Talk:List of Americans in the Venona papers

message: I don't care if you don't like my taking the POV out of the article.  It is clear bias.  Continue, and I will submit the issue to whatever arbiters of appropriateness there are on this site.  People are always whining about POV yet you and your ilk seem perfectly happy to impose it on others.  If you can't tell the difference between "some" and "a few" or "most" then you need to go back to school.  By the way, with the quality of the Venona evidence in all but the most glaring cases, no real scholar would accept the kinds of statements in the articles surrounding them on this site.  Making a statement like:  "most academics and historians believe that most of the following individuals were either clandestine assets and/or contacts of the KGB, GRU and Soviet Naval GRU." is really obnoxious and anything but scholarly and COMPLETELY FALSE.  Many of these people and their memories are being slandered, libeled and defiled by the authors you so worship.  Be happy your personal bias still resonates throughout these articles and go back to watching the strident banshees of "right" thinking people on FoxNews and leave these most blatant examples of POV out of the article.
:<dryly> While your attempts to secure citations are admirable, you obviously show your own biases as well. (And regards FoxNews: It isn't hanging onto a Pulitzer won by one of its reporters who wrote lies for Stalin concerning barbarisms so monstrous that the Ukraine is asking for that award to be returned seventy years after the fact. Furthermore, I would submit that McCarthy has been vilified and slandered for a greater period of time with greater viciousness than anyone he ever accused (while they, in turn, are uniformly lionized as heroes even though, virtually to the last, they really were rank commies).--76.17.171.199 (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV MUST STOP!!!!! 

message: I think the British-born Cedric Belfrage actually was never cited in the US/UK VENONA papers.  His name is only connected to UNC/9 by academics.  Removal from the list?
:NSA/FBI analysts identify Blefrage in the following Venona decrypts:
::*592 KGB New York to Moscow, 29 April 1943 
::*725 KGB New York to Moscow, 19 May 1943
::*810 KGB New York to Moscow, 29 May 1943
::*952 KGB New York to Moscow, 21 June 1943
::*974 KGB New York to Moscow, 22 June 1943 
::*1430 KGB New York to Moscow, 2 September 1943
::*1452 KGB New York to Moscow, 8 September 1943
:::  nobs 21:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Speedy delete tag removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belfrage 

message: What do the asterisks designate? --Fastfission 23:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Asterisks

message: This list originated as a defamatory collection of names implying they were all Soviet spies.  Changing the name helped a bit, but is not enough. We can discuss the required disclaimer text, and send people to the discussion at Significance of Venona, but smug deletions of the entire disclaimer will not do.--Cberlet 23:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This list is not implying anything, as is evident by the wording of the article, but you are most certainly inferring. The header is a summary from Daniel Patrick Moynihan's comitee report. Now unless you are saying that he is some closet right wing McCarthyite, perhaps you will consider that you are overreacting just a wee bit. As far as the disclaimer material goes, you have attempted to cram Navasky's weak ass defense in every article related to this subject, and you continue to either take Schrecker out of context, as it has been made more than evident that she agrees for the most part with Haynes and Klehr, or use selective statements when it suits your arguement. Outside of a few fringe types, little controversy remains with VENONA material. DTC 00:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's a conspiracy! Look, I have nothing to do with those edits. I am willing to discuss this page here. --Cberlet 18:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's to discuss, is there a problem with this page as it is, aside from it being a McCartyite, red baiting one? "Maybe it's a conspiracy!"...indeed, I find no humor in that, and it would seem to indicate to me that as had happened in this article, information was lost to cover up the truth, or to bias it from being NPOV.--MONGO 21:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Venona decrypts only go up to 1945; whereby McCarthy and/or McCarthyism did not occur till 1950.. The edit summary of: "outrageous McCarthyite POV Red-baiting" equals a personal attack: "Accusatory comments... can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom.  and that is why I revert the your version.--MONGO 08:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page emerged from an attempt by Nobs01 to add the name of everyone mentioned in the Klehr and Haynes book on Venona, and then state that they were "Soviet spies" through a category. I have changed the section heading. If folks want to edit the disclaimer, fine, but to revert it is not acceptable.--Cberlet 14:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Short on time...but this appears to be more than a disclaimer at the end: "This list, therefore, should not be construed as a list of Americans shown to have been wittingly involved in Soviet espionage." By wittingly, are we saying that their participation was innocently achieved? In other words, were they "spys" and not aware of it, unwittingly passing on information when they didn't realize they were doing it to the wrong ears?--MONGO 14:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many on this list have been shown to have been "witting" collaborators with Soviet espionage, but not all. Some publicly said they were not, and were never indicted. "Witting" is a tradcraft term meaning a person clearly knows they are passing information to an espionage agent. Often agents will cultivate a relationship with someone who is not actually aware they are being used as an information source for espionage. This is very common. Haynes and Klehr, Romerstein, and others generally take the worst possible interpretation of the evidence and make assertions that are questionable in some cases. A disclaimer is needed, especially given the Pollyana text at the beginning.--Cberlet 14:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No cites, no proof, POV, OR and breathtaking assumptions. I am happy to cooperate with people to help edit a more accurate and resonsible pro and con section.--Cberlet 23:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, what we can't do is state that some but not all those on the list knowingly passed on information and then in the counterargument state that the list should be taken with a grain of salt. I can see the list as polarizing so we need to figure out the best way to ensure the list is accurate and then allow your counterargument to stand, provided it doesn't summarily dismiss even those you hopefully agree as to being wittingly involved in espionage. I must say though that since affiliation with these political leanings in the early part of last century had somewhat different connotations than they did post WWII, it would surprise me to believe that they didn't know about each others activities to a degree, as it was mostly the intelligista as far as the U.S. is concerned. It was a definitely small inner circle.--MONGO 01:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This page originated as an attempt to falsely call everyone "Soviet spies"

