Jump to content

User talk:Nobs01/Archive01

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between DATE and DATE.

Post replies to the nobs, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to User Talk:Nobs01/Archive02. Thank you.

Southern Manifesto

Regarding The Southern Manifesto: Usually Wikisource articles only contain the actual text. In this case that would include the signatories, but not the (endless) list of people who did not sign. The current article contains some other material which would remain in Wikipedia. If you or other editors would like to cover elements of the history, such as notable politicians who did not sign, then that's appropriate too. Also, a summary of the manifesto itself should be in the Wikipedia article. Interested in writing it? Cheers, -Willmcw 21:53, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)


Reply from User:Nobs

  • 'inter-generational non-consensual sex' is a term I read in the Albuquerque tribune March 6 2005 discussing current legilastion before the New Mexico State Legislature, I am busy recovering the source
  • links to my site contain only well researched information not available elsewhere on www
  • sorry my friend, I am a preofessional Research Historian and not in the business of self promotion. Nobs 21:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) nobs
Hello Nobs -- The example you cite is therefore legal jargon if anything, but again, if one is passing a law to make something illegal, surely one is not using such terminology to avoid offending the offenders. And regarding the blog, please cite the source, rather than you blog. Please also see Wikipedia:No original research. {cross-posted to my talk page} Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 17:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I removed the links you added to your blog -- as well as "Pedophilia became inter-generational non-consensual sex". Please do not create or edit an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business (see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). BCorr|Брайен 19:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

...will generally be automatically reverted. Cite original sources if you wish. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for AMA Assistance on Russell Tribunal

After reading your request for AMA assistance and the original article, I would be willing to listen and possibly assist you through your goals with this article. Please contact me at my talk page for further assistance. - KC9CQJ 02:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for being expedient. Do you have access to Instant Messenger or IRC so that we may collaborate? I've read the articles but would like to hear what you have to say in conversational form. KC9CQJ 04:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In the meantime, here's what I see to your question and what course of action I suggest -
  • The deletions in the target article Russell Tribunal mainly have to do with leaving the criticism area of the article blank or links to what I presume are your own personal blog. As you may or may not know, Wikipedia does not permit original research - Wikipedia only permits primary or secondary sources to my knowledge, that way we as editors may verify it. Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own content, like a blog - it is an encyclopedia written by all, and I believe one of the comments to you on the talk page referenced that, albeit in an interesting, yet possibly condescending tone.
  • The talk page commentary that you have gone through mainly is stating that although your point is valid, it does not belong within the article that you're trying to place it in. I noticed that your major premise for placing your notice within the Tribunal article is a footnote from Gulag Archipelago alone, and not major critical analysis or primary/secondary sourcing from the original author. If several different authors can be shown to say that one of the author's points in Gulag Archipelago was to point at the Russell Tribunal, so be it. Then it can be included.

These are the major points that are being made, I feel, and if we can find more primary sourcing that would indicate that this was some of the author's intent, then we can include it in the Tribunal article. If not, perhaps your contribution can find a place with the Gulag Archipelago entry.

Please find me on IRC in the #Wikipedia channel, contact me via AOL Instant Messenger at KC9CQJ, or e-mail me at kc9cqj(at)aol(dot)com , and we'll work on a resolution that fits the needs of Wikipedia and you. KC9CQJ 05:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And as another note - looking at our own entry on Bertrand Russell from Wikipedia, there's a quote there from Solzhenitsyn - so it would appear, that with some thought and persuasion, we could get an entry into either the Russell Tribunal or Bertrand Russell article until I realized that you put that quote there :=). I would suggest that we go for a mention of the footnotes and quotes either in Gulag Archipelago or Bertrand Russell, but let's investigate that on the talk pages first. KC9CQJ 05:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Response e-mail with suggested course of action to your mailbox. KC9CQJ 03:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Looks like the anonymous IP user is being a spot of difficult. I think we should break for the Gulag Archipelago article and pull away from Russell Tribunal, but that's just me. Sorry I confused him using your name - I just like to use names because I'm in the customer service business. Later. KC9CQJ 10:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IMF Article

Saw your post about wanting to re-work the IMF article w/out going through the cumbersom add/change/rv/talk process. In similar cases, I've found putting draft re-write in my user space to be very helpful. I can work on it, then post a link to it from the real page's talk page, allowing other users to comment/edit my draft version. It allows consensus to be reached more easily, b/c only those people who are really interested will take time to work on the draft copy stored in your user space. Once the draft stabilizes, do a massive overwrite of the original article w/ the new consensus version. There will be enough "consensus inertia" built up that your big changes are likely to remain unless you've added significant bias/POV to the new version. Feco 19:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I put a new section on my talk page (section name: Nobs' list)... feel free to add links to pages you'd like a review of. Out of curiousity, how did you come across my name in order to req. for a review? Feco 19:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
See User:Feco/Temp/Wal-Mart for an example of how to set up a temp page within your user space... allows for full wiki functionality. Just copy the directory tree structure, User:Nobs/Temp/IMF for example, and you get full wiki funcionality. Feco 19:42, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This page is about the International Monetary Fund; IMF can also mean the International Metalworkers' Federation, a global union federation.
I looked at the IMF article in your userspace... I think it's a drastic improvment over the current article in wikispace. One minor comment... many users like having an "overview" graf or two above the table of contents. You may want to add one to your version, lest someone slap an ugly intro at the top of your hard work. Feco 01:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I also looked at the "live" SDR page in wikispace... I like your edits. Feco 01:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It looks like the IMF article has stablized for the time being. I think you did a great job. I don't think I can add too many specifics about the nitty-gritty of the IMF's policy actions and things like that... it's a little too technical for me. I agree with your comment (on my TALK page) about trying to kill the everpresent phrase "critics say", but I don't the hardcore anti-IMF folks will ever let that slip by. For the time being, I'm going to drop the IMF section from my talk page, but feel free to go back and leave me a note later if you want me to take another look. Feco 19:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discussion of Carter Doctrine

 Responding to the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan that had recently taken place, the President stated:
Any attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

This policy thus warned the Soviets away from Iran, which had just had a revolution and at the time was holding hostages in the United States Embassy, and from Iraq.


  • Response to above anonymous post:
  • Any attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

This policy thus warned the Soviets away from Iran, which had just had a revolution and at the time was holding hostages in the United States Embassy, and from Iraq."


To argue that "an assault" on Iran, a nation which

  • (1) had no diplomatic relations with the United States as of November 1979.
  • (2) had no trade relations, i.e. stopped shipping oil to the United States in November 1979
  • (3) was not part of any "collective security" agreement with the United States since November 1979

would be "an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America", even though the United States had no treaty obligations to do so, which would be repelled by "any means necessary", a vailed refernace to nuclear war is an incorrect reading of the Carter Doctrine.


  • The term "any", includes, but not limited to, Russia, Iraq, Mexico, al-Qaide, the mafia, the boy scouts, and virtually anyone.
  • the term "outside" is ambiguos; does it mean "outside the Persian Gulk region" or could it mean "outside the security umbrella of American collective treaty alliances"
  • the term "force" is used, and not the term "power", "nation", "state", or "government" etc. Hence it can include non-governmental entities, such as terrorist groups, etc, but may exclude boy scout organizations, for example.


And I beleive both former President Carter and Zbignew Brezhinski will support my arguement. --nobs

Historical method

Narrative

Contemporaneous corroboration is a method historians use to establish facts beyond their limited lifespan. It is used to locate, identify and examine testimony of witnesses. It is similiar to methods used by police and lawyers based upon Mosaic Law, "by the testimony of two or more witnesess a matter is established." Literally it means, "at the same time the story is told by multiple witness."

(It differs from "contiguous", or sequential events, and "consequential" or the accumulation of events). It is the method used by Alexander Solzhenitsyn in accumulating the testimonies of witnesses in the Gulag Archipelago, which consequentely becomes a valid historical document. The wiki article qualifies it as such by lisitng the testimony of 217 witnesses. (Technically, it would be incorrect to say Solzhenitsyn "wrote" or "authored" the Gulag Archapelago as a "work of non-fiction", to use the phrase of librarians and booksellers; while Solzhenitsyn's personality and biases come through, it is fundamentally structured as a work of "Literary Investigation"...but lets not split hairs...).

In contemporaneous corroboration the researcher or investigator must put out of his mind any conclusions he may be aware of, so as not to discolor his judgement. For example, everyone knows the verdict of history as to who won World War II. Now if the investigator begins with the conclusionary premise: "How did this come about?", he is using the "reverse method", seeking out facts to support his conclusion, and perhaps overlooking evidence of enormous consequence. Under the "contemporaneous" method of investigation, the researcher is ignoring conclusions and seeking out the heart and soul of the matter that consequently led to conclusions. The reverse method is obvious on the Bertrand Russell biographical page, where originally it read:

{{insert quote}}

"papering" over and "reinveting" facts to support known conclusion. (With a click one finds all sorts of apologies Russell spoke in support of Bolshevism and other doctrines.) "Reinventing facts" differs from Revisionism.

Revisionist history has often been criticized in recent years as an effort to "rewrite history". Critics of Multiculturalism for example claim it is nothing more than an effort to rewrite American History and attack upon patriotism or other commonlly held repsected accomplishments and achievements. While at the same time many of these same critics call for revision of McCarthyism in light of the Venona Papers. Revisionism is neither good or bad, it is a constant process.

The contemporaneous method seeks to "live the life" of the event, beginning at a point in time and moving forward. The reverse method begins with a conclusion and works backward. And beginning with a conclusion, often arrives at the same result (one wonders why, having known in advance the result, someone would spend the time running in circles).

Contemporaneous method was demonstrated and popularized several years ago with the PBS tlevision documentary of Kevin Burns, The Civil War, an achievement in that medium for using historical narrative and still photography. Instead of traditional recreations by actors and set designers, the text was carried forward by studied historians speaking "in the present tense"--narrating events 130 years prior. This may have sounded peculiar to the lay audience yet employed the exact terms, form and method historians use to gain the time depth perception lacking when "looking back at events" lacking in the revers method.

For years after the TV event, it became fashionable for cop shows, both SWG (Hollywood Screeen Writers Guild) and Reality shows, to show "real time" investigationors recreating events of homicides and discussing sequences using the contemporaneous method--in the present tense--about past events, ignoring any judgementor conclusion already obvious. And the methods purpose is obvious, to gain a greater understanding of the contemporaneous event leading to the conclusion, not the conclusion itself.

The Tribunal page on its face, i.e. using the scroll bar, is improperly researched. Beginning and ending with a conclusion, it may persuade a partisan juvenile to a particular POV, but to a serious researcher it obviously would be the last place to begin researching the Russell Tribunal. It's not worth delving into seeing the conclusion is foretold, its lack of evidence, reliability of sources, etc. While on its face sections do appear to be reprints of valid historical documents, most probably are, the evidence is overwhelming that it is a mere "propaganda piece" -- the precise charge levelled against the original Russell event in 1967, and not a serious study of facts in evidence.

Pity, cause the original Tribunal could be exonerated for all its intentions, despite its failings, like all human endeveaours, if serious researchers were to investigate the varacity of the information presented. The casual reader is left with the feeling someone is trying to persuade someone of something. Truelly the spirit is eternal.

Other examples using the reverse method in wiki:
IMF page referred to Eurodollars 3 decades before they came into existence.
CENTCOM pages says Centcom came into existence in 1983 with no referance to RDF and its sources in 1977; National Security Directive-63 Carter Jimmy Carter Library and Museum, CBO authored by Alice Rivlin

Reexamining a verdit

Revisionist history

Progressive view of history

historical documents

Plato's Letters, No. 7, 341 B-E

Please de-activate categories

Nob, could you please de-activate the categories of articles you are editing on your talk pages? All you have to do is insert a colon (:) after the first two brackets, [[:category:U.S. history]]. Otherwise, your talk page appears in the category listings. Thanks, -Willmcw 03:16, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

ASA

I don't think this abreviation for anti-Soviet agitation is in English language usage. But the article definitely must be written. Thanks for the hint. Mikkalai 21:21, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thanks; I google myself. I started it already. You may take a look. Mikkalai

Re: Response

I replied on my talk page, user talk:willmcw. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:17, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Suleyman Ahmad

I'd be happy to help, but I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. If it's just a question of editing redirects, when you click on/type in a redirect, it puts a line under the title "(Redirected from Stephen Schwartz (author))"; if you click on the link in that line, it takes you to the redirect page, which you can then edit. If it involves page moves, I'm not sure I understand which pages you want to move where. - Mustafaa 05:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Gibbs article

Item 1.

The origin MAY have been in Iraq, but Iranian Shi'as are quick to point out that the Shi'a movement has evolved since those days. For example, after every friday prayer in Iran, the public shouts the slogan: "We are not the Shi'as of Kufa who left Ali alone". Kufa, in those days, was the Shi'a center of Iraq, if it ever had one. But I think the statements made in item 1 are generally accepted. Qum however was colonized. It had an indigenous population before the Arab arrival.

Item 2.

I think this view is widely held in Iran. Many people point to the "sarbedaran" rebellion as an illustration of this point.

Items 3,4,5,6.

One thing Ive heard alot in Iran is that they say that although Iran was a majority-wise Sunni country during these ages, yet Iranians felt a unique sense of sympathy for Ali and his Ahlul-bayt. i.e. they were Shi'a at heart. So there wasnt much of a big transition when the Safavids came around. But this is of course what I have "heard", mind you.

Item 7.

Im not sure what is meant by "the idea of Persian nationality was in due course created". I recall The Samanids and the Persian revivalist movements (that resulted in the Shah Nama) from several centuries earlier. However, The Safavids are

Also, the Safavid event wasnt really the first of its kind. Things were not so cut and dry to make the conclusions made here. For example, I have a copy of a book written during the time of Nizam ul-Molk, the great Seljuk Vizier, which shows that there was extensive debate going on between Shi'as and Sunnis in the court of Sultan MalekShah, with the Shi'as having the upper hand.

Item 8.

Im surprised that the items mention nothing of the Zoroastrian ties to Shi'ism that many scholars such as Ehsan Yarshater refer to.

Shi'ism may have opposed sufism, but in many ways it absorbed it too. What is the textbook "Al-Mafatih" but a collection of dhikrs? There is extensive overlapping between Shi'ism and Sufism, in my opinion. And besides, as I said, there has been lots of evolution been going on during these times.

Item 9.

I would also agree that "Shi'ism was not a natural outcome or expression of the national Iranian genius". Iranians were (and still are) philosophical renegades. They tend to rise out of the mold defined for them, and come up with new, often heretical interpretations of religion. Maybe that's why the aspect of 'aql is so emphasized by the Shi'a.

I think Shi'ism was not created by Iranians, but it certainly has strings attached to it.

Hope this helps. --Zereshk 02:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Russel Tribunal

Nobs, I understand the difficulties you are having with the Russell Tribunal, as I have had similar problems with the anon user on VVAW, Winter Soldier Investigation and another VVAW related article. Take it from me, dont expect a resolution any time soon if ever. Email me for some advice if you like, I know how to nail this one editor, I just need some more people. TDC 02:05, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Check out Norinco now. All material is attributed and linked. It will be hard to revert and claim any kind of legitimacy. TDC 20:24, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Philby

I've set up the pages as requested, but if you look at "what links here" for St. John Philby, you will see that several links now need to be repointed to the new page name - I leave that to you. jimfbleak 05:06, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's now a James Jesus Angleton article to go with the link you added from Kim Philby. Buffyg 05:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again re Jeb Bush article

Thank you very much for your kind words to me. There have been some nice people here. I am glad you posted. Thanks again. SummerFR 06:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) PS And, yes, I agree with everything you wrote about how they waste time with pointless arguments just to derail me. But, I will finish the article. And it will be fair, and, great. :)

Prussia 1944

A phenomenae of madness and mayem that erupted among the multi-ethnic civilian population.

Req for Review

When you have a chance, can you take a look at User:Feco/Temp/Ricardo? I'm building a full explanation of the different international trade models, starting with the most basic. Each model explanation is far too long to be appended to the bottom of the basic model outline, so I'm building them on their own pages. Each model will eventually go into wages, prices, international equalization, etc. Ricardo is my first attempt. The nature of the material is relatively dense, but I've tried to make it as comphrehensible as possible to someone with minimal background in Econ. Let me know if you think it's readable/digestible.

It's still very much a work in progress, so ignore red wiki links, ALL CAPS notes to myself, and other things of that nature. Feco 23:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sharif

The Arabic (Urdu, too) word is شریف, and is pronounced "shuh-'reef" (long e). I would prefer "Sharif" as the commonest spelling and "Shareef" as the best. IMHO, let's try the latter. And be open to what the consensus of Wikipedia users want to go with. [This is often expresed by editing. :D] I am not an Arab myself, and would defer to someone from that region (Saudi Arabia and/or Jordan specifically—the family now rules the latter country), if I thought they were being reasonable.

Though I think Hussein bin Ali's name is often written "Sherif"--the early 1900s were a time of Turkish and French influence in the region.

One last thing, let me check how Lawrence (of Arabia) spells it in the Seven Pillars of Wisdom... yup: Sherif Hussein ... See: http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/l/lawrence/te/seven/chapter8.html, etc.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:14, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Jesus article

Thanks for all the hard work. I think the best solution to the ballot box stuffing that just occurred is to publicize that this vote is going on. As noted on the Talk:Jesus page I posted a notice about it to the Wikipedia survey announcements page. Prior to the stuffing incident, almost all of the votes came from either current participants in the discussion there or the VfD link. This had the result of giving a slight majority to BC/AD, and voting patterns were fairly randomly distributed with it. Something seemed fishy when all of a sudden about 7 votes in a row go in favor of CE/BCE. Sure enough, the very same guy who was expressing his surprise that the tide of the vote had turned in an attempt to malign another editor had orchestrated the whole thing. The best way to handle these types of situations is to make them public. Jayjg doesn't like the fact that I aired his laundry and naturally he will attack me and attempt to backtrack over it. But the fact that it is being aired is more than enough to cast doubt upon the way he conducts himself here. BTW, have you noticed just how vile and bilious the pro-CE crowd is in general? Between all the personal insults, attacks on motives, unilateral edits, general disregard and contempt they show for consensus, 3RR violations, and now ballot box stuffing one's really gotta wonder... Rangerdude 05:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

No, actually I don't like the fact that you called one vote "ballot box stuffing", or that you claim I "expressed my surprise that the tide of the vote had turned", or any of the many other false claims you have made. Jayjg (talk) 06:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

List of Americans in Venona Papers

Carter Doctrine

The Carter Doctrine was proclaimed by President Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on 23 January 1980. In it he said:

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

A 1980 pledge by Secretary of State Edmund Muskie went even further, putting the gulf states on notice that the United States would not allow anyone to interfere with oil tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. At the time, Carter's statement was widely considered to encompass the use of nuclear weapons in response to a Soviet advance into Iran. In February 1980, details of a Pentagon report emerged indicating that the United States might have to use tactical nuclear weapons in response to any Soviet military advance toward the Gulf. To add muscle to these pronouncements, the Carter administration began to build up the Rapid Deployment Force, what would eventually become CENTCOM. In the interim, the president relied heavily on naval power. Carter expanded the naval presence of the United States in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean

This redirection of U.S. national security policy was matched by an intellectual renaissance in the U.S. military. All the services began rethinking their strategy, operational concepts, tactics, and doctrine. By the early 1980s, the navy had developed what it termed the Maritime Strategy, a highly controversial concept even though it embraced the established post World War II practices of forward, offensive operations by carrier, amphibious, and attack submarine forces.

