Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:58, 10 October 2005

Cberlet and Nobs01

Cberlet seeks mediation with nobs over endless disagreements and lack of constructive editing progress at the following related pages: Talk:VENONA project; Talk:Significance of Venona; Harry Magdoff; Harry Magdoff and espionage; and others. I have spent over one month trying to forge compromise text on these pages. A third party suggested we debate the multiple issues at Talk:VENONA project and filed an RfC for that page. The RfC has not produced the desired results. Nobs argues in circles, produces mountains of unrelated and dubious arguments, fights over simple citations, makes claims not supported by underlying documents, and continues to insert his POV and questionable claims into the pages rather than arriving at an agreement on the Talk:VENONA project page. I have tried to write NPOV text on several pages pending a resolution on Talk:VENONA project. Nobs simply ignores this and inserts only his side of the issues. In addition, a number of other editors have had the same experience with Nobs on several other pages. I am willing to try to hammer out a compromise on the Talk:VENONA project that will serve as a model for these other disputes. Most recently, and what prompted this request for mediation, Nobs declared we had reached a major agreement, and then promptly inserted his POV version of the text. Without mediation, there is no hope of resolving this matter. At issue is how to cite and summarize information from various government agencies and secondary sources regarding Soviet era espionage.--Cberlet 18:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds legit... I think I'll assign Flcelloguy to this case. Tell him if you want mediation onwiki, in irc/other chat service (provided he has it), or through email. Also, make sure Nobs01 accepts the case. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Note to Flcelloguy, when you respond move this paragraph to #Mediator has responded and when it becomes Active move to the appropiate category. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy to try and help. I've left a message on both Cberlet's and nobs's talk pages. I would prefer that it stays on wiki (through talk pages and this page), but email is also fine with me. Unfortunately, I don't have IRC or any form of chat. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 19:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the help. I'd very much prefer it stay here through talk pages and this page. My e-mail is a nightmare. I suppose the Talk:VENONA project page might be a start, but we could also divert over to Harry Magdoff and espionage. Let me know what's next.--Cberlet 22:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I am concerned about the pattern of persistent misreprentation directed at me. In educating myself on wikipedia mediation, I've learned now what flaming is, which is as per Misplaced Pages:Avoiding common mistakes is "just not done". I believe there is ample evidence of this directed at me. Above Cberlet states "Nobs declared we had reached a major agreement", where as in response to the various flaming incidence I had merely reported "progress" . "Agreement" is his own language. Frankly I'm at a loss how to respond seeing even Cberlet's mediation request is unbalanced. nobs 01:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Illustration 2: "endless disagreements and lack of constructive editing" at Talk:Significance of Venona#Schrecker; Cberlet has exactly 2 edits there, the first he actually agree's with me, the second is a mediation request 5 weeks later. I have no idea how to respond to the above mediation request as stated. nobs 04:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

My mistake; Cberlet disagree's with his own source. nobs 04:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

My mistake again: Cberlet says "Don't doubt this is true" Talk:Significance of Venona#Schrecker. In Cberlet's only contribution to the discussion on that page, he agreed with me, and disagreed with his own source contibution. (this would be funny if it wasn't so sad). nobs 05:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, all I was trying to say is that I thought it would be more conducive to constructive mediation if you stopped editing the pages on which we have had so many contested points. Please just agree to mediation and we can work out with the mediator how to find some sort of compromise language and citation format. --Cberlet 19:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: Address issues at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Nobs01/Workshop. nobs 19:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be better if Nobs actually agrees to mediation before we decide where the discussion is going to take place. I have already suggested Talk:VENONA project or Harry Magdoff and espionage, since those are two pages where there is specific text in dispute. I am looking forward to mediation over the actual writing of text, and not an arbitration case, which is what appears to have been created at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_Nobs01/Workshop. I really think having the mediation focus on the writing of text on a public talk page is going to be of much greater value, since there are a number of similar disputes over wording and citation with a number of other editors across Misplaced Pages. In this way our collective efforts will be more helpful to a greater number of editors. Can we please all agree to mediation and then decide on what page to craft text?--Cberlet 19:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet: You are free to rewrite the Request for Mediation then, I cannot in good faith and good conscience agree to the blatant falsehoods you have stated above. nobs 19:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've moved Nobs01's previous workshop to a subpage and created a new workshop. There, I've created three sections- one section where both of you should agree on a few policies, another section where you should state your goals of mediation (i.e. what you hope to accomplish), and then a section where each side can give a summary of the dispute. I ask that you do not respond to the other party's summary yet. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 20:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The issues apart from the substantive issues at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Nobs01/Workshop/Nobs01 must addressed. Cberlet has been notified twice over the past two months all issues regarding the volumnious personal attacks he has buried in Talk pages must addressed. nobs 22:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Now that both of you have listed your goals, you will notice that your goals are extremely similar- both of you are here trying to help Misplaced Pages by creating accurate, NPOV, and comprehensive articles. Both of you only differ in your approach to creating such an utopian article — which is a formidable task by any standards. Nobs, would you mind agreeing to the terms that Cberlet has agreed to at the workshop? Also, Nobs, were you planning to write a new summary of the dispute, or were you going to submit the one that I have moved to Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Nobs01/Workshop/Nobs01? Many thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 14:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Flcelloguy: Based upon Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest, I believe it is only appropriate to ask that the matter Chip Berlet and the Brecht Forum/Marxist School of New York, pgs. 125-127 (PDF) be addressed before proceeding any farther. Thank you. nobs 01:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobs: please just agree to the terms of mediation and let's get on with actual editing.--Cberlet 02:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, I've viewed the pdf link that you sent me. Remember that we all have our biases — I have biases, Jimbo has biases, and everyone else in the world has biases. Just because someone has a bias in a particular field doesn't mean that s/he shouldn't write or edit on that subject matter; on the contrary, that person may be more knowledgeable on the matter. Instead, the writer must simply be more aware of his writing and attempt to not place any POV into the article. If Cberlet says that his POV will not interfere in the process of creating a NPOV, unbiased article, I see no reason not to beleive him. Cberlet, do you think that your biases will in any way influence your writing of the article? Nobs, it would be greatly appreciated if you could agree to the terms that Cberlet has already agreed to. While I have complete trust in both of you, I urge you to agree to those terms so that we may proceed. Many thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 13:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Look, both Nobs and I are biased, and we bring our biases to the editing keyboard. But as Wiki editors we are supposed to recognize our bias and seek to set it aside to craft accurate and NPOV text. I am willing to try to do that and look forward to mediation as a way to have a third person help keep us on track. There is a lot of misinformation about me floating around the web, so let me just say here that I am not a fan of communism, and have written about this. And I don't like spies, either--for any country. But even if I was a communist, if I was able to set aside my bias to edit accurate and NPOV text on Misplaced Pages, I should be welcomed and not subject to red-baiting and God knows what else. I would like to see the "pdf link" that the other parties to the process have now read. Fair is fair. What am I being accused of?--Cberlet 14:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that all of us are biased. However, I don't feel that either your biases or Nob's biases will play any part in this; as long as the article is written in NPOV, unbiased way, there should be no problem. Nob sent me this pdf link on my talk page: Chip Berlet and the Brecht Forum/Marxist School of New York, pgs. 125-127 (PDF). It doesn't reveal much, except to prove that every single one of us has biases and our own personal opinions. All of this should not matter, as long as we are crafting a NPOV, unbiased article. Nobs, would you mind agreeing to the terms of mediation that Cberlet has agreed to? Thanks again. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 14:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Flchelloguy:Thanks for the prompt response. Note Cberlet does not speek for myself. As noted previously I must study processes and issues. Timeframes do concern me, and I would be happy to be kept apprised regarding that. It is my assumption that editing on Misplaced Pages is done in good faith, and I believe I have always done so as such, and hereby pledge to continue to do so. I need an understanding as to by signing above, if that reflects a pledge to accept Cberlet's statements and/or editing in good faith; because I believe I have ample evidence he has acted to the contrary. Any assistance you can advise me would help in furthering the process. (And there are ways Cberlet can reestablish good faith, as I have persistently forgiven him for the series of personal attacks and smears he has directed at me.) nobs 18:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Note to Cberlet: A Disclosure request is not an accusation. nobs 18:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, I'm glad that you assume good faith - we should all assume good faith. Remember that no one here is getting paid; we're here strictly to help Misplaced Pages and (hopefully) have some fun as well. Do you have a specific concern with any one of the terms? The first term, in my opinion, should be automatic — making personal attacks (which I trust that neither of you will make) does not do any good except to aggravate the situation further. The second term simply asserts that both of you will make good-faith efforts in mediation, and both of you are already doing that. The third term is extremely similar to the second one- that both of you want to achieve the same thing (and the similarity of your goals corroborate this), but just differ in the approach. As for past events, I urge you to look forward. Remember that we can't change the past, and holding someone's action in the past — when we're trying to reach an agreement for the future — against someone will be counterproductive. Cberlet has already promised by signing under the terms that he will make a good-faith effort to achieve a NPOV, unbiased article, and try his hardest to resolve the dispute. I see no reason not to trust either of you once you sign your name under the terms, so I urge you to do the same. Thanks again. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 19:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. That is very well stated I believe we have an understanding of each other. As per my requests, I would think it proper for Cberlet to speak for himself, specifically regarding the issue as to whether or not he is being paid to pursue alternative language to the already NPOV language which exists in the various articles in question. A declaration by Cberlet one way or the other would be sufficient, without any challenge by me to its veracity. Also, an issue of precedent is involved, I have declared to Cberlet at least twice that if mediation were to be pursued, he must answer the volumn of personal attacks he has engaged in, which I have not responded to, and in no way should be considered my accession to such. A simple admission to the effect that, at times he has not acted in good faith and some comments be misconstrued as excessive or 'over the top' would be sufficient. Then I'd be happy to bury the matter and we can proceed. nobs 20:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, if Cberlet wishes to answer your first questions, he can. However, please respect his right to refuse to answer; if he does not wish to reply, he has a right not to — in either case, as long as both of you are not letting your biases get into the article, it shouldn't matter. As for the actions in the past, I want to reiterate that we're here for the future. Finger-pointing really doesn't do any good, and mediation isn't the ArbCom — we're not here to dole out punishments or to determine who's "right" and who's "wrong", if there is such a thing. However, because Cberlet has agreed, under the terms, to make a good-faith effort to resolve this dispute, I don't see how either acknoledging or denying past actions helps us here. As long as both of you agree to make good-faith efforts here (which Cberlet has done so already), I frankly don't think we need to determine the legitimacy of anyone's past actions. Thanks for your understanding. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 20:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

