Talk:Harry Magdoff/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Harry Magdoff. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Evidence/prosecution

It would seem the point requires particular emphasis that evidence was not forthcoming for a lack of prosecution rather than the other way around. --TJive 20:37, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Why no prosecution is stated here Belmont to Boardman, sec. IV. Prosecution, B. Disadvantages,

"...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 ... neither the person who sent the message (Soviet official) nor the person who received it (Soviet official) was available to testify...it would be necessary to rely upon their admission through the use of expert testimony of those who intercepted the messages and those cryptographers who deciphered the messages. A question of law is involved herein. It is believed that the messages probably could be introduced in evidence on the basis of an exception to the hearsay evidence rule

"... the defense probably would be granted authority by the court to have private cryptographers hired by the defense examine the messages as well as the work sheets of the Government cryptographers. ... This would lead to the exposure of Government techniques and practices in the cryptography field to unauthorized persons and thus compromise the Government's efforts

The Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy reports the same conclusion. nobs 21:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Golos made contact with the Perlo group in November 1943 (Haynes & Klehr, chap. 5); Golos died the same month, November 27 1943. Bentley was put in charge of all Golos contacts then by Earl Browder; five days after Golos death Bentley met with a contact who put her in contact with Golos old Soviet contact. The Soviet's were immediately concerned about having a flaky Vassar girl in control of such a vital element. But the Soviet's had other problems too, the War, the disbanding of the Comintern created much confussion. Bentley had her first meeting with the Perlo group at the end of Feb or early Mar 1944, as referenced in detail in Magdoff article. I can show other Venona decrypts, how the Soviets wanted to take control of the Bentley's operations, but were prevented by Browder. But by the end of 1944, they did just that, they pushed her out of the way and took control. She knew roughly 42 or 47 members by personal contact, dating back to 1938; other members she only knew through cut outs, like Harry Dexter White or William Henry Taylor. That is a big reason for her defection, having been removed from control, she knew she knew too much, and her life was in danger, seeing she was of no more use to the Soviets. And it was the FBI that pumped her for every scrape of information possible, including names of people she was recieving information from through cut outs. So it is the FBI that can rightly be criticized, for having to rely on second hand information from Bentley, cause they couldn't do their own job right (IMHO, criticism of Bentley is unfair in this regard, and should be placed on the FBI). The Gorsky Report is available at two places on line George Mason University History News Network and John Earl Haynes site [1]. you will see they are virtually identical, and list Harry Magdoff as a member of the Sound & Myrna groups (Golos & Bentley groups). nobs 02:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I should also add that Elizabeth Bentley lost a libel suit against one of the people she accused, William Remington Ruy Lopez 16:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that would be an excellent fact to mention in her article. Noel (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the endorsement, User:Nobs01 keeps removing it. Ruy Lopez 06:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

It turns out that the description above (lost a libel suit) is completely incorrect (and I don't want to leave this incorrect assertion in the record). Her co-defendant's insurer decided to settle the suit because it would be cheaper to settle than to take it to trial, which doesn't say anything about who was in the right. As to that issue, I'll note that Remington was later convicted of perjury and jailed, for lying about exactly the point on which he sued her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnc (talk • contribs) 15:34, 31 August 2005

Misrepresentation of underlying documents

I have discovered shocking evidence that the claims on this page have misrepresented the underlying documentation cited.

According to an FBI memo dated May 15, 1950, Harry Magdoff was listed as one of a group of "individuals positively or tentatively identified" as part of a KGB set of assets, with the names agreeing with information "furnished me by Elizabeth Bentley."

But in a memo February 1, 1956 discussing in detail the problem of actually properly identifying people in the Venona material when cover names are used, there is a specific reference to the cover name "Magdoff-Kant" followed by the parenthetical phrase "(probably Harry Magdoff)"

So this identification of Harry Magdoff "tentively" and "probably" has been promoted into an actual positive identification. This assumption is periodically made throughout various government intelligence documents, but in the memo wrapping up the investigation and prosectuion based on this information (in which Magdoff was never indicted) the summary concludes that the identification of Harry Magdoff is still uncertain.--Cberlet 13:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The 1 February 1956 memo Belmont to Boardman (1) discusses in detail the problems of prosecution based on Venona material (not "actually identifying people", as misrepresented above); (2) the Belmont to Boardman memo refers to "Magdoff-Kant" as "probably Magdoff"; in the next paragraph it refers to "Kant" as "Magdoff" [2] (I know it's an old cliche to argue what "is" is, but "Magdoff-Kant" is a different spelling from "Kant"), as the memo reads, identification of "Kant" is postive as "Magdoff", and the identification of "Magdoff-Kant" is probable as "Magdoff". And the discussion following those two references sites this as corroboration of Elizabeth Bentley's depositition. nobs 15:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Preposterous.--Cberlet 16:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Please do not move my comments around. There is an ongoing vote regarding this page Please respect the democratic process.--Cberlet 16:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Boardman to Belmont

Text IV. PROSECUTION [3]:

"...It is also evident that a public disclosure of [xxxx](S) information would corroborate Elizabeth Bentley."

The Perlo group fits into the [xxxx](S) information when we examine the following message of 5/13/44:

"Mayor" (unidentified) in NYC personally prepared a report to MGB headquarters in Moscow advising that some unspecified action had been taken regarding "Good Girl" (Bentley) in accordance with instructions of "Helmsman" (Earl Browder). "Mayor" then made reference to winter and also to "Magdoff-'Kant' "(Probably Harry Magdoff). This latter reference was then followed by a statement that in "Good Girl's" opinion "they" are reliable. It was also mentioned that no one had interested himself in their possibilities.

The name "Storm" (unidentified) was mentioned and it was then reported that "Raider" (Victor Perlo), "Plumb" (Charles Kramer), "Ted" (Edward Fitzgerald) and "Kant" (Harry Magdoff) would take turns coming to NY every two weeks. "Mayor" said "Plumb" and "Ted" knew "Pal" (Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, whose cover name was later changed to "Robert").

With reference to the foregoing, it is to be recalled that Elizabeth Bentley advised that Jacob Golos informed her he had made contact with a group in Washington, D.C. through Earl Browder. After the death of Golos in 1943, two meetings were arranged with this group in 1944. The first meeting was arranged by Browder and is believed to have been held on 2/27/44. The meetings were held in the apartment of John Abt in NYC and Bentley was introduced to four individuals identified as Victor Perlo, Charles Kramer, Harry Magdoff and Edward Fitzgerald.

nobs 16:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The information provided by Elizabeth Bentley was considered so weak and questionable that even Hoover resisted attempts to use it in prosecutions of the alleged "spy ring." I do not dispute that from the perspective of the KGB they were in touch with people they considered to be sympathisers. At issue is what has been published regarding an analysis of the situation. There are two opposing camps looking at the same historic record and reaching different conclusions. The text about Harry Magdoff has been a highly POV one-sided rendition of the published material (plus original research) featuring government agents and militant anti-communists.--Cberlet 16:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It seems you have yet to read entire Belmont to Boardman 1 February 1956 memo (about 14 pages); that is absolutely necessary to gain any foundational grasp of the significance of Venona project materials. You will note, in Section II. WHO HAS KNOWLEDGE OF VENONA PROJECT INFORMATION?, J. Edgar Hoover did not have knowledge, so any reference to Hoover is insignificant. I appreciate very much your reading the two paragraphs on the Boardman memo that mentioned Magdoff's name, however the 57 year old arguements directed at Elizabeth Bentley's credibility will not stand up in light of a reading of the "historical record", as you so state. nobs 16:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Bentley: Stephen J. Spingarn, Attorney, U.S. Treasury Dept., 1934-41; Asst. to the Attorney General of the United States, 1937-38; Special Asst. to the Gen. Counsel, Treasury Dept., 1941-42; Asst. Gen. Counsel, Treasury Dept., 1946-49; Alternate Member, President's Temp. Comm. on Employee Loyalty, 1946-47; Asst. to the Special Counsel of the President, 1949-50; Administrative Asst. to the President, 1950 said of Bentley:

"I have no doubt that the main thrust of what Elizabeth Bentley says was correct—I mean I believe it—but on any given peripheral individual whom she didn't know but only heard about I would certainly want a lot more information";

(From the Truman Presidential Library Oral History Interview with Stephen J. Spingarn

Spingarn is questioning only persons Bentley did not meet; as the materials corroborated above demonstrate, Bentley met Magdoff face-to-face in clandestine meetings. nobs 17:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Point of clarification: I misspoke a moment ago in saying J. Edgar had no knowledge; this is incorrect. With reference to Cberlet claim "The information provided by Elizabeth Bentley was considered so weak and questionable that even Hoover resisted attempts to use it in prosecutions", that was indeed the position of the FBI and its Director, as again the Belmont to Boardman, sec. IV. Prosecution demonstrates. Bentley's testimony needed corroboration; the memo discusses the legal aspects of defendants rights, how a defense attorney would move to dispense Venona transcripts as "hearsay", how the cryptographers would then have to be called as expert witnessess, and thus compromise the program. The twist Cberlet puts on the decision not to prosecute is that Bentley's credibitly was in question; the Boardman memo is the actual source (weather Cberlet understands or not) of the FBI's decision not to prosecute (not J. Edgar, as Cberlet alleges), considering the information "weak". It was fear of compromising the Venona project why Magdoff was not prosecuted. And the Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy Report will likewise support this conclusion. nobs 17:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet said: The text about Harry Magdoff has been a highly POV one-sided rendition of the published material (plus original research)

Please elaborate on how the material is either POV or original research. --TJive 19:51, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

1). There are published sources that claim Magdoff was an agent of the KGB. Cite them here. It is not acceptable to have Wiki editors doing original research based on their reading of the Vanona documents. 2). Different people read the Vanona and other documents with a different perspective. It is clear that the KGB thought of Magdoff as a source of information. What is not clear is if there is sufficient evidence to say outright that Magdoff was a witting agent of the KGB. Most of the material on the page is actually original research based on a POV reading of the documents. A more skeptical reading produces a different perspective.--Cberlet 22:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet plenty of sources were provided (rather specifically) before you even moved the article. --TJive 01:05, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Published sources

Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive, A Counterintelligence Reader, vol. 3, chap. 1, p. 31. (Official History of Counterintelligence Operations in the United States)
Archives of the National Security Agency (custodian of documents for the Army Signals Intelligence Agency)
Alexandre Feklisov, The Man Behind the Rosenbergs: Memoirs of the KGB Spymaster Who Also Controlled Klaus Fuchs and Helped Resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis (New York: Enigma, 2001). ISBN 1929631081
Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999). ISBN 0300077718
Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, and Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov, The Secret World of American Communism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995); p. 312 (Document 90) reproduces a copy of the September 29, 1944 Fitin to Dimitrov memo (RTsKhIDNI 495-74-485). ISBN 0300068557
Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, and Kyrill Anderson, The Soviet World of American Communism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998). ISBN 0300071507
Herbert Romerstein, The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America's Traitors (Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2000). ISBN 0895262754
Herbert Romerstein, Stanislav Levchenko, The KGB Against the "Main Enemy": How the Soviet Intelligence Service Operates Against the United States (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1989). ISBN 0669112283
Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev, The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America—the Stalin Era (New York: Random House, 1999). ISBN 0788164228
Nigel West, Venona: The Greatest Secret of the Cold War (London: HarperCollins, 1999). ISBN 0006530710
Elizabeth Bentley, Out of Bondage: The Story of Elizabeth Bentley, New York: Ivy Books, 1988. ISBN 0804101647
Vladimir Pozniakov, A NKVD/NKGB Report to Stalin: A Glimpse into Soviet Intelligence in the United States in the 1940's

The above list contains no FBI files, which are available if needed.

Wow three Klehr/Haynes books, great.

