Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage/Archive2

message: This article was nominated for deletion on 27 July, 2005. The result was to keep.  An archived record of this vote can be found here.
I leave the decision on disposition: merge, redirect whatever, to the editors. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VfD

message: Haunted Wood pg. 231 reads "Fitzgerald, Kramer, and Magdoff were among those who had complained about the quality of Perlo's leadership." nobs 20:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Haunted Wood

message: Please remove the nasty personal attack on me from your user page before continuing any discussion on this page.  You should be ashamed of yourself. --Cberlet 01:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it may belong in a class with Huxley-Wilberforce, Lincoln-Douglas, Wm J. Bryan-Clarence Darrow, Cberlet-nobs.  I'm just trying to have some fun with this (I can see why McCarthy went berserk, after spending hours on end with this crap).  My humblest appologies. nobs 02:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Note to Nobs

message: Since most of this page is devoted to the allegations against Magdoff, is it too much to ask that folks resist the temptation to plop more POV material into the one section of skeptical comments? And let's remember this is a page about "allegations."--Cberlet 13:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So are we going down the paranoid conspiracy theory road again about how the NSA conspired for 60 years against an innocent man? nobs 17:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, and please stop being so nasty. There is no reason to relentlessly insert more and more material supporting your side's position. 90% of the page already supports your position. Leave the small skepticism section alone.  And the page is about allegations. There was no admission or conviction. That is simple NPOV.--Cberlet 17:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So we are going to get into the libel per se issues regarding the slander of Joseph McCarthy, I presume? nobs 18:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you are deleting references for no good reason other than to provoke? I am tired of your nasty personal attacks, childish tantrums, and boorish bullying. I tried requesting mediation, but the mediation people said to seek outside comments.  I suggest we seek outside comments before seeking arbitration. --Cberlet 18:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply because you use the phrase "nasty personal attacks" don't make it true.  I'd prefer (I will state again) that discussion be limited to substance. nobs 18:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What utter gall! You have a whole section of your user page devoted to a nasty personal attack on me, User:Nobs01#cberlet v nobs and you expect that people here are only going to notice when you put on your sweet syrupy persona to mask the other side of your interaction with me as an editor? When I asked you to remove this personal attack to show good faith, you replaced a few childish words (see diff: . You and your friends turned my User talk page into a battleground over this page and related pages.. This is just a partial list of your attacks on me rather than good faith editing. And yet you pretend you want to limit the disucssion to substance! It's way too late to pretend. Please, let's just ask for outside comments.--Cberlet 18:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry. I use my User page, as Al Franken would say, for satire.  Outside that, I'm the pure professional.  Personally, I respect your talents in your chosen field, even if at times you seem to be chasing imaginary windmills, demons and dragons.  We seem to have a difference in outlook, you appear to believe the planet revolves along a Left-Right axis, Left being whatever, and Right being the reincarnated Sons of Satan, assuming Satan exists.  I don't see ideology as the primary motivating force in all cases.  All I ask is a little less  stereotyping of others to fit a prefabricated world view.  nobs 19:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not funny. Not accurate. Irrelevant. I do not believe I fit the description you offer.--Cberlet 22:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fairness and Balance

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)
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)
thread_title: Round One

message: Unfortuneately, if the two paragraphs are not Merged within Harry Magdoff, there is no evidence that a compromise will be sought on this page.  The two paragraphs in question are less than a 2400 word limit Cberlet proposed 29 July 2005, 6 weeks ago (see(Talk:Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage#Summary, above).  Myself, in good faith six weeks ago, Merged the two paragraphs, not the full text, nor the 2400 word limit as per Cberlet's proposal.  This clearly demonstrates that efforts to remove the two paragraphs now, without actively pursing resolution are not in good faith.  nobs 20:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all water over the dam.  People change their minds. New information has arrived stating that your interpretation of the vote (and mine for that matter) were not totally accurate.  It is a new day. Great the sun with a smile and a determination to find a new and creative solution. Cheers.--Cberlet 21:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Faith

message: Cberlet: Use of McCarthy era is purely POV and an appeal to prejudice. Magdoff left government service 30 December 1946; Joseph McCarthy was not even sworn in as US Senator until the next week, first week of January 1947 and didn't go on a crusade for several years yet.  There is virtually no connection whatsoever between this individual, Henry Samual Magdoff, and Joseph McCarthy.  
This reference is precisely what Senator Moynihan speaks of when he "began to wonder about McCarthyism's flip side: the reaction against McCarthy that took the form of a modish anti-anti-Communism that considered impolite any discussion of the very real threat Communism posed to Western values and security."  Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Secrecy: The American Experience (New Haven: Yale University Press 1998), p.15.
Starting with a clean slate, we should focus upon factual matters, not subjective references with subtleties.  To be truelly NPOV, there is nothing wrong with early 1950s.  Lets focus on facts, and argue the shaded meanings later.  nobs 03:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  McCarthy Era 

message: Text:"The FBI reports that Magdoff and others were probed as part of "a major espionage investigation spanning the years 1945 through 1959" into an alleged "Soviet spy ring which supposedly had 27 individuals gathering information from at least six Federal agencies. However, none of the subjects were indicted by the Grand Jury.".
:Comment: No consideration of Venona materials; suffers from lack of relevance and cannot be considered apart from Venona.
"Several sources indicate Magdoff was investigated as a member of what was called the Perlo group.
:Comment: "what was called"; significance?
"provided this information to the FBI and later testified to that same effect during McCarthy era hearings
:Comment: "and later testified to that same effect during McCarthy era hearings", the intext quotation is from FBI deposition, not testimony before a hearing, as rewritten is factually incorrect; secondly, "McCarthy era", see above, Talk:Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage#McCarthy_Era
"According to Raflako"
:Comment: should read "The National Counterintelligence Center's, "Counterintelligence Reader", cites Magdoff as a member of the Perlo group", unless some case can be made to depart from the primary source and insert "what was called" also.
"Critics of Bentley point out that some of her claims were disputed at the time, and that the testimony of Bentley and others before various Congressional committees during the McCarthy period was sometimes exagerated or involved guilt by associations assertions.
:Comment:"Critics of Bentley" unsourced; "disputed at the time", relevence?; "testimony of Bentley and others before various Congressional committees" how does that relate to Magdoff? I see no reference to Magdoff being summoned to testify; "others", who are 'others', and how does that relate to Magdoff?
Deleted:"government agencies as well as independent
:Comment: what is the purpose of deleting NACIC reference.  nobs 03:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of new edits

