Talk:VENONA project/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] RFC: references to Venona in other articles

I've put this page back on RFC not so much to address any of the previous exchanges between Nobs, Cberlet, Noel, Ruy Lopez et al., but to try to consolidate the similar arguments that are currently occurring in all the other articles that mention Soviet espionage and VENONA. Examples:

  1. Joseph McCarthy#McCarthy and Truman includes a contested statement that Elizabeth Bentley's naming of other spies was "corroborated" by VENONA.
  2. There's been an edit war at Elizabeth Bentley on the same subject.
  3. LaFollette Committee also claims that various people are "known" to have been spies based on VENONA.

To me, apart from any other questions of proper wording and editing behavior, there's a single question that needs consensus: what is a NPOV way of saying that various people accused of espionage in the 1950s were later mentioned in an incriminating light in the VENONA documents? I have not read the sources, but even among those here who have, there seems to be no agreement on whether VENONA unambiguously "confirmed" anyone to be a spy. As evidenced by the disputes above and elsewhere, feelings are very strong about this on both sides; some have stated that their favored sources are so authoritative that they should not be considered "claims" but facts. Though the wording of several passages may have reached consensus, I see no sign that these edit wars and voluminous debates will slow down any time soon.

I think it's unproductive to be repeating this argument from scratch on the talk pages of a half-dozen different articles. And although some of the editors involved may still want to do some talking about each other's editing habits, I think there's an equally important factual dispute here, and consensus on it might make some of the other disputes less muddy. ←Hob 01:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I very much appreciate this suggestion and will be happy to discuss the matter here.--Cberlet 01:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
The depth of the evidence varies from person to person.
As far as identification goes, as I mentioned elsewhere (and also previously), many names are given 'in the clear' in Venona. Others occur in the clear in Comintern archives, and in the limited examination of NKVD archives allowed for Haunted Wood. Others can be identified pretty unambiguously from references that only fit one person. Others were confirmed from confessions/debriefings. Others are more detective work (some by the governments, some by private researchers), and there's a long list which are still completely unknown.
As far as what they did goes, again, it varies from person to person. Again, some are described pretty clearly in various archives and/or decrypts, e.g. Judith Coplon. Others described their work in detail in confessions/debriefings, e.g. Klaus Fuchs. And there are plenty whose activities are known only in very imprecise terms (e.g. Magdoff, who seems to have supplied some documents, but of what is not known).
So there is no single answer. Each individual person has to be considered as a separate case, alas. Noel (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, there is no single answer, I think there is evidence against Magdoff, but published authors (and I) don't think it is conclusive. It certainly needs to be accurately summarized and the pro and con opinions spelled out with cites. The problem is that Nobs goes from page to page making POV assertions, exaggerating the evidence, misrepresenting the underlying documents and source cites, and causing endless revert wars by only being willing to actually consider compromise wording after spending days and week burying the talk page in reams of elliptical text that seldom answers the questions being asked. After spending weeks hammering out compromise text on the Magdoff page, I now learn Nobs continues to use the same exaggerated, misrepresented, faultily cited, and POV text on other pages. This is the heart of the problem. I have had editing controversies with other editors over Venona materials on several pages, and after an opening round of testy comments, I have been able to work out compromise language. Work out compromise language with Nobs, and a few days or weeks later check back and see that in many cases he has simply relentlessly revised the text day by day, line by line, to restore his original POV claims. Sometimes Nobs simply deletes the fact that some of these people denied the charges [1], [2].
Until we deal with this issue, there is no solution. Nobs will characterize this as a personal attack, but it is a legitimate criticism that should have been addressed weeks ago. Any editor who doubts this, can merely check the history pages for any of the entries mentioned in this discussion...and many more; because Nobs and several other editors are also systematically moving throughout Wikipedia inserting material about Venona on scores of pages in order to suggest that 234 people are "Soviet Spies" without any differentiation or clarification. To verify this claim, simply visit "Category:Soviet spies" [3], a page title that puts Wikipedia at risk for a defamation lawsuit. See also where the master list of names is stored: "Category:Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America" [4]; and List of Americans in the Venona papers.
As for what NPOV language would look like, the pages Significance of Venona on this date: [5]; Harry Magdoff on this date: [6]; and Harry Magdoff and espionage on this date: [7]. Also see the editing battles at I._F._Stone; Harry Dexter White; and many more.
In many cases, Nobs created pages simply in order to accuse the person of espionage. See for example Helen Tenney, Jones Orin York. For some of these persons, the evidence is strong that they wittingly participated in espionage. In others cases it is less clear, or even dubious. Nobs makes little or no differention. Yet if you read the underlying sources cited by Nobs, you will frequently discover that the claim is that a person was linked to a code name in Venona documents that government analysts concluded was a particular person. Often the Venona documents do not indicate that the person was aware they were being used by Soviet intelligence. Or that Elizabeth Bentley accused them of spying, but that was never conclusively verified. Nobs repeatedly cites the Bentley claims as confirmed charges issued by the U.S. government or an agency. For evidence of this, see here: [8].
Let's look at how this citation creep works: on the page [9] is the caption: "Source Venona: Americans and U.S. Residents Who Had Witting Covert Relationships with Soviet Intelligence Agencies." But if you check the book that published the list, (John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, Yale University Press (1999) ), the caption reads: "Source Venona: Americans and U.S. Residents Who Had Covert Relationships with Soviet Intelligence Agencies," p. 339. (note that Nobs then edited this page to correct it)[10]. In the page text that precedes the list the authors state it represents "Americans and others who provided assistance to Soviet espionage in the Stalin Era," p. 339. In the body of the book the authors Haynes and Klehr (1999) have no problem calling some of these people witting Soviet agents or informants. They chose not to use that language for the list. Any citation to this list should not assume that these people have been identified as witting agents of Soviet espionage. What can be stated is that information from them ended up in the hands of Soviet espionage. For another example of citation creep, see here: [11].
It is the nature of espionage that not everyone used as an information source is aware that they are supplying information to an espionage agency. In the case of the list in Haynes and Klehr (1999) it is clear that some, perhaps even many, of the persons in the list were aware they were assisting Soviet espionage, but they were not all "Soviet Spies." That is what needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis for language that is accurate and fair, and NPOV. The real problem here is a POV warrior crusade.--Cberlet 14:09, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Response to Cberlet's misrepresentation: Cberlet opens the discussion with reams of sentences, each directly personally against myself, then cites Harry Dexter White as an example; here is the fundemental flaw to his entire attempt to paint me as editing with a POV: Harry Dexter White never denied allegations of espionage based upon Venona project decryptions. Anyone familiar with the Talk:Harry Dexter White can see I raised this issue, how is it possible for Harry Dexter White to deny charges from the grave, yet Cberlet just presented that once again in an effort to accuse me of "misrepresentation".
A second misrepresentation Cberlet makes in an effort to discredit me: I have made exactly 11 edits at I. F. Stone, 5 of those on June 5 2005, and only 5 edits since June 5 (more than 100 days ago). Cberlet's complete failure to establish any facts before posting the language employed above walks dangerously close to a personal attack.
Third example: The histories will reveal that I have repeatedly requested sourcing for Cberlet's original research, and he has not provided any.
Fourthly: Cberlet assigns motives to my work: "Nobs created pages simply in order to accuse the person of espionage"; unsourced, unverified. The record is clear on the historic interest in this subject.
Conclusion: Underneath Cberlet's carefully crafted personal attack above, Cberlet does make an effort to address the issues I have begged, and pleaded with him to address, at least since July 23 when this dialogue began. Nevertheless, he has persistently not addressed the issues and subjects, or substance of discussions, yet has littered discussions with words like "nasty", "outrageous", "outlandish", "unfair", but has made no attempt to bring forward any citations to support his POV, other than The Nation magazine.nobs 17:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Another example: Cberlet cites my restoring [12], the language of Prof. Roger Sandilands (bio), original creator of the Harry Dexter White article, over a user who (a) inserted material from a neo-nazi cite[13] (b) was banned for persistent vandelism (and a suspected sockpuppet to an active user). nobs 17:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
See [14] for indefinite block on troll Cberlet cites to attack my editing practices. Also, this sockpuppet may be indentifiable. nobs 21:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

(Moving indent) See also Talk:VENONA_project#Proceedural_proposal, above; extract states,

  • "Complete biographical scetches of the 171 identified names and later insert Venona references without a conclusion"
  • "This can all be completed, without mindless partisan wrangling etc., the idea is to get good, full biographical pictures. And it is an opportunity here, whatever perspective an editor may be coming from, to make a fair presentation of the evidence of their client's case. The questions surrounding NSA/FBI conclusions can all be argued out once we see the full picture."
  • "So to conclude (tentatively) if we can break up the remaining bio pages to be created among volunteers, and finish the article, rather than incessant warfare over existing articles, then deal with the veracity of this or that specific claim on a case by case basis. " (Proceedural proposal dated 11 August 2005 (UTC)

hmmm, sounds like what we are talking about now. nobs 18:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, not even two hours went by before you launched another harassment campaign against me on my entry Talk:Chip_Berlet. You have attacked me on my user page. You have attacked me on other pages after a dispute over Venona. Please stop it.--Cberlet 20:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Cberlet:Please limit discussion on Talk pages to substantive issues regarding that pages article contents and use User Talk pages for personal comments. nobs 20:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Nobs, please do not edit my text so that it has an incorrect link.[15]--Cberlet 22:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Cberlet: cute move, deleting my posting [16]. Also, when you link to a Category as you did, you need to de-activate the Category with a full colon before like this -->:Catgegory; otherwise the Talk page shows up in the Category, and I think the history will reflect that is exactly what I did. Thank you. nobs 00:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Why do I even bother? Nobs: the link you inserted into my text produced a page with the the text: "Source Venona: Americans and U.S. Residents Who Had Covert Relationships with Soviet Intelligence Agencies" which is what it looked like after you edited it--an edit that you did after my criticism on this page. The link I wanted to display revealed the text: "Source Venona: Americans and U.S. Residents Who Had Witting Covert Relationships with Soviet Intelligence Agencies," which is what it looked like BEFORE you edited it today, and which was an example of a misrepresentation; which is what I wanted to illustrate.--Cberlet 01:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

(Moving indent) Excuse me, format should look like this --> :Category:Venona Appendix A, with a colon prefixed,elsewise this Talk page is listed alphabetically under "T" within the Category. You are correct, I made the edit to reflect Mr. Haynes & Klehrs exact language, as previoulsy discussed in these three discussions,

nevertheless vandalized by various trolls & sockpuppets. nobs 01:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, so the point is that claims tend to drift, and cites creep, and what starts out as cautious and ambiguous ends up a claim that someone is a "Soviet Spy." Can we agree that:
  • The list in Haynes and Klehr (1999) is not a list of "Soviet Spies."
  • The cites that reprint the claims of Bentley should be attributed to Bentley.
  • The Venona documents do not "corroborate" every claim made by Bentley.
  • There are reputable critics who dispute the interpretation of the Venona documents made by Haynes and Klehr (1999).
These seem simple enough to discuss.--Cberlet 02:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
It is a starting point, and they are valid questions. I don't suspect we can cover or complete them all tonite. But it does comport with a structured approach, which is constructive. Can it be done in good faith, without rancor, and remain focused. And I have some issues to raise as well. nobs 03:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Citation

Dartmouth College says What do you do if your source doesn't list an author?