message: If TDC continues to revert war without substantative discussion or actual edits, then I suggest we request mediation as a group.--Cberlet 19:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As per my edit summaries, you are putting in the same material on every Venona related article you contribute to. The information is mostly irrelevant, and in many cases flat out wrong. Perhaps a rewording of the introduction might bein order, but the constant inclsion of critical material in a list serves no purpose other than to poison the well. The article states no opinion as to the disposition of the individuals on the list, only a brief summary of who they were. DTC 00:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page originated as a blacklist that falsely implied that the people on the list were Soviet espionage agents. I have only edited a tiny handful of pages with disclaimer material. I have been busy. There are many other pages I have not edited. I will get right on that important task. Thanks for reminding me.--Cberlet 03:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have all the time in the world to ensure you dont destroy all the hard work that Nobs has put into VENONA related articles. But I suppose it must really irk you that "Chip Berlet", respected author, writer and self described "right wing watchdog" is being outwitted and out argued by a 28 year old engineer, who takes break during modeling, to contribute to an encyclopedia. Busy indeed. DTC 03:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is really bad form to refer to me other than as Wiki editor "Cberlet." It is not about outwitting, it is about writing a fair, balanced, and accurate encyclopedia. Much of the "hard work" by Nobs01 involved false claims that hundreds of people had been identified by the U.S. Government as "Soviet spys." This was not true--and is not true. The work by Nobs01 on this topic was shoddy and hysterical, and he defended his faulty POV text with a zeal that raised serious questions as to whether or not he had the emotional or psychological attributes consistent with being a cooperative Wiki editor.  Apparently he did not, as he is now banned for a year for outlandish personal attacks on me and my work. As for the text, I apologize for my previous "rewrite" that turned out to be hardly a rewrite. My editing window sometimes freezes and I sometimes browse back to save something and end up mssing up the save. I meant to save the rewrite I just posted.  It was a mistake. Assume good faith. Let's focus on NPOV and editing - not a contest of wills--Cberlet 17:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I said it once, I will say it again, I will not allow you to turn every one of these article into a crusade against McCarthy. In many of the cases, the individuals you are citing hold an extreme minority view when thier thougts are actualy relevant to the material. DTC 17:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation?

