Talk:Richard Pipes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judaism Portal
Richard Pipes is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.
Project Judaism To-do:
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
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.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Richard Pipes article.
Article policies

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Contents

[edit] Deletions by anon

Anon (64.12.116.204) I do not want a revert war.

You continue to delete this paragraph with your nit picky alterations:

Pipes was head of the 1970's Team B, created by conservative cold warriors determined to stop détente and the SALT process. Panel members were all hard-liners. The Team B reports became the intellectual foundation for the idea of "the window of vulnerability" and of the massive arms buildup that began toward the end of the Carter administration and accelerated under President Reagan. Team B came to the conclusion that the Soviets had developed several terrifying new weapons of mass destruction, featuring a nuclear-armed submarine fleet that used a sonar system that didn't depend on sound and was, thus, undetectable with our current technology. This information was later proven to be false. According to Dr. Anne Cahn (Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1977-1980) "if you go through most of Team B's specific allegations about weapons systems, and you just examine them one by one, they were all wrong."

And add your own innacurate POV:

Pipes was head of the 1970's Team B, created by the CIA to evaluate Soviet strategic doctrine. Panel members were all hard-liners. The Team B reports became the intellectual foundation for the idea of "the window of vulnerability" and of the massive arms buildup that began toward the end of the Carter administration and accelerated under President Reagan. Team B came to the conclusion that the Soviets did not share the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction prevalent in the West but intended to use nuclear weapons if and when general war broke out. This information was later proven to be correct.

The problems with your edit:

FIRST: Since the wild and inaccuarate predictions of Team B do not fit your own pet POV, you delete them. Regardless of your edits, the inaccuarate predictions of Team B DID happen. They are historical fact. Please do not delete sentences simply because they do not fit your own pet ideology. (All of the information is referenced exhastively on the Team B page).

SECOND: If you wish to include this sentence: "the Soviets did not share the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction prevalent in the West but intended to use nuclear weapons if and when general war broke out." If you wnat to include this sentence, lets see a reference. I referenced all my information extensively on Team B. If you cannot provide references, this sentence will unfortunatly have to be deleted as unfounded.

Lets avoid a revert war.Travb 20:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Anon (64.12.116.204) , thanks for your restrain, I noticed you only deleted reference to Richard Pipes being Jewish, which may or may not be true (I don't think I wrote this portion), and is irrelevant to the article. Thanks for avoiding an edit war.Travb 14:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Changes by anon 205.188.117.12

Changes by anon 205.188.117.12:

Original:

He has written many books, including The Russian Revolution (1995) and Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime (1994), and has been a frequent and prominent interviewee in the press on the matters of Soviet history and foreign affairs. His writing also appears in the National Review, The New York Times and the Moscow Times. A leading Cold Warrior, Pipes has argued that the Soviet Union was an expansionist, totalitarian state bent on conquest. Pipes is famous for arguing that the origins of the Soviet Union can be traced to the separate path taken by 15th century Muscovy. He was also notable for his thesis that, contrary to many traditional histories of the USSR at the time, the "October Revolution" was, rather than a popular general uprising, practically a coup foisted upon the majority of the Russian population (and imperial national minorities) by a tiny segment of the population driven by a select group of intellectuals who subsequently established a dictatorship which was intolerant and repressive from the start, rather than having deviated from an initially benign course. This critical view of the Bolsheviks is a prime theme in his works.

New:

He has written many books, including The Russian Revolution (1995) and Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime (1994), and has been a frequent and prominent interviewee in the press on the matters of Soviet history and foreign affairs. His writing also appears in the National Review, The New York Times and the Moscow Times. During the Cold Warrior, Pipes has argued that its internal regime drove the Soviet Union to expansionism and conquest. Pipes further argued that the origins of Soviet totalitarianism can be traced to the separate path taken by 15th century Muscovy. He was also notable for his thesis that, contrary to many traditional histories of the USSR at the time, the "October Revolution" was, rather than a popular general uprising, a coup foisted upon the majority of the Russian population (and national minorities]]) by a tiny segment of the population controlled by a group of intellectuals who established a one-party dictatorship from the start, rather than having deviated from an initially benign course.


