Talk:Elizabeth Bentley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Elizabeth Bentley article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article is within the scope of the Columbia University WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Columbia University, her schools, environs, and people. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Archive
Archives






Re. this dif: I wrote a bad edit summary comment. I should have said that I was RVing because the added quote was redundant, unnecessary, awkwardly inserted, and the word "concedes" has no meaning in the context of this article. RedSpruce 02:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"redundant" with what? "unnecessary" could describe almost every edit to Wikipedia. Is it absolutely "necessary" Wikipedia exist at all? Likely not, but it is nonetheless improving access to knowledge and that's what this Schrecker quote
We now know, based on information obtained from the archives of the former Soviet Union and the VENONA documents, that most of the people Bentley identified, had in fact been giving information to the KGB. - The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents
does. Re "awkwardly inserted", what is stopping you from inserting it somewhere else? Re "concede", if you prefer another word nothing is stopping you from changing it another word. The immediately prior paragraph says "Bentley made an accusation that was apparently a complete fabrication..." You evidently want that to be the last word for the section, and the best justification you could initially come up with for cutting out my counter-balancing edit was "irrelevance", as if the quote was not about Bentley but about someone else. There aren't enough unsourced sentences in this article for you to cut out such that you have to cut out sourced ones? Finally, why do you suddenly feel it necessary to justify your reversion at all? You already told me with respect to other articles that you don't feel it necessary to further discuss your reversion practices or, failing that, to seek any mediation assistance. What is so special about this article?Bdell555 02:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Redundant and unnecessary in the sense that it's already stated in the article (twice, in fact) that Venona confirms much of Bentley's story. RedSpruce 10:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


you have two dates for her date of death! I believe December 3, 1963 is correct.

A Baron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.226.95 (talk • contribs)

You're right. Thanks for pointing that out. Dec. 3 is the correct date. RedSpruce 17:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Help

I tried to add some text, but it did not appear in the article. What is more, the part of the article below it disappeared as well. Did I screw up the code? Is the article too big? Mark LaRochelle 14:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It was just that you neglected to close a "<ref>" with a "</ref>". My latest edit fixed it. You may need to refresh your browser to see the fix. RedSpruce 14:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Just refreshed. Still not seeing my addition in the article, although it shows up in the code. What gives? Mark LaRochelle 15:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Try adding "?action=purge" (without the quotes) to the URL of the page and then "go to" that URL. RedSpruce 15:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bentley flakiness

Obviously accused communists had an interest in promoting the idea that Bentley was flakey, unreliable. Their accusations are on point and should be in the article. At the same time we need to not let any of their smears stand by themselves where we have independent evidence that Bentley was correct. That too needs to be in the record. I've just reverted a Redspruce edit that was not, in my opinion, adequately faithful to the entirety of the record. White and Remington were justly convicted and Bentley played an honorable role in that happening.

Another problem is that we are not in 1948. It would generally be considered despicable to imply or say that a college woman who took a lover or two was rendered an unreliable witness in court and anyone who tried to use past sexual history (not related to the parties of the case) in an espionage case would themselves have their character impeached. So what are we to say about Remington's detectives? TMLutas 21:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4 spies and a perjurer walk up and call you a whore...

Since simply referring to Venona more than once per article is protested, let's just label Bentley's antagonists for the crimes they were convicted/guilty of. It's short, not tied to Venona, and has the virtue of being honest. TMLutas 02:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

A note: WP:3RR

If you have broken 3RR by mistake and now realize it, or if another user has left you a note on your talk page that points out that you broke 3RR, then you should revert your change back to the "other version", even though you may not like the previous version. In general, this should be enough to prevent you from being blocked, although there are no guarantees. If you seem to be the only person who feels that the article should be the way that you have made it, perhaps it is better the way everyone else thinks it should be.

Look at the recent timestamps and the reverts. Leave the text be and let's work it out in talk or this goes to the admins. I'm assuming a good faith mistake at this point. Please don't disturb my assumption. TMLutas 08:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations that Bentley lied

The article correctly says that Bentley was the courier between NKVD New York and Silvermaster at least from the time of Golos' registration as a foreign agent in 1940 until Bentley handed the Silvermaster and Perlo groups over to Akhmerov in June 1944.

