Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Evidence

Comment

While it is clear to me that the work of Lyndon LaRouche is original research, while the work of Chip Berlet is peer reviewed research, I am somewhat at a loss to explain exactly why. My preliminary thought is that Chip Berlet is embedded in a progressive matrix which can provide feedback regarding his work, while LaRouche is not, thus free to engage in idiosyncratic musings. Fred Bauder 22:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

If you mean by "peer reviewed research," a process like the one described here:[Peer-reviewed] it's very unlikely that Mr. Berlet's work goes through such a formal process.

On the other hand, Cberlet is (we have no reason to disbelieve) an identified person, i.e, Mr. Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, and is occasionally quoted in publications like the NYT, typically as having "written extensively on cults" and as one who "tracks right-wing groups". A search of the NYT shows his name in such contexts around 20 times since 1989. The articles I've pulled up usually quote a sound-bite from him regarding Larouche, right-wing militias or fringe political groups.

I would say that gives his views a certain gravitas lacking in those expressed by anonymous posters (like me!), but does not make them authoritative in the sense that a real peer-reviewed paper is. FRS 00:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

My contention is that Mr. Berlet's output falls into two categories: 1) standard leftist commentary that would occasionally be quoted in publications like the NYT, and 2) wildly idiosyncratic speculation that sort of "flies under the radar" and winds up in various fringe publications, blogs -- and in Wikipedia. I am arguing that there should be some yardstick to ensure that views from the former category are considered acceptable, while those from the latter category are not. Cberlet is attempting to use the acceptance he has won for his more responsible productions, as a license to infiltrate his more irresponsible ones into Wikipedia. --HK 23:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

That is certainly the problem: if we totally ban LaRouche additions to articles not directly related to LaRouche, on what basis do we permit Chip Berlet or others adding material he has written to articles and linking to it? My sense is that we can justify it. Viewing both Chip Berlet and La Rouche as figures on the left, when La Rouche steps out there is a general negative uproar, when Chip Berlet publishes something new, while I know there is not general agreement on every point. there is no general rejection of his work on the part of the progressive community. Actually his situation is quite similar to that of Noam Chomsky (not his linguistics work but his political opinions). While a tiny minority, yet there is a following and at least tolerance in the progressive community. In the case of Chip Berlet there is a substantial radical and liberal audience for his research on the radical right. This audience extends into the mainstream media and into academia. Fred Bauder 01:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Fred, I think that your analogy is poorly constructed. Although at one time Berlet had a following in some of the more exotic regions of the Left, it's less straightforward today -- he has lately taken to repeating the line from the neo-conservatives, for example, that critics of the neo-cons are covert anti-Semites. LaRouche's friends are primarily traditional, moderate and liberal Democrats, as demonstrated by those who have been recently interviewed in EIR: Gene McCarthy, George McGovern, Gen. Joseph Hoar, Gen. Anthony Zinni, Arthur Hertzberg. And a significant audience for LaRouche is the international one -- take a look at this, for example, probably the largest circulation publication to ever quote Wikipedia. --HK 09:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It's more complicated...naturally. Everything I write for Political Research Associates goes through a multi-level editing process involving the staff and director; and I have to produce my documentation. When I write for a print publication such as The Progressive, I go through a similar editing process, and sometimes have to mail or fax my underlying documentation to an editor. In recent years I have been writing scholarly articles, most of which are by invitation, and involve a review process and heavy editing by an academic editor. Some of these are actual peer-reviewed articles (agony!). I also have been an anonymous peer reviewer for academic journals; and been asked to write reviews of scholarly books for academic discipline review journals such as Contemporary Sociology. Most recently I have been asked to join the editorial advisory board of a peer review journal where they value my expertise on fascism and totalitarianism. However, I do try not to cite myself, unless it is a topic where it is difficult to find other cites (LaRouche is an example), or where Wiki editors have deleted or criticized text or a cite to my work posted by someone else, with some comment like it is garbage or not reliable, etc.--Cberlet 20:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I have researched the LaRouch movement well enough to know that this essay, [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nobs01 and others/Evidence#Evidence presented by {Cognition}]], is their orthodox world view. Deciding whether material from a source like this is reliable may seem difficult in theory, but in practice it is easy. While LaRouche's movement does have some aspects of a reliable source, such as a large staff, it create realities are dramatically different from the realities that most other news or research groups hold. It is worthwhile to try to find practical principles that distinguish groups which are on or near the fringe from those that are beyond the it, but there might not be any. -Willmcw 09:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Cognition's essay illustrates the original research nature of LaRouche's work well. The bit about British Intelligence for example, there were British agents in America and they did work against American national interests. For example, there was a mountain man, a trapper, a Briton, who in hindsight appears to have been a British agent who mission was to do what he could to keep track of the fur trappers and keep them out of Canada. Perhaps in later history there were others, but with La Rouche the thought rapidly spirals off into fantastic flights of fancy. Really it is a lot like the Onefortyone case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone/Workshop#Original_reseach_by_Onefortyone where a credible possibility is spun out into a certainty. Credible possibilities are what intelligence and research is about, but once there is no limiting feedback one may go far. Fred Bauder 13:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet's view of the issues