I reverted to the original. Here is why:

[edit] POV

205.188.117.12, I assumed you changed many of the words because they seemed POV. They are POV. But we are quoting a persons ideas. When you are describing a persons views, beliefs and ideas, there is a lower bar for POV, because you are describing beliefs, not facts.

I personally don't agree with Richard Pipes, in fact from what I read, I despise the man. But I feel that his far right, violent views should be voiced. I think rational people will read his views and see him for what he is: A violent jingoist. Travb 22:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Minor change

Anon, (205.188.117.12) please stop reverting the article about Team B and erasing large portions of exhastively footnoted text which I added. (see above for deletions) I have tried to work with you. And it has been a monologue, because you have never commented on your edits. If you keep this up, I am going to be forced to have to consult a third party.

your other minor edit:

"Cold warrior" to "specialist on the subject" [1]

I will reference this too. Travb 23:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contacted administrator

Despite my repeated warnings, anon, you ignored me. I contacted an administrator, and ask him my options about stopping your reversions. If this continues, I will take as agressive stance as needed to stop these unexplained reverts.Travb 18:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I added this template on the wikipage:

Template:Suggestprotect

to warn the anons, and to try yet another tactic to stop a revert war. Travb 19:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pipes trying to make Lenin into an Anti-Semite

In his books, Pipes also portrays the Bolshevik leader Lenin as an Anti-Semite. To defend these allegations, Pipes has deliberately ignored all the documents, writings and speeches by Lenin that prove otherwise.

Source for this:

1. Read the works of Richard Pipes and you will see that he continuously claims that Lenin was an Anti-Semite.

2. Read the works of Lenin and it will be enough to prove that Lenin was NOT an Anti-Semite. (for instance the speech О погромной травле евреев, which is one of the few speeches by Lenin that was audio recorded.)

--Bronks January 2, 2006.

Hello and Privet Commodore Sloat and Bronks. I am the person who added the info on Team B to this article originally, and fight to keep the historical conclusions of the Team kept in the article.
I have to agree with TDC on this one, and trust me, TDC and I disagree A LOT. I see TDC as an American apologist. But if you can't provide a source, then it is not worthy of inclusion in wikipedia. What I mean by providing a source is Bronks, You read these articles and provide footnotes and quotes of these articles. It is your responsibility, not users who question the validity of your inclusions, to provide a source.
See Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources
This sentence is poor, the phrase "deliberately ignored" is poor, and it is definatly POV without a source.
There is a reason to cite your sources, as I argues against a fellow dissenter here: Talk:Philippine-American War he ignored my advice, I hope you won't.Travb 04:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Please don't include me in this dispute - I am no expert on Lenin's views about anything, so I take no stance on this issue - I reverted anonymous changes that were unexplained; at this time I am not objecting to TDCs explanation of those changes and I have not reverted them. (However, Bronks did cite a source above; but it is true that he should be more specific about it). In any case, this is silly - a debate about Lenin's possible anti-semitism should take place here and not on this page. My main objection to recent changes on this page involve the massive POV-pushing that you yourself not only objected to as well but even threatened to bring to arbitration above. I'm not objecting to removing the irrelevant sentence about Lenin and anti-semitism.--csloat 05:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
My mistake csloat about attributing you to the Lenin comment, I crossed off your name. I am sorry. I agree that a debate about Lenin's possible anti-semitism should probably take place on Lenin and not on this page.
I am glad that you have a user name now, so we can talk together easier about possible improvements and expansions in the article. Thanks for your work.Travb 17:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I get your point. I suggest we make it: In his books, Pipes also portrays the Bolshevik leader Lenin as an Anti-Semite, although many other sources suggest otherwise, including many of the speeches and writings by Lenin himself. I think that's NPOV. --Bronks January 3, 2006.
PS. By the way, here is a good example proving that Lenin was NOT an anti-Semite. A document that Richard Pipes ignores in his researches, in order to stand by his claim that Leninism = anti-Semitism. [2]
Kewl, you can say that Richard Pipes was a carnival clown for five years as the bearded lady, as long as it is cited. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt your claims, I just think it is best for wikipedia for the info to be cited.Travb 20:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't call the link you provide 'proof' Bronks. Its proof that he made a specific statement at a specific time, but to say in general that he was or wasn't an anti-semite remains a matter of inference. --Christofurio 14:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes by Max rspct

Max rspct. Why do you keep reverting to an old, short version? The present article we have is much more worked through and detailed with notes and everything. Don’t delete it silently without discussing it. Bronks 7 january, 2006.