Then we have that scholarly work with the scholarly title "The Venona Secrets: Exposing Soviet Espionage and America's Traitors". Let's look at the blurb from its inside flap - "New information that links Albert Einstein to Soviet intelligence and conclusive evidence showing that J. Robert Oppenheimer gave Moscow our atomic secrets". Hey, how come you haven't added Einstein and Oppenheimer to your list of Soviet stooges along with Stone and Magdoff? This is published by Regnery, a publisher which actually loses money every year, but is kept afloat by well-heeled conservative foundations so as to "get the message out". Here's some more scholarly works put out by this publisher last year:

Reckless Disregard: How Liberal Democrats Undercut Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our Security.
Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left.
In Defense of Internment: The Case for "Racial Profiling" in World War II and the War on Terror.
Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry

Thanks for showing what your "scholarly" sources are. Ruy Lopez 01:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, as a matter of fact Oppie is mentioned in the Venona transcripts, and listed in Haynes & Klehr's Appendix D as being uncorroborated; on my timetable, I guesstimate sometime in the next two years I will be able to fully deal with that subject, once having completed the New York & Washington Rezidenturas. Then I will have time to deal exclusively with the KGB San Fransisco decrypts. Meantime, others are working on that. Oppie fits in with Isaac Folkoff. Also, as the evidence is uncovered there, the Rosenberg saga will probably have to be rewritten. Yes, they indeed were patsies and scapegoats and willingly went to the chair to coverup higher ups. Also, the 1953 Testimony of Paul Crouch released in 2003 before the PSI names Oppenhiemer pointedly as a member of the CPUSA. So if you feel the necessity to include Oppie's name on the list, by all means do so, just place an (*) after it to signify the source. As to Einstein, I know only vague references to that, but have heard a quote to the effect he regretted ever coming to America. I'm not sure what it's significance is. nobs 01:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Einstein was associated with several communist front groups but has never been shown to be involved in espionage. Are strawmen and ad hominems all you ever carry? --TJive 01:48, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I do not recall citing that book in the article. It is merely mentioned for being a VENONA reference. --TJive 01:50, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

There is an active discussion going on at Talk:Robert_Oppenheimer#CPUSA. Letter from Boris Merkulov to Lavrenty Beria is of interest. nobs 01:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Note: Extraneous reference material inserted as a response to User:Ruy Lopez from Marquette University Libraries, Department of Special Collections and University Archives, FBI, "Series 6, Albert Einstein [4], who hold the FBI documents, quote from the introduciton:

"Physicist Albert Einstein was investigated by the FBI because of his affiliation with the Communist Party. Einstein was a member, sponsor, or affiliated with thirty-four Communist groups, and served as honorary chairmen of three Communist organizations." (belated signature from 28 July 2005 discussion) nobs 20:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Now, simply find the specific references to Harry Magdoff in the published material cited above, find a quote about Magdoff, cite it, and plunk it into the text to replace the material that gives the appaearance of being original document research.--Cberlet 12:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The only reference to Magdoff in "Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive, A Counterintelligence Reader, vol. 3, chap. 1, p. 31. (Official History of Counterintelligence Operations in the United States)" is a section listing the allegations of Elizabeth Bentley, so to claim that the U.S. government identified Magdoff as a spy by citing this document is a misrepresentation of the underlying document.--Cberlet 16:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It is clear that many of the citations other than those traceable to Bentley do not support the claims that Magdoff was a witting intelligence agent for the KGB. See the notes I have added to the text. Unless there are cites provided to published sources--with quotes and page #s please--that claim that Magdoff was a witting KGB agent, the entire Venona section is original research of primary documents, and therefore should be deleted and replaced with a sentence that accurately reflects the published claims about Magdoff and the KGB.--Cberlet 20:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the challenge to Elizabeth Bentley's credibility,A Counterintelligence Reader, vol. 2, chap. 4:

"The VENONA decrypts were, however, to show the accuracy of Chambers' and Bentley's disclosures."

"Elizabeth Bentley was a controversial figure, and there were many who discounted her information. Ms. Bentley appears in the VENONA translations (covernames UMNITSA, GOOD GIRL, and MYRNA) as do dozens of KGB agents and officers whom she named to the FBI. VENONA confirms much of the information about Soviet espionage that Ms. Bentley provided the FBI."

nobs 18:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Right, Bentley was controversial, and one U.S. spy agency report is quoted as saying "VENONA confirms much of the information about Soviet espionage that Ms. Bentley provided the FBI." Fine. We will report published quotes regarding both sides of that issue. Not a problem. Now what does this have to do with Harry Magdoff? "MUCH" information is not good enough. "Show the accuracy" is not good enough. Clearly there were KGB officers, operatives, and agents active in the U.S. during this period. More than many people on the left care to admit. Fine. Now there is more evidence. Agreed. Venona was a significant addition to the historic record. Agreed.

Where are there actual published quotes claiming Harry Magdoff was a spy? We know Bentley thought he was. We know people say he was close to the CPUSA. We know that the KGB wanted information about him from the Venona material, but that is (so far) original research. Your interpretation of how the Venona material--in your analysis--shows a connection to Harry Magdoff is fascinating. You should put up a website making your assertions. But none of that matters here. Where are the quotes from published material claiming Harry Magdoff was a KGB agent or witting information source for the KGB?--Cberlet 20:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I would be happy to respond, but truthfully it would be redundant of the material presented on this Talk page, and in the article. nobs 00:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Challenges

The original challenge to the insertion of Venona materials was essentially this,

"Does Truth exist?", and then

"If so, can we really know it?"

Those editors have since bowed out after a cursory review of
the Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy Report.
The challenge now essentially is this,

"This generation is too stupid to make judgements about the sins of a previous generation."

argueing essentially, among the mish-mash of lies and contradictions,
a 38 year investigation into the facts, held secret for an additional 15 years,
is somehow ambiguous and open to interpretation.
One can presume the next arguement will be,

Who are we to judge?, seeing that we are to stupid to know truth."

nobs 19:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet's original research

Cberlet, you are here yourself engaging in original research and yet you claim it is the work of others that violates this policy. For example:

Several historians and researchers claim that Harry Magdoff was among a number of Soviet intelligence sources within the U.S. government, but whether or not Magdoff was aware he was being used as an information source by the KGB is hotly contested and has never been proven.

Who says this is even an issue? Who has "contested" whether or not he witting? Besides Wiki editors?

document that from the KGB perspecitve, a number of persons were seen as information sources by the Soviet spy agency.

This is almost laughably pedantic. Who claims that Magdoff was not an information source?

Note: this includes a discussion of the difficulty of establishing that Harry Magdoff is the person being discussed in the Venona intercepts.

You are attempting to qualify an information source based on your own interpretation of it. Incidentally, the author of the single equivocation ("probably") pertaining to Magdoff is unclear, it is not repeated, and the memo goes on to say that this corroborates Elizabeth Bentley and that prosecution is undesirable because of the compromises involved in using the information.

Note: only ID of Harry Magdoff is that Elizabeth Bentley ID's him as member of "Perlo" group.

I like how in nearly every given reference you keep repeating "only"; "only" in fifteen separate instances is there a reference which describes Magdoff's involvement.

Note: No direct ID of Harry Magdoff as information source - only request for more information about him.

"No direct ID". Does every single reference require that, "Harry Magdoff provided us with XXXX information on YYYY date" or else you are going to qualify it as not meeting an arbitrary standard of yours in and of itself? The memo establishes a response in Moscow to information sent from New York where information is requested about members to complete their recruitment. "Magdoff, works on the WPB" is listed plain as day. Magdoff worked on the production board, and he was listed in very similar references from the earlier NY-Moscow cables.

"MAGDOFF - "KANT" [v]. GOOD GIRL's impressions: They are reliable FELLOWCOUNTRYMEN [ZEMLYaKI] [vi], politically highly mature; they want to help with information. They said that they had been neglected and no oone had taken any interest in their potentialities" Note: ID of "MAGDOFF - "KANT" is in context of discussing TWO people, not one person with the cover name "KANT." They are discussed as possible information sources by KGB agent. Not evident that they are aware that person is KGB agent. Note identifying "KANT" as Harry Magdoff is not in original transmission, and contradicts the text of the transmission.

These are completely the speculations of yourself and have no place in this article. I have no idea where your "two people" idea came from. As you should have noticed in the text there are "53 groups unrecoverable"; names of other people in this cable were not decrypted, and Magdoff comes at the end of the list. This singular identity is corroborated as far as other VENONA cables where the same "KANT" is mentioned as being on the WPB, and Magdoff is mentioned elsewhere. Also, the text is already cited.

Note: No direct mentions of Harry Magdoff in original communications

There is no single reference in these to "Harry Magdoff" no, but this doesn't matter.

Appendix A

Here is the fully qualified text from Haynes & Klehr Appendix A, pg. 339 - 340; it was paraphrased on the Venona project page so as not to be copyvio.

APPENDIX A

Source Venona: Americans and U.S. Residents

Who Had Covert Relationships with Soviet

Intelligence Agencies
This annotated list of 349 names includes U.S. citizens, noncitizen immigrants, and permanent residents of the United States who had a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence that is confirmed in the Venona traffic. It does not include Soviet intelligence officers operating legally under diplomatic cover but does show four Soviet intelligence officers operating illegally and posing as immigrants.
Of these 349 persons, 171 are identified by true names and 178 are known only by a cover name found in the Venona cables. A great many cover names were never identified. Many of these, however, are not listed here because the context indicates that the cover names refer to Soviet personnel operating under legal cover or because no judgment about the status of the person behind the cover name is possible. Only unidentified cover names that probably refer to Americans are included here.
Because cover names were changed from time to time, it is possible that a few of the unidentified cover names refer to persons known by another cover name or to persons named in the clear in another message. Some of the persons behind these unidentified cover names are very likely to be identified in appendix B as Americans who had a compromising relationship with Soviet intelligence but are not known to be documented in the Venona decryptions.
The persons identified in appendixes A and B represent only a partial listing of the total number of Americans and others who provided assistance to Soviet espionage in the Stalin era. The National Security Agency {p.340} followed Soviet intelligence cable traffic only for a few years in World War II and decrypted only a small portion of that traffic.
Notes cite Venona messages regarding the person in question. Those persons whose activities are discussed in the text are provided with brief annotations, while those who are not are given fuller description. The Perlo and Silvermaster groups, to which some of these persons belonged, were founded as covert CPUSA networks but eventually were turned over to the KGB. Cover names are given in italic type, and true names are given in roman type.
Will be happy to provide preface to Appendix D, if necessary. nobs 21:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
The weight of the evidence, when taken as a whole in context, including the evidence from Soviet archives, points to the conclusion similiar to what the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive records. It should be noted, nowhere in the ONCIX publications do the words "alleged", "allegation", "allegedly", "supposed", or "supposedly" occur in reference to Elizabeth Bentley naming the Perlo group or its members; (the word "allegation" occurs once with reference to Bentley and Hiss). Rather, the ONCIX describes Bentley's account with "accuracy" and "confirms". Further evidence can be aduced from references to the FBI, whose information regarding the Perlo group orginated with Bentley. nobs 21:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I have summarized the discussion. What is left is one sentence.--Cberlet 22:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
I had assumed you made a mistake. That is not an appropriate form to leave this article in as it stands, especially when it is up for Vfd. I seriously hope you are not entertaining that this is all that gets put into the Magdoff article. --TJive 22:37, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
It accurately summarizes the discussion. Everything else is POV original research. What more is needed? A few cites. Go ahead and and a few. No problem.--Cberlet 22:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Right. That's about enough of that. The material isn't going down the memory hole just because you keep repeating something. --TJive 22:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
I'm quite serious.--Cberlet 00:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Summary
In summation, once again we see the flaw of arguing a conclusionary premise, i.e. begining an arguement or investigation with a foreordained conclusion. This has the tendency to deny evidence which fails to support a preordained conclusion. The historical method requires contemporaneous corroboration, corroborative evidence gathered upon a timeline, which may not even seek to make a judgement, merely a collection of facts. Narrative provides the wherewithal to make sense of the facts. nobs 01:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
In summation, nobs and TJive believe that a biographical entry on Harry Magdof should consist primarily of their original document research into one disputed aspect of Magdoff's life. When asked to transform their huge block of text into something shorter, they refuse. When asked to replace their original research with concise material cited to published secondary sources, they refuse.
This next sentence summarizes the mountain of material they have repeatedly insisted is needed in the Magdoff text:
"Several historians and researchers claim that Harry Magdoff was among a number of Soviet intelligence sources within the U.S. government, but whether or not Magdoff was aware he was being used as an information source by the KGB is hotly contested and has never been proven."
That's 274 characters, with spaces.
The current material on the Magdoff page not related to this dispute consists of 5,323 characters.
The material concerning the allegations against Magdoff here under discussion currently consist of 13,353 characters.
Does this seem fair to anyone else? It does not seem fair to me.
How about 2400 characters laying out the case against Magdoff and cited to actual claims in published secondary sources such as Klehr or Romerstein or the published counterintelligence report; and then 2400 characters of rebutal cited to actual text in published secondary sources? That might be fair. But a 13,353 character attack on Magdoff based primarily on original research complete with illustrations is just absurd.--Cberlet 01:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry Cberlet came to this discussion late, and did not participate when a wikiclique began wholesale deletions of a balanced factual presentation on the Harry Magdoff article, absolutely denying the very existence of the evidence. It is curious, that the arguement now seems to be primary sources are not primary source material. I would have preferred a merge of the original two versions, but demands were made to support the claims, so this presentation is the result. Now it appears too much. nobs 02:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, sorry but Wiki articles can be edited at any time by anyone. Life here is tough. What matters now is a fair and reasonable NPOV solution. I am not part of a wikiclique. I plan to keep on editing.--Cberlet 02:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Cberlet the original claim has always been there is not enough evidence cited to support the material and now that there is (and there can be plenty more given) it's that the evidence is too overwhelming?? Oh well, it was asked for, and it's certainly notable. As of yet you have not demonstrated how any of this is either POV or original research. You made a notable contribution (Navasky) and that's fine. But your own personal view doesn't give license to destroy material wholesale. --TJive 03:34, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't seek to destroy it, I sought to move this gigantic sidebar to its own page where it belongs if it is to stay on Wiki. I even suggested we rename it to be less POV. I did not start the VfD nor did I start the request to merge.--Cberlet 12:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
(De-indenting): FWIW, although I'm on the "Magdoff was a source" side of the fence, I agree (as y'all may have seen at the VfD) that this material is wayyyy too lengthy to put in the Magdoff article. As I keep saying, it was not a major part of his career; I think it plus the resulting impact on his career are worth two paragraphs - one for the activity itself, and one for the consequences.

The suggested text for the Magdoff article looks like a good start to me, although I differ with the Several historians and researchers claim part. First, it's not just "several historians and researchers", it's also the government (both signals intelligence and counter-intelligence people). Also, does anyone know of a contemporary historian of this area who disputes the stance that Magdoff was a source? The "several" has a tendency to make it sound like there are those who disagree, and I know of none. Second, the "claim" part is I think a bit too soft - there is considerable evidence, counting up the Comintern archives, etc, so it's not just speculation. And I'd drop the never been proven - it's duplicative (and in any event, some people think it is proved - because if Bentley's charge that he gave her "espionage material" is true, he had to have known where they were going).

Whether this page is encyclopaedic, well, I'm somewhat dubious - it's really a bit too detailed. Maybe the book list could get recycled in an article about the Soviet spy rings in the US in the 1940's, or something, but this is really devolving into a level of detail where it's more like a journal article on the issue at this point, giving all the original sources - not really encyclopaedic.

However, that brings us back all the way to the start of this problem, which is that if we briefly summarize contemporary secondary writings, they all say flatly that Magdoff was a source, e.g. he was a member[] of a new network (Nigel West, "Venona"). Sigh... Noel (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
For the record, I totally agree that the main article should indicate that several published sources stat flatly that Magdoff was used as a source of information by the KGB, as long as there is also text that explores the dispute over what that actually means. For too long the large amount of text and illusrations were designed to imply that Magdoff was a Soviet spy. That was just unfair. I also was serious when I broke this text away from the main article as a sidebar--I just was too glib when I wrote the Title. My mistake, for which I have apologized and supported a renaming. --Cberlet 16:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Noel, provided these parameters are met: (1) there is no disputation or challenge to the conclusion of Magdoff's involvement, or the credibility and and intetrpretation of the evidence; (2) there is no questioning of the person, character or credibitlity of Elizabeth Bentley; (3) nowhere should the words "alleged", "allegedly", "allegation", "supposed", "supposedly", "McCarthy", "McCarthyism", or "Red Scare" appear; (4) Magdoff is placed in Category:Soviet spies. If we can agree on these parameters, I have no objection to paring it down to two paragraphs. I will attempt to make a full tentative proposal sometime today. nobs 17:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Let me in turn disagree with you somewhat! :-)
First, I disagree fairly strongly with 4, because even if he was a witting source who handed over documents, that doesn't make him a "spy". There is no "bright line" between spies and non-spies, there's a long continuum from full-time intelligence officers to network heads to witting sources to unwitting sources, with fine gradations in between all the way up. I'd rather reserve the term "spy" for full-time officers, and people at that end of the spectrum.

Second, I think 1) may be a bit stiff. For one, I want to see Bentley's exact testimony first - if she said "he handed me documents", fine, but the one quote I did see somewhere online here left it somewhat fuzzy (although Klehr states flatly that she said something of that nature). For another, without any evidence (that I know of) of what he handed over, I don't mind a few low-key "weasel words" - he certainly doesn't seem to have been a very major source.

Third, while I am basically in agreement with 3), particularly insofar as references to "McCarthyism" go, it may go a bit far. There really isn't very much at all on Magdoff (which is part of the reason this is such a hot dispute), so a few mild "weasel words" may not be amiss.

Anyway, this whole blowup has had one good side-effect - I've been writing articles on various other people at a good clip as they get discussed - one reason I sometimes go silent for a day or so! :-) Noel (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Noel: The Pavel Sudoplatov article is very good, and you just beat me to it. As to (4), this is somewhat Faustian. Magdoff it appears made a deal with the devil, and Mephistopheles has come to carry his soul off to Category:Soviet spies. And the case to be made is, Magdoff is no McCarthyite victim, yet this untruth has been perpetuated. Meanwhile, innocent people were indeed accused, while Magdoff had within his power to set the record straight, as Whittaker Chambers, Louis Budenz, Natheniel Weyl and a host of others did. In this sense, his character is no different than Hiss, whose apologists still are willing to cast aspersions upon the character of 3 other staff memebers who accompanied him to Moscow, staff members who served him loyally, yet this is how they are rewarded by Hiss and Hiss's friends. It is indeed a question of fairness. And it's not fair to Bentley. nobs 00:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Shooting down Navasky
Navasky claims "they do not qualify the list". Incorrect, as demonstrated: here is John Earl Haynes "unqualified" list Cover Name, Cryptonym, CPUSA Party Name, Pseudonym, and Real Name Index. Let's call this a "bulk" list, i.e. it contains all codenames & names sent in clear in Venona traffic (plus other Party covernames, etc, from other sources). "Unwitting sources" (as Noel has discussed), "sources" who were overheard repeating gossip, etc., and were assigned either code names or their name was transmitted in the clear in Venona, are not included in any of Haynes & Klehr's Venona Appendix's. Here are the fully qualified Appendix's Talk:Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage#Other_views, below. All are fully qualified, were the context determines the subject was involved in a witting cooperative relationship; or as in Appendix D, corroboration has yet to emerge. If a codename from Appendix A can be found to fit person who willing qualified as to having witting contact in Appendix D, that would corroborate recruitment & espionage activity, (and damn them and send them to hell, so to speak). See also Talk:VENONA_project/Archive1#Discussion on the "349". nobs 23:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Tentative proposal
(1) The Harry Magdoff article should be merged back to this version [6], which can include other subsequent, relevent biographical information; (2) "Conspiracy allegations about Harry Magdoff" moved to Harry Magdoff and espionage with a link from the bio page to this; (3) nowhere on either page is there to be a challenge to the conclusion or interpretation of the evidence; (4) the word's "alleged", "allegedly", "allegation", "supposed", "supposedly", "McCarthy", "McCarthyism", "Red Scare", "conspiracy", "traitor", or "treason" are to appear on neither page; (5) there is to be no challenge to the person, character or credibitlity of Elizabeth Bentley; (6) Harry Magdoff is to be placed in Category:Soviet spies; (7) in whatever subheading dealing with post WWII espionage and later life, I have no objection to whatever apologetics or explaination (however extensive) to justify a lifelong committment to an ideological cause, provided it does not challenge the interpretation of the underlying evidence. nobs 19:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
This is not a compromise. Bentley is widely considered a dubious source. It is outlandish to list Magdoff as a Soviety spy. A handful of people suggest that. Is it possible? Perhaps. Is it fair based on the record? No. Please make a more reasonable proposal.--Cberlet 20:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I think it's accurate to say that Bentley was widely considered a dubious source in the 60's - for a number of reasons, part of which was a reaction to McCarthyism, part of which was her tasteless autobiography, part of which was defensiveness on the left, part of which was the lack of convictions based on her evidence, etc. However, evidence which has come to light after her death - evidence she could have known nothing of, e.g. ComIntern archives, Venona, etc - has tended to corroborate her claims in all cases where her claims did intersect with the hard data in those other sources. This is key: with so much of what she said being confirmed, and little (or no - I don't know of any) contradiction, you have to rate her credibility fairly highly. I still apply the same degree of care with her evidence that I apply to any single account (the Rashomon effect), but in general I count it as pretty solid. Also, given how recent it was (she talked to the FBI in '45, when it was all pretty recent), there shouldn't be a lot of memory issues. Does anyone know of any claim of hers that has been debunked? Noel (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I would include, Bentley's testimony has always been divided into two groups (1) those she knew face-to-face and could not deny knowing her, and (2) those she never met, but recieved material through "cutouts". It is the second group which as always vigorously denied any association and questioned her credibility. Magdoff does not fall into this group. My tentative rewrite seeks a compromise by simply leaving Bentley out completely, and rests on the other fruits of investigation, which was already ongoing vis-a-vis Venona prior to her deposition, and commenced with the FBI afterward. As the Venona article states, no one person knew in the government in 1945 & 1946, there already were two investigations moving along separate tracks. nobs 22:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
The alternative is merging the full weight of the evidence. nobs 20:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Here is a tentative merged rewrite User:Nobs01/Harry Magdoff/alt2; please note, the References could be cut down to what is necessary and relelvent. nobs 21:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I did most of the work on the major revision and checked through all the given sources, but I will support a trimmed down version so long as it generally goes by Nobs's proposal implicitly regarding weasel words or suggesting an equivalence between Navasky's polemics and the significant research of a dozen others. --TJive 23:12, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
From Neptune and Pluto
This is an example of why I am objecting to these claims. It is clear to me that you cannot see what I see as the constant misrepresentation and distortion of the underlying documents, but it is very clear to me. I have no doubt that you see me doing the same thing. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. We read the same documents and articles, and reach wildly different conclusions. I am not challenging your good faith. I am saying we are standing on different planets.
Here is your proposed summery:
Magdoff's complicity in espionage was corroborated by a message exhumed from the NKVD archives in Moscow in the 1990s. A message from the head of KGB foreign intelligence operations, Lt. General Pavel M. Fitin, to Secretary General of the Comintern Georgi Dimitrov dated 29 September 1944 requested information on Magdoff related to his recruitment into the espionage service of the Soviet Union. [7]
Let's look at the article and its footnote:
A NKVD/NKGB Report to Stalin: A Glimpse into Soviet Intelligence in the United States in the 1940's, by Vladimir Pozniakov [8]