(Move indent) I understand. I will give him several hours to respond. As to proceedural matters, in signing above, is this a declaration that I am accepting the above stated terms, i.e. (a) the validity of Cberlet's request (b) Cberlet's pledge to pursue mediation in good faith for a "positive result"? Stated as such, a "positive result", as the evidence suggests, may be construed to mean driving the process to RfArb to pursue punitive action & banning. While I am convinced Cberlet views that as a "positive result", we may differ on our understanding as applied to either of us. If you can assist in clarifying, that would be very helpful. In absence of a response from Cberlet to the issues I've raised ({a} being paid; (b) personal attacks, abuse or references; (c) apology or admission of departing from good faith efforts at times), I can only respond to the RfM with a declaration of good faith, with an amendment that I do not accept Cberlet pursueing this process, or his activities once the process begins, as in good faith. Thank you so much. nobs 20:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not think it is useful for either Nobs or I to make a list of all the past lapses of courtesy. Both our lists would be long. I assume we both regret them, and apologize to each other. I also do not think it is useful for Nobs to speculate as to why I presume to edit the "already NPOV language which exists in the various articles in question." Of course, much of that language currently exists because Nobs has systematically deleted and rewritten my edits...which is why we are here in the first place. I think it is absurd to imply that my editing is suspiciously motivated by some paid communist plot. It is motivated by a desire to make Misplaced Pages more accurate and NPOV. I am sorry I have lost my temper in the past. I am not being paid to edit Misplaced Pages. I am not an attorney, but am a paralegal member of the National Lawyers Guild, which sued the U.S. government for listing it as a communist front during the McCarthy Era and won the lawsuit, forcing the listing to be rescinded; a fact ignored by many. I think I once may have met Magdoff for about ten seconds when I was going to the Brecht Forum for a speech or somesuch. None of this should matter if we are assuming "good faith," looking forward rather than backward, and entering mediation with the intent to write accurate and NPOV text.--Cberlet 21:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, Cberlet has answered your first question. As I have stated before, I do not feel that it is productive to list past mistakes. A mediator (I) is (am) not here to decide whether previous actions were "right" or "wrong", but to instead focus on working together for the future. We are all human; we all make mistakes. We are here, though, to focus on resolving the dispute and crafting a NPOV and unbiased article, which both of you stated in your goals. Because Cberlet has promised under the terms that he will make a good-faith effort to resolve this dispute through mediation, I urge you to as well, Nobs. Do you have any specific objections to any of the terms? Many thanks again. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you both. That is sufficient (I will accept "suspiciously motivated by some paid communist plot" in good humor, we both have a sense of humor). My apologies likewise if I have ever offended. nobs 21:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I hope both of you have gained greater respect for each other, and understand that both of you are here in good-faith trying to help out Misplaced Pages. Now we can proceed to the articles — is there any specific point in the articles that you two wish to address first? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 21:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

(Move indent) My summary approach will be very different from Cberlet's. I understand his objective to craft language to "serve as a model". I would suggest beginning with a list of the sourcing, primary first, then secondary (supportive & contradictory), and this should begin with the material in Venona project and Significance of Venona (but lets do one at a time). Also, we need to clarify groundrules, like using a secondary source to impeach a primary source, etc. nobs 21:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

If there are to be groundrules, I suggest we rely on the Chicago Manual of Style 14th edition (usually available in even small libraries) as the most definitive and detailed work of its kind. I also think we need to keep an eye on the difference between what a primary source states in its actual text, and what original research by Wiki editors concludes it "proves." But I would actually prefer to take one paragraph at a time from any page in controvery and actually edit it.--Cberlet 23:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion is we identify the primary sources, agree on the names, or how they are to be cited; what constitutes a primary source; what constitutes a qualified secondary source. The Significance of Venona may an apt starting place. Also, we may differ on the overall object; I would understand your efforts aimed at establishing or denying, or in some cases casting doubt on a named individuals complicity; let me be unambiguous—that is not my primary object. I believe there are two very much larger issues of concern regarding the Venona project, the first being a study of government processes and secrecy, the second being foreign policy aspects related to government decision making. Both of these have direct relevent historical implications, and can even be traced to contemporary events. And neither study of those two objectives can properly proceed without the biographical foundations being laid here. We should keep in mind our finished product may not be definitive or conclusive. And let me remind you once again, beginning an historical examination with a conclusionary premise is a flawed method, and will only complicate things.

Perhaps there are other items we should discuss as well. Thank you. nobs 03:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, then. Shall we begin with Significance_of_Venona, as suggested by Nobs? Do you two want to take a topical, general view of the article first, or should we dive directly into the "Background" section? Are there any specific issues you wish to address in the "Background"? Thanks again. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 14:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's just jump over to Talk:Significance_of_Venona and start there.--Cberlet 15:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

(Moving indent) Perhaps not. Let me amend my above suggestion: perhaps we should either continue here or begin with identifing sourcing, primary, secondary etc. I will fully articulate Summary of Dispute but it may take a few days as I study other precedents etc. I do not beleive it helpful to get into the game of trashing sources ("axe to grind") etc., before they are even identified and qualified as primary or secondary. Likewise, "axe to grind" is clearly original research, and should have no place in mediation unless it is supported by qualified secondary sourcing. It was a mistake to suggest Talk:Significance of Venona, because that's were some ID'd names are, and it very rapidly degenerated into a politcal dispute. My summary basically will present the dispute is more over method of approach, rather than language derived from method. Again, we need groundrules, identify the primary sourcing, identifying the qualified secondary sourcing, define a method that a secondary source can impeach a primary; likewise if a secondary is to impeach a secondary, it must stand up to crossexamination. I have no interest in engaging in a wholesale slime-o-rama with unqualified & original research terms like "axe to grind". nobs 18:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no point to having more esoteric discussions. This is not about theories of editing. This is about editing text on specific Wiki pages. I have started doing this on Talk:Significance of Venona, a page suggested by Nobs and agreed to by the mediator. Our goal is to craft accurate and NPOV text with the help of a mediator. Let's go! --Cberlet 19:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Please reread my stated goal: (1) maintain integrity of pirmary source valid historical documents. Please understand what the "integrity" of a primary source document is. "Integrity" cannot be sacrificed to unsourced, unqualified, and original research terms like "axe to grind" to achieve "balance" or "NPOV", as the term has come to be abused. We need a discussion and clarity on approach. nobs 19:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, we have fundamental disagreements over how to accurately interpret, cite, summarize, and describe numerous primary and secondary source documents in an NPOV manner. That's why we ended up with a mediator. Restating our disgreements will lead nowhere. Lets work them out with the help of the mediator as we edit actual text on actual pages.--Cberlet 19:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

So wouldn't you agree identifying the primary and secondary sources is the proper way to proceed, and not editing text with invented claims by "scholars" who do not exist? nobs 20:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

In light of this abuse I think we may have to give serious consideration to private mediation. nobs 21:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

What does "Privacy" mean as a subhead? What is "private" mediation? We have a mediator provided by Wiki, a volunteer, willing to help us. I am not Bk0. I did not write what you are objecting to. Mediation is for a dispute between just two people. Could we just please edit some text? This is very frustrating.--Cberlet 22:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

We should wait til we here from the mediator; it wasn't 24 hours from my acceptance of good faith, and we began discussion of substanstive issues in this dispute, and I was slimed by a User you solicited for input. This user has scant record of participating in any previous discussions, and these invitations went out to at least nine others. I think private e-mail should be discussed, or what the mediator may advise. nobs 00:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, let's keep in mind here that Cberlet is not Bk0, and Cberlet should not be held responsible for any of Bk0's actions. In addition, I don't see a problem with soliciting input from someone else- the whole basis of Misplaced Pages is the consensus of the community, and asking someone for a third opinion on a RfC is acceptable. Is there anything that you object to in the above diff and this diff on my talk page? In any case, I don't beleive Cberlet is violating good faith, and I ask that you assume that he is acting in good faith unless proven otherwise. Right now, I feel that our efforts would be more productive on editing the article; after all, wasn't that the main point of the dispute? Do both of you agree with starting on Significance_of_Venona rather than Venona Project? Many thanks again. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 02:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Flcelloguy: Thanks for the quick response; my concern was that we appeared to be addressing issues directly (as I have been seeking for months) when a third party user interfered in the process. If this becomes a problem, I may seek private e-mail. Please note I've posted my Summary of Dispute. Thank you. nobs 02:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Note to Cberlet: I am holding the Chicago Manual of Style 15th edition; if you can direct me to where the proper citation for a Federal Agency Report is, I can give you an answer to use it or not. Thank you my friend. nobs 18:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