Initially this doctrine aimed at deterring the Soviet Union after its invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, but its application has been the result of different events and contexts. The Carter Doctrine has been applied twice; in 1990 during the First Gulf War and in 2003 for the Second Gulf War.

The Carter Doctrine was drafted to address the security of the Persian Gulf has grown in relevance after more than 50 years of American military presence in the region. President Clinton's Defense Secretary William Perry said in remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations: "Roosevelt was the first U.S. president to declare that the United States has vital interests in the region."


Elements of the Carter Doctrine

  • any outside force was deliberately ambiguous; does it refer to outside the region or outside collective security agreements.
  • any means necessary means not restricted to conventional warfare, i.e. the United States was prepared to use nuclear warfare if necessary to safeguard its vital interests in the Persian Gulf.

Though the foreign policy statement warned any outside force, it was widely regarded as directed at the Soviet Union, prompted by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan the previous December. The major articulation of American strategic foreign policy interests also was intended to assure American allies in the Persian Gulf of American protection.

The problem at the time was a retracted U.S. force structure as a result of the Vietnam build down, and there was concern the United States did not have the military forces necessary to counterman a movement upon the oil wells or disruption of shipping within the region. Also the question of whether the NATO alliance was prepared or willing to participate in actions outside of Europe. If Amercian forces were withdrawn from Europe to counterbalance a threat in the Gulf, that would leave Europe vulnerable to Soviet expansion. Thus it became alarmingly clear that American vital interests, alliance commitments, and fighting capability was almost solely dependent on nuclear weapons moreso than conventional fighting capability.

Use

So a consensus emerged to rebuild America's conventional fighting capability, beginning with a Rapid Deployment Force, the forerunner of CENTCOM which could be deployed from the United States to the Persian Gulf in the event of an emergency, without drawing down manpower from the NATO frontline.

Subsequent presidents have used the Carter Doctrine to safeguard America's vital interests since it was first articulated.

References


Category:Foreign policy doctrines Category:U.S. history of foreign relations

St. John Philby

Harry St. John Bridger Philby (3 April 1885 – 1960), also known as Jack Philby, also Sheikh Abdullah, was an Arabist, explorer, writer, and British colonial office intelligence operative. He was born at St. John's, Badulla, Ceylon and educated at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he studied oriental languages under E. G. Browne and was a friend of classmate of Jawaharlal Nehru, later prime Minister of India. Philby's son Kim Philby became famous for being a British intelligence agent who was a double agent for the Soviet Union.

As he states in his autobiography, he "became something of a fanatic" and "the first Socialist to join the Indian Civil Service", and was posted to Lahore in the Punjab in 1908. He acquired fluency in Urdu, Punjabi, Baluchi, Persian, and eventually Arabic languages. Philby married his first wife in September 1910, with his distant cousin Bernard Montgomery or "Monty", later commander-in-chief of Allied armies during World War II, as best man.

Arab Revolt

Philby is one of the lesser known but most influential persons in the modern history of the Middle East. In late 1915 Percy Cox, chief political officer of the small British Mesopotamian expeditionary force, recruited Philby as head of the finance branch of the British administration in Baghdad, a job which included fixing compensation for property and business owners. Their mission was twofold: (1) organize the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Turks; (2) protect the oilfields near Basra and the Shatt al Arab, which was the only source of oil for the Royal Navy. The revolt was organized with the promise of creating a unified Arab state, or Arab Federation, from Aleppo in Syria to Aden in Yemen. Gertrude Bell of the British Military Intelligence Department was his first controller and taught him the finer arts of espionage. In 1916 he became officiating Revenue Commissioner for Occupied Territories.

File:Http://www.terra.es/personal7/jqvaraderey/190523ar.gif
Arabia 1905-1923

In November 1917 Philby was sent to the interior of the Arabian peninsula as head of a mission to Ibn Saud. The Wahabbi chieftan and bitter enemy of Sherif Hussein was sending terrorist raids against the Hashemite ruler of the Hejaz, leader of the revolt. For more than 700 years the non-Turkic Hashemite dynasty held title as Sharif of Mecca.

Philby secretly began to favour Ibn Saud over Sherif Hussein as "King of the Arabs", a difference with British policy, which was promising support for the Hashemite dynasty in the post-Ottoman world. On return Philby completed the crossing from Riyadh to Jeddah by the "backdoor" route, thus demonstrating Ibn Saud was in control of the Arabian highlands, whereas Sherif Hussein could not guarantee safe passage. Later he was awarded the Royal Geographical Society Founders Gold Medal for the desert journey. Back in Jeddah he met with an embarassed Sherif Hussein.

On 7 November 1918, four days before the Armistice, Britain and France issued the Anglo-French Declaration to the Arabs assuring self-determination. Philby felt the betrayal of this assurance, along with the Balfour Declaration and other diplomatic manouvres broke faith with the promise of a single unified Arab nation in exchange for aligning themselves with the Allies in the war against the Ottoman Turks and Central Powers.

Philby argued that Ibn Saud was a "democrat" guiding his affairs "by mutual counsel" as laid out in the Koran (Surah XLII. 37), in contrast to Lord Curzon's "Hussein policy". British policy on Arab affairs was wracked by rivalries between the Foreign Office and the India Office.

After the Great Iraqi Revolution of 1920 Philby was appointed Minister of Internal Security in the British Mandate of Iraq. He roughed out a democratic constitution complete with elected assembly and republican president.

In November 1921 Philby was named chief head of the Secret Service for Transjordan, or what is now all of Jordan and Palestine. He worked with T. E. Lawrence for a while, but did not share Lawrence's views on the Hashemites. Here he met his American counterpart, Allen Dulles, who was stationed in Istanbul. At the end of 1922 Philby travelled to London for extensive meetings with all involved in the Palestinian question. They were Winston Churchill, King George, the Prince of Wales, Baron Rothschild, Wickham Steed, and Chaim Weizmann, the head of the Zionist movement.

Ibn Saud adviser

Philby was of the view that both British and the Saudi families interests would be best served by uniting the Arabian peninsula under one government from the Red Sea to the Persian Gulf, with the Saudis supplanting the Hashemites as Islamic "Keepers of the Holy Places" while protecting shipping lanes on the Suez–Aden–Bombay route of the British Empire. Philby was forced to resign his post in 1924 on differences of allowing Jewish immigration to Palestine. He was found to be in unauthorized correspondence with Ibn Saud, which carried with it the connotation of espionage, sending information he gained in his post to Ibn Saud. He had "gone native". The Secret Service, however, continued to pay Philby for another five years.

Shortly after his resignation, Ibn Saud began to call for the overthrow of the Hashemite dynasty. Philby was able to advise Ibn Saud how far he could go in occupying all Arabia without incurring the wrath of the British government, then the principal power in the Middle East. By 1925, in the words of Philby, Ibn Saud brought unprecedented order into Arabia. Philby was put in charge of arranging Ibn Saud's coronation as king of the newly created state of Saudi Arabia.

Philby settled in Jeddah and became partners in a trading company. Over the next few years he became famous as an international writer and explorer. Philby personally mapped on camelback what is now the Saudi–Yemeni border on the Rub' al Khali where 126 degree daytime temperatures are not uncommon.

In his unique position he became Ibn Saud's chief adviser in dealing with the British Empire and Western powers. He converted to Islam in 1930.

In 1931 Philby invited Charles R. Crane to Jeddah to facilitate exploration of the kingdom's subsoil assets. Crane was accompanied by noted historian George Antonius, who acted as translator. In May 1933 Standard Oil of California (SOCAL) concluded negotiations with Philby for a 60-year contract to obtain the exclusive concession for exploration and extraction of oil in the Hasa region along the Persian Gulf. This marked the beginning of the decline of British influence in the region and the start of American influence. The personal contacts between the United States and Saudi Arabia were largely channeled through the person of Philby.

Meanwhile at Cambridge Philby's son, Kim, was being recruited by the OGPU of the Soviet Union. In recent years the theory has been propounded that Kim was recruited in particular to spy on his father, who had such powerful influence over the founder of the Saudi state and its connections with Britain and with American oil interests.

By 1934, in an effort to safeguard the port of Aden, Britain had no fewer than 1,400 "peace treaties" with the various tribal rulers of the hinterlands of what became Yemen. Philby undermined British influence in the region, however, by facilitating the entry of United States commercial interests, followed by a political alliance between the United States and the Saud dynasty.

In 1936 SOCAL and Texaco pooled their assets together "East of Suez" into what later became ARAMCO (Arabian–American Oil Company). The United States State Department describes ARAMCO as the richest commercial prize in the history of the planet. Philby represented Saudi interests.

In 1937 when the Spanish Civil War broke out, Philby arranged for his son, Kim Philby, to become a war correspondent for The Times. The same year Philby began quiet negotiations with Ben-Gurion to allow unlimited Jewish immigration to Palestine under Ibn Saud's protection.

Later Philby began secret negotiations with Germany and Spain concerning Saudi Arabia's role in the event of a general European war. These discussions would have allowed neutral Saudi Arabia would sell oil to neutral Spain which then would be transported to Germany. John Loftus, who worked in the United States Department of Justice Office of Special Investigations Nazi-hunting unit, claims Adolf Eichmann, while on a mission to the Middle East, met with Philby "during the mid-1930s".

Philby Plan

At a February 1939 meeting in London with Ben-Gurion and Weizman, Philby offered substantial Jewish immigration to Palestine if they would support Ibn Saud's son and eventual successor, Faisal, as King of Palestine. Months later, accompanied by Saudi foreign affairs official Fuad Bey Hamza, Philby proposed to Weizmann and Moshe Shertok (later Sharett) that they pay Ibn Saud £20 million to be used to resettle Palestinian Arabs. Weizman said he would discuss the plan with President Roosevelt. Kim Philby also was present at this meeting.

According to Philby the Zionist leadership accepted the "Philby Plan" in early October. However because of the kingdom's special status as home of the Islamic holy places, the plan was denied when Philby leaked it. The matter was not taken up again for another three years.

Meanwhile Philby ran for election to the House of Commons for the British People's Party declaring, "no cause whatever is worth the spilling of human blood" and "protection of the small man against big business". He lost and soon thereafter the war began. Because of his activities he was arrested when he travelled to Bombay on 3 August 1940 under the Defense of the Realm Act Regulation 18b, and was taken to England.

Friends such as John Maynard Keynes intervened, and after seven months he was released without prosecution. It is not known precisely who arranged for release. Shortly thereafter Jack Philby recommended his son Kim to Valentine "Vee Vee" Vivian, MI6 deputy chief, who recruited him into the British secret service.

When Harold Hoskins of the U.S State Department visited Ibn Saud in August 1943, he asked if the king would be willing to have an intermediary meet with Chaim Weizmann. In anger Ibn Saud responded he was insulted by the suggestion that he could be bribed for £20 million to accept resettlement of Arabs from Palestine. Hoskins reports the king said Weizmann told him the promise of payment would be "guaranteed by President Roosevelt." A month later Weizmann, in a letter to Sumner Welles wrote: "It is conceived on big lines, large enough to satisfy the legitimate aspirations of both Arabs and Jews, and the strategic and economic interests of the United States; . . . properly managed, Mr. Philby's scheme offers an approach which should not be abandoned."

When the war ended he returned to Arabia. In 1945 at the age of sixty he purchased his second wife, a 16-year-old girl, from the slave market at Taif, about forty miles south of Mecca. He continued work with ARAMCO. Talk in the king's circle was that Philby was an agent of British Secret service, a Zionist spy, and a communist. Philby began to provoke a series of spectacular arguments with the king. He claimed the disagreements were caused by the corruption and decadence that oil money brought the kingdom.

From Philby ARAMCO learned a great deal about Arabia framed in a manner to strike a sympathetic response in the American people. ARAMCO and the CIA became a revolving door for the same personnel. There were no other sources of information about that country available to the American public. Saudi Arabia was portrayed as "a mirror image of the Old West, a wide, unfenced land where nature was unsubdued, religion was simple and fundamental, and the law of the gun prevailed—the desert of Arabia, as America's last frontier." Little was said of the fanatical nature of Wahhabism or its dark and bloody excesses.

Suez Crisis

After Ibn Saud's death in 1953 Philby openly criticized the successor King Faisal, saying the royal family's morals were being picked up "in the gutters of the West". He was exiled to Lebanon in 1955. In exile he wrote:

". . . the true basis of Arab hostility to Jewish immigration into Palestine is xenophobia, and instinctive perception that the vast majority of central and eastern European Jews, seeking admission . . . are not Semites at all. . . . Whatever political repercussions of their settlement may be, their advent is regarded as a menace to the Semitic culture of Arabia . . . the European Jew of today, with his secular outlook . . . is regarded as an unwelcome intruder within the gates of Arabia".

While in Beirut he reconciled with Kim, and the two lived together. The son was reemployed by MI6 as an outside informer on retainer, with the assignment to spy on his father.

Jack Philby helped further his son's career by introducing him to his extensive network of contacts in the Middle East. Jack introduced him to President Camille Chamoun of Lebanon. Both were sympathetic to Nasser during the Suez Crisis of August 1956. Between Jack's access to ARAMCO and Kim's access to British intelligence there was little they did not know about Operation Musketeer, the French and British plan to capture the Suez Canal. The Soviet Union exposed the entire plan in the United Nations and threatened Britain and France with "long-range guided missiles equipped with atomic warheads."

In 1955 Jack reconciled with the royal family and returned to live in Riyadh. In 1960, on a visit to Kim in Beirut, while in bed with Kim at his side, he said "God, I'm bored" and died. He is buried in the Muslim cemetery in Beirut.

Sources

  • Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press (2004)
  • Arabian Jubilee, H. StJ. B. Philby, Robert Hale, (1952)
  • Philby of Arabia, Elizabeth Monroe, Pitman Publishing (1973)
  • The Secret War Against the Jews, John Loftus and Mark Aarons, St. Martin's Press (1994)
  • Arabia, the Gulf and the West Basic Books (1980)
  • The House of Saud, David Holden and Richard Johns, Holt Rinehart and Winston (1981)
  • The Philby Conspiracy, Bruce Page, David Leitch and Phillip Knightley, Doubleday (1968)
  • Saudi Arabia and the United States, 1931-2002 by Josh Pollack (2002)


Philby, St. John Philby, St. John St. John Philby Philby, St. John Philby, St. John Philby, St. John Philby, St. John Philby, St. John

List of Americans in Venona Papers

Jacob Golos

Russian-born Jacob Golos (birth name Jacob Rasin or Jacob Raisin) (died 1943) was a Bolshevik revolutionary and Soviet secret police operative in the USSR. He was also a longtime senior official of the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) involved in covert work and cooperation with Soviet intelligence agencies. During World War II he developed several large espionage networks of secret Communist party members who worked for the United States government and linked them to the Soviet intelligence. They are commonly referred to as the "Golos ring" of Soviet espionage agents. Jacob Golos was the "main pillar" of the NKVD intelligence network and they disliked his refusal to allow them contact with his sources. The code name "Sound" appears in the Venona decryptions as a Soviet source and was identified as Jacob Golos.

Golos was not merely a CPUSA official assisting the NKVD (an agent or “probationer” in KGB slang) but held official rank in the NKVD. The reference to Golos in the Venona decrypts as an “illegal colleague” corroborates Elizabeth Bentley's testimony.

The term “nelegal’ny sotrudnik” can be translated as “illegal colleague,” “illegal associate” or “illegal operative,” was Soviet espionage terminology for a Soviet officer or professional agent who operated without the protection of diplomatic or official status with a Soviet embassy, consulate or agency and usually with false documents. Soviet officers with the latter status were said to be “legal.” Golos also worked for the Society for Technical Aid to Soviet Russia and was head of a company called World Tourists, which while posing as a travel agency actually facilitated international travel to and from the United States by Soviet agents and CPUSA members. World Tourists was also deeply involved in passport fraud.

The NKVD suspected him of Trotskyism and tried to lure him to Moscow, where he could be arrested. The US government got to him first, prosecuting him in 1940 for being an unregistered foreign agent. But even then, he would not surrender his agents.

In the fall of 1942, a Communist cell of engineers was turned over to Golos for Soviet espionage purposes and Julius Rosenberg was the contact between Golos and the group. Golos believed this cell, the XY Line of engineers was capable of development. The XY Line began enormous efforts to penetrate the Manhattan Project, code-named ENORMOUS (ENORMOZ).

Golos lover, Elizabeth Bentley then took over the operation after Golos's sudden death in November 1943 (thus the reference in the decrpyts to him as a “former” colleague).



Helen Silvermaster

Helen Witte Silvermaster nee Vera Lavrow was born 19 July 1899 in Russia. Her father was a councelor to the Czar and acted as advisor the Mongolian government. After the Russian Revolution she travelled to China and married a Russian becoming Vera Ivanova Witte about 1923. They emmigrated to San Francisco in 1924 where their only son, Anatole Volkov was born. Soom thereafter they divorced and she began living with Greg Silvermaster whom she married about 4 years later.

Harry Dexter White (agent Jurist)

Harry Dexter White (left) and John Maynard Keynes (right) at the Bretton Woods Conference

Harry Dexter White was positively identified as agent Jurist in an FBI memorandum dated 16 October 1950.

White became involved with Soviet intelligence espionage in May of 1941. One of the most valuable assets to Soviet intelligence was his ability to infiltrate the United States Department of the Treasury with persons the Silvermaster spy ring wanted to have assinged there. Among the other American citizens and government employees acting as Soviet agents were Lud Ullman, William Henry Taylor, and Sonia Gold.

On December 4, 1945, the FBI transmitted to the White House a report entitled "Soviet Espionage in the United States." The report summarized White's espionage activities. Copies of the report were sent to Attorney General Tom Clark also. The evidence indicated a substantial spy ring operating within the Government and involving White. Given the secrecy of the Venona project materials, the president went ahead six weeks later and nominated White for appointment to head the newly created International Monetary Fund.

White was summoned before the House Un-American Activities Committee in August of 1948. Elizabeth Bentley told the FBI White that had been involved in espionage activities on behalf of the Soviet Union during World War II. Whittaker Chambers earlier had testified of his association with White in the Communist underground secret apparatus up to 1938. White, recovering from a series of heart attacks, proclaimed his lifelong commitment to the principles of democracy and the ideals of President Roosevelt's New Deal. He died of a heart attack three days later and HUAC. The positive identification of Harry Dexter White as agent Jurist came two years after his death.

Below is the text of that memorandum from the FBI's Venona project file released under the Freedom of Information Act.

- ==Jurist==

Office Memorandum ° UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT


DATE: October 16, 1950


TO: The Director
FROM: Mr. Ladd
SUBJECT: ESPIONAGE - R


PURPOSE: To advise you of the positive identification of agent Jurist (the cover name of a Soviet agent operating in 1944 and named by Venona project) as Harry Dexter White, deceased. White was formerly the Administrative Assistant to former Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau.


DETAILS: You have previously been advised of information obtained from [Venona project] regarding Jurist who was active during 1944. According to the previous information received from [Venona project regarding Jurist, during April, 1944, he had reported on conversations between the then Secretary of State Hull and Vice President Wallace. He also reported on Wallace's proposed trip to China. On August 5, 1944, he reported to the Soviets that he was confident of President Roosevelt's victory in the coming elections unless there was a huge military failure. He also reported that Truman's nomination as Vice President was calculated to secure the vote of the conservative wing of the Democratic Party. It was also reported that Jurist was willing for any self-sacrifice in behalf of the MGB but was afraid that his activities, if exposed, might lead to a political scandal and have an effect on the elections. It was also mentioned that he would be returning to Washington, D. C., on August 17, 1944. The new information from [Venona project] indicates that Jurist and Morgenthau were to make a trip to London and Normandy and leaving the United States on August 5, 1944.
On the basis of the foregoing, the tentative identification of Harry Dexter White as Jurist appears to be conclusively established inasmuch as Morgenthau and White left the United States on a confidential trip to the Normandy beachhead on August 5, 1944, and they returned to the United States on August 17, 1944.
You may recall that Harry Dexter White was named by Whittaker Chambers in his statements as having been a source of information for Chambers in his work in Soviet espionage until Chambers broke with the Soviets in 1938. Chambers produced a handwritten memorandum that White had given him and our Laboratory established this memorandum as being in White's handwriting. The Treasury Department advised that parts of the material were highly confidential, coming to the Treasury Department from the Department of State.
In addition to the foregoing, Elizabeth T. Bentley in November, 1945, advised that she had learned through Nathan Gregory Silvermaster that White was supplying Silvermaster with information which was obtained by White in the course of his duties as Assistant to the Secretary of the of the Treasury.


RECOMMENDATION:
There is attached hereto a blind memorandum which has been prepared for the information and assistance of [redacted] setting forth this identification. There is also attached a memorandum to the Field giving them the new information from [Venona project] which establishes conclusively the identity of White as Jurist.


Attachment

Source

White, Harry Dexter

Anonymous vandals

Statement of the dispute

Repeated vandalism to Talk:Richard_Nixon despite admonitions to stop.

Description

This anonymous user refuses to do postings in continuous order and seeks to dismember evidence presented in a NPOV dispute with Anonymous edits disrupting the body of textural material. He has been asked politiely on numerous occassions to confine his comments in a logical consistent order, nevertheless it has the effect of breaking the coherency of the discussion. Continuous reversion to the disrupted page.

Also as is evidenced here, this User altered my signature [2].

India Office

You might want to start Board of Control, as well - that was the predecessor of the India Office. I'm not sure about sources. General histories of the Raj would probably have some material. I also found [3], and [4] in a library search. john k 16:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

ABCDEF or G.

Yes, I believe we do agree. I wish others could be more agreeable.:( Nice to meet you, come visit my user page. --Silversmith 23:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Ransom?

No, a ransom is something you pay to get back stolen property or kidnapped individuals. Jayjg (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I needed a login for those references, which I didn't have. But see this:

ran·som Audio pronunciation of "ransom" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rnsm)
n.
1.

1. The release of property or a person in return for payment of a demanded price.
2. The price or payment demanded or paid for such release.

2. A redemption from sin and its consequences.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. --Jayjg (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you could claim it, but it's an unusual usage. "Tribute" is a better fit, though. In any event, that's not the term used in the sources. If you can find a source describing it as ransom, that would be fine. Jayjg (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Discussion Deletion

On the "Allies" talk page, you removed a portion of the discussion pertaining to an ongoing article content dispute. Why did you do this? — Lifeisunfair 23:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

If I did it was a mistake. I'm terribly sorry. I'll be more careful next time. I did have trouble uploading before. Can it be restored? Nobs 00:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad to learn that this was unintentional. And yes, I've already restored the missing text, so there's no problem. Thank you for responding. — Lifeisunfair 02:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Causes of World War I

Hi,

Specific questions... what I really want to know are the names of a few important scholars from the 20s-50s, and what the author thinks about the general trend in historiography. Also, I'd be interested if they mention what east german or russian writers have had to say.

I also quite like A.J.P Taylor, so you can poke around in there as much as you like. I don't know anything about links between the Okhrana and the Black Hand... is there actually any firmly established link? I've never heard anything about that, and it would certainly have profound implications, so I'd be careful about that.

I do think that this article can use a bit of work, putting some focus into it. Unfortunately this is notoriously difficult to do with wikipedia articles ;-) However, its a subject that quite interests me, so I'll keep poking around in it for a while.

Thanks for the help. Peregrine981 03:14, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

assistance uploading image

My proposal

Hi Nobs. Since it is my proposal, I want control over the contents of the proposal. If you think that in my proposal, I misquote or misrepresent you, please do let me know and I will make an appropriate change. Also, I encourage you to express any of your thoughts in one of the discussion sections. As for voting, I have unprotected the page. I am not sure I understand your question. If you object to my proposal vote no, if you like it vote yes. If you aren't sure, take your time to think about it, make comments in the discussion sections, ask other people questions. Or, consider formulating your own proposal! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate your view. I know that atheists do use BCE/CE. However, anyone who claims that BCE/CE means that God does not exist is just flat out wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Redirects are easy

#REDIRECT [[target page name]]
That's all :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:41, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

the Bible article

FYI, I did not do anything to the "200 BCE" figure. That is what the text had when I went to the page. The only change I made was to change "100 CE" to "200 CE" as the outside date for the close of the canon. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Good job

Your placing the Katherine van Wormer issue in as an external link in the Junk science article is precisely what I have been talking about. I appreciate your effort in labeling what her opinions truly amount to.--MONGO 02:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Rosenbergs

Do you consider it 'non essential vandalism' (sic) to insert that the Rosenbergs were Jewish?Linuxlad 16:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Personally I beleive Rosenberg's faith (and/or race) is nonessential to the subject. News organizations have ceased to identify suspects and those convicted of crimes by race or religion about 1982 (its part of Journalistic ethics now). Only serves prejudice and bigotry, and is entirely non-essential to the article, if not irrelevent. Nobs 17:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, it seems quite useful to me that so many of the key characters are American-Jewish - eg i wouldn't eg be able to appreciate the power of Doctorow's book unless I knew that it was in that tradition - I think you're being too PC, sorry. In a similar way it's relevant to know that many British leftists, from the key players in the civil war to the 'Pentridge martyrs', were part of a non-conformist tradition. Bob

Assuming one subscribes to the "Left-Right Political Spectrum Theory" of Max Weber. User:Nobs

Plato dialogues naming survey

As an active participant in the discussions on Category_talk:Dialogues_of_Plato, I wanted to draw your attention to my survey proposal. This would likely bring in a number of outside and (presumably/hopefully) objective views - at the least, a fair enough number to make a consensus at the conclusion. Surveys need to be discussed by the involved parties ahead of time in order to come to an agreement as to their content, and thus make them valid. If you have the time, I'd appreciate if you got involved. Thanks! --Girolamo Savonarola 23:19, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Bolesław Gebert

Strange, I must admit I never heard of the guy before, nor could I find any info on him over the Polish encyclopaedias. On the other hand he might be somehow related to Konstanty Gebert, who is a notable journalist and war correspondent as well as one of my personal favourites when it comes to journalism. He speaks English, so you might want to contact him and ask whether they are relatives. Halibutt 19:07, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


You are right, he was his father.

Merkulov

No credibility presented. Insinuates Oppenheimer. Boris is wrong name. IMO a hoax. mikka (t) 00:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Hi, Nobs01! Boris is really a mistake. The guy's name was Vsevolod Nikolayevich Merkulov. Here's some proof (i don't know if you can read Russian), it's his short bio at FSB's official website [6] KNewman 02:52, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

User:Nobs01/Internal Distress

Houston Press article December 5, 2002

Eliot Spitzer

Thanks for your note. I thought the standard scapegoat was "overzealous young people" rather than an "overzealous staff member", but, hey, whatever works for you.  :) JamesMLane 21:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FairTax

I see you made a post on the article's talk page; welcome to the FairTax article. Please stop by and make some edits, this article needs 'em. Don't worry if you revert me, if you have a reason, I won't be offended. Just jump right in. I'm not trying to 'claim' or 'own' this article, but I would like to see a broader base of contributors eventually. I try to remember that contentious articles like this are the very reason why we have an NPOV tag to apply... people aren't going to agree fully on this issue, but we should have differing views documented properly. Best regards. --Unfocused 04:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)a

Thanks. But after seeing the Law of uninteded consequences at work vis-a-vis double taxation on the elderly and muni's I almost got persuaded to oppose something near and dear to my heart. Seems the legislation itself in its raw form needs a lot of work. Nobs01 04:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ted Hall

Nobs, I've noticed on Theodore Hall that you said he wasn't charged because the FBI thought Venona would be hearsay, something which you seem to just be speculating about on the Ethel and Julius Rosenberg page. Do you have any clear sources for this, or is this just another of your "personal impressions"? If just the latter, please revert it back. --Fastfission 05:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'll have the time for editing large documents for quite awhile but I support the project. If you need somebody to look up any more difficult to find books or government documents (i.e. congressional testimony), it is generally easy for me to do so, so don't hesitate to ask. You should add the hearsay information (properly sourced, perhaps even quoted) to the VENONA page. --Fastfission 15:21, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure that there is any quick and easy way to remove the textual information from the document -- the heavy redactions make it unlikely that the OCR scanner would succeed very well. However I'll try (when I get the chance) to run an OCR scan on it and see if it produces anything useful. At the very least, it should make the document somewhat searchable. I'll let you know how that turns out. I've read Moynihan's book on VENONA and find his general thesis mostly convincing (VENONA shows that there was some CP activity, but that it was fairly limited, and that if it had been released sooner we wouldn't have had either the extremes of McCarthy or the extreme backlash to him). I may, if I get the chance, work towards a script which would compile all of the VENONA files themselves into one large PDF file and run an OCR on it. If I end up doing this, I will let you know and send you the file, you might find it useful I imagine. --Fastfission 16:46, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

John Carter Vincent

lived: (1900–72) biography: Diplomat, born in Seneca, Kansas, USA. He started his diplomatic career in 1925, headed the office of Far Eastern Affairs (1945), and was ambassador to Switzerland (1947). In 1952–3 he was named as the ‘number two’ State Department employee on Senator Joseph McCarthy's list of suspected Communists. A board of inquiry found ‘reasonable doubt’ as to his loyalty to the USA and he retired. He was never officially rehabilitated, but later commentators described him as an ideal diplomat, public servant, and loyal American.

FDR

Please stop inserting irrelevent trivia in the Roosevelt article. What is it with you and communism? Adam 03:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is no doubt all very interesting, but it doesn't belong in an FDR biographical article. The CPUSA was always a minor party which had no influence on the course of American politics, whatever both its sympathisers and its enemies may have said. All this cloak-and-dagger stuff, if you really want to write about it, belongs in a relevant article, not in this one. Adam 04:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

armed forces

See the history of the Armed force page: 15:52, 22 Apr 2005 Violetriga (Armed force moved to Armed forces). Hope this helps. Philip Baird Shearer 17:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:willmcw's behavior towards me

Thank you for your comment. A little background - I first encountered willmcw a few days after I joined wikipedia and we had an extended but mostly friendly dispute over an article's content that resulted in a peaceful resolution. Despite this, he's gradually adopted a very bad habit of wikistalking against myself and, as I understand it, a few other editors who have similarly clashed with him in the past. He takes it upon himself to personally screen and edit virtually everything I do on wikipedia, seldom for any legitimate reason. He likes to delete factual information that doesn't conform to his POV under the guise of claiming that it is "unsourced" even when the statement's factuality is obvious or well documented (though he adds all sorts of truly unsourced material favorable to his own POV without any concern). Sometimes its downright bizarre and he deletes or edits something I've added in a way that belittles its significance even despite a source - which he's very briefly opened and misread or misconstrued, only to transpose that same misconstruction into the deletion or edit. I've seen this happen dozens of times, and it always ends with him being shown that his edits are made erroniously then backing down. I won't abstain from doing this where necessary, but it's terribly time consuming and very deconstructive to wikipedia when I have to personally justify each and every major edit I make to a self-appointed wikistalker who also happens to suffer from severe reading comprehension problems that frequently lead him to misconstrue plainly written wordings and source materials if and when he doesn't agree with their implications or, more commonly, he has some sort of personal fixation against the editor who made them.

When he can't find a reason to delete something I've added, his personality type nevertheless drives him to make unnecessary copyedits that simply shift sentences around or delete links he doesn't personally like, all with very little value to the article itself. I've seen this type before & its almost always an obsessive-compulsive personality that always needs to get the "last word" in or make the "last change" even if it isn't of any real value. Since, for whatever reason, he's "selected" me among the subjects of his wikistalking, I have come to expect that just about anything I do here will be responded to with a deconstructive edit by him in a matter of hours. It doesn't matter what subject or area the article is in - I could start an article on the Migration habits of Peruvian Fruit Flies and he'd be there within a few hours rearranging the thing - not because there's anything wrong with the article per se, but because I'm the one who edited it and he has this bizarre "need" to screen everything I've added here (and yes, willmcw - I am stating this in detail since I know you will probably be reading this post as you commence your daily wikistalking of me). It's also produced a very bizarre situation on wikipedia whenever I've become involved in disputes with other editors on an article, as willmcw has taken it upon himself to follow me to those disputes and side with the other person regardless of the article's topic, apparently for no other reason than the fact that I'm involved. The entire Houston Chronicle dispute is one such example. Willmcw has no real interest in the Houston Chronicle and seemingly knows next to nothing about it or any of the controversies it's involved in, but once Katefan let him know that I was there he jumped in for no other reason than to advocate her side. He's done the same thing in several other completely unrelated cases where I've differed with another editor - votes, VfD's, you name it! For a while I've generally tolerated it and responded in kind, but his etiquette abuses are approaching the level of personal harassment so the gloves are coming off, hence my comments yesterday. Thanks Rangerdude 17:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again. I made note of your observation about him distracting away from a resolution of the dispute, which is true. I've also requested arbitration against him for wiki-stalking me and documented some 40+ cases where he's followed me around to various articles [7] Rangerdude 03:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Greetings again. Please check out [8]. Willmcw has responded to my criticism of his wiki-stalking by accusing me of making personal attacks. This is a blatant misrepresentation as I made the statements he cites to inform him of my objection to his behavior - not to attack him. I have compiled an extensive and documented response, demonstrating his lengthy history of stalking me and appearing at all sorts of unusual places around wikipedia shortly after I've made an edit. I've also requested yet again that he cease and desist, and proposed that the two of us avoid each other wherever possible as a solution. Rangerdude 09:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
FYI - it appears that Willmcw has asked one of his buddies, SlimVirgin, to nominate him for administrator. This same administrator reacted very irrationally and defensively after I put forth my complaint about Willmcw's behavior last week, effectively insisting that since what I described of Willmcw was not the Willmcw "he knew" all my evidence should be ignored. Votes are currently open and I've stated my opposition in the strongest terms possible. [9]
I realize it's unwinnable right now to stop his nomination, but it's something that needs to be in the record. Any reconciliation that could've occured between this particular editor and myself perhaps a couple weeks ago has effectively been spoiled by our recent chain of disputes and his attempt to initiate RfC proceedings against me for stating a valid complaint with his editing behavior. I believe that if granted administrator powers (which appears to be the case) he will be prone to abusing them in the event we have future disputes. Maybe he'll prove me wrong but experience is the only thing I've got to go on with this one. It also troubles me that he answered an explicit question asking if he'd been involved in major editor disputes before and remained completely silent about both the Houston Chronicle and the RfC etc. incidents that took place only last week. That's not being very forthright. Rangerdude 17:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That would be more of a concern to me if I were running for something around here or attempting to get on somebody's good side. But I'm not - I'm simply interested in making constructive edits around here. Since those edits are my only concern it is in my interest to ensure a full disclosure of reasons why Willmcw - who as an administrator would potentially behave and use his powers in a way that abusively impacts my editing given his past behavior - may not be the best choice. If being the lone opponent is what it takes to get the pertinent information out there of why this editor is a bad choice (for example - his completely unjustified attempts to insert himself into a closed mediation

[10]) then I'm more than willing to do that and feel obliged to do so in the interest of full disclosure. Rangerdude 17:43, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Harry Dexter White

I'm sorry, but what your edits are obviously trying to do is to indicate that Harry Truman was a communist sympathizer. As to a Time magazine article from 1953 as a reliable source, please. Time magazine was a McCarthyite source in 1953! See Henry Luce (although our article on him isn't very good). Beyond that, surely there must be some recent sources on White that establish what people think about it now. Forgive me for not having much faith in a Time magazine article from 1953. john k 16:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if that is the impression, and I will be happy to work with you to achieve a NPOV vis-a vis Harry Truman. However this matter relates to the entire period of American history, basically from 1921 onwards (see History of Soviet espionage in the United States). Clearly, Truman was no communist symapthizer, witness Truman Doctrine, Containment etc. However, the primary source to gain proper perspective is FBI Venona file pgs. 61-75, where we see Venona project evidence was kept secret from President Truman himself, which explains why he went ahead with the appointment of White. (See also Talk:Whittaker_Chambers#Psychiatrist for the basic thesis, that while it was true a large Soviet appartus existed in D.C. in the 1930s & 40s, McCarthy began with a half truth and went after the wrong people. Most probably because in his perception, the FBI wasn't doing anything about it. Hence the real significance of the FBI Venona file pgs. 61-75). All this information needs to be inserted properly throughout a host of articles). Trust me, I am no defender of McCarthy and not a critic of Truman, but it seems while McCarthy persecuted innocent people, many of the truelly guilty have been able to hide & escape on the cloak of being McCarthyite victims. For now, until you have had time to examine the documents, to achieve a NPOV, I propose removing the McCarthyism reference in the Harry Dexter White article to where it can be reinserted later after the pre-McCarthy Venona material is properly handled. Thanks. Nobs01 17:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you want to remove stuff, that's fine. That being said, I will admit a considerable lack of knowledge about the Venona files. In particular, I don't feel that I have enough specific background in this stuff to be able to read the document you give me and have any understanding of what it means in context. I would greatly appreciate a scholarly secondary source from the last decade or so that discusses the question of White's involvement with the communists. john k 17:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't like that version, either. Among other things, it implies that it is uncontroversial to say he was involved in espionage. Given the link you sent me from cooperativeindividualism.org, which I am in the process of reading, it seems to me that this is questionable. I think the minimum that that article admits about White should certainly be put in - that he employed a good number of communists in the Treasury, and was friends with various known communist spies; that he was almost certainly very loose with his tongue, and didn't see any problem with telling his communist underlings about his work; that he is mentioned in the Venona dispatches. Beyond that, it seems to be disputed - certainly, Boughton and Sandilands dispute it, and they seem to be relatively reputable sources. I think it is absolutely key that the various different explanations for White's behavior be brought in, and that we not just say he was a spy. john k 18:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nobs, the question is not what you or I or the NSA think (obviously you and the NSA think that White is guilty; I don't really feel like I know enough to say one way or the other.) The question is if there is a legitimate dispute over whether or not he is guilty, or if it is generally accepted that he is guilty. Again, I don't feel that I am necessarily up on this enough to say for sure, but the existence of an article by seemingly serious people which argues that he isn't guilty suggests that there is still some dispute (Could one at this point find similar articles about Alger Hiss, for instance?) As to the IMF, considering that, per our article, they moved his bust to the basement, I don't see that they would necessarily be likely to defend White. Once again, the existence of a relatively non-partisan account of this would make deciding this much easier. john k 19:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, the Alger Hiss is the sore point of partisan dispute in the United States now for two generations. Watergate, indeed can be seen as a political vendetta by Hiss defenders against Richard Nixon, who rose from an obscure congressman to the Presidency by sending Alger Hiss, the first Secretary General of the United Nations to prison because of his Communist espionage activities which resulted in the Western betrayal at the Yalta Conference. All those issues can be dealt with there when the time comes. What is particularly dispicable about some of these characters (like Hiss), is that rather than admit to his own complicity, he was willing to cast aspersions upon people around him & subordinates who trusted him until he died in 1992. These questions are all actively being debated on those talk pages. The question of Harry White giving Soviet intelligence stolen templates to conterfeit US currency is indisputable, and doesnt pass the anti-fascist test. As to separating White from Truman, because Truman truelly was in the dark about his complicity, which led to 50 years of lies and distortions, and partisan bitterness in the United States (see VENONA_project#Significance), again let me refer you to the FBI Venona file pgs. 61-75, which needs to placed in Wikisource. Nobs01 19:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's another source [11], a book by R. Bruce Craig, which also seems to suggest that White has not been proven to be a communist spy. As to the counterfeit US currency thing, what is your source for this? (And the Nixon and Hiss thing - well, I think I'll do best just to pretend you didn't say that). My point about Hiss was that you will not find scholars today who are willing to defend Hiss. This does not seem to be the case with White. john k 19:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This guy, an official State Department/CIA historian, seems more convinced by the Venona stuff that White is guilty, but he doesn't seem to think that Craig's argument is beyond the pale, and generally seems to respect Craig's work, even while disagreeing with him. The Washington Post review reprinted on Amazon is much more negative, but I don't know anything about Ted Morgan. Some of the points, though, seem pretty specious. The Library Journal also gave what appears to be a favorable review, and there are quotes from various luminaries on the back praising the book. It seems to me that this suggests, at least, that there is still a legitimate dispute on the subject of White's guilt. john k 19:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This, by the way, seems to interpret Craig's book completely differently from Ted Morgan and the State Department/CIA guy, saying that Craig accepts that White was a spy. So now I'm confused. john k 19:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We have an article at Harry Dexter White. Please stop working on a competing article, and work with other editors to make that single article acceptable. RickK 23:29, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

History

copied from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rangerdude

Case seems pretty clearcut; it must have taken hours to assembly this type of work[12]. I myself encountered such activity as this [13] when I was a newbie on the Talk:Russell_Tribunal/Archive1 page [14], where the Archived reference material had repeatedly be reworked to where User:Willmcw reverted his own signature, then some anonymous poster assumed my personal name (Rob) that a mediator there used onetime, and applied to all User:Willmcw postings on that page. The intent was clear, CYA & confuse the discussion, especially since User:Willmcw/(Rob) demonstrated no real interest in the facts under discussion. And that's not half the story. As a newbie, I was amazed such conduct was possible among Wiki Administrators, and still am. Thank you. Nobs01 18:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a historian, I'm hoping you can help me get the history of the Talk:Russell_Tribunal straightened out. In re-reading this comment and the talk page, it occurs to me that you are confusing me with user:KC9CQJ, who had also been manually signing his posts "Rob" for parts of the discussion. See Talk:Russell_Tribunal/Archive1#Discussion_clarity. Could you please do me a favor and check over that page and see if you can discern which editor you are thinking of? My involvement in that discussion was mostly limited to some issues about Nobel Prizes. Thanks, -Willmcw 04:53, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
It is confusing. Actually it appears that user:165.247.204.55 was "Rob". Is that how it looks to you? -Willmcw 04:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well, shooting from the hip from memory, I requested mediation through user:KC9CQJ and communicated with him via private e-mail, at which time I told him my first name in real life is "Rob". During a three way conversation between you, myself & user:KC9CQJ he referred to me as "Rob", not "nobs". Shortky thereafter, Anon:Rob joined the conversation, who was not myself. I tried to insert that into the record, and even for extensive lengths of time refrained from inputting into the discussion between user:KC9CQJ & "Rob", so as not to confuse things even more. Then a series of reversions were done, plus archiving etc., and frankly it got all fucked up. I don't think it's possible to restore the original (beyond my limited talents), but 97.8% of the substance of the issues as relates to the article is there, minus some useless bullcrap. I looked at it a few days ago, and like I said, while it doesnt reflect 100% of the sequence, it's not that badly butchered. I'm still a relative newbie, and one of these days I'll have to take a few hours to learn how to archive myself. But frankly, I don't know what I can do for you now, not without instruction. Thanks. Nobs01 05:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What I'm looking for is how you think I got involved in reverting signatures, CYAing, etc. You've made a bunch of characterizations about my behavior and it appears to me that you are confusing me thinking of other editors. Can you clarify what it is that you think I did improperly on that page? Thanks, -Willmcw 05:19, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can go back and look in all the archives, but I made a posting during that exchange that declared I beleived there were only three participants in that discussion. I didn't see that posting during a cursory viewing of it two days ago. I can go back and look again, but that might not be til morning. Nobs01 05:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am prepared to make a statement on the matter and wil do so, however it might have to wait to tomorrow or Monday cause I'm just a little pressed for time this weekends. Thx. Nobs01 03:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No rush. Thanks, -Willmcw 05:54, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
However, if you're not going to find the edits that you are saying I made then I'd appreciate it you'd remove the assertion or indicate that there was a mistake. Thanks again, -Willmcw 03:56, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
I am prepared to make a statement on the matter and will do so, however it might have to wait to tomorrow or Monday cause I'm just a little pressed for time this weekend. Thx. Nobs01 03:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Cool. There's also that thing about the hacking of passwords...can you cover that too, please? Thanks, -Willmcw 05:13, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Now you're asking me to review more than the Talk/Russell Tribunal page. I get $35 an hr for my time, you know. Nobs01 20:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm just asking you to explain and support (or remove) your accusations. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:57, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Causes célèbres

I notice you added Elizabeth Bentley to this category. It's been voted for deletion but I am trying to save it. Please come to Votes for undeletion to express your view. David | Talk 17:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

comintern affiliates

I don't really think this category will be useful, for two reasons. First; there were 4 cominterns, and quite different, too. Second; IMO a category is better thought as a search tool; it is convenient when you group things whose number is unknown. If you know them all, it is easier jus to av a list of them (in our case, 4 lists). In any case, I am afraid you are mistaken if you think I am an expert in communism. I have no idea who were comintern members. mikka (t) 03:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yalta rollback

I am sorry but I rolledback your last edit. People have no plural number in English, and wikipedia article should link wikipedia, not wikisource articles. I added the wikisource template to Atlantic Charter article itself. Take care, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not a native speaker and thought people had no plural, but I stand corrected now. Tnx. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eliot Spitzer

I've removed the following paragraph you added to Eliot Spitzer for the second time: "According to USA Today and the Washington Post, a witchhunt brought against brokers in the Mutual Fund industry, which has already cost the industry $3 billion, the only person ever charged was exonerated by a jury on June 10, 2005. [15]"

I removed it because of the following:

  • Violates NPOV: Uses blatantly loaded language ("witch-hunt") and slanting the facts (states "cost the industry $3 billion" without noting that this is restitution to mutual fund shareholders).
  • Is factually incorrect: You state that "the only person ever charged was exonerated by a jury." That is just factually wrong, according to your own source (a Washington Post article). That article says the following, and I quote verbatim - "The probe yielded six guilty pleas" This means that not one, but seven brokers were charged with crimes. Six plead guilty right off the bat. One (Sihpol) decided to roll the dice on a trial, and was found not guilty. End of story.

I am perfectly willing to let the critics post criticism of Spitzer regarding the mutual fund industry investigations/prosecutions go, but not in partisan smears, nor on factually incorrect ones. --Daniel 05:48, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thanks for your support for my adminship and for clearing up that other matter. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:23, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Venona Work

I want to commend you on all the work you've been doing for Wikipedia on the VENONA Papers. You are adding some great valid stuff. Continued good luck. Dwain 22:47, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Photographs and Permission

Hi Nobs01, The pictures I have listed I have usually tagged with fairuse, however, I don't know how long those will hold up. I know photographs from US government websites if taken for the government are PD but I am not really too familiar with all the ins and outs.

You might try contacting --Kevin McManus he contacted me about a photograph I uploaded and checked it out. I'm sorry if I have been less than helpful. Dwain June 29, 2005 01:21 (UTC)

Nobs01: I reread your question and realized that you said you didn't know how to upload photos either. I uploaded the photo you showed me [16] for you and listed it as "fairuse."

To upload a picture what you do is copy the photograph you want from some source. Perhaps rename it to something more suitable and then in the toolbox section on the left of the screen you go into "Uploadfile".

Then hit browse under the "Source file name" and go into the file which has the photgraph you want select the photo and it will show up under "Source file name". In the "Summary" box list the photo for what the rules suggest, such as "{{fairuse}}" in the brackets then press "Uploadfile"

If you don't kow how to add a photo to a page just go to a page that has a photo and copy the line that has the photo info and replace the name of the picture with the one that you want. I hope it makes sense. Dwain June 29, 2005 17:42 (UTC)

Mary Jane Keeney/Temp

copyvio at Mary Jane Keeney

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Mary Jane Keeney, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text borrowed from web sites. For more information, take a look at our policy library. Happy editing! Bovlb June 29, 2005 06:05 (UTC)

Scientist X

The once mysterious "Scientist X" was identified by the House Committee on Unamerican Activities as Dr. Joseph Weinberg, a University of Minnesota staff member. In its report on atomic espionage issued September, 1949, the Committee told in detail how Weinberg went to the house of "Steve Nelson," then a member of the National Committee of the Communist Party, and volunteered to give him information on the atomic bomb, and how he later evidently carried out his promise in a furtive meeting with a vice consul of the Russian embassy. The House Committee determined is birth name was Mesarosh.

One night, long after midnight, Scientist X read a complicated formula on the construction of the atomic bomb to Steve Nelson, alias Mesarosh, who handed it to Vice-Consul Peter Ivanov, who handed it to Secretary of the Embassy Vassili Zublin, who promptly took off for Moscow. And when, in the middle of 1943, Major General Alexander Ivanovich Belayev, after an unauthorized nonstop flight from Washington in a radar-equipped plane carrying several thousand pounds of secret data on American aviation arrived in the home of the socialist world revolution, Joseph E. Davies -- millionaire and Roosevelt's trusted special ambassador -- as Victor Kravchenko testified, "with 99 per cent certainty," kissed him in the by then customary affectionate manner.

Structure

  • (1) Intro, "Can the Republic survive?"
  • (2) Personal finances, tax matters

detailed discussion of income, deductions & taxes paid from 1961-1971, ending with famous "I'm not a crook quote".

  • (3) milk price supports, a discussion of current D.C. legislation & politics (Raising the milk price}
  • (4) conversation with John Mitchell, the beginning of the "Watergate" section of the press conference
  • (5) the tapes
    • (a) Cox and the federal prosecution
  • ((b) Executive Privelege, or The Jefferson Rule
  • (6) Haldeman & Ehrlichman
  • (7) other foreign policy mattters regarding China & the War
  • (9) Brother's phone tapped

Facts on File

  • 9/11/73 "NYT & Baltimore Sun claimed Nixon paid no federal tax in 1970, 71 or 72" -- a false report based on an illegal IRS leak

Associated Press Managing Editors Association
The President's Remarks in a Question-and-Answer Session at, the Association's Annual
Convention in Orlando; Florida. November 17,1973


