Talk:Lauchlin Currie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
| 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. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the assessment scale. |
|
WikiProject Crime To-do:
|
|
I've revised the text relating to the allegations as more NPOV. Given the doubts over whether a reference in Venona means that an individual was an actual spy (as opposed to an inadvertant source), I think it is more accurate to put distance between the allegation and the 'confirmation'. 84.68.83.177 20:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
In reply to the note below by D J Clayworth, I have only now seen the way he inserted his own spin on Currie into my article. I am surprised that this is allowed. If someone disagrees with an entry, surely he or she should write a separate note, not addle someone else's writing like this. I have restored my original text (which is not the same text as my ANB entry, though there is much overlap). Roger Sandilands (r.j.sandilands@strath.ac.uk) 22 July 2005.
I have replaced the initial version of the article with an alternate version emailed to me by Roger Sandilands. The original version was the same as what Sandilands submitted to American National Biography [1] (and for which ANB holds the copyright). I deleted the original version to avoid a copyvio problem, and recreated the page with the alternate version. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:05, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This is not the place for you to use your own works to dispute allegations against Currie - Tεxτurε 18:47, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This a copy from [2]. I can find no statement of copyright on the website, which I believe means that they retain copyright. Without a specific release as GFDL can we copy this? DJ Clayworth 14:42, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Not deleted based on discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lauchlin Currie. Copyright issue also addressed.
Dear Roger: I read your article on Politics and the Attack on FDR's Economists and found it very interesting; I would prefer to seek some balance to give Currie, White, et al, a well rounded biographical page. If the contention is that Venona materails are still in dispute, then I will bring in the judgement of Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive, the Archivist of the National Security Agency, and others. If their credibility is questioned, I will qualify it with a Law by the United States Congress which authorized them to make such judgements. The point is, the more denial, the more evidence will be brought forward. This could overwhelm any contributions they made. It may be easier to seek balance, and I stand ready to work with all like-minded contributors. nobs 02:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Venona
Currie is referenced in the following Venona project decrypts:
- 928 KGB New York to Moscow, 30 June 1943;
- 1317 KGB New York to Moscow, 10 August 1943;
- 1431 KGB New York to Moscow, 2 September 1943;
- 900 KGB New York to Moscow, 24 June 1944;
- 1243 KGB New York to Moscow, 31 August 1944;
- 1463 KGB New York to Moscow, 14 October 1944;
- 1634 KGB New York to Moscow, 20 November 1944;
- 143 KGB Moscow to New York, 15 February 1945;
- 253 KGB Moscow to New York, 20 March 1945.
nobs 02:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Gorsky Report
Translation of KGB file 43173 vol. 2 (v) pp. 46-55, names Lauchlin Currie as a member of the Sound & Myrna groups. nobs 02:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup Finished - Need more help!
I just came across this article. It was a pretty interesting read, so I did a cleanup of the entire contents. By the way, it appears the article was a complete copyvio, from start to finish. [3] I don't know if this will be a problem since much of it is now rewritten and reformulated.
On another note, I felt like much of what I was reading was pulled out of thin air because of the lack of proper sourcing. The bibliography also needs to be reformulated. In other words, these things are fine, but they're not wikified. Anyone care to help? ♠ SG →Talk 18:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