  • "you must first determine whether the author is anonymous, or whether the document was written by a corporation or committee. "
  • "When making a reference to a corporate author within your own text, you are advised by the MLA Handbook to refer to the corporation in the body of your paragraphs and to avoid citing them in your parenthetical references. For example: "According to a study sponsored by the United Nations, the world's resources have been decreased in 1998 by 20% (22)."

History Department, University of Natal at Durban, South Africa
A BRIEF CITATION GUIDE FOR INTERNET SOURCES IN HISTORY AND THE HUMANITIES

  • "historians and their brethern have scholarly inclinations that lead them in two directions: one toward the need for precision in identifying a source and its provenance; the other focusing on a desire to provide a guide to a source's location for subsequent researchers. "
  • "Such sources are seen as undependable by information technologists unless they exist in some electronic archive; the archive then becomes the primary source citation."

I hope these ideas help; I have yet to make my own arguements (for example, research does not find Elizabeth Bentley anywhere deposing or testifying to Magdoff working in the "Tools Division", as the cited text states. This is FBI source information, and once again ONCIX does not cite its source. Hence ONCIX, Vol.3, chap.1, pg.31 becomes that actual source citation. And as per the MLA style referenced in the Dartmouth site, refer to the corporation in the body of your paragraphs. Comment welcome. nobs 21:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

So Cberlet my friend, nothing personal. As a compromise we can lighten it to Counterintelligence Reader instead of the heavy hammer ONCIX. I was gonna wait 24 or 72 hours for a response, but so there's no confusion regarding "edit creep", I'm gonna be bold; if there's a different reading of MLA style or another manual guideline we can discuss it. nobs 22:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The accusation that Magdoff was in the Perlo network is introduced with this paragraph about Bentley:
  • "She provided testimony on two Soviet networks of government employees who had worked on behalf of the Soviets in the late 1930s and early 1940s. She identified over 30 high-level US Government officials that had worked for the two networks run by Nathan Silverman and Victor Perlo."
Then there is a list of names with identifications. There is no question that the accusation that Magdoff was in the Perlo network is being attributed to Bentley. The cite in the text should be to "Bentley" and any inline citation to (Rafalko, 1999) The form of the Works Cited should be Frank J. Rafalko, ed., A Counterintelligence Reader, Volume 3: Post-World War II to Closing the 20th Century (Washington, D.C.: National Counterintelligence Center, no date) online at http://www.nacic.gov/history/CIReaderPlain/Vol3Chap1.pdf, p. 31.--Cberlet 03:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Not what the source citation [17], nor the style manual [18] says. nobs 03:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
This citation advice from Nobs does not apply because we know who is making the claim, and we know who wrote the Counterintellignce Reader, and we know who the editor is citing: Bentley.
Let's note that at one point, Nobs started a revert war when I suggested that this concoction of his was not an accurate cite: "According to United States Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (ONCIX) Official History." In this case Nobs was elevating the source of the charge to an entire U.S. agency. In fact, ONCIX is not even the publisher of the book being cited. It is a complete fiction. ONCIX merely has republished the book on its website.
What do we know? Rafalko is the editor of A Counterintellignce Reader, a 4 volume series. The cite is from Vol. 3, p. 31. The book was published by the now defunct National Counterintelligence Center. The text of the previously published (though previously secret) set of books published by NCC was put on the website of the United States Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (ONCIX), which replaced the NCC.
We know Bentley originated the charge about Magdoff being in the Perlo Group. We know the list of names that Rafalko is using comes from Bentley, because that's what Rafalko writes in the text. The footnote refers to testimony from Bentley. Therefore the proper cite is constructed as a claim attributed to Bentley that appears in a book edited by Rafalko, which was republished online by ONCIX.
According to the Chicago Manual of Style, this is a "Secondary Cite." The format of a secondary cite is as follows:
  • "19. Louis Zukofsky, "Sincerity and Objectification," Poetry 37 (February 1931): 269, quoted in Bonnie Costello, Marianne Moore: Imaginary Possessions (Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1981), 78.
This example is from the University of Wisconsin Writing Center website providing examples from the Chicago Manual of Style.[19].
It is not clear what the actual date of publication is. Some places cite it as 1999, but the only date I can find in a scholarly paper is citing Vol. 2 not Vol. 3, and we know the volumes were published over several years. So 1999 or "no tate" or "c. 1999."
The cite in the text should be to "Bentley" and any inline citation to (Rafalko, c. 1999) The form of the Works Cited should be Frank J. Rafalko, ed., A Counterintelligence Reader, Volume 3: Post-World War II to Closing the 20th Century (Washington, D.C.: National Counterintelligence Center, c. 1999) online at http://www.nacic.gov/history/CIReaderPlain/Vol3Chap1.pdf, p. 31.
I have temporarily edited the Henry Magdoff page to be neutral on this matter until the discussion is resolved. In the meantime, I would ask Nobs that he stop the revert war on the Henry Magdoff page and actually negotiate in good faith on this page, rather than carrying on skirmishes on all the other pages being discussed here.--Cberlet 12:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Misrepresented sources and claims

Cberlet states, "The footnote refers to testimony from Bentley." It in fact does not. Footnote 59 is annoted in the text, however nowhere within the ONCIX site [20], or the companion FAS site [21] do the endnotes for the Chapter 1, Cold War Counterintelligence of Vol. 3, Post-World War II to Closing the 20th Century, appear. Secondly, prima facia the textual material in CI Reader vol.3 chap.1 pg.31, cannot be attributed to Bentley. This is (A) the statement "The following were members of the Victor Perlo Network"; (B) the ensuing list of full names, job titles, and discriptions. It is coincident, that the names were testified to by Bentley, but the full text includes material provided by FBI investigators. In the absence of Footnote 59, the National Counterintelligence Center (NACIC) successor, the National Counterintelligence Executive (ONCIX), becomes the citation[22], or FAS. nobs 17:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The accusation that Magdoff was in the Perlo network is introduced with this paragraph about Bentley:
"She provided testimony on two Soviet networks of government employees who had worked on behalf of the Soviets in the late 1930s and early 1940s. She identified over 30 high-level US Government officials that had worked for the two networks run by Nathan Silverman and Victor Perlo."
Then there is a list of names with identifications. There is no question that the accusation that Magdoff was in the Perlo network is being attributed to Bentley.
Now Nobs argues: "In the absence of Footnote 59, the National Counterintelligence Center (NACIC) successor, the National Counterintelligence Executive (ONCIX), becomes the citation." This is simply absurd. The publisher of the series is the National Counterintelligence Center. The National Counterintelligence Executive (ONCIX) has merely posted online the books published by the National Counterintelligence Center. There is no such thing as a cite to the ONCIX version of the books, this is a fantasy invented by Nobs who has confused a website with the publisher of the original books. Even if we accept that the cite should be to the book itself, it should be cited to Rafalko, the editor, not the publisher. And certainly not ONCIX.--Cberlet 01:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Cberlet: See my posting regarding Rafalko at Talk:Harry_Magdoff#Moving_discussion_on_citation_to_Talk:VENONA_project. He was not cited at either site as the editor til only 3 or 4 weeks ago, and I do not believe ONCIX yet cites Rafalko as the editor. Hence, the original attribution to ONCIX back in July, ONCIX being an U.S. governmental agency, whereas FAS is purportedly "non-profit". nobs 02:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Cberlet:Please note: http://www.nacic.gov/history/index.html NACIC web address redirects to ONCIX. nobs 05:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
"publisher", which is repeated here and elsewhere, to refer to a Federal Issuing Agency, is incorrect; the citation form refers to an "Issuing Agency", not a "publisher" (of coarse, many U.S. government docs are cited as GPO published, many, but not all. And this is not one). nobs 05:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rafalko: Accurate cites all over web

ONCIX is not the publisher. It is a website. Here are just a handful of ACCURATE cites:

  • Rafalko, F.J., (Ed.). (n.d.). A counterintelligence reader, 3 volumes. Post-World War II to closing the 20th century, vol. 3. Washington D.C.: National Counterintelligence Center. [23].
  • Rafalko, Frank J. (editor). A Counterintelligence Reader: American Revolution to World War II, Volume I. NACIC. [24]
  • Rafalko, Frank J., ed. A Counterintelligence Reader: American Revolution to World War II, Volume One. Washington, DC: NACIC, 1998; Rafalko, Frank J., ed. A Counterintelligence Reader: World War II, Volume Two. Washington, DC: NACIC, 1998; Rafalko, Frank J., ed. A Counterintelligence Reader: Post-World War II to Closing the 20th Century, Volume Three. Washington, DC: NACIC, 1998; Rafalko, Frank J., ed. A Counterintelligence Reader: American Revolution into the New Millenium, Volume Four.Washington, DC: NACIC, [2004]. [25].
  • Frank J. Rafalko, ed., A Counterintelligence Reader, Volume II: Counterintelligence in World War II. (Washington D.C.: National Counterintelligence Center, 1999), Chapter 1. [www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/research/theses/gleghorn03.pdf].
  • (Rafalko, 2002; Chap3 online [26].
  • The encyclopedic four-volume “A Counterintelligence Reader,” edited by Frank J. Rafalko, and prepared for the now-defunct National Counterintelligence Center, [27]
  • Rafalko, Frank J. (editor). A Counterintelligence Reader: American Revolution to World War II, Volume I. NACIC. [28].

How long does this charade go on before Nobs admits he just made a mistake?--Cberlet 03:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

That's all correct; now go to this site http://www.nacic.gov/history/index.html and tell me if you find his name anywhere. nobs 03:50, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
This specifically is the problem: Table of Contents to Vol. 3 pg.2 says "Cold War Counterintelligence Endnotes", pg. 425. They should be here Chap. 4 but the pdf file only goes up to pg. 423 (last page in the entire Volume). Maybe the gubmint really is conspiring to smear Harry Magdoff, since by default the citation goes to the source document.
Did you catch this when you extracted Talk:Harry_Magdoff#Start_Quoted_Text:
"two networks run by Nathan Silverman and Victor Perlo.
"The Nathan Silverman Network consisted of the following members:
"Nathan Silverman
three times Silverman instead of Silvermaster. (Looks like us taxpayers aren't getting what we pay for).
But facts are, FAS did not have Rafalko's name here [29] in July, as they do now. nobs 04:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, fine. But now we know the accurate cite is "Rafalko, Frank J., ed. A Counterintelligence Reader: Post-World War II to Closing the 20th Century, Volume Three. (Washington, DC: NACIC, 1998)." We can spell out NACIC if that makes folks happier.--Cberlet 12:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you (you genuinely spared me from a lengthy presentation on the oxymoronic "Secrecy News" site hosted by a group said to be a front organization).
So we agree. Now, question is, does such a citation go within the body of the text in the absence of unpublished Footnote 59. I say yes. nobs 16:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Also, as a favour can you let me know where you got 1998 from, I'm not challenging, it's just a detail I been looking for, in the truelly cooperative/collaborative spirit. Kindest regards. nobs 18:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

(Moving indent) Insistance upon "Rafalko", inspite of having documented evidence presented, is another attack upon the integerity of a valid historical document. nobs 03:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Language

Proposed language: "The National Counterintelligence Center's, "Counterintelligence Reader", cites Magdoff as a member of the Perlo group."(See pg. 31). nobs 19:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Revision: "The National Counterintelligence Center's study, A Counterintelligence Reader, portions of which remain classified, lists Magdoff as a member of the Perlo group."
Revised for truelly NPOV as applied to this certain individual, Harry Magdoff: "Although the documents are fragmentary in nature, it lead the NSA to establish certain hypotheses; and the National Counterlintelligence Center's study of all the evidence, A Counterintelligence Reader, portions of which remain classifed, lists Magdoff as a member of the Perlo group."
This sentence could perhaps even be divided into two sentences and planted into two separate paragraphs, provided nothing invalidates the underlying idea. nobs 01:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Significance

Cberlet asked me to come over and have a look at this article. I'm actually about to take about a 5-day break from Wikipedia (starting in about 36 hours), but I do find myself with one immediate question: why is significance of Venona a separate article? -- Jmabel | Talk 16:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote 59

Example 1: Doanld Nivan Wheeler Bentley deposition identifies Donald Wheeler (Donald Nivan Wheeler, pgs. 35-42), nowhere does she identify Donald Nivan Wheeler. The FBI parenthetically inserts "Donald Nivan Wheeler" in paragraph 4 [30] in a narrative context specifically after a reference to "Wheeler".

FBI Venona file, pgs. 52-54, Belmont to Ladd memo reads in part,

"The penetration of OSS by the MGB will involve cases where we have [Venona project] information which involves individuals who were also named by Elizabeth Bentley." (pg.51)
"The bulk of the cases stemming from [Venona project] regarding the penetration of OSS deal with the same group of individulas who were named by Elizabeth Bentley in November, 1945." (pg.53)
Donald Nivan Wheeler
Wheeler was employed by OSS from 1941 to 1946. Bentley named him as having been a Soviet agent who furnished her information obtained from OSS files. The [Venona project] information reflects his cover name was Izra. We have previously requested investigation of CIA in the Wheeler case which actually stems from the [Venona project] information, but we did not, of course advise CIA what the basis of our information was. CIA is aware of Bentley's allegations. (pg.54) {Emphasis mine}

Conclusion: Bentley corroborates "Donald Nivan Wheeler" was a member of the Perlo group in footnote 59. "[T]he Wheeler case which actually stems from the [Venona project] information", not Elizabeth Bentley, is what's missing in the unpublished endnotes to CI Reader vol. 3 chap. 1. The FBI names Donald Nivan Wheeler as a member of the Perlo group, not just Bentley, in footnote 59. Hence, Bentley alone cannot be cited, and Counterintelligence Reader itself becomes the in text citation, as per What do you do if your source doesn't list an author?. More examples to follow. nobs 01:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Example 2: Silvermaster Network. FBI Venona file, pgs. 34, Ladd to the Director memo reads in part,

Silvermaster Network
"Individuals positively or tentatively identified from [Venona project] information and who were employed in Government agencies, included Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, Ludgwig Ullman, Bela and Sonia Gold, Victor Perlo, Harry Magdoff, Peter Rhodes, Allen Rosenberg, Harold Glasser, Duncan Lee, and Harry Dexter White. All of the above individuals were implicated in the Silvermaster network according to the information provided to us by Elizabeth Bentley." (pg.34)

Relevence: "All of the above individuals were implicated in the Silvermaster network according to the information provided to us by Elizabeth Bentley." This document places Perlo, Magdoff, A. Rosenberg & Glasser in the Silvermaster Network, according to Elizabeth Bentley. The later division into two groups, Perlo & Silvermaster groups, is the work of the FBI, not the testimony of Elizabeth Bentley.

Conclusion: Bentley did not testify that "the following were members of the Perlo group"; Perlo group, is an extrapolation of counterintelligence investigators to simplify thier work. Also, this proves this quote from the CI Reader text, "She provided testimony on two Soviet networks", is likewise not the testimony of Bentley, it is the view of FBI investigators and CI Reader editors ex post facto. Hence the reading of the text, "According to Elizabeth Bentley the following were members of the Perlo group" is mixing and matching odd socks. Without footnote 59, the CI Reader itself becomes the source. More later. nobs 02:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

All of this lengthy and convoluted argument is totally irrelevant. We have access to a primary document, dated 1946, in which the FBI reports "allegations" from "informant" Elizabeth Bentley that Magdoff is working with Perlo and Silvermaster, and the FBI puts Bentley's claims under the heading "The Perlo Group." In citation the rule is to always go to the most primary underlying document available, which in this case is the 1946 FBI report containing Bentley's claims from which all subsequent allegations flow.[31]. All of this fancy footwork is an attempt by Nobs, over several months, to avoid noting in the text that the original claim about Magdoff came from defector Elizabeth Bentley at the start of what became known as the McCarthy Era, an important historic fact which Nobs relentlessly deletes.--Cberlet 17:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Cberlet says (a) "the FBI puts Bentley's claims under the heading 'The Perlo Group.' ", i.e. not Elizabeth Bentley; here he is correct. (b) Cberlet says, "Bentley's claims from which all subsequent allegations flow"; here he is incorrect, as demonstrated in Example 1, "[T]he Wheeler case which actually stems from the [Venona project] information". Hence, the contents of unpublished Footnote 59 are crucial to clarity, the textural material cannot be attributed to Bentley alone, and the source document itself becomes the citation, until Footnote 59 is declassified & released. nobs 17:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Example 3: It could be fully documented if necessary in Bentley's deposition, several direct quotes where she was uncertain or could not recall specifically what Division within a Department or Agency an individual worked. All she could remember was that she recieved information to be transmitted to the Soviet Union from a certain individual. In many cases individuals changed jobs within a Department or Agency, and she could not recall specifically what their job task was in government. And the overwhelming volume of information she recieved likewise prohibited details like this. Hence, I could if necessary cite specifically where the text of the CI Reader material is FBI investigators and not Bentley as per job titles & descriptions. nobs 18:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

All of this is a waste of time. It has nothing to do with the dispute over the actual text. See next section --Cberlet 19:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Example 3a Harry Magdoff: Tools Division. See pg.31 "Tools Division" is derived directly from Venona 769, 771 KGB New York to Moscow, 30 May 1944, p. 1., not Elizabeth Bentley deposition FBI Silvermaster group file, Part 2c, pgs. 182-188 (pgs. 3-9 in PDF format).

[edit] What are the remaining issues in dispute regarding the Magdoff text?

Here is a selection of disputed sentences from the page Harry Magdoff and espionage.

  • The public accusation that Magdoff was working for Soviet intelligence was itself not new; it had originated with defector Elizabeth Bentley who testified to that same effect.
  • "The Official History of Soviet Espionage in America published by the United States Governemnt says the Venona project confirms the accurracy of Bentley's testimony.[32]"

I edited the page and tried for some NPOV balance:

  • The Official History of Soviet Espionage in America published by one government agency says the Venona project confirms the accuracy of much of Bentley's testimony. However critics of Bentley point out that some of her claims were disputed at the time (she lost one defamation case based on her allegations), 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.

Nobs deleted the balance and exagerated his claim by further hyping the cite:

  • The Official History of Soviet Espionage in America published by the United States Governemnt says the Venona project confirms the accurracy of Bentley's testimony.

There is no such thing as "The Official History of Soviet Espionage in America published by the United States Governemnt " It is a fiction created by Nobs. See the deletions here: [33]

On top of that, Magdoff then suddenly became a U.S. goverment certified spy: "According to United States Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (ONCIX) Official History, Magdoff was a member of the Perlo group of Soviet spies."[34].

Now we know the proper cite is:

  • Rafalko, Frank J., ed. A Counterintelligence Reader: Post-World War II to Closing the 20th Century, Volume Three. (Washington, DC: NACIC, 1998).

What cite should we actually be using? The primary document.

Here is the actual text from the original FBI document in which Bentley identifies Magdoff:

  • Re: Harry S. Magdoff
  • alias Henry Magdoff
  • ALLEGATIONS OF INFORMANT
  • Elizabeth Terrill Bentley advised that...
  • ...Bentley stated, "On the date specified..." p. 182.

The work history of Magdoff is spelled out by the FBI in a section running from page 183-186; and his "Communist Activity" is chronicled on pages 186-187. Read the text of the FBI document here:[35]

This meeting took place in 1944. The FBI document cited is a summary dated February 21, 1946. Read the document here:[36]

This FBI document uses the term "The Perlo Group," and puts Bentley's identification of Magdoff under that heading, cited to page 95, but for some reason appearing online as page 182 [37].

Let's see how the FBI characterises this information at the beginning of their document: "In a major espionage investigation spanning the years 1945 through 1959, Silvermaster was alleged to be the leader of 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." [38].

Even by FBI standards, Nobs editing of these pages is biased. Let's use the language from the FBI. How's that for a compromise?

So what is fair, accurate, and NPOV text?

  • Several historians and researchers have come to the conclusion that Harry Magdoff was among a number of persons inside the U.S. government used as an information source by Soviet intelligence. What is disputed about this is the extent to which the available evidence indicates that Magdoff (and scores of other people so named) were aware of or complicit in espionage activities.
  • 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."[39].
  • Several sources indicate Magdoff was investigated as a member of what was called the Perlo group.
  • The public accusation that Magdoff was working for Soviet intelligence was itself not new; it had originated with defector Elizabeth Bentley who provided this information to the FBI and later testified to that same effect during McCarthy era hearings[40]:
  • According to Rafalko, the Venona project confirms the accuracy of much of Bentley's testimony. 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.