If the Ovakimian memo is genuine, it suggests that Bentley was telling the truth when she testified that White pushed to get the Treasury plates to the Soviets. This information relates not only to White's espionage, but to Bentley's credibility. The message is from NKVD New York and says that White was following NKVD instructions received by him from Silvermaster. Since Bentley was "running" the Silvermaster group and was the "cut-out" between NKVD New York and Silvermaster at that time, this message corroborates her story of her involvement. Furthermore, the implication that she was out of the loop raises the question: How did she know that White did exactly what this top secret Soviet memo says he did? To suggest that all this is only about White, and is irrelevant Bentley, as RedSpruce has done twice, is false, and thus not a valid reason for reversion.

To state as fact, as the article does, that this was an "alleged incident that was apparently a complete fabrication" by Bentley is highly misleading. There is nothing "alleged" about the incident, and the Ovakimian memo removes any doubt about White's role. My revision clarifies that Olmstead cite in turn cites Craig's contention that not just Bentley's role, but "the whole 'scheme' was a complete fabrication." The truncation of "the whole 'scheme'" creates a false implication; the insertion of the adverb "apparently" violates WP:NPOV. (Apparent to whom? Not to the Schechters, Weinstein, Haynes, Klehr, Radosh, or Herken.) My replacement of "apparently" with "alleged to be" was, if anything, overly generous to Craig and Olmstead (who, to be fair, did not have the advantage of seeing the Ovakimian memo befor they published).

To state that "there is no evidence that Bentley had any role in this decision" is a bit of a red herring, since Bentley never alleged a role in the decision, but only as a courier. The implication that "there is no evidence that" she played that role is an exaggeration, at least: The Ovakimian memo, and her own knowledge of White's activities, implies that she did. My replacement of "is no evidence" with "was no evidence at the time" was neutral and verifiable. To prevent any explanation of how the Ovakimian memo challenges Craig's interpretation is a violation of NPOV and is far from "neutral."

I have tried rewriting this information a couple of times in a way that will not offend RedSpruce, but, instead of adding any constructive research of his own or raising the issue in talk, he habitually resorts to wholesale reversion. This is a violation of WP:EP, to wit:

Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of deleting, try to:

  • rephrase
  • correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content
  • move text within an article or to another article (existing or new)
  • add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced
  • request a citation by adding the {{Fact}} tag

It also goes against the purpose of reverting, to wit:

  • Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously
  • Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
  • If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
  • If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

Do not

  • Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
  • Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
  • Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
  • There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
  • Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

