Talk:William Ludwig Ullmann

Untitled

Removed dead link to http://www.njmonthly.com/issues/Jun05/spies.html

The NJ Monthly archives don't go back that far and I couldn't find it in the wayback machine (www.archive.org)

Quote in footnote removed

It is common, in some places, to use a footnote to add a colorful anecdote, or additional explanatory material, not fitting into the flow of the main document. That practice is generally not encouraged in Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. I posed the question here. While the full community has obviously not weighed in, the consensus appears to me that quotes should be reserved for two related classes of use:

In a case where there may be controversy about a particular fact, and whether the cited reference supports that fact, the use of the quote will make it easier for readers and editors to reach their own conclusion, by citing the specific quote used to support the fact. This is particularly important where a reference may be not online, or behind a pay wall.
When an opinion is paraphrased, the quote will help readers and editors determine whether the paraphrase is accurate.

This article did have a quote in a footnote, and it is my opinion that the quote does not support either use listed above, thus I have removed it, or truncated it. Should anyone disagree, or feel that there are other examples of allowable quotes, feel free to start a discussion. I suggest here, if you disagree with my conclusion that this quote doesn't fall into one of those two examples, or at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#.22brief_verbatim_textual_excerpts.22_revisited if you feel there should be other allowed uses. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Venona's DONALD

Hi -

Are you sure about the identification of Ullmann as "Donald"?

It looked to me like Venona's "Donald" was L. Ron Hubbard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.45.14 (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]