Talk:Wilfred Burchett/Archive 1

Archive 1

Moved from the article

[Health Warning! The text on the Australian Wilfred Burchett located outside the current square brackets is being inflicted repeatedly on Wikipedia. Apart from many errors and insinuations in the “article” (e.g.: Burchett was a stringer for the FT: his articles were not "reprinted"; Denis Warner demonstrably worked for the CIA), the lack of balance can be quantified: Burchett lived for 72 years but ca. 476, or 28% of the ca. 1,678 words in this “article” relate to the Jack Kane libel proceedings which lasted, upon appeal of the lower court ruling, from October 1974 to May 1976, less than 3% of Burchett´s life. With regard to the 28%, Red baiters are repeatedly deleting the following text or similar: (source: letter to Burchett from his lawyers as cited in his autobiography): “On 20.5.1976 the Australian Appeals Court in Melbourne ruled 1. that Burchett had been seriously defamed and that the Court acknowledged his repute as a journalist. 2. that all judges agreed there had been a serious miscarriage of justice. 3. that they would grant a retrial were it not for Kane not being able to retrieve his witnesses from overseas.” ] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.134.80.2 (talk • contribs) --Cactus.man ✍ 15:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Answer to "Cactus.man": it is revealing of Wikipedia that you class a statistical word analysis showing the massive pro-Capital, right-wing bias of the current Burchett "article" and a quotation of an Aust. Appeals Court legal ruling in favour of Burchett as a "rant".

I think the issue here is not the accuracy of the analysis, but its style, and particularly its suitability for an encyclopedia. There is no problem in contributing other details about Burchett's life. At the same time, his current notability centres on the allegations discussed.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Documentation

I have marked two evident statements of unsupported political judgment about the "reasons" for somethings with fact tags. DGG (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

KGB allegation?

Does this warrant placement in the lede? The source for it seems missing in the section, and it is a fairly hefty-sounding charge to go in the first sentence, as a characterisation of the man. I suggest removing it from the first sentence unless there is some essential reason about how the alleged KGB stuff is highly relevant to the man's notability. --Asdfg12345 05:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It does read oddly. I'll change it.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Passport revocation etc

Why is there no mention of Buchett's 17yr pedriod where he was un-constitutionally denied an Australian passport and made to live in exile? 121.74.128.200 (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've now added this.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Restructure

I think most, if not all, of the controversies should be inserted into the text on his career when they occurred.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've now done this, as well as adding specific criticism by Tibor Méray. I think this preserves NPOV.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Salisbury Quote

Don't know if we should have the Salisbury quote in the intro. It's misleading to say that Burchett was an "intimate" of Henry Kissinger. There was a controversial incident in which Kissinger invited him to a working breakfast during the Paris Peace Talks. I gather Kissinger was (a) a workaholic, (b) trying to use Burchett as a back channel to Hanoi. Nothing much came of that and I don't think they met any other time. It's a good line but I think it misrepresents Burchett's status outside the Left.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I've now removed the quote. For a jaundiced view of the meeting see Tibor Meray's book, On Burchett.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Korean War

I have removed the following text:

POWs testified that Burchett participated in the interrogations they were subjected to by their captors.

It is simply not accurate and the issue is canvassed in the Allegations section.

Its source is [1] but this page, while itself inaccurate(!), does not contain this particular statement.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

KGB allegation again

Sorry, I'm new here, must have done something wrong. Added this sentence: "In 1957 Burchett became a paid KGB agent." supported by a link to a scan of a KGB archive document, see the 11:16, 31 January 2012 edit. Within 15 minutes the change was undone with a comment Use of document is original research not to mention, Russian text not really appropriate in English article.

Q1: I'm not sure why a reference to an archive doc. constitutes an original research, if it is, it was conducted by Vladimir Bukovsky, not me.

Q2: Russian text not really appropriate in English article - I see a lot of references to foreign language articles in Wikipedia.

Could someone please help me to make my edit acceptable? Thank you, Karl Kuzmich (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure why you reverted before getting an explantion. In any case here it is: Document references are the work of historians. A document as such is this not really a reliable source in itself. It needs to be analysed and interpreted by a trained historian. Is it a forgery? What is its context etc. Again the work of a historian. Burchett led a controversial life. Many tried to discredit him for various reason. A raw scanned copy of a purported KGB document in Russian is not what we usually mean by a reliable source. True there are many references to foreign language articles but it is recommended : "When quoting a source in a different language, provide the original text and an English translation, either in the body of the article or in a footnote." (see: Non-english Sources ) In this case, such a strong statement needs clearer sourcing. Bukovsky is an important political and human rightst activist who has posted important documents from the Soviet Union, but he is not a historian. The statement still needs a reliable source. Joel Mc (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Joel Mc. Will try to find better sources. For the record, I did not revert before getting an explantion, I changed the meaning of the statement. Back to work, Karl Kuzmich (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry in my haste I did not notice it was not a revert. As you probably know, Burchett upset officials in many places and was the target of hostile criticism from many sources, not to mention straight out smears. This doesn't mean that there are no ghosts in his closet, but only that it is important to have reliable evidence for accusations. You might be interested in an article done by a number of respected Australian academics adressing some of the issues: Wilfred Burchett and Australia's Long Cold WarJoel Mc (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not clear to me what is going on here, but I thought that I had explained above that such a reference is original research, yet you have put it back in. I am not interested in edit warring, but will appeal this if you continue to use the reference, in Russian or English. Joel Mc (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

