedly on this entry. Schrecker is highly critical of some aspects of Klehr's and Haynes' analytical perspective:

Historian Ellen Schrecker is skeptical that the Venona documents and other primary intelligence sources are as clear or as reliable as claimed by scholars such as Klehr and Haynes.

Schrecker, however, does recognize their scholarship as well as many of their conclusions. Still, she notes that Haynes fails to see nuance or shades of grey in his work, and argues that McCarthyism did tremendous damage to civil liberties in the United States.

Totally on point and appropriate to balance the overwhelming relaince on Klehr and Haynes.--Cberlet 22:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not see that it is appropriate but I would like to see this matter settled. Would you accept this as a compromise for the section?

Skeptical Views

Victor Navasky, editor and publisher of The Nation, has written an editorial highly critical of recent works on the subject of Soviet espionage, arguing that historians are relying too much on Venona material and are simply using every individual mentioned in the cables as prima face proof of their involvement in Soviet espionage.

Appendix A to their book on Venona, Haynes and Klehr list 349 names (and code names) of people who they say "had a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence that is confirmed in the Venona traffic." They do not qualify the list, which includes everyone from Alger Hiss to Harry Magdoff, the former New Deal economist and Marxist editor of Monthly Review, and Walter Bernstein, the lefty screenwriter who reported on Tito for Yank magazine. It occurs to Haynes and Klehr to reprint ambiguous Venona material related to Magdoff and Bernstein but not to call up either of them (or any other living person on their list) to get their version of what did or didn't happen.

While the issue of Magdoff's participation in espionage has gone largely unremarked even with his passing, historian Ellen Schrecker has voiced skepticism about the reliability of the Venona documents and the interpretations of Venona scholars such as Klehr and Haynes in discerning their meaning and relevance.

--TJive 06:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Misspelling

Small thing, but "exaggerated" is misspelled (appearing as "exagerated") at the very end of the "Investigation" section, and I can't fix it. Dar-Ape 23:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a simple edit, I've done it for you.--Commander Keane 06:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Request unprotection?

This page has been protected for the past 11 days. There was a Request for Comment filed and some responses given, but no response to the RFC for the past ten days. Are the issues being resolved and the disputed parties moving towards discussion? If there are no objections, I will request unprotection. Calwatch 00:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)