15th is OK. I have both. A lot of writers find the changed format of the 15th to be difficult to use. The specific reference information for government agencies is on page 741 in section 17.317 "Executive department documents." Where it states: "When authors are identified, their names should be cited."--Cberlet 22:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, now that both of you have your summaries posted, I'm going to ask both of you to comment on the other person's summary. I've created a new sub-section under each summary; there, please tell me what you agree with, and what you don't agree with. Whatever you don't agree with, please provide some counter-argument. In other words, if party A says "XYZ was ...", party B may respond by saying "No, according to <book>, written by <author>, he was ...". Remember to be polite, and refrain from all personal attacks. Please don't respond back on the other party's comments on your summary yet. I hope that this will help both of you identify with each other's views, and identify what you agree with, and what you don't agree with. In addition, by providing counter-arguments, we can begin to evaluate and discuss the articles, and how to improve them. Thanks very much! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 18:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Proceedural question: Do I respond to these items Talk:Significance_of_Venona#New_Edits as well? nobs 18:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

All of that should have been covered in the summary, if not in detail. Short answer: I'd prefer not at this moment. Feel free to discuss there, of course. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 19:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Note to Cberlet: I appologize; I realize my prose can be dense at times. If you have questions regarding specific wording, I'd be happy to elucidate. Thank you. nobs 20:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

So, Flcelloguy, I really think we need to go to Significance_of_Venona and just start discussing actual sentences. I am very willing to join in requesting that for the time being, other people do not insert comments. Alternatively, we could create a workshop page consisting of disputed paragraphs from Significance_of_Venona as a subpage here, and edit there without interuption. But I don't think trying to proceed from our summaries is going to be as useful as it might be for other editors. Nobs and I really do approach things from very differenet perspectives. I am sure he is as frustrated with me as I am of him.  :-) --Cberlet 22:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I am glad we are focused upon substantive issues. I do intend to respond to both sections, Summary of Dispute & the questions at Talk:Significance of Venona at the same time. It may take a few days to properly respond, because I am performing two tasks simultaneously (learning Misplaced Pages:Policies, Proceedures & Guidelines, and performing another historical examination. I'm sorry, the proper method of historical examination is not simply picking and choosing what facts you like, there is a defined process for accuracy.) If the two summary's with disputed text could be formally linked for process I'd sure appreciate it. Thank you. nobs 01:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not interested in another tour of the "proper method of historical examination." I have suffered through weeks of this type of argument. I am interested in editing text. I do not need to be lectured about the proper way to write history, the proper form of citation, the proper methodology, the proper attitude, the proper writing style, the proper experts, or the proper way to discuss editing. I want to edit! I do not think that is an unreasonable request. I am tired of being walked in circles. I am tired of wasting time. I am tired of all of this. Let's edit text! What on earth is this about? We are editing an encyclopedia! Let's edit text! --Cberlet 01:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You are asking me to perform an historical examination I have already examined, in inverse order. Your goal is to "craft text" to "serve as a model" "across Misplaced Pages"; yet you chose as your Summary an individual to whom has a weak case to destroy Haynes & Klehr's classifications. That's why I suggested the broader Talk:Significance of Venona. I suggest, now that the process is in motion, we follow the process. nobs 02:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Sentence by sentence

Nobs: how would you write this sentence I redrafted from Significance of Venona?

• Identities soon emerged of persons in America, Canada, Australia, and Britain who were being used as information sources by the Soviet government. Some later were jailed as outright spies, including Klaus Fuchs, Alan Nunn May and another member of the Cambridge Five spy ring, Donald Maclean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cberlet (talk • contribs) 03:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we agree this is fair, accurate and NPOV?. If not, please write an alternative. Please do not refer to previous editing disputes. Thank you. If you prefer, we can edit this on Talk:Significance of Venona. However I have no intention of having the same debate on two pages at the same time. Pick one page. Edit text. --Cberlet 03:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet: How would you incorporate this material --> Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage#629 Venona, sentence by sentence, as the process requires. Thank you. nobs 03:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Sir, do as you please; but I would only suggest amending you Summary of Dispute then. Thank you. nobs 03:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You just said we should edit text from Significance of Venona! I am not going to edit multiple pages at the same time. It is unreasonable and a waste of time.--Cberlet 03:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

All of the claims at Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage#629 Venona are 100% original research and are invalid for inclusion on Misplaced Pages on their face. Please cite a published secondary source to back up your claims. Even the FBI now refuses to call Magdoff a Soviet spy. Not even Haynes & Klehr call Magdoff a Soviet spy. If you dispute this, please cite the page number of the secondary source that makes this claim. However, I would prefer to edit the page Significance of Venona! --Cberlet 03:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I will follow the process, unless the mediator makes another suggestion (the insertions can and will be made to primary & secondary citations as outlined at Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage#629 Venona). I'm guessing, 3 or 4 days, hopefully less to respond at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Nobs01/Workshop#Response by Nobs. Please be patient. Thank you. nobs 03:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Process issue needs to be resolved

The above is the type of exchange that makes my head spin. I thought Nobs and I had agreed to edit the page Significance of Venona. Suddenly Nobs is discussing the page Harry Magdoff and espionage. Now Nobs says he "will follow the process," and will respond to my summary at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Nobs01/Workshop. Now, instead of being forced to jump between four pages (VENONA project, Significance of Venona, Harry Magdoff, Harry Magdoff and espionage), I now have to respond on two more pages: Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Nobs01, and Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Nobs01/Workshop. This is not mediation, this is metastasization.

If we are to seriously seek to resolve this dispute we should pick from two options:

• Either the two of us should edit only at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Nobs01/Workshop--and stop editing at VENONA project; Significance of Venona; Harry Magdoff; and Harry Magdoff and espionage.

Or

• We should pick one of the four pages, (VENONA project, Significance of Venona, Harry Magdoff, Harry Magdoff and espionage), and edit only that page until there is a compromise hammered out with the help of the mediator--and then move on to the next page.

But forcing me to edit six pages at the same time is not reasonable. I petition the mediator (Flcelloguy) to step in and help resolve this process issue before we proceed any further.--Cberlet 09:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow. I don't log in for a few hours, and... Well, both of you were making progress at first. I don't think it is fair for anyone to have to check six or seven pages regarding one dispute right now. I would prefer that the focus be instead on this page and the workshop. If there's anyone else at the article talk pages that wishes to join in the discussion, they are more than welcome to join in mediation here. However, I do request that most discussion occur here and at workshop. Thanks! On to the second item — Nobs, do you mind both responding to Cberlet's summary and discussing the articles at the same time? My intent in having both of you give counter-summaries was not to drag out the process longer; I'm not going to rush you, but I (and I'm sure Cberlet) would appreciate it if you could either both discuss the article here and give the response, or expedite writing your response. That would be greatly appreciated.

Regarding the articles, do both of you agree to start editing sentence by sentence at Significance of Venona? I beleive that it is best to focus our efforts on this one article first; once this article has been done, then we can move on to more articles. Thanks for your understanding! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 14:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to take the initiative and jump-start the process here. Here's the opening sentence that serves as the lead for Significance of Venona:

• The Significance of Venona discusses the results and implications of the VENONA project, a long-running and highly secret collaboration between the United States intelligence agencies and the United Kingdom's MI5 that involved the cryptanalysis of Soviet messages.

What do you two think of that lead? Any objections or concerns about it? Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 14:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

(Move indent) Flcelloguy: I am going to ask you to admonish Cberlet for leaping ahead of the process; he began raising issues at Significance of Venona before I responded to his Summary in the Workshop; this is the second time he has ran ahead of the process. His Summary does not address my concerns, i.e. his lack of sourcing to base any of his concerns. I have yet to respond to his summary because of this problem:

16 September 2005

• 01:42
  • In a subhead entitled ==Nobs has once again misrepresented sources in his espionage paragraphs== Cberlet charges nobs with "misrepresentation", "inaccurate", "biased", and "false"; Cberlet extracts,
    • " 'The following were members of the Victor Perlo Network'; That statement is not qualified as 'According to Elizabeth Bentley', or 'Elizabeth Bentley has alleged', etc."; says " this is a misrepresentation. "

30 September

• 12:46
  • Cberlet files Summary of Dispute; says "Magdoff was listed by the FBI as in the Perlo Group."

I have great difficulting figuring out what the dispute is about, other than I'm a bad guy and he doesn't like me. At Significance of Venona he openly states he wishes to challenge Haynes & Klehr, yet offers nothing to challenge them with. If his goal, as stated, is to "craft text" to "serve as a model" "across Misplaced Pages" for Venona related disputes, one would presume sourcing would be the place to start. If he wishes to challenge Haynes & Klehr, to establish that their classifications were either (a) sometimes correct (b) sometimes in doubt, and (c) sometimes incorrect, one would think the Workshop Summary of Dispute would be the place to start, yet it appears he's shifted his argument again.

Remember, maintainting the integrity of the documents is my primary goal, and inserting unsourced "alleged to's" does not do that. nobs 16:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Responding to the following text from Significance of Venona:

• The Significance of Venona discusses the results and implications of the VENONA project, a long-running and highly secret collaboration between the United States intelligence agencies and the United Kingdom's MI5 that involved the cryptanalysis of Soviet messages.

I have no objections to this text.--Cberlet 16:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Good! Nobs, do you have any concerns about the lead? Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 18:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

And regarding your comments, Nobs: I'm not here to "admonish" anyone, nor I am here to act as a judge. I am a mediator, not the ArbCom. In any case, I do not feel that Cberlet has done anything improper; in my opinion, it is in our best interest if we can all discuss the text line by line while waiting for you to finish your response. The responses take a more topical overview and will certainly be considered; however, they (or the lack of) should not prevent us from starting to edit Significance of Venona. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 18:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I suppose we can proceed; however, I do not believe it fair for Cberlet to run ahead of the process, as he has done twice now, and request that you convey that to him. As per the first sentence in the Significance of Venona text, I am fine with it. I am ready to move to Talk:Significance of Venona now; and again, if we agree to carry on mediation there, I would ask that Cberlet not begin editing in other articles which are subject to this mediation. Further, if he were to do so again, I would consider it a breach of an agreement, editing in bad faith, and an abuse of the process. Thank you. Let's proceeed. nobs 19:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Instead of editing the text at Talk:Significance of Venona, I've placed a notice there, redirecting people to this page. I did this so that 1) all the efforts of mediation would be consolidated under this page and a few other pages, and 2) there does not appear to be many other people editing the article; if people wish to give input, I've invited them here to give their opinion in as brief and concise a manner as possible. I hope neither of you mind keeping the discussion here. And Cberlet, per Nobs's request, would you mind not editing any of the other articles while mediation is ongoing? Nobs, would you also agree to your own request? Many thanks.