According to your explanation, I made a reference to the secondary source that does not believe it is forgery. I also provided a translation of what it says. What's wrong now? Neither I'm interested in the war, I am trying to find a correct way to express the important fact, and if we need an arbitration to find it out, so be it. Karl Kuzmich (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you have referred to archives, but there is one step more, a reliable source would need to be an expert, i.e. a historian, who has analysed the documents. As useful as the Solzhenitsyn Archives are, they can't really be considered a reliable source for the task at hand--they are raw documents. The "important fact" that you refer to is that there is a document in the KGB archives which states what you translate it to say, that fact that it is in the archives does not mean that it has been analysed by experts. You appear to be the person that has discovered the document, and for me that is still original research.Joel Mc (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Joel Mc. Thank you for the article link. I'm not trying to diminish Burchett's achievements, and I especially admire his reports from Hiroshima and Cambodia. However let's set emotions aside and talk facts, then maybe we find an explanation of hostile criticism from many sources. I have to respectfully disagree with two of your positions:

1. I do not refer to a raw document (thank you for your guidance). I found three different archive collections that annotated the primary source, and we have no reason to believe that the annotators are not qualified historians or archivists. Here are the links: John Hopkins University, Solzhenitsyn Archives, Bukovsky Archives ) 2. The suggestion that I have discovered the document is not correct. The document was discovered and smuggled by Bukovsky, you may read about that in Judgement in Moscow and in A Hidden History of Evil.

I do not mind to add more words like "allegedly", "reportedly", etc., or tags like "verification needed" to the statement. However if you remain adamant about keeping this important fact out of the article, then please go ahead and request an arbitration. Respectfully, Karl Kuzmich (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

All your links are to three sites which appear to be the same collection of KGB documents. All refer to the same document (1201 October 25, 1957 T52/128). Each collection contains a large number of documents. There is no indication that Bukovsky or anybody else has analysed or even vetted all of the documents. Your reference is still only to the raw document. If you did not come across that reference in the collections, what source directed you there? So far I have only the machine translated title of the scanned document in English. It would be good if you could translate the whole document. Even the title raise some skepticism: the National Guardian was never "the organ of the American Progressive Party" (This must mean the US Progressive Party). The US Progressive Party was disbanded in 1956. There is no indication of what the amount of monthly subsidy was, or whether it was for Burchett or for the National Guardian or even why it was paid. Historians could point out that there are many reasons why documents turn up in KGB archives. CLAIRE BERLINSKI (your link) herself states: "Certainly, they [the documents as a whole] shouldn’t be taken at face value" and it is unlikely that Jonathan Brent (Yale U. Press) was frightened. The only fact that we have is: " At the request of the KGB, Central Committee of the KPSU issues a lump sum payment (20,000 rubles), and a monthly subsidy to the correspondent of the newspaper National Guardian (publication of the American Progressive Party) Burchett." I totally agree that it is important to follow up this fact and include analysis of it in the article. I am already contacting persons who might be able to shed more light on it. Once we have a translation of the whole document then we could describe the document with something like:

"A document in the KGB archives states that the KGB paid him a lump sum and subsidy for...etc."

It would of course be better to have expert analysis and I will keep looking. BTW I am in no way emotionally attached to Burchett's reputation. I just think that Wikipedia is not the place to introduce a reference to an original document that does not appear in what we usually mean by a reliable source.Joel Mc (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Translation

Translation below. Backticks mean handwritten, square brackets are my comments. I did not translate stamps or comments on the peripheries of the pages. I am aware of the discrepancy between different statements of Burchett's monthly subsidy in different parts of the document. Feel free to paste (or ask me to paste) it anywhere necessary.

PAGE 1:

`On the Matter of the KGB in the USSR Council of Ministers`

Grant the application of the KGB in the USSR Council of Ministers to grant a one-time allowance to the correspondent of the organ of the American Progressive Party, `the newspaper "National Guardian", Burchett` in the amount of 20,000 rubles, and establish his monthly subsidy in the amount of three thousand rubles.

`sent to: Serov`

PAGE 2:

(Same as Page 1, but all sections typed, no handwriting)

PAGE 3:

I report that in late May of this year, operational contact was established by an employee of the KGB with the permanent correspondent of the newspaper `National Guardian`, an organ of the `Progressive` Party of the `United States U. Burchett,` accredited in Moscow. [In Russian, the first name would have been transliterated as "Uilfred."]

`Burchett` previously worked at many bourgeois newspapers, such as the English "Daily Express" and "Times", the American "Christian Science Monitor", etc.

From the available materials at the KGB about the person `Burchett` and his activities, the following is known:

`Burchett`, b. 1911, an Australian of English descent, was born into a farmer's family. In the period 1934-35, `Burchett` joined the organization "Friends of the Soviet Union" and began to keep in touch with progressive elements and members of the Australian Communist party. In 1936 he joined the Communist Party and, not yet having proven himself in any way within the Party, moved to London. Since then, he maintains no organizational connection to the Party.

`Burchett` is a major journalist and publicist on international affairs, the author of many progressive books, two of which have been published in the Soviet Union. As a correspondent for bourgeois right-wing newspapers, he simultaneously worked at progressive and Communist newspapers and journals behind the scenes.

PAGE 4:

`Burchett` has traveled much, been to the USA, lived for a long time in Europe and in countries of the Far East, where he developed great connections in political and journalistic circles. Before his arrival in the Soviet Union, he lived in Hanoi and Peking.

He worked in Berlin as a correspondent for the "Daily Express", and frequently traveled to the People's Democracies—Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria. He simultaneously worked at the international agency Telepress.

In 1948, when that agency became Czech and was headed by the Czech JAKŠ, the latter accused `Burchett` of collaboration with British intelligence. In connection with this, his second wife, who was living in Sofia, was expelled from the Communist Party in Bulgaria. It was later revealed that JAKŠ was a provocateur, and he was arrested by Czech organs. Subsequently, `Burchett's` wife was rehabilitated in the Bulgarian Communist Party.

