Talk:John Abt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	Criminal justice Portal This article is part of WikiProject Crime, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide on true crime and criminology-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
WikiProject Crime To-do: edit  Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Criminal Biography: Requests: Magdalena Solis, Justina Morley, Impersonating an officer, List of major crimes in the United States, Shanghai Kelly, Tucker Prison Farm, Kendall Francois, Purgatory Correctional Facility Expand: Credit card fraud, Theresa Knorr, Marybeth Tinning, Brenda Ann Spencer, Lords of Chaos (self-styled teen militia), Stubs: Calling card (crime), Federal crime, Leslie Irvin (serial killer), Violent crime, Crime Classification Manual, Anthony Sawoniuk Perfect crime Images: Charles Ray Hatcher, Thor Nis Christiansen, Richard Cottingham, Caleb Fairley

[edit] Conspiracy Theories

The original research argument relevant to this page is discussed on the Talk:Harry_Magdoff/Archive1#Venona page.

DJ Silverfish 03:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am confused -- what exactly are you disputing here? That there was a meeting, early in 1944, in John Abt's apartment, between Abt, Elizabeth Bentley, Victor Perlo, Charles Kramer, Harry Magdoff, and Edward Fitzgerald? Or the specifics of what was discussed at that meeting? Or something else? And, what exactly is the "conspiracy theory" that you are alleging? Also, what is the "original research argument" here? Something in the article, but not in the references quoted? What exactly? Please clarify your objections, referring to this specific article, and to the subject at hand. Thanks. Turgidson 04:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)