By Pozniakov, Vladimir

The broader spectrum of tasks facing Soviet intelligence in the US required additional personnel, both Soviet and local. The pre-war staff of the NKGB and GRU rezidenturas was rather modest. For example, in the New York consulate and in Amtorg there were only 13 intelligence officers, most of them well known to the FBI.13 Also, because the USSR and the US had become wartime allies, both branches of Soviet intelligence had to limit their usage of the clandestine structures of the American Communist Party (CPUSA).14 The usage of local Communists was also limited by two other reasons: many of them were well known to the FBI, while many others were drafted after Pearl Harbor by the US Army and Navy15 or interned, as had happened to a number of CPUSA members of Japanese extraction on the West Coast.16

The lack of trained personnel in 1941 and early 1942 was soon supplemented by the growing flow of Soviet military and civilian specialists coming to the United States to work in the Soviet Purchasing Commission (SPC) and other agencies that mushroomed after the USSR became a part of the Lend-Lease program. According to Feklisov, by 1944 the staff of Amtorg and the SPC in New York City alone reached some 2,500, with an equal number of officials, engineers and other specialists serving at the SPC branch in Washington, DC.17 The majority of these people worked directly or indirectly either for the GRU or NKVD.18 Also, the limitations imposed on the usage of the CPUSA membership did not mean that Soviet intelligence ceased recruiting both Americans and non-Americans in America.19
Footnote:
19 Feklisov, pp. 65-105; M. Vorontsov, Capt. 1st rank, Chief Navy Main Staff, Intelligence Directorate, and Petrov, Military Commissar, NMS, ID to G. Dimitrov, 15 August 1942, No. 49253ss, typewritten original; G. Dimitrov to Pavel M. Fitin, 20 November 1942, No. 663, t/w copy; P. M. Fitin to G. Dimitrov, 14 July 1944, No. 1/3/10987, t/w copy; P. M. Fitin to G. Dimitrov, 29 September 1944, No. 1/3/16895, t/w copy. All these documents are NMS ID and FCD Chiefs' requests for information related to Americans and naturalized American citizens working in various US Government agencies and private corporations, some of whom had been CPUSA members. The last two are related to a certain Donald Wheeler (an OSS official), Charles Floto or Flato (who in 1943 worked for the "...Dept. of Economic Warfare"), and Harry Magdoff (War Production Board)-the request dated 29 Sept. 1944-and to Judith Coplon who according to the FCD information worked for the Dept. of Justice.-RTsKhIDNI, f. 495, op. 74, d. 478, l. 7; d. 484, l. 34; d. 485, l. 10, 14, 17, 31, 44.
Now let's trace the key document:
P. M. Fitin to G. Dimitrov, 29 September 1944, No. 1/3/16895 [9]

Please provide any information at your disposal on the following members of the Comparty of America:

1. Charles Floto / Flato /, in 1943 worked in the US Office of Economic Warfare

2. Donald Wheeler / Veeler /, works in the Office of Strategic Services.

3. Kramer / Kreimer, works in a government institution in Washington.

4. Edward Fitzgerald, works on the WPB [War Production Board].

5. Magdoff, works on the WPB.

6. Harold Glas[s]er, currently on assignment outside the US.

7. P[e]rlo, works on the WPB.
What is the result?
We know that Dimitrov thinks Magdoff is a member of the Communist Party USA

We know Dimitriv is asking for more information about Magdoff.

We know the KGB is busy trying to get members and friend of the CPUSA to provide information to the Soviet Union.

We know that if Magdoff is actually a member of the Communist Party USA

We do not know if Magdoff has been recruited as a KGB agent of informer

We do not know if Magdoff is aware that a member of the Perlo group is passing information to the KGB

We do not know that Dimitrov "requested information on Magdoff related to his recruitment into the espionage service of the Soviet Union" or if Magdoff was ever recruited.

We do not know that "Magdoff's complicity in espionage was corroborated."
So again, I ask for a compromise that recognizes that one of us is apparently from Neptune, and the other from Pluto. :-) --Cberlet 22:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
That is indeed a valid point as you have argued the case. There could be inserted an extensive narrative on how an espionage organization vets the bona fidas of a source, how this is routine, how they do not accept any information that is purported to come from a high level government official, and how they go through an extenisve qualifying process to assure they are not being fed disinformation before relying on such material, etc. etc. etc. Not to be arguementative, but we are making progress. The word "complicity" could be watered down to "involvement", for example, still carries the same thought, yet less explosive. nobs 01:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Inserted bold qualifiers because good faith quote may be misquoted as a concession; this narrative will be written if necessary to emphasize the underlying evidence of complicity. nobs 19:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
McCarthyite?
You want to ban the use of the term McCarthyism???
Isn't this you on the Ludwig von Mises Institue talk page:
This is not the first instance of the SPLC using McCarthyite smear tactics against anyone who questions thier research methods or thier motives. And I believe that can be verified. nobs 03:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
oops. :-) --Cberlet 22:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
"McCarthyism" (and associated neologisms) has connotations for which it is frequent in common, casual discourse. That is much different from the inference which comes from slipping it into an encyclopedia with no relevant cite and completely out of context from the known facts. --TJive 23:10, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Let's not get diverted from the issues under discussion. The above reference uses the term McCarthyism in its accepted sense of meaning, i.e. making a broad smear (neo-confederate, racist, white supremacist, holocaust denier) without evidence, to destroy an opponent. I would prefer at this point not to get too far afield of the ongoing discussion, because it is constructive. But the evidence will prove (1) Magdoff came under suspicion long before Joe McCarthy; (2) Joe McCarthy never subpeaned Magdoff before his committee; (3) Magdoff did testify before another Committee in 1953, the SISS, and plead the Fifth; (4) the underlying suspsicions of (a) CPUSA membership and (b) espionage have proven factual; (5) Magdoff, unlike Whittaker Chambers, Elizabeth Bentley, Louis Budenz, Nathaniel Weyl, et al, never broke with the Party and remains to this day unrepentent; (6) Magdoff evidentally was perfectly willing to allow others to be persecuted in a "witch hunt", and hide behind innocent persons, when he knew the facts. This speaks volumns about the man. But let's just not go there for now. Suffice it to say, Magdoff has no claim whatsoever to being a "victim" of Joseph McCarthy, McCarthyism, the Red Scare, or red baiting. nobs 01:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
To be included with the above: (3a) Magdoff left government service 30 December 1946 and was never called before any government Loyalty Board. nobs 19:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Overbearing
I disagree with Jnc that the article as originally extracted is too long or unencyclopedic--I think it should be merged back into the main article--but I do believe the generic VENONA comments (both pro and con) are entirely overloading the material. --TJive 02:05, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Removing my comment from personal attack subhead placed after my good faith proposal and posting
Simple choice: accept the compromise and save face, or merge the full weight of evidence, and any rebuttals likewise will be rebutted. nobs 02:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Outright falsifications
What's the difference?
Several historians and researchers, as well as several U.S. government intelligence agencies, have come to the conclusion that Harry Magdoff was among a number of Soviet intelligence sources within the U.S. government. What is disputed is the extent to which Magdoff was aware that information from him was being provided to the KGB. There is no published source that provides evidence that Magdoff was an espionage agent."
"The U.S. government, as well as several historians and researchers, have come to the conclusion that Harry Magdoff was among a number of Soviet intelligence sources within the U.S. government."
The first sentence is accurate and fair. The second sentence is an outright misrepresentaion and fabrication. The U.S. government has never issued a word about Magdoff. To claim that reports from a handful of U.S intelligence agencies represent the "U.S. government: is false. Flat out false. POV. Bad research. Does not belong on Wiki. And the phrase "among a number of Soviet intelligence sources within the U.S. government" leaves the impression that Magdoff was a spy. Not proven. A smear. And, yes, typical of McCarthyism. It is weasel language. Enough of this nonsense. Some people say in print that Magdoff was a spy or "intelligence source." Some people refute the claims based on their reluctance to make assumptions based on the record produce by any spy agency. Report both sides in an NPOV way. Stop this tiresome hypebole. --Cberlet 03:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I say U.S. government because it's not only "counterintelligence", it's published conclusions of the FBI, ONCIX, NSA, and a statutory Senate committee. You're just playing small time semantics in an attempt to water down the effect of the conclusion where the weight of claims stands on one side.
"Soviet intelligence sources" does not even say someone is a spy, it just says he was among Soviet intelligence sources; the impression doesn't have to be left in the reader because it is flat out stated by the primary and secondary sources.
Frankly you now look like you're just arguing for its own sake. --TJive 03:44, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Some people refute the claims based on their reluctance to make assumptions based on the record produce by any spy agency.
Where? It's been an open question for weeks and nothing has been brought to the table. --TJive 03:46, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Other views
The Nation (1) clearly has a conflict of interest here, two of thier correspondents are named in Venona decrypts; (2) The Nation states a falsehood on its face, attacking Haynes and Klehr for "not qualifying" thier list. Here are the "qualifiers" to thier list:
APPENDIX A Source Venona: Americans and U.S. Residents Who Had Covert Relationships with Soviet Intelligence Agencies
APPENDIX B Americans and U.S. Residents Who Had Covert Relationships with Soviet Intelligence Agencies but Were Not Identified in the Venona Cables
APPENDIX C Foreigners Temporarily in the United States Who Had Covert Relationships with Soviet Intelligence Agencies
APPENDIX D Americans and U.S. Residents Targeted as Potential Sources by Soviet Intelligence Agencies
APPENDIX E Biographical Sketches of Leading KGB Officers Involved in Soviet Espionage in the United States
This an attack which is false on its face by a source unqualified to offer an NPOV. It does not belong in this article. I should also say, it may not be advisable to make other attempts at insertions like this in this article, as there is nothing to prevent me from reinserting the information back into the Harry Magdoff article, which I will do if this occurs again. nobs 03:45, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Stop threatening and edit fairly. You folks fill the article with original research, and then delete my cited text from published material warning about the perils of research into the Venona papers. Totally POV, biased, and unfair. You act as if you own the page. The lead is biased and a misrepresentation as you left it. The "government" does not have an opinion on Magdoff. The Venona decrypts reveal who the KGB used or sought as information sources. That's how it should be written. --Cberlet 11:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, TJive, that was a constructive edit re: government agencies & researchers.--Cberlet 16:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Cberlet, you're welcome. I am fine with the lead in right now (as changed by both you and I), so long as it is clear that this is not a matter of the claims of one or two counterintelligence groups or individuals. However, nothing on the page is original research, and once again that has not been substantiated.
Nobs, a quote from another perspective does not have to be NPOV, a substantial refute, or even very accurate. The claim only becomes more notable because Nation editors are named in VENONA, but that obvious interest or errors should duly be pointed out in a manner similar to what you have said. It's worth quoting at a small length IMO, but it should not take up a huge block for the sake of reciprocity. --TJive 16:24, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
Original Research
When editors post links to primary documwents and then draw conclusions from those documents, it is original research.
For example, this link: http://wikisource.org/wiki/Fitin_to_Dimitrov%2C_29_September_1944
is used to back up the original research claim that:
"Evidence was unearthed in the Comintern Archives in the late 1980s, Lt. General Pavel M. Fitin, the head of KGB foreign intelligence operations in Moscow, requested of Secretary General of the Comintern Georgi Dimitrov information to complete Magdoff's recruitment. [6] "
This is original research. And a glance at the document shows that it is biased original research. It misrepresents the content of the document.
What would not be original research, would be the published conclusions about Magdoff that it is claimed appear in:
"...a book by historians Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, and Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov [7], and also in the memoirs of Alexandre Feklisov [8] (the Soviet Case Officer for Julius Rosenberg and Klaus Fuchs), published in 2001."
As I have requested repeatedly, please supply the actual language used by these published secondary sources to describe Magdoff.
_______________________________________________________ Fill in the blank.
If Magdoff only appears in a list and in copies of primary documents, then the only cite is to the language used to introduce the list or the primary documents.--Cberlet 19:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Please see [10] regarding citation of above material, photographically reproduced in original Russian, with English language translation, Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, and Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov, The Secret World of American Communism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), Document 90, Another reference to the same Document [11]. I likewise have made a posting in regard to the same document citing page number & "photographically reproduced". Will be happy to do so again, if need be (as referenced above). nobs 20:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Full citation posted -> Fitin to Dimitrov 29 September 1944 recovered shortly after first series of vandalistic attacks disrupting discussion at Talk:Harry Magdoff approximately 19:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC). The document was subsequently inserted into Wikisource. Text of citation reads as follows:
Document 90, reproduced from Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, and Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov, The Secret World of American Communism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), (Document 90) Fitin to Dimitrov memo (RTsKhIDNI 495-74-485), pgs. 312 - 313; a photocopy of the original document in Russian is on page 315. nobs 18:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I have reviewed these documents and claims, and discover that once again you have extrapolated information not in the underlying documents in a way that favors your claims but actually misrepresentes the contents of the primary source materials and secondary source materials.--Cberlet 22:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Can we please move this discussion over to the other page? - this is making me crazy--Cberlet 23:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
PLEASE DO NOT REWRITE OTHER PEOPLE'S EDITS AND SUBHEADINGS!!!
nobs--What you have done is a major violation of Wiki standards. Please do not do it again. The discussion is on the other page. Meanwhile, do not rewrite the work of others on this page.--Cberlet 20:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Personal note to Cberlet: Please do not insert a subheading over my signature, effectively removing my posting from the context in which it was placed again. nobs 21:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Also, please note, there is no instance of myself "rewriting other people's edits", as you imply, that I am aware of (I may have corrected spelling once or twice of a cooperative editor). If I have done as you suggests, please bring it to my atttention. Thank you. nobs 21:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
You replaced my subheading "Original Research" with a totally different subheading: "Disruptive vandalism to this disicssion." [See Diff.] Happy to accept your apology.--Cberlet 02:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Nobs: Why are you going back and editing and rewriting this talk page? It is a violation of Wiki policy. Please stop rewriting the history of this discussion!--Cberlet 01:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Excising Material on Harry Magdoff
I see no reason to exclude material that establishes Harry Magdoff's involvement in espionage. Any thoughts? Coqsportif 03:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Vote to Merge
Reminder: the vote was to Merge Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Conspiracy allegations about Harry Magdoff which, in lieu of an edit war, will occur. I thought there had been an understanding regarding this. nobs 22:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Not precisely. Here is the summary:
"The result of the debate was keep. The disposition of content should be worked out by discussion, but there seems to be strong support for merge with Harry Magdoff. --"

So the vote was to keep the page on espionage, and discuss the support for merging with Magdoff. The renaming was the result of a compromise. Before any serious discussion of a merge, there would need to be another vote. In any case, just putting the negative material back onto the Magdoff page was never an option.--Cberlet 22:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Final count:
12 Merge

6 Keep

1 Delete

More than 2 to 1 against keep, concensus by any definition. We can begin evidincing good faith by discussion of major changes first, and not (what appears to be) an organized edit war. nobs 00:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Nobs, your claim of editing in good faith is an outlandish and fanatastic lie as long as you have posted on your user page a massive and nasty personal attack on me. See: [[12]]. I edit in good faith. My edits are fair. You engage in childish temper tantrums and personal attacks. I suggested that we seek outside input and you refuse. Stop this outrageous conduct.--Cberlet 01:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I offer you a deal, if you will accept it. I will remove the satirical refernce you cite, if we can return to the status quo of what both pages looked like yesterday. nobs 01:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Here is the real deal. Act like an adult. Remove the personal attacks. Follow Wiki guidelines. And we both edit fairly and in good faith. No other deals. --Cberlet 01:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Do the guidelines refer to Merging an article after a 2-1 vote to Merge? nobs 02:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I would be OK with merging the articles as I last edited them, but to re-open editing means that we must put off the merger. See the note regarding the vote: "The result of the debate was keep. The disposition of content should be worked out by discussion, but there seems to be strong support for merge with Harry Magdoff." If you wish to keep editing, we can, but otherwise we should merge the articles as edited. My edits were reasonable and appropriate. If you have a problem with a particular sentence, feel free to resume the discussion on the other page.--Cberlet 02:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
(Moving indent) Let's resume discussion from here --> Talk:Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage#Summary; it appears you proposed 2400 words. I am happy with the two paragraphs w/notes now. nobs 02:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I am not. See below. --Cberlet 12:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Process
On process, see User_talk:Nobs01#Procedural_question regarding the Admins comments on the VfD. This is the same author of the quote Cberlet has cited twice now. nobs 02:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Note:The fact that I have not Merged the other article since 7 August 2005 when the vote was closed, nor exploited the 2400 word limit proposed, nor engaged in other major changes, but have only inserted the two paragraphs w/notes (leaving out illustrations, etc.) should be interpreted as good faith, as it was intended. nobs 03:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Note the fact that the two paragraphs inserted by Nobs only provide one side of the material, clearly demonstrating bad faith; and the material inserted by Nobs is, once again, biased and a blatant misprepresentation of the underlying documents. For example, the claim about the Perlo group, cited to an "official" government document, is cited in the original text to the unverified "testimony" of Elizabeth Bentley. --Cberlet 12:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
If the above reference to ONCIX p. 31, the exact quote is in declaritive form, it states, "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.
More material could be, and will be inserted, if necessary.
On a personal note to Cberlet: please restrain your use of terms such as "lie" & "misrepresentation", as they may be construed to constitute personal attacks. nobs 17:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
What you do on these pages is patently unfair and demonstrates bad faith. You can pretend that this is not part of the editing problem here, but it just won't wash. You claim to edit in good faith, and yet when you return to this page and re-insert material about allegations of espionage, you insert material that is not only one-sided, but factually false. This is partly about your relentless refusal to seek a reasonable compromise, and your relentless return to these pages after an apparent compromise is reached and your insertion of material that reflects your original, and false, claims when you think no one is paying attention. Then, when caught, you whine and engage in faux courtesy. Nonsense. I propose that we delete all but the most summary espionage material on this page (and keep the link), and go back to the other page and once again go through the text paragraph by paragraph, and when we have discussed all the false, misrepresented, and POV material you introduced to that text, we return to this page.--Cberlet 18:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Response to the above posting: I have no idea what Cberlet is talking about, or refering to with this,
your relentless refusal to seek a reasonable compromise, and your relentless return to these pages after an apparent compromise is reached and your insertion of material that reflects your original, and false, claims when you think no one is paying attention. Then, when caught, you whine and engage in faux courtesy.

and I am fully confident the history were support me. The version that existed for six weeks, prior to yesterday, I in fact wrote. It is very much the compromise version I proposed here User:Nobs01/Harry Magdoff/alt2, and cited above under Talk:Harry_Magdoff#Tentative_proposal. Anyone vieweing the histories of this page & others will see it is Cberlet who returns to these pages after an apparent compromise and inserts material that reflects his unsourced false assertions when no one is watching. nobs 02:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion moved from Talk:Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage#Factually_False_Claims (again).
Factually False Claims
Round One
"NSA findings" subheading. This section does not represent findings of the National Security Agency. The heading is factually false.
Elizabeth Bentley accusations. These are not findings of the National Security Agency or any federal agency. This material belongs in a seperate section clearly identified as unverified testimony delivered during the McCarthy Period hearings.
"Corroboration" subheading. This section implies that all the material in this section corroborates the claim that Magdoff was a spy. This is false and misleading. What is corroborated is that the Soviets saw Magdoff as a source of information and a potential spy, nothing more. For example, the memo from Dimitrov merely asks: "Please provide any information at your disposal on the following members of the Comparty of America." This hardly corroborates anything. Guilt by association by proxy.
I propose we focus on fixing these false claims first.--Cberlet 18:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Your choice: (a) stop reversion & negotiate (b) merge all material & negotiate. nobs 19:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Nobs: you do not own these pages and cannot dictate the terms of editing. Please respond to my charge that there are three factually false blocks of text on this page that need to be discussed. --Cberlet 19:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Subhead "NSA Findings" has been removed & "Cooroboration" renamed "Moscow Archives". Cberlet proposes discussion of Elizabeth Bentley once again. nobs 21:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Nobs, you unilaterally merged the pages, and left out all of the material critical of your claims. What a shock! So anyway, I started to edit in good faith, and made 10 page edits, and without discussion you simply revert all of them? Not OK! Pick an edit and discuss it here one at a time please.--Cberlet 21:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your baiting me into accusing you of not editing in good faith, but I'm not going to do it. Please read your own comments within this section; also previous proposals made by yourself. nobs 21:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Cberlets' false claims
User:Cberlet [13] made these massive changes yesterday, which went unchallenged & unreverted, proposed above specific points to discuss, and immediately made no fewer that 13 new substantial changes after proposing discussion on the above three points. The above three points had been narrowed to 1 point of dispute, yet Cberlet inrtoduced 13 new disputes within 90 minutes. I have persistently requested him to focus on issues and discussion, nevertheless he has persistently attempted to provoke me into personal disputes. nobs 01:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Start Over
OK, if we are going to merge the page even though the facts and NPOV were under active discussion, then it is only fair to merge in the entire page, and start discussing each edit one by one from scratch.--Cberlet 21:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
"Elizabeth Bentley accusations. These are not findings of the National Security Agency or any federal agency. This material belongs in a seperate section clearly identified as unverified testimony delivered during the McCarthy Period hearings",
I assume is the question on the table, not 10 or 12 edits. nobs 21:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Request for Comments
Posted at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics 22:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Nobs: I thought that we should refrain from continuing to edit these pages until there are some comments, Instead you continue to modify these pages in a way that discards all previous compromises and inserts your particular POV. Is this really necesssary?--Cberlet 01:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Nobs: please stop inserting material out of sequence on this page. If you want to post a complaint, please place that material on that page, not here.
Well, I'm sorry. There must be a server problem here, as I have not been able to keep up with either your extensive changes on the main pages, or the distortions you have introduced on this discussion page today. nobs 02:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Nobs: Please consider the possibility that it would be more constructive if we both backed off editing these text pages and discussion pages for 72 hours while we wait to see if there are comments we should consider.--Cberlet 02:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Nobs: It is not constructive for you to have restored onto your user page the nasty personal attack on me concerning the editing of these pages. [14]. Please delete it again.--Cberlet 03:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Such as you claim doesn't exist, unless you are embarassed regarding your own words. nobs 03:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Cberlet: Was your RfC for Comment or for a tag team edit war, seeing one of the first users you solicited reverted without comment (probably didn't even read your "wait to see if there are comments we should consider"). nobs 04:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment
Looking at this latest revert, I am unclear as to why nobs finds it necessary to add at great length the contentsbelonging to the espionage article here. To my knowledgem Magdoff is best known for his works, and this seems excessive and misdirected (or POV directed), esp. in light of the dispute regarding the espionage itself, which should be sorted 1st, i.e. remaining focused on the most immediately pertinent items. El_C 01:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Have you read this discussion page, including the archives and comments of several editors? The version you just reverted is the concensus version. nobs 02:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Consensus according to whom? And, also, I fail to understand why it's necessary to have the version you favour to facilitate the RFC. El_C 02:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
It is a concensus according to the contributors of this discussion. It is the version proposed here Talk:Harry_Magdoff#Tentative_proposal which has been in place for 6 weeks. Cberlet wants all kind of "alleged to have", etc. If you read this discussion page, together with the evidence, you will see the issues involved. Thank you. nobs 02:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I find that too vague, and I'm hesitant get unduely drowned in textual reduandancy. As per that specific section, I'm afraid that it dosen't at all at this time strike me in being as clear cut as you suggest. El_C 03:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
ONCIX citation (See pg. 31) nobs 03:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Just a suggestions, go to the version you reverted, read it through, and click on each footnote. Then make up your mind. nobs 03:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, that too. But there seems to be somewhat of a duplication the discussion we're having at espionage. El_C 03:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
(Moving indent) That's right. I just noticed the footnotes got all screwed up again. The reverted version on this page Harry Magdoff is the basic text we are working with. nobs 03:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Can we please start over with a clean slate?
I do not think that the claims by User:Nobs01 accurately reflect what I have agreed to regarding the two pages under discussion, nor the actual outcome of the vote, nor where the discussion should be taking place. I would very much appreciate it if User:Nobs01 would refrain from making claims about what I have agreed to or not agreed to.
These are the last two pages that I believe are a proper starting point for further discussion:
Harry Magdoff [15]