In Moscow, `Burchett` [unreadable] times: in 1954 and in 1956. At the time of these visits, an officer of the KGB was dispatched to `Burchett`, who cautiously made him understand that he could achieve accreditation at any newspaper for permanent work in Moscow. After `Burchett` was assigned to Moscow by the newspaper `National Guardian`, the authorities made a decision on his accreditation and the allottment of an apartment for him.

In view of the fact that the editorial board of this newspaper cannot fully maintain `Burchett` as its correspondent, he arrived in Moscow on the condition that he would be granted a monetary subsidy, as well as the possibility of un[unreadable] work in the Soviet press.

During contact with `Burchett`, we were able to adequately study his personal qualities and possibilities, the nature of his

PAGE 5:

connections in the political world beyond the border, among the diplomatic corps and foreign journalists in Moscow, as well as to receive a series of interesting materials from him in written form.

Considering that `Burchett`, by his personal qualities and extensive connections in political and journalistic circles, is of unconditional interest, we made the decision to bring `Burchett` to cooperate with the organs of the KGB.

Per our assignment, `Burchett` is investigating possibilities to infiltrate the American and western European bourgeois press.

Considering our interest in the journalistic activity of `Burchett` in the bourgeois press in a direction desirable to us, as well as his cooperation with the Soviet press behind the scenes, the KGB is applying for the issuance to `Burchett` of a one-time grant in the sum of 20 thousand rubles, and the establishment of a monthly subsidy for him in the sum of 4 thousand rubles.

Draft Resolution of the CPSU Central Committee attached.

CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTE OF STATE SECURITY [KGB], COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF THE USSR

M. SEROV

Chulsky (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Chulsky and Joel Mc. Very interesting. I see we are getting somewhere. Joel, there is no surprize all three links lead to the same original -- only one copy was smuggled away. I doubt the summaries were machine-translated, the copies are low-quality images, and OCR doesn't work well on them (I did inquire around and talked to people who tried to translate the docs or at least make them searcheable; the project fizzled because it couldn't be automated).

I think, the discrepancies in the monthly subsidy amount are between what the KGB asked for and what the Council of Ministers approved (but that's my conjecture and is, no doubt, an original research). Thanks again, -- Kark Kuzmich (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Document veracity discussion

I have a couple of queries about this:

• Burchett was so important the KGB referred him to the Council of Ministers? He was only a journalist, and one at the time working for a minor left-wing paper.
• There never has been an Australian Communist Party. It has always been the Communist Party of Australia. However, this mistake, for whatever reason, is always made in ASIO files.
• Why is JAKS capitalised? This makes it look like a US intelligence file.

Bottom line: We need to assure this is not a forgery, and I'm sceptical, particularly given the mistaken reference to the Progressive Party.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jack Upland and think that we need more expert info before we can include the reference at all. The above translation is interesting (who is Chulsky?), but so far the reference is still to a primary source only. I believe that WP policy is clearly explained here:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.NOR Primary Docs etc

I will continue to look for secondary sources.Joel Mc (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Are we talking about the veracity of the entire archive now? Well, there are plenty of secondary sources to that, still I can provide some answers.

• KGB was a branch of the Council of Ministers and probably got its budget from there; Burchett "was only a journalist", but the KGB may had hoped to turn him into an important asset. In fact, I have no proof he became a spy, there is a possibility he turned the offer down.
• Chulsky translated the Communist Party of Australia this way. I don't know who s/he is; I thought it were you who brought him in. The translation seems adequate, but the TOP SECRET marking is omitted.
• In this document the last names are inserted by hand into the typed text (a standard practice: a low-clearance typist types the template; then a high-clearance official fills in the most sensitive data). The hand-written letters look like caps.

As for the "mistaken reference to the Progressive Party", it was only a year since it was renamed, and the KGB bureaucracy was human too. Imperfections are often seen as proof of validity in historical documents. If a document is perfect then it could be a red flag.

Thank you for your efforts, I'll be looking for secondary sources too, Karl Kuzmich (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Used your formula. Hope it is acceptable until better sources become available. Karl Kuzmich (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that after reading the "translation" I made it clear above that " that we need more expert info before we can include the reference at all"--I also reiterated WP policy about using primary sources. In this case we clearly need something more than the primary source. Your edits began with the statement "In 1957 Burchett became a paid KGB agent." This is a strong accusation which even the reference does not substantiate. Joel Mc (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

First you made clear you need a reference, then you wanted to say it's just an allegation, then you asked for a translation (thank you, Chulsky, whoever you are) and even provided a formula you could agree to, and now you are back to square one discussing my original statement. I adjusted my stance several times to make it more palatable for you, but you didn't move an inch and declared the edit war. The only thing that is clear to me is that it is called censorship, and I'll be back -- Karl Kuzmich (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that you misrepresent me. From the beginning I pointed out that the reference to the scanned document constituted original research. What convinced me of the dangers of using just the primary resource was the original edit which accused Burchett of being a KGB agent. Softening the accusation does little to reduce the need for a reliable secondary source.Joel Mc (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It does seem a clear example of original research. A document has been found in an archive that apparently supports the allegation against Burchett.