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.17:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the introduction is the point of centention, I suggest temp:List of Americans in the Venona papers Into DTC 18:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comments filed

message: A request for mediation has been filed concerning this and related pages.--Cberlet 15:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: i know there's some petty schoolyard rule here that indicates that "talk pages are not message boards," but i'm compelled to remark on what a flailing, singleminded fool cbartlet has made of himself here. its a realy disturbing read.
Pot... meet pot. 
VENONA is crap. There are a few hundred of David Horrorshits little propaganda monkeys littering up articles with this drivel from Haynes and Klehr. It should all be expunged. If the American Historical Association isn't behind them, neither should Wiki. I hope we do not want that kind of shoddy and intellectually dishonest revisionism here. To call it scholarship would be ludicrous. I fervently hope that we shall soon see Haynes and Klehr follow their predecessor from another field, John Lott, down the toilet. Morton Sobell, ("a convicted spy"), is included on this questionable "list"...
From the Nation, Three Gentleman of Venona
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010402/letter
"All the authors take for granted that the National Security Agency has published a true decryption of the Soviet cables. This assumption is quite remarkable in view of the past history of the NSA, which has not given scholars the opportunity to check the decryptions' accuracy. 
The NSA's identification of the individuals with cover names is another questionable area. For example: The cover names Antenna and Liberal, which the NSA said identified Julius Rosenberg, were initially assigned to one Joseph Weichbrod, and it was only after David Greenglass, Julius's brother-in-law, was arrested, that the NSA said, Oops, we made a slight mistake. Strangely, I, a bona fide convicted spy, could not be found anywhere among the hundreds of identified spies, but this was not for lack of their trying. 
In a very candid May 13, 1950, memo, which the FBI never thought would see the light of day, it writes of Venona: "The fragmentary nature of the messages themselves, the assumptions made by the cryptographers, in breaking the messages themselves, and the questionable interpretations and translations involved, plus the extensive use of cover names for persons and places, make the problem of positive identification extremely difficult." One would never know this from the way all the authors write about the decrypted Venona cables." 
If he is actually named in VENONA, fine. If not, I hope that people here will put an end to this vandalism that is emanating from Horroshits and his smear merchants. To even see links to articles from that filth peddler's in the wiki entries rag is an embarassment to the Wiki project.
A Winter Patriot.
: An academic purge of Haynes and Klehr, how Sovietesqe, and appropriate in this context. Considering that the Nation has employed at least 10 soviet spies, I tend to think they lack objectivity on this subject. But you want to see something really funny, see someone debate Haynes and Klehr on this topic, it’s a textbook definition of an ass whomping. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pathetic  

message: Where is he mentioned? 65.185.190.240 00:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Oppenheimer 

message: According to Haynes' notes, this is what appears in the Verona documents:
Samuel Bloomfield, manager of the Progressive Book Shop in Washington
According to the list presented here, we have something a little different:
Samuel Bloomfield, Eastern European Division, Research and Analysis Division, Office of Strategic Services
I've fixed it. Wysdom 01:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is the kind of thing I'm talking about 

