Hi,
I put "Category:Soviet spies" on Categories for Deletion, but even though most of the people thought a name change was a good idea, since most of them did not vote to Delete, the ruling was to Keep. I objected, but got no response.
-Cberlet
________________________________
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org on behalf of Sam Korn Sent: Mon 11/7/2005 9:34 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Category:Soviet spies
I suggest you bring this up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CFD
I agree that the change needs to be made. Perhaps there can be a second category for confirmed Soviet spies.
Sam
On 11/7/05, Chip Berlet c.berlet@publiceye.org wrote:
Hi,
The Wikipedia entry "Category:Soviet spies" is a magnet for a defamation lawsuit. Many of the people in the list were never indicted, and some denied the charge in public. At least one person is still alive: "Harry Magdoff".
At best, this should be renamed to something like: "Category:Accused Soviet spies" .
I freely confess I have a vested interest in this matter, currently well into the second month of mdiation with Nobs01on a related matter without a single compromise paragraph having been written:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_No...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_No...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_No...
But since this mediation seems to be dragging on for months, I though that I would mention this now, rather than wait for the mediation to hit the year 2006.
Some folks here on this list should consider the possible defmation issue very seriously. I messed up my first attempt to deal with this on Wiki. I meant to suggest a name change or deletion, but misunderstood the process.
I have prevailed after being sued for defamation twice, but it cost tens of thousands of dollars just to get a judge to toss me out of the case.
Cberlet
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Chip --
I'll nominate it for a name change. I think these Soviet spy cases are often too difficult to put into a "confirmed" epistemological category, even with confessions, anyway.
FF
On 11/7/05, Chip Berlet c.berlet@publiceye.org wrote:
Hi,
I put "Category:Soviet spies" on Categories for Deletion, but even though most of the people thought a name change was a good idea, since most of them did not vote to Delete, the ruling was to Keep. I objected, but got no response.
-Cberlet
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org on behalf of Sam Korn Sent: Mon 11/7/2005 9:34 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Category:Soviet spies
I suggest you bring this up on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CFD
I agree that the change needs to be made. Perhaps there can be a second category for confirmed Soviet spies.
Sam
On 11/7/05, Chip Berlet c.berlet@publiceye.org wrote:
Hi,
The Wikipedia entry "Category:Soviet spies" is a magnet for a defamation lawsuit. Many of the people in the list were never indicted, and some denied the charge in public. At least one person is still alive: "Harry Magdoff".
At best, this should be renamed to something like: "Category:Accused Soviet spies" .
I freely confess I have a vested interest in this matter, currently well into the second month of mdiation with Nobs01on a related matter without a single compromise paragraph having been written:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_No...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_No...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Cberlet_and_No...
But since this mediation seems to be dragging on for months, I though that I would mention this now, rather than wait for the mediation to hit the year 2006.
Some folks here on this list should consider the possible defmation issue very seriously. I messed up my first attempt to deal with this on Wiki. I meant to suggest a name change or deletion, but misunderstood the process.
I have prevailed after being sued for defamation twice, but it cost tens of thousands of dollars just to get a judge to toss me out of the case.
Cberlet
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Chip Berlet wrote:
I put "Category:Soviet spies" on Categories for Deletion, but even though most of the people thought a name change was a good idea, since most of them did not vote to Delete, the ruling was to Keep. I objected, but got no response.
It seems strange to me that any category which could be defamatory would be subject to the whims of the voting process. This is not just a question of "Soviet spies". Any category suggesting a criminal activity of any kind should be viewed as POV.
Ec
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Chip Berlet wrote:
I put "Category:Soviet spies" on Categories for Deletion, but even though most of the people thought a name change was a good idea, since most of them did not vote to Delete, the ruling was to Keep. I objected, but got no response.
It seems strange to me that any category which could be defamatory would be subject to the whims of the voting process. This is not just a question of "Soviet spies". Any category suggesting a criminal activity of any kind should be viewed as POV.
Do we have "Category:Convicted rapists"?
- -- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
No, but we do have [[Category:Rapists]]. However the description page for the category says that "This category is for individuals who have been convicted of rape, or those for whom there is little academic doubt as to whether they committed the crime."
If we limited [[Category:Soviet spies]] to people who had been convicted or for cases where there is little academic doubt, it would be a pretty small list. That's part of the reason that the people opposed to renaming the category are opposed to it -- it de-emphasizes the point they want to make (see my last posting) if the category is small.
You couldn't classify Ethel Rosenberg as a "Soviet spy" in this definition -- there is considerable academic doubt whether she participated in espionage. There is no doubt that she was convicted for it*, though -- it is a plain fact.
FF
*Well, technically for "conspiracy to commit espionage", but now we're splitting hairs.
On 11/8/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Chip Berlet wrote:
I put "Category:Soviet spies" on Categories for Deletion, but even though most of the people thought a name change was a good idea, since most of them did not vote to Delete, the ruling was to Keep. I objected, but got no response.
It seems strange to me that any category which could be defamatory would be subject to the whims of the voting process. This is not just a question of "Soviet spies". Any category suggesting a criminal activity of any kind should be viewed as POV.
Do we have "Category:Convicted rapists"?
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQEVAwUBQ3FWZLMAAH8MeUlWAQhFhQf8Dr5LJofeISHVucMnh40NUq7J3G1nKBU+ w9KGWgWop+UaoS8hiLbBjsiFHtK73KHiXsHrhmzOaaAv9gK7NeEElIPcVwGVorpa P8mZ3jxCUamRQdHXYoNaJNmiUSOccjGqa9Q0h6YXASASvphKqZNL4pvQ2m0mIeoh ig6ACKzdvO/G0TQpA8clHhymZOpLP0gPni1my0oksW8d1YqQB7FTriLovW30eMUP Q27/1QQe/ErV2WeDfHDg3S0xVDsJWyh6KavVj/qWTqT+1M6LTRXE4Ewr14VSkFn9 e32u9J9I8VvR+chxsv6sI9Jdku2LtYTJ5wIbOz+AnBPqzK2slbNmIw== =916B -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
We should have a similar categorisation in place for Soviet spies removing the word academic. For example, Kim Philby was not convicted of being a Soviet spy but there is little doubt that he was a spy. He even held a job with the KGB after his defection. There have been accusations against other people such as Sir Roger Hollis, former head of MI5, but these claims have yet to be proven one way or another. If we wanted to put these people into a category, it should be alleged spies. Regards *Keith Old*
On 11/9/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
No, but we do have [[Category:Rapists]]. However the description page for the category says that "This category is for individuals who have been convicted of rape, or those for whom there is little academic doubt as to whether they committed the crime."
If we limited [[Category:Soviet spies]] to people who had been convicted or for cases where there is little academic doubt, it would be a pretty small list. That's part of the reason that the people opposed to renaming the category are opposed to it -- it de-emphasizes the point they want to make (see my last posting) if the category is small.
You couldn't classify Ethel Rosenberg as a "Soviet spy" in this definition -- there is considerable academic doubt whether she participated in espionage. There is no doubt that she was convicted for it*, though -- it is a plain fact.
FF
*Well, technically for "conspiracy to commit espionage", but now we're splitting hairs.
On 11/8/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Chip Berlet wrote:
I put "Category:Soviet spies" on Categories for Deletion, but even though most of the people thought a name change was a good idea,
since
most of them did not vote to Delete, the ruling was to Keep. I objected, but got no response.
It seems strange to me that any category which could be defamatory
would
be subject to the whims of the voting process. This is not just a question of "Soviet spies". Any category suggesting a criminal
activity
of any kind should be viewed as POV.
Do we have "Category:Convicted rapists"?
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQEVAwUBQ3FWZLMAAH8MeUlWAQhFhQf8Dr5LJofeISHVucMnh40NUq7J3G1nKBU+ w9KGWgWop+UaoS8hiLbBjsiFHtK73KHiXsHrhmzOaaAv9gK7NeEElIPcVwGVorpa P8mZ3jxCUamRQdHXYoNaJNmiUSOccjGqa9Q0h6YXASASvphKqZNL4pvQ2m0mIeoh ig6ACKzdvO/G0TQpA8clHhymZOpLP0gPni1my0oksW8d1YqQB7FTriLovW30eMUP Q27/1QQe/ErV2WeDfHDg3S0xVDsJWyh6KavVj/qWTqT+1M6LTRXE4Ewr14VSkFn9 e32u9J9I8VvR+chxsv6sI9Jdku2LtYTJ5wIbOz+AnBPqzK2slbNmIw== =916B -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm happy with having some sort of sub-category for people for whom there is no doubt about their espionage but were never convicted -- such as Theodore Hall. However the blanket category is certainly not that.
I think even the "Alleged" would be too strong in some cases. A former Soviet spy chief published a tell-all a few years back claiming to have recruited Robert Oppenheimer and Enrico Fermi as spies, something for which no evidence has ever been found (and not without both an army of historians and the FBI looking!). Nobody takes the claim very seriously, though it is an "allegation" and not from a non-notable source.
The problem with just saying "little doubt" is *whose* doubt? One can produce an army of quacks to support any POV, of course, but that's not NPOV.
The word "academic" is a bit stodgy, admittedly, but in general what is meant is something like "respectable, established expert community" -- which usually means academic historians in this specific situation. If you can come up with a better way to state it, by all means...
FF
On 11/8/05, Keith Old keithold@gmail.com wrote:
We should have a similar categorisation in place for Soviet spies removing the word academic. For example, Kim Philby was not convicted of being a Soviet spy but there is little doubt that he was a spy. He even held a job with the KGB after his defection. There have been accusations against other people such as Sir Roger Hollis, former head of MI5, but these claims have yet to be proven one way or another. If we wanted to put these people into a category, it should be alleged spies. Regards *Keith Old*
On 11/9/05, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
No, but we do have [[Category:Rapists]]. However the description page for the category says that "This category is for individuals who have been convicted of rape, or those for whom there is little academic doubt as to whether they committed the crime."
If we limited [[Category:Soviet spies]] to people who had been convicted or for cases where there is little academic doubt, it would be a pretty small list. That's part of the reason that the people opposed to renaming the category are opposed to it -- it de-emphasizes the point they want to make (see my last posting) if the category is small.
You couldn't classify Ethel Rosenberg as a "Soviet spy" in this definition -- there is considerable academic doubt whether she participated in espionage. There is no doubt that she was convicted for it*, though -- it is a plain fact.
FF
*Well, technically for "conspiracy to commit espionage", but now we're splitting hairs.
On 11/8/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Chip Berlet wrote:
I put "Category:Soviet spies" on Categories for Deletion, but even though most of the people thought a name change was a good idea,
since
most of them did not vote to Delete, the ruling was to Keep. I objected, but got no response.
It seems strange to me that any category which could be defamatory
would
be subject to the whims of the voting process. This is not just a question of "Soviet spies". Any category suggesting a criminal
activity
of any kind should be viewed as POV.
Do we have "Category:Convicted rapists"?
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iQEVAwUBQ3FWZLMAAH8MeUlWAQhFhQf8Dr5LJofeISHVucMnh40NUq7J3G1nKBU+ w9KGWgWop+UaoS8hiLbBjsiFHtK73KHiXsHrhmzOaaAv9gK7NeEElIPcVwGVorpa P8mZ3jxCUamRQdHXYoNaJNmiUSOccjGqa9Q0h6YXASASvphKqZNL4pvQ2m0mIeoh ig6ACKzdvO/G0TQpA8clHhymZOpLP0gPni1my0oksW8d1YqQB7FTriLovW30eMUP Q27/1QQe/ErV2WeDfHDg3S0xVDsJWyh6KavVj/qWTqT+1M6LTRXE4Ewr14VSkFn9 e32u9J9I8VvR+chxsv6sI9Jdku2LtYTJ5wIbOz+AnBPqzK2slbNmIw== =916B -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Keith Old wrote:
We should have a similar categorisation in place for Soviet spies removing the word academic. For example, Kim Philby was not convicted of being a Soviet spy but there is little doubt that he was a spy. He even held a job with the KGB after his defection. There have been accusations against other people such as Sir Roger Hollis, former head of MI5, but these claims have yet to be proven one way or another. If we wanted to put these people into a category, it should be alleged spies.
The Kim Philby situation clearly allows that there may be other criteria for adding people to the list. Some were able to avoid prosecution by ratting on their colleagues.
Ec
On 09/11/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
It seems strange to me that any category which could be defamatory would be subject to the whims of the voting process. This is not just a question of "Soviet spies". Any category suggesting a criminal activity of any kind should be viewed as POV.
Do we have "Category:Convicted rapists"?
In effect, yes. [[Category:Rapists]] states: "This category is for individuals who have been convicted of rape, or those for whom there is little academic doubt as to whether they committed the crime".
(There's also a [[Statutory rapists]] subcat, which I'm less comfortable with having - it's rarely a defining feature of anyone in the same way as being a convicted rapist is - but also less worried about; the very nature of the term means you have to be convicted!)
"Little academic doubt" covers things like rape-and-murder where someone's been convicted on seventeen counts of first-degree murder; even though they didn't get around to charging him with the rapes, it's not generally seen as a sign of innocence.
For [[Category:Soviet spies]], however, the description is: "This category lists people who are said to have spied for the Soviet Union by some sources. Many are not Soviet citizens. Several denied they were spies, and even more were never indicted."
This is somewhat less stringent, certainly. I mean, there's no shortage of claims that [[Harold Wilson]] was a Soviet spy - should he be in that category? God no - and if there'd been accusations of rape he wouldn't be in [[Category:Rapists]]. But under the wording now, you'd be perfectly justified adding him...
The difference between the scope of the categories can be put this way: you wouldn't be able to add Bill Clinton to the Rapists category, but you would be able to add Wilson to the Soviet spies one. Yet the accusations are only accusations for both...
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Andrew Gray wrote:
(There's also a [[Statutory rapists]] subcat, which I'm less comfortable with having - it's rarely a defining feature of anyone in the same way as being a convicted rapist is - but also less worried about; the very nature of the term means you have to be convicted!)
I'm kind of uncomfortable with this for the same reason, and it applies more generally. In particular, [[Category:Statutory rapists]] sounds more accusatory than [[Category:People convicted of statutory rape]], which, to my ears at least, sounds more neutral and matter-of-fact. Of course in non-controversial situations the plain term is fine ([[Category:Physicists]]), but in potentially controversial categories I'd prefer we word things a bit more carefully.
Consider, for example, this case: -- [[Category:Traitors]] -- [[Category:People convicted of treason]]
I think in almost all cases the 2nd is preferable.
-Mark
On 13/11/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
(There's also a [[Statutory rapists]] subcat, which I'm less comfortable with having - it's rarely a defining feature of anyone in the same way as being a convicted rapist is - but also less worried about; the very nature of the term means you have to be convicted!)
I'm kind of uncomfortable with this for the same reason, and it applies more generally. In particular, [[Category:Statutory rapists]] sounds more accusatory than [[Category:People convicted of statutory rape]], which, to my ears at least, sounds more neutral and matter-of-fact. Of course in non-controversial situations the plain term is fine ([[Category:Physicists]]), but in potentially controversial categories I'd prefer we word things a bit more carefully.
There's a mention on [[Wikipedia:Categorization of people]] of this concept: "For some "sensitive" categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples"
It's a nice idea, but I don't usually see it happening. Hmm hmm.
Digging around, there used to be - but, thank goodness, no longer is - a Category:Pedophiles - [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_July_3]]; there's a [[Category:Child sex offenders]], but it is limited to convicts and seems to be policed.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 11/12/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
I'm kind of uncomfortable with this for the same reason, and it applies more generally. In particular, [[Category:Statutory rapists]] sounds more accusatory than [[Category:People convicted of statutory rape]], which, to my ears at least, sounds more neutral and matter-of-fact. Of course in non-controversial situations the plain term is fine ([[Category:Physicists]]), but in potentially controversial categories I'd prefer we word things a bit more carefully.
Consider, for example, this case: -- [[Category:Traitors]] -- [[Category:People convicted of treason]]
I think in almost all cases the 2nd is preferable.
I agree completely on this. If I were to speculate wildly, my guess is one of the reasons it sounds more neutral is that describing of people completely by crime committed merges the identity of the person and the crime (they become one and the same). In cases where there is considerable doubt or a lack of legal standing behind the accusation that a person committed the crime, we should opt for the least problematic category name.
FF
On 11/8/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
"Attack on Venona sources again". I can't help but note the scent of having stumbled into a pre-existing content war...
On 11/8/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It seems strange to me that any category which could be defamatory would be subject to the whims of the voting process. This is not just a question of "Soviet spies". Any category suggesting a criminal activity of any kind should be viewed as POV.
Well, these are really one and the same issue: the "content war" is not limited to these authors but is an ongoing dialogue about the history of the Cold War and the value of the VENONA decrypts in general, one which has its origins and most of its battles outside of Wikipedia.
VENONA, for those who are not aware and don't feel like reading the entry on it, was a series of intercepted and decrypted Soviet communications during the 1940s and 1950s. They were not released until the 1990s, however.
People who would have sided with the Anti-Communists in the 1950s saw them as a vindication of Anti-Communism and even McCarthyism, and saw them as confirming that a number of people (Alger Hiss, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, etc.) who had had nasty loyalty trials in those days were actually Soviet agents. In this view, the liberals have/had it all wrong in thinking that McCarthyism was a witch hunt or an instance of political persecution.
People who would be inclined to oppose these opinions politically or for other reasons would sympathize with the accused took one of two tacks. One interpreted the data differently: VENONA showed not that McCarthy was right, but that he was wrong; instead of massive insidious spying, they depict a limited and loose network of misc. and somewhat incompetent agents (Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan espoused this point of view in his book _Secrecy: The American Experience_). The other approach was to doubt the sources themselves -- emphasizing that they were less clean-cut than they appeared: on top of multiple levels of "translation", including decryption, translation from Russian, and figuring out who all of the code names were supposed to be, the scattered phrases released are often as sensible as a Nostradamus translation, and to base strong legal and moral statements on such sketchy evidence should be done with caution at best. VENONA in many ways in not an idea source to rely on by itself, and requires much interpretation to make any sense of. So the argument goes.
Anyway.. that's the debate. It's larger than Wikipedia -- it's about the history of Anti-Communism -- who was right and who was wrong in the 1950s, which is a large part of the mythos of American political culture *at the present moment* as well (there are those who compare the current concerns with terrorism with Cold War fears of communist infiltration, as I'm sure most of us have seen).
In the spirit of complete openness, I should probably note that 1. I do some research in this area, and 2. personally I fall somewhere between the Moynihan approach and the skeptical approach -- I think there's evidence that the Soviets did have a number of agents of some sort or another at various times, but that VENONA is a very problematic source for a number of methodological and practical reasons. Of course on Wikipedia I think a NPOV approach should be taken at all times.
Hope that clears up the latent issue here. In any event, I think categories which label people as having committed a crime should be done in a very careful way. Though this is an appeal to the extreme, I would be just as cautious about having a category called [[Child molesters]].
FF
Fastfission wrote:
On 11/8/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
It seems strange to me that any category which could be defamatory would be subject to the whims of the voting process. This is not just a question of "Soviet spies". Any category suggesting a criminal activity of any kind should be viewed as POV.
Well, these are really one and the same issue: the "content war" is not limited to these authors but is an ongoing dialogue about the history of the Cold War and the value of the VENONA decrypts in general, one which has its origins and most of its battles outside of Wikipedia.
VENONA, for those who are not aware and don't feel like reading the entry on it, was a series of intercepted and decrypted Soviet communications during the 1940s and 1950s. They were not released until the 1990s, however.
People who would have sided with the Anti-Communists in the 1950s saw them as a vindication of Anti-Communism and even McCarthyism, and saw them as confirming that a number of people (Alger Hiss, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, etc.) who had had nasty loyalty trials in those days were actually Soviet agents. In this view, the liberals have/had it all wrong in thinking that McCarthyism was a witch hunt or an instance of political persecution.
People who would be inclined to oppose these opinions politically or for other reasons would sympathize with the accused took one of two tacks. One interpreted the data differently: VENONA showed not that McCarthy was right, but that he was wrong; instead of massive insidious spying, they depict a limited and loose network of misc. and somewhat incompetent agents (Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan espoused this point of view in his book _Secrecy: The American Experience_). The other approach was to doubt the sources themselves -- emphasizing that they were less clean-cut than they appeared: on top of multiple levels of "translation", including decryption, translation from Russian, and figuring out who all of the code names were supposed to be, the scattered phrases released are often as sensible as a Nostradamus translation, and to base strong legal and moral statements on such sketchy evidence should be done with caution at best. VENONA in many ways in not an idea source to rely on by itself, and requires much interpretation to make any sense of. So the argument goes.
Anyway.. that's the debate. It's larger than Wikipedia -- it's about the history of Anti-Communism -- who was right and who was wrong in the 1950s, which is a large part of the mythos of American political culture *at the present moment* as well (there are those who compare the current concerns with terrorism with Cold War fears of communist infiltration, as I'm sure most of us have seen).
In the spirit of complete openness, I should probably note that 1. I do some research in this area, and 2. personally I fall somewhere between the Moynihan approach and the skeptical approach -- I think there's evidence that the Soviets did have a number of agents of some sort or another at various times, but that VENONA is a very problematic source for a number of methodological and practical reasons. Of course on Wikipedia I think a NPOV approach should be taken at all times.
Hope that clears up the latent issue here. In any event, I think categories which label people as having committed a crime should be done in a very careful way. Though this is an appeal to the extreme, I would be just as cautious about having a category called [[Child molesters]].
Many thanks for the background on this issue. A year or two ago someone tried to put the text of Polish documents of the sort into Wikisource.
What some of our armchair anti-communists fail to realize is that some people in the countries involved will interpret these documents as gospel truth without considering the poor or even speculative quality of the evidence. Some of the crazier ones will use the information as a basis for revenge. People could get killed.
There are some serious ethical issues connected to handling this kind of material.
Ec