Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Americans in the Venona papers

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Walton Need some help? 13:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Americans in the Venona papers[edit]

List_of_Americans_in_the_Venona_papers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Whoa. WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, and ESPECIALLY WP:BLP. Lists screens and screens of people, the article asserts "Many academics and historians believe that most of the following individuals were either clandestine assets and/or contacts of the KGB, GRU and Soviet Naval GRU".

Furthermore, article states: "The following list of individuals is extracted in part from the work of John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr; as well as others listed in the references below."

??? Original research? This list is compiled from which sources, below? In how much part? And since two of the sources below are declassified gov. documents that have been highly censored in their release, how much of that is conjecture? How much of that is the conjecture of the contributing editors? The individuals on the list are not matched to any source. In a review of the talk page for this article, questions about original research are rebuffed with: "go through the sources, and see them for yourself".

Somehow, I don't think that's right. An editor compiles a HUGE list of people, insinuates by their inclusion that they're communist spies, then dumps a pile of references at the bottom that aren't cited to any of the people on the list... and we're to reverse enigineer through thousands of pages to verify/cite it FOR them if anyone's concerned? Bad faith answer to a good faith question.

This was debated into the ground on the talkpage, but I submit here that this is a BIG potential problem article. If no one's willing to cite every name on that list so it can be verified, it's potentially OR and defamatory.

I would have asked for a speedy on this, but I had not idea what category it would go under. Thanks, Wysdom 19:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the state of the article is poor, I do believe that the topic in general is worthy of having a page.Dxco 20:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is not the only relevant page, see also Category:Venona Appendix A. I urge those commenting to first read Venona project, especially the section on criticism. (I have posted a link to this AfD on the talk pages of those two articles.)
As I understand it, the true problem is that although many individual's names were deciphered, any individual one of them may or may not have had an actual role in espionage--some probably were included as potential recruits; and many were people convicted of espionage who guilt remains disputed (Of course, some of them were self-confessed spies, and not necessarily ashamed of it.). With respect to BLP and NPOV, the list is a accurate report of the names from the sources, ultimately based on public documents which are thereby free from libel. However, the inclusion of the list alone without appropriate qualifiers in each case seems problematic, especially for those individuals for whom there is no WP article. The category is safer: the place for the discussion of the appropriateness of any individual being so identified belongs on the talk page of the article on that person. It would probably be appropriate to write short articles for those without, as I think anyone so named is historically notable. and then the category would be sufficient. DGG 21:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is why I'm such a pain in the ass about sources being cited on everything--because, due respect to those involved--if this had been done right in the first place, this wouldn't be an issue. We wouldn't have to guess who was actually in the document, what the document actually says, if any of this is defamatory or defamatory conjecture or worse, defamatory OR. Turgidson insists there's no OR here--how exactly do you expect us to know that? Last time I saw, WP:TAKEMYWORDFORIT wasn't a reliable source. I'm not insinuating dishonesty, I'm just saying Turgidson, DGG et al are assuming a lot more than I am personally comfortable with.
The article clearly states "extracted in part from the work of John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr; as well as others listed in the references below. Those "others" include the Venona documents... and that leaves a big question in my mind: Did the contributor/editor do any "extracting" from the Venona documents, him/herself? Because that is OR. And until we have everything on that list cited to a source that's plain as day, there's no way to be sure. DGG assures that the list is ultimately "based on" public documents--that's not very reassuring. If there was OR or some enthusiastic theorizing, extrapolating, or even hyperbole--that is NOT free from libel. --Wysdom 01:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There is nothing OR about this list -- as the article indicates, it all comes out of the findings of the Venona Project (a long-running and highly secret collaboration between intelligence agencies of the United States and United Kingdom that involved the cryptanalysis of messages sent by several intelligence agencies of the Soviet Union, mostly during World War II), as recounted in the book "Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America" (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999, ISBN 0300077718 ), written by two respected scholars, Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes. We even have a special category devoted to the topic Category:Venona, with several subcategories, including Category:Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America. The articles on the individuals named in the Venona papers make it plain what their involvement with Soviet espionage was, and to what extent that involvement has been established. If there is a doubtful case, by all means, let's hear about it, and deal with it accordingly. In the meantime, the list plays a useful role. I say, let's keep it, and improve on it. Turgidson 21:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry, I fail to see how this list "violates WP:BLP". How many of the persons on the list are still living? After all, we're talking about events related to World War II, and its immediate aftermath -- some 60-65 years ago. I checked (and edited) several of those articles, and all their subjects died quite a while ago, e.g., John Abt in 1991, Solomon Adler in 1994, Elizabeth Bentley in 1963, Frank Coe in 1980, Jacob Golos in 1943, Alger Hiss in 1996, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in 1953, Greg Silvermaster in 1964, etc. Please clarify how WP:BLP is supposed to apply to these situations. Turgidson 23:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Establish that all of the people on this list are deceased, and you will have established that WP:BLP is not an issue here. RedSpruce 00:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The burden of proof is on the ones who claim that WP:BLP applies. As far as I can tell, this is a Red herring. Turgidson 00:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, per nomination and DGG's comment. Without a specific citation attached to each name, this violates WP:BLP. Even with such citations, many in the list would probably still be in violation, unless some very careful wording was used to explain and qualify the person's presence in the list. There is a lot of uncertainty around many of these names; not merely whether or not they were spies (which is implied by their presence in this list, despite the cautions in the introduction to the article), but also about whether or not they were actually "named" in Venona documents. The identification of such-and-such a person as corresponding to such-and-such a Venona code name was rarely certain or clear-cut. The most famous, but by no means the most extreme example of this uncertainty is Alger Hiss. I also question the "usefulness" of this article. At best, it lists Americans whose name or code name was mentioned for some reason at some point in some decrypted or partially decrypted Soviet cable transmitted some time between 1942 and 1945. So what? RedSpruce 22:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - even giving this the benefit of the doubt, both in terms of original research and in terms of accuracy, Wikipedia is not a directory, and this article is nothing more than that. --Action Jackson IV 23:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Offer On the AfD for Nadia Morris Orispovich, earlier, I offered what I hope is an acceptable compromise--I'll restate here:

