Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Americans in the Venona papers (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. Some say "third time's a charm", but there is no consensus to delete at this time. Article needs more cleanup/verification ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

List of Americans in the Venona papers
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Prod nominated by User:Washingtonian1976 on a previously AfD'd article. Reason given by Washingtonian1976 for prod is "unreliabe sources and original research by some additions, also seems not notable or needs significant alteration to not sully names of senior officials many who made great sacrifices". KTC (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. List is sourced to a single author who has associated Soviet codenames with real people.  Any verifiable information can be added to the Venona project article.  The rest are non-notable specualtion.  Some of these people may still be alive so the page also has potential BLP issues, the page title implies they were named in the Venona decrypts whereas the codenames are associated with real life names by synthesis and accusation.  Spinning  Spark  22:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete significant slander and BLP issues as it stands. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * [Keep] - retain but modify by verifications — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayak0310 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)  — Kayak0310 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment - I'm actually currently reading Haynes & Klehr's "Venona" book at the moment, which is a fortuitous bit of timing. First let me say that this Wikipedia list started way back in August 2005 as a spin-off from Venona project — that being a major American NSA counterintelligence operation involving the decryption of secret Soviet messages, mostly from the years during World War II. Only a small fraction of the communications were "cracked," based on the Soviets reusing "one-time pads" that were part of the encryption-decription process. Soviet intelligence operatives were identified through the decrypted messages. The problem we have here isn't really whether this is an encyclopedia-worthy topic — it absolutely is, the subject of several books and many scholarly articles as well as coverage in the popular press. The potential issue relates to the identification or misidentification of Soviet code names by Messrs. Haynes and Klehr — both of whom are honest, albeit quite conservative, scholars. Many IDs are necessarily "best guesses," based upon circumstantial evidence. Even assuming an accuracy rate of 97% or 99% (which would be the range that I would personally be gambling money on) — is this good enough? What about the 1 to 3% who are misidentified, even if now dead? Is that acceptible?


 * Here we run into my all time least favorite part of Wikipedia doctrine, the Orwellian absurdity that the threshold for inclusion at WP is "Verifiability, not Truth." I think that's bullshit. We MUST strive for Verifiability and Veracity — we should not play the game of repeating inaccuracies and falsehoods just because they have been published. But I'm not necessarily sure how to proceed here, since this IS an encyclopedic topic and the big majority of names on this list ARE no doubt accurate. It's a bit of a puzzle, actually. I tend to think this is a Keep situation, in some serious need of editorial discussion and whittling down of the list.