The veracity of the document is a separate issue. I haven't studied the document and I'm not qualified to assess it. My comments were merely voicing doubts. I accept that the Progressive Party issue isn't as important as I thought. However, I think the Council of Ministers is. Yes, the KGB reported to the Council, but so did the whole USSR. Did the KGB have to report on every agent to the Council (effectively the cabinet), and to the Central Committee of the USSR? That doesn't seem possible. I can understand that the KGB might want to crow about Kim Philby or someone like that, but recruiting a well-known left-wing journalist seems no big deal. The whole thing seems to chime in with the whole "agent of influence" idea, which as far as I can make out is largely a right-wing fantasy and propaganda theme (designed to discredit left-wingers) rather than a genuine intelligence tactic. After all, why pay someone to voice opinions they genuinely believe and would voice anyway?--Jack Upland (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Jack Upland, for joining the discussion. Let me stress:

• The Soviet bureaucracy worked this way. I'm not a professional historian, but I know that every Soviet agent was cleared pretty high up. And every lowly document was adorned with the highest office logo; e.g. my high school diploma bears the logo of the Ministry of Education. Doesn't mean the minister was involved (just as president Clinton did not personally sign my naturalization papers, even though his signature is there). BTW, it was the "Central Committee of the CPSU," not USSR.
• The payment may nave been offered to cut off his way out. Considering WB's unpredictable behaviour, would make sense to introduce a blackmail option. Also, as in any bureaucracy, there should be a paper trace of a task performed. An official tasked to recruit cannot respond "why pay someone to voice opinions they genuinely believe and would voice anyway?"
• Joel Mc wrote: Historians could point out that there are many reasons why documents turn up in KGB archives. May I have an example, please?
• Joel Mc quoted Claire Berlinski: "Certainly, they [the documents as a whole] shouldn’t be taken at face value", but he does not finish the quote: "Certainly, they shouldn’t be taken at face value; they were, after all, written by Communists " (emphasis is mine, -KK). Looks like Ms.Berlinski has no doubt the docs are genuine; neither have JHU archivists or Solzhenitsyn Archives. Neither Bukovsky is easy to fool. I still don't understand why a reference to an article in a newspaper would make this doc somehow more verifiable. If I write a letter to my local newspaper, would that reference satisfy you? If not - why? There are refs to articles all over Wikipedia.
• You mention "right-wing fantasy and propaganda ... designed to discredit left-wingers". Interestingly, one of the experts I tried to involve looked at this discussion and replied that he does not care about arguing with "left-wingers". Does he have a point? I may be an idealist, but I'm still here... Karl Kuzmich (talk) 16:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I propose to add a "However a document in the KGB archives states that B. might have been recruited only after 1957" sentence to the "Testimony by Krotkov" section after the words "...at their first meeting in Berlin in 1947." tag may be added if you wish. Karl Kuzmich (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to write Central Committee of the CPSU. This to me is odd. Everything is high-level. Your analogies don't work. Obviously the KGB operated as part of the party-state bureaucracy, but why refer such a minor case to the highest bodies???

I don't think Burchett was particularly unpredictable. He followed the Hanoi line very closely. It does seem a waste of money, but, no, that doesn't mean it's not true.

My comment about right-wing propaganda was specifically about the "Soviet agent of influence" tag. I don't know that there's any confirmed example - unlike "Soviet moles" etc. All these issues should be decided on evidence, not on whether the messenger came from the left or right.

And for the record, I think you should be allowed to insert your sentence.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion (hopefully)

Thank you, Jack Upland. I hope we agreed the sentence may stay. If still interested in the discussion, here is my response. However, let's realize we are undulging in the dreaded OR.

• The secret service workes this way: an agent recruited is an agent paid. There were exceptions, but they always made handling more difficult and the bureaucracy tried to avoid them. True for the KGB and CIA; I don't know much about other countries.
• Please note the waste of money may have been less than you think. The 20,000 rubles in 1957 was about average yearly wages of a skilled laborer; after the monetary reform of 1961 it would become only 2000 rubles. Still, any amount of money would require an approval high up. Doesn't mean Serov have read the docs: his secretaries prepared the papers, and he would sign them all without reading; however lower officers wouldn't be allowed or comfortable taking responsibility. Remember, Stalin has only been dead for 4 years, and every action was still permeated by fear.
• Curiously, I just noticed the "Soviet spys" category is listed at the bottom, and it has been there for a while. How can I find out who made that edit? Karl Kuzmich (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry that the sentence referencing the KGB archives was re-introduced before a consensus was worked out on the talk page. I oppose its inclusion since the reference is to a primary document and thus constitutes original research in opposition to WP policy. (As already explained above.) Although the discussion above is interesting, it is irrelevant to the bottom line: this is what is meant by original research. The archives containing the document are housed in three different locations and the fact that one of those locations is on the Johns Hopkins University site does not mean the document is anything more than a primary source as is the case with millions of documents housed in university libraries. It does not make it a reliable source. Since the document is in a language not accessible to most readers of the English language Wikipedia it is even more important that such a sentence has a reliable source. Joel Mc (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree that the discussion above is interesting but irrelevant, because it does constitute OR. And the doc. itself may or may not constitute OR, depending on whom you ask. However, I am referencing not the original, but the archivist's summary, which is clearly a secondary source, and I provide a translation of the summary. I really hope we can close this case. If you are still not satisfied, let's invite the Tec15 contributor who added the Soviet Spies category on May 22, 2008 to join the discussion and share his sources. Karl Kuzmich (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see an "archivist's summary". Your reference is to a list of documents which contains original documents with their one sentence summaries. This does not constitute a secondary source any more than the descriptions in a library card catalogues are secondary sources. I have already referred to the WP:NOR page above, but let me just quote two of the sentences which seem to me to be particularly relevant to this issue: "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them." and "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." What is missing is that required "reliable secondary source." I am combing relevant literature and have found absolutely nothing so far and am waiting to hear from several historians I know. The need for an analytical or evaluative secondary source is particularly important when it affects the reputation of a dead man who cannot defend himself.Joel Mc (talk) 10:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Request for third-party intervention

I've been asked to look at this issue in an administrative capacity. I don't know anything about the subject matter, but WP:PRIMARY is pretty clear that primary documents should not be used for anything but "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts". They should definitely not be used to contradict reliable secondary sources. Are there any reliable, secondary sources that Burchett became a paid KGB agent in 1957? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention. As far as we could find, the only secondary source is the Russian annotation to the archival document (translated in Reference 18).

I contacted Vladimir Bukovsky, who declined to get involved in the discussion, but wrote:

In my book "Judgement in Moscow" I explained in great detail how, when and under what conditions I have copied the documents. Furthermore, all my documents were a part of documentary evidence presented to Constitutional Court of Russian Federation in the case of CPSU [KPSS] vs President Yeltsyn (1992), were accepted as such by the Constitutional Court, and still can be found in the Constitutional Court of RF archives together with the above-mentioned case.

The book "Judgement in Moscow" does not explicitly mention the document in question, but dispels any doubts that the archives are genuine.

My invitation to the Tec15 contributor (who added the Soviet Spies category on May 22, 2008) to join the discussion and share his sources has not been answered yet. --Karl Kuzmich (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

---

There seems to be some misunderstanding about what constitutes a secondary source: notation on a primary document certainly does not. The issue is not whether the document is genuine or not, but is there a reliable secondary source in the words of WP policy that makes "analytic or evaluative claims about them." So far there are none. I have combed the books in my university library, looked widely on the internet, and am in contact with three historians who are familiar with the subject (and what a reliable secondary source means) and so far have come up with nothing. Professor Robert Manne who feels that Burchett was a traitor to Australia and who has written critically about Burchett elsewhere does not mention the KGB document in his 2011 book, Making Trouble, which devotes a chapter to Burchett.Joel Mc (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

---

As we have established, we cannot find a secondary source that would satisfy all sides of this discussion. However the aforementioned WP:PRIMARY policy states that "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia", and this talk page provides sufficient proof that the source is reliable.

I'm not surprised Prof. Manne does not mention the doc. -- there are no indications he can read Russian. Karl Kuzmich (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

---

To be exact, we do not have a secondary source at all-- it has nothing to do with satisfying all sides. Let me finish the quote from WP: PRIMARY: "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." It is that "relaiable secondary source" that is missing. The statement in the text: "alleges that Burchett may have become a KGB agent only after 1957." is just such an interpretation referred to above that requires a reliable secondary source.Joel Mc (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

---

I beg to differ. We do have a secondary source, and I cannon find a justification to your idea that an archival annotation (or library card catalogue for that matter) is not acceptable. Upon Joel Mc's suggestion (why did he suggest that?) the primary source study was conducted and then dismissed (why? was it because it did not provide the result he hoped for?). Even if the 3rd party finds that the source is a primary, I am translating it literally and not interpreting it. We are using the sources that we have. The lack of interest to the KGB archives by the academic establishment should not allow us to hide the truth behind technicalities.

Joel Mc, please explain your "The smell of deja vu gets stronger with the appearance of the mysterious Chulsky" statement on Jack Upland's talk page. I'm afraid you are mistaking me for someone else. This is my first experience with editing Wikipedia (some experience!). After all the efforts invested, we have a right to know what were those preceding events.

Jayjg, what's next? Is this a formal arbitration? Do you have any questions? Karl Kuzmich (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Joel Mc asked me to look at this issue. If I understand correct, the dispute is mostly about the following statement.

"However, a document in the John Hopkins University INFO-RUSS Archives alleges that Burchett may have become a KGB agent only after 1957."

Upon reading the discussion, I came to a conclusion that the dispute is focused mostly about authenticity of this documents, about accuracy of its translation, as well as about its correct interpretation. In other words, the discussion is a typical and clear example of original research made by the Wikipedians themselves. I have absolutely no desire to discuss the document pre se, that will not lead to anything useful: per our policy a primary source "may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. " The very fact that the discussion of this reliable source took so long space is a direct demonstration that the statement it supports is not straightforward, therefore, it cannot be added to the article. (To demonstrate my point, let me provide just a single example. The document says: "Considering that `Burchett`, by his personal qualities and extensive connections in political and journalistic circles, is of unconditional interest, we made the decision to bring `Burchett` to cooperate with the organs of the KGB. Per our assignment, `Burchett` is investigating possibilities to infiltrate the American and western European bourgeois press." However, we all know that KGB, as well as most organisations of that type, resorted to some specific jargon even for internal purposes. In connection to that, we need an authoritative opinion on whether the words "we made the decision to bring `Burchett` to cooperate with the organs of the KGB" mean that Burchett really became a KGB agent. Moreover, we also know that KGB (as well as its successor, FSB) frequently pretended that they have done some work, when nothing had been done in actuality. Can it be possible that the words " Per our assignment, `Burchett` is investigating possibilities to infiltrate the American and western European bourgeois press. " just mean that Burchet would simply continue to do his job (to write for "bourgeous press") and KGB simply pretended that that would be done per their assignment? Note, by writing that, I do not mean that my interpretation is correct, I just demonstrate that the document allows several quite different interpretations). In addition, I am not sure what an archival annotation or library card catalogue Karl Kuzmich refers to, however, an annotation from Solzhenitsyn's or Bukovsky's archives are definitely not acceptable, because both of them are not historians. In summary, the above statement is a typical WP:OR, and should be removed. That is not negotiable, because the principles of our NOR policy cannot be superseded by other policies or local editorial consensus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

PS. It is quite possible that the archival document Karl Kuzmich refers to had already been analysed (and interpreted) by some professional historian. However, in that case, such source should be available. A brief search revealed just few sources on that account, the most recent article is a review on the Robert Manne’s essay "Wilfred Burchett" authored by Tom Heenan, National Centre for Australian Studies, Monash University (Robert Manne’s Wilfred Burchett: The Uses and Abuses of Biography Australian Journal of Politics and History: Volume 56, Number 2, 2010, pp. 208-224.) The abstract of this article says:

"Robert Manne numbers amongst Australia’s most influential public intellectuals. Though his politics have moved leftwards, Manne remains critical of the left’s so-called neo-Stalinist interpretation of Cold War history. Of particular concern is the left’s defence of the radical Australian journalist, Wilfred Burchett, who was widely regarded as a communist propagandist and traitor. Manne’s 1985 Quadrant essay, “The Fortunes of Wilfred Burchett: A New Assessment”, lent considerable academic weight to this view. Though Manne has since acknowledged some errors, he still maintains that Burchett was a communist “hack” and traitor. But Manne’s argument remains selectively based and erroneous. It uncritically accepts security-based intelligence, while sidestepping the abuse of Burchett’s civil liberties by Liberal governments. Manne uses and abuses Burchett’s life to push his ideological agenda about Stalinism’s evils."

The main articles contains the following commentary on the Krotkov's archive:

"As with Kane, Manne’s view was based on the evidence of the alleged KGB agent, Yuri Krotkov. He had met Burchett in Berlin after the war and renewed acquaintances when the latter moved to Moscow in the mid-1950s. According to Burchett, he sought Krotkov’s help in forging journalistic contacts and finding accommodation in Moscow. In 1963 Krotkov defected to Britain. He told MI5 that he had been a member of a KGB entrapment racket that lured unsuspecting western diplomats into the arms of Moscow prostitutes. According to Nigel West, British intelligence quickly dismissed Krotkov’s KGB’s bona fides.⁷⁸ Despite this, Krotkov testified before the last bastion of McCarthyism, the US Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security, in 1969. It was on the basis of Krotkov’s testimony that Manne mounted his case against Burchett. Krotkov told the Subcommittee that he had been instructed by the KGB to cultivate Burchett. Apparently, Burchett confided to Krotkov that he was a clandestine and “illegal” member of the CPA, and on the payrolls of the Chinese and North Vietnamese governments. Burchett wanted a similar arrangement in Moscow. Krotkov testified that Burchett was subsequently assigned to the KGB unit responsible for the activities of foreign journalists and “provided […] with a handsome flat”. Krotkov did not mention the exact nature of Burchett’s work with the KGB, nor detail the considerable problems he had in securing accommodation in Moscow.⁷⁹ Though McCormack dismissed Krotkov as a “fabricator of malicious lies”, Manne argued in “Fortunes” that the Russian’s evidence constituted “potentially […] the most important source of information concerning the estimate of Burchett’s relations with the KGB”.

"Given the hearsay nature of these offerings, Manne’s essay added much needed intellectual weight to the Quadrant line. Underpinning “Fortunes” was Manne’s abhorrence of totalitarianism — both its fascist and Stalinist strains — and of those, like Burchett, whom he considered to have promoted and worked for Stalinist regimes. Manne’s abhorrence was seeded by the loss of his grandparents during the Nazi Holocaust, and intellectually shaped under Knopfelmacher’s tutelage at the University of Melbourne in the 1960s. Under Knopfelmacher, Manne grew convinced that communism and fascism stemmed from the same root — totalitarianism. This conviction informed Manne’s attitude towards Burchett. The journalist was not only an apologist for Stalinism, but also a symbol of all its evils and deceits. In arriving at this view of Burchett, Manne was assisted by Kane and Warner who supplied details of the journalist’s alleged treacheries, and ASIO’s former Director-General, Charles Spry."

The ref #78 is Nigel West, Games of Intelligence: the Classified Conflict of International Espionage (London 1989), pp. 96, 101, 122.

The ref #79 is Heenan, From Traveller to Traitor, pp. 285-288. The Deposition of George Karlin (Yuri Krotkov), 193 of 1973, Washington DC, Supreme Court of New South Wales, 17 April 1974.

Interestingly, despite having been published only recently, the Heenan's article totally ignores the document from the Bukovsky's archive. It is highly unrealistic that the author is simply unfamiliar with it.

I believe, this case is a pure demonstration of the great danger of usage of primary sources for Wikipedia. I think we all mush learn due lessons from that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Paul. I think your research indicates quite conclusively why this primary source cannot be used as a source for this article, and in general why Wikipedia discourages the use of primary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Paul, Jayjg, and Joel. Just a few notes:

1. The document in question was posted not on personal Solzhenitsyn or Bukovsky websites, but rather by organizations that study Communist crimes. However small those might be, I don't see reasons to believe their staff is not professional.

2. Interesting statement that neither Solzhenitsyn nor Bukovsky are historians. Right, they didn't attend Western liberal arts colleges. May someone please correct the corresponding Wikipedia articles and declare "GULAG Archipelago" and "Judgement in Moscow" works of fiction. On the other side, Nigel West, a spy novel author whom a trial judge called "a profoundly dishonest man" and "one of the most dishonest witnesses I have ever seen" seems to have proper credentials.

3. Neither Manne nor Heenan may have never mentioned the document in question simply because they don't read Russian. Heenan may have also ignored the document because ... oh, never mind, a journalist would never ignore a document only because it does not promote his political views. Neither would a Wikipedia editor for that matter.

