Talk:Lucy spy ring

(First comment)

From the article: "Long after the war, in the 1960s, Roessler offered a somewhat obscure account in interviews with journalists." I find that fascinating since he apparently died in 1958. Quite the mysterious figure he was. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.5.141.106 (talk) 04:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Re-write

I’ve substantially re-written this: it was highly un-encyclopaedic as it was, as well as being insultingly un-neutral. The stance taken in the previous text, that Read &Fisher's thesis was entirely correct, is suspect, to say the least; other reliable sources dispute it (actually they say it’s arrant nonsense, but that’d be un-neutral as well). The correct way to handle this, I understand, is to present both points of view in a "Controversy" section, so that’s what I have done.
Also the section on the history of "Lucy" said next to nothing about the spy rings actual operation, so I’ve tried to remedy that, as well.
I trust that is OK with everyone. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I made a number of edits here recently, which were reverted,[1] so I am opening a discussion, per WP:BRD. The edit summary was hardly an explanation, so I have no idea why they were dumped, but the reason for the changes were as follows:

• The first edit was simply to include the man's given name, for consistency (this one has been restored, here)
• The second, for Bureau Ha, was to change the link from one which makes no mention of the Bureau (and, as it is on the current intel set-up, nor would I expect it to) to one on the German WP which describes Hausamann's bureau in some detail.
• The third, another link to a German article, was to provide the clarification requested on the Herren Klub.
• The fourth was to fix the disambiguation link for Christian Schneider to one which would be used on the English WP, rather than the German article's title which is presented when the template is used.

As I think these changes were an improvement on what was there before, I feel there needs to be some justification for removing them. if none is forthcoming, I will re-instate the changes in a few days. Xyl 54 (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

PS: And the friend, who was the link between Roessler and Bureau Ha, was Xaver Schneiper, not Hans Hausamann, as stated here. Xyl 54 (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

"if none is forthcoming, I will re-instate the changes in a few days." That is not the way WP:BRD works. You come to the talk page and make your case; if you get WP:consensus here, then the material can be reinserted. It is not a unilateral move.

I don't doubt Xyl 54's interest in improving WP, but the edits were primarily adding red links and links to de:WP.

1. When characters are introduced, it is typical to use the full name; subsequent refs can use just the last name. The name appears once in the text, and once in list far below. I restored this edit as acknowledged above; there's nothing to do.
2. Inserting foreign wiki links in the body of an article is discouraged. WP:Manual of Style/Linking#Linking states, "To avoid reader confusion, inline interlanguage, or interwiki, linking within an article's body text is generally discouraged." The sentence explains that Bureau Ha was a cutout for Swiss Intelligence; linking Bureau Ha to Swiss intelligence agencies may not be great, but it makes sense; Bureau Ha is explained a couple paragraphs up. Creating a red link for Bureau Ha with a following link to a German article about de:Hans Hausamann offers most readers no help (WP:EASTEREGG). In fact, the positioning of the link in the sentence led me to erroneously believe that the friend in Bureau Ha was Hans Hausamann.
3. Creating a red link with a following link to a German article about the (previously unlinked) Herren Club does not clarify the Herren Club connection in the article. A request for clarification is for text in the current article rather than links elsewhere. Is the club significant for other reasons? Furthermore, wikis, even foreign wikis, are not WP:RS.
4. Converts an existing de ILL to a red link followed by a de link. The ILL is within the body of the article, but I kept it because it is in a list.

Glrx (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I expected the {{Ill}} to be used correctly, but it wasn't. Here's the correct usage.

• Christian Schneder

Glrx (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's the Ill for HK:

• Herren Klub

Glrx (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Introducing WP:REDLINKs requires that the topic have WP:N. No N, no red link.

I object to putting links to foreign language wikis in article body text.

I won't object to red links being added with the {{tl}Interlanguage link}} (Ill) template as long as the links go to corresponding existing articles (and therefore evidence WP:N).

I object to the addition of red links with separate markup to foreign language articles. Such markup does not disappear on its own.

I object to WP:EASTEREGGs.

Glrx (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, thank you for replying.