A compromise then--because, I'm sorry, matters of libel and defamation re: living people are far too serious to just take your (or anyone's) word for it: The list and all little bios associated with it need to be blanked, and can be restored as they're verifiably sourced. That would be my solution. I'm not comfortable just letting this sort of thing "hang out there" waiting for you to add sources which might not exist as clearly, reliably, or verifiably as you seem to believe they do--or be easily accessible. This is going to be a huge project and every day these potentially defamatory, unverifiable statements stay up without citation is a day too long. Can we agree?

Based on the facts and situation as I currently understand them, this is the only acceptable alternative to deletion. Wysdom 01:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article has been there since 2005, and the other articles on the subject have similarly been there a while, and have been discussed on their talk pages. We are not the first people to have looked at them, and it is not an emergency. I would want to reread the articles and their associated talk pages first. This is a material from what was originally a government report, and therefore not libel. The authors would never have been able to publish the books otherwise. There is no legal exposure. The books report their being on the list, and we say just that. With respect to BLP, I am not sure how we handle a situation where many of the people are known to be deceased, and most of the others may well be. I've asked for comments at that talk page. DGG 02:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:BLP "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." Persons not known to be dead must be considered to be alive--to do otherwise would be enourmously irresponsible. Treat the matter as though they're alive and you risk nothing--treat them as dead and be wrong, you're libelous. Why is this even a question?
    • With due respect, DGG, you're deliberately avoiding the concerns about OR, hyperbole, and extrapolation on the part of the creator/editor of the list. I've stated all that above. I've also made a perfectly reasonable suggestion--blank it and add it back as you source it. You've indicated that you don't intend to do any work on the article yourself--and I don't blame you, that's a hellish mess to clean up--but now what I'm seeing is 1) You want the information to remain; 2) You don't want to fix it yourself. Where does that leave us?
  • Strong, Speedy Delete Per WP:BLP. This completely unsourced and unsustantiated document needs to GO--years ago. Arguements from "Keeps" that insist the list is "well sourced"? How do they know? If they have the source materials on hand to confirm this, why is no one willing to source the material? The arguement that BLP does not apply is false--persons not known dead must be assumed living. Therefore, this article and its associated articles should have been removed immediately without discussion. Libel and slander are far, far too serious to take the word of a few editors who point at the list, then the sources at the bottom, and call it "sourced". Withtout a verifiable citation to every name and fact, this list is violating Wikipedia RULES, not guidelines. My good faith suggestion that the pages be blanked and content restored as it's source has been rejected--I see no alternative but to delete. --Wysdom 02:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are we following the AfD procedures here? I thought that Wysdom, as nominator, had already voted. How many times does one get to vote here? I'd rather hear some new (and more reasoned) opinions, than the same old. Turgidson 02:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Turgidson, AFD is not a vote. Generally it is considered superfluous for an editor to nominate as well as enter an explicit !vote, but it isn't a violation of any rule. The decision is made by consensus, not counting heads. --Dhartung | Talk 03:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - appears to be well-sourced, and is notable. If someone is proved to be living and an uncited, potentially defamatory claim is being made against him (but, let's be honest, the great majority of these people are probably dead), then let it be removed - but that is not reason to delete the whole article. Let's not hide evidence of Communist subversion against the United States. Biruitorul 03:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This page is little more than a blacklist. Every attempt to add significant qualifiers on this page about the disputes over identification have been removed by a handful of anticommunist fanatics. The argument that since most are dead therefore we need not care about facts and fairness is horrifying.--Cberlet 03:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I take exception to this comment--nobody said that, please do not set up a straw man. The nominator has invoked WP:BLP as being essential to his case; it is perfectly reasonable to bring up the fact that that policy does not apply here, since basically all the persons on the list are not living, though of course one needs to take care about facts (and citations, and verifiability, and all other WP policies)-- who said we don't? No need to use hyperbole, or personal attacks, such as referring to fellow editors as "anticommunist fanatics". Let's keep the discussion civil, shall we? Turgidson 04:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should verify beyond the unresearched assertion of "basically all" and check to see if everyone named is actually dead - I wouldn't be surprised if some are not. Even then, this list is rather problematic without detailed sourcing. Since codenames are used in the actual Soviet transmissions, names in this list need to be sourced to the individual sources that identify them as a person mentioned. Some are widely accepted and some were even admitted by the subject; for many others, the identification is less sure, or is at least disputed. For NPOV, such disagreements need to be listed. Without that, it implies that the least certainly associated and the most strongly associated are equally associated, which is not the actual truth. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A little going through the linked biographical articles shows that (in my sample) about two-thirds have no definitive statement about whether the person is living or not. One that did have a death date listed it as 2006, pointing out that some of these people are likely still living. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, all identifications are at best conjectural. I have here a list ... This is not enough for our purposes and is effectively guilt by association. --Dhartung | Talk 03:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - first, it is simply untrue to say that of "all" identifications - do you deny that the Rosenbergs or Hiss were Soviet agents? Second, there were Communist spies in the State Department, and you do the authors of this article a great honour to associate them with that glorious anti-Communist fighter, Senator McCarthy, a man who, as Murray N. Rothbard points out, "was able, for a few years, to short-circuit the intense opposition of all the elites in American life: from the Eisenhower-Rockefeller administration to the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex to liberal and left media and academic elites – to overcome all that opposition and reach and inspire the masses directly." Biruitorul 04:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Bias noted. Keep the rhetoric in a drawer. --Dhartung | Talk 07:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I wasn't the one who raised the spectre of McCarthyism; when the good Senator's reputation is attacked, I will defend him. Biruitorul 08:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. "All identifications are at best conjectural"? How's that? Here's a detailed list, with references and all, provided by author John Earl Haynes, an American historian who is a specialist in 20th century political history in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress. See: "Cover Name, Cryptonym, CPUSA Party Name, Pseudonym, and Real Name Index. A Research Historian’s Working Reference". Turgidson 19:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While sources are indeed listed, the article says explicitly that they could be from any of several sources, and that the process of including someone on this list involved guesswork, circumstantial evidence, and what frankly sounds like conjecture in some cases. Since the Venona papers did not identify people by name, but rather by codename, the list cannot simply be sourced to them. Rather, the inclusion of each individual on this list must be sourced to a specific source that claims that they are one of those codenamed individuals, as a minimum. At the very least, any still-living individuals on this list MUST be removed immediately until their presence on it is traced to specific sources. Even if that is done, without better sourcing, this assemblage of conjecture from multiple sources is original research. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You would be right if that was a biography of a living person. But it is not.Biophys 17:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page contains biographical information about living persons; furthermore, the information contained is controversial and not the kind of thing we want an accusation lying around Wikipedia of without good sourcing. BLP does not only apply to biographies; it applies to biographical information in any context, especially stuff that might be considered negative. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. List of people with description, references, not easily categorizable... I see nothing meriting discussion; unlike many lists on Wiki this is at least midly useful as a reference tool.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  06:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Hi Piotrus, good to see you joined in the discussion. Well, the list may not look so great at first glance, but with some work, I think it can get much better (there are some constructive suggestions on the Talk page, from DGG). As for usefulness, look, I got to go more carefully through the list last night, and managed to find some nuggets in there (that otherwise I would have missed). Take a look if you wish at Bolesław Gebert, Oskar R. Lange, and Mikhail Tkach -- I expanded a bit those articles, but surely they can get even better. And, pray say, where else on the wiki would you see these guys bunched up together on a single page, with the likes of Alexandre Feklisov (another interesting character)? Turgidson 13:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First, there are no WP:BLP violations here. WP:BLP applies only to BIOGRAPHIES of living persons. This is is not a biography of a living person. Further, involvenet of many people from this list in espionage was supported by multiple reliable sources (see WP articles about them). So that could be included even in their biographies. Second, there are no problems with WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS that would justify deletion of the article. Some of the people on the list are supported by provided sources; others are supported by references provided in WP articles about them. If some specific information is not properly sourced, this should be discussed, marked as [citation needed] and perhaps deleted if no sources provided. There is no way to justify the deletion of the entire article. I disagree with Piotr that such people are difficult to categorize. This is affiliation with spy agencies, not "conservatives" and "liberals". See also List of alleged secret agents. Biophys 16:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. But the list must be carefully checked. Why was William Browder included?Biophys 17:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • I... see. So potentially libelous statments are OK, as long as they're not in a biography? Wysdom 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further, involvenet of many people from this list in espionage was supported by multiple reliable sources (see WP articles about them).