[edit] Why This Removed?

Why was the sentance "Pipes is famous for arguing that the origins of the Soviet Union can be traced to the separate path taken by 15th century Muscovy" removed? Regardless of whatever one agrees with this assessment or not, this view of Russian history is a major part of Pipe's claim to fame. The sentance does not say Pipes was correct; all it merely does is sum an major part of Pipe's view of Russian history.A.S. Brown 22:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Put it back then! Bronks 19 January 2006

[edit] Sentence

The Pipes family fled Poland in October 1939 and arrived in the United States in July 1940, after a brief period passed in fascist Italy.[3]

At first I reverted the deletion of the italicized section, but now I am not so sure, I don't know exaclty what the author is trying to say. I will contact the wikipedian for clarification, but for now I left it out of the article.Travb 23:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I just meant that R.Pipes came from Poland to Italy ( Genoa to be more precise ) and then after passing here a bit of time ( until July 1940 ) he went to USA. You can find this fact in many other sources, not only in the book of Sergio Romano. For example also here ( the first site I found on "google" but there are many other that tell the same thing ) http://www.sw-asia.com/People/Bio938.htm I think the sentence must remain then. Anyway I had decided to left Wikipedia ( I'm here just for a case ) for reason of lacking of time, so do as you wish. Best Regards and thanks for reverting the delete ;) (Virgilio 23:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Another revert war?

Looks like an anon decided to delete several footnoted comments in this article to insert his own non-referenced POV. As the template on this talk page states, explain your suggested large deletions here before deleting, to avoid a revert war.Travb 23:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fired from the National Security Council, not right away

RE this sentence:

However, Pipes made controversial statements suggesting the West should go to war against the Soviet Union, and because of this, Reagan soon had to dismiss Pipes from the National Security Council.[4]

  1. ^  Source: U.S. Repudiates a Hard-Line Aide, New York Times, p. A8; March 19, 1981 & Washington Post, October 21, 1981.


Editor Ultramarine accuses me of falsifying sources, (the New York Times, March 19, 1981 & Washington Post, October 21, 1981.), which explains that Pipes was dismissed from the National Security Council because of controversial statements me made in the year 1981. Ultramarine claims that these articles are printed too early to be considered as sources since Pipes left his post at the start of 1982. (If I had falsified them, don’t you think I would have been smart enough to make the dates more appropriate!) No, Pipes wasn’t fired from the National Security Council right away, it was an embarrassing, but well managed process that was made carefully and respectful, ending his term by the start of the new year. --Bronks 26 January 2006

Please give a source from after he left the council, not before. Ultramarine 11:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Read this [5]
Quote: Pipes, completing the neoconservative transition from Jackson Democrat to Reaganite, joined the National Security Council in 1981 and manned its Eastern European and Soviet desk. He stayed on just two years -- the maximum time away from campus that Harvard permits. He stumbled initially when he blurted to a journalist that "dente is dead." But the administration backed him up, and he soon learned to move carefully in an alien bureaucratic world." Ultramarine 11:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Ultramarine
Ultramarine with all due respect, the Boston Globe article is full of shit. The "administration backed him up" is a complete revisionist historical fantasy, unless the author simply meant that Pipes could keep his job, which means at the very least the article is very misleading. He was repremanded for this statment (the NYT uses the word "repudiated", Newsweek states Pipes: "jeopardized his job"), as you can clearly read below. Just proves that you shouldn't believe everything you read.
Not that it matters, but the author of this misleading article, Sam Tanenhaus, wrote a book praising one of the McCarthy witchhunters[6]. This tells me that he is probably a right wing ideologue like Pipes. Again, this does not really matter, what really matters is this article is misleading, regardless who wrote it. (as per my talk page)
From the very little I have read about Pipes, I see that he is attempting to shape his legacy a certain way, often by misleading comments such as this one. Maybe Pipes told Tanenhaus this story and Tanenhaus did no research and took it as gospel truth. Again, despite my speculations, The only thing that ultimately matters is it is misleading. Travb 01:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Bronks
Bronks, what is the name of the Washington Post, October 21, 1981 article?
Bronks, I think you have no proof. Ultramarine was correct in stating that you "falsified sources", (the New York Times, March 19, 1981 & Washington Post, October 21, 1981.), which explains that Pipes was dismissed from the National Security Council because of controversial statements me made in the year 1981. The NYT article below clearly states that Pipes was repremanded, not fired. I personally would not have used the harsh term "falsified sources" but simply "confused sources".
I cannot find any proof of your "truth" that Pipes was fired from the NSA because of his gaff. Therefore, barring concrete proof, you cannot mention in the article that Pipes was fired for his comment.
A great way to prove this would be the memoirs of some of these men who served with Pipes, other than this proof, this is speculation and should stay out of the article.
I will add this info but only based on what I have read thus far, dismissing the clearly flawed Boston Globe article of Ultramarine and the clearly unsubstated speculation of Bronks.
Thank you for bringing this portion of history to my attention guys. Interesting. Travb 00:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] U.S. Repudiates a Hard-Line Aide, New York Times, p. A8; March 19, 1981