Here's the next paragraph from Significance of Venona; it's the first paragraph in background. Judging from Talk:Significance of Venona, text from this point forward will be disputed, but I'll go ahead and copy the paragraph below:

This decryption and cryptanalysis project became known to the Soviets not long after the first breaks. It is not clear whether the Soviets knew how much of the message traffic, or which messages, had been successfully decrypted. At least one Soviet penetration agent, British SIS Representative to the US, Kim Philby, was told about the project in 1949, as part of his job as liaison between British and US intelligence. The project continued for decades, long after Philby left British intelligence.

Do either of you have any comments or problems with this paragraph? If so, what? Thanks again! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 23:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Let's proceed constructively. It might expediate matters if Cberlet were to give the name of any source information he proposes to use to cite fundemental changes to the text, or question the validity or integrity of documented materials. Thank you again. nobs 00:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, sources would help immensely once we get to a part where the factual accuracy is disputed. If that ever arises, I would prefer to see sources (preferably from both of you) so that we can attempt to craft a fair, unbiased article that isn't emphasizing one perspective over the other. Right now, though, do either of you have any objections to the text above? If not, then we can proceed to the next paragraph. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 13:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no objections to this text.--Cberlet 03:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

No objections. nobs 03:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

<- (back to left) Good! Now, here's the next paragraph:

The decrypted messages from Soviet aid missions, GRU spies, KGB spies, and some diplomatic traffic, known collectively as the VENONA papers, gave important insights into Soviet behavior in the period during which duplicate one-time pads were used. On 20 December 1946, Meredith Gardner made the first break into the code, revealing the existence of Soviet espionage at Los Alamos National Laboratories. Others worked in Washington in the State Department, Treasury, Office of Strategic Services (OSS), and even the White House. Identities soon emerged of American, Canadian, Australian, and British spies in service to the Soviet government, including Klaus Fuchs, Alan Nunn May and another member of the Cambridge Five spy ring, Donald Maclean.

Comments? Objections? Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 13:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Who was called a spy, and why? What is a "Covert Relationship"

I think the next two paragraphs under discussion are the heart of the dispute. They contain a number of assertions that are easier to address when broken down into several clusters. If we move two sentences (at least temporarily) down to the bottom, it will make this discussion much easier. I am not suggesting they stay there, just that as a broad summary statements, discussing them is best after previous sentences offering specific evidence are discussed. For example, a list of agencies where spies where identified should follow the discussion of the evidence for "Alger Hiss; Harry Dexter White, and Lauchlin Currie."

Here is the current text:

• The decrypted messages from Soviet aid missions, GRU spies, KGB spies, and some diplomatic traffic, known collectively as the VENONA papers, gave important insights into Soviet behavior in the period during which duplicate one-time pads were used. On 20 December 1946, Meredith Gardner made the first break into the code, revealing the existence of Soviet espionage at Los Alamos National Laboratories. Others worked in Washington in the State Department, Treasury, Office of Strategic Services (OSS), and even the White House. Identities soon emerged of American, Canadian, Australian, and British spies in service to the Soviet government, including Klaus Fuchs, Alan Nunn May and another member of the Cambridge Five spy ring, Donald Maclean.

• The decrypts include 349 code names for persons known to have had a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence. It is likely that there were more than 349 participants in Soviet espionage, as that number is from a small sample of the total intercepted message traffic. Among those identified are Alger Hiss; Harry Dexter White, the second-highest official in the Treasury Department; Lauchlin Currie, a personal aide to Franklin Roosevelt; and Maurice Halperin, a section head in the Office of Strategic Services. Almost every military and diplomatic agency of any importance was compromised to some extent, including the Manhattan Project.

Here is the text rearranged by proof package:

• (A1) The decrypted messages from Soviet aid missions, GRU spies, KGB spies, and some diplomatic traffic, known collectively as the VENONA papers, gave important insights into Soviet behavior in the period during which duplicate one-time pads were used. On 20 December 1946, Meredith Gardner made the first break into the code, revealing the existence of Soviet espionage at Los Alamos National Laboratories. ^1 Moynihan Commssion on Government Secrecy, Appendix A, The Experience of The Bomb (1997)

• (A2) Identities soon emerged of American, Canadian, Australian, and British spies in service to the Soviet government, including Klaus Fuchs, Alan Nunn May and another member of the Cambridge Five spy ring, Donald Maclean.

• (A3) The decrypts include 349 code names for persons known to have had a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence. Among those identified are Alger Hiss; Harry Dexter White, the second-highest official in the Treasury Department; Lauchlin Currie, a personal aide to Franklin Roosevelt; and Maurice Halperin, a section head in the Office of Strategic Services.

• (A4) Almost every military and diplomatic agency of any importance was compromised to some extent, including the Manhattan Project.

• (A5) Others worked in Washington in the State Department, Treasury, Office of Strategic Services (OSS), and even the White House.

• (A6) It is likely that there were more than 349 participants in Soviet espionage, as that number is from a small sample of the total intercepted message traffic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cberlet (talk • contribs)

Sources

• Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Secrecy: The American Experience, (New Haven: Yale University Press 1998), pg. 54; "these intercepts provided...descriptions of the activities of precisely the same Soviet spies who were named by defecting Soviet agents Alexander Orlov, Walter Krivitsky, Whittaker Chambers, and Elizabeth Bentley."

• Moynihan, Secrecy, p.54; "In these coded messages the spies' identities were concealed beneath aliases, but by comparing the known movements of the agents with the corresponding activities described in the intercepts, the FBI and the code-breakers were able to match the aliases with the actual spies."

nobs 19:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Text A1

• (A1) The decrypted messages from Soviet aid missions, GRU spies, KGB spies, and some diplomatic traffic, known collectively as the VENONA papers, gave important insights into Soviet behavior in the period during which duplicate one-time pads were used. On 20 December 1946, Meredith Gardner made the first break into the code, revealing the existence of Soviet espionage at Los Alamos National Laboratories. ^1 Moynihan Commssion on Government Secrecy, Appendix A, The Experience of The Bomb (1997)

I have no objections to this paragraph, other than to point out that we need to add quotes to at least part of the current phrase based on the underlying document text: "on December 20, 1946, Meredith Gardner made the first break into the VENONA code, revealing the existence of Soviet espionage at Los Alamos," to avoid obvious plagiarism of the underlying document. --Cberlet 16:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Ratified. nobs 17:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Text A2

• (A2) Identities soon emerged of American, Canadian, Australian, and British spies in service to the Soviet government, including Klaus Fuchs, Alan Nunn May and another member of the Cambridge Five spy ring, Donald Maclean.

I have no objections to this paragraph. --Cberlet 16:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

No objections. nobs 17:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Text A3

• (A3) The decrypts include 349 code names for persons known to have had a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence. Among those identified are Alger Hiss; Harry Dexter White, the second-highest official in the Treasury Department; Lauchlin Currie, a personal aide to Franklin Roosevelt; and Maurice Halperin, a section head in the Office of Strategic Services.

I have objections to this paragraph. This claim needs to be cited to Haynes & Klehr. What is meant by a "covert relationship with Soviet intelligence?" If Haynes & Klehr did not call them spies, why should we? I have other objections as well which we can discuss here.--Cberlet 16:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Haynes & Klehr, Venona pgs. 9-10, elsewhere in the same work; not complete, other sources too, I'm still looking. Would be interested in hearing the other objections. ty. nobs 18:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is my edited verion:

• Government analysts assigned identities to the coded names from the Venona documents during their investigation. Among those named were Alger Hiss; Harry Dexter White, the second-highest official in the Treasury Department; Lauchlin Currie, a personal aide to Franklin Roosevelt; and Maurice Halperin, a section head in the Office of Strategic Services. What is disputed is the accuracy of the identifications based on codes and fragments of transmissions; and the extent to which the available evidence indicates these people (and others named in the Venona documents) were aware of or complicit in espionage activities. Investigations in a number of cases did not lead to indictments, and several persons, notably Hiss, White, Halperin, and Currie, denied they were spies, and were never indicted. Haynes & Klehr state these people had a "covert relationship with Soviet intelligence," but do not define that phrase further. The claim that Hiss, White, Halperin, and Currie were involved in espionage is still debated by scholars.

This is a well-rounded rendition of the issues and claims.--Cberlet 13:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Terms in question:

assigned

those named;

perhaps "those identified";

What is disputed et. seqq.;

we need sourcing for dispute, and what is being disputed. After saying "Government analysts assigned", this subtley separates NSA decrypters from FBI field investigators, whereas I believe the 1995 release should be presented as a whole.

What is disputed is the accuracy, etc.;

again we need to strictly qualify all identifications of all codenames (persons & organizational entities) apart from the 171 identified as to having covert relationships, and stop this wholesale deception of trying to confuse the fact that simply because a codename was decyphered and identified, that somehow NSA analysts and subsequent researchers leveled the charge that they all were complicit.

Disclaimers are appropriate and should be inserted where appropriate.

I would suggest we use the Venona Historical Monographs as a guide, and any secondary source claims that dispute anything in those Mongraphs be properly sourced.

I will ask the mediator here, to ask Mr. Cberlet, any proposals on language be brought to the table with sourcing. I believe this is proper proceedure, should be followed, and will ultimately save all of us time. Respectfully, nobs 18:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is round one of sources from Chip:

Victor Navasky, editor and publisher of The Nation, has written an editorial highly critical of the interpretation of recent work on the subject of Soviet espionage.