Harry Magdoff and espionage [16]
There was an ongoing debate on the Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage page that was unilaterally terminated by User:Nobs01, who then (without my consent), unilaterally moved the ongoing discussion to the Harry_Magdoff page. See diff: [17].
This is the actual summary of the result of the vote regarding the page Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage:
"The result of the debate was keep. The disposition of content should be worked out by discussion, but there seems to be strong support for merge with Harry Magdoff. --Tony Sidaway User:Tony_Sidaway Talk User_talk:Tony_Sidaway 16:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)"
The issues resulting from the vote are actually quite simple:
If we merge the pages, what material should be merged, and what material should be discarded?

If we do not merge the pages, what summary text regarding the allegations of espionage belong on the page?
What User:Nobs01 has done is to only "merge" material that supports his POV from the Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage page onto the main Harry_Magdoff page. All skeptical material User:Nobs01 has simply discarded.
In addition, User:Nobs01 continues to post and defend text (now on both pages) that I think does not accurately reflect the underlying material User:Nobs01 has cited. The most recent examples of this I pointed out at [18]. This ongoing discussion was moved by User:Nobs01 from the Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage page to the Harry_Magdoff without my consent.
I think we should proceed in a series of steps that follow a democratic process.
1) Restore the Harry_Magdoff page to the version that has a simple NPOV summary and link to the Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage page. This one: HarryMagdoff [19]
2) Restore the Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage page to the last version before this controversy. This one: Harry Magdoff and espionage [20]
3) Move the current discussion concerning the accuracy and NPOV nature of the espionage-related text back to the Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage page. When these factual issues are somewhat resolved...then:
4) Open up a broader discussion of these two questions:
A) If we merge the pages, what material should be merged, and what material should be discarded?

B) If we do not merge the pages, what summary text regarding the allegations of espionage belong on the page?
I would like to make it clear that I now support option "B" because the Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage page has much valuable research material, and I see no reason to lose that work, even though the bulk of it I find unconvincing and POV regarding Magdoff. As long as there is skeptical material, I think there is some balance. I would prefer it if the Harry_Magdoff page merely has a very short NPOV and balanced summary discussion about the espionage controvery, and a link to the Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage page.--Cberlet 09:39, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
See Talk:Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage#Can_we_please_start_over_with_a_clean_slate.3F for response regarding Cberlet's current RfC & POV-fork. nobs 17:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Good Faith
User Cberlet proposed a 2400 word limit about Magdoff's involvement in espionage on 29 July 2005. Since that time, Cberlet has done nothing to work toward a balanced view of 2400 words presenting the U.S. Governments case & corroboration from Moscow Arcvives, with 2400 words of sourced rerbuttal material. Rather, since his proposal 29 July, User Cberlet as persistently attempted to water down the U.S. Governments case with unilateral, unsourced edits. I suspect this is due to a lack of sourced rebuttal material.
After the VfD vote closed 7 August 2005 (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Conspiracy allegations about Harry Magdoff), and in accordance with the vote, two paragraphs consisting of less than 200 words of factual, sourced, verifiable information, were Merged back into the Harry Magdoff article. User:Cberlet then did nothing to further his proposal for "balance"; rather, attacked the Harry Magdoff and espionage article with his POV that the published sources of the United States government meant something other than what they say.
Two days of discussion now have resulted in nothing more than Cberlet deleting the two paragraphs, which he basically proposed to be inserted. Cberlet now understands the mistake he made in opposing the VfD, because now two pages exist with the evidence Harry Magdoff spied for the Soviet Union. His POV, in order to cover his mistake of creating a POV-fork, is to revert to exactly where this discussion stood when he created the fork on 26 July 2005.
Based on User:Cberlet's conduct since creating the fork, making the proposal, and dozens of edits directly contrary to his own proposal which has never been withdrawn, there is no evidence that good faith efforts to present what is proper biographical information, will be actively pursued. It is Cberlet's POV that the evidence does not exist, or questionable. This shows no fairness to the reading public when it is not presented. nobs 22:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I withdraw the proposal that Nobs thinks still exists. Poof! It is gone. Weeks ago I proposed that paragraphs be inserted that reflected both sides of the dispute. Nobs inserted only paragraphs that reflected his side of the dispute. That would be Gulag Good Faith? Anyway, the Admin who closed the Vote disputes Nobs version of what happened and what we should do next. Find the actual discussion that is ongoing at Harry Magdoff and espionage.--Cberlet 22:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Insereted for the record: below is an exchange between nobs & the Admin who closed the Vote from my Talk page User_talk:Nobs01#Procedural_question,
"Still something of a newbie, can you explain how a vote to "Merge" on the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Conspiracy allegations about Harry Magdoff is recorded as "Keep". Thank you. --nobs 18:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The discussions on VfD are really only about whether to perform the (irreversible for most editors) action of deletion. There weren't many delete votes, so the article was kept. Sometimes I've performed a merge if there seemed to be a consensus for that, but sometimes I leave the decision up to other editors. Anybody can perform a merge. --User:Tony Sidaway 18:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

nobs 22:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, I edited your paragraphs for accuracy (they were not the wording we agreed to on the other page after much discussion over many weeks), and I put in an equal amount of text representing my side of the dispute. Now the text is balanced, NPOV, and fair.--Cberlet 22:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Alleged misrepresentations
Here is the first paragraph written by Nobs:
According to United States Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (ONCIX) Official History, Magdoff was a member of the Perlo group of Soviet spies (See pg. 31). Magdoff was identified by Arlington Hall cryptographers in the Venona project and FBI counterintelligence investigators as a Soviet source under the cover name "Kant" in 1944. Code name "Tan", which appears in the 1948 Gorsky Memo, and appears once in deciphered 1945 Venona traffic, according to researcher John Earl Haynes, is consistent with Magdoff. Code name "Tan", as the evidence suggests, replaced "Kant" as Magdoff’s cryptonym in 1945. [21]
Nobs claims this is an accurate citation, and has previously claimed:
"If the above reference to ONCIX p. 31, the exact quote is in declaritive form, it states, "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. "
But this is a misrepresentation.
The text is attributed to Elizabeth Bentley from beginning to end by the historian who wrote the text.
To demonstrate this, let's read the full text from beginning to end.
Start Quoted Text
Elizabeth Bentley
Elizabeth Bentley, like Whittaker Chambers and Alger Hiss, spied for the Soviet Union out of ideological conviction. Like Hiss and Chambers, Bentley was well educated (Vassar) and a native-born American. She became a convert to Communism during the heyday of Communist influence (and Soviet intelligence success) during the 1930s. A visit to Europe in the mid-1930s had filled Bentley with a dread of Nazism, and she became convinced, with the help of a Communist friend, that only the Soviet Union was standing up to the Nazis. She joined the party and in 1938 was assigned to the party underground. Also like Chambers, her primary duty was as a courier, servicing Soviet spy rings in Washington and New York.
Bentley’s handler was Jacob Golos, (real name: Jacob Rasin). The Russian born Golos was a high-ranking member of the American Communist Party, a former Bolshevik revolutionary and Soviet secret police operative in the USSR. Golos illustrated the intimate relationship between Soviet intelligence and the American Communist party. The word intimate also describes the relationship between Golos and Bentley, for the two had become lovers.
By the mid-1940s, Bentley was becoming disillusioned with her new faith. This was accelerated by the death of Golos, in 1943, from a heart attack. His successors were a parade of boorish goons. She turned herself into the FBI in 1945 and gave up the names of scores of Americans who had spied for the Kremlin, including Alger Hiss. In 1948, Bentley appeared before the HUAC with her story of Communist penetration of the USG. Her testimony was a huge story, commanding wide interest, and contributed to the growing distrust of the USSR and their American adherents.
She provided testimony on two Soviet networks of government employees who had worked on behalf of the Soviets in the late 1930s and early 1940s. She identified over 30 high-level US Government officials that had worked for the two networks run by Nathan Silverman and Victor Perlo.
The Nathan Silverman Network consisted of the following members:
Nathan Silverman: Director of the Labor Division, Farm Security Administration; Board of Economic Warfare.
Solomon Adler: Treasury Department.
Norman Bursler: Department of Justice.
Frank Coe: Assistant Director, Division of Monetary Research, Treasury; Special Assistant to the United States Ambassador in London; Assistant to the Executive Director, Board of Economic Warfare; Assistant Administrator, Foreign Economic Administration.
Lauchlin Currie: Administrative Assistant to President Roosevelt; Deputy Administrator of Foreign Economic Administration.
Bela (William) Gold: Assistant Head of Program Surveys, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Agriculture Department; Senate Subcommittee on War Mobilization; Office of Economic Programs in Foreign Economic Administration.
Mrs. Bela Gold: House Select Committee on Interstate Migration; Bureau of Employment Security; Division of Monetary Research, Treasury.
Abraham Silverman: Director, Bureau of Research and Information Services, US Railroad Retirement Board; Economic Adviser and Chief of Analysis and Plans, Assistant Chief of Air Staff, Material and Services.
William Taylor: Treasury Department.
William L. Ullmann: Division of Monetary Research, Treasury; Material and Services Division, Air Corps Headquarters, Pentagon.
The following were members of the Victor Perlo Network:
Victor Perlo: Head of branch in Research Section, Office of Price Administration; War Production Board; Monetary Research, Treasury. Edward J. Fitzgerald: War Production Board (WPD).
Harold Glasser: Treasury Department; War Production Board; Advisor on North African Affairs Committee in Algiers, North Africa.
Charles Kramer (aka: Charles Krevitsky): National Labor Relations Board; Office of Price Administration; Economist with Senate Subcommittee on War Mobilization.
Harry Magdoff: Statistical Division of WPB and Office of Emergency Management; Bureau of Research and Statistics, WTB; Tools Division, War Production Board; Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce Department.
Alan Rosenberg: Foreign Economic Administration.
Donald Niven Wheeler: Office of Strategic Services.59
Bentley also identified seven members of the headquarters staff of the OSS who were working for Soviet intelligence. The most important of these may have been Duncan Chaplin Lee, a Rhodes scholar at Oxford who joined the law firm of William J. Donovan. When Donovan became the head of OSS in 1942, he chose Lee as his personal assistant.
On 3 December 1963, Bentley died. During the last five years of her life she taught English at an all-girls school in Middletown, Connecticut.
End Quoted Text
United States Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive (ONCIX) Official History, (See pg. 31).
From beginning to end, the author is merely listing the information provided by Bentley.
So the underlying cited material has been misrepresented, and the resulting paragraph is innaccurate and biased against Magdoff.
To illustrate the problem, the way Nobs constructed the paragraph would be like the following misrepresented cite:
According to the official history of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, "Jews were subhuman and that German lands must be cleared of Jews."[22]
Hardly accurate if you go to the page as see it is based on and cited to "Nazi Propaganda."
Example Two
Now let's look at the second paragraph:

Magdoff's involvement in espionage was corroborated by a message exhumed from the NKVD archives in Moscow [23] in the late 1980s. A message from the head of KGB foreign intelligence operations, Lt. General Pavel Fitin, to Secretary General of the Comintern Georgi Dimitrov dated 29 September 1944 after 13 May 1944 Venona transcript # 687 [24] from the KGB Rezidentura in New York had been transmitted to Moscow reporting on initial contact with the Perlo group.