For the first, and not to get into a discussion on BRD, but I think I understand it as well as you; I generally prefer reaching an agreement to edit-warring, though I'm pretty clear that consensus is more than two guys agreeing something on a page, and that just reverting without giving a reason (something more than “I object” or “I don't like it” anyway) isn't enough hold up a change.

I also think if you didn't like or understand what I had done you could have just asked me, rather than reverting the whole lot; or if you felt I'd made a mistake over formatting the links you could (if we are working collaboratively) have just fixed them.

And I don't think I'm here to ask your permission to edit this page, (which is why I'm not particularly impressed with you continuing to edit the page after a discussion has been started) though I would like to reach an agreement if you have legitimate objections.

Finally I certainly don't agree that I misled you, though I can see you might have made an honest mistake; but if we get into the blame game we'll be here forever.

As for the edits I made, you seem OK with the Fellgeibel one, and you've re-formatted the Schneider one (for which, thank you: I'm not as familiar with the ILL templates as you seem to be, as I don't really use them much. I was unaware that they delete themselves once the English article is written, for instance)

So the points at issue are 2 the Bureau Ha link, and 3 the Herren Klub link.

If foreign wiki links are discouraged, they certainly aren't proscribed (see H:ILL#Inline links). I don't know whether the Herren Klub is notable enough for the English WP, but if someone wants to know more about it, and the choice is adding a link to another WP's article or waiting until someone gets round to writing one here, I'd go with the former. So which is to be? Leaving it unexplained, with a clarification tag, or adding an inline foreign wiki link? And if the latter, do you want Herren Klub left unlinked with just a link to the de page, or do we use the format you've suggested above?

As for the Bureau Ha link, if you object to Eggs, then you have a problem, as the existing link (to an article that doesn't mention the bureau at all) is a bigger egg than a link to the de Hausamann page (which at least explains what Bureau Ha was, and gives a pointer to anyone wanting to write an English page on it). The page is not unintelligible with google translate, though the link could always be improved with a section target (viz de:Hans Hausamann#Nachrichtendienst). If you insist on a template link to a named page, then we'd have to use de:Büro Ha, but as that just redirects to the Hausamann page, it would only be the same as the one you found so misleading. So (again) what is it to be? The very eggy status quo, or a link that might actually inform someone? Xyl 54 (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Xyl 54: Sorry for the delay, but I've been buried.

Bureau Ha is apparently only notable as a front for Swiss Intelligence; it did nothing significant on its own. It's so significant that it does not get mentioned in the en.WP article on Swiss Intelligence. Neither does it have an article on de.WP; there its description is in an individual's article.

There is a de.WP article on the de:Deutscher Herrenklub. I don't know how important that club is, but if you wnat to include an Ill link to it, then I have no objection. "Herren Klub" gets 1800 Google hits. "Deutsher Herrenklub" gets 1660 hits. If you do put in an Ill link, I'd suggest using the de.WP article name on en.WP rather than "Herren Klub". Glrx (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Glrx:: Thanks for replying to this

Just to clarify a couple of things; the reason Bureau Ha isn't mentioned on the Swiss Intelligence article is that it operated in the 30s and 40s, while the article is on the current Swiss Intel setup; and it wasn't just “a front for Swiss Military Intelligence”, it was a private intel organization set up and run by Hausamann (it seems there were a number of them about in those days; Roessler's day job involved something similar). And if “its description is in an individual's article”, and the de:BH page redirects to Hausamann's article, doesn't mean it isn't notable; it is just as likely that no-one there has got round to written an article on it yet.

Regardless, the choice (I would say) is either to use the template and redlink BH, with a de link to the section in the Hausamann article; or leave BH unlinked, and use an interwiki link to the section in the de article.