This case involves establishing the boundaries of proper editing and discussion behavior on Wikipedia when a Wiki editor is also the subject of a Wiki entry under their real name and identity. The editors named in this arbitration vary greatly in terms of their behavior, with Nobs01 having the most problematic edit history. Some other editors named have simply participated on the discussion page. All have been involved in editing conflicts with me as a Wiki editor, and then been involved in editing or discussing the entries on me and my employer.

At the heart of the case is a complicated set of questions. If individual Wiki editors are discouraged from editing entries on themselves, what policies might be appropriate to advise Wiki editors who have been in editing disputes with an editor for whom there is an entry? What are the proper boundaries when digging up negative and derogatory information about a fellow Wiki editor with whom one has had a dispute? Is there not a built in bias? Shouldn’t there be some ground rules?

Since Wiki relies on published materials, does a person attacked on Wiki need to “publish” a response to every criticism posted on some marginal website or published in some highly POV print publication? How can persons with entries on Wiki defend themselves against the posting of false, malicious, and potentially defamatory text?--Cberlet 23:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Note that Nobs01 has now created a user page that starts with an essay on the "Extremist Personality" devoted in part to once again attacking me[1].

Since Nobs01 posted the paragraphs below on his user page, and it attracted a response there, I am adding it here for the record[2]:

Cberlet seeks mediation with nobs over Venona & related issues

Cberlet seeks mediation with nobs over endless disagreements and lack of constructive editing progress at the following related pages: Talk:VENONA project; Talk:Significance of Venona; Harry Magdoff; Harry Magdoff and espionage; and others. I have spent over one month trying to forge compromise text on these pages. A third party suggested we debate the multiple issues at Talk:VENONA project and filed an RfC for that page. The RfC has not produced the desired results. Nobs argues in circles, produces mountains of unrelated and dubious arguments, fights over simple citations, makes claims not supported by underlying documents, and continues to insert his POV and questionable claims into the pages rather than arriving at an agreement on the Talk:VENONA project page. I have tried to write NPOV text on several pages pending a resolution on the Talk:VENONA project. Nobs simply ignores this and inserts only his side of the issues. In addition, a number of other editors have had the same experience with Nobs on several other pages. I am willing to try to hammer out a compromise on the Talk:VENONA project that will serve as a model for these other disputes. Most recently, and what prompted this request for mediation, Nobs declared we had reached a major agreement, and then promptly inserted his POV version of the text. Without mediation, there is no hope of resolving this matter. At issue is how to cite and summarize information from various government agencies and secondary sources regarding Soviet era espionage.--Cberlet 18:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to further substantiate this behavior regarding the article on Alger Hiss. Nobs has an extensive edit history with the page, consistently inserting POV material with circular reasoning, dubious sources, personal interpretation, and in one particular case, blatantly false information that was later traced to the Anti-Zionist world conspiracy author, Douglass Reed. He frequently deletes unfavorable facts without checking with anyone else, and inserts his own POV in biographical sections meant to be neutral. The page has two sections meant to present the case for Alger Hiss's innocence and Hiss' guilt, but Nobs ignores the agreed format to litter the article with inapprioapte and highly biased additions. Many of his citations do not justify the statements written, but he refuses to justifiy them and instead replies to some non-issue.--Timoteo III 05:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Question from Nobs