Once we have discussed these paragraphs, which I have inserted into the Harry Magdoff and espionage page, we can move on to the many other disputes, such as what portions of the Harry Magdoff and espionage page should be summarized or merged into the Harry Magdoff page. In addition, all the exagerations, misrepresentations, and flawed cites on several others pages need to be corrected.--Cberlet 19:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Response:
  • "Official History" was adapted from the FAS site. It was not a fiction created by nobs.
  • "(she lost one defamation case based on her allegations)", see
  • As to use of citations from the FBI Silvermaster file, the above references are nowhere near complete. The CI Reader, vol.3 chap.1 fn.59 is the appropriate reference which summarizes information from all U.S. Government sources, i.e. Bentley Deposition, FBI investigations of all subjects listed, Army Signals Intelligence Agency decryptions, and further research on decryptions by ASA's successor agency, the National Security Agency. Cberlet alleges, the section being referenced at Talk:Harry_Magdoff#Start_Quoted_Text is a contemporaneous narrative. It is not. It is a sum total compilation of an investigation which ended in 1980.
  • As per Rafalko, it may be necessary for me to bring forward the complete documentation which attaches his name to the Counterintelligence Reader, which certainly looks curious. I thought there was an understanding above to use such a citation, as Cberlet proposes. I will ask Cberlet once again, please narrow the issues to specific proposals on language, edit in good faith, and stop incessant innuendo directed at me. Please restate your specific proposals on language, in which articles. Thank you. nobs 21:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I just proposed specific language in my last post. I guess I will have to propose it again:
  • Several historians and researchers have come to the conclusion that Harry Magdoff was among a number of persons inside the U.S. government used as an information source by Soviet intelligence. What is disputed about this is the extent to which the available evidence indicates that Magdoff (and scores of other people so named) were aware of or complicit in espionage activities.
  • 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."[41].
  • Several sources indicate Magdoff was investigated as a member of what was called the Perlo group.
  • The public accusation that Magdoff was working for Soviet intelligence was itself not new; it had originated with defector Elizabeth Bentley who provided this information to the FBI and later testified to that same effect during McCarthy era hearings[42]:
  • According to Rafalko, the Venona project confirms the accuracy of much of Bentley's testimony. 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 era was sometimes exagerated or involved guilt by associations assertions.
If we can agree on these paragraphs, then we can begin to establish some general consensus on what the Venona documents actually "corroborate," and what is the proper way to identify the list in Klehr and Haynes, which we all can agree is not a list of "Soviet Spies." Then we can move back to the various other pages with text that at least has been verified and burnished.--Cberlet 21:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. That appears very structured. Please be advised, you may not want to get too carried away inserting "Rafalko" in place of what may have to be "NACIC" references everywhere, as (1) nowhere does Rafalko's name appear on the primary source document in question (one instance, attributing him to have written the Revolutionary War section); (2) his name is derived from 1 specific secondary source. Perhaps we should discuss this next, but I hear the dinner bell ringing right now. Thank you. nobs 21:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Please be advised that the proper citations to Rafalko are all over the Internet, including several very reputable places. Please see above where I posted numerous examples of these proper cites with links. The only dispute seems to be over the proper date (1998, 1999, or n.d.) Please note that among these links is the following:
J. Ransom Clark, Emeritus Professor of Political Science, Muskingum College, New Concord, Ohio [43]
Rafalko, Frank J., ed. A Counterintelligence Reader: American Revolution to World War II, Volume One. Washington, DC: NACIC, 1998;
Rafalko, Frank J., ed. A Counterintelligence Reader: World War II, Volume Two. Washington, DC: NACIC, 1998;
Rafalko, Frank J., ed. A Counterintelligence Reader: Post-World War II to Closing the 20th Century, Volume Three. Washington, DC: NACIC, 1998;
Rafalko, Frank J., ed. A Counterintelligence Reader: American Revolution into the New Millenium, Volume Four.Washington, DC: NACIC, [2004]. [44]
If you would like, we can cite it as:
Rafalko, Frank J., ed. A Counterintelligence Reader: Post-World War II to Closing the 20th Century, Volume Three. Washington, DC: NACIC, n.d.
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: [45]. Alas, even they have the title and cite wrong. Continuing to debate this is a waste of time. --Cberlet 22:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
"...alleged "Soviet spy ring which supposedly..."; that is so bogus sounding and suspicious my eyes pop out of my head, but if it makes you happy, keep it. My sense is, Cberlet's POV is so critical of the FBI, he doesn't believe FBI when they say supposedly, that he feels the necessity to insert "alleged supposedly". Talk about wearing POV on your sleeve.... nobs 05:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rafalko: 54 Google hits

  • NACIC does not cite Rafalko as editor in any Introduction, Preface, or Acknowldgement.
  • ONCIX does not cite Rafalko as editor in any Introduction, Preface, or Acknowldgement.
  • FAS as of mid August 2005, on a cover page only, cited Rafalko as editor.
  • The origin of all citations to Rafalko as editor are from the secondary source, Secrecy News here [46], maintained by the FAS, dated October 5, 2004.
  • The only place Frank J. Rafalko appears in the Counterintelligence Reader is "American Revolution End Notes", fn 1, "This article was written by Frank J. Rafalko, Chief Community Training Branch, National Counterintelligence Center." ( [47] 2 page pdf file)
  • There is an Eric Rafalko cited in the Acknowledgements. [48] (1 page pdf)
  • NACIC+Rafalko brings up 54 Google hits.

Now, this raises several questions. (1) Primary source does not cite an editor. (2) Secondary source cited an editor only 3 weeks ago. (3) All subsequent references on the internet are based on a secondary source. (4) The primary source document contains no less than three problems that concern us, (4a) no editor listed, (4b) end notes withheld, (4c) gross misspelling of a key figure's name that directly concerns us, i.e. "Silverman" and not "Silvermaster". (5) FAS was the source of "Official History", however it as since substituted "Frank J. Rafalko, ed." in place of its former "Official History".

So what are we to gleen from all this. (A) The CI Reader may be subject to further editing. And (B) FAS possibly cannot be relied upon based on (i) it is not the original primary source, and (ii) its redaction of "Official History".

Cberlet has stated, "The FAS website is not affiliated with the government. It's just a website, not the publisher." By this reasoning, FAS's sourcing as "Frank Rafalko, ed." should be carefully considered. What appears proper for the intext citations for now would be "NACIC", until such a time as NACIC's successor, ONCIX, places the name of an editor upon the primary source document. nobs 01:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

This is absurd. We know Rafalko is the editor, and it is never proper to cite the publisher. Please move on.--Cberlet 04:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
No we don't know, as I didn't know in July when I prepared the edits. All I had then was a document, CI Reader, with errors, a defunct publishers, a U.S. Government website, and a secondary source telling me it was the "Official History".
We may have a difference of opinion as to who or what the FAS is. But I don't see the need to debate or discuss it. But I will not be fooled a second time by them. I insist on primary source data, as you have stated twice now in this page, in this discussion. nobs 04:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Here's the facts: you've implied twice now on this page I'm some sort of a deceptive idiot regarding Refalko; facts are it took me more than 4 months to find Refalko's name (and I'm still not satisfied), I gave Rafalko's name to you, you did a Google search with his name and posted the results with the implication I didn't do the work properly. You never would have heard of Refalko if I didn't do all the work first. nobs 05:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I used software called Reference Manager, used by people who write journal articles, to search 50 academic libraries using the phrase "Counterintelligence Reader." It turned up several hits to library catalogs that listed Rafalko as editor. Here is one library abstract of the series:
A four-volume account of the history and evolution of U.S. Counterintelligence that was prepared for the now-defunct National Counterintelligence Center (NACIC). The encyclopedic 1500 page work begins with an account of counterintelligence (CI) from the American Revolution to World War II (volume 1), proceeds with a study of CI in World War II (volume 2), continues with a survey of the post-WWII atom bomb spies up to the latest espionage cases (volume 3), and concludes with a look at current counterintelligence challenges from China, Russia and elsewhere (volume 4). The study, prepared over several years by multiple authors, deals in part with well-trodden ground such as the Venona intercepts. But it also includes extended treatments of much more obscure topics, such as counterintelligence in the Civil War, and official accounts of numerous individual espionage cases that never made headlines, as well as a U.S. government perspective on "counterintelligence in the turbulent 1960s and 1970s."
I also posted a number of cites by scholars who used the proper citation to Rafalko, which you simply ignore. One of these is located on the FAS website [49]. It was prepared by the "Defense Personnel Security Research Center." I have no idea why you are obsessing over this. We have multiple examples of the proper citation to Rafalko. Please stop this. It is a complete waste of time. There is much ground to cover. Please direct your attention to the text below, which I am proposing be adopted as NPOV and accurate.--Cberlet 14:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Source for the above posting, FAS, Secrecy News maintained by Steven Aftergood, already referenced by me above, dated 5 October 2004[50]. (FAS Project on Government Secrecy Volume 2004, Issue No. 87). nobs 20:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet states above: "What cite should we actually be using? The primary document.", and

"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: [50]. Alas, even they have the title and cite wrong."

At length Cberlet then criticize me for using information gathered from a secondary source, the FAS, to fully qualify what was missing from the primary source. How does Cberlet wish to fix this problem? by using information from the same secondary source to fully qualify what is missing from the primary source. Not fair criticism, and we've been burned once already by the secondary citation.

What is the issue? The problem is we have a primary source document, it is the most recent publication issued by a US government agency studying all the evidence regarding Soviet espionage in the United States. It uses testimony of individuals, FBI investigations, Venona project decrypts, and further NSA research and investigation into the facts. The compendium is written as an historical narrative to put full picture of the US governments understanding of all the evidence into a perspective. Problems: (1) the primary source document does not list an editor (2) the primary source document is missing certain key footnotes (3) misspelling of a key figures name.

How does this relate the Wiki article? Primarily through the proper sourcing attribute.

What is the information in question? The phrase, "The following were members of the Victor Perlo Network"; it has been documented now, that the sourcing citation cannot be attributed to a single person intext. That the attributed material comes from other sources as well (FBI, Venona). As a primary source, the document speaks for itself. Hence, the proper attribution is to the source document.

Who is the source document? The Counterintelligence Reader.

Who issued the Counterintelligence Reader? It is a collaborative effort, issued by the now defunct National Counterintelligence Center (NACIC). The source document lists no editor.

Comment: An editor's name has been retrieved from various secondary sources, however, the US government's successor agency, the ONCIX, still does not list any editor.

What is the reliability of the secondary source? The secondary source billed the Counterintelligence Reader as the "Official History of Counterintelligence Operations in the United States". The same secondary source now has recanted its citation as that, and in place has listed "Frank J. Rafalko, ed."

How does this relate to an intext citation? The missing footnotes, which the editor left out (for whatever reason), and to which the primary source still as of yet has not listed a name as an editor, require an intext citation as to who is speaking in the phrase, "The following were members of the Victor Perlo Network". The secondary source has recanted and retracted its representation regarding what the document is. The voices speaking, have been documented to be a compendium of Elizabeth Bentley, FBI investigators, Venona project decrypts, NSA analysts, and unnamed Counterintelligence Reader authors & editors. Hence, as we say in the business, "the document speaks for itself".

Who is the document? The document is the "National Counterintelligence Center's, Counterintelligence Reader".

This analysis comports with Cberlet's references stated above. nobs 21:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

This response is totally surreal. A cite from a library catalog is a solid cite. I have asked for a clarification of the proper cite through the Government Printing Office. I will let folks know what they report.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cberlet (talk • contribs).