message: Okay--it's 7:17 AM... do you know where Wysdom is? Still awake and cracked out at her laptop, that's where ;D Anyhoo, figured since I have to shower and drag my carcass into work, I'd leave a note as to the work thus far:
1) Finally managed to stop myself from typing "Verona" when I MEAN "Venona" (darn that Shakespeare!)
2) I've gone through the entire list of names. Once. *thunk* Many more passes remain in the future, methinks.
::*Spellings and alternates--How they appeared here v. how Haynes has them listed as appearing in Venona. I think this is important for both accuracy and fact-checking. In the vast majority of cases, I added the Haynes spelling/alterate to the Wikilink after the "pipe" (|), so the Wikilinks should still be good.
3) Any identifications not specified by Haynes as being provided in the Venona documents have been removed, replaced with a simple citation to the Haynes, 2007 list. I'm not trying to "cover up" anything; exceptional claims require exceptional sources. When we have the source(s), those things can be added back and cited, simultaneously.
::*By the same token, identifications provided by Haynes/Venona that differed from the ones provided here have been "corrected"--again, other info can be added as it's sourced.
::*A few of the identifications (the Rosenbergs, for example) that are kinda "gimmes" I've left alone--for the present. I still think it's imperative that it be properly sourced that the Julius Rosenberg--and yes, even the Alger Hiss--in Venona is the same as the person we're linking them to with the Wikilinks. It's just good policy.
4) Names not appearing in Haynes, 2007 have been removed entirely. I know this is going to be a topic of dispute, esp. with names appearing in Appendix D. The fact of the matter is, though, that there are names in Appendix D that do appear in Venona (according to Haynes, 2007)... and others do not. Additionally, Haynes, 2007 is rather exhaustively referenced--if one of his fellow researchers had listed the "absent" people in Appendix D as being associated with Venona, they would have been in the Haynes, 2007 list (see all the people in the article with ** marks). Pretty much, it doesn't appear at present that there's anything other than Haynes' research in the Soviet archives backing up the Appendix D names. Again, if I'm wrong, lets source/cite them puppies and add 'em back!
5) Minor edits to the inro (aside from inroducing the two asterisk notation). I know there's been substantial controversy over the presentation of "how many" researchers, scholars, etc. support or don't the Venona documents and the research related to them. "Many academics" (I believe it was) was changed to "A number of". I think that's pretty neutral--"A number" could be small OR large. 
"A few" scholars who are skeptical has been eliminated entirely, simply stating that "To what extent any given individual named in the Venona documents was involved with Soviet intelligence is a topic of dispute." Best to keep it simple. There's no refuting that statement, and it's not weighted in either direction with implied numbers. The word "clandestinely" has also been removed from that passage--it's a matter of dispute to what extent (clandestinely, overtly, or not at all) they were involved, period. Again, keeping it simple. Finally (I think?) "named below" was changed to "named in the Verona documents"--since not all the individuals on the compiled list were named in the Venona documents, some having been inferred by researchers, etc.
===Coming up next!===
1) Another pass through the list to add references as they appear in Haynes, 2007 (where Weinstein, West, et al back up the identifications, it should be noted)
2) Checking the articles Wikilinked to our list. Are they properly sourced and cited? Can we improve that, if not? Should they be removed, if they can't be improved?
3) Checking the Venona documents themselves --it's not clear in all cases where the identifications of individuals in Haynes, 2007 are actually cited in Venona and where he's making an "obvious" correlation. Anything not in Venona, again, should come off the list, initially, until it can be checked.
4) Compile a changelog (to make searching for the removed info easier). I know, I know... it's not very scientific to start with a conclusion and work backward, but I truly believe that anything untrue and unsubstantiated that has been removed will stay removed--a single source isn't enough to add something back in, and we all know that, as Wikipedians, researchers and honest folks.
5) Other stuff... I can't think right now *lol* My brain hurts.
Best wishes, 
Wysdom 11:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So far 

message: 1) Another pass through the list to add references as they appear in Haynes, 2007 (where Weinstein, West, et al back up the identifications, it should be noted)
2) Checking the articles Wikilinked to our list. Are they properly sourced and cited? Can we improve that, if not? Should they be removed, if they can't be improved?
3) Checking the Venona documents themselves --it's not clear in all cases where the identifications of individuals in Haynes, 2007 are actually cited in Venona and where he's making an "obvious" correlation. Anything not in Venona, again, should come off the list, initially, until it can be checked.
4) Compile a changelog (to make searching for the removed info easier). I know, I know... it's not very scientific to start with a conclusion and work backward, but I truly believe that anything untrue and unsubstantiated that has been removed will stay removed--a single source isn't enough to add something back in, and we all know that, as Wikipedians, researchers and honest folks.
5) Other stuff... I can't think right now *lol* My brain hurts.
Best wishes, 
Wysdom 11:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coming up next!