• In Appendix A to their book on Venona, Haynes and Klehr list 349 names (and code names) of people who they say "had a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence that is confirmed in the Venona traffic." They do not qualify the list, which includes everyone from Alger Hiss to Harry Magdoff, the former New Deal economist and Marxist editor of Monthly Review, and Walter Bernstein, the lefty screenwriter who reported on Tito for Yank magazine. It occurs to Haynes and Klehr to reprint ambiguous Venona material related to Magdoff and Bernstein but not to call up either of them (or any other living person on their list) to get their version of what did or didn't happen.

• The reader is left with the implication--unfair and unproven--that every name on the list was involved in espionage, and as a result, otherwise careful historians and mainstream journalists now routinely refer to Venona as proof that many hundreds of Americans were part of the red spy network.

• My own view is that thus far Venona has been used as much to distort as to expand our understanding of the cold war--not just because some researchers have misinterpreted these files but also because in the absence of hard supporting evidence, partially decrypted files in this world of espionage, where deception is the rule, are by definition potential time bombs of misinformation.

Ellen Schrecker agrees. "Because they offer insights into the world of the secret police on both sides of the Iron Curtain, it is tempting to treat the FBI and Venona materials less critically than documents from more accessible sources. But there are too many gaps in the record to use these materials with complete confidence" (1998, pp. xvii-xviii). ^3 Ellen Schrecker, Many are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America (Boston: Little Brown, 1998) pp. xvii-xviii.

Other skeptics include Walter and Miriam Schneir . Here is what they wrote:

• Although Belmont offered a number of reasons for not using Venona messages as judicial evidence--including a wish to keep the Soviets from learning "the degree of success the U.S. had in breaking their codes"--the principal reasons were twofold: The decrypted material might not meet the standards for evidence set by US law, and, even if it did, it suffered from certain deficiencies that might limit its usefulness as proof.

• In the first place, we do not know if the deciphered messages would be admitted into evidence.... The defense attorney would immediately move that the messages be excluded, based on the hearsay evidence rule. He would probably claim that...the contents of the messages were purely hearsay as it related to the defendants.

• Belmont made it clear that apart from the legal hurdle of the hearsay evidence rule, the successful use of the messages in a court of law to prove guilt would be difficult. The evidence had inherent weaknesses:

• The messages furnishes the Bureau are, for the most part, very fragmentary and full of gaps. Some parts of the messages can never be recovered again because during the actual intercept the complete message was not obtained. Other portions can be recovered only through the skill of the cryptographers and with the Bureau's assistance. Frequently, through an examination of the messages and from a review of Bureau files, the Bureau can offer suspects for individuals involved.

• Belmont was frank with his colleagues:

• It must be realized that the cryptographers make certain assumptions as to meanings when deciphering these messages and thereafter the proper translations of Russian idioms can become a problem. It is for such reasons that has indicated that almost anything included in a translation of one of these deciphered messages may in the future be radically revised.

• Another very important factor to be considered when discussing the accuracy of these deciphered messages is the extensive use of cover names noted in this traffic. Once an individual was considered for recruitment as an agent by the Soviets, sufficient background data on him was sent to headquarters in Moscow. Thereafter, he was given a cover name and his true name was not mentioned again. This makes positive identifications most difficult since we seldom receive the initial message which states that agent "so and so" (true name) will henceforth be known as "____" (cover name). Also, cover names were changed rather frequently and the cover name "Henry" might apply to two different individuals, depending upon the date it was used....

• Belmont was forthrightly skeptical in the assessment to his colleagues: "All of the above factors make difficult a correct reading of the messages and point up the tentative nature of many identifications."

• ....Appendix A, titled "Source Venona: Americans and U.S. Residents Who Had Covert Relationships with Soviet Intelligence Agencies," is said to contain the true names or cover names of 349 people mentioned in Venona messages. Serving as judge and lord high executioner, Haynes and Klehr assemble a mixed bag for their Appendix A, ranging from those who made substantial contributions to Soviet espionage to many scores of men and women whose alleged connections with KGB spying were so vague, trivial or irrelevant as to indicate that the list is heavily padded.

--Source: Schneir, Walter & Miriam, "Cables Coming in From the Cold," review, The Nation, July 5, 1999. See also: Schneir, Walter & Miriam, "Cryptic Answers," The Nation, 261:5, August 14, 1995.

See also: Bernice Schrank, "Reading the Rosenbergs After Venona," Labour/Le Travail Spring 2002

I am not aware that anyone has ever challenged the fact that Alger Hiss; Harry Dexter White; Lauchlin Currie; and Maurice Halperin, denied they were spies. This is on the public record, and has been mentioned in the Wiki artilces on these persons.--Cberlet 19:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Let me point out the subject under discussion now is Venona materials. These references basically are refutations of a specific FBI Memo and Haynes & Klehr. As per the Wiki article, Historical method#Eyewitness Evidence

"the whole or the gist of the primary testimony upon which the secondary witness may be his only means of knowledge. In such cases the secondary source is the historian's 'original' source, in the sense of being the 'origin' of his knowledge. In so far as this 'original' source is an accurate report of primary testimony, he tests its credibility as he would that of the primary testimony itself." (Understanding History, 165)

Without getting into an extensive discussion on method, it should be noted all authoritve secondary sources use primary citations to Robert L. Benson, Venona Historical Monographs; the primary source, Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy Report uses Venona Historical Monographs as primary source; Venona decryptions lack historical narrative; Venona Historical Monographs, from the same Issueing Agency, issued at the same time, with the intent to offer valid historical narrative can be properly called, and cited, as primary source, particularly in the form of historical narrative. It's authors are fully qualified, in that they most obviously knew thier subject extrememly well long before reputable secondary scholars ever heard of the Venona project. So to dispute what you posted below, I believe we can properly designate Venona Historical Monographs as the primary source in the form of historical narrative, and this would be the appropriate starting place, with some additions from the Chairman's Forward & various Appendix's of the Secrecy Report. Thank you. nobs 20:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Nobs misunderstands and misrepresents what is being discussed at Historical method We are not discussing eyewitness testimony. We have primary government documents, and we have secondary sources that analyze the documents in different ways. Nobs tends to cite one set of secondary sources, I tend to cite another set of secondary sources. I totally reject Nobs' summary. The Venona transcripts and the FBI memos are the primary documents. The Venona Historical Monographs are secondary sources. To take one example, Monograph #4 is written by "Robert Louis Benson" and Benson cites a number of primary documents. See: . I have cited specific sources and quotes. I ask that Nobs stop lecturing everyone on methodology and just provide cites to justify changes in the text I have proposed.--Cberlet 21:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

We've evidently hit a proceedural snag. Cberlet proposes departing from accepted practices, and all the other standards laid down by subsequent authors on the subject of Venona materials (not to mention ignoring the historical method). What makes it difficult is, I did not author this disputed text here in wiki, hence I cannot properly cite without "going back into the documents", to use a jargon phrase; that may take an inordinate amount of time to perform a redundant task. I can attest, based on years of reading, the disputed text is essentially a paraphrase of Benson & the Moynihan Report. References to "349", most likely come from Haynes & Klehr. No one, to my knowledge, not even Shcrecker or Navasky, have presented an arguable case to dispute some of the foundational work of either Benson and/or the Secrecy Report.

Do the texts in question need proper citations? Yes. Is this a priority right now? To do so, we might as well just rewrite the whole text. Yet again, there is no credible refutations to the basic introductory information being presented.

Perhaps a way to proceed would be to accept the basic text "as is" (and proper sourcing will be inserted once I have the time to review Benson & Moynihan materials properly); if we could proceed to the point of "349", Haynes & Klehr, and write a text based upon what they represent their materials to be ("qualified"), and then present Navasky's rebuttal.

As to Belmont to Boardman, true, this is a very important primary source document. I love the formal title to it, "Explaination and History of the Venona Project". It may rightfully deserve its own ==subhead== here in the Significance of Venona article. Sen. Moynihan's book, Secrecy: The American Experience, likewise has been recognized as primary source, being that he was an eyewitness to Committee proceedings, etc. And I would love to draw on some material from there to address Belmont to Boardman. Moynihan Secrecy is even referenced as such in the FBI Venona file description (Belmont to Boardman is the last 14 pages). And as you propose, we can let the document speak for itself (in my understanding, truelly NPOV language).

(As to "eyewitness", let's look at what this Wiki article—one we can be proud of—says in context,

most information comes from "indirect witnesses," people who were not present on the scene but heard of the events from someone else (A Guide to Historical Method, 292). Gottschalk says that a historian may sometimes use hearsay evidence. He writes, "In cases where he uses secondary witnesses, however, he does not rely upon them fully. On the contrary, he asks: (1) On whose primary testimony does the secondary witness base his statements? (2) Did the secondary witness accurately report the primary testimony as a whole? (3) If not, in what details did he accurately report the primary testimony? Satisfactory answers to the second and third questions may provide the historian with the whole or the gist of the primary testimony upon which the secondary witness may be his only means of knowledge. In such cases the secondary source is the historian's 'original' source...").

So it discusses fully qualifying the historians 'original source' etc. In otherwords, Benson doesn't contradict Venona documents, i.e. maintains their integrity. nobs 21:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

This is gibberish. We are not talking about eyewitess accounts. Just edit the damn paragraph! --Cberlet 16:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

• (2) Did the secondary witness accurately report the primary testimony as a whole?

Yes.

• (3) If not, in what details did he accurately report the primary testimony?

Not applicable; in fact Venona Historical Monographs, which accompanied release of decypts added important primary source narrative details & context.

Satisfactory answers to the second and third questions may provide the historian with the whole or the gist of the primary testimony upon which the secondary witness may be his only means of knowledge. In such cases the secondary source is the historian's 'original' source....(Louis Gottschalk, Understanding History: A Primer of Historical Method, Alfred A. Knopf: New York (1950), p. 165).

