Talk:Venona project/Archive 2

Proceedural proposal

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 [1]
• 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)

Discuss edits please

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)

I don't think low credibility sources on VENONA add much to the article, it's an important subject that doesn't need ideological interpretation. Coqsportif 22:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought there was an understanding to depoliticize the Venona project article and return it to the cryptograpers so they can further research into their science. Dispute tags and "criticism" can be dealt with elsewhere. However, if the idea is to re-politicize it and engage in an edit war again, then we may have to remerge the names. nobs 22:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I have little affection for Nobs but I agree with him, a neutral Venona article would be great. Is there a reason why the names are excluded? Coqsportif 23:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Haunted Wood

On the subect of Venona and the spy rings in the US in the 30s/40, there is a recent book out which sheds a lot of light on all the material covered in these signals. It is:

Alexander Vassiliev, Allen Weinstein, The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America - The Stalin Era (Random House, New York, 1999)

It is one of that series of about 5 books that the SVR co-sponsored during the brief window of opennness in the early 90s (just after the fall of Dzerzhinsky's statue), where retired intelligence people from both sides would collaborate on books about history. E.g. there's one called Battleground Berlin (IIRC) about the Berlin goings-on (including the infamous wiretap tunnel).

It was written by two writers (one of them retired KGB) with basically full access to the archives of the NKVD for the 30's and early 40's, so it's straight from the horse's mouth - totally incontrovertible! It has a footnote every few lines, and almost every last one is to an NKVD file number!

As for Venona, it says:

"These two sets of concordant materials - dispatches read first in Moscow from the KGB archives and later found in deciphered versions in the VENONA materials"

(emphasis mine) thereby providing cast-iron feedback that shows that the cryptanalysts of the SIS (and later the NSA) weren't making this stuff up out of whole cloth.

It also has lots to say about people like White, Bentley, etc (basically confirming that they were real agents), but that's all for the relevant articles, of course.

Anyway, I suggest that everyone interested in working on this topic go get a copy - it will be impossible to do so in an informed way without consulting this book. Noel (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

As a preface and qualifier to Haunted Wood, the Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy Chairman's Forward [2] reports in context to what was known in 1995,

" The secrecy system has systematically denied American historians access to the records of American history. Of late we find ourselves relying on archives of the former Soviet Union in Moscow to resolve questions of what was going on in Washington at mid-century. This is absurd."

nobs 17:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet's references

Cberlet: I would object to reference material like these two citations,

• Frank J. Donner. (1980). The Age of Surveillance: The Aims and Methods of America’s Political Intelligence System. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
• Ellen Schrecker. 1994. The Age Of McCarthyism: A Brief History With Documents, Boston: St. Martin's Press.

Both are pre-Venona release, and if there is to be an arguement regarding relevancy this is not the page. nobs 03:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The cites are directly relevant to the nature of the U.S. government intelligence community and its long documented history of hyperbolic, false, and fraudulent claims; the inflated and hysterical McCarthy Period claims about Soviet espionage; and the nature of intelligence agency files being suspect source material that should not be relied on as factual. Currently, this and several others pages are dominated by an aggressive, right-wing, anti-communist, pro-intelligence agency POV based on highly biased source material. The tone and content is lopsided. All I am trying to do is introduce some skeptical material. That the VENONA documents are an important source of information is certainly true. That there were Soviet spies in the U.S. in the 1940s and 1950s is clearly true. But this all needs to be put in perspective and presented in a fair and NPOV way. There have been many blatant misrepresentation of underlying documents in this chain of VENONA-spawned articles on Wikipedia. Some of the claims about people being Soviet spies have put Wikipedia at risk for defamation lawsuits. We are actually starting to clean these up. I will continue to make edits that I think are fair and balanced. I am happy to continue talking about proper balance on this and other pages for many years. I look forward to constructive dialog, not reversions that solidify a specific unbalanced POV. --Cberlet 13:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Am I to assume you are equally sceptical of material from Soviet government sources, such as Haunted Wood? Or not? What if both the material from both governments agrees? Is that good enough? I'm a bit lost in this 'wilderness of mirrors', here.

And I'm not sure who/what you're referring to with your mention of "highly biased source material" - if you're talking about people like Klehr and Haynes, may I remind you that they are serious scholars working for mainstream institutions like the Library of Congress, whose books are published by major academic presses like Yale University, so any claim that they are not reputable is wholly unfounded. If anything, it's people like Navasky (who is often cited) who are "highly biased".

McCarthy was a scumbag and a loser, but alas for the left, he jumped on bandwagon that happens to have real wheels, one that honest people spent years uncovering before sleazebag opportunistic jerks like McCarthy and Cohn saw a quick path to power. So let's lose the hysterical hyperventilating about "an aggressive, right-wing, anti-communist, pro-intelligence agency POV", and deal with the real history - as amply confirmed by the archives of the US Communist Party (now available in Russia), the Comintern, and the NKVD. Noel (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet: Thank you for your response. I believe we have a constructive tone. I suggest we discuss structural approaches first, before content. Thank you. nobs 16:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Answer to above from Noel. I am skeptical of all government intelligence agency files, whether or not they confirm my biases. I actually spent several years as a paralegal document analyst for a series of lawsuits aginst the FBI, CIA, Military Intelligence, and local police "Red Squads." I read over 100,000 pages of unredacted spy files. In many instances I found text in the files that was obviously false or fabricated. I also assisted in many depositions of agents and former agents. They frequently admitted to having hyped their claims for career purposes. In one memorable incident, an agent stated that an entire surveillance report covering a well-known leftist in Chicago had been fabricated from beginning to end, and that he and his partner had actually spent the day at a baseball game. There is copious material from VENONA and other sources about Soviet espionage in the U.S. The evidence is powerful and persuasive. That is why I object to clear biased misrepresentations of the underlying documents and the secondary examinations that flow from them. What is demonstrable is very damning. I object to shameless hyperbole and factual misrepresentations based on "an aggressive, right-wing, anti-communist, pro-intelligence agency POV". On several pages the text has moved in the direction of more careful NPOV language. That is constructive. What is important to me is that people recognize their own bias and the bias of their sources, and seek to present information on Wiki in a way that respects encyclopedic principles. --Cberlet 18:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Point of personal priveldge:Off topic, Cberlet, are you familiar with the Red Squad of the City of Milwaukee Police Dept? nobs 19:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I mostly researched Chicago, New York, and Detroit, but knew folks who researched the Milwaukee Red Squad. Also, see this list [3]

Careerism certainly flourished at least as much in the Soviet intelligence agencies as it did in Western ones (actually, in some periods, e.g. during the purges, it reached lethal levels, quite literally); and instances of Soviet intelligence officers inflating their accomplishments, the importance of the sources they had recruited, etc, etc, are noted in many places in the sources I have. (Spies, after all, generally have to be accomplished liars.) Also, spying is no less subject to the Rashomon effect than any other area of human endeavour. However, when one of them says things in a contemporary memo like "I got document X from person Y", I think that's somewhat more trustworthy: it's a fact they are talking of, not an opinion or an interpretation; and they had to have the document to show their supriors, etc. However, not everyone who worked in the area (or has written about it subsequently) is intellectually non-rigorous to the same degree, but not everyone on the left seems to understand that, or to make any effort to try and sort them out; it's quite common to tar them all equally as "inflated and hysterical McCarthy Period claims". And a final note: careerism and other intellectual ills have flourished on the left too, including among the defenders of the leftists of the 30s and 40s, so y'all need to take their stuff equally skeptically. Noel (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I agree.  :-) --Cberlet 22:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Libel issues

Cberlet, please see No legal threats. --TJive 23:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about???--Cberlet 23:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I am talking about:

Some of the claims about people being Soviet spies have put Wikipedia at risk for defamation lawsuits. We are actually starting to clean these up.

Which is basically an attempt to state that without personal characterizations of material of yourself or others that there will be legal problems. Please refrain from this. --TJive 23:37, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Absurd claim. The Wiki guideline specifically mentions defamation as requiring a notice. The accusation of treason is "libel per se." Ignorance of defamation law puts Wiki at risk. Google "libel per se" and "treason" and learn about the risks. I was not threatening legal action against anyone. I was noting that calling people Soviet Spies without firm evidence created the potential of a defamation lawsuit against Wiki.--Cberlet 00:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The guideline reads as follows:

Similarly, slander, libel, or defamation of character is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia; true instances of such writing, that might legitimately expose Wikipedia to legal sanction, should immediately be called to the attention of an administrator and/or the community at large. Disagreements as to the identity of a person, their motivations for a given action, opinions of third parties about them, etc. do not fall under slander, however, and you should not use legal threats as a bludgeon to get your POV enshrined in an article.

Correlating published information about a living person is not "calling" somebody something "without firm evidence" and your own view of the veracity of any such material on these pages does not itself carry the weight of any law or statute. I would also inquire as to whether we are viewing the solicited or unsolicited legal counsel of Mr. Magdoff in this specific instance. --TJive 00:20, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Also:

The accusation of treason is "libel per se."

Kindly refer me to an instance of this article either making reference to or staking a position on Magdoff's "treason", as I am unable to find one. --TJive 00:23, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Look harder.--Cberlet 02:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I have found nothing here or in the few articles pertaining to him, even past versions reverted to from your material. I am perplexed as to what instance (or other individual) you could possibly be referring. --TJive 02:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

See link on this article page to: [Category:Soviet_spies] in which Magdoff is included. This page is an invitation for a defamation lawsuit against Wikipedia.--Cberlet 02:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Then "treason" is rather your own inference. --TJive 02:47, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Really. Do some research. Calling someone a foreign spy means you are saying they are engaged in treason. Treason is on the list of charges qualified as "libel per se" which diminishes the ability to resist a defamation lawsuit. --Cberlet 03:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Please Mr. Berlet, no personal attacks. Casually changing the general label of "spies" to substantiation of "treason" is to say the least a synthetic and interpretative claim, and is but your own inference in this instance and not the claim of any particular or relevant editor here. Surely if this logic comes easy for you then there is no serious objection to what might otherwise be construed as bombastic language (e.g. "America's Traitors") in references given yet not even directly cited for these topics, yes? As of now the information is sourced quite strictly, and any litigious move would more properly be regarded towards those sources of information. But I must repeat myself--is this legal counsel solicited or no? --TJive 03:26, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

To interject an question that has no baring on the subject, Do you think Mr. Magdoff could win the case? nobs 03:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC) A civil suit is not like a criminal case nor a Congressional Hearing; there is no 5th Amendment plea. The plaintiff would be put under oath and have to answer point blank various questions, or perjure himself. Slander, libel & defamation don't apply if what is said is true. nobs 03:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Please take this as constructive advice. I have been sued several times for defamation. It never worked. They lost. But it cost me or my employers tens of thousands of dollars. Your view about how libel and defamation work in the real world is just plain ignorance. The statements made here about defense tactics are flawed. I have no idea what "legal counsel solicited or no?" means. I can only interpret this as an attack on my motives. I have not spoken with Magdoff or any attorney about this. If someone put Magdoff on a list of "Soviet spies" where I work, they probably would be terminated for incompetance and failure to follow our rules about protecting against defamation. --Cberlet 16:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet: Please note, in various discusssions on various Talk pages it is a matter of record regarding the problems of the Hollywood & fictional term "spy" being applied in the real world. Unfortuneatelly, the CfD survived deletion. Other remedies have been applied since. Perhaps we can use this as a basis to work together. I propose we define common objectives, and identify areas of separation from those objectives. nobs 16:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not see a threat of legal procedings here. Nobody is saying 'if you do X I will sue'. There is a big difference between saying 'if you stand there you risk falling over the cliff and being killed' and 'if you stand there i will push you over the cliff and you will be killed'.

Pointing out that an unsupported statement may create grounds for a libel suit seems reasonable to me. And as a point of fact no policy of Wikipedia could prevent Magdoff instructing a lawyer to serve process.

Mention in VENONA does not mean that a person was a Societ spy. The embassies were under pressure from Stalin to demonstrate that they were successfully penetrating the Western powers. When people are given a demand on pain of death to produce information that cannot be verified they inevitably end up making stuff up. --Gorgonzilla 16:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Dispute tag

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hope I did not step on anyone's toes...

After reading the talk page here, I took the liberty of adding a parentheses to the phrase about the 349 names, thus:

(or at any rate were of sufficient interest to the Soviets to have code names generated for them)

Although I don't personally share cberlet's views on the article, it seems to me that some sort of caveat was warranted. JR Richardson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.128.167.68 (talk • contribs) 01, 21 August 2005

This does not gibe with the description in Haynes/Klehr Apprendix A, from whence that description (and the numbers) are taken, where they explicitly say "a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence". There were quite a few other people who had cover-names assigned (e.g. Churchill, who was BOAR), which is I assume the kind of thing you are talking about, but they aren't in those appendixes. I don't recall offhand their definition of covert relationship, and the term is not in the appendix, but it's a "term of art" in the intelligence world (see, e.g. Gordievsky's autobiograph), and it generally means "someone who has a knowing and hidden relationship with an intelligence officer". Noel (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I have been asking for weeks for a quote and definition regarding this list. I think the underlying material has been misrepresented. I think the phrase "a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence" was carefully crafted to imply "a knowing and hidden relationship" without actually making that claim. I strongly support some type of caveat.--Cberlet 15:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The text that's there now basically is a quote. Here's the original:

"This annotated list of 349 names includes U.S. citizens, noncitizen immigrants, and permanent residents of the United States are had a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence that is confirmed in the Venona traffic. ... Of these 349 persons, 171 are identified by true names and 178 are known only by a cover name found in the Venona cables." (pp. 339)

The phrase "covert relationship" is not something Klehr+Haynes worked up; as I said above, it's a "term of art" (as the legal term - itself a ToA, a nice piece of recursiveness - goes) in the intelligence field. See, e.g. Gordievsky's bio, pp. 275-276 and 284; he mostly uses the term "confidential", but uses "covert" as well. (BTW, if you haven't read that book, you should - WRT your point of a few days back, it's shot through with examples of KGB agents inflating the importance of their work, and simply making it up entirely in others.) Noel (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Balance

I added a small change to balance the Moynihan quote. It simply is not fair to relentlessly eradicate all criticisms from this page. --Cberlet 14:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, is there a quote you could dig up to this effect, rather than a general statement? (From a mainstream scholar would be optimal; if you describe The Nation as a reputable source, I'm afraid you're going to have to include the Regnery Press - whom I personally treat with considerable caution - into the same category!)

Are there any other sections you are unhappy with? I believe most sections are now fairly flat historical descriptions. Noel (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I put quotes in, Nobs takes them out. It is very frustrating. The Nation is closer to National Review than anything from Regnery. I have a few more minor complaints, but have no objection to the flags being removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cberlet (talk • contribs) 15:36, 22 August 2005

Moynihan is primary source in two capacities (a) as Chairman of the Secrecy in Government Commission, and (b) as an eyewitness to preoceedings and deliberations into the Commission Final Report. nobs 17:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, the latest thing you put in (which I see Nobs has removed) wasn't a sourced quote, just a statement. I'd be happy to see a sourced quote from someone who is the rough equivalent of Moynihan (who is hardly a right-wing stooge), but on the other side of this issue; also, it should be post-95 - i.e. some generic "anti-McCarthy" flame from the 60s/70s (as some of the "Further readings" are) is simply inapplicable, it needs to be specifically about Venona. (Also, taking Moynihan out is not kosher; he's not a far-right kook, it's a direct quote, and it's sourced.)

The fine details of exactly which far-conservative organ is the exact equivalant of the far-progressive Nation is not important; I trust you see my generic point. Noel (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Cberlet: Here's the problem: If you wish to include Schrecker, or any reference to any "skeptics", "historians", "reseachers", etc, then we would have to bring back counterbalancing information. No one wants to do this. Those arguements belong elsewhere. nobs 15:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

What nonsense. The whole page implies that the Venona material is important. If you want balance, I will take out all the quote in the Significance section.--Cberlet 16:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Can we take the arguement to --> Significance of Venona now? nobs 16:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It's never that easy.  :-) --Cberlet 16:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure if you have read all the discussion above "with whom the Soviets sought" is Appendix D, those whom are marked with an asterisk (*). I believe the language is clear, and plain. The 171 persons refered to are those in Appendix A. This new insertion changes the definition. Do you wish to review the definitions of again? nobs 16:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk:VENONA project/Archive1#Discussion nobs 16:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe the language is clear, the use of spy jargon is your opinion of reality, the meaning of the identifications are disputed in some (though not all), cases; and yet you refuse to do anything but claim it is all obvious and clear, and all I have to do is reread your redundant posts and I will see the light. This is not the case. I disagree with you. We are trying to find a compromise, not test how long it takes for you to beat me into submission.--Cberlet 20:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no basis for "Skeptical analysts and historians claim". The intent appears to politicize this article, in spite of the efforts of no fewer than eight other editors not to, and a concensus to move interpretative agruements to another page. Moynihan is a primary source. Schrecker is not a primary source. For now, a compromise could be to limit Schrekers comments to Schreker, and remove the vague "others", "researchers", "analysts", "writers", "skeptics", "critics", or whatever other vailed, unnamed, unspoken innuendoes employed. And Schrecker should not be allowed to second guess a primary source, seeing her citation itself is distinctly non-specific. If it is to go in this article, it should not be alongside Moynihan, and it should be limited strictly to Shcrecker, as Moynihan comments do not cite a mysterious group of "others". nobs 21:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If The Nation:National Review, then Regnery publications:Schrecker, et al. I would also presume this means you don't mind an in-kind deluge of partisan observations from NR or elsewhere, including ones very much involved and very much alive? --TJive 21:49, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Mention of cases in the header

Nobs, why did you delete metion of Bentley and the Rosenbergs from the intro paras? Wikipedia articles should give a brief overview of the subject in the intro paras, and the intro therefore needs to give some of idea of the importance of the program, not just what it was. It's a historical fact that the decrypts were very important in the US Govt's actions in a whole slew of cases just after WWII (see, e.g., Lamphere), and an article on Venona needs to say that. Some concrete examples, to convey to people what the role of Venona was, is a good way to do that.

I mentioned the Rosenberg and Bentley cases because i) those seemed likely to be the two most likely to be known to non-specialist readers, and ii) those are cases in which Venona's role is now well-documented. It's simply impossible to fully understand the US Govt's actions in the Rosenberg case without understanding the role Venona played behind the scenes. Ditto for Bentley; when she first went to the FBI in '45, Venona of course didn't exist, but as it came on-stream in '48, it was imporant in considering what she had said (again, see Lamphere on this). Noel (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, reinclusions fine; I was just trying to prove I was serious about not mentioning anybody in this article since we haven't had a response in several days to several proposals. nobs 15:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. Before I put anything back, Chris, can I ask you if you have a problem with the text:

In the early years of the Cold War, it was one of the West's most important sources on Soviet intelligence activity, and although unknown to the public, it was important in many famous events of the early Cold War, such as the case of Elizabeth Bentley, and the Rosenberg case.

Also, do we need to provide individual citations for the notion that Venona was important in those two cases, or is the bibliography good enough? Noel (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Chis (identified as Cberlet in Wiki decrypts) has no objection whatsoever.  :-) --Cberlet 20:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Collective Editing

I do not believe that Nobs has been made moderator of this article. Perhaps someone can point to this event. Otherwise, I will continue to make good faith edits that offer a tiny balance of skepticism.--Cberlet 17:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I keep getting a feeling not only of circular reasoning in these talk pages but as if there are gaping holes that many are missing. It seems as if Cberlet intends to plaster copious amounts of Navasky and Schrecker onto every page that barely mentions VENONA without specific relevance or even a regard to article flow. So partisan arguments continue rather than a collaborative encyclopedic effort. Navasky does not carry much weight and if the VENONA-relevant Schrecker material is insisted upon, then certainly we may also utilize partisan material on her and, in fact, Klehr's and Haynes's response in In Denial. --TJive 22:36, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about y'all, but the last thing I am interested in is "partisan material". If you can find some quote about Schrecker's opinion of Venona, or about her specific book that was cited, I would find that appropriate to add in. Noel (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not mean to imply an inclusion of partisan attacks on her views but partisan criticism of her works; for very specific and relevant criticism, again, see In Denial. --TJive 23:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

This is the text I added:

"Skeptical analysts and historians claim that some writers have overbroadly interpreted the evidence provided in the Venona materials. as Ellen Schrecker argues:"Because they offer insights into the world of the secret police on both sides of the Iron Curtain, it is tempting to treat the FBI and Venona materials less critically than documents from more accessible sources. But there are too many gaps in the record to use these materials with complete confidence" (1998, pp. xvii-xviii)."

This is a "specific and relevant criticism."--Cberlet 00:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Text reads: "Skeptical analysts and historians claim that some writers have overbroadly interpreted the evidence provided in the Venona materials. as Ellen Schrecker argues"; who said ""Skeptical analysts....etc", since it obviously is not Schrecker. nobs 00:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't be obstructionist. I am asking for balance. Would you like the Schrecker quote just to float in limbo? Try to be fair.--Cberlet 01:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I may be able to access the book quickly to check the veracity as to if Schrecker's is in fact discusssing the Venona project. However, as presented, this is an anonymous gang-bang on Venona primary sources. This will not fly. If Schrecker has criticism of how the NSA & FBI did thier job, Schrecker can speak for herself, unless she cites other "skeptical analysts and historians" by name. nobs 01:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

What absurd claims. Nothing in the Wikipedia guidelines says that Schrecker has to cite other skeptics for the sentence I added to be acceptable. You cut every other skeptical person I cite. I am trying to save space by quoting Schrecker and then the paragraph points to the Significance page. Why are you having a fit simply becuuse one skeptical line is inserted into the precious article? You are well aware that I have cited several people skeptical of claims made by mainstream and right-wing analysts who have portrayed the Venonoa material in a POV way. I have even cited a CIA analyst who raises a cautious skepticism. I am not onjecting to their material being the main body of these and related pages. All I am asking for is that there be a mention that skeptics exist. Yet even this is too much for you to accept as a compromise. This is not constructive.--Cberlet 02:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I've offered a compromised, and we have not addressed (1) that such a political arguement does not belong on this page, (2) Schrecker is not qualified to stand next to Senator Moynihan; (3) mythmaking is not the subject of this article. nobs 02:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You have not proposed a compromise. You have designed a way to get only your point of view displayed on the main page. Thus I disagree with your framing of 1. I simply disagree with 2, but am willing to make the mention of skeptics smaller than Moynihan. And for 3, I agree that moving material off this page to mask any criticism is a form of mythmaking, and I agree that should be stopped. --Cberlet 03:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

What if we were to poll if this article should be used for political arguements regarding the interpretive significance of Venona materials? Would you agree then to move the discussion over to Significance of Venona? nobs 03:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet's objections

Cberlet's main objection has been naming persons conclusively as "spies". To accomodate this objection,

• The List of names has been removed.
• All names of persons derived from Venona transcripts have been expunged.
• The "Significance" sections has been pared down to two paragraphs outlining the overall question regarding the use of Government secrecy in a free and open society.
• All non-primary source reference citations have been removed.
• Link to Category:Soviet spies has been removed.
• Links to five qualified Appendix's have been removed.
• A concensus among contributing editors (I count eight) has emerged to move interpretive analysis to other pages, and leave this page for the technical art of cryptography.

I postulate this has gone a long way toward compromise. Yet Cberlet insists on inserting a political arguement, that is directed solely at interpretive analysis, based on secondary sources (who may not even be qualified to criticize, as they may never have even examined any of the evidence). If this exception to a general concensus that now exists is allowed to prevail, there is a licence then for anyone with a political POV, apart from the (1) the cryptographic & technical nature of the Venona project (2) the overriding questions regarding Government secrecy (3) the historical interpretaive analysis, to make reinsertions.

The original concern was naming names. Several proposals remain on the table how to deal with all the interested contributors, in a structured way. Yet now we have a vailed political attack upon the United States Governments' counterintelligence programs. There may be valid questions; however, this is not the page where they should be addressed. All parties (except for a few sockpuppets who for the time being have been blocked) have shown good faith. I suggest for now, we simply leave this page the way it is, and begin the discussion afresh at Significance of Venona. nobs 05:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, quite right, lots of changes, and the article is better for it. That's the idea. Your idea that the people you are citing are not political while the people I am citing are political is precisely the problem. I am arguing that one small sentence say there are skeptics, and then the paragraph--dominated by your point of view--points to the Significance page. Yet when I make it a small sentence, you complain that there are no names and no cites; and when I add the names and/or cites, you complain it is too long. You have arranged the pages so that any mention of skepticism or criticism is banished to the back of the Wikibus. That is as transparent as it is improper. I never asked that the discussion of significance be moved to a new page. The result was that you buried all the criticisms. Please, if it bothers you, move that section back. Actually, I think that would be a bad idea. This page is now largely accurate and fair--which it was not before these editing discussions took place. So there are only a few remaining matters to discuss. And we can discuss them. And we will discuss them. But you are not the page moderator. I am sorry you feel frustrated. We all get that way. But my concerns are valid, as are my edits. The main page needs some token statement that there are skeptics. --Cberlet 14:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

My friend, you still may be missing the point: the objective of guilt/innocence or KGB associations of individuals is about #3 on the list of what the Venona project and the Significance of the Venona project is all about. I invite you to participate in a full discussion of understanding, if you'd be interested. But to attempt to make this the overriding central issue is a distortion. There are valid arguements to be made, in their proper place. I am proposing, momentarily, to put those issues aside, step back, and try to discern the forest from the trees. Actually, I found Mr. Schreiner's article quite interesting; that may be a starting point. Let's take that discussion to "Significance" page. If you're not happy, we can come back here. nobs 15:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No thanks, I don't like to be sent to the back of the Wikibus. I am talking about one sentence to make the page NPOV.

A full discussion of understanding? I was a professional document analyst and paralegal investigator for several years; reading unredated CIA, FBI, Military Intelligence, and local police surveillance files. I have read more than 100,000 pages of such files. I prepared numerous document summaries for depositions of government agents and informers, and prepared an analysis for a trial in federal court. I have published a number of articles and essays on intelligence abuse, including writing and co-writing op-eds in the New York Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Sun-Times, and Des Moines Register. I have co-written a long article for attorneys litigating cases of government surveillance abuse in Police Misconduct and Civil Rights Law Report. I wrote the entry on "Surveillance Abuse" in the Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment. I have been writing about government intelligence abuse for over 30 years.

And we are talking about one sentence. I have never sought to "make this the overriding central issue," for this page and to so claim is a clear "distortion."--Cberlet 15:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's not talk past one another; whole sections, paragraphs, links & citations have been removed. What is this "one sentence" you are refering to? I thought it was already in the article. Also, thanks for the resume material, can we move forward now. Thank you. nobs 15:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

We are moving forward. I propose that the following be reduced to one short sentence, with the details on the Significance page:

"Ellen Schrecker, however, echoes the concerns of other skeptics (including Victor Navasky, Walter Schneir, and Miriam Schneir) when she writes: "Because they offer insights into the world of the secret police on both sides of the Iron Curtain, it is tempting to treat the FBI and Venona materials less critically than documents from more accessible sources. But there are too many gaps in the record to use these materials with complete confidence."

When I make it a short sentence, you delete it and demand to know who the critics are and ask for cites. I do not see why we can't just summarize the views of the various skeptics, and then cite them in full on the Significance page.--Cberlet 17:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

There's an obvious answer, but it may be misconstrued as partisan to utter it; facts are, your sources (or lack thereof) are coming to this discussion 10 years too late, and again, can't see the forest from the trees. nobs 18:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what the above means. It is incomprehensible to me. What is your point? All I am asking for is a sentence that summarizes that fact that post-Venona authors have raised some skepticism about how the decrypts are being interpreted by mainstream analysts and professional anti-communist historians with an axe to grind. One sentence. What's the big deal?--Cberlet 18:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's assume momentarily that the Venona project is a partisan issue; facts are, Mr. Cberlet has no primary sources to work from other than (1) a vague reference in Schrecker's 1998 intro; and (2) The Nation magazine.

Now, assuming this is a partisan arguement, it is not the so-called "ring-wing's" fault alleged "critics" did not deem the release of Venona project materials in 1995 as very important. It is not alleged "proponents" of various theories actions that cause the "perpetually combated" to feel (a) combated, or (b) the necessity to update cut-and-pasted arguements from the Nation magazine, only with the insertion of the word "Venona" here and there; (c) the fact that so-called "left-wing" appologetics are caught unawares, and for the most part, have never read the Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy Report.

This truelly is a crisis among those who deem themselves "leftists", because (as the theory states), all the lies they have (1) committted themselves to, and (2) many actually continue to believe, are now being challenged. The bogeyman is obvious, it's the big bad gubmint now in a conspiracy to smear the reputations of dead people. Truelly, those "in the forefront of leftist thought" are at a crossroads.

So what has been the reaction? Turn it into a typical partisan left-right arguement, we're right, thier a bunch of devious minded selfish evil-doers with no respect for the human race, etc. Meanwhile, we can buy time to respond to this resurgance of "McCarthyism".

I stand with Senator Moynihan on this point: Venona may offer hope for national healing & reconciliation, if we can grasp it's meaning & significance (and I do believe, Moynihan went to his grave not fully understanding it's meaning and significance, yet recognized hope was within those mysterious transcriptions). The real question we should attack first is, was Gen. Omar Bradley's decision the right decision, not this putting the cart before the horse bizness regarding can the NSA and FBI be relied upon, etc.

Simple question, Mr. Cberlet, have you read the relevent portions of the Moynihan Commisssion Report yet? nobs 19:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Totally misses the point. There are reputable published critics who are skeptical of some analytical conclusions of persons who have studied the Venona decrypts: Yes___________ No__________. If YES, the rules of the road for Wiki are that they deserve some mention in context and in proportion. The answer is YES. I am asking for one sentence which is in context and in proportion. None of the rest of the mountain of objections you have raised for weeks matter.--Cberlet 20:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

(1) "analytical conclusions" --> discussion belongs at Significance of Venona (2) "context"; there is no context regarding "analytical conclusions" on this page (3) "proportion"; out of context secondary sources refuting a primary source (i.e. Senator Moynihan, discolors the article, discussion, and understanding. (4) "reputable published critics", I assume this refers to secondary sources, always room for debate & would be happy to do so at Significance of Venona. nobs 21:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The page was redesigned by you to shove all possible criticism off the main page. That is what I challenge. That is what I find not acceptable. It is ludicrous. I reject your claim that this is a done deal. It is not. As long as there is a pointer to the Significance page (and there must be), there should be a short sentence explaining that there are some skeptical comments there. It is a perfectly reasonable request. It ensures NPOV. I am willing to make the sentence short. You cannot arbitrarily control the page so that your POV rules to the total exclusion of all other views. It is just plain unfair. It violates basic Wikipedia standards.--Cberlet 22:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually the history shows the List of names was moved by Ruy Lopez [4] which I opposed; but when the Mattcrypto and some other cryptographers told me they'd like to see the arguements moved elsewhere, I went along. nobs 01:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I really think that you are unable to disuss this matter in a constructive manner. I am tired of this relentless refusal to discuss this matter in a serious way. I propose we seek a third party review or request comments --Cberlet 01:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The disagreement appears to be over the word "others" ("other skeptics" & other "more accessible material"). Who are these others? Well, they do not exist apart from The Nation magazine. So the arguement is, in lapse of hard data & research material, we will invent a myth that "scholars" have steadfastly refuted the NSA & researchers claims as to meanings of decryts for the past ten years. And this invented myth we'll call "balance" or NPOV.

Shcrecker is indeed a qualified critic of Haynes & Klehr. Problem is, Haynes & Klehr don't speak on this page, so Schrecker appears as a critic of Moynihan and the NSA. This is false, and you sir, know it. Schrecker states "Haynes overlooks other sources ... FBI files, in particular...."; Haynes responded in the Journal of Cold War Studies that Haynes & Klehr's book is based on FBI files, decrypted Venona messages, and Comintern and CPUSA documents from the Russian State Archive of Social and Political History (RGASPI). So this is the wrong arguement, in the wrong place, directed at the wrong subject. Further, this needs to be clarified in the article, that Shcreker is not criticizing Moynihan or the NSA. nobs 02:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Above I wrote before reading your comments; meanwhile I got an idea for a solution. Should be done tonite or tomorrow AM. nobs 02:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid this debate is beyond me, but I'd like to point out that I only advocated moving the very long list of names to a separate article (because it's good style to split out long lists into list articles). As to how much "interpretive/significance/criticism" bits we include in this article, I didn't express an opinion. Let me make just one comment at present: in this article, I wouldn't think it entirely inappropriate to summarise the significance of Venona decrypts, the conclusions drawn, as well as any notable criticism of the conclusions drawn. — Matt Crypto 02:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet:I hope all concerns are dealt with now; I would suggest some qualifier added to Ellen Schrecker to introduce her. Perhaps we close to moving on? nobs 19:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Varying opinions

Proposal: remove Schrecker from "Significance" subhead so as not to confuse her criticism of Haynes & Klehr as criticism of Moynihan, the Moynihan Commission, or NSA cryptographers; place a head-to-head arguement between Schrecker & Haynes under a subhead ==Varying opinions ==. Rough draft as follows:

Ellen Schrecker has criticized John Earl Haynes and Harvy Klehr, two of the recognized leading researchers on Venona project decrypted materials, saying "Because they offer insights into the world of the secret police on both sides of the Iron Curtain, it is tempting to treat the FBI and Venona materials less critically than documents from more accessible sources. But there are too many gaps in the record to use these materials with complete confidence" (1998, pp. xvii-xviii).

Haynes, in the Journal of Cold War Studies responded Haynes & Klehr's research uses FBI files, decrypted Venona messages, and Comintern and CPUSA documents from the Russian State Archive of Social and Political History (RGASPI).

nobs 02:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

What, then, is the point of having a Significance page? Just a question. I really do not see why we don't just have a sentence on this page that says there are a few critics that disagree with the significance and meaning as outlined by Moynihan and others. Otherwise we should just move the entire significance section back in. And note that there are several writers who have been skeptical about how the Venona material is being interpreted, including a CIA historian.--Cberlet 13:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

If you could give the name of the CIA historian, and locate a quote from them, that would be really good. There are certainly questions on how the fine details of some messages are interpreted (what with the gaps, and the wide-spread use of code names - which was the subject of the disagreement between Vassiliev and Weinstein, IIRC), or is the problem that person has more significant?

FWIW, on the general subject of how useful/trustworth VENONA is, I tend to agree with this quote from West:

"VENONA remain[s] an irrefutable resouce, far more reliable than the mercurial recollections of KGB defectors and the dubious conclusions drawn by paranoid analysts mesmerized by Machiavellian plots." (Venona, pp. 330)

To "mercurial recollections", I would add many (most?) books by agents and ex-agents; those that came out during the Cold War (such as Philby's book) are known to be full of deliberate distortions for ideological and/or cover purposes (e.g. hide information from the other side), and later ones (such as Sudoplatov's) also have problems. Venona messages have their own issues (such as the careerism ones you pointed out), but the fact that remains that as internal contemporary written records (always the kind most valued by historians), they remain perhaps the best evidence we have from that side. (Also, a number have been cross-checked with originals in the KGB archives gives us validation that the cryptanalysts did the reconstructions properly.)

As to why have a separate page, I think the concept was to move the argument elsewhere, so that the main page wouldn't be subject to edit wars. At some level, I agree with you (and Matt) that it belongs here - but as long as some people on the left remain as skeptical as some are of what they mean in terms of the activities of such people as Coplon, White, Duggan, Currie, Halperin, etc, that may be the only solution.

From my perspective, Moynihan represents a pretty mainstream view, and people who think Venona (when tied in to other data) is not fairly definitive represent the kind of tiny minority viewpoint Wikipedia would normally ignore - the same way we ignore physicists who think General Relativity is wrong.

Perhaps a way of cutting this particular knot on "significance" - at least on this page - is to focus, not on what Venona can definitively tell the world in general now about these still-argued cases, but on how important they were then, i.e. to the US Government at the time they were decrypted - which was, from their perspective, one of their main CI assets. As such, in many cases (I went through yesterday and tried to list some of the best-known ones in the "See also" section), they were a main force in how those cases played out. That certainly is a matter of historical record, and well documented. We could then move the still-debated points to another page(s), either one about "Debate about what Venona means about Cold War spy cases", or to each individual's page. Noel (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Very well stated. nobs 18:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Lock for archiving

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)

OK, all done. Also, I did a bit of formatting to make it readable (y'all seem to love indenting so far the text turns into a vertical column in the right-hand margin, making it unreadable outside an edit window - please try and reset the left margin every so often). Noel (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Significance & Meaning

Look, I am not disputing that Venona was and is significant. And I have no desire to be an apologist for Soviet espionage. All I am asking for is that there be a short sentence on the main page in the section where the pointer to the Significance page resides that says something like "A few writers are skeptical of some claims made by certain analysts of the Venona documents, and urge a more cautious interpretive approach." I fail to see why this is causing such a negative reaction by Nobs. I do not see a need for a new section or a lengthy tit for tat.--Cberlet 16:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Two points of clarification & a question: (1) the "Varying opinions" section (a) lowers Haynes & Klehrs primary research data to an "opinion" regarding conclusions (b) raises alleged "skeptics" to the status of having "opinions", though there is scant evidence any of these skeptics have examined Venona materials impartially. This I would suggest, adaquately fits the definition of compromise.

Question: (2) reference is made to "disagree with the significance and meaning as outlined by Moynihan". Please cite a critic to support this claim, if available. nobs 18:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet: looks good. I move we adjourn to Significance of Venona now. nobs 20:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)