Can Cberlet clarify this accusation against nobs: " Nobs01 suggests that I am complicit in murder: ' The murder of Richard S. Welch was the entirely predictable result of the disclosure tactics chosen by certain American critics' " [3] (A) Did nobs say it? (B) is the Washington Post a "marginal website" or "highly POV print publication?" nobs 02:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You are aware that you have engaged in a leap of logic. Chip Berlet wrote an article about CounterSpy. A disclosure in CounterSpy of the identity of a CIA agent may have resulted in his death. So what did Chip Berlet have to do with the death of Richard S. Welch? And what on earth does your information have to do with the content of the article, Chip Berlet? What would you add to the article that was relevant and well sourced? Keep in mind, we have no access to the text of the article, which was not in CounterSpy but in Alternative Media. Fred Bauder 03:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You are correct; my citation was in error, and I will correct it. As to the substance of your question, I refer you to the text of Mr. Laird Wilcox's Report, pgs. 121-124, Chip Berlet and U.S. Law Enforcement and Intelligence Agencies. Relevent portions are quoted at Talk:Chip Berlet#Intelligence Identities Protection Act. If the extraction there is not in keeping with the spirit of the source material, please advise. As to what could be added, in the current discussion at Talk:Chip Berlet I stated I would present three quotations from Mr. Wilcox, and will do so as time allows. Thank you. nobs 03:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea why I've been cited...

...by Nobs, as follows:

• • User:Hob posts on User:Cberlet's talk page,
    • "I started that RfC to try to draw some more attention to the situation, from editors who hadn't already been embroiled in it, some of whom might be able to engage with Nobs & you on the actual content issues - which I can't really do, because of my lack of familiarity with the sources." [4]

Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents#Abuse of processes
Statement(s) of principle states,

• Requests for comment and requests for arbitration should be used appropriately within the guidelines on that page. They should not be used for frivolous or pointless disputes and should not be used as a forum for personal attacks, harassment, and abuse.

Apparently, Nobs means that I started an inappropriate RFC (Talk:VENONA Project#RFC: references to Venona in other articles) to harass him, though I think nothing in the RFC itself or my comment supports that; it was obviously a literal request for comment to see whether third parties might be able to defuse an edit war that had basically driven away everyone except Cberlet and Nobs. (Unfortunately, no one responded.) If Nobs actually thinks that "engage with Nobs and you on the actual content issues" means "harass Nobs", I can see how he might have some difficulty with collaboration in general. I don't know if that was it, though; I'm often unable to figure out what he means by his cryptic insinuations. ←Hob 04:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Clarification: I have no interest or do not wish to allege or pursue a dispute with User:Hob. This case is essentially a dispute between nobs & Cberlet, nobs alleges Cberlet abused process to drive this dispute to Arbitration. Unfortunately, User:Hobs got caught up in the partisan inflammitory warfare User:Cberlet has developed a reputation for, despite the fact those caught up in it readily admit to their "lack of familiarity" of what the dispute is even about. nobs 04:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

If you don't want a dispute with me, don't tell me that I am engaging in "partisan inflammatory warfare". I did not say I was unfamiliar with what the dispute was even about; I just said I wasn't familiar enough with the content in question to make reliable editorial judgments of my own. That's why I requested comment from other editors. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and RFCs are often a good way to get constructive input from others who may have some needed expertise - unless you are the type who believes you're the only one with any relevant expertise, or are more interested in edit warring. ←Hob 04:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

For those who are wondering what this all has to do with the RFA: nothing. There is no way Cberlet or anyone else could have used my RFC to "drive this dispute to Arbitration", because it was a different dispute. ←Hob 04:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Inserted for the record:

• 22 September

• 03:22

• Cberlet states, "What part of moving this discussion to the group discussion at Talk:VENONA project page do you not understand, Nobs?"; no prior consultation about moving discussion.[5]

Cberlet sends out invites,

12:52 User talk:Willmcw (Nobs Redux at Talk:VENONA project)

12:54 User talk:Ruy Lopez (Nobs Redux at Talk:VENONA project) [53] [54]

12:56 User talk:Viajero (Nobs Redux at Talk:VENONA project)

13:01 User talk:Katefan0 (Nobs Redux at Talk:VENONA project)

13:07 User talk:Peter Hendrickson (Nobs Redux at Talk:VENONA project)

13:09 User talk:Jmabel (Nobs Redux at Talk:VENONA project)

13:10 User talk:Viriditas (Nobs Redux at Talk:VENONA project)

13:13 User talk:Jayjg/Archive 10 (Significance of Venona documents)

13:13 User talk:El C (Nobs Redux at Talk:VENONA project)

13:14 User talk:SlimVirgin (Significance of Venona documents)

All read the same,

Someone, not I, has consolidated the discussion over the Venona documents and how to represent them (prompted by the text written on many pages) onto a single page: Talk:VENONA project. I hope you will join us in trying to resolve many of the issues that keep cropping up across Wikipedia in this matter. Thanks.--

nobs 05:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Another clarification for User:Hobs: the reference to "partisan inflammitory warfare" is to User:Cberlet; the reference to "those caught up in it" includes User:Hobs. nobs 19:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Process

Question to Fred Bauder: Are you suggesting that I was supposed to continue to expose myself to Cberlet's charges of "harrassment", when I was legitimately following Wikipedia prescribed Dispute Resolution Proceedures? Thank you. nobs 20:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Your question is not clear. How were you exposed by following what procedures? Fred Bauder 20:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents#Dispute resolution states,

users who are in conflict talk to one another on their respective talk pages

3 August

• 19:42

• "Please carry out all contact with me through the talk pages of specific articles. I have no interest in continuing to engage with you outside the actual editing process. Messages left here will not be responded to." [6]

• 20:12

• Cberlet's first mediation request; refers to nobs good faith [7] proposal at User talk:Cberlet as "harrassment". [8]

20 September

• 19:57

• On the "talk page of the specific article" to the case now in Arbitration, Cberlet responds with personal attack of "harrassment" [9].

My question: How many personal attacks through edit summaries and Talk page postings am I supposed to expose myself to, when I approach a user in good faith to resolve disputes, without it legitimately being considered "harassment"? Thank you. nobs 21:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no intention of whitewashing cberlet, but what you link to just evidences a request to be let alone. The link to the mediation procedure is inappropriate as anything said in mediation by any party or the mediator is not admissible as evidence. Fred Bauder 22:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet's first refusal of a good faith offer was immediately escalated to a RfM that contained a false statement and personal attack. This clearly is an Abuse of Process, if the discussion on his Talk page prior to the RfM is examined. The interpretation of this evidence then is, that when a User declares a "good faith" offer, Wikipedia policy considers it "harassment". nobs 22:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

"Others acting in concert"

The fanciful nature of Cberlet's theory, that he is facing a vast conspiracy against him by a diverse grouping of editors who have little in common, suggests that he views Wikipedia "through a lens distorted by Conspiracism." --HK 15:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobs01 view of Cberlet's request

Cberlet is asking the Committee to establish by precedent a special exemption privelege based upon notoriety. What has come into focus is Cberlet's undisclosed conflict of interest when entering into (a) normal editing practices (b) dispute resolution processes. On Cberlet's user page is now famously inscribed his User:Cberlet#Venona dissents,. criticism of Prof. Harvey Klehr. This dissent is one of only two published sources Cberlet uses as "sceptics" on the subject of the Venona project. Cberlet and nobs have been debating this for months.

Prof. Klehr states in Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today (Transaction Books, New Brunswick, 1988), p. 161,

"The NLG is an affiliate of the Soviet-controlled International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL).... Over the years it has steadfastly supported every twist and turn in Soviet foreign policy, including the invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan."

Also quoted in Laird Wilcox subchapter Chip Berlet and the National Lawyers Guild, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 115-117 ISBN 0-993592-96-5 .

Chip Berlet#Resume states,

"Berlet is former vice-president of the National Lawyers Guild..."; also [10]

Cberelt posts at WikiIN-1, 7 Nov 2005 [11]

"I freely confess, I have a vested interest..."

During the months long discussion never once did Cberlet disclose this vested personal interest behind his motivations, in normal discussion, or any dispute resolution process.

I became vaguely aware of Cberlet's motives in July and August when I became familiar with the Wilcox Report, but AGF, among so many issues, it was a matter of prioritizing relevent subjects. By 20 September, Laird Wilcox's credential had been established, and I approached Mr. Berlet on the subject, only to be rebuked with a personal attack.

It is clear now, his vested interest extends to (1) breach of faith in dispute resolution, (2) impugning critics of the NLG, (3) continuing to advance notions of conspiracism to promote book sales by using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising and self-promotion. nobs 17:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Verifiability

Being that nobs has essentially pled guilty to reading the Washington Post out loud, and a Wikipedia Policy has already been modified based upon nobs postings to Talk:Chip Berlet, I am not certain if this is the appropriate forum to raise the verifiability of this source. The postings under Intelligence Identities Protection Act on that Talk page also reference Mr. Berlet circulating Philip Agee's reading list as late as 1991. This [12] appears to be either a copy, or that very list Mr. Wilcox cited. It's authorship is given as Chip Berlet & Linda Lotz, and appears in all identifying particulars to match the description Mr. Wilcox gave in his report. It is dated Revised 1/14/91. It contains this item,

• "Public Eye" Another spawn of the first "Counterspy." Not currently publishing. Last issue Spring 1989.

On the face of it, the above reference appears to be written by Chip Berlet & Linda Lotz. This raises numerous questions, one of which directly relates to a key piece of evidence in this proceeding. nobs 05:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez

I'm gonna allow User:Noel to respond once again to Ruy Lopez, here's the last two times [13][14] (I lost count after six). Also, see 16 Septmeber how Cberlet created an attack subhead [15], acting in concert with Ruy Lopez one minute after he announced "I, and others, like Chip Berlet, have taken a stand" [16], and then was identified as the banned sockpuppet troll who inserted neo-nazi material in the Harry Dexter White article. nobs 03:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I said Bentley lost the libel case. Jnc says nothing to refute this, he just says they were unhappy they lost, well, OK, so they weren't happy about the loss - but they lost. I even cited the trial in the Thomson/West transcripts so that anyone could see they lost.

Then I say I can't believe a KGB case officer would know 80 American spies, never mind an American agent. The important point being the American, not the KGB case officer, but I used it as a comparison, fine. So Jnc brings up a Russian major, and a colonel, who knew who more than 80 spies were. OK - but a colonel is a colonel, not a lowly case officer. It's a tangent from the important point anyway, but even on the tangent there's no "gotcha".

I'm not sure what Nobs is saying after this. Me and Chip are in a conspiracy together (maybe we're in a conspiracy like all the liberals and communists were in a conspiracy together in the 1950s, at least in Nobs's mind)? Who is the neo-nazi, me or Chip? Who is the banned sockpuppet troll? Perhaps letting Jnc speak for you is a good idea, his "gotcha" attempts never really go anywhere, but at least he is coherent, somewhat sane and so forth. Ruy Lopez 04:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, sounds like he's losing it. "then was identified as the banned sockpuppet troll who inserted neo-nazi material " is just an off the wall personal attack with nothing, to my knowledge, behind it. When did all this identifying take place? Fred Bauder 13:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• User:Coqsportif inserts neo-nazi [17] material into Harry Dexter White.
• User:SlimVirgin bans Coqsportif indefintely for "trolling, disruption, and WP:POINT", and "a waste of other editors' time" [18]
• User:Viajero identifies Cooqsportif as User:Ruy Lopez [19]