Let's look Carefully at the cited article, its footnote, and the underlying document:
A NKVD/NKGB Report to Stalin: A Glimpse into Soviet Intelligence in the United States in the 1940's, by Vladimir Pozniakov [25]
By Pozniakov, Vladimir
The broader spectrum of tasks facing Soviet intelligence in the US required additional personnel, both Soviet and local. The pre-war staff of the NKGB and GRU rezidenturas was rather modest. For example, in the New York consulate and in Amtorg there were only 13 intelligence officers, most of them well known to the FBI.13 Also, because the USSR and the US had become wartime allies, both branches of Soviet intelligence had to limit their usage of the clandestine structures of the American Communist Party (CPUSA).14 The usage of local Communists was also limited by two other reasons: many of them were well known to the FBI, while many others were drafted after Pearl Harbor by the US Army and Navy15 or interned, as had happened to a number of CPUSA members of Japanese extraction on the West Coast.16
The lack of trained personnel in 1941 and early 1942 was soon supplemented by the growing flow of Soviet military and civilian specialists coming to the United States to work in the Soviet Purchasing Commission (SPC) and other agencies that mushroomed after the USSR became a part of the Lend-Lease program. According to Feklisov, by 1944 the staff of Amtorg and the SPC in New York City alone reached some 2,500, with an equal number of officials, engineers and other specialists serving at the SPC branch in Washington, DC.17 The majority of these people worked directly or indirectly either for the GRU or NKVD.18 Also, the limitations imposed on the usage of the CPUSA membership did not mean that Soviet intelligence ceased recruiting both Americans and non-Americans in America.19
Footnote:
19 Feklisov, pp. 65-105; M. Vorontsov, Capt. 1st rank, Chief Navy Main Staff, Intelligence Directorate, and Petrov, Military Commissar, NMS, ID to G. Dimitrov, 15 August 1942, No. 49253ss, typewritten original; G. Dimitrov to Pavel M. Fitin, 20 November 1942, No. 663, t/w copy; P. M. Fitin to G. Dimitrov, 14 July 1944, No. 1/3/10987, t/w copy; P. M. Fitin to G. Dimitrov, 29 September 1944, No. 1/3/16895, t/w copy. All these documents are NMS ID and FCD Chiefs' requests for information related to Americans and naturalized American citizens working in various US Government agencies and private corporations, some of whom had been CPUSA members. The last two are related to a certain Donald Wheeler (an OSS official), Charles Floto or Flato (who in 1943 worked for the "...Dept. of Economic Warfare"), and Harry Magdoff (War Production Board)-the request dated 29 Sept. 1944-and to Judith Coplon who according to the FCD information worked for the Dept. of Justice.-RTsKhIDNI, f. 495, op. 74, d. 478, l. 7; d. 484, l. 34; d. 485, l. 10, 14, 17, 31, 44.
Now let's trace the key document:
P. M. Fitin to G. Dimitrov, 29 September 1944, No. 1/3/16895 [26]

Please provide any information at your disposal on the following members of the Comparty of America:

1. Charles Floto / Flato /, in 1943 worked in the US Office of Economic Warfare

2. Donald Wheeler / Veeler /, works in the Office of Strategic Services.

3. Kramer / Kreimer, works in a government institution in Washington.

4. Edward Fitzgerald, works on the WPB [War Production Board].

5. Magdoff, works on the WPB.

6. Harold Glas[s]er, currently on assignment outside the US.

7. P[e]rlo, works on the WPB.
What is the result?
We know that Fitin thinks Magdoff is a member of the Communist Party USA

We know Fitin is asking Dimitrov for more information about Magdoff.

We know the KGB is busy trying to get members and friend of the CPUSA to provide information to the Soviet Union.

We assume that if Magdoff is actually a member of the Communist Party USA, Dimitrov will have information.

We do not know if Magdoff has been recruited as a KGB agent of informer

We do not know if Magdoff is aware that a member of the Perlo group is passing information to the KGB

We do not know that the KGB "requested information on Magdoff related to his recruitment into the espionage service of the Soviet Union" or if Magdoff was ever recruited.

We do not know that "Magdoff's complicity in espionage was corroborated."
So once again, the underlying cited material has been misrepresented, and the resulting paragraph is innaccurate and baised against Magdoff.
These paragraphs are are false and my rewrite was fair and will be restored.--Cberlet 01:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
If this was the first time Nobs01 was doing this, it could be chalked up to a mistake, but he has misrepresented things such as this repeatedly, to where it is obvious he is purposefully misrepresenting the truth in order to serve his POV agenda. Ruy Lopez 03:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
(Comment by Nobs moved from the middle of a quoted text section)--Cberlet 11:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
What Cberlet raises here is really a process issue. To introduce Elizabeth Bentley into the main article opens the door for discussion and attacks upon her character, which then must be fully balanced, etc. Are there two readings of the ONCIX text? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. It says little beyond "She provided testimony". To be truelly fair, the attribution would have to be to both. Then, we would have to cite ONCIX's support for Bentley, and Venona etc., as the attacks come, and I'm sure they will.
There is a simple solution, and let's just pretend a neutral third party proposed it. The party of the first part will not attack Bentley's credibility during the time in question, and the party of the second part will not attack the Nation magazine's credibility during the time in question. Posterity may thank us.
And I raise this as process issue because if Cberlet wishes to begin trashing Bentley again, then that raises the spectre of the full weight of evidence being inserted. nobs 02:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Nobs: Do not, ever, insert your comments into the middle of a section of quoted text being used to illustrate a point. It is profoundly inappropriate, and creates the danger that someone will not notice that you have violated the integrity of the text. Your comments above are simply absurd. They demonstrate a total lack of regard for the standard principles of citation. Your offer to barter a misrepresentation of the historic record and proper citation in exchange for your being willing to suspend your relentless and vivid POV aggression in one instance are repulsive and disgraceful, and have no place in the Wikipedia community. Shame on you. --Cberlet 11:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Cberlet: Please do not move my comments around. My response was placed contiguously within the subhead Talk:Harry_Magdoff#Start_Quoted_Text (again, we see Mr. Cberlet blaming others for what appears to be his own mistake of creating a new subhead within what he claims to be one posting). As to citation regarding Bentley/ONCIX:

It can be read three ways,
(a) attributed to ONCIX

(b) attributed to Bentley and ONCIX

(c) attributed to Bentley

It is presented in historical narrative form. It appears in a section that presents Bentley's role in counterintelligence in the United States. Nowhere is the citation disclaimed by ONCIX as 'according to Elizabeth Bentley', or 'Elizabeth Bentley alleged', or 'Elizabeth Bentley testified to'. ONCIX introduces Bentley with an attestation to her credibility. The language by the editors, carefully crafted over several years, particularly cannot be read as (c); it can only be read as (a), or as (b). In the narrative form as presented, it is weighted with ONCIX's name. nobs 17:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Bentley & McCarthy
Cberlet, we appear close to agreement on some matters; the last edit you made is has potential. Being that evidence "is being re-examined" as you well put, my fear is introducing two controversial names, Bentley & McCarthy tends to work against closure. Is it really necesseary to refer to the "McCarthy period", in light of the fact, as you well stated, "evidence is being re-examined". The idea can be conveyed without forcing us to "re-examine" the "McCarthy period" within this article. Because in light of the outcome, the "McCarthy period" itself is subject to revision. Thank you very much. I do see improvement & cooperation in recent editting. nobs 17:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I am working under the impression that the technique involved in collaboratie editing is that when I rewrite something, I am supposed to think about what is fair for people with an opposing view. When I wrote the phrase in question, I inserted the "McCarthy Period" phrase because I thought it was important. I then added that the Bentley testimony "is being re-examined" to make it NPOV by recognizing your point of view. What I tire of is the constant erosion. It is my impression--correct me if I am wrong--that you tend to only insert text that favors your POV, and routinely delete text that contradicts your POV. So when I use the words "cooperation" and "collaboration" I appear to have an entirely different set of definitions. Perhaps you would be so kind to point me to the Wiki guidelines that you are using, so that I can correct my confusion.--Cberlet 19:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the cooperative effort. Excuse me, but I'm not certain what you are asking. If you are asking me to agree with you that I insert only my POV, that may be a mistaken premise. As the article now stands, I offer no major objections other than illuminating the point that the use of McCarthy's name, in any context, may be subject to revision as new evidence is re-examined. I share with you the frustration over constant erosion. Perhaps we could agree to leave this article, Harry Magdoff, the way it is for now. nobs 19:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
See Discussion of MLA style referencing proper style guide at Talk:VENONA_project#Citation regarding this edit [27]. nobs 22:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I read the report and it simply says that:
[Bentley] provided testimony on two Soviet networks of government employees who had worked on behalf of the Soviets in the late 1930s and early 1940s. She identified over 30 high-level US Government officials that had worked for the two networks run by Nathan Silverman and Victor Perlo.

The report doesn't endorse the testimony in any way that I have noticed. So I've modified the text to indicate that the report quotes her. -Willmcw 22:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
(Moving indent) We're part way there, but that's not what it says; what the CI reader says,
"The following were members of the Victor Perlo Network:",
and does not attribute
"Harry Magdoff: Statistical Division of WPB and Office of Emergency Management; Bureau of Research and Statistics, WTB; Tools Division, War Production Board; Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Commerce Department. Alan Rosenberg: Foreign Economic Administration"
to Bentley. What's more, what the CI Reader says cannot be attributed to Bentley. Nowhere in any source documents does Bentley give that job discription or job title. And that is the primary source being cited in this article. Though reference can properly made to her within the style guidelines, the meaning that ONCIX CI Reader says "The following were members of the Victor Perlo Network" is what must be cited. nobs 23:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, then we can say that the job titles are according to the CI Reader. -Willmcw 23:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
MLA style
Bentley did not testify that "Harry Magdoff, WPB, Tools Division, etc., was a member of the Perlo Group", as that language suggests. CI Reader has a footnote at 59, after Donald Wheeler. Problem is here [28], the complete Counterintelligence Reader at ONCIX's site, nowhere are the footnotes to these volumes included. Footnote 59 is drawn from these three sources:
Bentley deposition 30 November 1945, FBI file 65-14603 (available per FOIA "Special Request");

FBI Silvermaster file, where Bentley deposition is widely scattered throughout, in fact it makes up most of the file with sections repeated over and over again; and

FBI Silvermaster file, Part 2c, pgs 3-9 (pgs. 182-188 in original), where it applies specifically to Magdoff. Here it can be seen the statement is not attributed to Bentley, but to the FBI investigation. Hence, the MLA style applies, What do you do if your source doesn't list an author?
"you must first determine whether the author is anonymous, or whether the document was written by a corporation or committee. "

"When making a reference to a corporate author within your own text, you are advised by the MLA Handbook to refer to the corporation in the body of your paragraphs and to avoid citing them in your parenthetical references. For example: "According to a study sponsored by the United Nations, the world's resources have been decreased in 1998 by 20% (22)." nobs 23:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Cberlet alleges above, "From beginning to end, the author is merely listing the information provided by Bentley." This is factually incorrect. Bentley did not provided the middle names of the individuals in the citation, nor the job descriptions and titles. According to MLA style, ONCIX Counterintelligence Reader is the proper citation for the phrase "The following were members of the Perlo group." nobs 02:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Leaving out the footnotes for this chapter, looks like the gubmint is having the last laff on this one. nobs 02:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
And of course, much of the information also comes from here --> FBI Venona file, pgs. 4, 12, 17, 18, 34, 36, 54, 68, & 69. nobs 04:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Citation
Dartmouth College says What do you do if your source doesn't list an author?
"you must first determine whether the author is anonymous, or whether the document was written by a corporation or committee. "

"When making a reference to a corporate author within your own text, you are advised by the MLA Handbook to refer to the corporation in the body of your paragraphs and to avoid citing them in your parenthetical references. For example: "According to a study sponsored by the United Nations, the world's resources have been decreased in 1998 by 20% (22)."
History Department, University of Natal at Durban, South Africa
A BRIEF CITATION GUIDE FOR INTERNET SOURCES IN HISTORY AND THE HUMANITIES
"historians and their brethern have scholarly inclinations that lead them in two directions: one toward the need for precision in identifying a source and its provenance; the other focusing on a desire to provide a guide to a source's location for subsequent researchers. "

"Such sources are seen as undependable by information technologists unless they exist in some electronic archive; the archive then becomes the primary source citation." nobs 23:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The accusation that Magdoff was in the Perlo network is introduced with this paragraph about Bentley:
"She provided testimony on two Soviet networks of government employees who had worked on behalf of the Soviets in the late 1930s and early 1940s. She identified over 30 high-level US Government officials that had worked for the two networks run by Nathan Silverman and Victor Perlo."