message: I've been trying to correct the egregious point of view problems in this article a bit at a time, but as even the most glaringly biased/incorrect is being fought for I think we need to address the issue in general. It is permissible to have an article which says that various Americans are suspected by various researchers of being tied to codenames in the Venona papers - provided we also cite that many of these identifications are contested, as is the guilt of many of the individuals. It is not permissible to have an article which says that all of these people were probably involved in espionage. The former is fact which can be backed up by references while the latter is an opinion which is widely disputed.
Other problems in this article are the selective inclusion and exclusion of names (why exactly are names like 'Kapitan' = Franklin Roosevelt and 'Star' = Enrico Fermi excluded/removed?), the footnote supposedly identifying 24 individuals targetted for recruitment but not confirmed (which falsely implies that everyone else on the list was a confirmed agent), the second footnote which purports to identify individuals who were not named in the Venona decrypts (but then is not included on many whose real names were not used - Julius Rosenberg for instance), et cetera.
The article as it exists is just plain biased. If, as I suspect, some of these people are still alive then it is also a BLP violation. For instance, I know Bernstein was still alive a few years ago (Magdoff apparently died last year), but I'd have to hunt around to determine if he still is. Sorting through to identify and remove all the still living people would be a monumental task... so I think our options are to fix the biased text or delete the article entirely. --CBD 11:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was AfD discussion about this whole subject a few months ago, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Americans in the Venona papers, with much the same arguments brought up.  The result was No consensus. Please familiarize yourself with that discussion (and the comments on this talk page that were brought up by that discussion) before pursuing this further.  In particular, I recommend looking at the work done by User:Wysdom, who was the one who brought up the AfD in the first place, and ended up checking each and every entry on the list, keeping only those that could be checked independently, according to several reliable sources.  As for the stunning discovery that FDR's name was mentioned in the Venona decrypts, that was done earlier here, but later retracted here by the same user, on the same grounds I did a few days ago.  Turgidson 12:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm familiar with the AfD and that it correctly noted the BLP and POV problems in this article. Wysdom's work in reviewing and referencing has reduced the, also mentioned, verifiability and sourcing problems, but not changed the fact that this page and, as I now see, the numerous individual articles on these people, are presented in an excessively POV manner which violates our BLP policy for all those still living... of which I've confirmed Bernstein at least and likely several others. The removal of FDR is simply another example of the POV bias displayed here... it is being claimed that these people having code names which were used in the Venona intercepts means they were most likely spies. The fact that Roosevelt was in the exact same situation demonstrates how absurd that position is... so Roosevelt is removed from the list. Ditto Enrico Fermi... never any suspicion that he was a Soviet agent, and if he had been they wouldn't have had to go to other people for info on nuclear weapons - ergo, he's off the list. It is a biased presentation. The fact that the Soviets talked about someone does not inherently constitute any sort of evidence that the person was committing espionage... despite the claims to the contrary by your 'serious historians'. Which is why only a small percentage of these people were ever charged with any sort of crime. Accusing them of crimes, based on potentially erroneous identifications and pure 'guilt by association', is an obvious violation of BLP for the living and POV for the rest. --CBD 11:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page and the numerous related ones were the result of a project by primarily one editor. The outcome was the creation of a POV anti-communist blacklist using Wikipedia as its base. There are dozens of pages that were created just to claim that the individual was a Soviet spy. Every attempt to make it clear that many of the names involve people who may or may not have been properly identified in the decrypts; or may have simply been contacted unwittingly by Soviet intelligence; or may have been simply the idle boasts of lazy Soviet agents; has been met with fierce and sometimes fanatic resistance.  We do not have to minimize the existence of Soviet intelligence during the cold war to recognize that many of these pages are full of crap.  These pages disgrace Wikipedia as a reliable source. --Cberlet 13:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Berlet, the numerous articles you reference have evolved significantly since their creation, and most of them are well cited and well documented. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Please have the common courtesy to address me using the Wiki custom of my user name. Tacky.--Cberlet 19:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry, but is Berlet not part of your name? Secondly, it obvious you disagree, but as shown many times before, your criticisms were off base. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I started seeing those articles when I looked to see if people on this list were still alive. Alot of them are still just, 'this person was mentioned in the Venona cables so they are a suspected spy' with references to the particular cables and the source of the supposed identification. I started deleting those yesterday as obvious BLP / A7 issues (someone says that this person may be someone who might have done something which might have involved espionage does not equal 'notability'). I haven't done anything with the 'expanded' ones thus far, but most of those just look like they've added general biographical information about the person (where they worked/went to school et cetera)... which still does nothing to assert notability or defuse the POV and BLP problems. --CBD 21:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whatever is not referenced, ask for it and I will dig it up if it exists. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not the issue. Alot of these articles consist of things like, 'This person was Venona codename XYZ, a Bell aviation employee and accused spy who gave a report to another Bell aviation employee who then gave it to the Soviets'. Even if the identification could be proven, rather than speculation falsely presented as fact... so what? There is nothing remotely notable about this person. Even if you then went and wrote their entire life story, with detailed references for all of it... an aircraft engineer who gave a report to a co-worker is NOT notable. Heck, even if you could prove that they weren't supposed to share the report. Even if you could prove it was 'classified' information. STILL not notable. Not even close. A person who was never tried, never the subject of any media coverage, et cetera. That's what something like 90% of these people are... just ordinary people that most users have never heard of and would never go looking for an article about. --CBD 21:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It’s the articles subject notability not the content notability. Every person here has been identified by a researcher, or group of researchers. I think it would be acceptable to delete the names of any individual that does not have a description after it. If you think this lacks Notability, list the article under an AfD, just alert me know though, as I am watching over these articles for the prior editor. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think that the solution is to make Wikipedia a more extensive POV blacklist.--Cberlet 21:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is the solution then? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Why is it that Roosevelt (KAPITAN), Churchill, Hull & Morgenthau (NABOB) (just to name several off the top of my head) are not on this list?  Ok... Churchill's not American.  They're certainly mentioned several/many times in VENONA.  What's the distinguishing attribute that leaves these guys off the list?  DEddy (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Names 

message: I restored the "Inappropriate title" tag I put  on a year ago.  The content of the article seems to be more "List of Americans who have been asserted to have had code names which appear in the Venona papers and to have had some connection with Soviet intelligence operations." - a rather vague and probably POV-dependent list.  The current title would be more appropriate for listing (USA) Americans  whose names plainly appear in the papers, uncoded.John Z (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  restored title tag 

message: The text of the article says "Twenty-four persons targeted for recruitment remain uncorroborated as to it being accomplished. These individuals are marked with an asterisk (*)".  I can find no names with a single '*'.  Should this sentence be removed from the article text? Hmains (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  single * 

message: Why is it there's no list of Brits in Venona?  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  21:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unlisted

message: The "Minor" mentioned in Venona (Moscow to Washington 3711 29 June 1945) is "Presumably Robert G. MINOR, an OSS employee." This is most definitely NOT Robert B. Minor, "political cartoonist, radical journalist, and a leading member of the American Communist Party." At this time, THAT Robert Minor was over 60 years old and serving as acting secretary of the CPUSA—although he did receive at least one coded cable from Moscow. (See Haynes & Klehr, Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, p. 426, note 32)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.190.200 (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Robert Minor

message: Where is there the "work" that details how a VENONA code name is attached to a real person?  I remember in high school math being reprimanded... just producing an answer was not enough.  If there was no "work" to show the explicit details how I got the answer, that was simply not good enough.
Also... shouldn't we disassociate the NSA work on the actual cables (decryption & translation) from the work of associating the code names with real people.  The NSA didn't have that sort of street level manpower, did they?
Where in the Haynes & Klehr collection is the work paper trail of HOW they got their answers?  DEddy (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Show Your Work?

message: Much of this is guesswork and some original research. The guesswork is largely driven by weak or even bad scholarship aimed at getting attention by making wild and sensational speculation. Perhaps the book some of this is based on should have a page, at most, but this list looks like confirmed scholarship and it simply is not. These often are suggested names of very high ranking officials for codenames that have not been reliably broken.  Washingtonian1976 (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Verifiability, not truth. These people have been identified in a published source. How reliable it is, IDK. Don't like the claims, refute with better sources. Don't try to delete. It won't work. (If bogus & indefensible claims were deleted, this would've been gone long ago.)  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  02:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Verifiability and Veracity. We have a duty to be right. Carrite (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then explain the claims in the linked page. They are a fiction from beginning to end. Moreover, WP policy does not demand veracity, only verifiability.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  06:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but verifiability must come from reliable sources. --BDD (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Thx...  Forrest Gump where's my chocolates?   20:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion Argument

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Americans in the Venona papers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140628021144/http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/venona/ to http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/venona/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified