Talk:Venona project/Archive 3

message: Cberlet asked me to come over and have a look at this article. I'm actually about to take about a 5-day break from Wikipedia (starting in about 36 hours), but I do find myself with one immediate question: why is significance of Venona a separate article? -- Jmabel | Talk 16:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance 

message: From Talk:Harry Magdoff 
:What part of moving this discussion to the group discussion at Talk:VENONA project page do you not understand, Nobs? Are you totally unable to work collectively to reach consensus?--Cberlet 03:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of coarse, you can't have a gangbang without the girl.  nobs 16:45, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Faith 

message: Let's take these out of order but in a sequence that flows from one to the next. And let's finish one before starting another.--Cberlet 22:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magdoff text discussion 

message: * 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.".
I think we can agree that if the FBI has a cautious wording, so should we. Comments??? --Cberlet 22:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph One

message: Nobs, do you agree that these simple statements are an accurate and NPOV version of events. PLEASE DO NOT START AN ARGUMENT OVER CITES. We can find cites later. Please just edit the sentences below so that they reflect an accurate and NPOV version of events:
*Elizabeth Bentley told the FBI that Harry Magdoff was passing information to the Soviets.
The FBI launched an investigation based on Bentley's claims. 
* The FBI divided those under investigation into the Silvermaster Group and the Perlo Group.
* Magdoff was listed by the FBI as in the Perlo Group.
* Information in the secret Venona documents provided evidence that at the very least, the Soviet espionage apparatus was interested in Magdoff as a potential information source.
* A memo discussing the Venona documents in terms of the FBI investigation suggested that in order to successfully prosecute those under investigation, the Venona documents would have to be made public, and even then, the evidence was not always clear, and the identification of persons by code names could be challenged, and in some cases the identification was problematic.
* The government decided not to prosecute. 
* The FBI, to this day, is still cautious in its wording of this matter.
* Some scholars and journalists rely heavily on the Venona documents, and suggest they corroborate much of Bentley's testimony.
* Other scholars and journalists disagree.
* No publication by a reputable scholar or journalist comes right out and says Magdoff was a spy for the Soviet Union.
If you disagree, rewrite the sentences below.--Cberlet 23:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start Over - Simple Sentences, Simple questions 

message: Cberlet: The phrase, "a U.S. government agency", needs to be inserted in both articles, per all style manuals, to introduce CI Reader, somewhere between the opening sentence and the footnote to NACIC CI Reader.  I do not believe it can be watered down any less than this. Please make a suggestion where you wish to place it.
Outline for an agreement: "a U.S. government agency" intext; "The Counterintelligence Reader names Magdoff as a member of the Perlo group"; footnote to citation;  Bentley is not second-guessed or trashed.
Trade-off: no second guessing Bentley and no full qualification of "According to an agency of the United States Government, the National Counterintelligence Center, in thier publication A Counterintelligence Reader, Magdoff was a member of the Perlo group" within the body of the text.
Please let me know if this is acceptable.   Thank you.  nobs 21:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cberlet: The opening two paragraphs give us this: "an agency declares...", followed by "An FBI report says supposedly..."; this may be the necessary amibiguity you are seeking because the agency is not identified as NACIC (ONCIX) and could be taken to mean FBI.  In truth, this is a fairly accurate reading of the U.S. Govt. primary source documents we can be proud of.  I hope we have achieved NPOV.  All that remains in minimizing the weasel words (allegedly, supposedly, claims, etc.), not devouring each others sources, and one other minor thing I forgot but will come to mind sooner or later.  In the truelly collaborative spirit, I remain your humble servant, nobs 16:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally and completely outlandish interpretation of our discussion. All I agreed to was the format for the footnoted cite and/or reference. I explicitly said that the text should refer only to the  Counterintelligence Reader. All you have done is announce a compromise, and then blatantly re-inserted your hyped description of the document back into the text. This is ridiculous. We have now spent over one month simply going in circles. --Cberlet 17:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Another hyped claim not supported by the facts; it has in fact been 7 days .  nobs 21:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: a U.S. government agency

message: *delete "agency"; looks parallel to the Harry Magdoff article now, I don't think its style manual conforming, reserve judgement & I'm not "going to the mat" over it (as they say in wrestling).
*add "suspected", don't like it but you do; personally I think the FBI saying "supposedly" is very strong and it makes the whole sentence look suspicious, but if you think overkill is necessary, go ahead.
*add ""possible" within a direct primary source footnoted reference which does not appear in the footnote; this may not be acceptable.  Now I have to spend the time to invesitgate what appears to be a distortion.  Please, examine the primary source and call to my attention the basis for inserting "possible" within this direct attributed text.  
Thank you.  nobs 17:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: compromise

message: I have filed a request for mediation on this and related pages, see here: --Cberlet 18:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Mediation filed 

message: Nobs, is it too much to ask that you please stop deleting all the material I edited and added while we are awaiting mediation?--Cberlet 01:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleting?  Show evidence, please.  Thank you.  nobs 01:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please just stop editing all the pages and agree to mediation.  It will make life easier for both of us.--Cberlet 01:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please show evidence of your claim.  Also, please stop creating subheads to illustrate a point.  nobs 02:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please stop deleting material pending Mediation

message: Common aspects:
*the parties want to find a positive solution to their problem and to accept a discussion about respective interests and objectives;
*the intention of achieving a positive result through the help of a third person, usually independent, neutral and in no connection with any of the involved parties;
*the intention of achieving a steady result, preferably a long-lasting agreement.
Cberlet: can you present evidence your mediation request is entered into in good faith (given the above factors), and not an attempt to abuse the process?  Thank you. nobs 02:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobs, one might as well ask the same of you. You have no more right to demand in advance of mediation that Cberlet "present evidence" for his good faith than he has to demand the same as you. Obviously, you both hold strong opinions in this matter. I don't see any evidence that Cberlet is operating in any different level of good faith than you are. I suggest that you both enter the mediation with an open mind, not questioning each other's good faith. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mediation#What is mediation]]

message: As per User:Flcelloguy's suggestion, I move we adjourn to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cberlet and Nobs01/Workshop.  nobs 03:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion

message: Peer review has been requested for the Joseph McCarthy article.  Please make all peer review comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Joseph McCarthy/archive1.  TomerTALK 20:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review requested: [[Joseph McCarthy]] 

message: in the section VENONA project#Significance
what do the german bombers do.
what does the turkish ambassador say.
what do these have to do with each other.
i do not follow.
--Calm 21:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  paragraph badly in need of being edited