The White House and the State Department issued statements late today disavowing an interview by a "high United States official" who was quoted as saying that war with the Soviet Union was inevitable if the Russians did not change thier system and that Foreign Minister Hans-Diertrich Genscher of West Germany was susceptible to Soviet persuasion.

The interview was carried by the Reuters news agency, which did not identify the source of the comments. It was learned independently that the official interviewed was Richard V. Pipes, a Soviet specialist on the staff of Richard V. Allen, the national security adviser.

Because of the critical comments about Mr. Genscher, who was in Washington last week, and the disparaging tone of the interview towards arms control, State Department officials were particularly incensed, and Secretary of State Alexander M. Haig Jr. put out his own statement disavowing the interview.

James S. Brady, the White House press secretary, told reporters that "the high official was not authorized to speak for the Administration, and the views expressed do not represent Administration policy." Mr. Haig, through his spokesman, said the views of the unidentified official "do not represent the views of the Reagan Administration."

Reuters quoted the "high official" as saying "Soviet leaders would have to choose between peacefully changing their Communist system in the direction followed by the West or going to war. There is no other alternative and it could go either way."

[edit] Security Adviser Ousted for a Talk Hinting at War The New York Times October 21, 1981

Section A; Page 1, Column 2

By DAVID SHRIBMAN, Special to the New York Times

WASHINGTON, Oct. 20

The chief military adviser to the National Security Council was dismissed today after saying in a speech that the Russians had achieved strategic superiority over the United States, were "on the move" and were "going to strike."

The White House disavowed the comments by Maj. Gen. Robert L. Schweitzer, who told the Association of the United States Army that the Soviet military buildup was producing a "drift toward war." ... Obligations of Staff Members

"Being a member of the staff of the Administration means one must be doubly careful and weigh every word," said Mr. Allen. "The rules have been in effect since a couple of previous incidents, and we insist the rules be observed."

One of the previous incidents involved Richard V. Pipes, a Soviet specialist on Mr. Allen's staff who said in an interview late last winter that war with the Soviet Union was inevitable unless Moscow changed its political system. Mr. Pipes also suggested that Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher of West Germany was susceptible to pressure from the Russians.

The White House and the State Department later repudiated the remarks, but Mr. Pipes was permitted to retain his National Security Council position.

General Schweitzer will be replaced by Rear Adm. James W. Nance, U.S.N., retired, who is Mr. Allen's deputy...

[edit] The Rogue General Newsweek November 2, 1981

...Offender: Even before the Schweitzer speech and Reagan's remark, other foreign-policy blunders had suggested that the President's men often work and talk at cross purposes.

Seven months ago Richard V. Pipes jeopardized his job as White House specialist on Soviet affairs when he told a reporter that "detente is dead."

Only days later NSC director Allen publicly warned that the growing pacifist movement in Europe was threatening NATO--an assertion that so enraged Secretary of State Alexander Haig, a former NATO commander, that it was mutually decided that the Administration foreign spokesmen would clear all public statements in advance.

On that count Schweitzer, Haig's special assistant at NATO, was a repeat offender: he was reprimanded earlier for giving a speech predicting that a Soviet invasion of Poland might be launched within 30 days...

