Talk:Elizabeth Bentley/Archive 1

message: I believe there is a factual error in the opening statement of this page. Elizabeth Bentley was not a citizen of the Soviet Union who eventually defected to the U.S. Rather, she was born in Connecticut. Additionally, she was born in 1908, not 1905. I believe this information can be found in Kathryn Olmsted's biography, which this article cites. --LLSA976 22:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a really interesting topic, but as I was doing some wikification and copyediting on it, the text raised some questions that it didn't answer. I've placed them in comments.  Also there are several items included in this article, including a list of people, that would seem to be appropriate for inclusion in each individual's article, but not in an article specifically about this woman.  I commented them out for now. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:45, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Katefan: Thank you very much.   Am very appreciative of your professional editting skills. Yes, there is much more information to be added. Regards the opening, I don't like the immediate leap to the Rosenbergs either, but there is a big gap because she spent time in Italy and the link with facsism is unclear.  Still in progress.  As to the list, that may evolve into a seperate article, but I dont have a name for it yet, I dont like "Bentley group",  "Bentley-Golos group", "Golos-Bentley group" and there still a few more possibilities.  I expect that will be amputated when the time comes (the list is 87 names long).  There is needed some definition regarding both American terms used in intelligence & counterintelligence, and Russian terms used in espionage activiities. As a matter of experience, I beleive many terms commonly used in American intelligence activities can be ill-defined and contradictory, which is very confusing to the reader; the Soviet terminolgy, when translated properly, often make much better sense.  And I will set out clearly the meanings of such terms within the article.  Thank you very much. Perhaps you may be interested in reviewing some of the other bios; alltold, this list could easily grow past 200 separate bio-stubs.  Nobs01 01:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedits

message: Ruy Lopez: Please note, any significant changes must be sourced or they will be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobs01 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 28 July 2005nobs 17:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversions

message: Don't start an edit war on this page, you are not in possession of half the facts.  There is no objection to inclusion, it does not warrant it's own subhead. I will send you a personal comment on your talk page. nobs 02:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Veracity

message: to primary source material
Truman Presidential Library Stephen J. Spingarn, pgs. 682, 711, 767, 769 - 777, 790.
Qualifications to give testimony:
*Attorney, United States Department of the Treasury, 1934-41; 
*Assistant to the Attorney General of the United States, 1937-38; 
*Special Assistant to the General Counsel, Treasury Department, 1941-42; 
*Commanding Officer, 5th Army Counter Intelligence Corps, 1943-45; 
*Assistant General Counsel, Treasury Department, 1946-49; 
*Alternate Member, President's Temporary Commission on Employee Loyalty, 1946-47; 
*Assistant to the Special Counsel of the President, 1949-50; 
*Administrative Assisitant to the President, 1950; 
*"During the war, I was a counterespionage officer; I served three years overseas, I was in the invasion of North Africa on November 8, 1942, I was in the invasion of Italy, September '43, I was on the Salerno and Anzio beachheads and at Cassino and so forth. The three years I was overseas I was a counterintelligence corps officer, and for two of those years I commanded the Fifth Army Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC), from the end of the North African campaign, throughout the Italian campaign, July '43 to July '45.
:And during that period Fifth Army caught 525, approximately, German spies and saboteurs, Abwehr and SD agents, and we interned perhaps 2000 people as security risks, Nazi collaborators, ardent fascists and so forth. And we always modestly said that we were the greatest combat counterintelligence outfit in the history of warfare, which might have been a slight exaggeration, but we did a pretty good job (pg.683)
Relevent texts: 
*"we also always said that in two years we had caught more spies than the FBI had in its entire forty years, or whatever was its history at that point. I think that was true. (pg.684)
*"there's always been a question in my mind, at least there was in the forties, how effective the FBI really was in this penetration and real counterespionage work. I have said before that I regard myself as something of -- I won't say an expert -- but I think I know more than most people know about counterespionage. (pg. 767)
*" the question is how good is the FBI in the real counterespionage operation? All I can say is that at least in the forties it seemed to me that they were very bumbling. I have said before and I'm going to repeat it, that the Elizabeth Bentley thing struck me as an absolute piece of the most amateur foul up I have ever seen (pg.769)
*"Then they sit down and they pump her dry of information (p.772)
*"you have cut outs, you don't send them from a spy master to the source and then back again, I mean, why children could catch a spy that way but the FBI didn't, now why not? I'd like to know the answer to that. Then they took several months apparently to believe her after she came to them and yet when they sent their report to the Government, they were very mad because everybody doesn't believe it instantly about everybody named in that report, and there were a lot of important people named in that report some of whom had had a long and apparently faithful service in Government. (p.774)
*"the great FBI was so adept at this point  (pg.776)
*"This was the great FBI, you see, but this was pretty clumsy. (pg.777)
*"we thought we ought to have more information (pg.778)
*"I went over with Ed Foley, who was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. I went over with Lee Wiggins, who was Under Secretary, a conservative banker from South Carolina; but he became just as mad at the FBI as I did, and at the Justice Department (pg.778)
*"It seemed to me that the intransigence of the Justice Department and the FBI in this matter -- it was the whole Justice Department including the FBI -- Tom Clark and company -- that their intransigence aided the retention of Communists in Government (pg.778) nobs 18:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobs, I don't mean to nag, but I've mentioned to you before that photos don't belong on talk pages. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:02, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
----
It will noted: the total number of Soviet espionage agents known to the FBI prior to Elizabeth Bentley walking into the New Haven CT Field Office August 1945 and the signing of her deposition December 1945, for the entire period of WWII (roughly 7 December 1941 to Bentley's deposition, and may predate 1941 by several years) was five (5); subsequent investigations raised this number indepentent of Bentley to six (6), as the 26 November 1957 Boardman to Belmont memo indicates Wikisource:"Operations of the MGB Residency at New York, 1944-45".
Bentley's deposition raised that number to 87 (meaning Bentley identified roughly 82 persons, plus or minus 1).  Venona materials, over time, yielded 171 identified persons, plus additional unidentified code names.  Some of these 171 identified persons overlap with Bentley's list as per her deposition.  It was not til 1947 that the FBI & Army Signals Intelligence (later to become the NSA) merged their investigations.  In fact, at the time of Bentley's deposition, the FBI was unaware of the Army Signals Intelligence Venona efforts. nobs 16:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference

message: This article starts off like this:
"Elizabeth Terrill Bentley (1905-1963) A graduate of Vassar, Bentley was studying in Italy at the University of Florence when she first became interested in fascism. In 1934 she returned to America and abandoned fascism, joining the American League Against War and Fascism and the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA)."
As someone who, until tonight, hasn't heard of Bentley, I find this opening paragraph both uninformative and inappropriate as a first introduction to the subject discussed. Nowhere in this graf I get a clear, concise and straight explanation as to who this woman is (was) and, to a lesser extent, why I should know about her, what was so notorious about her, why her life is worthy of an entry in a public enciclopedia. 
Please note that I am not saying anything disparaging about Bentley herself. Also note that I am not claiming the aforementioned information is missing from the article. In fact, the opposite is true. All of this information is given later on in the article in great detail and with many links. After reading through the whole thing I walk away knowing who she was and what place she occupied in history. This proves that the article has served its purpose. 
Just to be clear on what exactly it is that I find objectionable about this article: the first graf should give me, the reader, a summary that contains general information about Bentley. Currently, the first graf only gives me a hurried account of her travel experiences and what universities she attended. Was she notorious for attending both Vassar and the U of Florence? Was she notorious for joining the CPUSA and the ALAWF? I don't think those facts in isolation make her historically important. As such, they don't belong on the first graf of the article. 
As an example of what it is that I mean, I've pasted here the first graf of an article I consider to be well-written:
"Le Corbusier (October 6, 1887–August 27, 1965) was a Swiss architect famous for what is now called the International Style, along with Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Walter Gropius, and Theo van Doesburg. He was also an urban planner, painter, sculptor, writer and furniture designer. He is featured on the Swiss ten francs banknote."
If I were to read this article for the first time without any prior knowledge of Le Corbusier, I would be able to know that he was an architect, that he was Swiss, that he was a leader in a movement called 'International Style' and that he is some sort of national hero (as evidenced by his appearance on the Swiss ten francs note) all after reading only the first graf. Unfortunately, I am not able to do the same with the Bentley article. I must read the entire thing to figure out a fact as simple as her nationality. 
If I had a better knowledge of Bentley and the issues surrounding her life I would simply edit the article to reflect the concerns I have just conveyed to this board, but since I did not even learn of her existence until tonight, I do not think I am the best person to change the graf as I am not an authority on the subject. As such, I am asking you, the ones who have written most of the article and have a much more detailed knowledge about Bentley than I will ever have, to edit it instead.
thanks, 
macgirl
:Thank you very much for the interest, attention, and comments.  True, they are all very valid criticisms, and much appreciated.  I dislike giving the old "work in progress" spiel, but there are two factors operational.  (1) Her early career in Italy & flirtation with fascism remains somewhat of a mystery, and (2) this woman is perhaps one of the most controversial American personalities of the twentieth century.  She was excruciatingly demonized for nearly the last half of the 20th century, and there are many people still alive who still seek to do so; however, her credibility has been vindicated in various official U.S. Government published reports in recent years, and the controversy is far from over.  So it may not be fair to the woman to simply state in the Introduction, that she was a controversial figure, because that was what was said for 50 years, and it sheds no light on recent revelations.  On the other hand, to declare she now has been vindicated itself provokes much controversy.  So truelly, why you have stated very valid criticism, it is a problem that presents a very interesting challenge, perhaps one reason I decided to take on the subject.
:Again, thank you very much for your input, and if you wish to to offer suggestions how to handle this problem, by all means please do.  Thank you.  nobs 05:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first graf... 

message: I tried to add some text, but it did not appear in the article. What is more, the part of the article below it disappeared as well. Did I screw up the code? Is the article too big? Mark LaRochelle 14:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was just that you neglected to close a "" with a "". My latest edit fixed it. You may need to refresh your browser to see the fix. RedSpruce 14:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just refreshed. Still not seeing my addition in the article, although it shows up in the code. What gives? Mark LaRochelle 15:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try adding "?action=purge" (without the quotes) to the URL of the page and then "go to" that URL. RedSpruce 15:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: Obviously accused communists had an interest in promoting the idea that Bentley was flakey, unreliable. Their accusations are on point and should be in the article. At the same time we need to not let any of their smears stand by themselves where we have independent evidence that Bentley was correct. That too needs to be in the record. I've just reverted a Redspruce edit that was not, in my opinion, adequately faithful to the entirety of the record. White and Remington were justly convicted and Bentley played an honorable role in that happening. 
Another problem is that we are not in 1948. It would generally be considered despicable to imply or say that a college woman who took a lover or two was rendered an unreliable witness in court and anyone who tried to use past sexual history (not related to the parties of the case) in an espionage case would themselves have their character impeached. So what are we to say about Remington's detectives? TMLutas 21:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bentley flakiness 

message: Since simply referring to Venona more than once per article is protested, let's just label Bentley's antagonists for the crimes they were convicted/guilty of. It's short, not tied to Venona, and has the virtue of being honest. TMLutas 02:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 spies and a perjurer walk up and call you a whore... 

message: A note: WP:3RR 
If you have broken 3RR by mistake and now realize it, or if another user has left you a note on your talk page that points out that you broke 3RR, then you should revert your change back to the "other version", even though you may not like the previous version. In general, this should be enough to prevent you from being blocked, although there are no guarantees. If you seem to be the only person who feels that the article should be the way that you have made it, perhaps it is better the way everyone else thinks it should be.
Look at the recent timestamps and the reverts. Leave the text be and let's work it out in talk or this goes to the admins. I'm assuming a good faith mistake at this point. Please don't disturb my assumption. TMLutas 08:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR 

message: Is it correct that Bentley joined the CPUSA in 1932, and then the next year went to Italy and joined the fascist group? Or is there some mistake here? Regards, GADno (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. She actually joined the communist party in 1935. I've fixed the article. RedSpruce (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1933??