 * Another potential issue — the naming of this list implies culpability in Soviet espionage action. But being an American MENTIONED IN the Venona-decripted communication is no proof. For instance, I am positive that Franklin D. Roosevelt and Eleanor Roosevelt are MENTIONED IN Venona communications. Yet they are not included here. Why is that? Again, is this an editing problem? Yeah, probably. This is actually a very, very tricky little piece. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - But place editorial scrutiny on the list, either removing names in which there is any inkling of doubt or placing them in a second "tentative identifications" section. I think there are very real possible content concerns here, perhaps but not necessarily touching upon BLP (most everyone on the list is now dead), but I think the list itself is clearly encyclopedia-worthy. Carrite (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This would require so much work, I do not think anybody would do it. Plus, Haynes has changed his opinion on some of the names based on new data released from Soviet files.
 * http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page102.html#appendix1 Washingtonian1976 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC) — Washingtonian1976 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I've done a considerable number of pseudonym IDs of early Communists based on archival documents (1920-23 period) and it's an inexact science. There is a TON of circumstantial evidence that comes into play and mistaken IDs absolutely DO happen... I think the list here is pretty clean, but I also feel it is very likely imperfect. It really is a tough call as to whether the possibility of small error offsets the utility of a largely correct list. If the title was something like List of Americans in the Venona Decrypts According to Haynes and Klehr, I'd feel a lot better about the list... But that also wouldn't be the encyclopedic subject. An orthodox Walesian view would be "we don't care if it's right or wrong, as long as Yale University Press has published the list" — but that logic galls me. It DOES matter to impugn someone wrongly, living or dead. If it's right, it should be in; if it's not right, it should not be in. But who's to decide what's a correct ID and what's erroneous? It's not a simple matter. Carrite (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to send an email to John Haynes and get his take on this. Carrite (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Mr. Haynes offered no guidance on this list other than to say he believed the covername identifications in Venona to be "highly accurate." I still think the way to proceed is to find some sort of official NSA list and then to append H&K's additional identifications to that, appropriately footnoted. This is an editorial matter, not a notability matter. Carrite (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Carrite: Are you reading other people's responses? There is NO official NSA list out there. Ask Haynes if there is anything close...Maybe an FBI introduction to the papers lists certainties. But why use that instead of just referring people to the source in the main Venona wiki page? Many of the names the government wrote on the Venona messages as decodes of coded names were best guesses and some were later shown to be wrong. So...the gov't likely doesn't stand by its own lists on this very strongly even. Unless the list is very short...which means a recasting of this page entirely. Again, people can point folks to the several books and updated websites about this topic in the main Venona page. This page includes too much not related to the book, thus original research and partial listings. And it's not being kept up to date, which for a project that hints heavily that people were spies is rather lame.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.3.63 (talk) 07:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - As to so-called "Original Research" (another of my pet peeves, since everything on WP that isn't a copyvio is technically original research)... Appendix A of Haynes & Klehr's Venona is entitled "Source Venona: Americans and U.S. Residents Who Had Covert Relationships with Soviet Intelligence Agencies" and indicates that it is "an annotated list of 349 names" who "had a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence that is confirmed in the Venona traffic." (Appendix A is pp. 339-370.) A case might be made that this draws upon a single source, whether that's a terminal party foul I can't say, but this wasn't a list pulled from the sky. Carrite (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) The problem here is the identifications are not verified by any other source in the article. Those that are beyond question or identified in other sources are already discussed in Venona project, and if not, they easily could be.  This article entirely represents the views of Haynes & Klehr.  The article is at the very least misnamed, these names do not appear in the Venona decrypts, only agent codenames do.  If it stays at all, it should be in an article about the work of Haynes & Klehr, not masquerading as encyclopedic fact.  Spinning  Spark  16:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with spinningspark. Plus, as I note below Haynes has changed his opinion on some names it seems. More importanly, regarding original research, there's signs that people have added their own thoughts on names. For instance, Hoynes, as far as I can tell, never thought Hopkins was on the list. Does somebody want to go thhrough all the list to check all of them for errors? If people are interested they can do research, not hope to find accuracy here. It's too much detail and requires too much work. It will almost certainly be wrong to try to catalog it all here. Washingtonian1976 (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC) — Washingtonian1976 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete It would require much work to clean up the list by consulting other sources. I do not think anybody would do it. Plus, Haynes has changed his opinion on some of the names based on new data released from Soviet files. See link below. Finally, the list was started, I suspect, by people who felt they were certain of who was who in these codes. Or they relied on others like Haynes who also has more faith in his "intelligence" work than I think is warranted to sully people's names like this. Again...who would clean it up and how on earth would they do so. This list is not wiki material. http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page102.html#appendix1 - Washingtonian1976 (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC) — Washingtonian1976 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment - I've figured out a way to do this. If there is an official NSA list, THAT should be the main list. Then, if there are names here beyond that, those can be added as a supplemental listing, with each one clearly footnoted to a page number in H&K Venona — or, if that has been updated, with the current "best guess ID." The main list needs to be from an official government source, even if it's short. By the way, FDR was "KAPITAN," I see on the NSA's site... Which makes him an "American mentioned in the Venova papers." Carrite (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So you think that the content should be different and the article title should be different? That sounds to me like you are proposing a completely new article and should be in favour of a delete for this one.  Spinning  Spark  14:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - That would be a good idea if there was a list that many scholars and analysts (gov't or not) agreed on. However, there is not. Opinions about the guesswork of who is this or that codename keeps changing on many important names. Even the same scholars, analysts, or hobbyists change their opinions. Thus, the list is not an accurate depiction. There can be, at best, a "list of controversial allegations" of who are mentioned in the papers and a list of those that are mentioned by name, but that seems somewhat silly. And it makes it too easy for people to debate who is who on the list and begin adding other names that are original research, etc., etc. Or the list should be limited to what is in one book and then a section for criticisms or updates of the book could exist. Your point about FDR is a good one, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.3.63 (talk) 13:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. :Verifiability, not truth. These people have been identified in a published source. How reliable it is, IDK. Don't like the claims, refute with better sources. Don't try to delete. It won't work. (If bogus & indefensible claims were deleted, this would've been gone long ago.) I don't always like the lack of veracity, either, Carrite (I agree entirely there), but WP is what it is, & changing the policy is another debate.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  20:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Question. Can somebody define verifiability? Given the title of the page, the accuracy cannot be verified as there is little agreement. Plus, as others mention, the list is missing some of the most well known names mentioned in the communications. Clearly, people are just putting here the people they think are agents, not those mentioned. Which brings up the fact that people do a lot of surmising with these lists. Also, why is it just a list of Americans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.3.63 (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per SpinningSpark. The actual topic of the article appears to be List of Americans who John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr state they have identified from the Venona papers, which is a rather dubious thing to have an article on. Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Many topics have some uncertainty associated with them but this is no bar to our coverage of them - see Jack the Ripper suspects, for example. Perfect is the enemy of good. Warden (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Highly significant topic, well sourced list. Not OR or SYN, just fair and straightforward assemblage of information. Exactly what an encyclopedia ought to be doing.   DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * People are failing to address others' concerns. For instance, it is OR if people are adding names in or keeping some out instead of giving the list. Plus, what aobut renaming it? Simply keeping doesnot respect the points being made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.161.136.174 (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * keep These are historic facts, regardless of current personal opinion about them. And being on the list does not necessarily imply anything else other than that they are on the list. Hmains (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Nick-D. This is based on a list and all references are to works by the author(s) of the list. There is no evidence of independent coverage here. Note also that John Earl Haynes suffers from a similar lack of independent references. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.