THE PRESIDENT. President Quinn and ladies and gentlemen:
When Jack Horner who has been a correspondent in Washington and other places around the world, retired after 40 years, he once told me that if I thought that the White House Press Corps asked tough questions, I should hear the kind of questions the managing editors asked him. Consequently, I welcome this opportunity tonight to meet with the managing editors of the Nation's newspapers. I will not have an opening statement because I know, with 400 of you, it will be hard to get through all of the questions you have. And I understand the President has a prerogative of asking the first question. Mr. Quinn [John C Quinn, Gannett Newspapers, and president, Associated Press Managing Editors Association]
Q Mr. President, this morning, Governor Askew of Florida addressed this group and recalled the words of Benjamin Franklin, when leaving the Constitutional Convention he was asked, "What have you given us, sir, a monarch or a republic?" Franklin answered, "A republic, sir, if you can keep it ". Mr, President, in the prevailing pessimism of the lingering matter we call Watergate, can we keep that republic, sir, and how?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, Mr. Quinn, I would certainly not be standing here answering these questions unless I had a firm belief that we could keep the republic, that we must keep it, not only for ourselves, but for the whole world. I recognize that because of mistakes that were made, and I must take responsibility for those mistakes, whether in the campaign or during the course of an administration, that there are those who wonder whether this republic can survive. But I also know that the hopes of the whole world for peace, not only now but in the years to come, rests in the United States of America. And I can assure you that as long as I am physically able to handle the position to which I was elected, and then reelected to last November, I am going to work for the cause of peace in the world, for the cause of prosperity without war and without inflation at home. And also, to the best of my ability, to restore confidence in the White House, and in the President himself. It is a big job, but I think it can be done, and I intend to do it.
The President was asked about his personal financial matters.
When he had left office as vice president in 1961, he said, his net worth was $47,000, but he "made a lot of money" in the next eight years: $250,000 from his book, Six Crisis; between $100,000 and $250,000 a year practicing law; selling all his stock in 1968 for about $300,000; his New York apartment for $300,000; and another $100,000 due him from his law firm.
The President was asked about a press report he paid $792 in federal income tax in 1970 and $878 in 1971 and whether public officials should disclose their personal finances. Nixon said he had disclosed his personal finances and would make another report available "because, obviously, you're all so busy that when these things come across your desk maybe you don't see them."
In reply to the query, he said he paid $79,000 in income tax in 1969 and "nominal amounts" in the next two years. Why the nominal amounts? he asked. "It wasn't because of the deductions for shall we say a cattle ranch or interest or you know all the gimmicks that you've got where you can deduct from." But because his predecessor Lyndon Johnson "came in to see me shortly after I became President" and suggested he take a legal deduction from his income tax for his vice presidential papers, as Johnson had with most of his Presidential papers. He did this, Nixon said, his papers being appraised at $500,000, "many believe conservatively, at the moment," he added. He would be glad to have the papers back, he said, and pay the tax, "because I think they're worth more than that."
"I want to say this to the television audience. I made my mistakes, but in all of my years of public life, I have never profited, never profited from public service. I have earned every cent. And in all of my years of public life, I have never obstructed justice. And I think, too, that I can say that in my years of public life, that I welcome this kind of examination because people have got to know whether or not their President's a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I've got."
Nixon raised the issue of the 1971 increase in federal milk price supports. "I want the fact out because the facts will prove that the Presidnet is telling the truth," charge that an increase in milk prices came about as a "quid pro quo" because of promised campaign contributions from milk producers were "just not true" "Democrats in Congress put a gun to our head" among others Senator George McGovern, demanding a price support increase, so the Administration put one into effect.
The President was asked about gas rationing. ""
The President responded the public would "resent" gas rationing. "Our goal is make it not necessary." "I'm not going to pledge to the television audience that rationing manever come. If you have another War in the Middle East, if you have a complete cut off and not a resumption of the flow of oil from the Mid East, or some other disaster occurs, rationing may come."
"I came down here in a plane here today—Air Force One—I asked them if I couldn't take the Jetstar. They said, "No", it doesn't have communications. So I've had to take the big plane. But we did one thing that saved half the cost. We didn;t have the backup plane. The Secret Service didn't like it; Communications didn't like it; but I don't need a backup plane. If this one goes down, it goes down--and then they don't have to impeach."
Nixon reminded them he was the first President ever to an send energy message to Congress.
"Now I'm not saying here Congress is to blame, the Presidnet should have done something. What I do say is that the President warned about it and the Congress did not act, even thought we warned two years ago. The President warned in April. The Congress did not act. And now it's time for the Congress to get away from some of these other diversions, if they have time, and get on to this energy crisis."
Q Mr. President, I am George Gill of the Louisville Courier-Journal Would you please tell us, sir, when did you personally discover that two of the nine subpoenaed White House tapes did not exist, and why did you apparently delay for a matter of weeks disclosing this matter to the Federal court and to the public?
THE PRESIDENT. Well, the first time that the fact that there were no recordings of the two conversations to which you referred—that they did not exist—came to my attention on approximately September 29 or September 30. At that time, I was informed only that they might not exist because a search was not made, because seven of the nine recordings requested did exist, and my secretary, listening to them for me and making notes for me, proceeded to go through those seven tapes I should point out, incidentally, that the two which did not exist, in which there were no tape recordings of the conversations, were not ones that were requested by the Senate committee, and consequently, we felt that we should go forward with the ones that were requested by both the Senate committee and the others. When we finally determined that they could not be in existence was on October 26 of this year. And we learned it then when I directed the White House Counsel, Mr. Buzhardt, to question the Secret Service operatives as to what had happened to make sure that there might not be a possibility, due to the fact that the mechanism was as not operating properly, that we might find them in some other place. He questioned them for 2 days and reported on the 27th that he could not find them He then, having had a date made—and he asked for the date sooner with Judge Sirica, he asked for a date on Thursday, you may recall I pointed that out in my press conference on the 96th—Judge Sirica saw him on Tuesday in camera. The White House Counsel reported to Judge Sirica that the two tapes did not exist and gave him the reasons for it. The judge decided, and I think quite properly, that the reasons for the tape not existing should he made public and those involved with access to the tapes and those who operated the machines should be questioned so that there would he no question of the White House, somebody around the President, or even the President himself, having destroyed evidence that was important even though the Senate committee had not, as I have alreay pointed out, subpoenaed either of these two tapes. And since we ale on this subject, and I do not want to he taking all of the time on it except that I know there is going to be enormous interest in it, not only among this audience here, but among our television viewers, let me point this out; I have done everything that I possibly can to provide the evidence that would have existed had we found the tapes: First, with regard to the tape of June 20, as you may recall, it was a 5-minute telephone conversation with the former Attorney General, John Mitchell, who had just left as campaign manager or was planning to leave as campaign manager at that time. I have a practice of keeping a personal diary—I can assure you not every day—Sometimes you are too tired at the end of a day to either make notes or dictate it into a dictabelt. On that particular day I happened to have dictated a dictabelt, and on the dictabelt for June 90, which I found, I found that I had referred to the conversation to John Mitchell, and I think it is fair to disclose to this audience what was there because it will be disclosed to the court It has already been offered to the court and eventually I assume will he made public. It said, first that T called John Mitchell to cheer him up because I knew he was terribly disheartened by what had happened in the so-called Watergate matter Second. He expressed chagrin to me that the organization over which he had control could have gotten out of hand in this way That was what was on that tape. Now, turning to the one on April 15, I thought I might have a dictabelt of that conversation as well Let me tell you first why the telephone conversation was not recorded. not because of any deliberate attempt to keep the recording from the public, hut because the only telephones in the residence of the White House which are recorded—the only telephone, there is only one, is the one that is in the office, the little Lincoln Sitting Room right off the Lincoln Bedroom The call I made to John Mitchell was made at the end of the day at about 6:30 just before going into dinner from the family quarters, and no telephones in the family quarters ever were recorded. That is, why the recording did not exist. Turning to April 15, the conversation referred to there was at the end of the process in which Mr. Dean came in to tell me what he had told the U. S. attorneys that day. He saw me at 9 o'clock at night, Sunday night. There should have been a recording Everybody thought there probably was a recording The reason there was not a recording is that the tape machines over the weekend only can carry 6 hours of conversation and usually that is more than enough. because I do not use the EOB office that is, the Executive Office Building office rather than the Oval Office over the weekend to that extent. But that weekend I was in the EOB for a long a with Dr. Kissinger on foreign policy matters I was there for 9 other hours, or 9 or 3 other hours, and the tape ran out in the middle of a conversation with Mr. Klein- in the middle of the afternoon, Sunday afternoon. And a later conversation I had, the rest of Kleindienst's conversation, a later conversation I had also with Mr. l'ctcrse n, and the conversation at 9 o'clock at night with. Dean was not there. So I tried to find whatever recording whatever record that would help the prosecutor in th is instance to reconstruct the evidence, because it was the evidence that he was after and not just the tape. What I found was not a dictabelt What I found was my handwritten notes made at the time of the conversation I have turned those over to or have authorized my counsel to turn those notes over to the judge, so that he can have them checked for authenticity, and I understand there are ways that he can tell that they were written at that time. Those handwritten notes are available. And then I did one other thing which I think will also he helpful The next day I had a conversation with Mr Dean in the morning at 10 o'clock That conversation was recorded, and in that conversation there are repeated references to what was said the night before, and when compared with my handwritten notes it is clear that we are discussing the same subjects. That entire tape as well as the conversation I had in the afternoon with Mr. Dean for about 20 minutes will he made available to the court even though the court has not subpoenaed them I would just simply say in conclusion you can he very sure that this kind of a subject is one that is a difficult one to explain It appears that it is impossible that when we have an Apollo system that we could have two missing tapes when the White House is concerned Let me explain for one moment what the system w as This is no Apollo system I found that it cost—I just learned this—$2 500 I found that instead of having the kind of equipment that was there when President Johnson was there which was incidentally much better equipment but I found—-and I am not saying that critically—hut I found that in this instance it was a Son a little Sony that they had and that what they had are these little lapel mikes in my desks And as a result the conversations in the Oval Officel, the conversations in the Cabinet Room, and particularly those in the EOB, those are the three rooms, only those three rooms where they recorded—for example, the Western White House had no recording equipment and my house in Key Biscayne had(l none—but as far as those particular recordings are concerned the reason that you have heard that there are difficulties in hearing them is that the system itself W;1$ not a sophisticated system I do not mean to suggest by that that the judge by listening to them will not he able to get the facts and I would simply conclude by saying this, I think I know what is on these tapes from having listened to some those before March 21. And also from having seen from my secretary's notes the highlights of others And I call assure you that those tapes when they are presented to the judge and, I hope, eventually to the grand jury, and I trust in some way we can find a way at least to get the substance to the American people, they will prove these things without question. One, that I had no knowledge Whatever of the Watergate break-in before it occurred. Two, that I never authorized the offer of to anybody and, as a matter of fact, turned it down when it was suggested It was not recommended by any member of my staff but it was, on occasion, suggested as a result of news reports that clemency might become a factor. And third, as far as any knowledge with regard to the payment of blackmail money, which, as you recall, was the charge that was made, that Mr. Hunt's attorney had asked for $ 190,000 in money to he paid to him or he would tell things about members of the White House Staff, not about Watergate, that might be embarrassing. Testimony had been given before the Senate committee that I was told that before the 21st of March, actually told it on the 13th of March. I know I heard it for the first time the 21 st of of March, and I will reveal this much of the conversation—I am sure the judge wouldn't mind—I recall very well Mr. Dean, after the conversation began, telling me, 'Mr. President, there are some things about this I haven't told you I think you should know them'. And then he proceeded then for the first time to tell me about that money. Now, I realize that some will wonder about the truth of these particular statements that I have made I am going to hand out later—I won't hand them out, but I will have one of our executives hand out my May 22 statement, my August 15 statement, and one with regard to these two tapes You can believe them if you want—I can tell you it is the truth because I have listened to or have had knowledge of from someone I have confidence in, as to what is in the tapes.
Q Mr. President, Richard Tuttle, Democrat and Chronicle, Rochester New York. Could you tell us sour personal reaction and your political reaction—and within that word I mean your credibility with the American people—our reaction to the discovery that the Dean and Mitchell tapes did not exist?
THE President. Well, my personal reaction was one of very great disappointment. Because I wanted the evidence out, and I knew that when there was any indication that something didn't exist, immediately there should be the impression that some way, either the President, or more

likely, perhaps somebody on the President's staff, knew there was something on those tapes that it wouldn't be wise to get out. But let me point out again, while I was disappointed, let me say I would have been a lot more disappointed if the tapes that had been considered impeachabele by both Mr. Cox, the Special Prosecutor and the Ervin committee, if any one of those had been missing because I should point out the tape of September 15 when as you recall, has been testified that I was first informed there was a coverup—that, of course, is there the tape of March 13, where it has l)been testified, as I pointed out in the answer to the Louisville Courier-Journal where it has been testified that l was informed then of the demands for money for purposes of blackmail, that is available And the tape of March 21, where we discussed this in great detail, as well as three other tapes in which Mr Dean participated, three other conversations, are all available. But as far as these two tapes are concerned, even though they were not considered by the Ervin committee to be an indispensable part of their investigation, the fact that they were not there was a great disappointment, and I just wish we had had a better system—I frankly wish we hadn't had a system at all, then I wouldn't have to answer this question.

Q Mr. President, John Dougherty [Rochester Times] Did you tell Mr. Cox to stay out of the Ellsberg case, and if you did, why and do you think that the new Special Prosecutor should be kept from investigating the Ellsberg case?
THE PRESIDENT. I have never spoken to Mr. Cox at all; as a matter of fact, however I did talk to Mr. Petersen about it, before Mr Cox took over I told Mr Petersen that the job that he had—and I would have said the same thing to Mr. Cox—was to investigate the Watergate matter that national security matters were not matters that should be investigated, because there were some very highly sensitive matters involved, not only in Ellsberg but also another matter so sensitive that even Senator Ervin and Senator Baker have decided that they should not delve further into them I don't mean that that we arc going to throw the cloak of National Security over something because we are guilty of something. I am simply saying that where the National Security would be disserved by having an investigation, the President has the responsibility to protect it, and I am going to do so
Q Paul Poorman from the Detroit News. Are you personally satisfied sir, that the investigation of the Watergate matter is complete, to your satisfaction, and if so, could you tell us what your plans are to tell the American people about the facts of the case with regard again to your credibility on this matter.
THE PRESIDENT: First with rEgard to whether the investigation is complete. As you know, there is now a new Special Proscutor, Mr. Jaworski. He is a Democrat. He has always supported the Democratic ticket. He is a highly respected lawyer, former president of the ABA in the year 1971. I have met him. I have never talked to him personally, and certainly have never talked to him about this matter. I refuse to because I want him to be completely independent. He cannot be removed unless there is a consensus of the top leadership of both the House and Senate, Democrat and Republican, the Speaker and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the House and the President Pro Tem, the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate. And the ranking two members of the Judiciary Committees of both the House and Senate, which, incidentally, gives you, as you can see, a very substantial majority, as far as the Democrats are concerned. The second point, and the point I am trying to make is, one, he is qualified; two, he is independent and will have cooperation; and three, he will not be removed unless the Congress, particularly the leaders of the Congress, and particularly the Democratic leaders who have a strong majority on this group that I have named, agree that he should be removed. And I do not expect that that time will come. As to what I can tell the American people, this is one forum, and there may be others As to what the situation is as to when it call be done, it is. of course necessary to let the grand jury proceed as quickly as possible to a conclusion and I should point out to you, as you may recall Mr. Petersen testified before the Ervin committee that when he was removed from his position—you recall he was removed in April and a Special Prosecutor was put in—that the case was 90 percent ready For 6 months, under the Special Prosecutor who was then appointed, the case has not been brought to a conclusion. And I think that now after 6 months of delay, it is time that the case I c brought to a conclusion If it was 90 percent finished in April, they ought to be able to finish now. Those who are guilty, or presumed to he guilty, should be indicted. Those who are not guilty at least should get

some • x iden c of being cleared because in the meantime, the reputations of men, some maybe who are not guilty, have been probably irreparably damaged by what has happened in the hearings that they have appeared before publicly. They have already been convicted and they may never recover find that isn't our system of government. The place to try a man or a woman for a crime is in the courts and not to convict them either in the newspapers or on television before he has a fair trial in the courts.

Q Mr. Presidents I'm Bob Haiman from the St. Petersburg Times in St Petersburg Florida When Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr. Halderman left your administration you said they were guilty in the Watergate affair, and they were, quote, 'two of the finest public servants you had ever known' end quote. After what has transpired and been revealed since then, do you still feel the same way about both men and both, statments.

THE PRESIDENT First, l hold that both men and others who have been charged are guilt! until l have evidence that they are not guilty and I know that every newspaper man and newspaper woman ill this whole audience would agree with that statement That is our American system Second, A[r Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlichman had been and were dedicated, fine public servants, and I believe, it is m! belief based on what I know now, that when these proceedings are completed that they will come out all right On the other hand, they have e appeared before the grand jury before they will be appearing again, and as I pointed out in answer to an earlier question, it probably does not make any difference, unfortunately, whether the grand jury indicts them or not, whether they are tried or not, because, unfortunately they have already been convicted in the minds of millions of Americans by what happened before a Senate committee AIR. QUIN 5. 3,I'r President, may I suggest that you may have misspoke yourself when you said that you assumed Haldeman and Ehrlichman are considered guilty until proven not guilty THE PRESIDENT. Yes, I certainly did, if I said that— thank you for correcting me Q. Richard Smyser, from The Oak Ridger in Oak Ridge, Tennessee Senator Mark Hatfield said recently that we demand so much of a President, we ask him to play so many roles that no man can hold that kind of responsibility without having to share that responsibility with all Americans To what extent do you think that this explains possibly how something like Watergate can occur? THE PRESIDENT I could stand here before this audience and make all kinds of excuses, and most of you probably would understand because you are busy also '7'7 was a very busy year for me It w was a year when we had the visit to China, it was a year when we had the visit to Moscow and the first limited nuclear ban on defensive weapons, you recall, as well as some other very significant events It was a year too when we had the very difficult decisions on May! 8, the bombing and mining of Hai- and then the negotiations and then in T)ceemher of course, the very very difficult—perhaps the most difficult— decision I made of the De( c mber bombing, which did lead to the breakthrough and the uneasy peace hut it is peace with . all of the Ame( ricans home, all of our PO\ N"s home, and peace at least for a w while in that pe riod Now, during that period of time, frankly, l didn't manage the campaign I didn't run the campaign People around me didn't bring things to me that they probably should have because I was frankly just too busy trying to do the Nation's business to run the polities My adv ice to all new politicians, incidentally, is always run your own campaigns I used to run mine and I was always criticized for it because you know whenever you lose you are always criticized for running your own campaign But my point is Senator Hatfield is correct, whether you are a Senator or a Congressman, you are sometimes very busy, you don't watch these things When you are President, you don't watch them as closely as you might And on that, I say if mistakes are made, however, I am not blaming the people down below The man at the top has got to take the heat for all of them Q May I ask one other question, sir? T111. PRESID)FNT. Sure Q DO ^,ou feel that the executive privilege is absolute? TIIE PRESIDENT XT. 1, of ( course do not I have c waived C(I ex- privilege with regard to all ( f the( members of m! staff who have any knowledge(dg( of or who have had(l an! charges made against th(m in the( Watergate';wterg;lte matt r I ha x of course voluntarily! waived((l privilege(".,t' with regard(i to to ning OVUM the tapes, and so forth Let me point out it was voluntary on m! part, and deliberately so to avoid a precedent that might destroy the principle of confi(lentialit) for future Presidents, which is terribly important. If it had gone to the Supreme Court—and I know many of my friends argued Why! not carry it to the Supreme Court and let them decide it?"—that would, first, have had a confrontation with the Supreme Court, between the Supreme Court and the President And second it would have established very possibly a precedent a precedent breaking down constitutionality that • would plague future Presidencies( not just President I could just say in that respect too, that I have referred to what I called the Jefferson rule It is the rule, I think, that we should generally follow—a President should follow—with the courts when they want information. and a President should also follow with committees of Congress, when they want information from his personal files Jefferson, as you know, in that very!, very famous ease, had correspondence w hich it was felt might bear upon the guilt or innocence of Aaron Burr Chief Justice Marshall, sitting as a trial judge, held that Jefferson, as President. had to turn over the correspondence Jefferson refused What he did was to turn over a summary of the correspondence, all that he considered was proper to be turned over for the purposes of the trial - And then Marshall, sitting as Chief Justice, ruled for the President Now, why did Jefferson do that? Jefferson didn't do that to protect Jefferson He did that to protect the Presidency And that is exactly what I will do in these cases It isn't for the purpose of protecting the President; it is for the purpose of seeing that the Presidency, where great decisions have to be made—and great decisions cannot be made unless there is very free flow of conversation, and that means confidentiality—I have a responsibility to protect that Presidency At the same time, I will do ev erything I can to cooper participation I will come to you next, sorry

  • * * * * * * *

Q Mr. President, Larry Allison from the Long Beach, California, Independent Press-Telegram Back; to Watergate Former Attorney General John Mitchell has testified that the reason he did not give you details on the Watergate problems was that you did not ask him Now,, I realize that you were very l)usv at that time, as you said, but there were reports in newspapers that linked people very high in your staff with Watergate problems l Could you tell us, sir, why you did not ask; Mr. Mitchell wh at he knew? TSIE PRESIDE:NT. For the very simple reason that when I talked to Mr. Mitchell—and I saw him often in that period—that I had every reason to believe that if he were involved, if he had any information to convey, he would tell me I thought that he would As a matter of fact, when I called him on the telephone, what did he say—he expressed chagrin that anything like that could have happened in his organization Looking back;, maybe I should have cross-examined him and said, "John, did you do it?" I probably should have asked him, but the reason I didn't is that I expected him to tell me, and he had every opportunity to, and decided he wouldn t, apparently At least—nosv, that doesn't mean to tell me that he was involved, because you understand that is still a matter that is open The question is Whether he could have told me about other people that might he involved where he had information where members of my staff did not have information Yes, sir 9 Presidential Documents 1345-53

Wikibug

Hi, I think the developers have become aware of the editing conflict bug(s) as they are affecting the thursday's london bombings page quite badly. ~~~~ 9 July 2005 13:11 (UTC)

There are a few other bugs as well. For example, this signature here Nobs01 9 July 2005 13:14 (UTC) if you don't change it, but just sign a response below, you will discover the bug.

~~~~ 9 July 2005 13:13 (UTC)

Morris Cohen

Morris Cohen Morris Cohen (Kroger Pieter) was borne on 2 July, 1910, in New York in the family of descendants from Russia. Its father was kind from under Kiev, and mother was borne into Vil'no. Even before the revolution the family of Cohens emigrated from Russia and settled to New York, in the region it was true -Sa1da. Here Morris graduated from the college, where he became famous as outstanding player in regbi. Family was well-off, and the obtained by young Morris sport allowance allowed to enter it into Columbia University. In 1935 at completion of university it worked as the instructor of history in the college. Civil War in Spain did not leave indifferent Of m.Koena. In the composition of the international group of im.Linkol'na it participated in the fight against the Spanish fascists into 1937-1938 g.g., it was injured. Courageous American, who hated fascism, fell in the field of the sight of Soviet external reconnaissance. He gave agreement to render the organs of state security aid in the fight against the Fascist threat and in 1938 it was drawn to the secret collaboration. During November of the same year by assignment of the reconnaissance Of m.Koen it was directed in THE USA as the agent -sv4znika. To its future wife Of leontinoy Theresa petke, whose parents were moved in THE USA from Poland, it was introduced in THE USA at the antifascist meeting in New York. In the beginning of 1941 g.Morris designed the marriage with The the leontinoy. Leontin (bosom) it surmised about the connections of husband with the Soviet reconnaissance and with the readiness agreed to help it in by his secret to fight with the Nazi threat. During the war, in 1942, Morris was mobilized into the army. He participated in the war against the Nazis in Europe. During November 1945 it was demobilized from army and returned to THE USA. During December of the same year with it was restored connection although Hitlerite Germany and other countries of "axis" were devastated and the straight threat of the revival of Nazism it was not examined, M.Koen without the fluctuations gave agreement to continue collaboration with the Soviet reconnaissance. However, in connection with the sharp aggravation of the situation in THE USA, caused by the forcing of anti-Soviet hysteria and campaign of spy mania in the country, connection with it was temporarily ended and restored only in 1948, when rezidentura ascertained that M.Koenu nothing threatens. Together with the wife Of leontinoy it ensured the secret of connection with a number of the most valuable sources of rezidentury. In 1949 the husbands Cohens were transmitted to the connection to the outstanding intelligence officer to William to Fisher, known to entire peace by the name of Rudolf Abel, komandirovannomu in THE USA along the line of illegal reconnaissance. With it they worked up to 1950. In connection with the threat of failure of husbands Cohen center made a decision about their conclusion into the Soviet Union. Up to 1954 they in the center in control of illegal reconnaissance. In 1954 was accepted the solution to direct them into England as the agents -sv4znikov of another famous intelligence officer - Conan molodogo, who in England appeared by the name in 1954 was accepted the solution to direct them Since to the American FBI it was known about the connections of husbands Cohen with the Soviet reconnaissance, to Great Britain they arrived with the passports to the name of the New Zealand husbands of Pieter and Khelen Of krogerov. They acquired small house in two kilometers from the base of American VVS Of nortkholt, where radio-apartment for the connection with Moscow was equipped. Proximity to the military base, and also use of the high speed portable radio station for maintaining the two-way communication with Moscow excluded the interception of the radio transmissions of intelligence officers with the center. Illegal rezidentura of external reconnaissance in five years of activity, from 1955 through 1960, obtained in Great Britain and transmitted to the center a large quantity of important secret materials, including on the rocket weapon, the received appreciation specialists. However, as a result of the treachery of the division head of the operational technology of the Polish reconnaissance Of m.Golenevskyyo, recruited TSRU, British counter espionage MI-5 became known that in NAVY of the country the Soviet agents work. To counter espionage according to the descriptions, obtained from TSRU, it was possible to establish British citizens, who work on the Soviet reconnaissance, and to fix the moment of transfer by them documentary materials for Ben. On 7 January, 1961, K.Molodyy was arrested at the moment of obtaining the information in the region of the station of Waterloo. MI-5 "calculated" and arrested husbands Cohen, that supported connection with the intelligence officer. At the court trial in the famous criminal law court of the higher authority of Bayley's Old, which examined the so-called. the "portlendskoye matter", which took place on 13 March, 1961, Ben took everything for itself. He asserted that the husbands knew nothing about its reconnaissance activity. Despite the fact that law court did not succeed himself in proving the participation of the couple Of krogerov to the work to the Soviet reconnaissance, the British justice, to which the American side reported facts on this score known to it, sentenced Pieter to 25 years, but Khelen - to 20 years of the imprisonment. During August 1969 British authorities agreed to exchange the husbands Of kroger on the agent of the British special services Of dzheralda Of bruka, arrested in THE USSR. During October of the same year the husbands Of krogery returned into Moscow. Entire its remained life Of m.Koen it returned to the work of illegal reconnaissance, participating in training of young colleagues. For the salient contribution to providing of national security of our country it is rewarded with the Order of the Red Banners and friendship of peoples. On 23 June, 1995, it passed away. It is buried in Moscow, on it is new -Kunqevskom the cemetery.

Zarubin

Marks Vasiliy Mikhaylovich zarubin Vasiliy Mikhaylovich was borne in Moscow in the family of railroad worker in 1894. In 14 years, after completion of two-year school, it was returned in boys into the commercial firm Lyzhina, he served as clerk and simultaneously learned after this. In 1914-1917 g.g. it warred at the Western Front. For the agitation against the war it was directed to the penal company. During March 1917 it was injured and were located undergoing medical treatment in Voronezh. A participant in the Civil War, in 1918-1920 served in the Red Army. In 1920 it was directed to the organs VCHK. It participated in the fight with the gangsterism. In 1923 it was appointed as the chief of economic division OGPU in Vladivostok. It organized fight with the smuggling of narcotics and weapon from Europe to China. In 1925 it was directed in the external reconnaissance. Of 23 years of the service in it of 13 years it were located on the illegal work in different countries. In the same year of marks V.M. it was directed to China under the cover of the technical colleague of Soviet genkonsul'stva and it positively itself recommended. In 1926 the solution to direct by its resident of external reconnaissance into Finland, where the marks V.M. successfully it managed its responsibilities, was accepted. Takeing into account experience of operational work acquired by it, in 1927 of marks V.M. and its wife Elizabeth, previously worked in Viennese rezidenture, were directed to Denmark and Germany toward the illegal work. Here marks V.M. it headed illegal rezidenturu and issued itself for the Czechoslovak citizen. In Denmark for husbands Shityu zarubinym it was possible to obtain local authorization to a constant stay and to begin work against Germany. However, in 1929 it obtained indication to leave into Switzerland for the encounter with the representative of center. Mark it was reported about the solution to direct it with the wife toward the illegal work into France. Marks V.M. it settled in the south of France in the small health resort town Of antib, where it were introduced to the young Frenchwoman on the name of May after a certain time together with the wife, who arrived in it from Denmark, it arrived to Paris, where it were introduced to the family the MAI. Subsequently the family of Frenchwoman was drawn to the collaboration with illegal by rezidenturoy, headed Zarubinym V.M., and it were used as the landlords of secret apartment. In France the husbands of mark, Czechs on the passport, settled not far from Paris and were introduced to the owner of garage. Vasiliy Mikhaylovich became its companion and obtained residence permit. To help to intelligence officer was directed the agent of illegal reconnaissance, a Pole on the nationality. Its brother managed in Paris small advertising firm. Mark V.M. it was possible to become his companion and subsequently to enlarge its activity. This created good possibilities for conducting of reconnaissance work. In France marks V.M. it find up to 1933 headed by it rezidentura it fixed obtaining documentary materials not only with France, but also Germany, including of secret correspondence of German embassy in Paris. In connection with Hitler's arrival at the authority the real threat of new world war arose. In 1934 Vasiliy Mikhaylovich together with the wife was directed to Germany as the resident of illegal reconnaissance. Here he conducted a number of the valuable recruitings of foreigners, he successfully led illegal rezidenturoy, exerted many forces and energies for creating the underground antifascist groups. The information about plans and intentions of Nazi Germany directed by it in the center obtained the appreciation of center. In 1937 of marks V.M. it was rewarded with the Order of the Red Banner for the fulfillment of the special targets of government. In the same year it was recalled into Moscow and worked in the central apparatus for reconnaissance. At the very beginning of 1940 the druggie of Beria's state security caused to himself the group of the colleagues of external reconnaissance, including mark V.M. at this "conference" they produced charge in the collaboration with the Gestapo. On the recollections of eyewitnesses, Vasiliy Mikhaylovich answered "iron druggie" with the large merit, behaved as person, confident in his rightness. Repressions went around by the side of the outstanding intelligence officer his wife. In the spring of 1941 it was directed to China for restoring the connection with the German adviser the vat Kayshi, which in the past was one of the leaders of assault forces in Germany. In the conversations with the intelligence officer the German reported that he has available precise reducings about training of Hitler to attack in THE USSR and named date - May - June. This information was without delay reported to the center; however, not it was properly evaluated by Stalin. In the fall of 1941 was accepted the solution to direct mark by the resident of "legal" rezidentury in THE USA. Before the departure it was accepted by Stalin. In the conversation with the intelligence officer it placed the primary task: to follow the fact so that the ruling the circles USA would not arrange for with Nazi Germany and would not finish war by separate peace. In THE USA marks V.M. and its wife they were located up to 1944. Rukovodimaya by it rezidentura was achieved large results in the work and made the weighty contribution to strengthening of the economic and military power of our country. Vasiliy Mikhaylovich not only led rezidentury, but also itself assumed active participation in the recruiting work. The obtained by rezidenturoy political information from the government, the political and the scientific THE USA it was circular highly evaluated by center and it regularly reported to Stalin. For the achieved results in the work during September 1944 to it was appropriated the title of the commissioner of state security, and by the decision by SNK USSR - Council of People's Commissars USSR of 9 July, 1945, - Major General. On the repatriation of marks V.M. it was assigned the deputy chief of external reconnaissance and simultaneously - by the deputy chief of illegal reconnaissance. On these posts it worked up to 1948, when it was discharged in the reserve due to the health status. In 1974 it passed away. Work mark V.M. in the reconnaissance was highly evaluated by the native land. It is rewarded with two Order of Lenins, with Order of the Red Banners and of Red Star, with many medals.

Reference

Gorsky

Gromov, Anatoly, pseudonym in the United States of Anatoly Veniaminovich Gorsky (dates unknown): joined the KGB in 1928 and worked in its internal political police section until transferring to foreign intelligence in 1936. Became deputy chief of the KGB station in London in 1936 and chief in 1940. Managed the “Cambridge Five” and the initial KGB penetration of the British atomic bomb project. Was recalled to the USSR in 1944 for work at the central KGB headquarters but was then hastily sent to Washington to become chief of the KGB station in the United States after the sudden recall of Vasily Zubilin. Returned to Moscow in 1947 to take a supervisory position in foreign intelligence and in 1953 shifted to internal security work. Attained the rank of colonel and was awarded the orders of the Red Banner, the Red Banner of Labor, the Badge of Honor, and the Red Star. 

 Mountain Anatoliy veniaminovich, 1907 generation, formation average. In the organs of state security since 1928. 
    In 1936 it is sent for the official mission into Great Britain as the assistant to the resident of first Chapskogo (osuzhden on the false charge and it is shot in 1937 as the "enemy of people"), then Grapfena (also osuzhden to 5 years correctionally - working camps on the false charge, subsequently both tyuey are reabilitirovany). It fulfilled the responsibilities of cipher clerk. 
    In connection with the mass repressions in 1939 London rezidentura was liquidated, and mountain A.V. was recalled during March 1940 into Moscow and expected the solution of its fate. However, send repressions to the loss, and it began to work in the English department of 5 divisions for the main administration of national security THE NKVD OF THE USSR (external reconnaissance). Simultaneously it began to be prepared for the return to London as the resident. 
    During November 1940 it arrived to London under the cover first by attache, then 2- GO of the secretary of the embassy OF THE USSR. 
    Up to the moment of the liquidation of rezidentury on the connection in mountain A.V. were located 18 agents, including famous "Cambridge five". On the return to London it undertakes energetic efforts for the restoration of connections with the secret service agency and the uninterrupted supply of center with important documentary information about foreign and internal policy of the British Government. 
    Rukovodimaya mountain A.V. of rezidentura consisted in all of three people. It undertook energetic measures for the expansion of its composition, as a result of which toward the end of the war in it were counted already 12 operational workers. In the heaviest period of war (1941-1942 g.g.), when reconnaissance work in other countries yet not was as it follows fixed, London rezidentura was the basic information source of Soviet management on Germany and countries of the anti-Hitler coalition. They were obtained by it and were directed to the center more than 10 thousand documentary materials along political, economic, military and other questions. 
    London rezidentura, headed by mountain A.V., already during September 1941 obtained and directed to the center the documentary materials about those leading in Great Britain and THE USA works on the creation of nuclear weapons and constantly informed it on this problems. During January 1944 mountain A.V. on the completion of mission it returned into Moscow, where it was assigned the deputy division head. 
    In 1944 it was appointed as the resident of external reconnaissance in THE USA, where it left under the cover of 1 secretaries, and then advisers of the embassy OF THE USSR. In the country it were located up to 1946 it made the noticeable contribution to the guarantee of an information work of rezidentury, especially on the problem of the creation of atomic weapon. For the successful work in THE USA it is increased in the title to the Colonel and in 1945 is rewarded by the Order of the Patriotic War. 1946 on the repatriation are assigned as the chief of 1 divisions for control of external reconnaissance. 
    In 1947-1950 g.g. Mountain A.V. left into the short term overseas business trips.
    It died in 1980.

User:Nobs01/Secret apparatus

Carl Hatch

I've been trying to write the Carl Hatch article for sometime. It's essential now, since there is an article on the Hatch Act... I should finish it eventually. If you have anything you can contribute to it, please tell me! YourNickname 19:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While I was at it, I expanded the Hatch Act of 1939 since you requested that ti be expanded. XD YourNickname 20:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Request

You are welcome. While I believe it is possible to have legitimate differences over the substance of the material for the page, I do not believe that 172's claims so far have either been accurate or appropriate. I will certainly take an interest in helping to resolve this matter and hopefully compromise on the actual article. I would also be very glad to assist you in particularities but would prefer for this more substantive and longer correspondence to be over e-mails. I believe I have elsewhere seen you refer to being new or unskilled as far as technology, so I hope it won't be too condescending to describe to you how to add an e-mail address to your account. Go to the link which should be on the top right of your screen called "preferences". The preference section "User Data" should be highlighted; enter the e-mail in the space for it and click Save at the bottom.

If you do this I will get onto the matter tomorrow, as I will be distracted today (from this website I usually am). Hopefully nothing drastic happens until that point. Attempting constructive engagement with 172 is of course a good first step. --TJive 20:03, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, and I have replied as well. --TJive 16:49, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
And you in turn. --TJive 17:36, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah this is getting more than a bit ridiculous. Will get back on it tomorrow. --TJive 18:32, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
If it's dated as the 20th (today), I don't see it. Resend, perhaps? --TJive 20:10, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Incontrovertible

I just removed the link you added to Mathematics because I don't agree that incontrovertible evidence (as discussed in that article) and the kind of "incontrovertible truths" the math article is talking about are the same thing. As a result, I think the link is a little misleading... - dcljr (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Senate

I'm going to expand the post-1945 section on the US Senate as soon as I have time. Dinopup 11:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Totallydisputed/NPOV

Nobs, if you didn't place the tag, you can't change it without a consensus of editors or the person who placed it originally changing it him or herself. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:36, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Email

Thanks for your email and time. Let me know if I can be of any help. Ultramarine 13:14, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Due to professional obligations I lack sufficient time to participate effectively in the dispute over espionage-related articles. You and TJive no longer have to concern yourself with my objections, at least for several months. 172 | Talk 22:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Greetings - as an active participant in the ongoing edits to the Ludwig von Mises Institute article, I wanted to inform you that I have started a "Request for Comment" (RfC) proceeding over this article in light of continued disruptive and abusive editing behavior by two other participants there. The RfC is located at the link here [17]. In case you have not participated in an RfC before, it is the first step after the talk page in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process for articles in which an agreement cannot be easily reached (outlined at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution). I decided to initiate this RfC over the actions of two users who I believe to be seriously impeding the constructive development of this article into an encyclopedia-quality description of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. In one case the editor's behavior was long term. In the other, the editor responded to negotiation efforts I initiated with him on the talk page with unprovoked personal hostility against me, which in turn led me to first warn him of the potential need for an RfC and then follow through as his belligerence continued. I am hopeful that this process will assist in working out the differences that exist on the LVMI article and help to direct the responsible editors toward making their future contributions in compliance with the neutrality mandate and with other Wikipedia standards and policies.

You are also welcome to contribute to this RfC, and as a participant in the LVMI article development your participation here may be beneficial. To those who are unfamiliar, participants may contribute by endorsing (or declining to endorse) the RfC case regarding the problem users as stated. Endorsements should be placed here [18] per the RfC page's instructions and entail the use of a tilde signature in the normal fashion. RfC participants may also contribute by way of discussion of the RfC case and all pertinent materials here [19]. A formatted area is also provided on the RfC for the named editors to respond to the complaint. Thank you for your continued work on the LVMI article and for your patience during this process, as it is my hope that we will be able to produce an agreeable quality product upon its conclusion. Rangerdude 00:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda → Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory - name change vote

Hello, there is a vote to rename Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory. The voting is here: Talk:Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda#poll on changing the name of this_page. I would appreciate it if you could vote. Thanks. ObsidianOrder 06:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

vote req.

Hi,

Thanks for letting me know about the vote. Unfortunately, I really don't know anything about the subject. I'd like to do a bit of reading and then cast a vote, but I'm quite busy and may not get a chance. I apologize if I don't get around to it on time, but I'll be glad to help out if I get a chance. --Daniel11 14:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The Nation

Since the word is out about how The Nation is a "Kremlin-directed Stalinist mouthpiece", you might as well put that information on the article page for the Nation. There's no reason to hide your light under a bushel. Ruy Lopez 18:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


Mediation Request

See: Requests_for_mediation#Cberlet_in_dispute_with_Rangerdude_and_nobs Cberlet_in_dispute_with_Rangerdude_and_nobs - Request for mediation--Cberlet 20:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem

I am opposed to the use of this forum for political barnstorming either way. Though I consider myself a moderate, being from the Rocky Mountain region probably means that as that compares to the Northeast and Europeans, I am conservative. Regardless, the number of articles that I find that have nothing to do with an encyclopedia is surprising...and most of them are so far off the track to the left it bewilders me.--MONGO 07:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Chip Berlet article

Nobs - thanks for your input on this article. As you are probably aware, the Horowitz material I added (which, at least in my opinion, I drafted in a very neutral, reasonable, and thoroughly sourced manner) is under direct assault by both the article's namesake and a small clique of his defenders. Cberlet's own note to his friends tells it all - "Help! Giant Blob of Horowitz hit my page." Note his phrasing "my page" in particular - as if he thinks he owns the thing and gets to decide what to exclude from it! The editors clique in which Cberlet travels is unfortunately doing everything in their power to insulate him from this criticism and bully anybody who challenges their tactics into submission. This is a disturbing development for wikipedia as I have seen this same little clique of the very same editors using collaborative tactics to insulate and sheild their own from criticisms - even when one of their own is clearly in the wrong - in at least three distinct disputes now. I believe it harms the site as a whole because it allows them to get away with things that other editors are rightly prevented from doing. When one of them gets called out for a policy violation on an RfC or something, the rest flood the place in his/her defense no matter how bad the violation was. When critical material gets put into an article about another, they rally to expunge regardless of the proper sourcing. The result is to basically allow each other to get away with breaking the rules!

Right now the Horowitz material is under heavy assault from this clique. Cberlet put out the call and the exact same circle of usual suspects - Willmcw, SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and El_C - responded almost instantaneously. SlimVirgin unilaterally took it upon herself to not simply revise but completely gut the paragraphs on Horowitz. She removed over 2/3rds of the material and chopped down Horowitz's many criticisms of Berlet into a single unrepresentative half-line out of context quotation of him only mildly criticizing Berlet. As you have seen, she not only made this edit but is now - with the help of the same clique - attempting to enforce it upon the article by revert warring any attempt to restore a version that isn't hers. The only thing I know on how to handle clear bullying and POV enforcement such as this is to stand firm and keep citing the applicable Wikipedia policies. Thanks Rangerdude 07:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Categories

It turns out you can include a category inside another category; see Category:Peninsulas of Ireland for an example. If you pull up that page and look at the contents (click "Edit"), you'll see it only contains:

[[Category:Geography of Ireland]]
[[Category:Peninsulas by country|Ireland]]

This adds the category "Peninsulas of Ireland" as a 'sub-category' to the category Category:Peninsulas by country (which in turn is included as a sub-category to Category:Peninsulas). As you can see, i) this category system can include an arbitary number of levels, and ii) it's not a strict tree - the category "Peninsulas of Ireland" is included as a sub-category of "Geography of Ireland" as well as "Peninsulas by country".

So I'd suggest that the appropriate organization for a Category:Soviet Intelligence would be for it to include two subcategories: Category:Soviet intelligence agencies, and Category:Soviet intelligence people; the latter could include further sub-categories for "officers", "agents", "sources", "suspected sources", "defectors", etc, etc. Noel (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem with a "temporary catch-all" is that it may just create more argument and contention, if people are unhappy with additions to it. I do concede, though, that you're more likely to get grief about the classification of people on the fringes (e.g. the long-disputed Magdoff) than about the differentiation between, say, Abel (illegal, but Soviet officer), Golos (network head but not Soviet officer), Fuchs (source), etc. So a catchall for those would probably be more acceptable.
But why the rush, though? Why not use a talk: page somewhere (perhaps Category_talk:Soviet spies) to discuss exactly how many categories to create, and what they should be? If so, you should put a pointed to the discussion at WP:CfD#Category:Soviet spies. From looking at the discussion there, it seems like there's rough consensus to have a Category:Suspected Soviet spies, so you could start by creating that, and moving the problem cases there. The rest could wait until the categorization is worked out - that would have the advantage you'd have to edit all those pages just once, not twice (once for the temporary catch-all, and once for the final). Noel (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, as far as the timeframe goes, I'd say start anytime. The category is going to survive deletion (although it is going to be split, I would wager). Noel (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You rang?

Hello? 209.86.2.95 17:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Stasi

Fascinating work on spying. For a long time, I've been wanting to work on a similar project regarding the Stasi and their informants. Currently, these pages are very weak. Do you have any interest in this subject? Tfine80 15:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Mail

You've got some. --TJive 03:23, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Resent. --TJive 03:37, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

If you were implying a delivery on the 7th (or even the 6th) from yourself, it is not received. --TJive 16:02, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

If you responded to my emails I sent just a little while ago they aren't received. --TJive 02:40, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying you didn't get the ones I sent tonight or that you just resent a response? --TJive 02:48, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Are you familiar with AOL Instant Messenger (AIM)? --TJive 02:50, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Take a look here. It's a useful device that I use often. --TJive 03:02, August 8, 2005 (UTC) Mail. --TJive 04:16, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Harry Magdoff

I refer to the Harry Magdoff article. I incorporated much appropriate and interesting material from the Harry Magdoff espionage article into the main article as I saw no reason for it to be excluded. Can you please explain why you deleted it? Not impressed.Coqsportif 03:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

There was a recent dispute at Great Moments in Wikipedia covering the discussion; you are welcome to join, however the concensus appears to be the current version. nobs 03:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you deleted the material. I have read the page you refer to, that adds little to my understanding of why you persist in deleting it. Coqsportif 08:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

There's a certain droll wonderfulness to this complaint! Noel (talk) 04:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

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. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Venona

Hi, I fixed Category:Venona to do what you wanted; i.e. make it a sub-category of Category:Espionage. I notice you had the following lines in the Venona category page:

[[Category:Venona|VENONA project]]
[[Category:Venona|Significance of Venona]]

To add articles to a category, you need to edit the articles, not the category. (There are those who think this is a bug! But that's the way it works, for better or worse.) I deleted them, and added a line:

[[Category:Espionage]]

to make the Venona category a sub-category of the Espionage category. (Just as one edits an article to add the article to a category, one edits a sub-category to add it to a category.)

Also, I notice that one of the Venona articles also belongs to the following other categories:

The first is sort of duplicative, because now that the Venona category is a sub-cat of Espionage, all articles in that sub-cat are included in Espionage anyway.

The other three present an interesting opportunity. Just as an article can belong to more than one category, a category can be a sub-category of more than one "meta-category". I.e. you could edit Category:Venona to add it to Category:Historical events in cryptography as well as Category:Espionage (and so on for the other two).

Not sure what the right call is, just thought I'd point that out. Noel (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Nobs -- could you add a note to each of the Venona Appendix categories as to what each one is supposed to be? I gather that they are different lists of different sorts of people, but otherwise I am finding the categorization difficult to interpret even as someone who has a fairly good general idea about the VENONA project contents. A small note would suffice. --Fastfission 01:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Why on Earth have you said my material about White is neo-Nazi? I think an explanation is in order. Coqsportif 23:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I figured out myself, and understand your concern. Have deleted the references to such an unpleasant source. My apologies for causing you concern. I am so far from being a "revisionist" (now I know what one is) that it's not funny. Coqsportif 00:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I wondered why you moved the list of names back into VENONA — surely it makes sense to spin out a large list into a separate article? Why do you want it to remain in the article? — Matt Crypto 11:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I found your explanation on the Talk: page. I've reverted, though. It makes sense to keep a large list of raw information in a separate list article. If you don't like the name, move it, but please don't reinsert it into the main VENONA article. — Matt Crypto 11:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Nuclear secrecy

My only qualifiers on the category which seem appropriate to me in relation to people are those who are generally associated with issues relating to nuclear secrecy primarily. So Klaus Fuchs is a yes, since he is best known for his giving nuclear secrets to the Soviets, though Leslie Groves is probably not, even though he helped draw up the initial secrecy guidelines. But it is clearly a subjective judgment one way or the other, but it seemed a good place to put a lot of things which were just under the category of "nuclear weapons" at the time yet seemed more related to issues of nuclear information than anything else. I don't know if Harry Gold would be causally related enough to be included, though -- his association is a few steps removed from the nuclear secrets themselves, more at the level of dealing with those who were getting them. The Rosenbergs are somewhat of an exception here, but their case was prominent enough that it seems they would be need to be included (plus, a number of "secrets" about bomb design were made public for the first time at their trial). --Fastfission 15:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey

I know not your sentiments but would you consider voting here: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency..it is simply a project to try and set some level of standards and honor Florida stautes regarding such. Thanks.--MONGO 08:27, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Mullins

Hipocrite: Regarding the citation that Eusitce Mullins "worked as a researcher for Joseph McCarthy", I would be interested in hearing this clarified, if you have the time. Thank you so much. nobs 19:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no information regarding that cite, and doubt it. I do not believe I have inserted that statement into the text at any point, and if I have, it was in error.Hipocrite 19:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
nobs: For further info on Mullins' association with Joe McCarthy, check the external links at the bottom of the Eustace Mullins article. Assuming they haven't been removed, there should be a link to Mullins' official website and another link to an interview in which he discusses this. Mullins is now working on his autobiography which should cast quite a bit of light on the matter. Amalekite 22:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

More on Venona

As I have mentioned before, I have little time/energy for these endloss PoV wars; I will usually say something on the Talk: page (which isn't subject to deletion/editing) and then wander off to more productive areas.

However, on the subect of Venona and the spy rings in the US in the 30s/40s, there is a fantastic book which I can tell from your postings here that you haven't seen yet, which I just got ahold of myself, which you must get. It's called:

Alexander Vassiliev, Allen Weinstein, The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America - The Stalin Era (Random House, New York, 1999)

and it's lethal to all those totally clueless apologists/deniers. It is one of that series (you may have heard of it) of about 5 books that the SVR co-sponsored during the brief window of opennness in the early 90s (just after the fall of Dzershinky's statue), where retired intelligence people from both sides would collaborate on books about history. E.g. there's one called Battleground Berlin about the Berlin goings-on (including the infamous wiretap tunnel).

It was written by two writers (one of them retired KGB) with basically full access to the archives of the NKVD for the 30's and early 40's, so it's straight from the horse's mouth - totally incontrovertible! It has the whole story on Bentley, and all the other cases (White, etc) and it's devastating to the apologists/deniers. It has a footnote every few lines, and almost every one is to an NKVD file number!

As for Venona, it says:

"These two sets of concordant materials - dispatches read first in Moscow from the KGB archives and later found in deciphered versions in the VENONA materials"

(emphasis mine) thereby providing cast-iron feedback that shows that the cryptanalysts of the SIS (and later the NSA) weren't making this stuff up out of whole cloth.

Totally awesome book. Just absolutely demolishes everything the progressive apologist/deniers have been saying for the last 50 years. Get yourself a copy now. Noel (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Bentley FBI deposition

Hi, do you know of a source (preferably online) for this? (Yes, yes, I know I could FOIA the FBI - that's a incredible hassle.) Bits and pieces of it are scattered throughout the FBI Silvermaster FOIA documents, but I don't think I've ever seen the complete thing in one piece. (The new edition of her autobio might have it, but it's out of print, and I can't find a copy used.) Anyway, I'd really like to see it, and I thought you might know where it is. Noel (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikistalking guideline

Greetings - We're currently working on a wikistalking guideline proposal to reflect that the Arbitration Committee has deemed this to be a bannable offense. I'm trying to get community input to help develop this article. Unfortunately a few of the usual suspects are also trying to disrupt this process and dismantle work being done to better the article. If you have a moment please drop by Wikipedia:stalking and make any applicable changes to the article or post any suggestions you may have on the talk page. Thanks! Rangerdude 18:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Bolesław Gebert

Strange, I must admit I never heard of the guy before, nor could I find any info on him over the Polish encyclopaedias. On the other hand he might be somehow related to Konstanty Gebert, who is a notable journalist and war correspondent as well as one of my personal favourites when it comes to journalism. He speaks English, so you might want to contact him and ask whether they are relatives. Halibutt 19:07, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


You are right, he was his father.


Wikistalking vote

Please take a moment to cast a vote here. The crowd of usual suspects is attempting to bury the proposal before it's even fully developed. Thanks Rangerdude 19:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Bayreuth Festspielhaus

I note the small edits you did to the article, which I had cleaned up a little. You specified that the Festival draws Wagner fans; you will perhaps be aware tat the Festival mounts opera by other composers. A Mozart celebration, for example, is scheduled. A small and pedantic point, I confess. Dottore So 04:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

White

U. S. and Allied Efforts To Recover and Restore Gold and Other Assets Stolen or Hidden by Germany During World War II, William Z. Slany, The Historian Department of State

Stalin

Stalin expressed his conception of the alliance to Georgi Dimitrov shortly before the Yalta Conference: "The crisis of capitalism led to the division of the capitalists into two factions -- the one fascist, the other democratic. . . .We are today with one faction against the other, but in the future we shall also be against that faction of capitalists." (*)

(*) Georgi Dimitrov, Dnevnik (9 Mart 1933 -- 6 Fevruari 1949) (Sophia, Bulgaria: Universitetsko Izdatelstvo, 1997) 462. (Entry of 19 January 1945).

Hiss in Moscow

The party consisted of H. Freeman Matthews (Director of the Office of European Affairs), Hiss, Wilder Foote (Stettinius's press secretary), Major Terence Lloyd Tyson (a physician from the Army), and three clerks of the State Department: Lee B. Blanchard, George T. Conn, and Ralph L. Graham.

KI

Svetlana Chervonnaya

Russia Portal

You have contributed quite a number of good articles on Soviet spy network, that are of interest to Russia project on wikipedia. Is it possible for you to add articles that have connection to Russia or Soviet Union too Portal:Russia/New article announcements list? abakharev 08:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for contributions, to the announcements, I would certainly missed your interesting addition on KI chronology. I am not that familiar with the spy themes, but there are things that are missing: GRU's chronology and GRU's chiefs, First Chief Directorate of KGB (foreign intelligence)/SVR chronology and chiefs, history of successors to KGB, Beria's right hand Vladimir Dekanozov, Putin's long-time chief and long time second person in FSB - Viktor Cherekesov. abakharev 00:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Samuel Krafsur!

Hi Nobs01, Just thought you'd like to vote on the Samuel Krafsur article. Apparently his son Elliot Krafsur has taken offense to it and is now trying to get it deleted. Dwain 14:34, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, they seem to be trying to plead their case for speedy deletion now! Wikipedia:Speedy deletions

Hi. What did you mean when you asked "Do we need to get out the vote on Krafsur? Dwain 14:24, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
I get it you think I should stop responding to what people may say on the pages. I get it. Dwain 18:35, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
No, I don't really know any Admins that would be happy to hear from me! Dwain 16:02, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Hi Nobs01, just a quick note to thank you for your support on my RfA. I was pleased to see so much support, especially from people such as you who I do not know very well, if at all. Now that I am an administrator I will do my best to please the community’s expectations. Best regards, Sam Hocevar 17:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The word "perceived" in Red Scare

Hi, I just thought the word "perceived" in Red Scare adds balance to an obviously overstated claim. The word "widespread" is just too much. Your edit says that "perceived" implies "misperception". Yes, it does. Because there was misperception. Are you saying that everyone accused of communist infiltration was in fact guilty? Plus, even the mere existence of a US communist does not necessarily imply that they had a direct connection to Moscow. I just think the article comes off eerily sounding like Joe McCarthy. --Andyluciano 19:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Rodman

The third diplomatic source identified in Venona was Samuel Rodman, a UNRRA employee. In late 1944 the New York KGB reported that its CPUSA liaison, Bernard Schuster, had been in contact with Rodman, a CPUSA member, and arranged for him to gather information during a trip that Rodman was making on behalf of UNRRA to Yugoslavia.35

Schuster arranged for Samuel Rodman, an employee of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration leaving for Yugoslavia, to provide information to the KGB.51

Rodman, Samuel Jacob: journalist who for a time worked for the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration. In 1944 the KGB's CPUSA contact reported that Rodman was on his way to Yugoslavia on a UNRRA mission and that he had arranged for Rodman to gather information and carry out some unspecified task.264

Rodman, Samuel Jacob, teacher, journalist, with UNRRA after WWII (KGB U.S. line) [source Venona]

1553 KGB New York to Moscow, 4 November 1944. See also Rodman section of Robert Miller background memo, 26 December 1945, FBI Silvermaster file, serial 356. 

204, 223

Image:Untitled.GIF has been listed for deletion

An image or media file you uploaded, Image:Untitled.GIF, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Note that I have reuploaded the image as Image:Parsifal.gif. —Cryptic (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Hey Nobs, thank you so much for your message, it was very generous and I appreciate it. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:40, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

"If you want something done right...

...you have to do it yourself": unfortunately this is often how Wikipedia feels, especially when there's one area of knowledge you're passionate about. I just wanted to say that apart from our differences on the McCarthy article, I understand your frustration in trying to correct sloppy references as you did in High Noon and elsewhere.

However, looking at that and your other examples, I have to say that there's nothing all that special about them. You've been here since June, right? And it looks like you've stayed pretty much within your main area of interest: Soviet espionage in the U.S. So you may not have fully realized that Wikipedia is chock full of sloppiness in many, many areas... especially when it comes to any subject that, like McCarthy, has become a kind of cultural shorthand.

But you're not going to fix this just by repeating general complaints like "It is within our power to establish the facts." The careful and committed WP editors you're looking for are out there... but for the most part, they're already busy fixing a bunch of other stuff; there's no reason for them to rally around your favorite issue. You shouldn't assume, just because a bunch of errors that bother you have been allowed to persist, that there's some official attack on your point of view, or that everyone else is oblivious and uninformed. Take me for instance: I don't agree with your point of view in many ways, but I agree that many of the errors you pointed out were pretty bad. Having said that, I may decide some other factual edit you make in the future is completely nuts. You have to go case by case and develop consensus on each article; these sweeping statements - and the vague references you keep making to your ongoing research - are just not useful and may in fact cause people to dismiss you as all talk.