I propose reverting RedSpruce's reversion 165456406 at 18:17, 18 October 2007, but I would like to avoid obliterating any constructive contributions made by others since that time. I am soliciting feedback from members of the Wikipedia community. Mark LaRochelle 09:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark -- I think you make some valid points, and I apologize if some of my edits have been overly hasty. There have been a couple of extenuating factors: One is I've simply had difficulty understanding some of your edits, both in what they were saying and the timeline of the scholarship involved. A second problem has been the edits by TMLutas, which have recently been mixed in with yours. Not only are his edits generally nonsense, but I find him as a person essentially impossible to debate with; his (real or pretended) ignorance of how Wikipedia is supposed to work and his (real or pretended) lack of rational thought make it not worthwhile to even read his comments (which I haven't been doing, on this page anyway).
That said, I do think that some of your edits have focused too much attention on H. D. White, who is not the subject of this article, after all. It also doesn't seem correct to say that "Bently never alleged a role in the [currency plates] decision," since she said (as is quoted in the article) she was "able through Harry Dexter White to arrange that the United States Treasury Department turn the actual printing plates over to the Russians." This is basically claiming not only a "role", but essentially full responsibility for the incident. I haven't read any author who's said that Bentley's claiming of such a role was anything other than a complete fabrication. Many of the sources I've read have been quite emphatic that the debacle around the currency plates was due to simple incompetence, and no conspiracy on the part of White and his Soviet contacts was required. The source you cited doesn't agree with that, but as far as I saw, neither did it contradict that the role Bentley claimed to play was a "complete fabrication".
I need to read up more carefully on the Ovakimian memo, but it appears some coverage of it belongs in this article. But you'll note that a lot of the article is already devoted to the subject of White and the currency plates, and this is only one small part of the overall story of Bentley. Too much expansion of this subtopic wouldn't be appropriate to the article.
I apologize for not opening a discussion with you sooner. I think that, with further discussion, we'll be able to reach an agreement on this issue.
RedSpruce 11:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
If you have difficulty understanding an edit, the proper procedure, as cited above, is not to revert, but to ask for clarification. Your inappropriate reversions display a consistent pattern of abuse. TMLutas is irrelevant to your pattern of abuse, which long preceded his contributions. Calling his edits nonsense while alleging ignorance and irrationality WP:Skill (and suggesting dishonesty WP:ASF) on his part violate WP:Civility. Not reading his comments is a bad idea: He seems to be suggesting that, on top of everything else, it appears that you are in violation of WP:3RR 70.108.103.12 11:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Mark LaRochelle 11:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I love you too RedSpruce. If you're admitting that you're not even reading my comments, you shouldn't be modifying my edits. That is disruptive, period. As I posted, to avoid a block, you're supposed to revert yourself to your non-preferred version. Since you've commented in talk since I posted that and haven't done a revert to demonstrate it was a good faith mistake in overdoing things even when I gave you a chance to do so it's off to the 3RR reporting page for me.
As for my edits being nonsensical, there isn't much chance for consensus when you don't talk. You seem to be concentrating on not including too much about other figures in Bentley's page. That's fine so far as it goes but if you don't allow any characterization, you have a false equivalence between a bunch of spies and liars and this woman who made some very big errors in her life but ended up doing the right thing, thus the adjectives. You can either have short adjectives accomplishing the effect or you can have longer passages explaining things. The latter is less jarring but you didn't like that so we're reduced to the short adjective approach by your previous campaign of reverts. TMLutas 17:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
LaRochelle, Forgive me for not joining you in name-calling and petulant hostility; I reserve that for those who have proven they deserve it, and you don't qualify. I agree with your most recent edits, with one small modification made: "Some aspects of" added to "Bentley's testimony would be corroborated..." In addition to that, I think it would be a significant improvement if a date attached to when this memorandum was publicized. RedSpruce 22:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Redspruce: Thank you for the kind comment. In the spirit of WP:LOVE (i.e., "forgive and forget"), welcome back. Thanks also for reminding us all of the importance of avoiding name-calling. I also want to thank TMLutas for starting this little love train by generously offering you an opportunity to avoid disciplinary sanction for your infractions, an opportunity you chose not to take.
Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but you appear to be suggesting that I have called you names. I hope I have not done so; after a perfunctory review, I am unable to confirm that I have. It seems to me that you started name-calling very early (e.g., calling M. Stanton Evans an unreliable source and an avowed extremist, etc.). As I could not see how Evans had proven he deserved such name-calling, I invited you to substantiate this. Rather than do so, you took the opportunity to repeat this name-calling, and to call a few more names. Seeing the fruitlessness of asking you for substantiation, I broke off my participation in that exchange. If you could cite the names I called you, and direct me to the posts in which I called you such names, I would be happy to apologize. In any event, I will make every effort to avoid name-calling in the future, even for those who have proven they deserve it.
As for petulant hostility, I plead poor writing: I was aiming for huffy indignation.
As to your substantive issues, I appreciate your points. We don't want to falsely imply that the Ovakimian memo corroborates Bentley's testimony on matters other than the Treasury plates affair. I propose that instead of the vague "some of Bentley's testimony," we substitute the more specific "Bentley's testimony on these matters."
Regarding the issue of the date of corroboration: Bentley testified about these matters in '53; the Schechters published the Ovakimian memo in 2002; the Senate released the Executive Sessions of the '53 hearings in 2003. I tried to simplify with a literary trick, writing "after half a century," but I am by no means married to this formulation. Mark LaRochelle 09:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding in-substantive matters, authors and scholars, like celebrities, are fair game for name-calling, and M.Stanton Evens is a certifiable wingnut. Telling me I have a "a consistent pattern of abuse" isn't technically "name-calling" because there's no "name" involved, but it's still obviously name-calling. No need to apologize, however. Let's move on to...
Substantive matters: there appears to be no clear corroboration of the controlling role that Bentley claimed for herself in the plate transfer, and that's what I was referring to in adding "some aspects" [of Bentley's testimony] to the passage.
RedSpruce 12:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I feel your pain, but name-calling does not take the place of facts. I have given you every opportunity to substantiate these slurs, and you just keep piling on more name-calling. Since you have not substantiated this smear, you have failed to substantiate your contention that Evans is not a reliable source. Your revert of my edit citing his work was therefore a blatantly inappropriate use of the revert function, as I amply document by citing the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines above.
When someone uses power inappropriately, he abuses it. When he does so repeatedly, he creates a pattern. If accurately describing such behavior is to be abjured as ad hominem, it is hard to imagine how any abuse can be discussed, never mind corrected. Moreover, if accusing someone of abuse is name-calling, then accusing someone of name-calling is likewise name-calling.
I propose that we draw a distinction between discussion of behavior (which is appropriate and necessary to correct counterproductive behavior) and unsubstantiated name-calling (extremist, wingnut, etc.), which conveys no actual information about the target, but rather reveals only information about the name-caller.
What I mean is, instead of just stating your unsubstantiated conclusion that "Mr. X is a Y," relate the evidence that persuaded you of this conclusion (e.g., "Mr. X did A, B, and C."), then let the Wikipedia community of editors reach its own consensus, based on the evidence.
Back to the article: I understand your assumption that Bentley claimed for herself the controlling role in the plate transfer; that is one possible reading of the quote excerpted from her autobiography. However, the context on the page reveals that this is not the correct reading. She makes it clear that she is merely the courier carrying instructions for White to Ullman and Silvermaster from the Soviets, which is the same story she told the McCarthy subcommittee in '53. I am trying to figure out a way to include the context without making this section even longer.
On a side note, a trip to the DC Public Library found that it does hot have a single copy of the book in the entire system. Likewise a visit to the Library of Congress uncovered that the book is "missing from inventory." If I were a suspicious person, I might think -- but never say -- that it's almost as if someone had gone around destroying the evidence. Fortunately, I managed to track down the elusive tome elsewhere. As a wise and witty friend likes to quip in these situations: "They're good. But they're not that good." Mark LaRochelle 14:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
On thinking about it more, I agree with you about Bentley's description of her role with regard to White and the plates, so I removed the "Some aspects of" that I added.
There's more to be said about the difference between expressing an opinion that a particular author is a moron, and arguing that he isn't a good source because his views on an issue represent a fringe view, but I think we're in general agreement about that. RedSpruce 14:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Re Sacred Secrets: As you may know, there has been a lot of criticism of it and the quality of the Schecter's scholarship. Most notable among their critics are Klehr and Haynes; far from being left-wing "anti-anti-communists". Luckily, none of the criticism I've been able to find has to do with their account of the Ovakimian memorandum or Bentley and White. Most of the criticism is around their conclusion that J. Robert Oppenheimer was a Soviet spy: But it's an indication that the book (like all books, really) should be taken with a grain of salt. RedSpruce 00:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Bentley, Olmstead, Schechters, Meeropols

The quote attributed to Bentley's Out of Bondage p. 141 actually appears on p. 241.

The attribution (Olmstead:186) supports that Olmstead cited Craig's conclusion that "the whole 'scheme,'" meaning White acting on NKVD instructions in the Treasury plates affair, was a "complete fabrication," but not that she agreed with it. The following page supports that she agreed with him insofar as Bentley lying about "her role" in the affair.

The statement that the Ovakimian memo was "publicized" in 2003 is confusing; it was published in the Schechters' Sacred Secrets in 2002, and received publicity from Herken and the Wilson Center, among others, before publication.

Also, the speculation attributed to the Rosenbergs' sons that "Bentley's testimony was changed in order to make it fit the prosecution's needs" is confusing, and the passive-voice construction doesn't help matters. Did they allege that Hoover withheld relevant portions of Bentley's statement from the Justice Department? That the U.S. Attorneys failed to disclose? That the defense was incompetent or corrupt on cross? That Bentley committed perjury? The article needs to clarify. Radosh and Milton might be more a reliable source on these matters. This whole discussion of speculation by relatives might need to be removed to the Rosenberg page. Mark LaRochelle 18:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Re. the Rosenbergs: First some general notes about your edits: You kept the previously existing point stating that Julius "never wore wire-rimmed glasses" and follow this with multiple links to pictures in which he's wearing glasses that may not technically be wire-rimmed, but the certainly look like wire-rimmed. This feels like you're playing Perry Mason style "AHA!" games with some imagined Rosenberg-defending reader. Since this isn't the Perry Mason show, I think a better course of action would have been to make a note of this inconsistency here in the talk page and invite a discussion of it. You also added a 338 word sentence that is very confusing and convoluted, with multiple quotes, including what seems to be a totally unnecessary one about submarines.
I suspect that a search of the literature would show that not many--if any--scholars have taken the Meeropols' book very seriously. I don't feel like doing that research right now, but nevertheless I propose that the whole passage on the Meeropol's contentions regarding Bentley's testimony be removed. The wire-rimmed glasses point is obviously hooey, and that leaves only the (non) move to Norfolk as an inconsistency in Bentley's statements. I'll go ahead and do this deletion; anyone who disagrees can of course undo it and discuss it here.
  • Re. the date of the Schechters' book: Amazon shows the copyright as 2003, but I see now that that's for the paperback edition; the original copyright is 2002. I'll change the cite book reference to show it as 2002 so there isn't an inconsistency between that and the article text.
  • Re. Olmstead and Craig: I agree with replacing "agreeing" with "citing."
RedSpruce 20:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. All good points, I think. Bentley's FBI statement indicated that the contact she knew under the name "Julius" was one of a group of Naval engineers at the Norfolk Naval complex, perhaps working on submarines; this would rule out Rosenberg. When you say this is "an inconsistency in Bentley's statements," do you mean that she testified in the Rosenberg trial that "Julius" never was at Norfolk? If so, that needs to be spelled out here.
The point of linking to the images was that, if it is true that Rosenberg never wore wire-rimmed glasses, it looks like one who met him only once might mistakenly "remember" the glasses he wore as being wire-rimmed. Sorry for the long sentence. I was trying not to step on the toes of whoever had made the prior edits. Work in progress, and all that. Mark LaRochelle 23:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I meant "inconsistency" in the sense of being inconsistent with the facts, since (according to the earlier edit) Rosenberg never moved to Norfolk. RedSpruce 13:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1933??

Is it correct that Bentley joined the CPUSA in 1932, and then the next year went to Italy and joined the fascist group? Or is there some mistake here? Regards, GADno (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. She actually joined the communist party in 1935. I've fixed the article. RedSpruce (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Her death passed..."

The passage "Her death passed with relatively little notice" is supported and documented by the next sentence in the article, which describes the level of notice given to the death of Whittaker Chambers. The roles played by Bentley and Chambers were comparable in many ways, so it's valid to look at the notice given Bentley's death relative to that of Chambers. RedSpruce (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I think this passage should be more specific about the nature of the coverage of her death, with a comparison to Chambers clearly stated rather than simply juxtaposing the two people in the text. I'll work something up when I get a chance. RedSpruce (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, RAN. Among your recent edits, one was made with this comment" "restore quote to show that "Her death passed with relatively little notice" is incorrect." Perhaps you could explain to me why it is necessary to show that a statement is incorrect when that statement is no longer in the article. I could also explain to you that the statement isn't incorrect, but that isn't necessary, since it's no longer in the article. RedSpruce (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New section heading "Death"

The text in this deals with more than her death. The text noting the posthumous verification of Bentley's story is quite important to the overall story. The section could be called "Death and subsequent validation" or something like that, but that's an awkward mouthful. RedSpruce (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

RAN, your solution was to restore a "Death" section and add a "Legacy" section. In this form the article ends with 3 extremely short sections, which is stylistically awkward and unnecessary. The heading "Aftermath" is general enough to cover what you made into three sections. Also, "Legacy" isn't the correct word, since it refers to something that a person leaves behind after their death. The content of this section was about the posthumous validation of Bentley's story, not about any "legacy." RedSpruce (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Death

