Talk:Elizabeth Bentley/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Copyedits

I believe there is a factual error in the opening statement of this page. Elizabeth Bentley was not a citizen of the Soviet Union who eventually defected to the U.S. Rather, she was born in Connecticut. Additionally, she was born in 1908, not 1905. I believe this information can be found in Kathryn Olmsted's biography, which this article cites. --LLSA976 22:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

--

From the opening paragraph: one of the most interesting witnesses -- this is not appropriate encyclopedic style. One of the most interesting by whose standards? Some might have found her deadly dull. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:31, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

This is a really interesting topic, but as I was doing some wikification and copyediting on it, the text raised some questions that it didn't answer. I've placed them in comments. Also there are several items included in this article, including a list of people, that would seem to be appropriate for inclusion in each individual's article, but not in an article specifically about this woman. I commented them out for now. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:45, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Katefan: Thank you very much. Am very appreciative of your professional editting skills. Yes, there is much more information to be added. Regards the opening, I don't like the immediate leap to the Rosenbergs either, but there is a big gap because she spent time in Italy and the link with facsism is unclear. Still in progress. As to the list, that may evolve into a seperate article, but I dont have a name for it yet, I dont like "Bentley group", "Bentley-Golos group", "Golos-Bentley group" and there still a few more possibilities. I expect that will be amputated when the time comes (the list is 87 names long). There is needed some definition regarding both American terms used in intelligence & counterintelligence, and Russian terms used in espionage activiities. As a matter of experience, I beleive many terms commonly used in American intelligence activities can be ill-defined and contradictory, which is very confusing to the reader; the Soviet terminolgy, when translated properly, often make much better sense. And I will set out clearly the meanings of such terms within the article. Thank you very much. Perhaps you may be interested in reviewing some of the other bios; alltold, this list could easily grow past 200 separate bio-stubs. Nobs01 01:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reversions

It should be noted, the list on this page is a list of names Bentley gave in depositions to the FBI, so in nature this list differs from others, and reversions from it can be considered pure vandalism. nobs 00:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

If your edits were correct, the KGB would have to be some of the worst spies to ever exist. They let an American spy know the identities of over 80 other American spies? The KGB wouldn't have allowed most KGB case officers to know the names of over 80 spies, never mind some American. Then there's your theory of the KGB's sending of "John Smith = codename SECRETSPY" clear text transmissions, which makes one wonder why they would even use code names to begin with.
You put in the article "In debriefings, Bentley eventually named more than 80 Americans, some in the United States government, who were working for Soviet intelligence." You say these are people who were working for Soviet intelligence, which means it is true they were working for Soviet intelligence, something that is disputed. Beyond that, you are even going beyond her tales, and saying people were working for Soviet intelligence that weren't. Bentley testified things such as that she knew John Doe was a spy, and then one time she was with him and he was speaking with Tom, Dick and Harry, and she began suspecting they were spies as well. In what you have written here, this is no longer suspicion, but the fact that Tom, Dick and Harry had a friendly conversation with John Doe means it is now a fact they are all Soviet spies. You have a very, very, very low threshold for stating as fact that someone is a Soviet spy, even lower than Elizabeth Bentley during the 1950's Red Scare, which is saying something. Ruy Lopez 17:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
You say, "you say"; I say, I say nothing. The work is not original research. nobs 21:10, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, "you say", you're the one who put in the article[1], not anyone else. You don't like that verb? Fine, I changed it from "you say" to "you put in the article" for you, happy now? If you didn't put it in, who did, Not Me and his very good friend Ida Know?
Getting back to the point, Bentley saying 80 people were spies does not make it a fact they were spies, it makes it that Elizabeth Bentley claimed they were spies. As I said before, I can't even imagine a KGB case officer being allowed to know as many as 80 spies, never mind an American. But there's something beyond that - you're stating as fact that people are spies that Bentley never said were spies. So you're even going beyond her testimony. Ruy Lopez 21:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Elizabeth Bentley inherited from her deceased lover after his death on November 27, 1943, control of covert operations of the CPUSA secret apparatus within the United States. This included complete control of the more than 80 members of the what is commonly referred to as the "Golos/Bentley" network of spies. The same group is referred to in the 1948 internal KI memo of Anatoly Gorsky as the "Sound" and "Myrna" group of spies ("Myrna" is a form of "Umnitsa", which was Bentley's code name). As the chief of American spies affiliated with Soviet intelligence, through the CPUSA, it was Bentley job to know the identies of all sources. Please note, it is no longer 1948, and the arguements to discredit Elizabeth Bentley's credibility have been refuted by three primary sources, all empowered by statutory law, to establish the facts in this matter. nobs 21:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Again with the claim that I can't even imagine a KGB case officer being allowed to know as many as 80 spies, never mind an American., even though I have previously given you proof that this is an erroneous claim. So, here we go (again) with some KGB agents who did blow over 80 sources (if you are allowed to count agents of their own service, it gets really trivial to rack up really big numbers). I stopped at two, but I'm pretty sure there were more - just don't have time to keep looking for the exact cites.

  • Vladimir Vetrov, aka Farewell, blew "slightly under a hundred case leads involving a slightly greater number of individuals" (Gordon Brook-Shepherd, The Storm Birds: Soviet Post-War Defectors, pp. 321).
  • Stanislav Levchenko blew "the KGB's other local assets" in Japan, "some two hundred assorted Japanese 'assets'" (The Storm Birds, pp. 299-300).

I would hope this would settle the matter, but given your continual repeating of other bogus claims (e.g. that Bentley "lost" her case, no matter how many time I provide quotations which refute it), we'll have to see. Noel (talk) 17:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Noel: I count at least six events of this now, there may be nine. Would you grant the use of a limited license to use some the terms employed the next time this comes up, either with a direct citation or you could be quoted anonymously. Thank you. nobs 18:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
You quote my sentence, but then seem to ignore it. I said I can't even imagine a KGB case officer being allowed to know as many as 80 spies, never mind an American. The important point is that it seems beyond belief that an American wouldn't know 80 spies, especially high-level alleged ones like the Rosenbergs, Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White and on and on as Bentley claimed she did. The secondary point was even a KGB case officer wouldn't be allowed to handle this many spies. Jnc does not address my first point. He does not even address my second point, which talked about KGB case officers. Instead he talks about two Russians who are, I believe, a major and a colonel. He says a Russian colonel has the capacity to know 80 or more spies. Fine, but a colonel is not a KGB case officer. He is a senior officer, perhaps even a resident officer, but not a case officer. I am talking about lowly case officers and you are talking about colonels. Ruy Lopez 04:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Photograph?

Nobs, this really isn't the place for a photograph. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:21, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

I should add that you're welcome, however, to add it to the main article. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:19, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, but its not the most flattering photo, the poor dear is obviously terrified for her life. In 1948 when the photo was taken, she knew the Soviets will kill her if they had the chance, and there was discussion in this country about executing Soviet spies, which did happen 3 years later to the Rosenberg. You can see the look of shear terror on her face in that photo that she had no one to turn to. nobs 17:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm. Maybe she's just afraid that she's out of sugar? · Katefan0(scribble) 17:48, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Reversions

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

Veracity

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

I concur with nobs. Ruy please take the time and discuss the changes you want to insert with us. We have made clear that we don't agree with the portrayel you have painted and would like to find a compromise solution. You've tried to insert these changes before and we have reversed those changes in the past. Sadly you didn't bother with answering suggestions I made in response to the first time the changes were made. I would like to ask you to do so. --Ebralph 19:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Remington libel suit

I removed following section. Unless someone reworks the text or has objections, I'll insert it as it is in the next 1,2 days. Again, my apologies towards Ruy, I misunderstood your last post.

==Veracity of Bentley==

Bentley accused William Remington of being a spy, so he sued her for libel - and won the case. She disappeared right after the libel suit was filed, prompting headlines "RED WITNESS MISSING AT 100-G SLANDER SUIT" from the New York Daily Mirror and "REMINGTON LAWYER SEEKS MISS BENTLEY" from the New York Times. Eventually she was tracked down and lost the libel case to Remington, who won several thousand dollars. William Taylor sued her for libel - her efforts to dodge that suit brought her the acrimony of the presiding judge as well as the FBI.

Bentley's testimony often changed. She accused Duncan Lee of being a member of the Silvermaster group at one hearing, with being a member of the Perlo group at another hearing, and a member of no group at another hearing.

One of Bentley's claims was that her spy network had delivered her the day on which D-Day would take place. But this was not secret information - the Russians, who were allies of the US during World War II, were being kept in the loop on the date of the invasion by the U.S. Army.

I don't agree with the other changes though and left them out. Lets first get this section through and then continue. --Ebralph 09:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Ebralph: Most of the questions surrounding the supposed "veracity" of Elizabeth Bentley have been dealt with here:
The persistent vandalism to this page has been noted. The User has been warned, and the various sockpuppet vandals have also been reported. It will be noted (1) this User participated in the above discussions on other pages so is well aware of the issues and sources in question (2) this User has been singularly notified by me his editing on this page is nolonger deemed in good faith. nobs 15:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the material I wrote that Ebralph highlights above is pretty straightforward. I note that Bentley was sued for libel and dodged a subpoena, to the point where the newspaper headlines talked about how after making her accusations against Remington, she disappeared and the subpoena for libel couldn't be served (something she did for other suits against her as well). I also note inconsistencies in her testimony such as that she alternatively says Duncan Lee was in the "Silvermaster spy ring", the "Perlo spy ring" or that he was not in a spy ring. Nobs01 has repeatedly deleted this evidence that damages her credibility. What is his reason? He does not give one - he says if we read three books by John Earl Haynes, a book by Allen Weinstein, or four other sources he cites above, I guess we will have an epiphany of why he deleted this material. I have to admit I have not read all three of John Earl Haynes books - but what kind of answer is this? I have to read three books (plus Weinstein's book, plus the other sources) to get an idea of why Nobs01 deleted this? I've already read much of this material - and it is not clear to me at all why he has deleted it. Why doesn't he just say right here why he deleted it instead of telling us to go read four books plus some other stuff? Tell us here. Ruy Lopez 18:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Let's put it another way: it is a contentious issue. I'll admit that what you write about her is important to round out the picture of her and I would like to put it in. Do you have a reference about the libel or something? That there was a suit is something difficult to deny if there is court material. It would be great if there were some links for the specific articles you are referencing or at least a specific issue in which it can be found. That would stay with the facts and can hardly be contested.
On the other hand what disturbs me, is that you also go ahead and make semantic changes to the whole article by inserting the word "claims" all over the place. If we leave that away for now - we can discuss that at a different point - and insert more specific references for the things you insert, you will find me not resisting the changes. --Ebralph 21:13, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Ebralph: I would caution reviewing any pre-Venona release (1995) materials regarding Elizabeth Bentley; they must be reviewed with extreme care in light of Venona materials. Attacks on Elizabeth Bentley's person, character & credibilty have been widely current for 47 years prior to Venona materials being made public. There are much larger issues at stake that must be considered. nobs 21:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm referring to the fact that there were suites that were lost. It is a fact of her life which I wouldn't want to deny as it happened. The fact that she lost would support the point that the Venona is important. It underscores the price that was paid for not disclosing Venona. --Ebralph 21:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Here are some of the requested references for the Remington vs. Bentley libel case.
As far as the difficulty in subpoenaing her (which is obviously her trying to dodge the suit), one thing I mention above is She disappeared right after the libel suit was filed, prompting headlines "RED WITNESS MISSING AT 100-G SLANDER SUIT" from the New York Daily Mirror and "REMINGTON LAWYER SEEKS MISS BENTLEY" from the New York Times. These headlines ran on November 13, 1948. I don't know how difficult it is to obtain archives of the now-defunct New York Daily Mirror, but archives of the New York Times are much easier to obtain, there are several libraries within a few miles of me that would have this article on microfilm. Actually I don't even discuss the articles, so the headline is all that's necessary - you don't have to go to the microfilm for these, they are available in large red index books in the libraries. You can also see the article headline online - the 1851-1995 New York Times article archive link from their web site[3] brings us to the search page[4]. If we search for Bentley, limiting the "from date" and "to date" options to November 13, 1948, the mentioned headline of the article pops up, and a click on it reveals the first sentence of the article ("Richard G. Green, attorney for William W. Remington, suspended Department of Commerce official who was accused by Elizabeth T. Bentley of being a Communist, asserted in an affidavit filed in Federal Court yesterday that she had dropped out of sight and that United States marshals had been unable to serve her in Mr. Remington's $100,000 libel suit.")
The case reference is West's 88 Federal Supplement 166, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Remington vs. Bentley. Remington won the libel suit in 1950. That is the definitive source of him winning the libel suit against her. But it is mentioned in books as well. In a book written about Elizabeth Bentley - Clever Girl: Elizabeth Bentley, the Spy Who Ushered in the McCarthy Era (ISBN 0060185198) by Lauren Kessler, on page 203 it says "But Remington had undeniably won two important battles against her, emerging victorious from both the loyalty review and the libel suit." In the book Inside Out: A Memoir of the Blacklist (ISBN 0394583418) by Walter Bernstein, on page 181 it says "It was easier to follow the trials of my fellow Dartmouth alumnus William Remington. He had been working for the government until Elizabeth Bentley accused him of spying. Although he denied this under oath, a federal loyalty board dismissed him. He sued for reinstatement and won. He sued Bentley for libel and won that, too."
Everything else I said has been or can be similarly sourced. I never said she was dodging the libel suit against her, I just relayed what newspapers at the time had as their headlines. Similarly it is a fact that she lost her libel suit. Yet Nobs01 has statements like "Between the fall of 1942 to November 1943 Bentley spoke several times with Julius Rosenberg by phone." Attempts to change this to the NPOV "Bentley said she spoke" or "Bentley claims she spoke" are reverted by Nobs01. Bentley's claims become fact, the word of God. Nobs01's removal of "Bentley said she spoke" or "Bentley claims she spoke" from this sentence, and other such removals, is quite silly. His whole case relies on the word of an alcoholic, cheating, promiscuous woman and Venona cables which to most of the world prove that someone with a codename of ALES was a spy, whereas in Nobs01's world it proves that Eastern Brahmin Alger Hiss was a spy. Ruy Lopez 16:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
You're being extra-ordinarily disingenous and slippery in citing Clever Girl, but not stating what that book says plainly - that she didn't lose the case, her co-defendant settled. See below for more. Noel (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
How about: Bentley accused William Remington of being an agent which prompted him to sue her for libel - and lost the case. She disappeared right after the libel suit was filed, prompting headlines like "REMINGTON LAWYER SEEKS MISS BENTLEY" from the New York Times(New York, N.Y.: Nov 13, 1948. pg. 20, 1 pgs). Similarly William Taylor sued her for libel - her efforts to avoid that suit brought her the acrimony of the presiding judge. One of the reasons she lost the suits were some inconsistencies in her testimonies. In how far that verdict would still be felled under the light of the VENONA papers is still a matter of debate. in the section Aftermath?
As to the other thing: "she claims" is a much to weak word. That implies very much doubt. But to clarify the source we might add something to the effect like "According to... " --Ebralph 19:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
That generally looks OK. I want it very clear that she, not he, lost the case. I would change "and lost the case" to "a case she lost". Or we could just add the word she and make it "and she lost the case" although that's a less elegant sentence. Also she disappeared before the libel suit, not afterward - she disappeared when Remington's lawyers were trying to subpoena her for the libel suit. So my thoughts on the first paragraph you wrote: the avoidance was before, not after the suit, so that should be fixed. And I think the word "she" should be inserted before "lost the case". Or you can rewrite it otherwise, I just want it understandable which side lost.
In the next paragraph, there is one example of her contradictory testimony, her statements reagrding Duncan Lee. In Clever Girl: Elizabeth Bentley, the Spy Who Ushered in the McCarthy Era (ISBN 0060185198) by Lauren Kessler, on page 264 it says "[Bentley] also testified, at various times, that Duncan Lee, her valuable OSS contact, was a member of the Silvermaster group, the Perlo group and no group at all".
Pertaining to her alleged converation with Julius Rosenberg, and the other things I put "she claims" in for - if you want to replace "claims" with "according to" or something like that, it's fine by me. I just don't want it stated as fact "She talked to Julius Rosenberg", since that is POV, while a version with claims or according to isn't. Ruy Lopez 23:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, then here comes the next sythesis:
Bentley accused William Remington of being an agent which prompted him to sue her for libel - and she lost the case. She disappeared right after the libel suit was filed - before it could be brought before a judge - prompting headlines like "REMINGTON LAWYER SEEKS MISS BENTLEY" from the New York Times(New York, N.Y.: Nov 13, 1948. pg. 20, 1 pgs). Similarly William Taylor sued her for libel - her efforts to avoid that suit brought her the acrimony of the presiding judge. One of the reasons she lost the suits were some inconsistencies in her testimonies. In how far that verdict would still be felled under the light of the VENONA papers is still a matter of debate.
I'll not go into the details of her inconsitencies but we can put the book in the reference list and just point to it from the corresponding passage. compared to the rest of the aftermath, this insert will be relatively long.
On the other issue, I'm looking for a formulation that doesn't pull apart the whole narration. Why is the she claims so important to you? The point is, that maybe we can reach the same effekt with a different formula.
--Ebralph 00:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
This paragraph is acceptable to me. I'm fine with it. We can put it back in whenever you want.
I would have hoped we could have delayed this til the appropriate time, but I suppose we can waste another week with specious arguements.nobs 17:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you misunderstood what I said before about the phrase "she claims". I have no special liking for the phrase "she claims". One suggestion you offered was "according to". This is fine as a replacement. The original was something like "Bentley spoke with Julius Rosenberg by phone". I changed it to "Bentley claimed she spoke with Julius Rosenberg by phone". You suggested something like "According to Elizabeth Bentley, she spoke with Julius Rosenberg by phone. If you want to remove she claims with something like your suggestion. My problem is with the first sentence, not my one or the one you suggested. "She says she spoke with Julius Rosenberg by phone" is fine as well. Anything but "Bentley spoke with Julius Rosenberg by phone". And as I mentioned earlier, that is just one of the sentences I qualified. Ruy Lopez 00:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Simple suggestion: editing in good faith would help, as opposed to the persistent vandalism that has been reported. nobs 19:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This claim, that Bentley "lost" the libel case, is nonsense (and Ruy ought to know it, since he seems to be in possession of a copy of Clever Girl, which explains the outcome very clearly and precisely - if he does indeed have access to a copy of this book, his disingenousness in making this claim is shocking and abhorrent). So let's see what the real story is:

It would cost more to win the case than it would to settle it .... The NBC lawyers moved to settle. ... 'Meet the Press' producer Lawrence Spivak wrote a long and vehement letter to NBC's insurance company begging them not to settle. Spivak told the press that he did not believe a libel had been comitted on his show.. (Clever Girl, pp. 201)

So much for "lost". It's also worth noting that Remington was later convicted of perjury and jailed for his testimony on precisely the issue on which she was sued - whether or not he had been an active Communist. Noel (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The is no evidence Bentley named Remington out of spite or malice; what happened was after her public exposure by the FBI & HUAC committees in 1948, the Senate Committee called her to testify and the Senate Committee was coincidentally at that moment interested in William Remington. Bentley was questioned under oath about Remington in an open Hearing. Remington, consequently, was the only person Bentley was questioned about and the person publicly named in full view of public media. Bentley had no control over the questions directed at her. This subhead, and even much of the material in it, is of little relevence today, in light of all that is now known. nobs 19:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Let's start talking here

Obviously there's a disagreement, but I can't get any feel for it as a neutral editor because y'all aren't talking. So can you start talking, maybe, instead of reverting? Ruy, Nobs, what are the issues at hand here? Don't leave talk page messages about article content, because then it doesn't get recorded on the article in question. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:26, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

My problems fall into three categories. One is Nobs01 writes in an omniscient tone. One example is "Between the fall of 1942 to November 1943 Bentley spoke several times with Julius Rosenberg by phone." Thus it becomes a fact in an encyclopedia that this discussion took place. Who is our source for this? Elizabeth Bentley. So I change this to "Between the fall of 1942 to November 1943 Bentley claims she spoke several times with Julius Rosenberg by phone." Nobs01 finds this unacceptable, we can't say that Bentley said she talked to Rosenberg, it has to become a fact from an omniscient narrator that this discussion took place. It goes from being testimony she relayed to gospel.

So one third of my problems with this page fall into this category. As it says so wisely in the Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms guideline - "Let the facts speak for themselves". Nobs01 drifts from the facts and sets the omniscient narrator into play in a number of other places - Bentley's testimony about Browder, that Venona corroborates everything she said, and that it is a fact that Harry Magdoff was a Soviet spy in the "Myrna group" (something being hotly debated currently by many people on Wikipedia, including published, well-regarded authors, it is certainly not a fact an omniscient narrator should tell us).

My second problem on this page is Nobs01 says "The FBI provided her with cover now that her life clearly was in jeopardy." He says that on this page, and uses that sort of tone on other pages as well. It may be "clear" to Nobs01 that her life was in jeopardy, but it is not clear to me. Sometimes reading what Nobs01 writes is like watching I Married a Communist or I Was a Communist for the FBI. I guess for him, not only is there a red under every bed, but a KGB hit squad around every corner, ready to bump off anyone who interferes with the Communist Conspiracy.

My third problem is that Nobs01 is removing any negative facts regarding Bentley. She accused William Remington of being a communist spy, so he sued her for libel. She disappeared after the lawsuit was filed, prompting headlines in the New York Times and the New York Daily Mirror ("RED WITNESS MISSING AT 100-G SLANDER SUIT"). She was finally tracked down, the case proceeded - and she lost the libel case. Nobs01 removes this from the page. She also disappeared when William Taylor sued her for libel, which made even her allies (the FBI etc.) angry. Nobs01 removed all of this.

Also her testimony often changed. She accused Duncan Lee of being a member of the Silvermaster group at one hearing, with being a member of the Perlo group at another hearing, and a member of no group at another hearing. Nobs01 removed this as well.

So my three problems - not letting facts speak for themselves and have an omniscient editor tell us one side of something as being "fact" instead of letting the facts speak for themselves, Nobs's insertion of how Bentley's life was in danger without any proof, and finally Nobs01's removal of any fact which is disparaging of Bentley's truthfulness, how juries considered her truthfulness and so forth. In his article, Bentley saying she spoke to Rosenberg becomes the omniscient narrator telling us it was a fact she spoke to Rosenberg, yet on the other hand, that she lost a libel case to one of the people she accused can't be mentioned. Ruy Lopez 05:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Here I agree with Ruy on point one of his critic. I see the weakness of the article in the literary field. Like pointed out, there is too much narration and not enough scientific description. Still, it seems to me that the content follows along the line of official thought.
I agree on the second point of Ruys critic partially. It is mentioned in a different article that the motivation of Elizabeth Bentley had been the fear of being killed. Still, the way it is portrayed might be a bit unscientific and as such continues along my previous mentioned line of thought. There is no call for personal attacks though and what ones guesses about the motivation of other contributors is not constructive work.
I also agree on the third point partially. The fact that she lost the libel suit is something that should be included. What I don't see though is that the fact must be trampled about so widely considering that the article is fairly short.
One personal point of my own is following: After stating that Trumans remark had a deep impact on domestic politics, it doesn't describe in which form. --Ebralph 15:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Still those who want to denigrate her perpetrate this tired old propoganda lie that "she lost" the libel suit (even though the truth has been available for half a century). Yup, Goebbels was right; the Big Lie is sure an effective tactic. (See above for the refutation.) Noel (talk) 13:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
OK. I am going to revert the page to my version. Instead of me making edits trying to tailor them to what I think you might want, why don't you make edits on either my or Nobs version? You don't have to do the whole thing at once. Perhaps we will find a mutually acceptable version, section by section. Or we can discuss one section at a time here first. Or perhaps you have a suggestion. My only thought is things should be resolved one at a time, instead of all at once, which seems more difficult. Ruy Lopez 06:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I would like to agree with the above premise; it can be done by a willingness to edit in good faith instead of incessant edit warring and vandalism. I am somewhat of the mind that User Ruy Lopez has been following discussions on other pages regarding Elizabeth Bentley; I would not consider it good faith to require that all those arguements be restated here, but they could be cut & pasted and reedited here if need be. This appears to only an effort to divert attention and waste time. nobs 18:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Reference

to primary source material Truman Presidential Library
Stephen J. Spingarn, pgs. 682, 711, 767, 769 - 777, 790.

Qualifications to give testimony:


  • "During the war, I was a counterespionage officer; I served three years overseas, I was in the invasion of North Africa on November 8, 1942, I was in the invasion of Italy, September '43, I was on the Salerno and Anzio beachheads and at Cassino and so forth. The three years I was overseas I was a counterintelligence corps officer, and for two of those years I commanded the Fifth Army Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC), from the end of the North African campaign, throughout the Italian campaign, July '43 to July '45.
And during that period Fifth Army caught 525, approximately, German spies and saboteurs, Abwehr and SD agents, and we interned perhaps 2000 people as security risks, Nazi collaborators, ardent fascists and so forth. And we always modestly said that we were the greatest combat counterintelligence outfit in the history of warfare, which might have been a slight exaggeration, but we did a pretty good job (pg.683)


Relevent texts:

  • "we also always said that in two years we had caught more spies than the FBI had in its entire forty years, or whatever was its history at that point. I think that was true. (pg.684)
  • "there's always been a question in my mind, at least there was in the forties, how effective the FBI really was in this penetration and real counterespionage work. I have said before that I regard myself as something of -- I won't say an expert -- but I think I know more than most people know about counterespionage. (pg. 767)
  • " the question is how good is the FBI in the real counterespionage operation? All I can say is that at least in the forties it seemed to me that they were very bumbling. I have said before and I'm going to repeat it, that the Elizabeth Bentley thing struck me as an absolute piece of the most amateur foul up I have ever seen (pg.769)
  • "Then they sit down and they pump her dry of information (p.772)
  • "you have cut outs, you don't send them from a spy master to the source and then back again, I mean, why children could catch a spy that way but the FBI didn't, now why not? I'd like to know the answer to that. Then they took several months apparently to believe her after she came to them and yet when they sent their report to the Government, they were very mad because everybody doesn't believe it instantly about everybody named in that report, and there were a lot of important people named in that report some of whom had had a long and apparently faithful service in Government. (p.774)
  • "the great FBI was so adept at this point (pg.776)
  • "This was the great FBI, you see, but this was pretty clumsy. (pg.777)
  • "we thought we ought to have more information (pg.778)
  • "I went over with Ed Foley, who was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury. I went over with Lee Wiggins, who was Under Secretary, a conservative banker from South Carolina; but he became just as mad at the FBI as I did, and at the Justice Department (pg.778)
  • "It seemed to me that the intransigence of the Justice Department and the FBI in this matter -- it was the whole Justice Department including the FBI -- Tom Clark and company -- that their intransigence aided the retention of Communists in Government (pg.778) nobs 18:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Bentley did not name Remington out of malice or spite, two presumptions to libel. The FBI "pumped her dry", or "grabbed her by the ankles and shook her upside down" for every scrap or shred of information. She was in fear for her life, the KGB wanted to kill her, and in 1948 there were discuissions in newspapers calling for the execusiton of Soviet spies (which did happen in 1953 in the Rosenberg case). She was likewise in fear for her life from the Americans, the media and public, if her testimony was not believed (the look of terror is apparent in the photgraph, knowing both Americans and Soviets wanted her dead). The FBI abandoned her to protect the Venona program. nobs 18:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Nobs, I don't mean to nag, but I've mentioned to you before that photos don't belong on talk pages. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:02, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

It will noted: the total number of Soviet espionage agents known to the FBI prior to Elizabeth Bentley walking into the New Haven CT Field Office August 1945 and the signing of her deposition December 1945, for the entire period of WWII (roughly 7 December 1941 to Bentley's deposition, and may predate 1941 by several years) was five (5); subsequent investigations raised this number indepentent of Bentley to six (6), as the 26 November 1957 Boardman to Belmont memo indicates Wikisource:"Operations of the MGB Residency at New York, 1944-45".

Bentley's deposition raised that number to 87 (meaning Bentley identified roughly 82 persons, plus or minus 1). Venona materials, over time, yielded 171 identified persons, plus additional unidentified code names. Some of these 171 identified persons overlap with Bentley's list as per her deposition. It was not til 1947 that the FBI & Army Signals Intelligence (later to become the NSA) merged their investigations. In fact, at the time of Bentley's deposition, the FBI was unaware of the Army Signals Intelligence Venona efforts. nobs 16:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The first graf...

This article starts off like this:

"Elizabeth Terrill Bentley (1905-1963) A graduate of Vassar, Bentley was studying in Italy at the University of Florence when she first became interested in fascism. In 1934 she returned to America and abandoned fascism, joining the American League Against War and Fascism and the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA)."

As someone who, until tonight, hasn't heard of Bentley, I find this opening paragraph both uninformative and inappropriate as a first introduction to the subject discussed. Nowhere in this graf I get a clear, concise and straight explanation as to who this woman is (was) and, to a lesser extent, why I should know about her, what was so notorious about her, why her life is worthy of an entry in a public enciclopedia.

Please note that I am not saying anything disparaging about Bentley herself. Also note that I am not claiming the aforementioned information is missing from the article. In fact, the opposite is true. All of this information is given later on in the article in great detail and with many links. After reading through the whole thing I walk away knowing who she was and what place she occupied in history. This proves that the article has served its purpose.

Just to be clear on what exactly it is that I find objectionable about this article: the first graf should give me, the reader, a summary that contains general information about Bentley. Currently, the first graf only gives me a hurried account of her travel experiences and what universities she attended. Was she notorious for attending both Vassar and the U of Florence? Was she notorious for joining the CPUSA and the ALAWF? I don't think those facts in isolation make her historically important. As such, they don't belong on the first graf of the article.

As an example of what it is that I mean, I've pasted here the first graf of an article I consider to be well-written:

"Le Corbusier (October 6, 1887–August 27, 1965) was a Swiss architect famous for what is now called the International Style, along with Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Walter Gropius, and Theo van Doesburg. He was also an urban planner, painter, sculptor, writer and furniture designer. He is featured on the Swiss ten francs banknote."

If I were to read this article for the first time without any prior knowledge of Le Corbusier, I would be able to know that he was an architect, that he was Swiss, that he was a leader in a movement called 'International Style' and that he is some sort of national hero (as evidenced by his appearance on the Swiss ten francs note) all after reading only the first graf. Unfortunately, I am not able to do the same with the Bentley article. I must read the entire thing to figure out a fact as simple as her nationality.

If I had a better knowledge of Bentley and the issues surrounding her life I would simply edit the article to reflect the concerns I have just conveyed to this board, but since I did not even learn of her existence until tonight, I do not think I am the best person to change the graf as I am not an authority on the subject. As such, I am asking you, the ones who have written most of the article and have a much more detailed knowledge about Bentley than I will ever have, to edit it instead.

thanks, macgirl

Thank you very much for the interest, attention, and comments. True, they are all very valid criticisms, and much appreciated. I dislike giving the old "work in progress" spiel, but there are two factors operational. (1) Her early career in Italy & flirtation with fascism remains somewhat of a mystery, and (2) this woman is perhaps one of the most controversial American personalities of the twentieth century. She was excruciatingly demonized for nearly the last half of the 20th century, and there are many people still alive who still seek to do so; however, her credibility has been vindicated in various official U.S. Government published reports in recent years, and the controversy is far from over. So it may not be fair to the woman to simply state in the Introduction, that she was a controversial figure, because that was what was said for 50 years, and it sheds no light on recent revelations. On the other hand, to declare she now has been vindicated itself provokes much controversy. So truelly, why you have stated very valid criticism, it is a problem that presents a very interesting challenge, perhaps one reason I decided to take on the subject.
Again, thank you very much for your input, and if you wish to to offer suggestions how to handle this problem, by all means please do. Thank you. nobs 05:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


Comment

Re. this dif: I wrote a bad edit summary comment. I should have said that I was RVing because the added quote was redundant, unnecessary, awkwardly inserted, and the word "concedes" has no meaning in the context of this article. RedSpruce 02:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"redundant" with what? "unnecessary" could describe almost every edit to Wikipedia. Is it absolutely "necessary" Wikipedia exist at all? Likely not, but it is nonetheless improving access to knowledge and that's what this Schrecker quote
We now know, based on information obtained from the archives of the former Soviet Union and the VENONA documents, that most of the people Bentley identified, had in fact been giving information to the KGB. - The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History with Documents
does. Re "awkwardly inserted", what is stopping you from inserting it somewhere else? Re "concede", if you prefer another word nothing is stopping you from changing it another word. The immediately prior paragraph says "Bentley made an accusation that was apparently a complete fabrication..." You evidently want that to be the last word for the section, and the best justification you could initially come up with for cutting out my counter-balancing edit was "irrelevance", as if the quote was not about Bentley but about someone else. There aren't enough unsourced sentences in this article for you to cut out such that you have to cut out sourced ones? Finally, why do you suddenly feel it necessary to justify your reversion at all? You already told me with respect to other articles that you don't feel it necessary to further discuss your reversion practices or, failing that, to seek any mediation assistance. What is so special about this article?Bdell555 02:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Redundant and unnecessary in the sense that it's already stated in the article (twice, in fact) that Venona confirms much of Bentley's story. RedSpruce 10:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


you have two dates for her date of death! I believe December 3, 1963 is correct.

A Baron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.226.95 (talk • contribs)

You're right. Thanks for pointing that out. Dec. 3 is the correct date. RedSpruce 17:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Help

I tried to add some text, but it did not appear in the article. What is more, the part of the article below it disappeared as well. Did I screw up the code? Is the article too big? Mark LaRochelle 14:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It was just that you neglected to close a "<ref>" with a "</ref>". My latest edit fixed it. You may need to refresh your browser to see the fix. RedSpruce 14:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Just refreshed. Still not seeing my addition in the article, although it shows up in the code. What gives? Mark LaRochelle 15:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Try adding "?action=purge" (without the quotes) to the URL of the page and then "go to" that URL. RedSpruce 15:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Bentley flakiness

Obviously accused communists had an interest in promoting the idea that Bentley was flakey, unreliable. Their accusations are on point and should be in the article. At the same time we need to not let any of their smears stand by themselves where we have independent evidence that Bentley was correct. That too needs to be in the record. I've just reverted a Redspruce edit that was not, in my opinion, adequately faithful to the entirety of the record. White and Remington were justly convicted and Bentley played an honorable role in that happening.

Another problem is that we are not in 1948. It would generally be considered despicable to imply or say that a college woman who took a lover or two was rendered an unreliable witness in court and anyone who tried to use past sexual history (not related to the parties of the case) in an espionage case would themselves have their character impeached. So what are we to say about Remington's detectives? TMLutas 21:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

4 spies and a perjurer walk up and call you a whore...

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

3RR

A note: WP:3RR

If you have broken 3RR by mistake and now realize it, or if another user has left you a note on your talk page that points out that you broke 3RR, then you should revert your change back to the "other version", even though you may not like the previous version. In general, this should be enough to prevent you from being blocked, although there are no guarantees. If you seem to be the only person who feels that the article should be the way that you have made it, perhaps it is better the way everyone else thinks it should be.

Look at the recent timestamps and the reverts. Leave the text be and let's work it out in talk or this goes to the admins. I'm assuming a good faith mistake at this point. Please don't disturb my assumption. TMLutas 08:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Allegations that Bentley lied

The article correctly says that Bentley was the courier between NKVD New York and Silvermaster at least from the time of Golos' registration as a foreign agent in 1940 until Bentley handed the Silvermaster and Perlo groups over to Akhmerov in June 1944.

If the Ovakimian memo is genuine, it suggests that Bentley was telling the truth when she testified that White pushed to get the Treasury plates to the Soviets. This information relates not only to White's espionage, but to Bentley's credibility. The message is from NKVD New York and says that White was following NKVD instructions received by him from Silvermaster. Since Bentley was "running" the Silvermaster group and was the "cut-out" between NKVD New York and Silvermaster at that time, this message corroborates her story of her involvement. Furthermore, the implication that she was out of the loop raises the question: How did she know that White did exactly what this top secret Soviet memo says he did? To suggest that all this is only about White, and is irrelevant Bentley, as RedSpruce has done twice, is false, and thus not a valid reason for reversion.

To state as fact, as the article does, that this was an "alleged incident that was apparently a complete fabrication" by Bentley is highly misleading. There is nothing "alleged" about the incident, and the Ovakimian memo removes any doubt about White's role. My revision clarifies that Olmstead cite in turn cites Craig's contention that not just Bentley's role, but "the whole 'scheme' was a complete fabrication." The truncation of "the whole 'scheme'" creates a false implication; the insertion of the adverb "apparently" violates WP:NPOV. (Apparent to whom? Not to the Schechters, Weinstein, Haynes, Klehr, Radosh, or Herken.) My replacement of "apparently" with "alleged to be" was, if anything, overly generous to Craig and Olmstead (who, to be fair, did not have the advantage of seeing the Ovakimian memo befor they published).

To state that "there is no evidence that Bentley had any role in this decision" is a bit of a red herring, since Bentley never alleged a role in the decision, but only as a courier. The implication that "there is no evidence that" she played that role is an exaggeration, at least: The Ovakimian memo, and her own knowledge of White's activities, implies that she did. My replacement of "is no evidence" with "was no evidence at the time" was neutral and verifiable. To prevent any explanation of how the Ovakimian memo challenges Craig's interpretation is a violation of NPOV and is far from "neutral."

I have tried rewriting this information a couple of times in a way that will not offend RedSpruce, but, instead of adding any constructive research of his own or raising the issue in talk, he habitually resorts to wholesale reversion. This is a violation of WP:EP, to wit:

Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of deleting, try to:

  • rephrase
  • correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content
  • move text within an article or to another article (existing or new)
  • add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced
  • request a citation by adding the {{Fact}} tag

It also goes against the purpose of reverting, to wit:

  • Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously
  • Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
  • If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
  • If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

Do not

  • Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
  • Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
  • Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
  • There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
  • Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

I propose reverting RedSpruce's reversion 165456406 at 18:17, 18 October 2007, but I would like to avoid obliterating any constructive contributions made by others since that time. I am soliciting feedback from members of the Wikipedia community. Mark LaRochelle 09:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark -- I think you make some valid points, and I apologize if some of my edits have been overly hasty. There have been a couple of extenuating factors: One is I've simply had difficulty understanding some of your edits, both in what they were saying and the timeline of the scholarship involved. A second problem has been the edits by TMLutas, which have recently been mixed in with yours. Not only are his edits generally nonsense, but I find him as a person essentially impossible to debate with; his (real or pretended) ignorance of how Wikipedia is supposed to work and his (real or pretended) lack of rational thought make it not worthwhile to even read his comments (which I haven't been doing, on this page anyway).
That said, I do think that some of your edits have focused too much attention on H. D. White, who is not the subject of this article, after all. It also doesn't seem correct to say that "Bently never alleged a role in the [currency plates] decision," since she said (as is quoted in the article) she was "able through Harry Dexter White to arrange that the United States Treasury Department turn the actual printing plates over to the Russians." This is basically claiming not only a "role", but essentially full responsibility for the incident. I haven't read any author who's said that Bentley's claiming of such a role was anything other than a complete fabrication. Many of the sources I've read have been quite emphatic that the debacle around the currency plates was due to simple incompetence, and no conspiracy on the part of White and his Soviet contacts was required. The source you cited doesn't agree with that, but as far as I saw, neither did it contradict that the role Bentley claimed to play was a "complete fabrication".
I need to read up more carefully on the Ovakimian memo, but it appears some coverage of it belongs in this article. But you'll note that a lot of the article is already devoted to the subject of White and the currency plates, and this is only one small part of the overall story of Bentley. Too much expansion of this subtopic wouldn't be appropriate to the article.
I apologize for not opening a discussion with you sooner. I think that, with further discussion, we'll be able to reach an agreement on this issue.
RedSpruce 11:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
If you have difficulty understanding an edit, the proper procedure, as cited above, is not to revert, but to ask for clarification. Your inappropriate reversions display a consistent pattern of abuse. TMLutas is irrelevant to your pattern of abuse, which long preceded his contributions. Calling his edits nonsense while alleging ignorance and irrationality WP:Skill (and suggesting dishonesty WP:ASF) on his part violate WP:Civility. Not reading his comments is a bad idea: He seems to be suggesting that, on top of everything else, it appears that you are in violation of WP:3RR 70.108.103.12 11:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Mark LaRochelle 11:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I love you too RedSpruce. If you're admitting that you're not even reading my comments, you shouldn't be modifying my edits. That is disruptive, period. As I posted, to avoid a block, you're supposed to revert yourself to your non-preferred version. Since you've commented in talk since I posted that and haven't done a revert to demonstrate it was a good faith mistake in overdoing things even when I gave you a chance to do so it's off to the 3RR reporting page for me.
As for my edits being nonsensical, there isn't much chance for consensus when you don't talk. You seem to be concentrating on not including too much about other figures in Bentley's page. That's fine so far as it goes but if you don't allow any characterization, you have a false equivalence between a bunch of spies and liars and this woman who made some very big errors in her life but ended up doing the right thing, thus the adjectives. You can either have short adjectives accomplishing the effect or you can have longer passages explaining things. The latter is less jarring but you didn't like that so we're reduced to the short adjective approach by your previous campaign of reverts. TMLutas 17:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
LaRochelle, Forgive me for not joining you in name-calling and petulant hostility; I reserve that for those who have proven they deserve it, and you don't qualify. I agree with your most recent edits, with one small modification made: "Some aspects of" added to "Bentley's testimony would be corroborated..." In addition to that, I think it would be a significant improvement if a date attached to when this memorandum was publicized. RedSpruce 22:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Redspruce: Thank you for the kind comment. In the spirit of WP:LOVE (i.e., "forgive and forget"), welcome back. Thanks also for reminding us all of the importance of avoiding name-calling. I also want to thank TMLutas for starting this little love train by generously offering you an opportunity to avoid disciplinary sanction for your infractions, an opportunity you chose not to take.
Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but you appear to be suggesting that I have called you names. I hope I have not done so; after a perfunctory review, I am unable to confirm that I have. It seems to me that you started name-calling very early (e.g., calling M. Stanton Evans an unreliable source and an avowed extremist, etc.). As I could not see how Evans had proven he deserved such name-calling, I invited you to substantiate this. Rather than do so, you took the opportunity to repeat this name-calling, and to call a few more names. Seeing the fruitlessness of asking you for substantiation, I broke off my participation in that exchange. If you could cite the names I called you, and direct me to the posts in which I called you such names, I would be happy to apologize. In any event, I will make every effort to avoid name-calling in the future, even for those who have proven they deserve it.
As for petulant hostility, I plead poor writing: I was aiming for huffy indignation.
As to your substantive issues, I appreciate your points. We don't want to falsely imply that the Ovakimian memo corroborates Bentley's testimony on matters other than the Treasury plates affair. I propose that instead of the vague "some of Bentley's testimony," we substitute the more specific "Bentley's testimony on these matters."
Regarding the issue of the date of corroboration: Bentley testified about these matters in '53; the Schechters published the Ovakimian memo in 2002; the Senate released the Executive Sessions of the '53 hearings in 2003. I tried to simplify with a literary trick, writing "after half a century," but I am by no means married to this formulation. Mark LaRochelle 09:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding in-substantive matters, authors and scholars, like celebrities, are fair game for name-calling, and M.Stanton Evens is a certifiable wingnut. Telling me I have a "a consistent pattern of abuse" isn't technically "name-calling" because there's no "name" involved, but it's still obviously name-calling. No need to apologize, however. Let's move on to...
Substantive matters: there appears to be no clear corroboration of the controlling role that Bentley claimed for herself in the plate transfer, and that's what I was referring to in adding "some aspects" [of Bentley's testimony] to the passage.
RedSpruce 12:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I feel your pain, but name-calling does not take the place of facts. I have given you every opportunity to substantiate these slurs, and you just keep piling on more name-calling. Since you have not substantiated this smear, you have failed to substantiate your contention that Evans is not a reliable source. Your revert of my edit citing his work was therefore a blatantly inappropriate use of the revert function, as I amply document by citing the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines above.
When someone uses power inappropriately, he abuses it. When he does so repeatedly, he creates a pattern. If accurately describing such behavior is to be abjured as ad hominem, it is hard to imagine how any abuse can be discussed, never mind corrected. Moreover, if accusing someone of abuse is name-calling, then accusing someone of name-calling is likewise name-calling.
I propose that we draw a distinction between discussion of behavior (which is appropriate and necessary to correct counterproductive behavior) and unsubstantiated name-calling (extremist, wingnut, etc.), which conveys no actual information about the target, but rather reveals only information about the name-caller.
What I mean is, instead of just stating your unsubstantiated conclusion that "Mr. X is a Y," relate the evidence that persuaded you of this conclusion (e.g., "Mr. X did A, B, and C."), then let the Wikipedia community of editors reach its own consensus, based on the evidence.
Back to the article: I understand your assumption that Bentley claimed for herself the controlling role in the plate transfer; that is one possible reading of the quote excerpted from her autobiography. However, the context on the page reveals that this is not the correct reading. She makes it clear that she is merely the courier carrying instructions for White to Ullman and Silvermaster from the Soviets, which is the same story she told the McCarthy subcommittee in '53. I am trying to figure out a way to include the context without making this section even longer.
On a side note, a trip to the DC Public Library found that it does hot have a single copy of the book in the entire system. Likewise a visit to the Library of Congress uncovered that the book is "missing from inventory." If I were a suspicious person, I might think -- but never say -- that it's almost as if someone had gone around destroying the evidence. Fortunately, I managed to track down the elusive tome elsewhere. As a wise and witty friend likes to quip in these situations: "They're good. But they're not that good." Mark LaRochelle 14:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
On thinking about it more, I agree with you about Bentley's description of her role with regard to White and the plates, so I removed the "Some aspects of" that I added.
There's more to be said about the difference between expressing an opinion that a particular author is a moron, and arguing that he isn't a good source because his views on an issue represent a fringe view, but I think we're in general agreement about that. RedSpruce 14:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Re Sacred Secrets: As you may know, there has been a lot of criticism of it and the quality of the Schecter's scholarship. Most notable among their critics are Klehr and Haynes; far from being left-wing "anti-anti-communists". Luckily, none of the criticism I've been able to find has to do with their account of the Ovakimian memorandum or Bentley and White. Most of the criticism is around their conclusion that J. Robert Oppenheimer was a Soviet spy: But it's an indication that the book (like all books, really) should be taken with a grain of salt. RedSpruce 00:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


Bentley, Olmstead, Schechters, Meeropols

The quote attributed to Bentley's Out of Bondage p. 141 actually appears on p. 241.

The attribution (Olmstead:186) supports that Olmstead cited Craig's conclusion that "the whole 'scheme,'" meaning White acting on NKVD instructions in the Treasury plates affair, was a "complete fabrication," but not that she agreed with it. The following page supports that she agreed with him insofar as Bentley lying about "her role" in the affair.

The statement that the Ovakimian memo was "publicized" in 2003 is confusing; it was published in the Schechters' Sacred Secrets in 2002, and received publicity from Herken and the Wilson Center, among others, before publication.

Also, the speculation attributed to the Rosenbergs' sons that "Bentley's testimony was changed in order to make it fit the prosecution's needs" is confusing, and the passive-voice construction doesn't help matters. Did they allege that Hoover withheld relevant portions of Bentley's statement from the Justice Department? That the U.S. Attorneys failed to disclose? That the defense was incompetent or corrupt on cross? That Bentley committed perjury? The article needs to clarify. Radosh and Milton might be more a reliable source on these matters. This whole discussion of speculation by relatives might need to be removed to the Rosenberg page. Mark LaRochelle 18:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Re. the Rosenbergs: First some general notes about your edits: You kept the previously existing point stating that Julius "never wore wire-rimmed glasses" and follow this with multiple links to pictures in which he's wearing glasses that may not technically be wire-rimmed, but the certainly look like wire-rimmed. This feels like you're playing Perry Mason style "AHA!" games with some imagined Rosenberg-defending reader. Since this isn't the Perry Mason show, I think a better course of action would have been to make a note of this inconsistency here in the talk page and invite a discussion of it. You also added a 338 word sentence that is very confusing and convoluted, with multiple quotes, including what seems to be a totally unnecessary one about submarines.
I suspect that a search of the literature would show that not many--if any--scholars have taken the Meeropols' book very seriously. I don't feel like doing that research right now, but nevertheless I propose that the whole passage on the Meeropol's contentions regarding Bentley's testimony be removed. The wire-rimmed glasses point is obviously hooey, and that leaves only the (non) move to Norfolk as an inconsistency in Bentley's statements. I'll go ahead and do this deletion; anyone who disagrees can of course undo it and discuss it here.
  • Re. the date of the Schechters' book: Amazon shows the copyright as 2003, but I see now that that's for the paperback edition; the original copyright is 2002. I'll change the cite book reference to show it as 2002 so there isn't an inconsistency between that and the article text.
  • Re. Olmstead and Craig: I agree with replacing "agreeing" with "citing."
RedSpruce 20:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. All good points, I think. Bentley's FBI statement indicated that the contact she knew under the name "Julius" was one of a group of Naval engineers at the Norfolk Naval complex, perhaps working on submarines; this would rule out Rosenberg. When you say this is "an inconsistency in Bentley's statements," do you mean that she testified in the Rosenberg trial that "Julius" never was at Norfolk? If so, that needs to be spelled out here.
The point of linking to the images was that, if it is true that Rosenberg never wore wire-rimmed glasses, it looks like one who met him only once might mistakenly "remember" the glasses he wore as being wire-rimmed. Sorry for the long sentence. I was trying not to step on the toes of whoever had made the prior edits. Work in progress, and all that. Mark LaRochelle 23:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I meant "inconsistency" in the sense of being inconsistent with the facts, since (according to the earlier edit) Rosenberg never moved to Norfolk. RedSpruce 13:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


1933??

Is it correct that Bentley joined the CPUSA in 1932, and then the next year went to Italy and joined the fascist group? Or is there some mistake here? Regards, GADno (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. She actually joined the communist party in 1935. I've fixed the article. RedSpruce (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elizabeth_Bentley/Archive_1&oldid=789373932"