Then there is a list of names with identifications. There is no question that the accusation that Magdoff was in the Perlo network is being attributed to Bentley. The cite in the text should be to "Bentley" and any inline citation to (Rafalko, 1999) The form of the Works Cited should be Frank J. Rafalko, ed., A Counterintelligence Reader, Volume 3: Post-World War II to Closing the 20th Century (Washington, D.C.: National Counterintelligence Center, no date) online at http://www.nacic.gov/history/CIReaderPlain/Vol3Chap1.pdf, p. 31.--Cberlet 03:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The problem is, that is still not what the primary source text says. Can you support your arguement (incidentally, the form you posted may be workable) with a citation to the manual of style.

Just thinking out loud: You may wanna reconsider my proposal from July to leave Bentley out; now you have two sources saying Magdoff worked for Soviet intelligence. Clearly, the ONCIX CI Reader, in this passage is citing corroborative FBI/NSA evidence, not just Bentley, with the flat statement "The following were members of the Perlo group". You now are aware the footnotes were withheld. Trust me, I did the proper research the first time months ago. nobs 03:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Also see above, What do you do if your source doesn't list an author?
"Corporate author and MLA style. Sometimes, the author of a source is a corporate author. When making a reference to a corporate author within your own text, you are advised by the MLA Handbook to refer to the corporation in the body of your paragraphs and to avoid citing them in your parenthetical references. For example: "According to a study sponsored by the United Nations, the world's resources have been decreased in 1998 by 20% (22)." nobs 03:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
(Moving indent) Cberlet, reading you comments from Talk:VENONA_project#Citation, I think we can narrow some issues.
Areas of agreement: The citation is properly to CI Reader, and then a reference to "online at ONCIX" or "online at FAS"

Areas of disagreement: the phrase "According to". The CI Reader does not say "According to Elizabeth Bentley, the following were member of the Victor Perlo Network." The primary source textural material can be documented to include information from sources other than Bentley. The CI Reader properly attributes other such references, e.g. "according to Klaus Fuchs", "according to KGB Col Oleg Gordievsky", "according to Greenglass", etc. But (A), "The following were members of the Victor Perlo Network" is not prefixed, declaimed, or qualified as "According to Elizabeth Bentley"; (B) the citation material contains information from sources other than Bentley. To place "According to Elizabeth Bentley" in the citation is to in fact read something into the text that is not there. That clearly meets the definition of POV.

Unresolved: My reading of the style manual is to place proper citation, i.e. CI Reader, within the body of the text of the Harry Magdoff article, something as follows: "According to the CI Reader the following were members of the Victor Perlo Network", and not as a parenthetical reference. This is based upon the fact that the contents to Footnote 59, CI Reader, vol.3 chap.1, were unpublished by the releasing authority. Hence, it becomes an unsourced citation by the CI Reader, and the CI Reader itself becomes the source material for the phrase "The following were members of the Victor Perlo Network." However, I welcome input on how to handle an unsourced citation within a primary source document. nobs 18:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Moving discussion on citation to Talk:VENONA project
We have been asked to move this discussion to a broader discussion at Talk:VENONA project. All further discussion should take place there.--Cberlet 01:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Sidenote to discussion regarding CI Reader: When this discussion first arose ~23 July, the two online sites carrying the CI Reader did in fact not even reference Mr. Frank J. Rafalko as editor. I made light of this fact in a private e-mail correspondence with User:TJive, which he may have cached, and a redacted version could be made public if necessary. Since ~July 23, the FAS site now lists Mr. Rafalko as editor, and his name does appear in other search engine results. Mr. Rafalko's name still does not appear on the ONCIX site, as best I can determine. Once having made the discovery of Mr. Rafalko being the attributed editor, I immediately inserted within all pertinent references to the CI Reader.

Significance: We should not preclude the possibility that likewise at some future date the endnotes to CI Reader, Post-World War II to Closing the 20th Century, vol.3 chap.1, will be made available. Oddly, the endnotes are published for all but two chapters, as best I can determine. Thank you for you attention to this detail. nobs 19:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
What part of moving the discussion to the group discussion page do you not understand, Nobs?--Cberlet 01:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Footnote 59
Example 1: Doanld Nivan Wheeler Bentley deposition identifies Donald Wheeler (Donald Nivan Wheeler, pgs. 35-42), nowhere does she identify Donald Nivan Wheeler. The FBI parenthetically inserts "Donald Nivan Wheeler" in paragraph 4 [29] in a narrative context specifically after a reference to "Wheeler".
FBI Venona file, pgs. 52-54, Belmont to Ladd memo reads in part,
"The penetration of OSS by the MGB will involve cases where we have [Venona project] information which involves individuals who were also named by Elizabeth Bentley." (pg.51)

"The bulk of the cases stemming from [Venona project] regarding the penetration of OSS deal with the same group of individulas who were named by Elizabeth Bentley in November, 1945." (pg.53)

Donald Nivan Wheeler

Wheeler was employed by OSS from 1941 to 1946. Bentley named him as having been a Soviet agent who furnished her information obtained from OSS files. The [Venona project] information reflects his cover name was Izra. We have previously requested investigation of CIA in the Wheeler case which actually stems from the [Venona project] information, but we did not, of course advise CIA what the basis of our information was. CIA is aware of Bentley's allegations. (pg.54) {Emphasis mine}
Conclusion: Bentley corroborates "Donald Nivan Wheeler" was a member of the Perlo group in footnote 59. "[T]he Wheeler case which actually stems from the [Venona project] information", not Elizabeth Bentley, is what's missing in the unpublished endnotes to CI Reader vol. 3 chap. 1. The FBI names Donald Nivan Wheeler as a member of the Perlo group, not just Bentley, in footnote 59. Hence, Bentley alone cannot be cited, and Counterintelligence Reader itself becomes the in text citation, as per What do you do if your source doesn't list an author?. More examples to follow. nobs 01:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Example 2: Silvermaster Network. FBI Venona file, pgs. 34, Ladd to the Director memo reads in part,
Silvermaster Network

"Individuals positively or tentatively identified from [Venona project] information and who were employed in Government agencies, included Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, Ludgwig Ullman, Bela and Sonia Gold, Victor Perlo, Harry Magdoff, Peter Rhodes, Allen Rosenberg, Harold Glasser, Duncan Lee, and Harry Dexter White. All of the above individuals were implicated in the Silvermaster network according to the information provided to us by Elizabeth Bentley." (pg.34)
Relevence: "All of the above individuals were implicated in the Silvermaster network according to the information provided to us by Elizabeth Bentley." This document places Perlo, Magdoff, A. Rosenberg & Glasser in the Silvermaster Network, according to Elizabeth Bentley. The later separation into two groups, Perlo & Silvermaster groups, is the work of the FBI, not the testimony of Elizabeth Bentley.
Conclusion: Bentley did not testify that "the following were members of the Perlo group"; Perlo group, is an extrapolation of counterintelligence investigators to simplify thier work. Also, this proves this quote from the CI Reader text, "She provided testimony on two Soviet networks", is likewise not the testimony of Bentley, it is the view of FBI investigators and CI Reader editors ex post facto. Hence the reading of the text, "According to Elizabeth Bentley the following were members of the Perlo group" is mixing and matching odd socks. And the contents of footnote 59 clarify this reference. Without footnote 59, the CI Reader itself becomes the source. More later. nobs 02:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Example 3: It could be fully documented if necessary in Bentley's deposition, several direct quotes where she was uncertain or could not recall specifically what Division within a Department or Agency an individual worked. All she could remember was that she recieved information to be transmitted to the Soviet Union from a certain individual. In many cases individuals changed jobs within a Department or Agency, and she could not recall specifically what their job task was in government. And the overwhelming volume of information she recieved likewise prohibited details like this. Hence, I could if necessary cite specifically where the text of the CI Reader material is FBI investigators and not Bentley as per job titles & descriptions. nobs 18:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Example 3a Harry Magdoff: Tools Division. See pg.31 "Tools Division" is derived directly from Venona 769, 771 KGB New York to Moscow, 30 May 1944, p. 1., not Elizabeth Bentley deposition FBI Silvermaster group file, Part 2c, pgs. 182-188 (pgs. 3-9 in PDF format).

What part of moving this discussion to the group discussion at Talk:VENONA project page do you not understand, Nobs? Are you totally unable to work collectively to reach consensus?--Cberlet 03:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Of coarse, you can't have a gangbang without the girl. nobs 16:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Discussion has temporarily been moved to another page - Talk:VENONA project
Nobs: You have been asked repeatedly to take this discussion to Talk:VENONA project so that we all do not have to have the same debate, over and over, on numerous pages that you have created/edited relating to your claims. These matters are being discussed collectively on the Talk:VENONA project page. If you continue to insist on running the same discussion on the same matters and same language on Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage and Talk:Harry Magdoff and other pages, instead of having one discussion at Talk:VENONA project, I will ask for Page Protection on the appropriate pages until you agree to follow the group process.--Cberlet 17:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Request for Mediation filed
I have filed a request for mediation on this and related pages, see here:[30] --Cberlet 18:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Evidence/prosecution

Tags

Misrepresentation of underlying documents

Boardman to Belmont

Published sources

Challenges

Cberlet's original research

Appendix A

Summary

Shooting down Navasky

Tentative proposal

From Neptune and Pluto

McCarthyite?

Overbearing

Removing my comment from personal attack subhead placed after my good faith proposal and posting

Outright falsifications

Other views

Original Research

PLEASE DO NOT REWRITE OTHER PEOPLE'S EDITS AND SUBHEADINGS!!!

Excising Material on Harry Magdoff

Vote to Merge

Process

Factually False Claims

Round One

Cberlets' false claims

Start Over

Request for Comments

Comment

Can we please start over with a clean slate?

Good Faith

Alleged misrepresentations

Start Quoted Text

End Quoted Text

Example Two

Bentley & McCarthy

MLA style

Citation

Moving discussion on citation to Talk:VENONA project

Footnote 59

Discussion has temporarily been moved to another page - Talk:VENONA project

Request for Mediation filed