message: I have filed a request for mediation on this and related pages, see here:--Cberlet 18:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Mediation filed 

message: It appears the issue of "how to cite and summarize information from various government agencies and secondary sources" that will "serve as a model" may require expanding this article now.  I thought the summary of primary sources here was adaquate, but now it appears Cberlet is asking for a complete examination of the primary source material relevent to Venona decrypt #629, which was moreless stepped over for the more relevent portions of #687.  Here's a thumbnail synopsis that we'll have to craft language from:
*629 5 May 1944 discusses about the "possibility of a meeting with KANT" (insert primary source citation);  NSA analysts (insert primary source citation) and numerous secondary sources read this to mean KANT already had a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence, i.e. he already was recruited.
*687 13 May 1944, one week later, in John Abt's apartment, with others, KANT and others were reassigned, i.e. "they had been neglected" since previous contact, it is not a first time recruitment meeting.  "Initial meeting" is a reference to Bentley taking over the group, not thier recruitment.  Perlo was taking over a newly formed sub-group of Soviet operatives who previously reported through Silvermaster.(insert numerous secondary sources)
*Elsewhere (insert primary source citation) Magdoff is described as a "longtime" member.
*1948 Gorsky Memo (insert primary source, KGB Archives) lists Magdoff #3, behind Jake Golos, head of CPUSA secret apparatus 1921-1943 & NKVD officer, and Elizabeth Bentley, who served Soviet intelligence from 1938-1945.  According to the US-Canada Insititute in Moscow (insert primary source citation), KGB Officer ranked thier assets chronologically, first recruited to  most recent.  Magdoff is number 3 on a list of 42 names. This means Magdoff was recruited between 1938 and the date of Venona #629 5 May 1944; it could be further isolated within a range because of the 39 remaining names on the list, we could identifiy a specific or approximate date of recruitment among some of those individuals.  The Gorsky Memo also uses code name TAN, which fits the #179, 180  Venona (insert primary source citation), and is consistent with Magdoff (insert secondary source citation).
I didn't think such tedious details were necessary originally when I was looking to summarize information, but now it appears they must be included.  It seems everytime Cberlet trys to suppress information getting out, the information that gets out is expanded.  nobs 00:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note regarding Magdoff's recruitment, which (a) did not occur 13 May 1944 in John Abt's apt. (b) both citations above are primary source (i.e. corroboration), and difficult to refute, i.e. examination of secondary source is required.  Who is the secondary source?  To be properly qualified to give testimony, a secondary source must be subjected to criticism if it is to refute a primary; thus the dilemma, can The Nation magazine survive crossexamination to give the fig leaf of NPOV.  nobs 02:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobs: let's just get on with the mediation.--Cberlet 02:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Clarification of "fig leaf of NPOV": the unchallenged The Nation is a fig leaf I've allowed Cberlet to wear to provide "balance" and "NPOV", in his use of the terms.  However, a secondary source can never refute a primary source, without proper qualification.  I don't beleive "the model" should be written with this article.  nobs 02:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 629 Venona

message: *Talk:Significance of Venona, Talk: List of Americans in the Venona papers, Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage. Revert war. How best to report claims of espionage and skeptical counterclaims -- all by various published scholars, journalists, and analysts.17:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comments filed

message: A request for mediation has been filed concerning this and related pages.--Cberlet 15:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: Victor Navasky, editor and publisher of The Nation, has written an editorial highly critical of recent works on the subject of Soviet espionage, arguing that historians are relying too much on Venona material and are simply using every individual mentioned in the cables as prima face proof of their involvement in Soviet espionage.
:Appendix A to their book on Venona, Haynes and Klehr list 349 names (and code names) of people who they say "had a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence that is confirmed in the Venona traffic." They do not qualify the list, which includes everyone from Alger Hiss to Harry Magdoff, the former New Deal economist and Marxist editor of Monthly Review, and Walter Bernstein, the lefty screenwriter who reported on Tito for Yank magazine. It occurs to Haynes and Klehr to reprint ambiguous Venona material related to Magdoff and Bernstein but not to call up either of them (or any other living person on their list) to get their version of what did or didn't happen. 
While the issue of Magdoff's participation in espionage has gone largely unremarked even with his passing, historian Ellen Schrecker has voiced skepticism about the reliability of the Venona documents and the interpretations of Venona scholars such as Klehr and Haynes in discerning their meaning and relevance. 
--TJive 06:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Skeptical Views

message: Small thing, but "exaggerated" is misspelled (appearing as "exagerated") at the very end of the "Investigation" section, and I can't fix it.  Dar-Ape 23:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a simple edit, I've done it for you.--Commander Keane 06:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misspelling 

message: This page has been protected for the past 11 days. There was a Request for Comment filed and some responses given, but no response to the RFC for the past ten days. Are the issues being resolved and the disputed parties moving towards discussion? If there are no objections, I will request unprotection. Calwatch 00:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request unprotection?