nobs 19:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobs01's identifications are shoddy as ever. Where exactly did Viajero identify me as Coqsportif? Viajero left a message on my page about a suspicious new user named Coqsportif. I am not pointing any fingers, but I can note that Viajero left this message four days before the ArbCom case against Trey Stone closed - Stone, who had at least 17 sock puppets, and who admitted that he had used sock puppets. I'm not necessarily saying he is still using sock puppets now, but he used to use them, he even admitted he did. I will accept Nobs's first and second points, and even go along with the ban of Coqsportif for trolling, disruption etc. I don't see what this has to do with me though. Ruy Lopez 19:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I recieved a 45 kb e-mail packet in August compiled by two user of sockpuppets relating to Ruy Lopez up to that time; I don't beleive it is proper to release the packet without the consent of the two users who compiled it. nobs 20:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I see, you have a whole pile of secret evidence against me, and you wanted everyone to know that, but you refuse to divulge what this secret evidence is. Do you have secret evidence showing that there are WMD's in Iraq as well? Ruy Lopez 20:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I beleive that question relates more to knowhow, not production facilities or stockpiles. But this is hardly the forum to discuss it. nobs 20:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Then why did you discuss it here? Fred Bauder 20:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

My appologies. I thought this was an Arbitration Hearing. Ruy Lopez brought in extraneous material with associated innuendoes, etc. It was my mistake to respond. Then, in considering a response, I felt not taking the bait would allow a disruption of the Arbitration process with extraneaous material and associated innuendoes which may actually affect the process. Also, the time involved dealing with such abuses detracts from presenting my case. So presumably, Ruy Lopez, et. al. have been effective. And it's not my place to make suggestions how to improve this process in the middle of a hearing. nobs 20:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

AGF

It should be noted, nobs has not joined in any of the motions for recusal, despite the evidence being presented. Nobs01 interprets this as a proper application of WP:AGF, given the limited contact nobs has had with any committee members. nobs 21:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

NPA

Let me state my position: nobs pleads guilty to a breaching experiment, disruption, etc.; the findings of NPA, however, seem ill-advised. nobs 23:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

And I would like to add a personal appology to the community as a whole for behavior which, though not intented, may be misinterpreted as a personal attack, and should not be emulated again by others as an example to affect policy or change. Thank you. nobs 17:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to add that this guy keeps putting in fake information from nutcases like Douglas Reed[20] in Alger Hiss. I wish he would reform, but he hasn't. He also just filed a phony vandalism charge against me solely for disagreeing with his "methods" and "facts" on the page. [21][22] nobs is a burden for everyone involved with him. Sincerity is not something I can honestly find at all in this editor.--Timoteo III 03:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It could have assisted Timoteo's case to begin editing in good faith, rather than the fifteen documented instances of disruption to the Talk page [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] when he began editing under this name; and also, like User:Ruy Lopez, this user has a habit of refering to documented falsehoods ad infinitem in effort to generate innuendo, to wit: citations were provided for Weinstein and further corroborated in Toledano & Lasky book. nobs 17:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Reviewing some of the Timoteo III's evidence, whom is suspected to be working with the staff of Political Research Associates, we find this for example,

• "[38] Inserts a rather half-baked accusation that Hiss was dealing w/ atomic information, though that oddly didn't seem to come up at his trial if true (see the date of the committee report being before the trial 1946 is way before 1949, 1st trial). I suspect Tom Murphy would have caught on if there was merit to this line of thinking, as it is a terrible thing to trade nuclear secrets. Quote is impossible to judge in context, suspicious use of ellipses. And doesn't provide a secondary source to access very difficult-to-locate primary one."

neglecting, of coarse to state that it has been footnoted [39][40] for months (here's a third citation if those two aren't enough: John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999, p. 172). Does the Committee ever investigate this sort of concerted disruption to the Arbitration Process? nobs 21:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)