There are more, but let's give some rest to Burchett's bones. Enjoy your victory, gentlemen. Karl Kuzmich (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Deposition of the archival documents in the archives of respectable universities is not tantamount to endorsement of their content. By making them available online such universities simply provide the researchers with an opportunity to analyse their documents, and to provide their interpretations. In the absence of such works we cannot make our own interpretations (especially in the case when different interpretations are possible, which had been demonstrated by me);
2. Yes, they are not professional historians, and, e.g., the most famous Solzhenitsyn's work, Archipelago, as a rule is not being used by scholars writing about Gulag.
3. Russian is not too exotic language, and it is quite possible to make a translation of any document you want from Russian to English, especially if such a document is deposited in the archive of some reputable Western university. This your argument contradicts to your #1.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In the interests of accuracy, given that he is discussed above, we should note that in his most recent essay on Burchett (published in Making Trouble), Robert Mannne states that he no longer thinks Burchett was a KGB agent and in fact retracts many of the allegations made against him.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Update / rewrite

What a delicious coincidence to find that remark quoting Robert Manne above here when it was Manne who published documentary proof of Soviet payments to Burchett in July 2013:

• "'Case closed' as Soviet archives prove Wilfred Burchett was KGB operative" by Troy Bramston, The Australian, 26 July 2013
• "His paymaster's voice sets record straight on Wilfred Burchett" by Robert Manne, The Australian, 27 July 2013, also to be published in the August issue of The Monthly.

Manne explicitly admits that he was wrong to abandon his earlier case about Burchett as a KGB agent. Manne's essay should put any question of unsuitable primary sources to rest and should be the basis for updating this article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Come again??? Just how many positions has Robert Manne got on this case??? And why am I ceasing to care or even be surprised? Left, right, left, right - marching into oblivion.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Isn't revising one's position in light of new evidence the right thing to do? – Manne has never struck me as the marching type. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that as far as I can see, there is no new evidence as Manne just warms over the same photocopies that were carefully discussed above. I am not sure why he seems to have come late to this, but maybe he doesn't read WP. We still do not have a reliable historian's (Manne is not a historian) take on this.--Joel Mc (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I find it bizarre that after the careful discussion above, Bukovsky's document which had been translated above, CT52/128, was not mentioned in the article. Why did your proposed phrase "A document in the KGB archives states that the KGB paid him a lump sum and subsidy for...etc." never make it into the article?

If The Australian and The Monthly publish Manne's conclusions, it seems a bit niggardly and surly if there's no mention of it on Wikipedia. The main requirement is verifiable & reliable sources – that's what these two publications are. Whether Manne's points deserve coverage is not for Wikipedia to decide. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

My reference to Manne was to his book,Left, Right, Left, which anyone who really knew Manne would know. Everyone's position should be based on evidence. And really you shouldn't have to revise it. You should just get it right the first time. Unfortunately, we are all prone to error. That is why we should be careful about making sensational allegations about people (like accusing them of being KGB agents). I would refer anyone who is interested to the book, Reporting the Other Side of the World, which contains a forensic sifting of these issues. Sure, let's look at new evidence, but let's evaluate it calmly in the context of the whole corpus of evidence. What Manne is doing is swinging round like a half-cocked weathercock every time there's a shift in the breeze. That's immoral and absurd.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha Quotes

Do we really need "gotcha quotes" included in this article? Sure, if it illustrates a point about his life, that's fine. But if it's just a selective quotation garnered from his voluminous writings and cited out of context in order to discredit him, then I don't think it belongs here. This is an encylcopedia, not a pillory.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Which quotes would you like to see removed? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Which quotes should stay? I think a fair-minded person would have no problem with the removal of all quotes. It's unfair to judge journalists on a daily publication decades afterwards.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The bulk of journalists' output is in daily dispatches and publications and they are then of course the main source of quotes, especially if they seem to be well considered and deliberate. Removing them and the surrounding phrases which establish their relevance would reduce the article considerably, especially if Dean's, Knightley's and Warner's quotes are also removed. Quotes which lack sources should of course be speedily removed; in the case of the Khmer Rouge assessment, that would also necessitate the removal of the section where he is shown in opposition to his uncited earlier quote. I think the current selection of quotes isn't partisan and doesn't constitute "gotcha quotes"; removing them will reduce the substance of the article and invite allegations of bias. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The quotes of other people about him are quite different. They are relevant to the article because they are about him. But an author who has written extensively, as Burchett has, cannot be fairly represented by a few, obscure quotations taken out of context. If someone wants to say he supported the Khmer Rouge genocide, let them cite an authority to that effect (there are several), not concoct a misleading quotation. That's a frame-up.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that the quotes by Burchett and those about him must be treated so differently. Writers who make it into an encyclopedia article do so because of their writing. As for the specific Khmer Rouge quotes: as I wrote above, that whole paragraph could justifiably be removed, although I'm not sure that would advance your goal of casting him in a more favourable light ("gotcha quotes", "encyclopedia, not a pillory", "fair", "frame-up"). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you think it should be a pillory? I don't believe Burchett is here because of his "writing" at all. His reputation was based on a series of scoops and the enormous controversy which continues to the present day. However, I feel the "gotcha quotes" have to stay because many people favour this approach as opposed to a thoughtful overview of the topic.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

A pillory? I don't think it is nor should it be. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Wilfred Burchett/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This needs in-line citations.--Grahame (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 16:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Which book or books best represent Burchett's journalism about Vietnam

I have included several of Wilfred Burchett's early propagandistic books in the Bibliography. As Russians say, "A word is not a sparrow - once it's out of the cage you cannot put it back again". So good or bad, awful or admirable, tainted or true, those books cannot be ignored or dismissed.

When it comes to the 1960s and 1970s, I think many would consider that Burchett's journalism and the books he published about Vietnam acquired a different quality and stature. My request to those who are well acquainted with his journalism of this period is for them to add one or three titles about the Vietnam war to the Bibliography.

The 2007 collection doubtless includes some of the best reports from this period but, practically speaking, the Vietnam books are the most readily accessible as second-hand buys online and in bookstores. John Crowfoot (talk) 04:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

In which autobiography did Burchett express doubts about East European trials?

"In his autobiography, Burchett later admitted, he began to have doubts about the trials when one of the Bulgarian accused repudiated his signed confession." There is no annotation confirming this assertion and so it remains wholly unclear whether this refers to 1969 or 1980 (or to the posthumously issued 2005 autobiographical text of the same name).

It would be interesting to know how early, or how late, Burchett began to have qualms and, a different matter, when he decided to voice them in public. John Crowfoot (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is covered in the 2005 book pp 323-324. It don't know if it was included in the 1980 text. It isn't in Passport (1969), which only deals with Europe briefly.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Improvements and distorted perspectives

So far as I can remember, this article has improved considerably over the past three years. For instance, it is now possible to read online several books from different periods in Burchett's life—the Stalinist People's Democracies (1951), and the posthumous and retrospective Rebel Journalism (2007).

References have been added, plugging some of the obvious gaps in the text.

Show trials—again?

Historically, it's hard to believe that someone could seriously credit the post-war show trials in Eastern Europe after the confessions by Lenin's contemporaries to fantastic and wholly unbelievable crimes at the great show trials of 1937 and 1938.

However, the Tribune weekly in the UK took them seriously, and Wilfred Burchett was only 26 in the late 1930s, only in his late 30s in the 1940s, and possibly still naive ... He willed himself, perhaps, to believe what he was writing was indeed the truth. Only later did he feel doubts and a measure of uncertainty.

Which was he then? foolish or dishonest? Only a serious biographer can decide.

Double standards

Other issues do nag in this revised and meticulously balanced version of the entry.

In explaining or justifying Burchett's request in 1956 to the Soviet authorities for a regular monthly subsidy, and a one-off payment to enable him to settle in a well-appointed flat in central Moscow, double standards do seem to be at play.

If someone approached the US authorities asking the same, with support for their request from the CIA, would any observer hesitate to denounce the arrangement as one wholly unsuited to a journalist's independence and freedom to write what he wanted?

It makes one wonder what kind of arrangements Burchett had with the Chineses authorities in 1949-1951 when he was in Korea, or with the North Vietnamese authorities after 1965 when he was reporting on the Vietnam War?

Burchett singled out for exposure

As for the "shifting allegiances" reference, it is striking that in 1992 officials at the former Central Committee archive would not give Bukovsky any documentation about any Western journalists, dead or alive. They explicitly rejected such a request. Yet they did slip him this damning information about Burchett.

Accident? Possibly. It's also conceivable that Burchett's shift (back) to the Chinese and then to the Vietnamese earned him black points with his former paymasters. They punished him with the release of this explicit evidence of his willing and mercenary collaboration. (I say mercenary because there was no nonsense about living on the wages of a Soviet worker or journalist: no, Burchett must have the equivalent of a Western correspondent's salary.)

John Crowfoot (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Additional info

In an interview (2017) by Australian Julia Zemiro with comedian Tim Ferguson Burchett was was mentioned. Ferguson spoke of his father Tom Ferguson who was a correspondent for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) in South East Asia. The father happened to meet Burchett in a street and did an interview with him. The footage was sent by diplomatic post to the ABC in Sydney but was burned. 2001:8003:A111:8200:F88A:779A:5F64:6A1F (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

What date was this? Where was "the street"? John Crowfoot (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is notable, in any street.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I was asking for the minimum data needed to assess this information. Without knowing the country and, what's more, the date (a year would be sufficient in this context) a 2017 interview with someone's son that tells us his father once did an interview with Burchett ... that's not very solid evidence of anything or even particularly interesting, IMHO. John Crowfoot (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You are totally right; I agree with you absolutely. This might be the only time I can say that, but I'm glad that I can.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

That's good! John Crowfoot (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

If the destruction of an interview of its South East Asia correspondent (his name is Anthony Langbene "Tony" Ferguson, not Tom) with Burchett by the ABC can be verified, it would be notable. Here's a link about it: https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/F10563/ (Australian War Memorial). The Burchett interview and its destruction by the ABC is mentioned starting at 8:25. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Too many "ifs". A considerable amount of material submitted by correspondents is not used by TV companies. One person is saying that the interview was not only not used - it was physically destroyed. By whom? Why? It's only hearsay and an allegation by one person who was not directly involved: there's no other evidence, so far, for this more dramatic reaction. John Crowfoot (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Did you visit the link I provided? There, the author of the Burchett interview, Anthony Ferguson, speaks of the incident. He's hardly "one person who was not directly involved". I think the incident illustrates the censorious attitude of Australian authorities and would fit well in the section where David Bradbury's film Public Enemy Number One, equally censored in OZ, is mentioned. The clip above seems to be from outtakes of his film Front Line. See also https://www.awm.gov.au/findingaids/photo/bradbury/. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

No, my apologies, I assumed the clip was from the same intereview with the son. That is different.

This, however, is one incident. It's odd to be focusing on this alone while neither you nor Jack Upland have yet taken up the substantive issues raised in the following two sections. Was Burchett a fool, in your opinion, or being dishonest when he first accepted the post-war show-trials in Eastern Europe and then, later, began to have doubts? There don't seem to be other options and neither of them flatter his reputation as a journalist. John Crowfoot (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinion on Burchett. I only wanted to substantiate the editor's observation that started this thread. The incident seems to have made quite an impression on Tony Ferguson's son, Tim Ferguson, that he mentioned it in 2017 on Julia Zemiro's Home Delivery. In the process, I also found that it had been mentioned in a few other sources. I have no interest in the assessment of Burchett – fool, dishonest, disreputable journalist – others have to find sources in that regard. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this anecdote is not notable. The Australian hostility to Burchett is well-documented. I will respond to the other issues if and when I have time to research them.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)