[edit] Anon's edits

My original edit:

Richard Pipes, on condition of anonymity, told Reuters in March 1981 that "Soviet leaders would have to choose between peacefully changing their Communist system in the direction followed by the West or going to war. There is no other alternative and it could go either way…Detente is dead.” Pipes also stated in the interview that Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher of West Germany was susceptible to pressure from the Russians. It was learned independently that Pipes was the official who spoke to Reuters. This jeopardizing Pipe's job. The White House and the “incensed” State Department issued statements repudiating Pipe's statements.[7]

Anon's edit:

Richard Pipes, in an off-the-record interview, told Reuters in March 1981 that "Soviet leaders would have to choose between peacefully reforming their system in the direction followed by the West or going to war. There is no other alternative and it could go either way…Detente is dead.” Pipes also stated in the interview that Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher of West Germany was susceptible to pressure from the Russians. It was learned independently that Pipes was the official who spoke to Reuters. |1981}}. Although there were fears that these statements may cost him his job, he stayed on for a full two years when he had to return to Harvard for his leave of absence was up.[8]

My edit incoporating some of anon's edits:

Richard Pipes, in an off-the-record interview, told Reuters in March 1981 that "Soviet leaders would have to choose between peacefully changing their Communist system in the direction followed by the West or going to war. There is no other alternative and it could go either way…Detente is dead.” Pipes also stated in the interview that Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher of West Germany was susceptible to pressure from the Russians. It was learned independently that Pipes was the official who spoke to Reuters. This jeopardized Pipe's job. The White House and the “incensed” State Department issued statements repudiating Pipe's statements.[8] Pipes stayed on for a full two years when he had to return to Harvard because his leave of absence was up.[9]


Regarding the edits.

All words from the original 3 articles

In my orginal edit I attempted to use the words of the three articles as close as possible.

The White House and the “incensed” State Department issued statements repudiating Pipe's statements.

  • New York Times article: The White House and the State Department issued statements late today disavowing an interview.

This is an original sentence, changed slightly. "incensed" was added but is from one of the three articles describing the state department. "disavowed", a word that is not as well recognized, in the original sentence was changed to "repudiated" which was also in one of the three articles.

  • NYT:State Department officials were particularly incensed
  • NYT:The White House and the State Department later repudiated the remarks, U.S. Repudiates a Hard-Line Aide

jeopardized Pipe's job'

  • Newsweek article: Pipes jeopardized his job as White House specialist on Soviet affairs when he told a reporter that "detente is dead."

Is also in the original articles.

anon's edits

Anon, please do not change the quote of Pipe. You changed two of his words, deleting one and changing the other. His words should stay the same.

In addition please do not disable the footnotes in the future.

Additions

thank you anon for the excellent clarifications, which I kept intact:

in an off-the-record interview and Pipes stayed on for a full two years when he had to return to Harvard because his leave of absence was up.

Anon, please respond on the talk page with any changes. You have never actually said one word on this talk page, despite my active encouragment which unfortunaly devolved into threats. This indicates a possible lack of wanting to comprimise and lack of wiki-etiquite. Please respond.Travb 04:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-semitism?

by Pat Struthers 08:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I hesitate to comment at this late date, but...

I have read both 'Russia Under the Old Regime' and 'Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime', more than once, and I have also read many of Solzhenitsyn's works as well as biographies of Lenin and others. In the above works I received the impression that Mr. Pipes had NOT accused Lenin (or any other prominent Bolshevik) with overt anti-Semitism, at least in the pre-WW2 years of the regime. In fact I was rather impressed by Mr. Pipes' balanced discussion of this very subject during his description of the Russian Civil War. The fact remains that the Bolsheviks treated EVERYONE that disagreed with them badly; they were remarkably even-handed about their viciousness in this regard.

Of course I have read little of Mr. Pipes other works; he may have changed his views later, although there is little evidence in Lenin's works that such a change could be justified; however badly Lenin's 'experiment' worked out in reality, he was at least consistent in his views of who was a 'class enemy' and who was not. Since Mr. Pipes apparently also has characterized Solzhenitsyn as anti-Semitic, perhaps he HAS changed his views.

Indeed I think the entire Semitophile/Semitophobe debate should be left out of the main body of the article, seeing as Mr. Pipes is still around and may moderate his views (we hope). This debate seems to involve a LOT of POV of the various parties involved; as far as I can tell none of the parties have offered academic views on the subject.