    • Many of the people on this list. Thereing lies the problem. There should be multiple, reliable sources for ALL the people on this list. And without the list being cited (so editors can check to make sure this is true), we only have your and others word for it. Wysdom 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So that could be included even in their biographies.

    • Wait... I thought you said there were no 'biographies' here, and therefore no BLP issues? Wysdom 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second, there are no problems with WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:RS that would justify deletion of the article.

    • ANY problem with original research, reliable sources, and verifiabilty justifies deletion--IF said problem cannot or will not be corrected, as seems to be the case here, since I've only asked that these facts be cited and no one seems willing to do so. Wysdom 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the people on the list are supported by provided sources; others are supported by references provided in WP articles about them.

    • Again, some. What about the people who have no articles about them? I counted 17 names that are red Wikilinks. Wysdom 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If some specific information is not properly sourced, this should be discussed, marked as [citation needed] and perhaps deleted if no sources provided.

    • Yes. Yes, and yes. The fact that NONE of the names are properly sourced (i.e., there is no citation beside them) is the ENTIRE problem. I'll happily go into the article and put [citation needed] next to each and every name... but I doubt it will help. Wysdom 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to justify the deletion of the entire article.

    • Yes, there is: my justification is that I've suggested the page be TEMPORARILY blanked and names be added back as they're verifiably sourced and cited. I don't find this unreasonable. No one seems to be willing to accept this compromise--so I've voted for deletion. Even the POSSIBILITY of libel is too serious toy around with. Wysdom 21:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Piotr that such people are difficult to categorize. This is affiliation with spy agencies, not "conservatives" and "liberals". See also List of alleged secret agents. Biophys 16:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. But the list must be carefully checked. Why was William Browder included?Biophys 17:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A compromise solution might be to include this list to Venona project article, although that would be less covenient for reader.Biophys 17:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I fully agree the list must be thoroughly checked and revamped, as warranted. But sorry, I could not find the William Browder link (that would clearly not belong in this list); all I can see is Earl Browder. Any misgivings about that? Turgidson 18:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed him from the list. Please check. This man was Putin's supporter but hardly old time spy. Biophys 18:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good catch! Let's discuss on the talk page if there are other links that need to be checked, and removed if necessary. Turgidson 18:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- It's not original research; and it cannot be such if you can find it in the Venona. Even the sincere communists should want the facts to remain out there. There's no excuse for covering up history. -- Randy2063 18:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's really appalling to me that people keep falling back on "covering up history" and other such arguements--no one wants to do that. The only thing I've asked is that those parties interested in retaining the list do the work that the original author did not--cite the facts to the references. In that way, we know that someone, somewhere, DID list these people--whether it was in the Venona papers themselves or in the books written about said papers. I don't care who said it, as long as it's verifiable and cited.
That this list was compiled without being referenced (PLEASE read WP:CITE) is bad; to leave it that way would be worse. I have proposed that FOR NOW, the pages be blanked while those interested completed the research and verify the fact the original editor did not. As the facts are verified with citations, they can be added back to the page. Why is that so unreasonable? Wysdom 21:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to look at a comment I left above, or look again at the article, you'll see that I did just that -- I provided a link to a detailed list, with references and all, coming from the web site of John Earl Haynes, an American historian who is a specialist in 20th century political history in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress, and coauthor of the book on which the list we're debating is based. Here is the link, yet again: "Cover Name, Cryptonym, CPUSA Party Name, Pseudonym, and Real Name Index. A Research Historian’s Working Reference". I hope this helps. Turgidson 21:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Turgid, thanks for the list. Have you read it yet? It's interesting. I haven't read it entirely, but I decided to check it--just for the names that are red Wikilinks in the article, since I figure those are least likely to HAVE references. Here's what I found:
  • Elliot Goldberg, engineer for an oil equipment company in New York -- Appears on "our" list, not in the reference you provided.
  • William Henwood, Standard Oil of California -- Ditto.
  • Leo Levanas -- This name appears on both lists, but there is nothing mentioning Shell Oil--where did THAT info come from?
  • Rose Olsen -- both lists... however, "our" list fails to mention that this is a PSEUDONYM/cover name... not to be identified with anyone's "real" identity. That's just effin' irresponsible.
  • Paul Pinsky -- Does not appear in the reference you provided.
  • Alfred Kaufman Stern -- There is an Alfred K. Stern in your reference. Not Kauffman. Neither is there anything identifying him with the "Popular Front".
I think Randy2063 is right--it can't be OR if you can find it in Venona. The question then becomes--how much of it CAN you actually find in Venona?
First of all, please make an effort to keep a modicum of decorum. You may address me as Turgidson, not "Hey, Turgid", Okay? Second, the list is what it is, I didn't create it, but I'm willing to work to improve it. Third, I do not intend to get into an extended discussion about the article on this AfD page, beyond what I had to say -- this is not the right format for it, and besides, all the red herring and straw man accusations bandied about above are getting tiresome. I simply do not appreciate the tone of some of these comments, Okay? As for the redlinks on the list -- feel free to delete them, I don't much care for them either. But I do not see how that affects anything of substance as regards the list under discussion, which is made mostly of bluelinks, is well-referenced, plays a useful role, and conforms to WP policies. Have a nice day. Turgidson 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • blink blink* I'm not sure what's so indecorous about the above, unless you're refering to the use of "effin' irresponsible" in my describing one of the names included--I can see that. Not that it matters, but it was far and away more decorous than what I said out loud, here at home. Anyways, I apologise for offending you with the foreshortening of your username. That wasn't intended.
Once again, I don't think anything that doesn't have citations, especially when it's so controversial, is "well referenced". Well researched is another matter--it might be that--but there's a big difference.
As for tone, I'm sorry? I was criticizing the research, mostly, not you. I was probably a little snarky with the "Have you read it, it's interesting" comment--but I was also a little annoyed at your "If you look... you'll see I did just that." Did just what? I appreciate the reference material, truly, but it's not as though that solves the inconsistencies, does the research, or cites the article. Someone else is going to have to do that, probably me, if this article is voted to remain. Best wishes, Wysdom 23:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article presents itself, from its TITLE, as being a list from the Venona documents. But it's not. SOME of it is from Venona. Some of it is clearly conjecture. AGAIN, I strongly urge that this information be REMOVED and added back as it can be verifiably sourced. Wysdom 22:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turgidson I must ask you to stop removing legitimate tags from the article in question. No one can argue that the article needs to be checked against its sources--the {{NotVerified}} tag applies. It's not slanderous or a caution not to READ the article, it's not a page balnking or vandalism--it's simply a caution to the reader that these assertions may not be accurate. As editors, we have a responsibility to the people who come here for information. Secondly, while you may feel that "BLP dispute" does not apply because this list isn't a biography--fine, I disagree, and strongly, but rather than engage in an edit war with you, I'll compromise on that one. The "Not verified" tag goes back on, though, and there it must remain until this article is either properly cited entirely, or deleted. Wysdom 23:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wysdom, I think this is really remarkable that you as AfD nominator can not wait until the end of AfD discussion and are making these changes to prove your point. Could you please justify your every change at the talk page prior to doing it? I checked some of your (*) markings using Andrew and Mitrokhin book. This is a relaibale secondary source, and it claims these people were indeed Soviet agents. So, your changes are questionable at best. Could you wait please untill the end of AfD discussion?Biophys 01:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biophys I apologise for trying to improve the list and save it from deletion. I'm beginning to feel strongly that I was wrong to do so. Here's the thing: this is a list (see the title of the article) of people who appear in the Venona papers. NOT people who are suspected to have appeared, people who were spies, or anything else. I just put a LOT of good faith work into cross-referencing, updating, and citing that list so I could change my vote, because I agree that good, verifiable information is valuable... to have them reverted wholesale by you upsets me more than I can say.
I am going to revert your reversion and continue working. If you can add a citation to anything I change, please--change it back. But ONLY if it is somehow an omission from Haynes' exhaustive (updated to Feb 2007) list of people who DO appear in the Venona documents.
By the way--I didn't do the (*) markings. Check the version history. They were there when I discovered this article. The changes I have been making are ONLY to remove names that do NOT appear in the Venona documents, correct misidentifications of people who have the same name as those who DO appear (See Samuel Bloomfield--there's a big difference between the manager of a bookshop and someone from the Office of Strategic Services), or note clearly identifications that were made by the government v. inferred identifications by the researchers, later. Wysdom 01:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you, but you just deleted names of people who were claimed to be in the Venona list by certain sources. Deletion of disputed information without discussion is certainly violation of WP rules, and you are making a lot of such deletions.Biophys 03:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biophys, re-read what you just wrote. I don't mean that insultingly, but it's important--people /claimed/ to be in Venona. /By certain sources/. Okay, my solution to that is: find where they're claimed to be and add the information back with a reliable source cited. I don't think I'm asking for the world here.
When dealing with research that was cited this poorly, one has to go back to basics. That, in this case, is the Source. Therefore, if a name does not appear de facto in the Venona documents, out it comes. If you know these names that are being removed should be on the list, then it should be a simple matter for you to find the corroborating info, right? Please do so.
Many thanks, Wysdom 06:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The entire discussion makes no sense. This is a list of persons presumed to have spied for the Soviet Union. Most of the discussions assumed that this accuses these persons of a crime. Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. Maybe some Americans consider spying for the Soviet Union a crime. Probably many communists would consider it an act of bravery by which these people were acting according to their beliefs. It is not up to Wikipedia to say who is right, every reader should be able to draw his own conclusions. Many of the discussions are based on the personal views of those participating in the discussion, which is wrong. I also have a personal oppinion on what is right or wrong. But that has nothing to do with the decision to keep or delete the list. There are many controversies regarding actions of celebrities. Many germans, who were not National-Socialists, considered Marlene Dietrich's attitude during WWII as a form of treason - many americans would consider it brave. Jane Fonda's visit to Hanoi was hailed by peace activitst, while others considered it an insult to the american soldiers who were risking their lives. And the list could go on. Wikipedia should present the facts without either glorifying or condemning them. The article we are discussing does not and should not say if it considers spying for the Soviet Union the right or the wrong action. It simply presents a list.