So the wiki article misnames the subhead, or else there is a sublte difference between "eyewitness" in the paralegal sense, and that used by historians (not really, because the evidence gathering and rules of evidence are the same between the two professions; only historians are much more dependent on secondary tellings of events). nobs 18:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

This is just nonsense. There is no eyewitness material being discussed in this section. This is a total waste of time. Please do not engage in any more of these obtuse pompous lectures. We know that some government analysts and some scholars have concluded that certain people were supplying information to the Soviets. We know that some of the accused denied the charges. We know that some government analysts and some scholars dispute the reliability of the identification of code names, and dispute the assumptions being made. The only issue is how to fairly summarize this material. I have provided specific cites to my wording. Do likewise. --Cberlet 01:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

(Move indent) Duh, I think you unfairly mischaracterize the discussion. You've provided language. You've provided sources. You haven't linked proposed language to sources. We know what NSA identifications say. We know what the Historical Monorgraphs say. We know what Secrecy Commission says. We now what Senator Moynihan says. We know Benson & Warner say in another primary source document. We now what the NACIC says. This is all primary source. It is reflected in the text. The Schreiners question FBI documents; all else questions other secondary sources. Really now, it is impractical to ask me to do all your work for you. I review the very first two postings I ever sent to you, and guess what they say,

• the proper proceedure is to (First) examine the credibility of the source, and (Second) examine the substance of source material.
• Let's discuss the credibility of each source cited, then discuss substance.

We could have saved ourselves two months by follwing established rules of evidence. nobs 01:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Text A4

• (A4) Almost every military and diplomatic agency of any importance was compromised to some extent, including the Manhattan Project.

I have objections to this paragraph. This claim needs to be cited to a published source. I have other objections as well which we can discuss here.--Cberlet 16:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

This language predates my input , I began editing ~23 April 2005, and I am unable to find an exact source. While I thought it was somewhat of a paraphrase of Benson Monographs (and other writers), I'm not certain if it can be directly attributed. I do believe in the validity of the underlying statement, and we could craft language begining with the recognized primary sources. ty. nobs 19:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Text A5

• (A5) Others worked in Washington in the State Department, Treasury, Office of Strategic Services (OSS), and even the White House.

I have objections to this paragraph. This claim needs to be cited to a published source. Are we talking about accused spies, persons investigated by the FBI as spies? Persons identified by government analysts from the Venona documents? Confessed? Indicted? Convicted? I have other objections as well which we can discuss here.--Cberlet 16:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Likewise with this one, and it shouldn't be too hard to support. This appears to be an introductory overview. nobs 05:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• ^1 Moynihan Commssion on Government Secrecy, Appendix A, Secrecy as Regulation (1997); "KGB cables indicated that the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in World War II had been thoroughly infiltrated with Soviet agents." nobs 17:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Text A6

• (A6) It is likely that there were more than 349 participants in Soviet espionage, as that number is from a small sample of the total intercepted message traffic.

I have objections to this paragraph. This claim needs to be cited. What is meant by a "participants in Soviet espionage? If Haynes & Klehr did not call them spies, why should we? How did we get from "covert relationship" to "participants in Soviet espionage?" I have other objections as well which we can discuss here.--Cberlet 16:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Samething regarding the evidence; the 349 should be clarified to code names. As to the speculation about "likely more", that could be further supported by testimonies of various defectors, Louis Budenz for example, and others. Some speculate the number as high as 800, others 1200. nobs 05:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Haynes & Klehr

Very good. Very well stated articulation of valid questions. I will proceed to respond to each valid point raised. These six texts, I believe are drawn mostly from (1) Venona Historical Monographs, Robert L. Benson; (2) Moynihan Commission Report (3) Hanyes & Klehr, Venona. There may be some Arthur Herman in there as well (note: while I had much input, the above is truelly a collaborative effort, and much was written before I began editing the Venona series). I will set to work on the proper sourcing on each item specified, and respond appropriately under each subhead. Meantime, under this new subhead, perhaps we can begin a discussion of Haynes & Klehrs' sourcing, and how they arrive at the 349 figure, also the 171 identified, the 178 unidentified, the 139 identified from sources other than Venona; and we can moreless by pass foreigners & Soviet national citizens for now.

I believe that upon inspection, we will conclude that the above stated figures, attributed to Haynes & Klehr, in fact is not their work. Haynes and Klehr "inherited", if you will, the status of the NSA investigation when it closed down in 1980. And Haynes & Klehr's classification is basically a restatement, or secondary source qualification, of how the NSA viewed each identified person, and identified code name, at the time the investigation ended in 1980. And this point, based upon a NPOV examination, we perhaps may be able to establish once and for all whether or not it is valid. (The converse as to the above stated premise is, if Haynes & Klehr erred regarding "witting" or "unwitting", that mistake ultimately could be traced to the NSA investigation.)

Where Haynes & Klehr have made statements regarding things the NSA may have overlooked, or new evidence came to light either after 1980, or after 1995-98 when Venona materials were released, it is usually clearly and properly identified as such in their text, and also subsequent writings since the 1999 release of their book.

I welcome any comment or response regarding Haynes & Klehr, or my reading of their texts. Thank you. nobs 16:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

We should cite each claim to the maker of the claim. If the NSA/FBI analysts claim someone has been identified in the Venona documents, we should say that. They should not be identified as a spy just because their name has been linked to a code name by NSA/FBI analysts. If Haynes & Klehr call them a spy, we should cite the page. We should also cite the claims (and page numbers) from published work that disputes the identification of a person as a spy. --Cberlet 18:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe that has ever been ambiguous, except for those seeking ambiguity with a POV. The 171 "true name" persons identified in Haynes and Klehr's Appendix A, as having "covert relationships" are identified exactly as such; Haynes & Klehr cite "Source Venona"; "Venona", as Mr. Jack Taber, a recognized authority, has point out on the Talk:VENONA project page, was not the name of the NSA investigation throughout the lifetime of the project. It was simply the last code name assigned when it was shut down in 1980. It had at least eight other code names in its lifetime, however history has now assigned it the name "Venona project", which is what is usually used when writing about it (a similiar case is "KGB"; while the KGB did not come into existence until 1954, it has become the accepted practice of writers and historians to use KGB to refer to Cheka, OGPU, GPU, NKVD, MGB, SMERSH, KI, etc.; so this practice is not unprecedented). When secondary sources cite "Venona", they are citing (1) the original Army Signals Intelligence materials known at the time as "Gardner materials", and then later after 1947 (2) NSA investigators, which likewise has become the custodian of documents for the Army Signals Intelligence (in otherwords, like many FBI files have been taken from the FBI and held in archives elsewhere (ONCIX), so too are archived files that strictly speaking belong with the U.S. Army in the Pentagon, are now held by an agency outside the Pentagon). So a citation from a secondary source that reads "Source Venona", can properly and legitimately be said to read "Source: NSA, and it's predecessors". (Footnote:some of the predecessor names that appear in the "Venona transcripts" are "Ice Cream", "Trine", etc.).

On a personal note, I believe a fair and impartial reading of the documents will discover much as I have outlined. I might suggest that an NPOV approach to the documents, rather than seeking "circular reasoning", we can avoid such "circular responses". Hairsplitting ultimately is gonna be a collossal waste of time. And I would caution again against the use of any conclusionary premises. nobs 20:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

In the name of sanity, just edit the damn text! Don't walk us in circles of obscure muck. Just take the damn paragraph and write it the way you think it should be written. --Cberlet 16:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The only NPOV issue I see that needs clarification is, clarifying the fact that not all ID's are spies. The NSA isolated 171 true name ID's with evidence in context based on analysis of what was recovered from the decrypts. Critics persistently attempt to exaggerate the fact that simply because a code name was identified, therefore, beginning with the NSA & Senator Moynihan, a vast right wing conspiracy emerged to smear ALL code names as spies. This is the only problem I can identify in existing text that needs NPOV treatment (other than proper sourcing of others editors texts). nobs 18:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

"spies"

Texts A3-A6 have one thread in common, use of the term "spies". Cberlet asks, "Haynes & Klehr do not call them spies, why should we?". Valid question. Let me share a portion of the contents of a private e-mail received from John Earl Haynes of the Library of Congress Manuscripts Division where Mr. Haynes pointedly discusses this matter:

"One matter you might consider is just rephrasing occasionally the identification of persons identified in Venona as Soviet spies as, for example, persons identified in Venona as Soviet spies BY NSA/FBI ANALYSTS and that these identifications have been accepted as reliable in major books written about Venona: Haynes and Klehr’s _Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America_, Romerstein, and Breindel’s _The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America’s Traitors_, Nigel West’s _Venona: the Greatest Secret of the Cold War_, Moynihan’s _Secrecy: The American Experience_ and direct corroboration is provided in Weinstein and Vassiliev’s _The Haunted Wood_ and by the Gorsky memo.

"Also some people wince at the term "spy." Just for polite variation I often also use the phrase "knowingly cooperated with Soviet espionage against the United States" or some such. That, of course, is the definition of a spy but some people find it easier to take.