I have rearranged the references, and restored the Washington Post AP obit to reinforce that "Her death passed with relatively little notice". I think an obit in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Time magazine dispels this. The extra reference makes sure that anyone who read or cited the article while that information was there, now has the correct information. After all, if you still aren't convinced, how can I convince others who will be reading in the future or have read it in the past. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So some past readers of this article might have misinterpreted the statement "Her death passed with relatively little notice", and you want to repair that misinterpretation among those readers who read that past version of the article, misunderstood it, and are now revisiting the article. That's certainly a unique reason for making an edit. Luckily your edit doesn't do much harm, so I'm willing to leave it for the time being.
I say "misinterpret" the statement, because that's what you're doing. The word "relatively" is key. It means her death received little notice, compared with someone else. That someone else, of course, is Whittaker Chambers, who was and is mentioned in the immediately following text. Even without the word relatively" to make explicit the fact that there's a comparison to be made, "little notice", "minimal notice", etc. are relative terms with no absolute meaning. They only mean something when there's a point of comparison. (The sitting president of the US? An anonymous homeless person?) In this case, the article has always made it clear (to all readers except you, apparently) that the point of comparison was Whittaker Chambers. Compared to Whittaker Chambers, Bentley's death received "little" notice. I hope this clarifies the text that was in the past version of this a article for you. RedSpruce (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bentley's middle name

RAN, Although my edit summary comment here was justified based on the content of your footnote (and on your history of not understanding the difference between trivial and non-trivial content), on further research it turns out that this isn't a matter of a simple typo. The two published biographies of Bentley are actually in disagreement on this point: Clever Girl gives Bentley the middle name "Turrell" and Red Spy Queen uses "Tirrell". This still wouldn't be worth mentioning if it was only one article in Time that used this "alternate spelling", but as it turns out, many sources do. When I get a chance I'll add a footnote to the article noting this. RedSpruce (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia, unnecessary repetition

A user has requested comment on biography for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCbio list}}.
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.


Richard Arthur Norton's (RAN) recent edits to the article add the following:

The footnote regarding the spelling of Bentley's middle name reads (prior to RAN's addtion): Sources are divided on the correct spelling of Bentley's middle name. Kathryn Olmsted's biography spells it 'Terrill', while Lauren Kessler's uses 'Turrell'.
RAN adds the following: Time magazine uses "Elizabeth Turrill Bentley" and the Associated Press uses "Elizabeth Terrill Bentley." This is more coverage of an extremely trivial point than any reader will ever want. It also makes a false statement: it is not known that Time and the NY Times always used these respective spellings when they printed Bentley's name, but the text incorrectly asserts this.

Repetition through redundant footnote quotations; RAN's edit adds the following text in the form of source quotations in footnotes:

  1. Elizabeth Terrill Bentley, self-styled courier for a Communist spy ring, told a reporter today she was born New Year's Day 40 years ago in New Milford, Conn.
  2. Elizabeth Bentley, the apostate Communist agent who helped unmask a web of wartime red treachery in this country, died quietly today. She was 55.
  3. Elizabeth Bentley, a Soviet spy in the United States during World War II who later aided the United States, died today in Grace-New Haven Hospital. She underwent surgery for an abdominal tumor yesterday.
  4. Elizabeth Turrill Bentley, 55, onetime Communist whose disclosures of wartime Soviet espionage led to the conviction of more than a dozen top Reds between 1948 and 1951; following surgery for an abdominal tumor; in New Haven, Conn.

Except for the name of the hospital where she died, none of these footnote quotations add a single piece of information to the article. Not only do they all repeat information already in the article, the last 3 all repeat each other. Well-written articles do not repeat the same information four times over.

RedSpruce (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Actually I made the discovery that there are two versions of her name here, you then dismissed it as a typo here. Then after I complained to Arbcom, you reinserted your own reference, and left mine deleted here a few days later. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC) The redundant references about her death were added to counter your claim that: "her death passed with relatively little notice". Obituaries in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Time magazine did not support your original research. (see section above)