I would only suggest that the article may need to be reworded so as to make a distinction between evidence presented in Mr. Pipes' academic works and his own personal views. I don't know, myself how to do this anytime soon, without a lot more work and or discsussion. Like all of us, he is probably far from perfectly rational; he himself may not be comfortable with the evidence he presented in the above works.

The overall characterization of Mr. Pipes' as a rightist whacko should probably be softened a bit, even with evidence that this probably the case. The article still reads a little slanted. That's my personal impression only.

- Pat


[edit] An example from Richard Pipes's autobiography on which to judge his veracity

I have just read Pipes's autobiography Vixi : Memoirs of a Non-Belonger (Yale University Press, 2003) and find it a remarkably disingenuous account of many political events of the last 35 years of which I have knowledge. Here is one example which I believe is characteristic: (pgs. 203-204; my interjections in double parentheses, underline emphasis added)

... But I did not find it amusing to learn that during his visit to Moscow ((to attend Brezhnev's funeral)) Bush ((George H.W. Bush, Bush I)) told Andropov that they had "something in common in our backgrounds." Apparently he was under the impression that the KGB, which Andropov had directed, was, like the CIA, a mere intelligence-gathering organization. The remark, if meant seriously, was appalling; if intended as a joke, in poor taste.

If Pipes really thinks that the CIA is a "mere" intelligence-gathering organization he would be a fool (for beginners on this subject -- consult the memoirs of ex-CIA agents Philip Agee, Ralph McGhee and John Stockwell for starters); but he is not a fool, he is a liar. What he seems to regard as "appalling" is that George H.W. Bush (who headed the CIA briefly) should speak some truth. 137.82.82.145 01:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Philip Agee worked for the Russians, his memoirs were written by them which is generally accepted. 213.89.59.48 11:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
"Generally accepted"?? Isn't this a little *too* lazy for disinformation propagation? Shouldn't you at least cite some b.s. report from the Heritage Foundation/American Enterprise Institute/Hoover Institute that has been used in a Reader's Digest article (like the article they ran after the execution of Dan Mitrione)? 137.82.188.68 19:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the extreme left refuses to accept it. I'll quote the The Sword and the Shield pps 230-234 if you want me to. Agee had the KGB code name of PONT. If you want to maintain the belief that Agee could expose more than 2,000 CIA agents without assistance from the KGB and DGI you are beyond my help. Not to mention referring to a kidnapping and murder as execution. Prezen 14:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention referring to murders by covert intelligence agencies as "wet jobs." The book I had in mind when referring to Philip Agee was his Inside the Company : CIA Diary (1975), contemporaneous (or nearly so) with the revelations of the Church Commission. The book you are referring to with the "2,000 CIA agents" phrase is Dirty Work : the CIA in Western Europe (1978) edited (and with contributions) by Philip Agee and Louis Wolf. I've browsed it; they explain their methodology for deducing CIA field agents from U.S. State Department biographies, among other heuristics (see John Marks's article, "How to Spot a Spook"). Of course Agee and Wolf got information from other leftwing European groups, which information they made reasonable efforts to verify. It's not that various people (e.g. the local janitors at U.S. embassies) didn't know this information in their respective countries -- they didn't need to get it from the KGB -- it's that there was no one to take it to to collate, evaluate, and publish (widely). It is (to my mind) along the same lines as how investigative reporter Seymour Hersh -- all by himself -- could break half the tough stories in U.S. politics/foreign policy for thirty years. Not because he was superhuman (although he was a hard-working reporter); rather, because of the reputation established by his unpopular coverage of the My Lai massacre, people with knowledge of such tough stories brought this information to Hersh, knowing that there was a good chance he would see it through. Agee similarly had established a reputation with the previous publication of his Inside the Company -- otherwise, if you asked someone who might be in a position to know, "tell me about the CIA agents in your country, and I'll publish the names to discredit them" they might reasonably think that such a request was itself a CIA sting operation. 137.82.188.68 00:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a difference even if you don't realize it. Prezen 00:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
We seem to be talking past each other. Yes, there is a difference, but not because the CIA is a "mere intelligence-gathering organization" which brief quotation I thought to be a characteristic example of Pipes's general disingenuousness. (My citation of Agee, Stockwell, and McGhee was for the innocently ignorant.) There are many other examples from Pipes's autobiography which would require longer quotations, but I thought this example was an effective one for the point I intended to make; evidently for you it was not. If I write more on this I'll give another example or two. 137.82.188.68 01:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
There's a fundamental difference between the KGB and the CIA in that the CIA was primarily working with intelligence-work externally (which included wet jobs and propaganda) while the KGB was also working with internal repression, being the successor of the organisation that killed several hundreds of thousands of people during the Purges. Prezen 13:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The comparison might be unfair to the KGB during the time Andropov was running it, which is the time period George H.W. Bush was referring to -- who I might suggest knows the basis of this comparison better than you, Prezen. The CIA does a hell of a lot more than assassinations and propaganda. It runs whole wars -- *small wars*, true, that get relatively little attention in the U.S. mass media. But the point (underlined) in the quote was not the nature of the KGB but Pipes's claim that the CIA could not possibly be compared to the KGB *because* the CIA was a "mere" "intelligence-gathering organization." Since Pipes was in the Reagan administration during the CIA-organized mercenary (contra) war against Nicaragua, he knows this is false from personal experience. The quote is characteristic of the general disingenuousness of his autobiography and, in my view, a telling judgement against his reliability as a historian. 137.82.188.68 19:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I always listen to people who accuse others of being disingenous. Once.
OTOH, I don't really share Pipes' verdict, I just think Bush was using diplomatic flattery. Prezen 21:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote 4

