Talk:Harry Magdoff/Archive 2

message: I have discovered shocking evidence that the claims on this page have misrepresented the underlying documentation cited. 
According to an FBI memo dated May 15, 1950, Harry Magdoff was listed as one of a group of "individuals positively or tentatively identified" as part of a KGB set of assets, with the names agreeing with information "furnished me by Elizabeth Bentley."
But in a memo February 1, 1956 discussing in detail the problem of actually properly identifying people in the Venona material when cover names are used, there is a specific reference to the cover name "Magdoff-Kant" followed by the parenthetical phrase "(probably Harry Magdoff)"
So this identification of Harry Magdoff "tentively" and "probably" has been promoted into an actual positive identification.  This assumption is periodically made throughout various government intelligence documents, but in the memo wrapping up the investigation and prosectuion based on this information (in which Magdoff was never indicted) the summary concludes that the identification of Harry Magdoff is still uncertain.--Cberlet 13:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1 February 1956 memo Belmont to Boardman (1) discusses in detail the problems of prosecution based on Venona material (not "actually identifying people", as misrepresented above); (2) the Belmont to Boardman memo refers to "Magdoff-Kant" as "probably Magdoff"; in the next paragraph it refers to "Kant" as "Magdoff"  (I know it's an old cliche to argue what "is" is,  but "Magdoff-Kant" is a different spelling from "Kant"), as the memo reads, identification of "Kant" is postive as "Magdoff", and the identification of "Magdoff-Kant" is probable as "Magdoff".  And the discussion following those two references sites this as corroboration of Elizabeth Bentley's depositition. nobs 15:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Preposterous.--Cberlet 16:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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

message: The original challenge to the insertion of Venona materials was essentially this,
:"Does Truth exist?", and then
:"If so, can we really know it?"
Those editors have since bowed out after a cursory review of 
the Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy Report.  The challenge now essentially is this,
:"This generation is too stupid to make judgements about the sins of a previous generation."
argueing essentially, among the mish-mash of lies and contradictions, a 38 year investigation into the facts, held secret for an additional 15 years, is somehow ambiguous and open to interpretation.  One can presume the next arguement will be,
:Who are we to judge?, seeing that we are to stupid to know truth." 
nobs 19:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Challenges

message: Navasky claims "they do not qualify the list".  Incorrect, as demonstrated: here is John Earl Haynes "unqualified" list Cover Name, Cryptonym, CPUSA Party Name, Pseudonym, and Real Name Index.  Let's call this a "bulk" list, i.e. it contains all codenames & names sent in clear in Venona traffic (plus other Party covernames, etc, from other sources).  "Unwitting sources" (as Noel has discussed), "sources" who were overheard repeating gossip, etc., and were assigned either code names or their name was transmitted in the clear in Venona, are not included in any of Haynes & Klehr's Venona Appendix's.  Here are the fully qualified Appendix's Talk:Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage#Other_views, below.  All are fully qualified, were the context determines the subject was involved in a witting cooperative relationship; or as in Appendix D, corroboration has yet to emerge.  If a codename from Appendix A can be found to fit person who willing qualified as to having witting contact in Appendix D, that would corroborate recruitment & espionage activity, (and damn them and send them to hell, so to speak).  See also Talk:VENONA_project/Archive1#Discussion on the "349".  nobs 23:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Shooting down Navasky