Besides, deleting the list has no practical consequence. Most of the persons on the list have their own article and these state their involvement in the espionage. If we delete the list the articles are still there.

We should keep Wikipedia neutral, state the facts and not try to make any moral judgements. 01:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia should state the facts, which includes full and accurate citations and details. If those are not provided, the article should be deleted. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Per violations of WP:RS, and ESPECIALLY WP:BLP. Allegations and rumors are not the source of the encyclopedia article. Vlad fedorov 03:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - and who might some of these living people be? Hiss? Harry Hopkins? The Rosenbergs? Biruitorul 13:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most. :-) There's an opinion that will be fun for the closing admin! :-) What I mean by that is that this is mostly a source document, which would be fine for Wikisource, but not for Wikipedia. Most of the names here don't have articles of their own, or, rather, do, but shouldn't. Just as a random example, Demetrius Dvoichenko-Markov - reading that article says he is notable for ... appearing on the Venona list. He is referred to ... on the Venona list. All that we know about him is that ... he appeared on the Venona list. :-P. George Vuchinich same thing. They're almost all like that. Delete most of the entries that only read like that. Delete the red links. Then see what is left, and if it's just the Rosenbergs and Alger Hiss, delete the article. If there really are people who have articles otherwise, are actually covered, in depth, in multiple non-trivial independent reliable sources, then keep the list. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Instead of deleting articles, I think it's much better to go one by one, and see whether info and citations can be added--I've been doing just that. As for the first case yo mentioned, I think he's the same as this guy I quoted in this edit a while ago. I added a couple of scholarly works to the article, and modified a category for the time being. The article clearly needs more work, but simply deleting it is not the best way to go, I submit. Turgidson 21:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+Delete; the majority of entries are cited to a single right-wing historian, and many names don't even appear in the transcripts at all but are "inferred by researchers" (this is according to the article itself). I don't see how this article can possibly be consistent with WP:BLP, and even if most of the subjects are dead, there's still WP:V and WP:RS to deal with. If the article is kept, all "inferred" entries should be removed and there should also be consideration of removing entries that are sourced only to the Haynes book and nowhere else. *** Crotalus *** 00:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Americans_in_the_Venona_papers&oldid=1137990821"