There seems to be a formatting error with footnote 4 - looks to me like the original author meant to put much of this footnote in main paragraph. At the moment the main paragraph in question doesn't really say much. I don't know enough html to fix it, may be someone else can? Carl weathers bicep 17:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It was messed up recently by an anon, I fixed it. Thanks for bringing it to everyone's attention. Travb (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2007
Regarding the edit history comment, I have been editing this page since December 5, 2005. [10] Travb (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest addition to intro

I'm not sure if this would have been regarded as POV so I decided to suggest it here first. In the intro when it reads "...he headed Team B, a team of analysts...", I suggest changing it to "he headed Team B, a government-funded team of analysts...". Regardless of the conclusions that Team B came to, and whether you agree with them, I think it should be made clear right at the start that it (and therefore Pipes) was driven by the US government. IMHO Pipes' work is a load of crap and was essentially commissioned by the US government, but simply including "government-funded" in the intro will let the reader make up their own mind whether or not they give a stuff who was paying him/them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.99.2 (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Wolfowitz

I'm not quite sure if this is necessary: Along with Pipes, the team included Paul Wolfowitz, later considered a primary neoconservative.

The insertion of Wolfowitzs' name and that favorite buzz word "neoconservativism" seems gratuitous, as it doesn't really have any direct bearing on the rest of the section. Team Bs stance on the various issues and criticism of it is fully explained. Any reasonable person can see what the article says they are about. Maybe a list of the other names? If not I think Wolfowitz should be drop as it is just name dropping--Dudeman5685 (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The history shows that the team-b exercise was created by several people that have very often been described as neoconservatives, including Wolfowitz. Unless you're trying to claim that Wolfowitz wasn't on the team, or hasn't been described as such, or unless you're trying to claim that it wasn't notable that he was there, then I don't see really that your argument stands. The fact that Pipes worked closely with him, seems to me to be very reasonable to mention here. This is both notable and verifiable.WolfKeeper (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The way his name is inserted into the narrative is gratuitous, as it adds nothing to the narrative of the article. Simply that that one person was working with him on the team is not notable. Perhaps, if later the article said "Among others on the team were..." and there was a sampling of two or three names, that might be acceptable, but I don't think the way it stands now, as a name randomly dropped into the text about Pipes being on Team B, is appropriate.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Polish-American?

Should Pipes be identified as a Polish-American historian? Cf. Fritz Stern, identified as a German-American historian (also of Jewish background). Sca (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Team B anonymous reversions

Found the following POV text: "The information Team B produced was later determined to be sound. However, according to a certain Dr. Anne Cahn in 2004 (Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1977-1980), an obsessive apologist for the Soviet military,[...]". I undid the anon edit that had added this POV. But being new to this article, wanted to call attention to the change. Aydin6 (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably the same person who keeps deleting this stuff completely. Good catch. csloat (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)