The above is a direct attributed text which can be cited to Mr. Haynes which I have cached in an e-mail exchange. I hope it sheds light on the valid question Cberlet asks. So I will continue the task of properly identifying sourcing, and I will await Cberlet's response regarding Haynes & Klehr's use of the term "spies". Thank you. nobs 17:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

None of this is acceptable. All of it is original research. We must only cite to published work here on Wiki. --Cberlet 18:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

OK. All I know is what the guy told me. If you wanna waste time "arguing in circles" be my guest. The end result will be the same. nobs 19:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not "arguing in circles," I am pointing out that the rules of editing here preclude original research, including e-mail correspondence with authors. Would you accept it if I e-mailed Victor Navasky and got him to denounce the work of Haynes & Klehr in stronger terms? I think not.--Cberlet 20:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

(That wouldn't be necessary, cause he's already done that in print). I don't believe the premise propounded that Haynes & Klehr contradict themselves, or their sources, will stand up. If we need to document the response to the question you've raised, fine; it's just gonna take a little longer. But both the idea, and the meaning is there. nobs 20:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you two are making substantial progress. Regarding the issue directly above this — it is my opinion that Misplaced Pages should accept what is generally accepted. Does most of the community believe they were spies and refer to them as so, or not? Is there a substantial amount of controversy regarding the term? If so, then that could be mentioned. I hesitate to include someone's email as a source to be cited; emails often are unreliable, and to my knowledge, no article in Misplaced Pages has cited an email. If this email was reproduced in a book and is acknowledged by the community, then that would be fine. I hope you two continue the progress you have made and keep up the good work. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 23:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The question as specifically addressed is, Are the 171 "true name" ID's in Haynes & Klehr's Appendix A "spies" who had "covert relationships" with Soviet intelligence. Haynes & Klehr's language & sourcing on the subject is clear. Also, Haynes & Klehr's citation to the NSA is supported by other secondary researchers, and all are based upon NSA documents. The challenge is to the broader group of all ID'd code names, and names sent in the clear, by those unwilling to accept the various published sources who examined the entire record of the NSA/FBI joint investigation. Those who challenge have a big problem, they (1) have not studied the documents; and (2) can not cite published sources who have challenged the same readings of Haynes and Klehr, Romerstein and Breindel, Nigel West, or Eduard Mark. Nor Sen. Moynihan's somewhat more limited view. Nor Weinstein and Vassiliev's corroboration from KGB archives.

In other words, Haynes & Klehr's presentation is a qualified list based upon the NSA/FBI files of the investigation. It is prequalified as to the intent derived from various actors, based upon the context whatever name or codename appears.

This is the complete unqualified list of names, code names, etc. ; some names, for example Franklin Delano Roosevelt, have code names. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the NSA moreless established, was neither a witting or unwitting "agent", "source", "mole", or whatever of the KGB. Yet his name has a code name (KAPITAN). It is these minute details, basically arguing what is "is", that is the challenge. And it should be noted, only Arthur Navasky challenges the qualified list (Appendix A). nobs 00:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Victor Navasky, author of a major study on the Red Scare, has challenged the Haynes & Klehr list and the wording they use to describe it. Others have challenged the reliance on Venona in general. Nothing in secondary work is "prequalified" by primary documents. The primary Venona documents represent the conclusions of NSA and FBI analysts as to the identity of persons linked to code names, and other matters. In many, many cases, the text of the documents are ambiguous or incomplete, and it is frequently unclear if the person claimed to be linked to a code name is aware that they are being used as an information source by the Soviets, much less deserving of being called a spy. In some cases Haynes & Klehr, in their text, assert that someone was a spy. Then we should attribute that assertion to Haynes & Klehr or some other source. When a person has been indicted, convicted, or they have confessed, this should be stated in the text. Likewise, if they denied the claim, this should be stated in the text.

The material from the KGB archives is also subject to interpretation, and it is often unclear if the person named is aware that they are being used as an information source by the Soviets, much less deserving of being called a spy.

It does not matter what books or documents I have read. What matters is what published secondary sources are cited to document each sentence placed into the Wiki entry. Most of the people who have studied these primary documents had the intention of proving that the Soviet Union had a huge spy apparatus in the U.S., and to refute claims that there had been excesses that violated civil liberties in the late 1940s and 1950s. There is no doubt that several government agencies and many scholars support this new research. Clearly the revelations have (and should) force historians to re-evaluate their assumptions. But we still need to choose our words carefully, and recognize that there are still a number of scholars who urge more skepticism and caution, and who argue that the analysis of Haynes & Klehr and their allies is highly biased and makes assumptions that are not supported by the primary documents.--Cberlet 13:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

OK. Very good. You have isolated several issues that need discussion, some I agree with some that warrant further examination.

"The primary Venona documents represent the conclusions of NSA and FBI analysts as to the identity of persons linked to code names, and other matters.

If I am reading you correct here, this endorses my #1 goal of "maintaining the integrity of primary source documents". If we can agree on this definition it would be helpful. nobs 17:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I never have been able to make sense of this issue. I have read the page you point to. I apparently do not read it the way you do.--Cberlet 17:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Digression: Without getting into an arguement on procedural method, I maintain the primary source valid historical documents are by definition themselves NPOV; it is simply a matter of reflecting or elucidating what they say in a Misplaced Pages historical narrative. nobs 18:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think this is just wrong. Bad historical methodology. It is as if you are claiming that we should not consider the ideological and political and social and cultural and geographic biases of persons writing primary documents. Thus, since Mein Kampf is a primary document by Hitler, it is NPOV. Nonsense.--Cberlet 19:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Further the digression using examples: If a secondary source wrote that Mein Kampf said something other than what it said, that would be imposing a POV and violating the integrity of a valid primary source historical document. Actually, we've even seen such an example right here in Misplaced Pages, citing Margaret Chase Smith's Declaration of Conscience . nobs 20:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"In many, many cases, the text of the documents are ambiguous or incomplete, and it is frequently unclear if the person claimed to be linked to a code name is aware that they are being used.

This is a valid point. The 171 true name identifications in Haynes & Klehr's Appendix A, and the 178 unidentified code names, are qualified by the NSA/FBI analyst's, based upon a reading in context, of having a "covert relationship" with Soviet intelligence. This is by definition knowingly, and thus even prosecutable given other factors (corroboration, statute of limitations, etc). The "unknowing", or "unwitting" sources, are not qualified in Appendix A. Some may have been assigned code names, sometimes the fragments of the original text cannot support a claim of a "covert relationship". Thus they are not identified in Appendix A, and in a few cases (24 to be exact), evidence exists of contact to which the subject was aware he was dealing with Soviet intelligence, either directly with a Soviet Case Officer, or a CPUSA cut out (I. F. Stone & J. Robert Oppenheimer being the two most high profile), however based upon the context recovered from decrypts (and further FBI investigation), the cases remain unclear and have been stated as such by both NSA/FBI and secondary sources. nobs 17:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe this is accurate. The NSA/FBI analysts are making assumptions. Their claims should be identified as investigative claims. There have not been proven. Haynes & Klehr make additional claims and assumptions, they should be identified as such. They have not been proven.--Cberlet 17:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

All true. By parallel example neither John Wilkes Booth, not Lee Harvey Oswald were ever tried or convicted in a court of law. This is the example that should be followed in historical narrative. nobs 18:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Not good analogies. What I am saying is that the NSA/FBI identifications were investigative assumptions that were not, in fact, corroborated for the most part. They remain investigative assumptions. The fact that they appear in released primary documents from intelligence files not originally meant for public viewing should increase skepticism regarding the claims.--Cberlet 19:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, this is a larger issue that we should expand upon in a new subhead. nobs 20:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

What needs to be made clear is, the idea that a person was named, either in the clear or with a decyphered code name, does not implicate complicity. Only the 171 true name ID's, and the 178 unidentified code name's, were conclusions made by the NSA based upon analysis of context, sometimes including corroboration by FBI field investigations.

"When a person has been indicted, convicted, or they have confessed, this should be stated

This I agree and I assume refers to specific bio-pages. It infact only applies to a handful of the 171 true name ID's with covert relationships. It should be noted, there actually remains classified information from some who cooperated with FBI investigators, and there are even some actual identified names which were redacted in the 1995-98 release (Margarita, for example). nobs 17:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

So we use what is on the public record and what has been claimed by secondary sources.--Cberlet 17:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

We agree, keeping in mind the 1995-98 Venona release is not complete. nobs 18:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, we do not agree that 171 names are necessarily accurately linked to code names, nor that they are conclusively shown to be witting agents or informants for Soviet espionage.--Cberlet 19:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

OK then; you expose yourself to unsourced WP:NOR claims stated as such. Who, other than Navasky, can you cite specifically to the 171 (Haynes & Klehr Appendix A)? As per Navasky, I'd prefer not to do a hit job on him in discussion & agree to negotiate NPOV language to represent him in articles. nobs 20:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"we still need to choose our words carefully"

I agree 100%. We must keep in mind, based on the large number of identified true names, the language can become redundant very rapidly in 171 separate bio-articles. It is a fine line between ambiguity, clarity, and maintaining the integrity of the primary source. And each separate case needs to be handled justly. nobs 17:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed.--Cberlet 17:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Most of the people who have studied these primary documents had the intention of proving that the Soviet Union had a huge spy apparatus

This is little more than an original research claim by User:Cberlet, and needs secondary source qualification to support it. nobs 17:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It's my opinion. I am not suggesting it go into the text. I think the evidence is overwhelming to support my opinion, however. Romerstein, especially is a POV warrior for the political right.--Cberlet 17:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Without discecting too much, I might point out I myself am somewhat at variance with John Earl Haynes in that personally I think the term "spy" carries too much of a Hollywood fictional connotation to it. And I suspect this can only be clarified or corrected in the various espionage related articles dealing with tradecraft, sources and methods, etc. Also, I have not used Romerstein as a source too much simply because I do not like the title to his book; as George Blake said, "How can you betray what you never were part of." nobs 18:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Cute line...--Cberlet 19:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Victor Navasky (my apologies)

As to Navasky, I respect him and welcome his knowledge and input. Though he may be viewed as somewhat of a partisan, he certainly can speak for himself, and wiki readers decide for themselves. I will just keep a watchful eye as to whether his balance is being exagerated or distorted. nobs 17:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

How come your sources are NPOV and my sources are POV? Baloney. :-) --Cberlet 17:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, I view the integrity of the Venona trascripts as NPOV (flaws and all). The primary source Moynihan Commission Report should put this to rest:

"The first fact is that a significant Communist conspiracy was in place in Washington, New York, and Los Angeles nobs 18:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

That's the opinion of the Moynihan Commission. It should be cited as such. (I actually do not dispute this quote). I am only seeking the proper balance.--Cberlet 19:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

What I find extremely interesting is Moynihan's Secrecy should be used to balance the collective Commission report; in Secrecy, Moynihan says,

"The first fact is that a significant Communist constituency was in place in Washington, New York, and Los Angeles
nobs 20:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"careful consideration"

Cberlet said,

"NSA/FBI identifications were investigative assumptions that were not, in fact, corroborated for the most part. They remain investigative assumptions. The fact that they appear in released primary documents from intelligence files not originally meant for public viewing should increase skepticism regarding the claims.

nobs responded,

We're not gonna undo the FOIA Act. We're not gonna undo the statutory authority of the Moynihan Secrecy Commission to subpoena the documents or write a report. All we have is the primary source materials to work with. I disagree with the assertion, or assumption that "NSA/FBI identifications" were "not corroborated for the most part", and would request sourcing for such a claim. (Also, I would ask that you narrow this claim specifically to "identifications" of the 171 cited above, not the broad base that includes FDR, et al, which only confuses others following this discussion).