[edit] Good Faith

From Talk:Harry Magdoff [51]

What part of moving this discussion to the group discussion at Talk:VENONA project page do you not understand, Nobs? Are you totally unable to work collectively to reach consensus?--Cberlet 03:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Of coarse, you can't have a gangbang without the girl. nobs 16:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

nobs continues to insist on running the same discussion on the same matters and same language on Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage and Talk:Harry Magdoff instead of hammering out a consensus on this page. What is the point? Does anyone else have an apionion or comment? Unless there is more input from other editors about temporarily moving the multiple debates to this page, I will ask for Page Protection on the appropriate other pages until we all agree to follow a group process and edit here collectively and in Good Faith.--Cberlet 17:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Magdoff text discussion

Let's take these out of order but in a sequence that flows from one to the next. And let's finish one before starting another.--Cberlet 22:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph One

  • 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."[52].

I think we can agree that if the FBI has a cautious wording, so should we. Comments??? --Cberlet 22:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

This edit [53], reveals Cberlet is so anxious to insert "McCarthy hearings" into this text, that with a keystroke he has converted a written FBI Deposition of Elizabeth Bentley into oral testimony before a Congressional Committee. Witness:

Original text:"...Elizabeth Bentley who provided this information to the FBI [54]:" (followed by deposition quote).

Cberlet's doctored text:"...Elizabeth Bentley who provided this information to the FBI and later testified to that same effect during McCarthy era hearings [55]: (followed by deposition quote).

The following facts were established two months ago:

  • Harry Magdoff left government 30 December 1946.
  • Joseph McCarthy took office the first week of January 1947.
  • Harry Magdoff was never summoned before a Committee chaired by Joseph McCarthy.
  • The circumstances of Magdoff leaving government employment had absolutely nothing to do with Joseph McCarthy.
  • Harry Magdoff was not "hounded out" of government by Joseph McCarthy, and/or "McCarthyism".
  • Joseph McCarthy did not begin his crusade until morethan four years after Magdoff leaving government employment.

Nevertheless, after several months of establishing the facts, and presenting the evidence in carefully crafted language by several editors, in Cberlet's exuberance to insert references to Joseph McCarthy, and present Magdoff as a "victim" of "McCarthyite" "persecution", Cberlet with a simple phrase transforms facts into a world that never existed. This fits the definition of Wikipedia:POV. nobs 20:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobs is correct that my original wording about the Bentley testimony was unsatisfactory, which is why I (not Nobs) changed it on my next edit: [56]. I have no idea why Nobs has not noticed this, and assume his attack on me for having "doctored" the text was due to inadequate research. I will be happy to accept his apology for this error. We all make mistakes.

[edit] Bentley

I note that Nobs has chosen not to engage in the discussion of the paragraph I have posted above about how the FBI characterises the Bentley claims, and their own investigation, so I must assume he is OK with it.

So let's turn to Bentley, Which Nobs appears to want to urgently discuss.

It is significant that Magdoff was targetted for investigation by the FBI with Bentley's assistance, and if Nobs would prefer that we first mention the Red Scare as preceding the actual McCarthy hearings, that suits me fine. Usually, however, the term McCarthy era refers to a longer period than just the McCarthy hearings, stretching from the late 1940s to the mid 1950s.

This is the language I first proposed.

  • The public accusation that Magdoff was working for Soviet intelligence was itself not new; it had originated with defector Elizabeth Bentley who provided this information to the FBI and later testified to that same effect during McCarthy era hearings[57]

It is important to place Bentley in the historic moment. She was a major figure in the Red Scare. She also was an unstable person who struggled with alcoholism and was repeatedly caught lying. Some, perhaps even most, of her charges later were corroborated. Other charges never were corroborated. Some are most likely not true. Here is how two reviewers characterised her, based on her biography, Red Spy Queen: A Biography of Elizabeth Bentley:

From Publishers Weekly
In August 1945, a 37-year-old woman named Elizabeth Bentley walked into the FBI office in New Haven, Conn., and announced that she was a Communist spy who controlled a vast network of agents operating within the U.S. government. Her defection precipitated the decade's first "Red Scare" and set off a chain of events that eventually led to the execution of the Rosenbergs. Despite her importance, however, Bentley has been largely ignored by history. Olmsted, an assistant professor of history at UC-Davis, corrects this oversight in an intelligent, balanced biography of the woman the tabloids labeled the "red spy queen." Bentley, Olmsted makes clear, was by no means a doctrinaire Communist. She joined the CP-USA primarily because she was lonely, and became a spy because she fell in love with a Soviet agent named Golos. Bentley helped Golos with his work; after his death, she took over many of his agents. But Bentley was too erratic and independent-minded for Moscow (and a hardened alcoholic as well). When she realized her Soviet masters were plotting her "elimination," Bentley went to the FBI and became what Olmsted calls a "professional ex-Communist," collecting sizeable speaking fees and frequently appearing before Congress and on TV and radio. But Bentley soon faded from the spotlight, undone by her emotional fragility and penchant for lying. When she died in 1963, the world took little notice. Olmsted's thoughtful account restores Bentley to her rightful place and gives her all the credit and blame she deserves. 12 illus.

Copyright 2002 Reed Business Information, Inc. [Amazon Books]

From Library Journal
Though most readers are familiar with the names Joseph McCarthy, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, and Alger Hiss, many have not heard of Elizabeth Bentley (1908-63), the Red Spy Queen. With access to newly available documents, Olmsted (history, Univ. of California, Davis; Challenging the Secret Government) unveils the amazing story of the woman who became first a highly regarded spy for the Soviets and later a major informant for the U.S. government. A Vassar College graduate, Bentley defected from the Soviets in 1945 and soon became a household name when she began naming names, eventually uncovering a vast Soviet spy ring that extended into the government itself and helping to precipitate the Red Scare of the 1950s. Because of her unstable personality and willingness to stretch the truth, historians for decades have questioned her testimony. Olmsted shows that although Bentley may have sometimes exaggerated her own role in espionage activities, there was also truth in her testimony. This original biography about a complex personality is absorbing and well written. There is a lengthy notes section and an extensive bibliography but no index. An important addition to all academic collections.DMaria C. Bagshaw, Lake Erie Coll., Painesville, OH [Amazon Books]

So the fact that it was Bentley who first tapped Magdoff as a "spy" is significant, as is her later role in the McCarthy era, as is the fact that her claims sometimes turned out to be false or unproven.

So perhaps this wording is better:

  • The accusation that Magdoff was working for Soviet intelligence was itself not new; it had originated with defector Elizabeth Bentley who provided this information to the FBI, which then launched an investigation of Magdoff.[58] Bentley, an unstable alcoholic, later became a star witness during McCarthy era hearings, and made her living lecturing as a professional anticommunist. While the Venona documents confirm some of Bentley's claims, other claims remain uncorroborated, and Bentley's record is dogged by her penchant for exaggerating her role in communist espionage, and stretching the truth.

Perhaps Nobs can offer an alternative wording.--Cberlet 22:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet's digression into cut & pasted arguements from The Nation magazine over the past 50 years pales in light of the fact that a publication by an agency of the United States government, the NACIC now says Magdoff was a member of the Perlo group, and that the Venona decrypts confirm the accuracy of Bentley's testimony.
We could cut & paste the arguements from July & August here, from several articles, if you so wish to (again) trash Bentley (you left out "she was neither blonde nor beautiful", or "slut"), if you wish to recycle The Nation and the New York Times. Frankly, I am about to challenge the New York Times blatantly sexist language "Blond Spy Queen" someone had inserted into the Bentley article.
Now if the name of the game is to trash sources, we'll reserve comment on what has been called "a Kremlin directed Stalinist mouthpiece" which itself has two correspondents named in the Venona decrpyts, and seems to be the only source Cberlet has located to challenge the U.S. governments case. nobs 02:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I will cut & paste a previous post from memory (I'll find it sooner or later): Bentley did not win any friends at the FBI when she walked into the New Haven field office. The FBI knew of exactly 5 (five) Soviet spies from 1942 to 1945; when Bentley named 82 more, it didn't make the FBI appear to being doing their job to good, especially during a National State of Emergency.
See: Talk:Elizabeth_Bentley#Reference for further discussion on the subject, we can begin with Stephen J. Spingarn, Asst. to the Attorney General of the United States, 1937-38; 1946-49; Alternate Member, President's Temp. Comm. on Employee Loyalty, 1946-47; Asst. to the Special Counsel of the President, 1949-50; Administrative Asst. to the President, 1950; from the Truman Library, pgs. 682, 711, 767, 769 - 777, 790. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by nobs01 (talk • contribs). belated-nobs 20:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
What does this have to do with editing the paragraph?--Cberlet 03:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps I missed which paragraph you refered to in the first sentence of this subhead regarding what I'm "ok" with. nobs 03:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Since you ignored the first paragraph I posted, I assumed it was OK:
  • 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."[59].
In this section, with the heading "Bentley" we are discussing my proposal for the following paragraph:
  • The accusation that Magdoff was working for Soviet intelligence was itself not new; it had originated with defector Elizabeth Bentley who provided this information to the FBI, which then launched an investigation of Magdoff.[60] Bentley, an unstable alcoholic, later became a star witness during McCarthy era hearings, and made her living lecturing as a professional anticommunist. While the Venona documents confirm some of Bentley's claims, other claims remain uncorroborated, and Bentley's record is dogged by her penchant for exaggerating her role in communist espionage, and stretching the truth.
I assumed you would want to rewrite it. If you are having difficulty understanding the procedure, simply review the previous text. We are taking one paragraph at a time, and working on it until we reach an agreement on NPOV and accurate wording. Then we move on to the next paragraph. It's all explained above. Please write an alternative to the paragraph on Bentley that I have just proposed...again.--Cberlet 03:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I do have difficulty understanding. I thought we were going to finish discussion on the intext citation as per NACIC. I see you made a GPO request. Very good. I hope you will share that information when it becomes available. Now secondly, once that is established, that still does not resolve the issue regarding the intext citation. No matter what, Mr. Rafalko cannot be cited as the voice speaking "The following were members of the Victor Perlo Network." He is not the speaker or author. He is only the editor. In the absence of Footnote 59, the document itself becomes the source, not an editor (particularly, an editor that made glaring mistakes). nobs 04:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC).
A number of authors suggest that Magdoff was a member of the Perlo network, but the initial accusation came from Bentley, and was pursued by the FBI. That's why the first paragraph was important:
  • 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."[61].
So, according to the FBI, it was never verified that Magdoff was a spy. As for Magdoff being a member of the Perlo network of suspected communists and suspected Soviet Spys, we know that is what the FBI thought because it was in the 1946 FBI memo. So until we verify the Counterintelligence Redaer cite and footnotes, we really cannot rely on it for establishing that Magdoff was part of the Perlo network. But since we have the primary FBI document from 1946, we can cite that, which is convenient, because it is clear in that primary document, that the original accusation comes from Bentley.
You recently inserted the following in the Harry Magdoff and espionage page:
  • According to publication by an agency of the United States Government, the National Couniterintelligence Center's Counterintelligence Reader,Magdoff was a member of the Perlo group of Soviet agents.
Forgive me, but I would characterize that as factually false, based on the discussion on this page, and the cite has been shamelessly hyped to the point of being a misrepresentation. So the intext cite does matter, and that is what we have been discussing. We do not need a cite to what is accurately cited as Rafalko, as demonstrated repeatedly above. We have the primary document from the FBI from 1946. By citing to that document, we have a primary source, and avoid the issue of shamelessly hyping the cite to Rafalko into the wordy and dubious: "publication by an agency of the United States Government, the National Couniterintelligence Center's Counterintelligence Reader." Furthermore, the Rafalko reader does not state that Magdoff was "a member of the Perlo group of Soviet agents," it states that Bently claimed Magdoff was a Soviet Spy, the FBI called the network the "Perlo Group," and we know the FBI is more cautios, and states:
  • 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."[62].
So even the FBI disagrees with your claims. Perhaps now you will return to editing the paragraph we are actually working on:
  • The accusation that Magdoff was working for Soviet intelligence was itself not new; it had originated with defector Elizabeth Bentley who provided this information to the FBI, which then launched an investigation of Magdoff.[63] Bentley, an unstable alcoholic, later became a star witness during McCarthy era hearings, and made her living lecturing as a professional anticommunist. While the Venona documents confirm some of Bentley's claims, other claims remain uncorroborated, and Bentley's record is dogged by her penchant for exaggerating her role in communist espionage, and stretching the truth.
Please try to focus your attention on actually editing this text.--Cberlet 04:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Nobs01's obstinacy over allowing me to make small changes on William Remington led me to read more and more and more about Elizabeth Bentley, and the more I read, the more flaky behavior I kept reading about. A lot of the information about her is on the William Remington page or in the WR talk page. WR sued her for libel in 1948. Before he sued her, she had been all over, at hearings, on TV etc. After he sued her she disappeared, to where there were headlines such as "RED WITNESS MISSING AT 100-G SLANDER SUIT" on the front page of the New York Daily Mirror. After the publicity she re-emerged - and lost the case. So she lost a libel suit against someone she accused in court. She also had contradictory testimony (although I like the way you put it better, "lies").
Of course, Nobs01 calls the Nation "a Kremlin directed Stalinist mouthpiece", so I'm not really sure where you go from there. You'd hope that others reading this would get a proper perspective of all of this without having to read everything when he opens his mouth to say something, but this is Wikipedia after all, so... Ruy Lopez 09:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Response:
This bogus arguement has been disposed of three times by another editor (actually four, I found another I'll have to cut and past to the cut & pasted response here); (and I'm refered to as "obstinate"); see
Further as per The Nation I used the weasel term "has been described as", so like Ruy, I'm just repeating gossip. But Ruy is to be congratulated, despite two notices to his User Page that I no longer consider his editing in good faith, he provoked a response out of me. And I appologize to other readers of this page for wasting their time having to read this digression. God Bless. nobs 05:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Counterintelligence Reader

