Talk:Elizabeth Bentley

message: The passage "Her death passed with relatively little notice" is supported and documented by the next sentence in the article, which describes the level of notice given to the death of Whittaker Chambers. The roles played by Bentley and Chambers were comparable in many ways, so it's valid to look at the notice given Bentley's death relative to that of Chambers. RedSpruce (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Her death passed..."

message: The text in this deals with more than her death. The text noting the posthumous verification of Bentley's story is quite important to the overall story. The section could be called "Death and subsequent validation" or something like that, but that's an awkward mouthful. RedSpruce (talk) 15:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New section heading "Death"

message: RAN, Although my edit summary comment here was justified based on the content of your footnote (and on your history of not understanding the difference between trivial and non-trivial content), on further research it turns out that this isn't a matter of a simple typo. The two published biographies of Bentley are actually in disagreement on this point: Clever Girl gives Bentley the middle name "Turrell" and Red Spy Queen uses "Tirrell". This still wouldn't be worth mentioning if it was only one article in Time that used this "alternate spelling", but as it turns out, many sources do. When I get a chance I'll add a footnote to the article noting this. RedSpruce (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bentley's middle name

message: The point of this passage of the article show that, compared to Whittaker Chambers (with whom her life had many parallels) her death passed with relatively little notice. The additions regarding the NY Times and AP obits are at cross-purposes to this point, because no word count for Chambers's obits is given. And if such a correction were made, it would still make the passage badly written, because the rather minor point would be given more attention than it deserves, given the length of the article. RedSpruce (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You said a lot previously, and none of it was valid or applicable to my point here. If you have a response, respond here. RedSpruce (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Scroll, up, its easy. Nothing has changed, I would just be cutting and pasting. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cut and paste then. There has been a lot of discussion of this and related points, and I'm not going to try to guess which of your responses you think is valid and applicable. RedSpruce (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

text: If I may? The whole article is very good (congrats to the editors and authors), but the last section, that has bits about the Olmstead biography, feels like Wikipedia is presenting the Olmstead stuff and then gathering other sources to refute aspects of it. Shouldn't really be doing that. Also, as an uninvolved editor arriving at this page, the word-count for the obituaries does stick out like a sore thumb. I do hope no-one went and counted the words and put that in the article. That really would be original research. Just say that one biographer has said "little notice" was given, and then give a list of all the known obituaries. Let the reader themselves work out that the biographer might, in fact, be wrong, and by listing the other biographies, you can maybe say that Olmstead fails to mention the other obituaries. Or does she mention them all and give word counts for them all? Essentially, what I'm saying is it is unclear here what Olmstead is saying, and what the article is saying. Carcharoth (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this version look better to you, Carcharoth? RedSpruce (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think listing some of the obituaries but not the others is not quite right. What we need here, IMO, is a mention of the obituaries that Olstead discusses, followed by a mention of other obituaries (without the word counts). Carcharoth (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The two obituaries mentioned in the article version I linked above are the only ones that Olmsted discusses. We could mention others, but to what end? What point is conveyed by mentioning other obits, especially if there is no comparison with Whittaker Chambers's obits in the same sources (which is the point Olmsted and that section of the article is making)? And which other obits? And how are they described if not with a word count? And how much article text is this point worth? RedSpruce (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all major obituaries should be mentioned if you mention any. Since you've introduced Olmsted's comparison, you either need to mention the other obituaries, or give Olsted's explanation for not including them. Carcharoth (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article (my last version, linked above) gives Olsted's explanation for including only a couple of obits. She was merely making the point that, compared to Chambers, Bentley's death received little notice. Other obits could be included, but that leaves all of my above questions: To what end? What point is conveyed by mentioning other obits if there is no comparison with Whittaker Chambers's obits in the same sources? And which other obits--who decides what's "major"? And how are they described if not with a word count? And how much article text is this point worth? In my version, the article text is relaying the information given by a reliable secondary source, as well as relaying the analysis of that information as given by that source. To add further, independently-researched information would be to make or imply a further analysis, which would be WP:OR. RedSpruce (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you need to make clear that other obituaries exist, even if we don't name them. Something like: "In her biography of Bentley, Kathryn Olmsted discusses two sets of obituaries and notes a sharp contrast between the notice paid to Bentley's death and that of Whittaker Chambers, who had died two years earlier. The National Review, which had put out a special memorial issue on the death of Chambers, allotted only a paragraph to Elizabeth Bentley. Time magazine had devoted two pages to its Chambers obituary, but gave Bentley's death a two-sentence mention in its "Milestones" section. Other obituaries of Bentley, not discussed by Olmsted, include one in the New York Times, and one by the Associated Press, which was carried in the Washington Post. What do you think? Some of that could be shunted down into a footnote. Carcharoth (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with this as a compromise. Per your suggestion, I would remove the sentence beginning "Other obituaries..." and add a footnote reading "Obituaries of Bentley were also carried by New York Times, the Associated Press and the Washington Post." RedSpruce (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I sort of did this, but when I realised that those two obituaries were supporting the details and location of her death, I just brought the source deatils out into the open a bit more. See here. Carcharoth (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Her death passed..." again