Also - and it's hard to say this without sounding like a jerk, but I think it needs saying - you'll have much better luck getting people to take you seriously here if you proofread your edits. There are grammatical and spelling errors in many if not most of your posts, and not just on the talk pages: the kinds of things I just fixed in LaFollette Committee look like either a lack of fluency in English, or just careless fast writing. If you don't speak English fluently or are dyslexic or something, fine, but get someone to look over your stuff for you - don't make all the other editors clean it up, especially considering how often you make edits. If you have time to wikilink everything in your talk page posts (something I can't say I've seen any other editor do to that extent), you have time to proofread. ←Hob 05:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you didn't continue to post comments on my talk page unless they're in response to specific messages from me. Reading more of your writing, in your voluminous disputes with Cberlet and others, has convinced me that regardless of what your intentions may be, discussions with you are generally a waste of time: you change the subject again and again, misconstrue what others say, and turn talk pages into monologues. The last straw for me was your claim that there's no reason for your responses to bear any relation to the actual questions people ask, because their questions are "POV" and you have a more lofty perspective; that's basically a denial of any interest in collaboration, regardless of your other polite remarks. Cberlet has made valiant attempts to work with you, and the progress you point to (yes, I have been following all of those discussions, sadly) is, in my opinion, almost entirely to his credit. I hope the mediation request will be fruitful; I'm staying out of it except (if called for) to provide examples from my own brief involvement. ←Hob 18:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

McCarthy citations

Citations:

"In 1947[1], it was apparent that no individual in the U.S. Government realized that evidence of massive Soviet espionage within the government was developing on twin tracks. There was an FBI counterintelligence investigation[2] which empanelled a grand jury in New York, and the Army Signal Intelligence Service at Arlington Hall reading Soviet cipher decrypts[3]. It was a case of one hand not knowing what the other was doing. So when McCarthy later made charges that the Truman administration knowingly protected Soviet agents, on the surface, this appeared to large sectors[4] of the American public[5] as true."


  • ^1 NSA Archives, National Cyptological Museum, Venona Chronology; "~September 1: Col. Carter Clarke briefs the FBI's liaison officer Robert J. Lamphere on the break into Soviet diplomatic traffic. September: Carter W. Clarke of G-2 advises S. Wesley Reynolds, FBI, of successes at Arlington Hall on KGB espionage messages."
  • ^2 Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy, Appendix A, 7. The Cold War; "In November 1945 Elizabeth Bentley informed the FBI of her activities as a Soviet courier, which in turn led to renewed interest in Chambers. In late August or early September 1947, the FBI was informed that the Army Security Agency had begun to break into Soviet espionage messages".
  • [6] National Security Agency, Venona Archives, Introductory History of VENONA and Guide to the Translations,The VENONA Breakthroughs; " An Arlington Hall report on 22 July 1947 showed that the Soviet message traffic contained dozens, probably hundreds, of covernames, many of KGB agents, including ANTENNA and LIBERAL (later identified as Julius Rosenberg). One message mentioned that LIBERAL's wife was named "Ethel."

General Carter W. Clarke, the assistant G-2, called the FBI liaison officer to G-2 and told him that the Army had begun to break into Soviet intelligence service traffic, and that the traffic indicated a massive Soviet espionage effort in the U.S.

  • ^4 Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive, Counterintelligence Reader, Vol. 3, Chap. 1, pg.47, "Polls taken at the time revealed that a majority of Americans believed that Communism at home and abroad was a serious threat to US security".
  • ^5 Margareet Chase Smith, Declaration of Conscience, pg. 2, 1 June 1950, U.C. Congress, Senate, Congressional Recoird, 81st Congress, 2nd sess., pp. 7894-95. "The Democratic administration has greatly lost the confidence of the American people by its complacency to the threat of communism here at home and the leak of vital secrets to Russia through key officials of the Democtaric administration. There are enough proved cases to make this point without diluting our criticism with unproved charges"; "..there have been enough proved cases, such as the Amerasia case, the Hiss case, the Coplon case, the Gold case, to cause nationwide distrust and strong suspicion that there may be something to the unproved, sensational accusations".

Bentley depositions

Hey, I've been meaning to say thanks for the work you put intom looking for that. Alas, I did already know of the bits and pieces of it scattered through the Silvermaster stuff - it was precisely reading those that made me want to see the entire thing! (Especially in one coherent, un-edited whole.) I'll put a note on the Bentley talk page asking if anyone has the FBI file. (I'm not that interested that I'd bother FOIA'ing the FBI.) Hmm, maybe I can email Klehr/Haynes and see if they have it online somewhere! Noel (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Image:Unchart.jpg

Do you have a source for this photo, or planning to use it at an article? If so, please add it to a source and relevant article. If not, it will have to be deleted soon. Zach (Sound Off) 06:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


Request for Mediation filed

I have filed a request for mediation regrading Venona and other pages, see here:[20] --Cberlet 18:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Nobs01! I've been assigned to your case, and I'll be happy to help you and Cberlet out if you agree to mediation. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Nobs01, where I've left a response to Cberlet's request. Would you prefer that mediation occur via talk pages and a special page (something like Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Nobs01/Workshop), or via email? I would prefer that it stay on Wikipedia, but I'm fine with both. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 19:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, mediation is supposed really a lax and rather informal process; there's no real time-frame or any real guidelines. You can see Wikipedia:Mediation for more information. This is my first case, so you'll have to bear with me sometimes... staying on Wikipedia is fine with me. Thanks again! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 19:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello, Nobs! I've moved your previous previous workshop to a subpage and created a new workshop. There, I've created three sections- one section where both of you should agree on a few basic policies, another section where you should state your goals of mediation (i.e. what you hope to accomplish), and then a section where each of you can give a summary of the dispute. I ask that you do not respond to the other party's summary yet. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 20:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

moved Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Nobs01/Workshop/Nobs01.(incomplete)

Revisions

Revision: "According to the National Counterintelligence Center's, "Counterintelligence Reader" still classified footnotes, Magdoff as a member of the Perlo group."

Wikisource:Letter from William L. Borden to J. Edgar Hoover, November 7, 1953

Background

Arlington Hall cryptographers found hundreds of cover names for institutions and persons, some engaged in conspiritorial activities. According to Haynes & Klehr, 349 cover names were of persons who had a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence. Government analysts identitied many of the coded names from the Venona documents during their investigation. Among those linked to code names were Alger Hiss[7]; Harry Dexter White[8], the second-highest official in the Treasury Department; Lauchlin Currie[9], a personal aide to Franklin Roosevelt; and Maurice Halperin[10], a section head in the Office of Strategic Services. Almost every military and diplomatic agency of any importance was compromised to some extent[11], including the Manhattan Project[12]. Others worked in Washington in the State Department, Treasury, Office of Strategic Services (OSS)[13], and even the White House.

The Government, scholars and other writers have now concluded that Hiss, White,[14] Halperin, and Currie wittingly passed information to the Soviets. Some scholars and observers, however, dispute the accuracy of the identifications based on codes and fragments of transmissions; and the extent to which the available evidence indicates these people (and others named in the Venona documents) were aware of or complicit in espionage activities. Still, the Venona documents and material from Soviet archives has provided much detail corroborating the existence of an elaborate Soviet Espionage network operating in the U.S. during this period.

Prosecution

On 1 February 1 1956, Alan H. Belmont prepared an FBI memorandum[15] on the significance of the Venona project and the prospects of using decryptions in prosecution. It considered that though decryptions may corroborate Elizabeth Bentley, and enable successful prosecution of subjects such as Judith Coplon and the Perlo and Silvermaster groups, a careful study of all factors compelled the conclusion it would not be in the best interests of the United States to use Venona project information for prosecution.

The Memo states that it was uncertain whether or not the Venona project information would be admitted into evidence. A defense attorney probably would immediately move to dismiss the evidence as hearsay, being that neither the Soviet official who sent the message, nor the Soviet official who received it was available to testify. A question of law was involved. The FBI reasoned that decrypts probably could have been introduced, on an exception to the hearsay rule, based on the expert testimony of cryptrographers.

The extensive use of cover names also made prosecution difficult. Once an individual had been considered for recruitment as an agent by the Soviets, sufficient background data on him was sent to Moscow. Cover names were used not only for Soviet agents but other people as well. President Roosevelt for example, was called "Kapitan" (Captain), and Los Alamos the "Reservation". Cover names also were frequently changed, and a cover name might actually apply to two different people, depending on the date it was used. Assumptions made by cryptographers, questionable interpretations and translations placed reliance upon the expert testimony of cryptographers, and the entire case would be circumstantial.

Defense attorneys also would probably request to examine messages which cryptographers were unsuccessful in breaking and not in evidence, on the belief that such messages, if decoded, could exonerate their clients. The FBI determined that that would lead to the exposure of Government techniques and practices in the cryptography field to unauthorized persons, compromise the Government's efforts in communications intelligence, and impact other pending investigations.

Before any messages could be used in court they would have to be declassified. Approval would have to come from several layers of bureaucracy, and probably the President, as well notification to British counterparts working on the same problem. In an election year, the Bureau felt exposed to a violent political war with the FBI right in the middle.

International implications were considered as well. While no written record has been located, it was stated by NSA officials that during the World War II, Soviet diplomats were granted permission to use Army radio facilities at the Pentagon to send messages to Moscow. It has been state President Roosevelt granted this permission and accompanied it with the promise to the Soviets that their messages would not be intercepted or interfered with by United States. The FBI feared the Soviet international propaganda machine would work overtime proving that was evidence that the U.S. never acted in good faith during the war, and vilify the U.S. as an unfaithful ally and false friend.

Notes

  • ^1 Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Secrecy: The American Experience, (New Haven: Yale University Press 1998), pg. 146-47; "Hiss was indeed a Soviet agent and appears to have been regarded by Moscow as its most important."
  • ^4 CIA Publications, The Office of Strategic Services: America's First Intelligence Agency, no date. [21]; "Duncan C. Lee, Research & Analysis labor economist Donald Wheeler, Morale Operations Indonesia expert Jane Foster Zlatowski, and Research & Analysis Latin America specialist Maurice Halperin, nevertheless passed information to Moscow."
  • ^5 Hayden Peake, Naval War College Review The Venona Progeny, Volume LIII, No. 3, Sequence 371, Summer 2000; "VENONA makes absolutely clear that they had active agents in the U.S. State Department, Treasury Department, Justice Department, Senate committee staffs, the military services, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), the Manhattan Project, and the White House, as well as wartime agencies. No modern government was more thoroughly penetrated."
  • ^6 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of History and Heritage, The VENONA Intercepts, 1946-1980, "This program led to the eventual capture of several Soviet spies within the Manhattan Project."
  • ^7 Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy. Secrecy: Report of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy. VI. Appendices: A. Secrecy: A Brief Account of the American Experience. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1997, pg. 9 (PDF 746K). "KGB cables indicated that the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in World War II had been thoroughly infiltrated with Soviet agents."
  • ^8 Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy. Secrecy: Report of the Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy. VI. Appendices: A. Secrecy: A Brief Account of the American Experience. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1997, pgs. 36, 39. (PDF 746K) [22]
  • ^9 FBI Memorandum Belmont to Boardman, 1 February 1956, FBI Venona file, FBI documents of historic interest concerning Venona that are referenced in Daniel P. Moynihan's book, Secrecy, (PDF pgs. 61-72).

Howdy

I looked over that link...what a mess. Let me know if I can be of any help.--MONGO 06:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:Chaingkaishek.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Chaingkaishek.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

--Bash 00:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC etc.

Yes, I could've equally well placed that RfC under History. They're not supposed to be listed in more than one category so I made a somewhat arbitrary choice. I have no idea why you're asking me at this point. I only started the RfC because it was about time that someone did so; you and Cberlet seemed determined to fight it out on your own forever, and in my opinion, you have allowed your annoyance and ideological differences with Cberlet to blind you to your own considerable difficulties with collaboration and structured writing... at least, that is the kindest possible interpretation I can think of. I did tell Cberlet that mediation would probably end up in arbitration, but I was hoping it wouldn't have to go that way, and it was worth a try; unfortunately it looks like you didn't have the patience to let the mediator play a useful role, and have now given up on the process, which is too bad. ←Hob 23:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Reconstruction Finance Corporation

Here are the comments I posted at "Reconstruction Finance Corporation"'s talk page. Evidently you didn't see my first comment, or didn't agree with it, but please explain to me how this entity and espionage are connected. Thanks - Her Pegship 00:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

"I was puzzled by the category links to VENONA and espionage. After perusing articles in those categories, I believe the only connection between them and this article is that there is a Rfc - "Request for comment" active on the VENONA article, and someone may have mistakenly linked this article on RFC to it. If there really is a connection between espionage and the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, please make it clear in the RFC article. Thanks. Her Pegship 17:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Nobs01 put the categories back in, but I still don't see any connection at all between RFC and espionage. Thanks for the link to the Havlik oral history interview, which mentions the RFC, but please, if you add the cats, please clarify on this page or my talk page why they are here. Thanks. Her Pegship 00:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)"

If we followed Nobs's example for assigning categories, the category system would become a uselessly broad game of Six Degrees of Separation. People looking for information about espionage will already find plenty of links to Currie, et al., which already mention their connections to the RFC and so on. If someone at Los Alamos or the Treasury or the Department of Motor Vehicles or whatever is accused of being a spy, or found to be a spy, that does not make the articles about those agencies into articles about espionage. I'm removing those category links. ←Hob 20:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Please conduct all further discussion of this on Talk:Reconstruction Finance Corporation. Thanks. ←Hob 20:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Half the problem is getting the name of the organization; for example, this language,
"The words “Export-Import Bank of the United States” are substituted for “Export-Import Bank of Washington” because of section 1(a) of the Act of March 13, 1968 (Pub. L. 90–267, 82 Stat. 47). The words “Petroleum Reserves Corporation” are omitted because the corporation was transferred to the Office of Economic Warfare, which was consolidated into the Foreign Economic Administration, which was transferred to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and changed to the War Assets Corporation. The War Assets Corporation was dissolved as soon as practicable after March 25, 1946. The words “Rubber Development Corporation” are omitted because the certificate of incorporation expired on June 30, 1947. The words “U. S. Commercial Company” are omitted because the company was liquidated after June 30, 1948."
is the actual text of the Law that disolved the Reconstruction Finance Corportation and merged its entities into other agencies.[23] Then there is the problem of personal; the Senate Interlocking Subversion in Government investigation took many years to establish just exactly what agency a particular person may have actually worked for during the Roosevelt & Truman administration. Very often a person was drawing a salary from, say U.S. Department of Agriculture for example, yet worked in the U.S. Department of Treasury. (Incidently, the Senate SISS investigation has absolutely nothing to do with Joesph McCarthy). Thanks again. nobs 20:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

re Admin

I've had a few folks wanting to nominate me...I just dealt with having to delete most of my uploaded images from Commons as they are either too complex to ensure we follow all the use guidelines and or copyvios due to my mistaking a website for a federal one where many images are public domain....I just got back from a long trip and am a little out of the loop so maybe in a week or two...keep up the good work.--MONGO 04:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

soviet spies

I have voted. See if you can help me at Talk:John Kerry Rex071404(all logic is premise based) 23:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Soviet Union

Hi, you seem to have some kind of interest in the Soviet Union, or aspects thereof. We'd be glad of your input at WikiProject Soviet Union. Thanks - FrancisTyers 01:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Soviet spies issue

This is a bit of a tough one. Somehow, the article needs to avoid any legal issues around the possibility of getting sued for saying someone was a "soviet spy" when they weren't convicted of being a soviet spy. A lawsuit can only be prevented by a conviction or a confession. Perhaps you could divide the page into two subsections, one for convicted soviet spies and another for disputed soviet spies. Then you could have all the names on one page, but the page would be split into two sections to help avoid a lawsuit. I'm sure there might be other ways to fix this as well, but I can't think of any right now. FuelWagon 02:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It appears that the debate on this is now closed, but having given some thought, I'll reply anyway.
You may count on my support for any effort to curtail the rampant POV pushing of Cberlet, well as his exploitation of Wikipedia for commercial purposes.
However, two wrongs don't make a right. I am skeptical of the way categories get used, often as yet another form of POV warfare, and I would be more inclined to go with "alleged Soviet spies" or something along those lines. In this case, Cberlet may be the proverbial broken clock that is right twice a day. --HK 22:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobs' refusal to edit text and mediator's failure to mediate

I think it is obvious that Nobs is incapable or unwilling to actually edit text. We have been at this for weeks, and Nobs has buried this mediation in mountains of material, and yet refuses to edit text. He has announced that he is unwilling to continue this mediation, then returns and inserts more mountains of text that has nothing to do with editing text. At some point this is no longer a mediation, but merely a farce. I really think that the mediator needs to be active in this mediation, or pass it off to someone willing to play a more active role. I really resent the current circumstance, in which I edit text and write compromise text, and Nobs plays us all for suckers. --Cberlet 02:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV and the Chip Berlet article

Please take care to ensure the content you're adding to the article is significant and credible, and informative, not inflamatory. FeloniousMonk 05:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have a proper cite, but the point is it point you make is neither notable nor is it the defining characteristic of the NLG, which is better known for many other things. I oppose the "which has been described as "an apologist and defender for terrorists and terrorism" fragment because it is clearly intended to be inflammatory, not informative. Threatening add more cites doesn't address that problem. You're going to need to find a more accurate and less inflammatory way to describe the NLG, I'm afraid. FeloniousMonk 06:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

You are welcome!

Hi Nobs, no problem for my little bit of help, feel free to always let me know. I can't always keep up on the issues. As far as asking for your help, there is one article that I started that is being voted for deletion Stacy Armstrong. It seems like a lost cause however. One character has been targeting me and some of my creations. He says that I am either all the people I'm writing the articles on or accuses me of being their friends or publicizing them or something and this jerk has been upped to a admin. Anyway keep me up to date!! Dwain

No problem

Reading up on a bunch of links in that cat., I learned a lot, so call it even! --Daniel11 20:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Your time is coming

[24]--MONGO 04:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

  1. ^ FBI1
  2. ^ FBI2
  3. ^ Benson
  4. ^ ONCIX
  5. ^ Smith
  6. ^ Benson
  7. ^ Moyhnihan146
  8. ^ NSA
  9. ^ NACICvol3ch1p31
  10. ^ X-2
  11. ^ NWCR
  12. ^ DOE
  13. ^ 12hist1p9
  14. ^ 12hist1p36
  15. ^ FBI61
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nobs01/Archive01&oldid=1089141017"