Talk:Louis F. Budenz

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Citation on reliability of testimony[edit]

Can someone provide a citation on this statement:

The reliability of this testimony was questioned, as on two previous occasions Budenz had specifically stated that he had no knowledge that Lattimore was a Communist.

Thank you. Jtpaladin 16:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might find the following book interesting "Owen Lattimore and the "Loss" of China." Diosprometheus 09:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about opening paragraph[edit]

Budenz became known because of his anti-Communist testimony, yet that is not mentioned at all in the opening, main paragraph of his article.

May I suggest an opening sentence like this? :

Louis Francis Budenz (1891-07-17 – 1972-04-27) was a Soviet espionage agent who renounced Communism and became an informant for the FBI, testifying (often paid) before numerous Senate and House committees during the 1940s and particularly the 1950s.

Aboudaqn (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced non-working link[edit]

I could not access the original link used at the first ref in this article:

"Louis Francis Budenz Collection". Providence College. Retrieved 2011-05-24. Louis F. Budenz (1891-1972), a well-known labor activist, was one of the most prominent members of the Communist Party in the United States from 1935 to 1945. He was labor editor of The Daily Worker, the Party organ, from 1935 to 1937, and president and managing editor from 1940 to 1945....

Nor was I successful tracking down whether it might simply have a new url. I think the following url supports the claim, so I am replacing the ref:

"Guide to the Louis F. Budenz papers". Providence College. Retrieved 26 December 2011. Until 1945, Louis F. Budenz was a labor activist and prime supporter of the United States Communist party.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quote in footnote removed[edit]

It is common, in some places, to use a footnote to add a colorful anecdote, or additional explanatory material, not fitting into the flow of the main document. That practice is generally not encouraged in Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. I posed the question here. While the full community has obviously not weighed in, the consensus appears to me that quotes should be revered for two related classes of use:

In a case where there may be controversy about a particular fact, and whether the cited reference supports that fact, the use of the quote will make it easier for readers and editors to reach their own conclusion, by citing the specific quote used to support the fact. This is particularly important where a reference may be not online, or behind a pay wall.
When an opinion is paraphrased, the quote will help readers and editors determine whether the paraphrase is accurate.

This article did have a quote in a footnote, and it is my opinion that the quote does not support either use listed above, thus I have removed it, or truncated it. Should anyone disagree, or feel that there are other examples of allowable quotes, feel free to start a discussion. I suggest here, if you disagree with my conclusion that this quote doesn't fall into one of those two examples, or at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#.22brief_verbatim_textual_excerpts.22_revisited if you feel there should be other allowed uses.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 21:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Louis F. Budenz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927223300/http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page50.html to http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page50.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]