Your dishonest complaint to the ArbCom had nothing to do with my change. Seeing a different spelling for a person's name in a single news source is not in itself notable; assuming that it's a simple typo is the only rational course. When I saw that the biographies of Bentley disagreed on the spelling, then it became noteworthy.
I've already responded several times over to your lack of understanding regarding the word "relatively". No original research was involved, as I have made clear.
And BTW, none of your comments here "respond" in any way to the points I make in the section above.
RedSpruce (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess thats the difference between research and "assuming". You also say: "When I saw that the biographies of Bentley disagreed on the spelling, then it became noteworthy." (my emphasis added) Yes, a good example of solipsism. You have a tendency to delete my references in articles in favor of your own. I don't delete your's, more references are better than fewer, or none. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
As you would have understood if you weren't focused on finding excuses to make a childish insult, my point in saying "when I saw that the biographies disagreed..." is that a biography, which is more carefully researched than a news source article, is a better and more significant source than a weekly or daily news outlet. The biographies, in this case, recount the history of Bentley's family, with some discussion of the origin of her middle name. Therefor the likelihood of a simple and meaningless typo is far less than it is with a news source.
And no, more references are not necessarily better than fewer. If that were true, then an article with 50 footnotes to every sentence would be "better" than a sane article, that someone might actually read. If I have a tendency to delete your references, it's because your references tend to be bad for various reasons, as these are, for the reasons I have stated. RedSpruce (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe that argument is called reductio ad absurdum. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
That is correct. Unfortunately for the point you're apparently trying to make, reductio ad absurdum is not an example of a false argument. It's a perfectly valid illustration that your statement was nonsensical. RedSpruce (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
And BTW, with the exception of your invalid argument "more references are better", you still haven't even tried to respond to any of the points I raised in the section above. Since you have no defense of those edits, you shouldn't be opposing their removal. RedSpruce (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • RfC response: Point #1: Neither Time magazine nor the Associate Press are go-to sources for the spelling of names. While they are generally accurate, they are not definitive, since, just like Wikipedia, their info is only as good as their sources. However, biographies by their nature investigate matters such as this (against primary sources, eg. birth certificates), so they are infinitely more appropriate sources for this kind of matter. In the end, ditch the Time and AP references. Point #2: Taking quotes from the source material is not standard practice, and because Wikipedia (and pretty much everybody) likes to use the fewest amount of words to express the most information, if referential notations don't introduce new material or clarify something confusing from the body, they are redundant, pointless, and bulky. RAN, haven't we discussed this before?--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 17:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Point #1: We have a requirement and responsibility to use reliable and verifiable secondary sources to document facts in articles. Time and AP are exactly where we should be obtaining information, both to confirm and contradict information supplied in the article. Point #2: The use of quotations in references is a built-in feature of all of the citation templates, and a proposal to consider a prohibition of their use was roundly rejected by Arbcom. This is a perfect example of a case where including bare links (without quotations) leaves the sources meaningless and uses fewer words but provides no useful information. That others have arbitrarily decided not to take advantage of a designed system feature is no argument against its use. An edit summary stating "rv for the usual reasons, and 'advisor' is the more common spelling" is a clear demonstration of refusal to address the issues here in any meaningful fashion. Alansohn (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
"Point #1": You don't address my point that the spelling of this person's middle name is a trivial issue, not deserving of four sources. "a proposal to consider the prohibition [of footnote quotes]" was never made, and therefor was not "roundly rejected by Arbcom". Under the circumstances, "rv for the usual reasons" is precisely, utterly, crystal clear. RedSpruce (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it is a bit of original research and speculation to say that the tertiary sources (the two books) trump the secondary sources (AP and Time), because the tertiary sources had access to death certificates. If the tertiary sources had access to the death certificate, why don't they match each other? We don't know that any more than what sources were used by Time and AP. All are unknowns. And even if someone orders the death certificate, that would just be another source, even if a primary one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Honestly, though RAN, four sources? For a middle name? There are definitely bigger fish to fry here at Wikipedia, but since it was brought to RfC, I have to concede that this is a case of over citation.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Where there is a discrepancy, it is entirely appropriate to show that there are different versions in different sources. Showing the preponderance for one version requires multiple sources, and is the best way to demonstrate what we call "consensus" between the various sources. Are you suggesting that dishonesty is the reason for adding these sources? Alansohn (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Some sources "trump" others for obvious reasons. In this case the biographies trump the news sources, for the reasons I have stated and to which you have not responded. RedSpruce (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Your original theory was that it was a typo, remember? That was another example of Original Research, that was incorrect. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
And that comment is an example of a non-sequitur. RedSpruce (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)