Talk:Venona project/Archive 2

message: Clearly there is much interest in this article and all views need to be managed fairly.  The sourcing is not going away, i.e.
*the unanimous findings of the bipartisan Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy Report,
*the National Security Agency Archives, Custodian of documents for the Army Signals Intelligence,
* the Official History of Counterintelligence in the United States of the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive 
* the Archivist of the United States
* the Library of Congress Manuscripts Division
Many of the above published findings of the 38 year National Security Agency/Federal Bureau of Investigation into espionage are not paranoid conspiracy theories of yesteryore, they are the published findings of the United States Government.
I would request that everyone step back and look at more of the broader questions, relating to the use of Government Secrecy in a Free Society, as Sen. Moynihan sets out a good discussion.  The foreign policy implications of Venona revelations. Historical revisionism. Unelected career bureaucrats & military making inherent political decisions with enormous domestic political consequences, and whether it was the right decision.  Was the partisan divide that erupted from this decision really necessary, now that there is a fuller view of the question.  What is to be learned from all this, etc. etc. etc.  It will take a generation to understand its meaning, as the Senator Moynihan spoke, and I would hope by us Wiki editors working together, we may knock off a decade or two.
Here is the proposal:
*Complete biographical scetches of the 171 identified names and later insert Venona references without a conclusion beginning with 
**(a) government employees
**(b) employees of government contractors, mostly defense and electronics related
**(c) journalists and media broadcasters
**(d) outside persons, i.e. persons outside government, media & government contractors
*Complete examination of the all the Washington D.C. and New York Rezidentura decrypts.
**Most of the Washington D.C. decrypts actually were transmitted through New York, so as the bio pages on government employees are completed, that would take a big bite out of both D.C. & New York transcripts.
**Once that is completed, then we can finish the New York transcripts which would deal with most of the Rosenberg matter, media stars, and ordinary people etc.
*Once D.C. and New York are completed, we can deal with the San Francisco and West Coast operations
** i.e. Los Alamos, etc.
*An Appendix C has not been created yet, to deal with Foreigners. This may be of interest to Trotsky experts, seeing much of it deals with 
**the Altschuler network, Trotsky's murder, and Central & South America.  I would ask for volunteers with expertise in those areas.
This can all be completed, without mindless partisan wrangling etc., the idea is to get good, full biographical pictures.  And it is an opportunity here, whatever perspective an editor may be coming from, to make a fair presentation of the evidence of their client's case.  The questions surrounding NSA/FBI conclusions can all be argued out once we see the full picture.
And again, I would remind, there are much larger, and broader historico-political, international revisionist issues here, (moreso to put it rather crudely, than just argueing the case of a dead guy who lost his job).
Mr. Griffen Fariello has expressed an interest here.  I would suggest immediately that the biographical pages of Abraham Brothman and Vivian Glassman sorely need immediate attention.  Mr. Brothman's FBI file is 6000 pages.  My original intent was tie in the Philby case once most Venona materials were completed, and the Philby file is 3000 pages.
There are many interesting things there related to how the CIA, from day one of its creation by the National Security Act of 1947, was immediately compromised by the KGB, and it wasn't fully dealt with until about 1963.  So there is room for all kinds of controversial arguements ahead, if everyone will just be patient and express some willingness to work together (and I haven't discussed a fraction of the implications Venona materials may have).
So to conclude (tentatively) if we can break up the remaining bio pages to be created among volunteers, and finish the article, rather than incessant warfare over existing articles, then deal with the veracity of this or that specific claim on a case by case basis.  I would welcome any further input, comments & suggestions (but the ideological partisan crap, you can hold for now). Thank you. nobs 19:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proceedural proposal 

message: The text I edited suffered from vast leaps of conclusion.  I edited in good faith.  Please do not revert my changes without a serious discussion.--Cberlet 22:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To depoliticize the subject; interest in the Venona project is not limited to its historico-political aspects.  The Significance of Venona and List of Americans in the Venona papers have been spun off to separate the science of cryptography from historical & political disputes.  This is only fair to the nuetral cyptographers caught in the middle who would like to get into present day applications of the cryptographers contributions in that technical field.  Dispute tags and edit wars can be fought elsewhere. nobs 23:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest the unresolved disputes be moved here -->Talk:Significance of Venona, where Mr. Griffen Fariello has already expressed an interest in contributing, and has already survived a VfD (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Significance of Venona). nobs 23:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Cberlet: I think you will get a debate about "accuracy, and historic value of the VENONA decrypts and their secondary analysis are hotly debated"; I propose rewritting using language similar to Sen. Moynihan ot the effect that "it took a generation to get the documents out, it may take a generation to understand their meaning", before some wholesale slander on the governments 38 year efforts.  Thanks you. nobs 03:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discuss edits please

message: Alright, is the main page tidy now? Can we remove dispute tags & move over to Significance of Venona? nobs 03:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When I went to look at it, it was anything but tidy - in fact, it was a nightmare - poorly organized, many errors, etc. I have cleaned it up significantly, but it could still use a lot of work. Noel (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: No, it is not balanced. If there is any mention of significance, it should include quotes or summaries from both supporters and critics. Why is it considered acceptable to bias an article by excluding critics and then claiming it is NPOV?  I simply do not understand this. It violates basic Wiki policy.--Cberlet 16:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, what would you like to see that section say? (Keep it brief - there's only a para or two there now - extended dicussion ought to be at Significance of Venona.) Noel (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Cberlet: The primary question of significance relates to the uses of Government secrecy in an open society, and the "culture of openness".  Historical interpretations of decryptions, etc., is of secondary significance.  Perhaps we can agree to guide Venona project, and Significance of Venona in that direction.  I believe the "Significance" section in this article, as now written genuflects in that direction. Proposal: Remove the VENONA_project#List_of_Americans_in_the_Venona_Papers completely, and place a List of Americans in the Venona papers under ==See also==. Depolitize this article, remove tag, & give it back to the cryptographers. Then pursue the discussion over on the other page. nobs 17:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I concur with Nobs. The issues that were the reason for the dispute tag have either been moved or shortened extensivly. --Ebralph 00:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute tag

message: This page had gotten big, and needs to be archived: I'm going to lock this page for just a few minutes so I can do that without getting conflicting edits. Back in 'arf a mo'. Noel (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lock for archiving