True, they remain investigative assumptions (some might say "conclusions" or "findings"), as the Warren Commission Report remains an investigative assumption.

Cberlet says, "The fact that they appear in released primary documents from intelligence files not originally meant for public viewing should increase skepticism regarding the claims", touches on the very heart of the subject of the Moynihan Commission Report; all we can go on is the primary sources themselves VENONA Historical Monograph #4, from the National Security Agency, Venona Archives,

The release of VENONA translations involved careful consideration of the privacy interests of individuals mentioned, referenced, or identified in the translations. Some names have not been released when to do so would constitute an invasion of privacy.

Unless you wish to assert that a law was broken, or can present evidence of such, I would make the motion we proceed. Thank you. nobs 20:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course not, but the text you quote is a secondary source! It is the explanatory text written about the Venona documents which are linked. You keep confusing primary and secondary sources, and what the "government" has concluded, versus what certain agencies of the government and employees of those agencies have suspected or conculuded.--Cberlet 22:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Good job to both of you; substantial progress has been made! I'm just going to step in here briefly and add (clarify?) a point. It's not fair to assume that all primary documents are NPOV, nor is it fair to assume that all secondary documents are POV. It's also not fair to assume that primary documents are POV, or that secondary documents are NPOV. In other words, I don't believe a generalization or blanket statement can be made regarding primary and secondary documents; each document must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Also, just because something is NPOV doesn't mean that it is right or is the view widely accepted; if something is disputed, there will arguments for it on both sides. I hope that clears up some of the issues here; I hope you continue with the productive discussion. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 23:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Digression on method (cont)

Continuing the digression on neutrality: When I say "maintaining the integrity of primary source documents", I simply mean the reading should be neutral. The document should be allowed to speak for itself, and not become clouded or discolored by those handling it (even if a primary source document says offensive things, like "Satan is God", or "your mother has sex with donkeys"; while we may find this offensive, and even consider shielding it from children's eyes, it would be highly improper to represent it as something other than what it is). Hence a neutral, or impartial reading. nobs 01:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that the suppositions and conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community and its allies are neutral? An impartial reading of U.S. intelligence community analysis over the last 100 years would lead an impartial analyst to conclude that they are paranoid incompetent fanatics. That would be the weight of secondary writing by scholars. --Cberlet 03:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that's related to our differences in training; I approach whatever document as a listener, without any preconcieved notions or prejudices, trying to hear the voices. It doesn't matter if the document is an FBI file, the Bible, or a Greek Tragedy. I am an expert at breathing life into the dead script of a piece of paper. That's one reason I was asked to examine Venona documents. nobs 03:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no interest in censoring or misrepresenting primrary documents, no matter how offensive or factually flawed I may think they are. I have an intense interest in reporting the text accurately. The Venona documents contain both the unaltered text from the decrypts, as well as analytical assumptions made by investigators. In neither case should these be presented as "facts." They should be properly attributed as to source, and the context provided. Therefore it is improper to state "Harry Dexter White" was a Soviet spy." It is proper to state that "based on their investigatory assumptions about the real identity of persons refered to in code, NSA and FBI analysts suspected that Harry Dexter White was an information source for Soviet espionage, and sought to determine if he was a witting agent."--Cberlet 12:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

(Move indent) Here's the problem with that: The primary source document, after a recitation of the investigatory evidence, uses the phrase "establishes conclusively the identity of White as Jurist". To challenge the integrity of the primary source document, a properly qualified secondary source needs more evidence then the fact (or rumour) that the author of the document was a drag queen; the evidence presented that lead to the "conclusion", needs to refute that,

1. during April, 1944, he had reported on conversations between the then Secretary of State Hull and Vice President Wallace.
2. reported on Wallace's proposed trip to China.
3. On August 5, 1944, he reported to the Soviets that he was confident of President Roosevelt's victory in the coming elections unless there was a huge military failure.
4. reported that Truman's nomination as Vice President was calculated to secure the vote of the conservative wing of the Democratic Party.
5. It was also reported that Jurist was willing for any self-sacrifice in behalf of the MGB but was afraid that his activities, if exposed, might lead to a political scandal and have an effect on the elections.
6. indicates that Jurist and Morgenthau were to make a trip to London and Normandy and leaving the United States on August 5, 1944.
7. Venona decrypt also mentioned that he would be returning to Washington, D. C., on August 17, 1944.
8. Morgenthau and White left the United States on a confidential trip to the Normandy beachhead on August 5, 1944, and
9. they returned to the United States on August 17, 1944.

Other testimony is available as well. nobs 19:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm going to continue with the above text example. Was White a spy? From what I've been reading, both of you seem to agree that 1)the FBI and US government believed he was at the time and 2) the fact has been disputed later in secondary documents. Is this correct? Let me know if I'm missing something. If that is correct, then something to the lines of White was believed to be a spy for the Soviet by the FBI, because of <reasons>; however, later historians dispute this, claiming that he was not a spy because <reasons>. could be written. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 22:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

What does this document say? -->1119–1121 KGB New York to Moscow, 4–5 August 1944, p.3

excerpted:

"there will be achieved a compromise to exclude from the Polish Government the most hostile elements"

"As regards the Baltic Countries, the COUNTRY thinks that we seized them, but the restoration of the pre-war situation will not arouse any protest in the COUNTRY.

"On the technique of control over Germany while reparations are bring paid there is for the time being no definite opinion. JURIST thinks that a definite amount of repartations should be set in marks and this amount should be subsequently reviewed and reduced if Germany fulfills her obligations; if not, Germany should be reoccupied.

"The trade policy of the COUNTRY which will be put into effect by means of bilateral agreements with individual states covering 2-3 years. There will be no one set of conditions or removal of tariff barriers.

"Loans. In this sphere the only concrete thing that is being done is preparation of a credit for us of 10 milliards

...... . The credit will be repaid by the export of our raw material to the COUNTRY be caused by NABOB's (Morgenthau) not being able to get conversations on this business with CAPTAIN (Roosevelt).p.2

Pretty substantive foreign policy stuff. It doesn't matter if JURIST was Harry Dexter White or the Scarecrow in the Wizard of OZ; the primary source tells us that the USSR recieved important classified policy discussions from a source they considered properly sourced and qualified, and they acted upon it. This is what the Significance of Venona is about, not those with a POV to refute the published version of the United States Government, challenging the integrity of valid historical documents, or make the issue of identifying spies the big issue. And I invite you to visit Western betrayal, after reading some of the above, and discuss this with our Polish friends here in Misplaced Pages. NPOV would demand that you pay attention to these dull foreign policy issues.

As to Harry White, Moynihan Secrecy Commission says he did it, just as the Warren Commission says Oswald acted alone. So if you wanna raise this issue, get some published sources challenging the Moynihan Secrecy Commission (which neither Gerald Ford or Allen Dulles served on). This is the proper scholarly and encyclopedic standard, not the unsourced conspiracy theories your original research trashes the FBI with; cause the Secrecy Commission endorses the integrity of the documents. nobs 04:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Monographs

Why are Venona Monographs valid primary source materials?

• They are represented as such alongside Venona documents by the National Security Agency
• Monograph 1 states, "Introductory History of VENONA and Guide to the Translations"
• Monograph 2 states, "This second release, and subsequent releases of the remaining approximately 1800 VENONA translations, will not be thematic, but, rather, will be arranged chronologically by communications link. This monograph provides an overview of the content of the messages between the New York KGB Residency and Moscow Center, 1942-1943, which are the object of this second release."
• Monograph 3 states, "This monograph accompanies the third set of VENONA translations being released"
• Monograph 4 states, "This monograph accompanies the fourth set of VENONA translations being released"
• Monograph 5 states, "This monograph accompanies the fifth set of VENONA translations being released"

• NSA/CIA joint release of Venona Collection , another important primary source of Venona related materials states, "release of the Venona translations in 1995 and 1996 was accompanied by an original explanatory monograph authored by Robert Louis Benson"
• It is the primary source that introduces the hitherto unknown joint NSA/FBI investigation.
• It is the primary source that introduces Meredith Gardner and other important personages; primary source on method and background.
• qualified authorship; Robert L. Benson, Office of Security, National Security Agency; Michael Warner, Deputy Chief of the CIA History Staff.
• Issueing Agency.
• Timing of issue (or release).
• Referred to as such by orther important foundational primary sources, the Moynihan Report and Moynihan Secrecy book, and numerous qualified secondary sources.
• It is the primary source for the Misplaced Pages Venona project article, for which the Significance of Venona is a spinoff article.
• Other factors.

nobs 03:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

1. LANL
2. LANL
3. LANL
4. Schrecker
5. OSS