As for the Herren Klub, I wouldn't have rated it any more notable than BH, (and if there's one thing the en WP doesn't need it's yet another article on another bunch of Nazis) but if we are going to redlink it I would favour the format you used above: The German WP can call it what it likes, but the source for the info here (Tarrant) calls it simply the HK, and I think that is what we should use. Anyway, I've no idea whether or not it was called the DHK when Roessler was a member in the 30s. Xyl 54 (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

PS: Another possibility for a Bureau Ha is to refine the redirect on the de WP and link to that; tho' I don't know a lot about editing on other language WPs, and I don't read or write German. Just a thought... Xyl 54 (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Continuation

Continued discussion from user talk page

Copied from Glrx talk page (here), for completeness; continued discussion on this subject.Xyl 54 (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC) Hello I am just checking to see whether you still wish to be part of the discussion on this page; I replied to your comments there a while ago but have not yet seen a response. I left it a while, as you were busy elsewhere, but I would like to resolve this before moving too far on myself. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC) @Xyl 54: My position hasn't changed from 31 March. I don't view the Bureau Ha or Deutscher Herrenklub links as notable, but if you want to include them as {{ill}} links I won't object. Glrx (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC) Firstly, my apologies for the lateness of this reply. I appreciate you haven't changed your position; the purpose of my reply over there was to point out our position is contradictory. You cannot argue that HK and BH are non-notable on the en WP (which would suggest using plain text and an inline link) while at the same time insisting the Ill template be used (which would of necessity create a redlink) Nor can you reasonably reject adding useful information (to an encyclopaedia!) that has been requested, because you personally object to the formats (neither of which has any absolute prohibition in the guidelines) to be used. So, do you have a better way of presenting this information (one that achieves what I was intending, while at the same time ticking all your own boxes), or are you prepared to accept a remedy that is good enough, in the absence of that something better. Otherwise it feels like you are simply reserving the right to object at a later stage, and I would like to resolve this matter as amicably as possible. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC) I'm lost. I don't think the topics are notable on en:WP, so they don't need links. The article explains Bureau Ha as an intelligence front. Herrenklub seems unimportant to the Lucy article. I don't do much editing on de:WP, but de:WP has found that de:Deutscher Herrenklub is notable enough for an article. de:WP has not yet found that de:Bureau Ha is notable enough for an article. Consequently, I'm for no links. I don't see the links as additions of "useful information" but rather links to irrelevant details in a foreigh language. Encyclopedias are not intended to include all knowledge. You don't place either topic high on notabily and seem to accept {{ill}}: "As for the Herren Klub, I wouldn't have rated it any more notable than BH, (and if there's one thing the en WP doesn't need it's yet another article on another bunch of Nazis) but if we are going to redlink it I would favour the format you used above". Glrx (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC) So, here we are again. Allow me to recap: I want to put a couple of links into this article, in order to "increase readers understanding of the topic at hand" and to "help the reader find related information", and because the terms in question are "proper names that are unlikely to be familiar to readers". And as there is no appropriate article on the en WP, I intended to use an interwiki link to somewhere that does have the information (in this case the de WP). These could be inline links (viz Herren Klub (de), Bureau Ha (de) [or Bureau Ha (de), using the redirect there]) which you have reverted before; or we could use the Ill template, which you suggested (viz Herren Klub, Bureau Ha [or Bureau Ha]) but have now objected to, though none of them are prohibited. I've also wanted to remove the link currently in the article as a pipe from Bureau Ha (per WP:EGG), as the piped article (Swiss intelligence agencies) has not, and won't have, any mention of the Bureau; You've insisted on keeping it, despite your stated objection to EASTEREGGs. I have also asked you for suggestions on how to link in a way that you don't object to; your only suggestion was not to have any links at all. So, do these objections of yours extend to an intent to revert any of these links if they are put in? Because if so, we will need to get a third opinion, to resolve this (and I cannot believe this issue is having to go the full 15 rounds and then to a judges decision!) Xyl 54 (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC) I had to go back and reread the article. By and large, Deutsche Herrenklub and Bureau Ha are irrelevant to the Lucy spy ring. The article seems to mislead when it suggests that Rudolf Roessler ran Lucy. Roessler was a mailman selected by Thiele and others to disseminate the information. Roessler was not recruiting agents in Germany or elsewhere. Thiele, Gersdorf, Fellgiebel, or others were running Lucy. Rado was running a Soviet ring and hooked up with Roessler, but it's not clear whether Rado was an open intel officer (Switzerland was full of them) or clandestine. It also sounds like the British used Roessler as a mailman to reach Rado. None of that makes DH or BH interesting. Maybe the principals of Lucy knew each other through DH, but Lucy is still a well-kept secret, so we don't know. Roessler's ties to BH/Swiss Intell would mean that the Swiss got copies of the information, but the article suggests they were passing it to the British. Maybe the Swiss also passed stuff to the Germans. Lucy's known successes helped the Soviets more than the British or the Swiss. I still oppose links to foreigh language wikis. The foreign targets do not offer insight into Lucy. DH is all over the map. Hitler met principals in private but denounced in public. DH seemed to be against Marxism but Lucy benefitted the USSR. The article used a friend as a cutout to Bureau Ha. The German article on Masson does not mention BH. Masson was head of Swiss Military Intelligence during WWII, he was getting Lucy's output, so the details of the Roessler to Masson link is a minor detail. The de.WP article on Roessler equates Swiss Military Intelligence to BH and is done with it. BH was run by Hausamann, but Hausamann is not mentioned in the current article. The de.WP for Hausamann just labels Bureau Ha as a conduit, so it is not more informative than the current en.WP article. Masson, Hausamann, and BH were just conduits for Lucy's information. You are welcome to open a 3O, but please get a good idea of what the de.WP articles say so you can tell people why the links would be important. Glrx (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC) And again! I see you have re-read the article, though if you think .a) Roessler was simply the mailman .b) Lucy was a British op to pass information to the Soviets .c) the Swiss were passing Lucy product back to the Germans then I suggest you read it again. (tho' if the article says Roessler was running Lucy in Germany then that needs changing, but I didn't put that there; I only re-wrote the History section. It's also incorrect that Roessler worked for Masson at Bureau Ha; that's been added since) And there may be a lot of stuff we don't know, but what we do know is there, and is well-documented in reliable sources. If you disagree, I would suggest you find some sources that say different. Also, you can dismiss the detail as minor if you like; all details are minor if you have no interest in a subject. As for getting a good idea of what the de articles say, I'm well aware of that. And I've already said why I want to put the links in; there is (marginally) more information there than there is here, and more than needs to be added to this article. Contariwise, are you clear your objection isn't simply a case of not liking something? Anyway the 3O request is in now, if you care to comment. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