Nobs, we have had this discussion endlessly on this page. Now you bring it back up as if it had not been settled. You engage in surreal circumlocation and omphaloskeptic nit-picking to mask the fact that your claims can not be backed up.

If you are going to insist on plonking your innaccurate and POV text into Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage and Talk:Harry Magdoff, I will renew the request for mediation, and seek page protection on both pages. We are supposed to be working out a compromise text here. I am willing, for the time being, to not refer to Rafalko's Counterintellignce Reader in the text. Under no circumstances is it acceptable to allow your fictitious, innacurate, and inflated cite to a "publication by an agency of the United States Government, the National Couniterintelligence Center's Counterintelligence Reader." That is hogwash, and you know it, and anyone who has read this discussion knows it. We have access to a primary document with the underlying information about who claimed Magdoff was a Soviet spy (Bentley) and how the FBI listed the group under investigation (The Perlo Group).[64]. The only reason you insist on using the Counterintellignce Reader is to continue to insert your fraudulent cite that implies Magdoff was a spy and that this was certified by "an agency" of the U.S government. This is an outright fabrication. It has been exposed as an outright fabrication, and yet you continue to post this false text into two of the pages under discussion here.

I have repeatedly pointed to scholarly and library sources that properly cite the Counterintellignce Reader in some form such as this:

  • Rafalko, Frank J., ed. A Counterintelligence Reader: American Revolution to World War II, Volume One. Washington, DC: NACIC, c. 1998.

In addition, it is surreal to claim that we do not have accurate information about the author/editor of the Counterintellignce Reader and we should wait for that information, and at the same time use information from that book and craft an idiosyncratic and ludicrous cite to inflate your claims. --Cberlet 14:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The bibliographic citation I do not believe is in dispute; it is the intext citation. Raflako is not (1) the editor as per primary source (2) the author (3) the person speaking. The intext citation requires a source. "Rafalko" is not acceptable. The document, as a primary source, is the proper citation. The document needs a proper introduction as to who and what it is. Rafalko's name could be presented (as per the secondary FAS citation), as editor, once the introduction to the primary source, "a publication by an agency of the United States Government, the National Couniterintelligence Center's Counterintelligence Reader" is presented. That would read as such, "National Couniterintelligence Center's Counterintelligence Reader, Frank J. Rafalko, ed.".
--->We could discuss as to at what point the intial introduction to the CI Reader is made; perhaps presenting it earlier, making a separation, then using language as you propose, "According to the Rafalko Reader, Magdoff was a member of the Perlo group".
P.S. Please desist from the incessant innuendo you employ to (a) discredit me (b) accuse me of being unreasonable (c) mischaracterization of the substance of this discussion. A tireless examination of these unfounded misrepresentations will not support your claim. Also, please desist from personal references and address only issues of substance under discussion relating to the articles we are working on. nobs 18:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
No one is disputing that the FBI put in writing in 1946 (now declassified and available online) that Magdoff was, in their words, based on the allegations of Elizabeth Bentley, a member of what the FBI dubbed "The Perlo Group." There is no need to hype the claim. It is an established fact. The objection is to the improper hyping of the source. Following your suggestion, we would write:
  • According to the Yale University Press, a publication of a respected university, Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, Magdoff was a member of the Perlo Group.
And then when next mentioned:
  • Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr.
That is not the proper way to cite information anywhere on this planet.
Furthermore, there is no reason to cite Counterintelligence Reader at all. It is an edited secondary source with missing footnotes that would help establish where the linkage of Magdoff to the Perlo group comes from in the main text. The proper cite still has not been confirmed, and we have a primary source that clearly states that the FBI considered Magdoff part of the Perlo group.
If you want to include the Counterintelligence Reader as a backup secondary source, the proper citation would be either "Rafalko" or simply Counterintelligence Reader. The publisher of the source being cited is not generally included in the text. In any case, nowhere in either Rafalko, or Haynes and Klehr, does it state that Magdoff was a spy, and even the FBI does not claim that everyone in the Perlo Group was a spy -- just a suspected spy -- and the source of that claim is Elizabeth Bentley. Once we clear away all the obfuscatory debris, we are left with ambiguity in many areas. What we know is that Bentley made the claim that Magdoff was a spy, and the FBI listed Magdoff as part of what they called the Perlo Group. Magdoff was investigated, but never prosectued. Nothing in the Counterintelligence Reader suggests otherwise.
Real cites, factual summaries, NPOV language. --Cberlet 19:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Cberlet uses words like "absurd" and "surreal". Let's look at what Cberlet proposes.
"According to Rafalko, Magdoff was a member of the Perlo group.[65]" When the neutral reader clicks on the primary source, they find Rafalko does not exist. When they click back to the article notes, they read "Frank J. Rafalko, ed., National Counterintelligence Center, Counterintelligence Reader". Then going back to the source they see National Counterintelligence Center does not exist. [66]
What is our hapless neutral non Anglocentric school reader to make of this?
(1) improper citation
(2) sloppy research
(3) broken link
There is no excuse for this. It only serves the POV to obsure the fact that the National Counterintelligence Center's Counterintelligence Reader lists Magdoff as a member of the Perlo group. nobs 20:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Nobs, when you check the footnotes about Magdoff being in the Perlo Group from the online version of Rafalko's Counterintelligence Reader they are missing from this publication on both the ONCIX website and the FAS website. So citing the online version is citing a secondary source with missing footnotes. Nobody is disputing that the FBI, based on Bentley's claims, listed Magdoff as being in the Perlo group for purposes of investigation. We have the underlying primary FBI document that states this clearly. Or, if you would prefer, the secondary Haynes and Klehr book, Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, lists Magdoff as being in the Perlo Group on page 357. You cannot argue that on the one hand there is missing citation information and missing footnotes in the Counterintelligence Reader, and then insist that we use this publication as the cite. It simply makes no sense.--Cberlet 21:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frameing the issue

The present dispute arises largely from unpublished Footnote 59. Cberlet shows signs of generally coming to understand the problem. For the folks viewing at home, I will provide some narrative to give some meaningful context.

Why was Footnote 59 withheld? We don't know.

Theory and analogy: The contents of footnote 59 probably contain reference to a yet declassifed file, let's call it FBI file XYZ-12345 for example. Once a reference to FBI file XYZ-12345 is published, it becomes open source, and can be subject to a Freedom of Information Act request. Why does FBI file XYZ-12345 remain classified? It may contain the name of an informer, for example, who ratted out certain individuals, and the informer still has grandchildren alive. The government must give careful consideration before releasing the contents of FBI file XYZ-12345, or any reference to it, because someone may take revenge against the grandchildren. Not difinitive, this is only intended to set you thinking in the direction as to why the government has yet to declassify certain things.

Why did the NACIC go defunct? Probably a victim of post-Cold War downsizing. In the post-911 era, counterintelligence in America has again become a big concern, and the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (ONCIX) has taken over its function.

Why didn't, or why doesn't the NACIC or ONCIX slap the name of an editor on the publication? Perhaps it's the first rule of survival in a bureacracy, don't take credit for anything, then you can't be blamed for anything.

Why is an intext citation necessary? Because of unpublished footnote 59 (as per MLA style manual).

Why was the Counterintelligence Reader authored and released? The document's abstract, cited several times explains. [67] it largely serves two purposes (1) as a training manual for Counterintelligence Officers learning the craft (2) an historical narrative to put the United States governments understanding in perspective of Counterintelligence operations after the release of the Venona materials. It draws on all sources known within the "Intelligence Community", including still classified materials. It is the U.S. Governments primary source for interpreting the meaning of Venona materials (and other controversial materials) in open source, that exists in the form of historical narrative. And we can surmise that there will be in the future additions, or corrections in spelling. nobs 21:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. Typical circular logic and failure to answer basic questions. We have TWO undisputed cites for Magdoff being assigned to the Perlo Group for investigative purposes. TWO. One is a PRIMARY document prepared by the FBI in 1946 and now available online. AND, a book reference (Haynes & Klehr) supplied by Nobs himself.
Nobs typically argues in circles until editors give up in frustration. He has done this for months to several editors on numerous pages. This dispute is not about footnote 59, which is missing! This dispute is about getting simple answers to simple questions about editing straightforward text. This subheading is another in a long series of ludicrous side issues created by Nobs instead of actually discussing text on this page. --Cberlet 23:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
Cberlet: I would suggest the above posting properly belongs on the Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage page; this is the Venona project article. Note (A), the posting was not directed at you, (B) the CI Reader, and the contents of Footnote 59, and discussion of primary sources of the United States Government open source declassified documents is not limited to Mr. Harry Magdoff. While I can appreciate your best efforts to trash me, please understand this subject goes beyond your pet POV of denying what open source documents of the US government say about Mr Harry Magdoff. Thank you. nobs 03:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Start Over - Simple Sentences, Simple questions

Nobs, do you agree that these simple statements are an accurate and NPOV version of events. PLEASE DO NOT START AN ARGUMENT OVER CITES. We can find cites later. Please just edit the sentences below so that they reflect an accurate and NPOV version of events:


  • Elizabeth Bentley told the FBI that Harry Magdoff was passing information to the Soviets.

The FBI launched an investigation based on Bentley's claims.

  • The FBI divided those under investigation into the Silvermaster Group and the Perlo Group.
  • Magdoff was listed by the FBI as in the Perlo Group.
  • Information in the secret Venona documents provided evidence that at the very least, the Soviet espionage apparatus was interested in Magdoff as a potential information source.
  • A memo discussing the Venona documents in terms of the FBI investigation suggested that in order to successfully prosecute those under investigation, the Venona documents would have to be made public, and even then, the evidence was not always clear, and the identification of persons by code names could be challenged, and in some cases the identification was problematic.
  • The government decided not to prosecute.
  • The FBI, to this day, is still cautious in its wording of this matter.
  • Some scholars and journalists rely heavily on the Venona documents, and suggest they corroborate much of Bentley's testimony.
  • Other scholars and journalists disagree.
  • No publication by a reputable scholar or journalist comes right out and says Magdoff was a spy for the Soviet Union.

If you disagree, rewrite the sentences below.--Cberlet 23:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What has this discussion produced?

Cberlet has shifted his arguement from "agency" [68], to "Rafalko" [69], and now "let's pretend it doesn't exist", to advance his consistent POV that a publication by the United States Government's, National Counterintelligence Center, A Counterintelligence Reader, does not say what it does say, "The following were members of the Victor Perlo Network".

Now Cberlet proposes original research to interpret the meaning of what the United States Government has already studied and published.

(incidently, here [70] we see Cberlet deleting his own wording here [71], then accusing me off all sorts of nasty things when its pretty obvious I was restoring his own edit. I'm not gonna get into the game of trashing & innuendo. The histories tell the story). nobs 02:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The "United States Government" did not edit or publish the "Counterintelligence Reader." Rafalko was the editor, the "National Counterintelligence Center" was the publisher. There is no dispute that the FBI created a file for investigation in which Magdoff was listed as a member of the Perlo Group. We can cite any one of three publications to footnote that fact. What Nobs has consistently done is to inflate the cite by using the following non-standard form. Here is one example:
  • "According to United States Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (ONCIX) Official History, Magdoff was a member of the Perlo group of Soviet spies."
and another:
  • "According to publication by an agency of the United States Government, the National Couniterintelligence Center's Counterintelligence Reader, Magdoff was a member of the Perlo group of Soviet agents."
All of this verbiage is POV hyperbole, and it is not factual. The Counterintelligence Reader,does not identify Magdoff as a Soviet Spy or Soviet Agent. The Counterintelligence Reader,cites Bentley as charging Magdoff with being a spy, and then lists him under the heading "Perlo Group." We know the name "the Perlo Group" was used by the FBI for its investigation. We have the primary source document from the FBI dated 1946.
I have proposed numerous alternative phrasings for the text, and repeatedly asked Nobs for a response. rather than editing the text here, Nobs writes long essays that are generally incomprehensible or self-contradicting. He then goes to the Harry Magdoff and Harry Magdoff and espionage pages and reinserts his factually false and improperly cited text back into the pages.
Here are two different wordings I have proposed:
  • "Several sources indicate Magdoff was investigated as a member of what was called the Perlo group....The public accusation that Magdoff was working for Soviet intelligence was itself not new; it had originated with defector Elizabeth Bentley who provided this information to the FBI and later testified to that same effect in open hearings. Bentley told the FBI....Rafalko's Counterintelligence Reader repeats the claim that Magdoff was a member of the Perlo group of Soviet agents."
  • "Elizabeth Bentley charged that a number of government employees had worked on behalf of the Soviets in the late 1930s and early 1940s. [cite to Bentley] According to Rafalko's Counterintelligence Reader, Magdoff was a member of the Perlo group.(See pg. 31) [Cite to CI Reader]"
Nobs, please tell me what is wrong with those wordings.--Cberlet 04:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
What is the purpose? You have just accused me of something you know is not true. We agreed on NACIC citation, and I made the change from ONCIX, yet you just posted "consistently", You know that is in fact not true. Please exhibit good faith in your representations. nobs 04:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
This is the accepted format per MLA for a Federal Agency Report.
And if you want to go back and change all the "Works Referenced" citations on all the pages you edit to the MLA format, you go right ahead. Of course, in this case you have simply erased the fact that Rafalko is listed as the editor in library catalogs and exisiting scholarly citations. But let's set that aside for the moment. We are awaiting clarification of the cite from a government agency.
So here is a compromise suggestion. All we have to do is write:
  • "Magdoff was investigated by the FBI as being a member of the Perlo group of suspected Soviet spies." ftn1 ftn2
The footnotes can be linked to both the Counterintelligence Reader and the 1946 FBI Silversmith memo.--Cberlet 12:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I propose we leave no reference to the phrase "Soviet spies" in the passage in question. The CI Reader does not use that phrase, it simply references "Victor Perlo Network". We have successfully articulated the problems with the primary source document in question (recap:primary source document online does not list an editor; original issuing authority is defunct; online source is a successor agency; editors attribution drawn from a secondary source; classified footnotes; typographical errors in orginal).
There are two issues under consideration: the name of the citation, and an intext reference to that name. My sense is we are not that far apart on the name of the citation. That the source document is a U.S Government publication, and not a private or academic publication I do not believe can be disputed. There appears to be some disagreement upon how this should be represented in the body of the text given the aforementioned recap.
I would suggest that consultation should be given to this specific issue: an intext citation to a U.S. government publication. As you have presented an arguement, "Rafalko" intext is adaquate; I believe this is unqualified and mistaken. If "Ralalko" is to be used, "Rafalko" needs a proper introduction & qualification to the readers, that "Rafalko" is not an academic historian or private researcher; that "Rafalko" is the editor of a United States Government sponsored "study" [72], or "account" of Soviet espionage in the United States. I believe this fits the definition of a Federal Agency Report, and should be identified as such in the body of the text. It is a minor point to argue whether it is "corporate" or "authored". Either way, it needs to be identified in the text as U.S. government authorized, sponsored & issued (language negotiable). I intend to spend sometime on the stylistic prose to get it correct. I welcome assistance, cooperation, and collaboration. Thank you. nobs 18:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
We know that the FBI listed Magdoff as part of the Perlo Group as early as 1946. By hyping the cite, it makes it seem that the U.S. government has certified that Magdoff was a member of the Perlo group. That, of course, would be an outright falsehood, and I am sure we both want to avoid that. The issue here is that you want to avoid mentioning Elizabeth Bentley, who is important since she first accused Magdoff of being a Soviet spy--a charge that has never been substantiated. Even Haynes and Klehr refuse to call Magdoff a spy, and if we even implied that, it would be an outright falsehood, and I am sure we both want to avoid that. And after Magdoff was publically identified by Bentley in Red Scare or McCarthy Ear hearings (your choice), he was dogged by accusations he was a Soviet spy, but even the FBI does not say that, and to suggest otherwise would be an outright falsehood, and I am sure we both want to avoid that. So stop trying to inflate the cite to the Counterintelligence Reader, because we both agree there is a problem in figuring out the proper citation, and the crucial footnote about where the mention of the Perlo Group is cited to by Rafalko is missing from the online version, and to suggest otherwise would be an outright falsehood, and I am sure we both want to avoid that. Looking forward to crafting an accurate and NPOV version of the text.--Cberlet 18:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
As per Complete Guide to Citing Government Information Resources, revised edition -- ALA Government Documents Round Table (GODORT) [73], given the particulars the proper citation is Title, Issuing Agency, Publisher, Date of Issue, with no reference derived from secondary source. nobs 19:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Excellent, so in the body of the text we simply refer to the Counterintelligence Reader, and then footnote it to the cite format you just suggested. Finally, an agreement!--Cberlet 19:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Let's try it. nobs 19:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Link to FEDERAL AGENCY REPORT WITH CORPORATE AUTHOR, Citing Government Information Sources Using MLA (Modern Language Association) Style [74], i.e. "Corporate Author" no reference to secondary source, i.e. "Rafalko". nobs 20:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] a U.S. government agency

Cberlet: The phrase, "a U.S. government agency", needs to be inserted in both articles, per all style manuals, to introduce CI Reader, somewhere between the opening sentence and the footnote to NACIC CI Reader. I do not believe it can be watered down any less than this. Please make a suggestion where you wish to place it.

Outline for an agreement: "a U.S. government agency" intext; "The Counterintelligence Reader names Magdoff as a member of the Perlo group"; footnote to citation; Bentley is not second-guessed or trashed.

Trade-off: no second guessing Bentley and no full qualification of "According to an agency of the United States Government, the National Counterintelligence Center, in thier publication A Counterintelligence Reader, Magdoff was a member of the Perlo group" within the body of the text.

Please let me know if this is acceptable. Thank you. nobs 21:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet: The opening two paragraphs give us this: "an agency declares...", followed by "An FBI report says supposedly..."; this may be the necessary amibiguity you are seeking because the agency is not identified as NACIC (ONCIX) and could be taken to mean FBI. In truth, this is a fairly accurate reading of the U.S. Govt. primary source documents we can be proud of. I hope we have achieved NPOV. All that remains in minimizing the weasel words (allegedly, supposedly, claims, etc.), not devouring each others sources, and one other minor thing I forgot but will come to mind sooner or later. In the truelly collaborative spirit, I remain your humble servant, nobs 16:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Totally and completely outlandish interpretation of our discussion. All I agreed to was the format for the footnoted cite and/or reference. I explicitly said that the text should refer only to the Counterintelligence Reader. All you have done is announce a compromise, and then blatantly re-inserted your hyped description of the document back into the text. This is ridiculous. We have now spent over one month simply going in circles. --Cberlet 17:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Another hyped claim not supported by the facts; it has in fact been 7 days [75]. nobs 21:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] compromise

  • delete "agency"; looks parallel to the Harry Magdoff article now, I don't think its style manual conforming, reserve judgement & I'm not "going to the mat" over it (as they say in wrestling).
  • add "suspected", don't like it but you do; personally I think the FBI saying "supposedly" is very strong and it makes the whole sentence look suspicious, but if you think overkill is necessary, go ahead.
  • add ""possible" within a direct primary source footnoted reference which does not appear in the footnote; this may not be acceptable. Now I have to spend the time to invesitgate what appears to be a distortion. Please, examine the primary source and call to my attention the basis for inserting "possible" within this direct attributed text.

