Talk:Harry Magdoff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]

Contents

[edit] Archived material

[edit] sad news

Fred Magdoff announced his father's death in an email message today[1]. --Viajero | Talk 20:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Just got the e-mail announcement. See that his death has been recorded here. Hope future edits will be fair and accurate.--Cberlet 21:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate deletion of critical material

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

Its not relevant, Schrecker does not mention Magdoff other than "he did not want to re-open old wounds" when asked about Bentley. Her remarks about Venona are relevant, that’s why I left them in that article, but she says nothing about Magdoff. DTC 23:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Listen, revert it back if you want, but I am not going to let this slide. Schrecker's remark are not relevant to the discussion on Magdoff. If the best you can do is Navasky at offering a sourced defense, then thats it. Dont try to reach for something that is not there. And dont write an article and source yourself......just kidding :)DTC 23:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Fine, either it all goes or it all stays. Your claims are absurd on their face. Not funny, especially since your editing ally just got banned for a year for personal attacks on me. Not laughing.--Cberlet 23:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I also note that Magdoff just died, and that a renewed unfair POV attack on him is really questionable timing.--Cberlet 23:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Either it all goes or it all stays; what kind of garbage is that? This version, minus Schrecker's irrelevant commentary, has been the agreed upon version for over 3 months now. I ask you to justify the inclusion of Schrecker's comments on the article, and you remove all relevant information. First, you have failed to demonstrate how Schrecker's comments from "The Many Crimes" is relevant to an article on Harry Magdoff, she has made absolutely no claims that the VENONA papers have wrongfully implicated him. Secondly, she only mentionshim once in her entire book, and it was completely in passing.
Justify it or it goes, thats all I am asking for. Not a long winded attack on my motivations, no strawmen, no "poor Harry just died". The facts, verifiable. DTC 01:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
And furthermore, Nobs was not my "editing ally". It is a shame that he got booted for a year, because he was really doing some great work on espionage related articles, but I suppose I will pick up where Nobs left off ........... starting here, with the late, not so great, KGB Stalinist stooge : Harry Magdoff . DTC 01:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
The phrase "late, not so great, KGB Stalinist stooge : Harry Magdoff" makes it clear that you are not able to edit this page in an NPOV way. No such consensus for censoring Schrecker existed. There was an ongoing edit battle that ended in a failed mediation and finally an arbitration, which just ended. The Schrecker quote was there during the mediation and arbitration. Please do not rewrite history to conform to your POV edits. Removing all the material and placing it on the proper page to avoid duplication is basic editing. Editing out one side of a controversy to support your POV is censorship.--Cberlet 02:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I beleive you have read the arbitration wrong, it was about conduct, namely of Nobs, it was never about conduct. I never siad there was a "consensus for censoring Schrecker", I am making that arguement, right here, right now, so dont put words in my mouth. DTC 02:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Back to the Lecture at Hand......

I would like to hear an explanation about why there is no summary for the espionage charges in this article, only a header. Your impression that it is a punitive tit for tat against my removal of Schrecker's comments, but 1, that’s now how Wikipedia works, and 2, I have already explained, and you appear to have conceded that Schrecker's comments are irrelevant. DTC 22:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Not true. I think Schrecker is on point. It is not fair to claim that Navasky is not a scholar. He is not an acemdemic, but he is a scholar. Seek compromise. Assume good faith. See my comments on the other page.--Cberlet 17:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The deletion of Schrecker from both pages is unfair, and thus the recent edit is just punative and unfair. It is not fair to delete a scholar and then say there are only journalists who are skeptical. Furthermore, Navasky is a scholar. Not all scholars are academics, and important distinction.--Cberlet 20:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate description of Henry Wallace's presidential campaign......

The article states that Henry Wallace ran for president as a "socialist candidate". This is not accurate. While Henry Wallace did have support from many people who were socialists, his campaign was not explicitly socialist, and according to John Culver's biography of Wallace, attempts to commit the Progressive Party to a specifically socialist program were defeated at the Progressive Party national convention. Also, Henry Wallace, in the campaign, often noted that he was the ONLY candidate in the race who had been a successful businessman prior to entering politics. In addition, the Socialist Party had its own candidate in 1948, Norman Thomas. It would be more accurate to describe the Progressive Party as a left-liberal party, representing the more leftist strain of the old New Deal coalition, and with a foreign policy that was opposed to the escalation of the Cold War--Ken Burch 09:52 am, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Magdoff.jpg

Image:Magdoff.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)