3O request summary

• User:Xyl_54 wishes to link two items in the article; Herren Klub (as information has been requested) and Bureau Ha, (as the current link is to an article that doesn't mention it); as there is no info on the English WP he intends to use an interlanguage link to articles on the German WP that do have information.
• User:Glrx has objected to this as he is against interlanguage links on principle; he has argued that the links (and the details themselves) are irrelevant, and therefore not necessary for the article.

(posted 22:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC))

3O response: Folks, since sources do not have to be in a Wikipedia's native language, how about appropriate translations of these articles be added to en.wiki, so that neither redlinks nor inter language links are needed. These newly-created articles here on en.wiki can of course be brief and will of course link to their corresponding articles in other languages (German, in the case here). Will that suffice? Jclemens (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jclemens: Thank you for grasping the nettle on this one! Your suggestion is certainly inventive, tho' I'd say a bit complicated for the situation here.

The question is only "is it OK to use interlanguage links or not?". MOS:LINK#Linking says they are “generally discouraged”; H:ILL#Inline links offers guidance on making them and provides templates to assist in this. Do you have any thoughts on that question? Xyl 54 (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on that one. I do not like MOS in general, and as such do not believe myself a good editor to be weighing in on them, hence my suggestion was about circumventing the MOS, rather than making any sort of 'ruling' on one. I do not mind at all if you ask for another third opinion focusing on that specific question, although other editors may decline it as I have commented here already. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Mess

This article more or less duplicates the Roessler article apart from the controversy section which junk (two tv people, not academics, or historians? Why is it even in there) and is essentially a part of the Rote Drei article, where is should be. I'm updating the Alexander Radó article at the moment and at some point will start the expansion of the Rote Drei article at some point in the next couple of years. This whole article could go as already covered by Roessler and the controversy is pure trash. scope_creep^Talk 11:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)