message: This is an example of why I am objecting to these claims.  It is clear to me that you cannot see what I see as the constant misrepresentation and distortion of the underlying documents, but it is very clear to me. I have no doubt that you see me doing the same thing.  THAT IS THE PROBLEM.  We read the same documents and articles, and reach wildly different conclusions. I am not challenging your good faith.  I am saying we are standing on different planets. 
Here is your proposed summery:
::Magdoff's complicity in espionage was corroborated by a message exhumed from the NKVD archives in Moscow in the 1990s. A message from the head of KGB foreign intelligence operations, Lt. General Pavel M. Fitin, to Secretary General of the Comintern Georgi Dimitrov dated 29 September 1944 requested information on Magdoff related to his recruitment into the espionage service of the Soviet Union. 
Let's look at the article and its footnote:
::A NKVD/NKGB Report to Stalin: A Glimpse into Soviet Intelligence in the United States in the 1940's, by Vladimir Pozniakov 
::By Pozniakov, Vladimir 
::The broader spectrum of tasks facing Soviet intelligence in the US required additional personnel, both Soviet and local. The pre-war staff of the NKGB and GRU rezidenturas was rather modest. For example, in the New York consulate and in Amtorg there were only 13 intelligence officers, most of them well known to the FBI.13 Also, because the USSR and the US had become wartime allies, both branches of Soviet intelligence had to limit their usage of the clandestine structures of the American Communist Party (CPUSA).14 The usage of local Communists was also limited by two other reasons: many of them were well known to the FBI, while many others were drafted after Pearl Harbor by the US Army and Navy15 or interned, as had happened to a number of CPUSA members of Japanese extraction on the West Coast.16
::The lack of trained personnel in 1941 and early 1942 was soon supplemented by the growing flow of Soviet military and civilian specialists coming to the United States to work in the Soviet Purchasing Commission (SPC) and other agencies that mushroomed after the USSR became a part of the Lend-Lease program. According to Feklisov, by 1944 the staff of Amtorg and the SPC in New York City alone reached some 2,500, with an equal number of officials, engineers and other specialists serving at the SPC branch in Washington, DC.17 The majority of these people worked directly or indirectly either for the GRU or NKVD.18 Also, the limitations imposed on the usage of the CPUSA membership did not mean that Soviet intelligence ceased recruiting both Americans and non-Americans in America.19
::Footnote:
::19 Feklisov, pp. 65-105; M. Vorontsov, Capt. 1st rank, Chief Navy Main Staff, Intelligence Directorate, and Petrov, Military Commissar, NMS, ID to G. Dimitrov, 15 August 1942, No. 49253ss, typewritten original; G. Dimitrov to Pavel M. Fitin, 20 November 1942, No. 663, t/w copy; P. M. Fitin to G. Dimitrov, 14 July 1944, No. 1/3/10987, t/w copy; P. M. Fitin to G. Dimitrov, 29 September 1944, No. 1/3/16895, t/w copy. All these documents are NMS ID and FCD Chiefs' requests for information related to Americans and naturalized American citizens working in various US Government agencies and private corporations, some of whom had been CPUSA members. The last two are related to a certain Donald Wheeler (an OSS official), Charles Floto or Flato (who in 1943 worked for the "...Dept. of Economic Warfare"), and Harry Magdoff (War Production Board)-the request dated 29 Sept. 1944-and to Judith Coplon who according to the FCD information worked for the Dept. of Justice.-RTsKhIDNI, f. 495, op. 74, d. 478, l. 7; d. 484, l. 34; d. 485, l. 10, 14, 17, 31, 44.
Now let's trace the key document:
::P. M. Fitin to G. Dimitrov, 29 September 1944, No. 1/3/16895 
::Please provide any information at your disposal on the following members of the Comparty of America: 
::1. Charles Floto / Flato /, in 1943 worked in the US Office of Economic Warfare 
::2. Donald Wheeler / Veeler /, works in the Office of Strategic Services. 
::3. Kramer / Kreimer, works in a government institution in Washington. 
::4. Edward Fitzgerald, works on the WPB [War Production Board]. 
::5. Magdoff, works on the WPB. 
::6. Harold Glas[s]er, currently on assignment outside the US. 
::7. P[e]rlo, works on the WPB. 
What is the result?  
#We know that Dimitrov thinks Magdoff is a member of the Communist Party USA
#We know Dimitriv is asking for more information about Magdoff.
#We know the KGB is busy trying to get members and friend of the CPUSA to provide information to the Soviet Union.
#We know that if Magdoff is actually a member of the Communist Party USA
#We do not know if Magdoff has been recruited as a KGB agent of informer
#We do not know if Magdoff is aware that a member of the Perlo group is passing information to the KGB
#We do not know that Dimitrov "requested information on Magdoff related to his recruitment into the espionage service of the Soviet Union" or if Magdoff was ever recruited.
#We do not know that "Magdoff's complicity in espionage was corroborated."
So again, I ask for a compromise that recognizes that one of us is apparently from Neptune, and the other from Pluto.  :-)  --Cberlet 22:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is indeed a valid point as you have argued the case.  There could be inserted an extensive narrative on how an espionage organization vets the bona fidas of a source, how this is routine, how they do not accept any information that is purported to come from a high level government official, and how they go through an extenisve qualifying process to assure they are not being fed disinformation before relying on such material, etc. etc. etc.  Not to be arguementative, but we are making progress. The word "complicity" could be watered down to "involvement", for example, still carries the same thought, yet less explosive. nobs 01:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Inserted bold qualifiers because good faith quote may be misquoted as a concession; this narrative will be written if necessary to emphasize the underlying evidence of complicity.  nobs 19:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: From Neptune and Pluto