Thank you. nobs 17:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation filed

I have filed a request for mediation on this and related pages, see here:[76] --Cberlet 18:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Two examples of altering the text of source documentation with POV

Example 1 The original merged version of 02:58, 27 July 2005 [77] 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, pg. 182, paragraph 3 (pg. 3 in PDF)

The text and meaning was altered to

"the Soviets were unsure of the type of material he might be asked to deliver." [78]. Changes the meaning from first person primary source to third party not present.

Example 2 Original

"being a Soviet information source "[79];

POV version

"being a possible Soviet information source". Footnoted Primary source does not read "possible"[80].

nobs 19:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Neither of these claims are true. Both examples refer to text that was not in quotes in the page text, and thus open to reasonable editing. No quotes from primary sources were altered.
In Example One [81] I added a cautionary word to a sentence that was not in quotes, and not even the actual quote from the underlying cite. The actual quote is as follows:
  • "According to Bentley, the group specifically discussed the information they would be able to furnish her and with respect to Magdoff, Bentley advised, '.....Magdoff, who had just returned from a period of approximately six months hospitalization, expected to return to the War Production Board but was uncertain as to what specifically he would be able to furnish.....' " [FBI Silvermaster group file, Part 2c, pg. 182, paragraph 3 (p. 3 in PDF)
In Example 2, the text is cited to a document that merely asks about a possibility of a meeting with a person code named KANT (claimed to be Magdoff), and does not state that Magdoff is any type of information source for the Soviets.[82]--Cberlet 21:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


In Example 1 the meaning is clearly changed. In Example 2, NSA analysts, if there was doubt, would use "probably Harry Magdoff" or "possibly Harry Madgoff"; neither exists. I would propose we leave it to a mediator to examine. nobs 22:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Cberlet says, "Both examples refer to text that was not in quotes in the page text, and thus open to reasonable editing"; {emphasis mine}. Both examples are footnoted in text. nobs 00:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
In Example 2 the text reads "Magdoff was identified by Arlington Hall cryptographers in the VENONA cables and by FBI counterintelligence investigators as being a Soviet information source using the cover name "KANT" The decryption reads
  • "Comments: [v] KANT: Harry Samual MAGDOFF". [83]
It is the actual positive identification of KANT as MAGDOFF. It has nothing to do with the contents of the KGB transmission. See: [84], Cberlet states "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." nobs 01:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


Excuse me. I see Cberlet's point. "The document...does not state that Magdoff is any type of information source". He evidently isn't aware of Venona 687 KGB New York to Moscow, 13 May 1944 yet.
  • "On HELMSMAN'S instructions GOOD GIRL contracted through AMT a new group:
[53 groups unrecoverable]
MAGDOFF - "KANT". GOOD GIRL's impressions: They are reliable FELLOWCOUNTRYMEN
["members of a Communist Party"], politically highly mature; they want to help with information. [85],
also cited here Harry Magdoff and espionage#Decrypted cables, and here Harry Magdoff and espionage#fn MAYOR. nobs 01:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


Cberlet's above posting reference to Example 2, I believe fits the definition of "argueing in circles". nobs 02:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

(Moving indent) Both examples are textbook cases of the classic attack upon valid primary source historical documents, i.e. thier integrity and meaning. This is especially true, since both are referenced & footnoted. In otherwords, this is not valid historical narrative, text, research or presentation. It amounts to what we historians refer to as "pure crap". nobs 02:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop deleting material pending Mediation

Nobs, is it too much to ask that you please stop deleting all the material I edited and added while we are awaiting mediation?--Cberlet 01:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Deleting? Show evidence, please. Thank you. nobs 01:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Please just stop editing all the pages and agree to mediation. It will make life easier for both of us.--Cberlet 01:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Please show evidence of your claim. Also, please stop creating subheads to illustrate a point. nobs 02:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation#What is mediation

Common aspects:

  • the parties want to find a positive solution to their problem and to accept a discussion about respective interests and objectives;
  • the intention of achieving a positive result through the help of a third person, usually independent, neutral and in no connection with any of the involved parties;
  • the intention of achieving a steady result, preferably a long-lasting agreement.

Cberlet: can you present evidence your mediation request is entered into in good faith (given the above factors), and not an attempt to abuse the process? Thank you. nobs 02:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, one might as well ask the same of you. You have no more right to demand in advance of mediation that Cberlet "present evidence" for his good faith than he has to demand the same as you. Obviously, you both hold strong opinions in this matter. I don't see any evidence that Cberlet is operating in any different level of good faith than you are. I suggest that you both enter the mediation with an open mind, not questioning each other's good faith. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move discussion

As per User:Flcelloguy's suggestion, I move we adjourn to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Nobs01/Workshop. nobs 03:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Schrecker

I haven't been following closely, but it looks like somewhere along the way, we seem to have lost all mention of the following reference:

  • Ellen Schrecker, Many are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America (Boston: Little Brown, 1998)

Shouldn't this be restored? Or was there general agreement to remove it? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

That was originally footnote 3; Note three is now part of Significance of Venona article. The changes have been discussed regarding moving that material to that other article, and is in place there (supposed to be, I'm speaking from memory). It has no reference and/or relevence to this article. nobs 00:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I wanted Schrecker retained as either a book in the references section, or a cite to a Schrecker quote. All were deleted at various times.--Cberlet 01:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Other editors have weighed in on that subject, extensively on this Talk page; you wanna wait, or should I add that to the POV you seem intent on pushing. Thank you, and God Bless. nobs 01:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Note: You may wish to examine Schrecker for the the source material related to Byron Darling; it may weigh against using the material as a valid and/or verifiable source. nobs 01:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Since no one addressed [Talk:VENONA_project#Significance my prior question] as to why Significance of Venona is a separate article, I don't know what to make of that response. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
The Schrecker reference is specifically addressed in three subheads above:
Talk:VENONA_project#Collective_Editing
Talk:VENONA_project#Cberlet's objections
Talk:VENONA_project#Varying opinions; and elsewhere on this page, the discussion ended with Cberlet making this edit [86], and I responded with [87]. It is also addressed elsewhere in numerous places on this page, and in Significance of Venona. Ultimately, (if I recal the substance offhand, Schrecker was adjudged not to be of equal stature to refute Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, not having been party to the Moynihan Secrecy in Government Commission proceedings, and could not be viewed as an balanced critic. That's a thumbnail recap of the discussion off the top of my head, but you are welcome to read it. nobs 04:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Also, there was a concensus of roughly 11-1 to depoliticize, this article, and this page, and return it to the decrypters for furthering the cryptographic arts, at least till Cberlet, et al, broke the argreement & put a RfC on this page. nobs 04:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
As recovered from above: " 'proportion'; out of context secondary sources [Schrecker] refuting a primary source (i.e. Senator Moynihan, discolors the article, discussion, and understanding. " nobs 04:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Do I correctly read the above as claiming that you (that's a plural "you") have de-politicized this article by separating discussion of significance of the documents to a separate article, leaving this article effectively to presuming that the U.S. government claims of their significance should be taken at face value? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm about to sign-off for tonite, but that is not a fully accurate reading; the interpretation as to who was or wasn't collaborative, is really about #3 on the list of the major issues, regarding Significance of Venona. #1 is probably elements within the government acting without direction of the President, failing to consult or inform him, on an issue that has had such divisive domestic political consequence (some may argue foreign policy aspects are #1). The spy business needs its proper treatment, in its proper place. But few editors have engaged on the most important aspects. Would love to discuss that, but that's all I have time for tonite. nobs 05:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Huh? I feel like I'm trying to carry on a conversation with Professor Irwin Corey. What is the grounds for handling significance of Venona in a separate article? I still haven't gotten anything like a straight answer. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Jmabel: Please see [88]; Cberlet moved the bulk and body of text. Thank you. nobs 16:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I have a significantly different view of reality. Nobs created Significance of Venona after a discussion about endless editing conflicts on the VENONA project page. Other editors grew tired of disputed claims. There was a lengthy debate and vote to Keep [89]. Since then Nobs has repeatedly attempted to put back into the VENONA project article only text that represents his POV, rather than a fair and NPOV summary of the page Significance of Venona. We are currently in mediation over this and many, many, other issues.--Cberlet 17:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, that is two (conflicting) versions of the history, but still fails to answer my question: What is the grounds for handling significance of Venona in a separate article? This is not how Wikipedia is normally organized. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
(A) Venona project is a technical article related to cryptography and signals intelligence. Significance of Venona relates to historic and political aspects. nobs 19:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I can see that! I am asking why these are two separate articles, given that neither is terribly long. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
You're not getting an answer here, are you? ;-) I didn't split out the subpage, and I don't know that there's any particularly good reason for this arrangement at present. You might argue, I suppose, that both articles are likely to be expanded, and that splitting off the impact of the contents of the decrypts (significance of VENONA) from the technical and historical side (VENONA) is a reasonable way to factor the content into manageable articles. We do this with Enigma machine and ULTRA, for example. — Matt Crypto 15:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

(Moving indent). Thank you. If this discussion page is read, I believe those answers are addressed in no less than five different subheads; also, Talk:Significance of Venona is currently in Mediation; also, the current text being disussed opens the door for significant expansion of Significance of Venona with all the Kim Philby and Bill Weisband materials, not to mention some of the stronger criticism arising for the Moynihan Commission Report. One party to mediation is now suggesting addressing Franklin Delano Roosevelt, et. al. members of his administration within Venona project materials. These issues have little to do with technical aspects of cryptography. nobs 17:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, as a courtesy, I was hoping that you would please stop lobbying for your POV on these pages while we are in mediation.--Cberlet 03:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, the question was asked six times & I felt obligated, but now you've given me the reason to ignore it. I am truelly thankful this time. nobs 03:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review requested: Joseph McCarthy

Peer review has been requested for the Joseph McCarthy article. Please make all peer review comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Joseph McCarthy. TomerTALK 20:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] paragraph badly in need of being edited

in the section VENONA project#Significance what do the german bombers do. what does the turkish ambassador say. what do these have to do with each other. i do not follow. --Calm 21:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/e/n/Talk%7EVENONA_project_Archive3_6a73.html"