In [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadia Morris Osipovich]], some users are arguing that BIographies of Living Persons issues do not apply since they have looked her up in the US' Social Security Death Index and found that she died in 1992.
I have a few concerns about this:
1) Finding that she died in 1992 involved discovering a 'Nadia M. Osipovich' of the correct approximate age died in Oregon in 1992. Oregon is the recorded state of residence of this person in the 1940s. Is it enough to simply match name, approximate age, and state of residence in death records to prove someone is dead for BLP concerns?
2) Are such lookups in SSDI legitimate sourcing for articles, or are they original research? I incline towards the latter, since there is a leap between getting a name and making the decision that it is the same person that feels like more of one than we should be making without support from a source.
-Matt
Matthew Brown wrote:
- ...
Is it enough to simply match name, approximate age, and state of residence in death records to prove someone is dead for BLP concerns?
- Are such lookups in SSDI legitimate sourcing for articles, or are
they original research?
-Matt
Under special circumstances (highly unusual names, extremely advanced ages, very small states) the information may be presumed correct. Under normal circumstances it's impossible to be sure that one has the right entry. My opinion is that the guideline should be to exclude raw primary source material like the SSDI but that editors could plead a special case, as with any guideline.
-Will Beback
Will Beback wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
- ...
Is it enough to simply match name, approximate age, and state of residence in death records to prove someone is dead for BLP concerns?
- Are such lookups in SSDI legitimate sourcing for articles, or are
they original research?
Under special circumstances (highly unusual names, extremely advanced ages, very small states) the information may be presumed correct. Under normal circumstances it's impossible to be sure that one has the right entry. My opinion is that the guideline should be to exclude raw primary source material like the SSDI but that editors could plead a special case, as with any guideline.
And my opinion is that the guideline should say the same thing as common sense, without any mention of red herrings like "raw primary sources": if the source, of whatever kind, clearly says something (and is otherwise regarded as reliable), go ahead and use it -- but don't go leaping into inferences that might be wrong.
Deciding when something is clear and when it isn't must be made on a case by case basis, using common sense. But then, this is a decision one must always make, when deciding whether a particular source is really talking about the same thing as the article you'd like to cite it in. The issue is by no means limited to names (though they're a common source of confusion), nor to databases or even primary sources in general.
Will Beback wrote:
Matthew Brown wrote:
Is it enough to simply match name, approximate age, and state of residence in death records to prove someone is dead for BLP concerns?
- Are such lookups in SSDI legitimate sourcing for articles, or are
they original research?
Under special circumstances (highly unusual names, extremely advanced ages, very small states) the information may be presumed correct. Under normal circumstances it's impossible to be sure that one has the right entry. My opinion is that the guideline should be to exclude raw primary source material like the SSDI but that editors could plead a special case, as with any guideline.
Better still: Use common sense, and avoid yet another stupid rule that some idiot can take literally.
Ec
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
- Are such lookups in SSDI legitimate sourcing for articles, or are
they original research? I incline towards the latter, since there is a leap between getting a name and making the decision that it is the same person that feels like more of one than we should be making without support from a source.
Are such lookups sourcing for articles at all?
If the research that shows that someone is dead is used to determine whether they are subject to BLP, rather than being used to put a statement in the article claiming that the person is dead, it's no different from a Google test or any other sort of meta-test that is used to decide what goes in an article.
The Google test is original research if you put in the article a line "this person is well-known, because I checked Google", but it's not original research if you use the Google test to help determine the notability of the subject when creating an article.
On the other hand, the concept of original research is so stretched that I'm sure someone could find an excuse somewhere for calling this original research anyway.
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
- Are such lookups in SSDI legitimate sourcing for articles, or are
they original research? I incline towards the latter, since there is a leap between getting a name and making the decision that it is the same person that feels like more of one than we should be making without support from a source.
Are such lookups sourcing for articles at all?
If the research that shows that someone is dead is used to determine whether they are subject to BLP, rather than being used to put a statement in the article claiming that the person is dead, it's no different from a Google test or any other sort of meta-test that is used to decide what goes in an article.
The Google test is original research if you put in the article a line "this person is well-known, because I checked Google", but it's not original research if you use the Google test to help determine the notability of the subject when creating an article.
On the other hand, the concept of original research is so stretched that I'm sure someone could find an excuse somewhere for calling this original research anyway.
As long as it is clear that the SSDI refers to the person being considered, I see absolutely no reason to reject SSDI as a proper source for information about the death of a person, and any other information contained there4in.
It's certainly different from a Google test because it is information from an official source. Calling it original research is a tribute to the obsessive POV pushers that have rallied around that concept.
Ec
On 4/30/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
- Are such lookups in SSDI legitimate sourcing for articles, or are
they original research? I incline towards the latter, since there is a leap between getting a name and making the decision that it is the same person that feels like more of one than we should be making without support from a source.
I would have thought that it is original research. The SSDI is by definition a primary source; the fact that it happens to be fairly easily available does not make it a 'published' source. Identifying someone in the index by reference to their name and other known facts (eg residence and birth date) is going into the primary sources to do your own research.
Put it like this - if someone in there is notable, then their death would have been noticed (from the SSDI at the very least) by some proper secondary source.
I can't agree with this. The other day, I created a biography article for an individual whose full name (including MI), date and place of death, and age at death I had. I used the SSDI to obtain the date of birth rather than leave a blank in the article, as I couldn't find it elsewhere. No rational policy would preclude using the records for something like this.
Newyorkbrad
On 4/30/07, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
On 4/30/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
- Are such lookups in SSDI legitimate sourcing for articles, or are
they original research? I incline towards the latter, since there is a leap between getting a name and making the decision that it is the same person that feels like more of one than we should be making without support from a source.
I would have thought that it is original research. The SSDI is by definition a primary source; the fact that it happens to be fairly easily available does not make it a 'published' source. Identifying someone in the index by reference to their name and other known facts (eg residence and birth date) is going into the primary sources to do your own research.
Put it like this - if someone in there is notable, then their death would have been noticed (from the SSDI at the very least) by some proper secondary source.
-- Sam Blacketer London E15
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 4/30/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
I can't agree with this. The other day, I created a biography article for an individual whose full name (including MI), date and place of death, and age at death I had. I used the SSDI to obtain the date of birth rather than leave a blank in the article, as I couldn't find it elsewhere. No rational policy would preclude using the records for something like this.
Newyorkbrad
I would say it depends on the individual case; one-size-fits-all policies won't work here. If we have most of the blanks filled, and can confidently say that we're talking about the same individual, then there's no reason not to rely on things like the SSDI where no other source can be found. If there's so little information available that we can't confidently say the SSDI is referring to the same person as the subject of the article, then it's original research.
Johnleemk
John Lee wrote:
On 4/30/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
I can't agree with this. The other day, I created a biography article for an individual whose full name (including MI), date and place of death, and age at death I had. I used the SSDI to obtain the date of birth rather than leave a blank in the article, as I couldn't find it elsewhere. No rational policy would preclude using the records for something like this.
I would say it depends on the individual case; one-size-fits-all policies won't work here. If we have most of the blanks filled, and can confidently say that we're talking about the same individual, then there's no reason not to rely on things like the SSDI where no other source can be found. If there's so little information available that we can't confidently say the SSDI is referring to the same person as the subject of the article, then it's original research.
That's a reasonable limitation which makes that information less reliable when we are dealing with a very common name. It all boils down to the ability to make sound judgements about information.
Ec
On 30/04/07, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkbrad@gmail.com wrote:
I can't agree with this. The other day, I created a biography article for an individual whose full name (including MI), date and place of death, and age at death I had. I used the SSDI to obtain the date of birth rather than leave a blank in the article, as I couldn't find it elsewhere. No rational policy would preclude using the records for something like this.
No, this is process worship in the pursuit of a ridiculous result. "Oh, we know the right answer, but we're going to pretend we don't so we can delete the article knowing it's the wrong thing to do."
- d.
On 4/30/07, Sam Blacketer sam.blacketer@googlemail.com wrote:
On 4/30/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
- Are such lookups in SSDI legitimate sourcing for articles, or are
they original research? I incline towards the latter, since there is a leap between getting a name and making the decision that it is the same person that feels like more of one than we should be making without support from a source.
I would have thought that it is original research. The SSDI is by definition a primary source; the fact that it happens to be fairly easily available does not make it a 'published' source.
FWIW, and as much as I disagree with it, [[WP:OR]] specifically states that using primary sources is perfectly fine. It is the creation of primary sources that is barred. As for what "published" means, I think it means put into a fixed form and distributed to the public. The SSDI qualifies, though I suppose you could argue it's not fixed unless you're using the version distributed by CD.
Put it like this - if someone in there is notable, then their death would have been noticed (from the SSDI at the very least) by some proper secondary source.
The question of whether or not the SSDI creates notability where it otherwise doesn't exist is a completely different one.
But I'd also like to point out that the SSDI is useless without some other published information on the person. A name alone is probably not enough to be confident that we have correctly identified the person in the SSDI.
Anthony
Sam Blacketer wrote:
On 4/30/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
- Are such lookups in SSDI legitimate sourcing for articles, or are
they original research? I incline towards the latter, since there is a leap between getting a name and making the decision that it is the same person that feels like more of one than we should be making without support from a source.
I would have thought that it is original research. The SSDI is by definition a primary source; the fact that it happens to be fairly easily available does not make it a 'published' source. Identifying someone in the index by reference to their name and other known facts (eg residence and birth date) is going into the primary sources to do your own research.
It is available on line as well as in CDs. How is that not "published"?
Put it like this - if someone in there is notable, then their death would have been noticed (from the SSDI at the very least) by some proper secondary source.
Not necessarily. I'm sure that there would be no difficulty in finding notable people who lived on 20 years or more after what made them notable, but whose death was totally ignored.
Ec
On 4/30/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
- Finding that she died in 1992 involved discovering a 'Nadia M.
Osipovich' of the correct approximate age died in Oregon in 1992. Oregon is the recorded state of residence of this person in the 1940s.
It's probably the same person and she's probably dead. This list exists, in part, to prevent identity fraud (impersonating a dead person).
Is it enough to simply match name, approximate age, and state of residence in death records to prove someone is dead for BLP concerns?
For this person, probably. In general, no. There are probably thousands of dead Matthew Browns buried in your area.
But unless there is some unwritten corollary to BLP that says editors can "write whatever [they] want about dead people", content standards will not be dropping two octaves when a person dies (or when Wikipedia wakes up and realizes a person was actually dead before the article started).
For wiki-census purposes, we do have a [[Category:Possibly living people]] too.
Just source everything you write, especially if you believe in reincarnation.
Charlotte
On 4/30/07, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/30/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
- Finding that she died in 1992 involved discovering a 'Nadia M.
Osipovich' of the correct approximate age died in Oregon in 1992. Oregon is the recorded state of residence of this person in the 1940s.
It's probably the same person and she's probably dead. This list exists, in part, to prevent identity fraud (impersonating a dead person).
Is it enough to simply match name, approximate age, and state of residence in death records to prove someone is dead for BLP concerns?
For this person, probably. In general, no. There are probably thousands of dead Matthew Browns buried in your area.
Based on the two listed sources, I don't think we can conclude that it's the same person. The first source has the person's name, and "Asset of the San Francisco KGB. Naturalized American citizen living in Portland, Oregon. Cover name Watchdog." The "second" "source" just has the name and cover name. Both sources are secondary based on the same primary source - the Venona project, which I'd say is somewhat dubious in and of itself. As far as I'm concerned I don't have any hard evidence the person ever even existed.
So basically you have a name. You can get extrapolate a date of birth accurate to a few decades, and you know from the source that they once lived in Oregon, which matches the fact that at one point they got a social security number issued by the state of Oregon. But really you just have a name.
It's not a particularly common name, but I don't think it's enough. I'm also not sure what the purpose of this exercise is. Right now this "biography" is really about the Vernona project, not about a person.
Anthony
The real point should be if you have to rely on the Social Security Death Index to tell you if someone is even alive or dead, you might want to consider that you don't have enough reliable sources for an article on that person. This article, and most of the other Venona-cruft, should be deleted as there is almost no historical context or solid biographical info for any of them, they are just noting a mention in decryption XY4J7 and leaving it at that. Never mind the fact that these Venona articles (this one was created by our old friend Nobs) are the work of a cadre determined to use Wikipedia to refight the Cold War. I spent several unpleasant months fighting an attempt by one of them to use a passing mention in a Venona decrypt to rewrite [[Pablo Neruda]] to flatly state he was a KGB operative.
On 5/1/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
The real point should be if you have to rely on the Social Security Death Index to tell you if someone is even alive or dead, you might want to consider that you don't have enough reliable sources for an article on that person.
I could imagine lots of situations where a person's life was closely followed during a certain period, and then the person dropped into obscurity, to the point where no one in the media even noticed his/her death.
However, I agree that this person isn't one of them.
This article, and most of the other Venona-cruft, should be deleted as there is almost no historical context or solid biographical info for any of them, they are just noting a mention in decryption XY4J7 and leaving it at that.
I agree emphatically with this, though I personally wouldn't have a problem with a merge and redirect to [[List of Americans in the Venona papers]].
Anthony
On 5/1/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/1/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
The real point should be if you have to rely on the Social Security Death Index to tell you if someone is even alive or dead, you might want to consider that you don't have enough reliable sources for an article on that person.
I could imagine lots of situations where a person's life was closely followed during a certain period, and then the person dropped into obscurity, to the point where no one in the media even noticed his/her death.
True, there shouldn't be a rule prohibiting articles about people whose death can't be verified for this very reason. But it is a strong factor when considering whether or not to have an article at all. There are people who fall into obscurity, then there are people, like the subject of the article in question, who have dwelt in obscurity their entire life.
This article, and most of the other Venona-cruft, should be deleted as there is almost no historical context or solid biographical info for any of them, they are just noting a mention in decryption XY4J7 and leaving it at that.
I agree emphatically with this, though I personally wouldn't have a problem with a merge and redirect to [[List of Americans in the Venona papers]].
Absolutely, a redirect would be fine for people on the list.
I am not in the least interested in refighting the cold war, and it is possible that I may have very little in common politically with those who are. I am however interested in understanding it., as part of a general interest in contemporary history. We should cover it objectively, rather than hide from it. Espionage both by the Soviets and others is of major significance in this history, and we should cover to the extent that reliable secondary sources are available.
The Verona transcripts are part of this history, both in their own right in giving a unique window into soviet espionage, and also in how they have been used for domestic political purposes. (They further shed light on the judicial processes of the time, which were influenced by the need to conceal the existence of the transcripts)
The identification of some individuals is quite firm; of others less firm. Many of the people in question are public figures quite apart from these transcripts, though in some instances the transcripts had a major role in their career. The reliability of the transcripts should be discussed in the articles--there are certainly sufficient sources to do so. (The general articles on them, and the reliability of specific individual identifications in the individual biographical articles.) We won't reach a conclusion there, but we do not have to and indeed are not supposed to: WP reports accurately the events as described by others, and opinion on them, as given by others. The readers will judge. We are not supposed to guide or prejudice their judgment.
I do not accept any arguments that obviously significant events or people should not be discussed because they weren't notable in the WP sense, when there are sources. This is censorship by evasion. Redirects for controversial people are evasion of our responsibility for NPOV if an article can be written. (I accept that in some cases there may be so little known that an article may not be possible.)
Remember, our source is not the transcripts, but the books and articles on the transcripts. They are as reliable as any other political or historical books or articles on a partisan matter: potentially dubious enough to require that all views must be represented.
On some specific question raised, I think it is folly to construct general rules based on the details of a specific instance like this. We should keep to the general rules, and how to apply them is always a matter subject to discussion.
None of what I've written is intended as personal with respect to any of those discussing the matter.
David Goodman DGG David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
On 5/1/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I do not accept any arguments that obviously significant events or people should not be discussed because they weren't notable in the WP sense, when there are sources. This is censorship by evasion.
What nonsense. No one is proposing "censorship", just common sense editorial judgement. Your "sources" for this travesty of an article that we are discussing provide nothing but this woman's name, residence, and her codename ("Watchdog"). You can't even tell me when if she is alive or dead, much less what she is supposed to have done as Special Agent Watchdog of the KGB. That is sufficent to be mentioned in [[List of Americans in the Venona papers]], but hardly sufficient for an article. There is no coverup proposed here, and there couldn't be one since you have barely anything to cover up! When you have some actual information, then you can write an article.
I apologize if I was misunderstood. i was discussing general principles, as I think were some of the others. And I thought i said myself that in some cases there would not be enough information to have an article. If there's a question on the N of a particular article, then AfD is the place to discuss it.-- David G
On 5/1/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/1/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I do not accept any arguments that obviously significant events or people should not be discussed because they weren't notable in the WP sense, when there are sources. This is censorship by evasion.
What nonsense. No one is proposing "censorship", just common sense editorial judgement. Your "sources" for this travesty of an article that we are discussing provide nothing but this woman's name, residence, and her codename ("Watchdog"). You can't even tell me when if she is alive or dead, much less what she is supposed to have done as Special Agent Watchdog of the KGB. That is sufficent to be mentioned in [[List of Americans in the Venona papers]], but hardly sufficient for an article. There is no coverup proposed here, and there couldn't be one since you have barely anything to cover up! When you have some actual information, then you can write an article.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/1/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
I apologize if I was misunderstood. i was discussing general principles, as I think were some of the others. And I thought i said myself that in some cases there would not be enough information to have an article. If there's a question on the N of a particular article, then AfD is the place to discuss it.-- David G
Sorry I did not realize that your were not necessarily applying the principles you were discussing to the specific article in question. It's a no-brainer that Venona is an important historical topic of discussion, I really don't think anyone would dispute that fact or try to "cover it up", so in terms of general principles, there isn't anyone to argue with on that point, I would imagine. That very lack of argument is why I assumed you were applying those principles to this specific article and thus accusing people of wanting to cover up the vital information about Agent Watchdog. You did vote "keep" on that particular AfD, and I'm wondering why the fact that "She is one of those mentioned in this and the other books.", as you wrote in the AfD, is sufficent to justify this specific article. Could you apply the general principles you discuss to this particular case? Why is this not a case in which "there would not be enough information to have an article."?
Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org writes:
On 5/1/07, Rob gamaliel8@gmail.com wrote:
The real point should be if you have to rely on the Social
Security
Death Index to tell you if someone is even alive or dead, you
might
want to consider that you don't have enough reliable sources
for an
article on that person.
I could imagine lots of situations where a person's life was
closely
followed during a certain period, and then the person dropped
into
obscurity, to the point where no one in the media even noticed
his/her
death.
....
Anthony
Absolutely. I think we've all worked on at least one such article; purely off the top of my head I can remember [[Guillermo Hernández-Cartaya]]. I wanted to use the DOJ's biographical information to put his death sometime in the '90s, but that didn't seem kosher at the time.
On 02/05/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Absolutely. I think we've all worked on at least one such article; purely off the top of my head I can remember [[Guillermo Hernández-Cartaya]]. I wanted to use the DOJ's biographical information to put his death sometime in the '90s, but that didn't seem kosher at the time.
For historical figures, we usually don't see a problem with "1765 - c.1830" and a note in the body of the text explaining that whilst it isn't known when they died, X source notes them as still living in this year but they were dead before Y source was published in that year.
(Yeah, original research, novel synthesis, I know. Sort of maybe; the example I recall is an elderly officer who I concluded died before 1820 because otherwise he'd have been in a comprehensive biographical work published that year. Is it inference to take "I have listed every living..." to conclude that someone listed is no longer living? But I digress)
Somehow it seems a little more dubious to do this for someone who may or may not be dead. I think we need to weigh the conflicting issues of "does it matter?" vs. "how stupid are we going to look if they write and complain?"
As for someone arguing that "we think they're dead therefore BLP rules don't apply", hit them with a damn big stick, that's just being silly.
On 5/2/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
(Yeah, original research, novel synthesis, I know. Sort of maybe; the
If so, OR is shooting us in the foot. The important thing is that we document how we reached that conclusion so others can decide if they respect it or not. Obviously we don't want to go overboard, but this case is not a stretch.
As for someone arguing that "we think they're dead therefore BLP rules don't apply", hit them with a damn big stick, that's just being silly.
Huh? How does "biography of living persons" apply to dead people?
Steve
On 5/2/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/2/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
As for someone arguing that "we think they're dead therefore BLP rules don't apply", hit them with a damn big stick, that's just being silly.
Huh? How does "biography of living persons" apply to dead people?
I believe there was context mentioning cases where the person may or may not be dead. "We think they're dead" rather than "They are definitely dead".
But in any case, [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]] for the most part doesn't actually introduce new rules. It just says that we need to enforce existing rules on verifiability, original research, and neutral point of view extremely strictly (especially in that we don't trust to eventualism on those articles). Saying we should *consciously* relax those rules on a particular article just because the person happens to have (possibly) died is indeed somewhat silly.
-- Jonel
On 5/3/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
eventualism on those articles). Saying we should *consciously* relax those rules on a particular article just because the person happens to have (possibly) died is indeed somewhat silly.
By the same token, being excessively pedantic about checking for sources before impugning a dead person's name is silly.
I think we agree either way.
Steve
On 02/05/07, Nick Wilkins nlwilkins@gmail.com wrote:
But in any case, [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons]] for the most part doesn't actually introduce new rules. It just says that we need to enforce existing rules on verifiability, original research, and neutral point of view extremely strictly (especially in that we don't trust to eventualism on those articles). Saying we should *consciously* relax those rules on a particular article just because the person happens to have (possibly) died is indeed somewhat silly.
Bingo.
"I think we should conclude they're dead so I can be sloppy" is never a good argument.
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/2/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
(Yeah, original research, novel synthesis, I know. Sort of maybe; the
If so, OR is shooting us in the foot. The important thing is that we document how we reached that conclusion so others can decide if they respect it or not. Obviously we don't want to go overboard, but this case is not a stretch.
As for someone arguing that "we think they're dead therefore BLP rules don't apply", hit them with a damn big stick, that's just being silly.
Huh? How does "biography of living persons" apply to dead people?
If someone was last mentioned in a notable publication in 1820, and going to church records to establish when he died a little later would be an obvious breach of OR, we must assume that the BLP rules continue to apply 187 years later. :-)
Ec
On 02/05/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Somehow it seems a little more dubious to do this for someone who may or may not be dead. I think we need to weigh the conflicting issues of "does it matter?" vs. "how stupid are we going to look if they write and complain?"
Just think of the excellent press we'll get! %-D
As for someone arguing that "we think they're dead therefore BLP rules don't apply", hit them with a damn big stick, that's just being silly.
Particularly as, fundamentally, the BLP rules are just a particularly harsh application of the fundamental content rules of Wikipedia: neutrality, verifiability, no original research.
- d.
On 01/05/07, Anthony wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
This article, and most of the other Venona-cruft, should be deleted as there is almost no historical context or solid biographical info for any of them, they are just noting a mention in decryption XY4J7 and leaving it at that.
I agree emphatically with this, though I personally wouldn't have a problem with a merge and redirect to [[List of Americans in the Venona papers]].
Concur. There's been a lot of very sloppy editorial practices going on wrt those articles, and I'm really not comfortable with having them. People of no importance who have been "named" as a spy in some document, but were never caught, never charged, never convicted - and, for all we know, never *did* anything? What possible *use* is that to our readers? What historical significance do these people have?
There are books of indices to these decryptions. I don't see any point in duplicating them - and there just isn't the information to do anything else, nor is there ever going to be - but I can see the argument for it; I do contend, though, that it's futile to pretend an index entry leads to independent encyclopedic significance.
[In the specific case - wow, look at the source document. We don't know what she did, but it apparently involved trying to find a missing pregnant girl in Portland. We don't even know if she did anything illegal, if she even *worked* for the NKVD... just that she had a codename and someone asked her to help with something. Not the stuff of which spy thrillers are made - not even the stuff of which interesting local newspaper stories are made. And then we have the temerity to categorise her as a spy, accused or otherwise!]
On 5/2/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Concur. There's been a lot of very sloppy editorial practices going on wrt those articles, and I'm really not comfortable with having them.
I feel likewise. A bunch of people who have problems with the neutral point of view insist that all this stuff is relevant for an encyclopedia. I think that a list of the nobodies who had tenuous contact with Soviet spy agencies belongs in the source documents or as an appendix in a book on the subject, not as a Wikipedia page.
People of no importance who have been "named" as a spy in some document, but were never caught, never charged, never convicted - and, for all we know, never *did* anything? What possible *use* is that to our readers? What historical significance do these people have?
None, in most cases. I think the point behind these is to inflate the perception of how many Soviet agents were at work in the US in the period indicated. It's like pulling teeth to get these editors to even state which source claims what - probably because there's little substance behind these.
IMO, nobody from the Venona papers should be listed on Wikipedia unless they are independently notable. The thing is that in many cases there is absolutely no information about WHY each person was of interest to Soviet intelligence - whether they were an operative, a contact, someone they were trying to recruit, or merely someone they wanted to watch. The vast majority of these people have no mention except in the Venona archives and in passing mentions in books on the subject. Falls way short of 'multiple non-trivial sources'.
There are books of indices to these decryptions. I don't see any point in duplicating them - and there just isn't the information to do anything else, nor is there ever going to be - but I can see the argument for it; I do contend, though, that it's futile to pretend an index entry leads to independent encyclopedic significance.
Exactly. I think in most cases they should not even appear in list form in the encyclopedia; certainly, they should not without specific sourcing.
[In the specific case - wow, look at the source document. We don't know what she did, but it apparently involved trying to find a missing pregnant girl in Portland. We don't even know if she did anything illegal, if she even *worked* for the NKVD... just that she had a codename and someone asked her to help with something. Not the stuff of which spy thrillers are made - not even the stuff of which interesting local newspaper stories are made. And then we have the temerity to categorise her as a spy, accused or otherwise!]
I note also the POV editors have the duplicity to also claim that being so listed isn't an accusation of everything, but then when you opine that perhaps they should be deleted, then - suddenly it's "They're subversives who fought against the United States, of course they're notable".
-Matt