message: :Simple choice: accept the compromise and save face, or merge the full weight of evidence, and any rebuttals likewise will be rebutted. nobs 02:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing my comment from personal attack subhead placed after my good faith proposal and posting

message: When editors post links to primary documwents and then draw conclusions from those documents, it is original research.
For example, this link:
http://wikisource.org/wiki/Fitin_to_Dimitrov%2C_29_September_1944
::is used to back up the original research claim that:
::"Evidence was unearthed in the Comintern Archives in the late 1980s, Lt. General Pavel M. Fitin, the head of KGB foreign intelligence operations in Moscow, requested of Secretary General of the Comintern Georgi Dimitrov information to complete Magdoff's recruitment. [6] "
This is original research. And a glance at the document shows that it is biased original research. It misrepresents the content of the document.
What would not be original research, would be the published conclusions about Magdoff that it is claimed appear in:
::"...a book by historians Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, and Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov [7], and also in the memoirs of Alexandre Feklisov [8] (the Soviet Case Officer for Julius Rosenberg and Klaus Fuchs), published in 2001."
As I have requested repeatedly, please supply the actual language used by these published secondary sources to describe Magdoff.
_______________________________________________________
Fill in the blank.
If Magdoff only appears in a list and in copies of primary documents, then the only cite is to the language used to introduce the list or the primary documents.--Cberlet 19:19, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see  regarding citation of above material, photographically reproduced in original Russian, with English language translation, Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, and Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov, The Secret World of American Communism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), Document 90, Another reference to the same Document .  I likewise have made a posting in regard to the same document citing page number & "photographically reproduced".  Will be happy to do so again, if need be (as referenced above). nobs 20:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Full citation posted ->  Fitin to Dimitrov 29 September 1944 recovered shortly after first series of vandalistic attacks disrupting discussion at Talk:Harry Magdoff approximately 19:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Document 90, reproduced from Harvey Klehr, John Earl Haynes, and Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov, The Secret World of American Communism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), (Document 90) Fitin to Dimitrov memo (RTsKhIDNI 495-74-485), pgs. 312 - 313; a photocopy of the original document in Russian is on page 315. nobs 18:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reviewed these documents and claims, and discover that once again you have extrapolated information not in the underlying documents in a way that favors your claims but actually misrepresentes the contents of the primary source materials and secondary source materials.--Cberlet 22:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research

message: nobs--What you have done is a major violation of Wiki standards.  Please do not do it again.  The discussion is on the other page.  Meanwhile, do not rewrite the work of others on this page.--Cberlet 20:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal note to Cberlet: Please do not insert a subheading over my signature, effectively removing my posting from the context in which it was placed again.  nobs 21:29, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please note, there is no instance of myself "rewriting other people's edits", as you imply, that I am aware of (I may have corrected spelling once or twice of a cooperative editor).  If I have done as you suggests, please bring it to my atttention.  Thank you. nobs 21:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You replaced my subheading "Original Research" with a totally different subheading: "Disruptive vandalism to this disicssion." [See Diff.] Happy to accept your apology.--Cberlet 02:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobs: Why are you going back and editing and rewriting this talk page?  It is a violation of Wiki policy.  Please stop rewriting the history of this discussion!--Cberlet 01:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: PLEASE DO NOT REWRITE OTHER PEOPLE'S EDITS AND SUBHEADINGS!!!

message: I see no reason to exclude material that establishes Harry Magdoff's involvement in espionage. Any thoughts? Coqsportif 03:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Excising Material on Harry Magdoff

message: ===Round One===
* "NSA findings" subheading. This section does not represent findings of the National Security Agency. The heading is factually false.
* Elizabeth Bentley accusations. These are not findings of the National Security Agency or any federal agency. This material belongs in a seperate section clearly identified as unverified testimony delivered during the McCarthy Period hearings.
* "Corroboration" subheading. This section implies that all the material in this section corroborates the claim that Magdoff was a spy. This is false and misleading. What is corroborated is that the Soviets saw Magdoff as a source of information and a potential spy, nothing more. For example, the memo from Dimitrov merely asks: "Please provide any information at your disposal on the following members of the Comparty of America." This hardly corroborates anything. Guilt by association by proxy. 
I propose we focus on fixing these false claims first.--Cberlet 18:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your choice: (a) stop reversion & negotiate (b) merge all material & negotiate.  nobs 19:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobs: you do not own these pages and cannot dictate the terms of editing. Please respond to my charge that there are three factually false blocks of text on this page that need to be discussed. --Cberlet 19:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Subhead "NSA Findings" has been removed & "Cooroboration" renamed "Moscow Archives".  Cberlet proposes discussion of Elizabeth Bentley once again. nobs 21:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobs, you unilaterally merged the pages, and left out all of the material critical of your claims.  What a shock!  So anyway, I started to edit in good faith, and made 10 page edits, and without discussion you simply revert all of them?  Not OK! Pick an edit and discuss it here one at a time please.--Cberlet 21:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your baiting me into accusing you of not editing in good faith, but I'm not going to do it.  Please read your own comments within this section; also previous proposals made by yourself. nobs 21:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Factually False Claims

message: * "NSA findings" subheading. This section does not represent findings of the National Security Agency. The heading is factually false.
* Elizabeth Bentley accusations. These are not findings of the National Security Agency or any federal agency. This material belongs in a seperate section clearly identified as unverified testimony delivered during the McCarthy Period hearings.
* "Corroboration" subheading. This section implies that all the material in this section corroborates the claim that Magdoff was a spy. This is false and misleading. What is corroborated is that the Soviets saw Magdoff as a source of information and a potential spy, nothing more. For example, the memo from Dimitrov merely asks: "Please provide any information at your disposal on the following members of the Comparty of America." This hardly corroborates anything. Guilt by association by proxy. 
I propose we focus on fixing these false claims first.--Cberlet 18:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your choice: (a) stop reversion & negotiate (b) merge all material & negotiate.  nobs 19:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobs: you do not own these pages and cannot dictate the terms of editing. Please respond to my charge that there are three factually false blocks of text on this page that need to be discussed. --Cberlet 19:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Subhead "NSA Findings" has been removed & "Cooroboration" renamed "Moscow Archives".  Cberlet proposes discussion of Elizabeth Bentley once again. nobs 21:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobs, you unilaterally merged the pages, and left out all of the material critical of your claims.  What a shock!  So anyway, I started to edit in good faith, and made 10 page edits, and without discussion you simply revert all of them?  Not OK! Pick an edit and discuss it here one at a time please.--Cberlet 21:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your baiting me into accusing you of not editing in good faith, but I'm not going to do it.  Please read your own comments within this section; also previous proposals made by yourself. nobs 21:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Round One

message: User:Cberlet  made these massive changes yesterday, which went unchallenged & unreverted, proposed above specific points to discuss, and immediately made no fewer that 13 new substantial changes after proposing discussion on the above three points.  The above three points had been narrowed to 1 point of dispute, yet Cberlet inrtoduced 13 new disputes within 90 minutes. I have persistently requested him to focus on issues and discussion, nevertheless he has persistently attempted to provoke me into personal disputes. nobs 01:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cberlets' false claims

message: OK, if we are going to merge the page even though the facts and NPOV were under active discussion, then it is only fair to merge in the entire page, and start discussing each edit one by one from scratch.--Cberlet 21:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume is the question on the table, not 10 or 12 edits. nobs 21:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Start Over

message: Posted at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics 22:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm sorry.  There must be a server problem here, as I have not been able to keep up with either your extensive changes on the main pages, or the distortions you have introduced on this discussion page today.  nobs 02:32, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobs: Please consider the possibility that it would be more constructive if we both backed off editing these text pages and discussion pages for 72 hours while we wait to see if there are comments we should consider.--Cberlet 02:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobs: It is not constructive for you to have restored onto your user page the nasty personal attack on me concerning the editing of these pages. . Please delete it again.--Cberlet 03:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Such as you claim doesn't exist, unless you are embarassed regarding your own words. nobs 03:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Have you read this discussion page, including the archives and comments of several editors?  The version you just reverted is the concensus version. nobs 02:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus according to whom? And, also, I fail to understand why it's necessary to have the version you favour to facilitate the RFC. El_C 02:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a concensus according to the contributors of this discussion.  It is the version proposed here Talk:Harry_Magdoff#Tentative_proposal which has been in place for 6 weeks.  Cberlet wants all kind of "alleged to have", etc.  If you read this discussion page, together with the evidence, you will see the issues involved.  Thank you.  nobs 02:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I find that too vague, and I'm hesitant get unduely drowned in textual reduandancy. As per that specific section, I'm afraid that it dosen't at all at this time strike me in being as clear cut as you suggest. El_C 03:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ONCIX citation (See pg. 31)  nobs 03:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a suggestions, go to the version you reverted, read it through, and click on each footnote. Then make up your mind.  nobs 03:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that too. But there seems to be somewhat of a duplication the discussion we're having at espionage. El_C 03:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comments

message: Looking at this latest revert, I am unclear as to why nobs finds it necessary to add at great length the contentsbelonging to the espionage article here. To my knowledgem Magdoff is best known for his works, and this seems excessive and misdirected (or POV directed), esp. in light of the dispute regarding the espionage itself, which should be sorted 1st, i.e. remaining focused on the most immediately pertinent items. El_C 01:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read this discussion page, including the archives and comments of several editors?  The version you just reverted is the concensus version. nobs 02:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus according to whom? And, also, I fail to understand why it's necessary to have the version you favour to facilitate the RFC. El_C 02:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a concensus according to the contributors of this discussion.  It is the version proposed here Talk:Harry_Magdoff#Tentative_proposal which has been in place for 6 weeks.  Cberlet wants all kind of "alleged to have", etc.  If you read this discussion page, together with the evidence, you will see the issues involved.  Thank you.  nobs 02:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I find that too vague, and I'm hesitant get unduely drowned in textual reduandancy. As per that specific section, I'm afraid that it dosen't at all at this time strike me in being as clear cut as you suggest. El_C 03:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ONCIX citation (See pg. 31)  nobs 03:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a suggestions, go to the version you reverted, read it through, and click on each footnote. Then make up your mind.  nobs 03:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that too. But there seems to be somewhat of a duplication the discussion we're having at espionage. El_C 03:36, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Bentley did not testify that "Harry Magdoff, WPB, Tools Division, etc., was a member of the Perlo Group", as that language suggests.  CI Reader has a footnote at 59, after Donald Wheeler.  Problem is here , the complete Counterintelligence Reader at ONCIX's site, nowhere are the footnotes to these volumes included.  Footnote 59 is drawn from these three sources:
#Bentley deposition 30 November 1945, FBI file 65-14603 (available per FOIA "Special Request");
#FBI Silvermaster file, where Bentley deposition is widely scattered throughout, in fact it makes up most of the file with sections repeated over and over again; and
#FBI Silvermaster file, Part 2c, pgs 3-9 (pgs. 182-188 in original), where it applies specifically to Magdoff.  Here it can be seen the statement is not attributed to Bentley, but to the FBI investigation.  Hence, the MLA style applies, What do you do if your source doesn't list an author?
*"you must first determine whether the author is anonymous, or whether the document was written by a corporation or committee. "
*"When making a reference to a corporate author within your own text, you are advised by the MLA Handbook to refer to the corporation in the body of your paragraphs and to avoid citing them in your parenthetical references. For example: "According to a study sponsored by the United Nations, the world's resources have been decreased in 1998 by 20% (22)."  nobs 23:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cberlet alleges above, "From beginning to end, the author is merely listing the information provided by Bentley."  This is factually incorrect.  Bentley did not provided the middle names of the individuals in the citation, nor the job descriptions and titles.  According to MLA style, ONCIX Counterintelligence Reader is the proper citation for the phrase "The following were members of the Perlo group." nobs 02:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaving out the footnotes for this chapter, looks like the gubmint is having the last laff on this one.  nobs 02:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: And of course, much of the information also comes from here --> FBI Venona file, pgs. 4, 12, 17, 18, 34, 36, 54, 68, & 69.  nobs 04:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[MLA style]]

message: ::Nobs: You have been asked repeatedly to take this discussion to Talk:VENONA project so that we all do not have to have the same debate, over and over, on numerous pages that you have created/edited relating to your claims. These matters are being discussed collectively on the Talk:VENONA project page. If you continue to insist on running the same discussion on the same matters and same language on  Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage and Talk:Harry Magdoff and other pages, instead of having one discussion at Talk:VENONA project, I will ask for Page Protection on the appropriate pages until you agree to follow the group process.--Cberlet 17:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion has temporarily been moved to another page - [[Talk:VENONA project]] 

message: I have filed a request for mediation on this and related pages, see here: --Cberlet 18:10, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Mediation filed