message: "Time magazine uses "Elizabeth Turrill Bentley" and the Associated Press uses "Elizabeth Terrill Bentley". "Terrill" is the most common spelling used by authors."
As I've pointed out before, you haven't established that 'Turrill' is always used by the AP and Time, and while you show evidence above that ""Terrill" is the most common spelling used by authors."", it appears to be missing from the article. That makes 3 incorrect or unsupported statements in one sentence. RedSpruce (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what that comment is supposed to mean, but I agree with you that the Google book searches are significant, and worth adding to the footnote. Thanks for adding this valuable research. RedSpruce (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. My God. I made a typo. How infinitely humiliating. I shall immolate myself immediately. Stand back lest you be singed by the flames. RedSpruce (talk) 21:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And argued endlessly that your typo was correct. Anyone can make a typo, but it takes cajones to argue that your error is correct, over and over. And to remove material that contradicts your error. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you point this typo out to me somewhere? And did I argue "over and over" that this typo was correct? I can't seem to find those points on this page. And if you were aware of the typo, why did all of your edits repeat the error "Kessler's [book] uses 'Turrell'"? RedSpruce (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote "No, but I can prove that you are incorrect.", then you corrected the error. I found it doing the searches and from adding the new information. I would say every time you deleted my sources for variations of the name and kept your incorrect version, you were incorrectly asserting your correctness over mine. Anyone can make a typo ... well, just reread above. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, no, at no time did you point out my typo to me. You never mentioned it until after I had fixed it (I found it while recreating the google searches you mentioned). And no, I did not "argue that my error was correct, over and over" (or even once). You're just making stuff up out of thin air, RAN. RedSpruce (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You even get history here wrong. My comment at 37 past the hour and you change at 50 past the hour, June 19, 2008. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You did not mention the typo to me until after I had corrected it. Your comment of 37 minutes past the hour was "No, but I can prove that you are incorrect." -- and for some reason I did not immediately interpret as meaning "you misspelled 'Turell'. I found the typo while recreating the google searches you mentioned. You never pointed it out to me and I never argued that my error was correct. You are just making stuff up out of thin air, RAN. RedSpruce (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Guys, please. This little subthread isn't helping. It looks like a misunderstanding. Let's get back to the article. Carcharoth (talk) 07:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsupported statements

message: Hello, a third opinion was requested, and I will try to provide one. After reading all the arguments, as well as doing some research myself. I have come to think it is best to not place links to Google Books, and only make a short notion in the footnotes to the alternate spelling in the biography by Lauren Kessler. If there are other notable sources on this they are also best mentioned with a direct reference. This to make the original research issue as small as possible, external link policy also sides with that stating "links to results of search engines should normally be avoided". Greetings, Species8473 (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Species8473. Much appreciated. RedSpruce, how do you want to take things from here? Carcharoth (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a simple footnote reading "Lauren Kessler's biography spells Bentley's middle name 'Turrill'. (Kessler 2003, p. 14)." would work for me. Written this way, it tells the reader that this is not the most common spelling, though without providing any evidence of that fact. If providing evidence can't be done without original research (at least according to some interpretations), then this would be the best way to dispense with the issue. RedSpruce (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: The Time article reads, in its entirety:
:After two trials and almost five years of denying he was a Communist, William W. Remington, handsome, 35-year-old ex-economist for the U.S. Department of Commerce, was sentenced to serve three years in prison for perjury. At almost the same time last week, it was announced that Remington's accuser, onetime Communist Courier Elizabeth Bentley, had been appointed to the faculty of the College of the Sacred Heart, a Catholic girls' school at Grand Coteau, La.
No claim is made by Time that there is anything notable about this place of employment for Bentley. As the WP article states, she worked at several schools. At the end of her life she was working at a reform school for girls. The fact that mention of something has been found in Time or any other major new outlet does not in itself mean that that thing is itself notable. In this case, Bentley's starting a new job is just a handy contrast to Remington starting Prison. They aren't saying that there's anything at all notable about what Bentley's new job is. Separate from what Time says, if there were something notable about Academy of the Sacred Heart, Grand Coteau, then it would be worth mentioning in the article, but if there is, it certainly isn't mentioned in the Sacred Heart WP article. RedSpruce (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know of now rule requiring cross referencing in articles to determine notability. Time magazine publishing it makes it objectively notable, calling it trivia is 100% subjective. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The mention in Time does not in itself make this point notable. If you know of a rule that contradicts that (like "anything ever mentioned in Time magazine should be added to an article."), please point me to it. Time mentioned it for the perfectly clear, and completely non-notable reason I explained above. If you were to read one of the biographies (sources just as reliable as Time), you would be able to list all of the places where she worked. But by so doing, you would be adding a lot of detail to the least-interesting part of Bentley's life, which would make no sense. Neither does it make sense to mention one of those places of employment, since that tells the reader that there's something special about that particular job. There isn't, so you would be misleading the reader. RedSpruce (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: College of the Sacred Heart

message: First, Bentley is implicated in giving to the Soviets one of the largest items ever - how to make an A-Bomb. She and the Physics Dept. at Columbia were involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.40.58 (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any references for this claim?  I've never seen it before. DEddy (talk) 11:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Heroine or hardened spy?

message: Is there a list of the various stories Bentley told over the years?  Some were likely true.  Some were not.  DEddy (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of her stories? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Elizabeth Bentley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070707173752/http://www.ncix.gov/issues/CI_Reader/Vol2/Vol2Chap4.pdf to http://www.ncix.gov/issues/CI_Reader/Vol2/Vol2Chap4.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Elizabeth Bentley. 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/20070827233722/http://uncpress.unc.edu:80/chapters/olmsted_red.html to http://uncpress.unc.edu/chapters/olmsted_red.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090523222557/http://www.wilsoncenter.org:80/CWIHP/Rosenberg/ to http://www.wilsoncenter.org/CWIHP/Rosenberg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726022128/http://www.education-research.org/CSR/Holdings/Soviet/NKVD.htm to http://education-research.org/CSR/Holdings/Soviet/NKVD.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Elizabeth Bentley. 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/20151016171707/https://www.nwhm.org/online-exhibits/spies/22.htm to https://www.nwhm.org/online-exhibits/spies/22.htm
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) 16:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified