text:
Talk:Venona project/Archive 2

Proceedural proposal
Clearly there is much interest in this article and all views need to be managed fairly. The sourcing is not going away, i.e. Many of the above published findings of the 38 year National Security Agency/Federal Bureau of Investigation into espionage are not paranoid conspiracy theories of yesteryore, they are the published findings of the United States Government.
 * the unanimous findings of the bipartisan Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy Report,
 * the National Security Agency Archives, Custodian of documents for the Army Signals Intelligence,
 * the Official History of Counterintelligence in the United States of the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive
 * the Archivist of the United States
 * the Library of Congress Manuscripts Division

I would request that everyone step back and look at more of the broader questions, relating to the use of Government Secrecy in a Free Society, as Sen. Moynihan sets out a good discussion. The foreign policy implications of Venona revelations. Historical revisionism. Unelected career bureaucrats & military making inherent political decisions with enormous domestic political consequences, and whether it was the right decision. Was the partisan divide that erupted from this decision really necessary, now that there is a fuller view of the question. What is to be learned from all this, etc. etc. etc. It will take a generation to understand its meaning, as the Senator Moynihan spoke, and I would hope by us Wiki editors working together, we may knock off a decade or two.

Here is the proposal:
 * Complete biographical scetches of the 171 identified names and later insert Venona references without a conclusion beginning with
 * (a) government employees
 * (b) employees of government contractors, mostly defense and electronics related
 * (c) journalists and media broadcasters
 * (d) outside persons, i.e. persons outside government, media & government contractors
 * Complete examination of the all the Washington D.C. and New York Rezidentura decrypts.
 * Most of the Washington D.C. decrypts actually were transmitted through New York, so as the bio pages on government employees are completed, that would take a big bite out of both D.C. & New York transcripts.
 * Once that is completed, then we can finish the New York transcripts which would deal with most of the Rosenberg matter, media stars, and ordinary people etc.
 * Once D.C. and New York are completed, we can deal with the San Francisco and West Coast operations
 * i.e. Los Alamos, etc.
 * An Appendix C has not been created yet, to deal with Foreigners. This may be of interest to Trotsky experts, seeing much of it deals with
 * the Altschuler network, Trotsky's murder, and Central & South America. I would ask for volunteers with expertise in those areas.

This can all be completed, without mindless partisan wrangling etc., the idea is to get good, full biographical pictures. And it is an opportunity here, whatever perspective an editor may be coming from, to make a fair presentation of the evidence of their client's case. The questions surrounding NSA/FBI conclusions can all be argued out once we see the full picture. And again, I would remind, there are much larger, and broader historico-political, international revisionist issues here, (moreso to put it rather crudely, than just argueing the case of a dead guy who lost his job).

Mr. Griffen Fariello has expressed an interest here. I would suggest immediately that the biographical pages of Abraham Brothman and Vivian Glassman sorely need immediate attention. Mr. Brothman's FBI file is 6000 pages. My original intent was tie in the Philby case once most Venona materials were completed, and the Philby file is 3000 pages. There are many interesting things there related to how the CIA, from day one of its creation by the National Security Act of 1947, was immediately compromised by the KGB, and it wasn't fully dealt with until about 1963. So there is room for all kinds of controversial arguements ahead, if everyone will just be patient and express some willingness to work together (and I haven't discussed a fraction of the implications Venona materials may have).

So to conclude (tentatively) if we can break up the remaining bio pages to be created among volunteers, and finish the article, rather than incessant warfare over existing articles, then deal with the veracity of this or that specific claim on a case by case basis. I would welcome any further input, comments & suggestions (but the ideological partisan crap, you can hold for now). Thank you. nobs 19:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Discuss edits please
The text I edited suffered from vast leaps of conclusion. I edited in good faith. Please do not revert my changes without a serious discussion.--Cberlet 22:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think low credibility sources on VENONA add much to the article, it's an important subject that doesn't need ideological interpretation. Coqsportif 22:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought there was an understanding to depoliticize the Venona project article and return it to the cryptograpers so they can further research into their science. Dispute tags and "criticism" can be dealt with elsewhere. However, if the idea is to re-politicize it and engage in an edit war again, then we may have to remerge the names. nobs 22:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I have little affection for Nobs but I agree with him, a neutral Venona article would be great. Is there a reason why the names are excluded? Coqsportif 23:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

 * To depoliticize the subject; interest in the Venona project is not limited to its historico-political aspects. The Significance of Venona and List of Americans in the Venona papers have been spun off to separate the science of cryptography from historical & political disputes.  This is only fair to the nuetral cyptographers caught in the middle who would like to get into present day applications of the cryptographers contributions in that technical field.  Dispute tags and edit wars can be fought elsewhere. nobs 23:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I would suggest the unresolved disputes be moved here -->Talk:Significance of Venona, where Mr. Griffen Fariello has already expressed an interest in contributing, and has already survived a VfD (Votes for deletion/Significance of Venona). nobs 23:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Cberlet: I think you will get a debate about "accuracy, and historic value of the VENONA decrypts and their secondary analysis are hotly debated"; I propose rewritting using language similar to Sen. Moynihan ot the effect that "it took a generation to get the documents out, it may take a generation to understand their meaning", before some wholesale slander on the governments 38 year efforts. Thanks you. nobs 03:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Haunted Wood
On the subect of Venona and the spy rings in the US in the 30s/40, there is a recent book out which sheds a lot of light on all the material covered in these signals. It is:

 * Alexander Vassiliev, Allen Weinstein, The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America - The Stalin Era (Random House, New York, 1999)

It is one of that series of about 5 books that the SVR co-sponsored during the brief window of opennness in the early 90s (just after the fall of Dzerzhinsky's statue), where retired intelligence people from both sides would collaborate on books about history. E.g. there's one called Battleground Berlin (IIRC) about the Berlin goings-on (including the infamous wiretap tunnel).

It was written by two writers (one of them retired KGB) with basically full access to the archives of the NKVD for the 30's and early 40's, so it's straight from the horse's mouth - totally incontrovertible! It has a footnote every few lines, and almost every last one is to an NKVD file number!

As for Venona, it says:

 * "These two sets of concordant materials - dispatches read first in Moscow from the KGB archives and later found in deciphered versions in the VENONA materials"

(emphasis mine) thereby providing cast-iron feedback that shows that the cryptanalysts of the SIS (and later the NSA) weren't making this stuff up out of whole cloth.

It also has lots to say about people like White, Bentley, etc (basically confirming that they were real agents), but that's all for the relevant articles, of course.

Anyway, I suggest that everyone interested in working on this topic go get a copy - it will be impossible to do so in an informed way without consulting this book. Noel (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * As a preface and qualifier to Haunted Wood, the Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy Chairman's Forward reports in context to what was known in 1995,
 * " The secrecy system has systematically denied American historians access to the records of American history. Of late we find ourselves relying on archives of the former Soviet Union in Moscow to resolve questions of what was going on in Washington at mid-century. This is absurd."
 * nobs 17:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet's references
Cberlet: I would object to reference material like these two citations, Both are pre-Venona release, and if there is to be an arguement regarding relevancy this is not the page. nobs 03:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Frank J. Donner. (1980). The Age of Surveillance: The Aims and Methods of America’s Political Intelligence System. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
 * Ellen Schrecker. 1994. The Age Of McCarthyism: A Brief History With Documents, Boston: St. Martin's Press.

 * The cites are directly relevant to the nature of the U.S. government intelligence community and its long documented history of hyperbolic, false, and fraudulent claims; the inflated and hysterical McCarthy Period claims about Soviet espionage; and the nature of intelligence agency files being suspect source material that should not be relied on as factual. Currently, this and several others pages are dominated by an aggressive, right-wing, anti-communist, pro-intelligence agency POV based on highly biased source material. The tone and content is lopsided. All I am trying to do is introduce some skeptical material. That the VENONA documents are an important source of information is certainly true. That there were Soviet spies in the U.S. in the 1940s and 1950s is clearly true. But this all needs to be put in perspective and presented in a fair and NPOV way. There have been many blatant misrepresentation of underlying documents in this chain of VENONA-spawned articles on Wikipedia. Some of the claims about people being Soviet spies have put Wikipedia at risk for defamation lawsuits. We are actually starting to clean these up. I will continue to make edits that I think are fair and balanced. I am happy to continue talking about proper balance on this and other pages for many years. I look forward to constructive dialog, not reversions that solidify a specific unbalanced POV. --Cberlet 13:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Am I to assume you are equally sceptical of material from Soviet government sources, such as Haunted Wood? Or not? What if both the material from both governments agrees? Is that good enough? I'm a bit lost in this 'wilderness of mirrors', here.
 * And I'm not sure who/what you're referring to with your mention of "highly biased source material" - if you're talking about people like Klehr and Haynes, may I remind you that they are serious scholars working for mainstream institutions like the Library of Congress, whose books are published by major academic presses like Yale University, so any claim that they are not reputable is wholly unfounded. If anything, it's people like Navasky (who is often cited) who are "highly biased".
 * McCarthy was a scumbag and a loser, but alas for the left, he jumped on bandwagon that happens to have real wheels, one that honest people spent years uncovering before sleazebag opportunistic jerks like McCarthy and Cohn saw a quick path to power. So let's lose the hysterical hyperventilating about "an aggressive, right-wing, anti-communist, pro-intelligence agency POV", and deal with the real history - as amply confirmed by the archives of the US Communist Party (now available in Russia), the Comintern, and the NKVD. Noel (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Cberlet: Thank you for your response. I believe we have a constructive tone.  I suggest we discuss structural approaches first, before content. Thank you. nobs 16:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Answer to above from Noel. I am skeptical of all government intelligence agency files, whether or not they confirm my biases. I actually spent several years as a paralegal document analyst for a series of lawsuits aginst the FBI, CIA, Military Intelligence, and local police "Red Squads." I read over 100,000 pages of unredacted spy files. In many instances I found text in the files that was obviously false or fabricated. I also assisted in many depositions of agents and former agents. They frequently admitted to having hyped their claims for career purposes. In one memorable incident, an agent stated that an entire surveillance report covering a well-known leftist in Chicago had been fabricated from beginning to end, and that he and his partner had actually spent the day at a baseball game. There is copious material from VENONA and other sources about Soviet espionage in the U.S. The evidence is powerful and persuasive. That is why I object to clear biased misrepresentations of the underlying documents and the secondary examinations that flow from them. What is demonstrable is very damning. I object to shameless hyperbole and factual misrepresentations based on "an aggressive, right-wing, anti-communist, pro-intelligence agency POV". On several pages the text has moved in the direction of more careful NPOV language. That is constructive. What is important to me is that people recognize their own bias and the bias of their sources, and seek to present information on Wiki in a way that respects encyclopedic principles. --Cberlet 18:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Point of personal priveldge:Off topic, Cberlet, are you familiar with the Red Squad of the City of Milwaukee Police Dept? nobs 19:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I mostly researched Chicago, New York, and Detroit, but knew folks who researched the Milwaukee Red Squad. Also, see this list

 * Careerism certainly flourished at least as much in the Soviet intelligence agencies as it did in Western ones (actually, in some periods, e.g. during the purges, it reached lethal levels, quite literally); and instances of Soviet intelligence officers inflating their accomplishments, the importance of the sources they had recruited, etc, etc, are noted in many places in the sources I have. (Spies, after all, generally have to be accomplished liars.) Also, spying is no less subject to the Rashomon effect than any other area of human endeavour. However, when one of them says things in a contemporary memo like "I got document X from person Y", I think that's somewhat more trustworthy: it's a fact they are talking of, not an opinion or an interpretation; and they had to have the document to show their supriors, etc. However, not everyone who worked in the area (or has written about it subsequently) is intellectually non-rigorous to the same degree, but not everyone on the left seems to understand that, or to make any effort to try and sort them out; it's quite common to tar them all equally as "inflated and hysterical McCarthy Period claims". And a final note: careerism and other intellectual ills have flourished on the left too, including among the defenders of the leftists of the 30s and 40s, so y'all need to take their stuff equally skeptically. Noel (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, I agree. :-)  --Cberlet 22:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Libel issues
Cberlet, please see No legal threats. --TJive 23:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * What are you talking about???--Cberlet 23:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I am talking about:
 * "Some of the claims about people being Soviet spies have put Wikipedia at risk for defamation lawsuits. We are actually starting to clean these up."
 * Which is basically an attempt to state that without personal characterizations of material of yourself or others that there will be legal problems. Please refrain from this.  --TJive 23:37, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * Absurd claim. The Wiki guideline specifically mentions defamation as requiring a notice. The accusation of treason is "libel per se." Ignorance of defamation law puts Wiki at risk. Google "libel per se" and "treason" and learn about the risks.   I was not threatening legal action against anyone. I was noting that calling people Soviet Spies without firm evidence created the potential of a defamation lawsuit against Wiki.--Cberlet 00:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The guideline reads as follows: "Similarly, slander, libel, or defamation of character is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia; true instances of such writing, that might legitimately expose Wikipedia to legal sanction, should immediately be called to the attention of an administrator and/or the community at large. Disagreements as to the identity of a person, their motivations for a given action, opinions of third parties about them, etc. do not fall under slander, however, and you should not use legal threats as a bludgeon to get your POV enshrined in an article."

Correlating published information about a living person is not "calling" somebody something "without firm evidence" and your own view of the veracity of any such material on these pages does not itself carry the weight of any law or statute. I would also inquire as to whether we are viewing the solicited or unsolicited legal counsel of Mr. Magdoff in this specific instance. --TJive 00:20, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * Also:
 * "The accusation of treason is 'libel per se.'"
 * Kindly refer me to an instance of this article either making reference to or staking a position on Magdoff's "treason", as I am unable to find one. --TJive 00:23, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Look harder.--Cberlet 02:02, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I have found nothing here or in the few articles pertaining to him, even past versions reverted to from your material. I am perplexed as to what instance (or other individual) you could possibly be referring.  --TJive 02:30, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * See link on this article page to: [Category:Soviet_spies] in which Magdoff is included. This page is an invitation for a defamation lawsuit against Wikipedia.--Cberlet 02:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Then "treason" is rather your own inference. --TJive 02:47, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * Really. Do some research. Calling someone a foreign spy means you are saying they are engaged in treason. Treason is on the list of charges qualified as "libel per se" which diminishes the ability to resist a defamation lawsuit. --Cberlet 03:07, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Please Mr. Berlet, no personal attacks. Casually changing the general label of "spies" to substantiation of "treason" is to say the least a synthetic and interpretative claim, and is but your own inference in this instance and not the claim of any particular or relevant editor here.  Surely if this logic comes easy for you then there is no serious objection to what might otherwise be construed as bombastic language (e.g. "America's Traitors") in references given yet not even directly cited for these topics, yes?  As of now the information is sourced quite strictly, and any litigious move would more properly be regarded towards those sources of information.  But I must repeat myself--is this legal counsel solicited or no?  --TJive 03:26, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

To interject an question that has no baring on the subject, Do you think Mr. Magdoff could win the case? nobs 03:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC) A civil suit is not like a criminal case nor a Congressional Hearing; there is no 5th Amendment plea. The plaintiff would be put under oath and have to answer point blank various questions, or perjure himself. Slander, libel & defamation don't apply if what is said is true. nobs 03:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Please take this as constructive advice. I have been sued several times for defamation. It never worked. They lost.  But it cost me or my employers tens of thousands of dollars. Your view about how libel and defamation work in the real world is just plain ignorance. The statements made here about defense tactics are flawed. I have no idea what "legal counsel solicited or no?" means.  I can only interpret this as an attack on my motives.  I have not spoken with Magdoff or any attorney about this. If someone put Magdoff on a list of "Soviet spies" where I work, they probably would be terminated for incompetance and failure to follow our rules about protecting against defamation. --Cberlet 16:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Cberlet: Please note, in various discusssions on various Talk pages it is a matter of record regarding the problems of the Hollywood & fictional term "spy" being applied in the real world. Unfortuneatelly, the CfD survived deletion.  Other remedies have been applied since. Perhaps we can use this as a basis to work together.  I propose we define common objectives, and identify areas of separation from those objectives. nobs 16:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not see a threat of legal procedings here. Nobody is saying 'if you do X I will sue'. There is a big difference between saying 'if you stand there you risk falling over the cliff and being killed' and 'if you stand there i will push you over the cliff and you will be killed'.

Pointing out that an unsupported statement may create grounds for a libel suit seems reasonable to me. And as a point of fact no policy of Wikipedia could prevent Magdoff instructing a lawyer to serve process.

Mention in VENONA does not mean that a person was a Societ spy. The embassies were under pressure from Stalin to demonstrate that they were successfully penetrating the Western powers. When people are given a demand on pain of death to produce information that cannot be verified they inevitably end up making stuff up. --Gorgonzilla 16:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Dispute tag
Alright, is the main page tidy now? Can we remove dispute tags & move over to Significance of Venona? nobs 03:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * When I went to look at it, it was anything but tidy - in fact, it was a nightmare - poorly organized, many errors, etc. I have cleaned it up significantly, but it could still use a lot of work. Noel (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * No, it is not balanced. If there is any mention of significance, it should include quotes or summaries from both supporters and critics. Why is it considered acceptable to bias an article by excluding critics and then claiming it is NPOV? I simply do not understand this. It violates basic Wiki policy.--Cberlet 16:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * So, what would you like to see that section say? (Keep it brief - there's only a para or two there now - extended dicussion ought to be at Significance of Venona.) Noel (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Cberlet: The primary question of significance relates to the uses of Government secrecy in an open society, and the "culture of openness". Historical interpretations of decryptions, etc., is of secondary significance.  Perhaps we can agree to guide Venona project, and Significance of Venona in that direction.  I believe the "Significance" section in this article, as now written genuflects in that direction. Proposal: Remove the VENONA_project completely, and place a List of Americans in the Venona papers under ==See also==. Depolitize this article, remove tag, & give it back to the cryptographers. Then pursue the discussion over on the other page. nobs 17:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I concur with Nobs. The issues that were the reason for the dispute tag have either been moved or shortened extensivly. --Ebralph 00:54, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Hope I did not step on anyone's toes...
After reading the talk page here, I took the liberty of adding a parentheses to the phrase about the 349 names, thus:

 * (or at any rate were of sufficient interest to the Soviets to have code names generated for them)

Although I don't personally share cberlet's views on the article, it seems to me that some sort of caveat was warranted. JR Richardson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.128.167.68 (talk • contribs) 01, 21 August 2005

 * This does not gibe with the description in Haynes/Klehr Apprendix A, from whence that description (and the numbers) are taken, where they explicitly say "a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence". There were quite a few other people who had cover-names assigned (e.g. Churchill, who was BOAR), which is I assume the kind of thing you are talking about, but they aren't in those appendixes. I don't recall offhand their definition of covert relationship, and the term is not in the appendix, but it's a "term of art" in the intelligence world (see, e.g. Gordievsky's autobiograph), and it generally means "someone who has a knowing and hidden relationship with an intelligence officer". Noel (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I have been asking for weeks for a quote and definition regarding this list. I think the underlying material has been misrepresented. I think the phrase "a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence" was carefully crafted to imply "a knowing and hidden relationship" without actually making that claim. I strongly support some type of caveat.--Cberlet 15:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The text that's there now basically is a quote. Here's the original:

 * "This annotated list of 349 names includes U.S. citizens, noncitizen immigrants, and permanent residents of the United States are had a covert relationship with Soviet intelligence that is confirmed in the Venona traffic. ... Of these 349 persons, 171 are identified by true names and 178 are known only by a cover name found in the Venona cables." (pp. 339)

 * The phrase "covert relationship" is not something Klehr+Haynes worked up; as I said above, it's a "term of art" (as the legal term - itself a ToA, a nice piece of recursiveness - goes) in the intelligence field. See, e.g. Gordievsky's bio, pp. 275-276 and 284; he mostly uses the term "confidential", but uses "covert" as well. (BTW, if you haven't read that book, you should - WRT your point of a few days back, it's shot through with examples of KGB agents inflating the importance of their work, and simply making it up entirely in others.) Noel (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Balance
I added a small change to balance the Moynihan quote. It simply is not fair to relentlessly eradicate all criticisms from this page. --Cberlet 14:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi, is there a quote you could dig up to this effect, rather than a general statement? (From a mainstream scholar would be optimal; if you describe The Nation as a reputable source, I'm afraid you're going to have to include the Regnery Press - whom I personally treat with considerable caution - into the same category!)
 * Are there any other sections you are unhappy with? I believe most sections are now fairly flat historical descriptions. Noel (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I put quotes in, Nobs takes them out. It is very frustrating.  The Nation is closer to National Review than anything from Regnery. I have a few more minor complaints, but have no objection to the flags being removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cberlet (talk • contribs) 15:36, 22 August 2005

 * Moynihan is primary source in two capacities (a) as Chairman of the Secrecy in Government Commission, and (b) as an eyewitness to preoceedings and deliberations into the Commission Final Report. nobs 17:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, the latest thing you put in (which I see Nobs has removed) wasn't a sourced quote, just a statement. I'd be happy to see a sourced quote from someone who is the rough equivalent of Moynihan (who is hardly a right-wing stooge), but on the other side of this issue; also, it should be post-95 - i.e. some generic "anti-McCarthy" flame from the 60s/70s (as some of the "Further readings" are) is simply inapplicable, it needs to be specifically about Venona. (Also, taking Moynihan out is not kosher; he's not a far-right kook, it's a direct quote, and it's sourced.)
 * The fine details of exactly which far-conservative organ is the exact equivalant of the far-progressive Nation is not important; I trust you see my generic point. Noel (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet: Here's the problem: If you wish to include Schrecker, or any reference to any "skeptics", "historians", "reseachers", etc, then we would have to bring back counterbalancing information. No one wants to do this. Those arguements belong elsewhere. nobs 15:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * What nonsense. The whole page implies that the Venona material is important. If you want balance, I will take out all the quote in the Significance section.--Cberlet 16:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Can we take the arguement to --> Significance of Venona now? nobs 16:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It's never that easy. :-)  --Cberlet 16:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure if you have read all the discussion above "with whom the Soviets sought" is Appendix D, those whom are marked with an asterisk (*). I believe the language is clear, and plain. The 171 persons refered to are those in Appendix A. This new insertion changes the definition. Do you wish to review the definitions of again? nobs 16:19, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk:VENONA project/Archive1 nobs 16:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I do not believe the language is clear, the use of spy jargon is your opinion of reality, the meaning of the identifications are disputed in some (though not all), cases; and yet you refuse to do anything but claim it is all obvious and clear, and all I have to do is reread your redundant posts and I will see the light. This is not the case.  I disagree with you.  We are trying to find a compromise, not test how long it takes for you to beat me into submission.--Cberlet 20:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * There is no basis for "Skeptical analysts and historians claim". The intent appears to politicize this article, in spite of the efforts of no fewer than eight other editors not to, and a concensus to move interpretative agruements to another page.  Moynihan is a primary source.  Schrecker is not a primary source.  For now, a compromise could be to limit Schrekers comments to Schreker, and remove the vague "others", "researchers", "analysts", "writers", "skeptics", "critics", or whatever other vailed, unnamed, unspoken innuendoes employed. And Schrecker should not be allowed to second guess a primary source, seeing her citation itself is distinctly non-specific. If it is to go in this article, it should not be alongside Moynihan, and it should be limited strictly to Shcrecker, as Moynihan comments do not cite a mysterious group of "others". nobs 21:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

If The Nation:National Review, then Regnery publications:Schrecker, et al. I would also presume this means you don't mind an in-kind deluge of partisan observations from NR or elsewhere, including ones very much involved and very much alive? --TJive 21:49, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Mention of cases in the header
Nobs, why did you delete metion of Bentley and the Rosenbergs from the intro paras? Wikipedia articles should give a brief overview of the subject in the intro paras, and the intro therefore needs to give some of idea of the importance of the program, not just what it was. It's a historical fact that the decrypts were very important in the US Govt's actions in a whole slew of cases just after WWII (see, e.g., Lamphere), and an article on Venona needs to say that. Some concrete examples, to convey to people what the role of Venona was, is a good way to do that.

I mentioned the Rosenberg and Bentley cases because i) those seemed likely to be the two most likely to be known to non-specialist readers, and ii) those are cases in which Venona's role is now well-documented. It's simply impossible to fully understand the US Govt's actions in the Rosenberg case without understanding the role Venona played behind the scenes. Ditto for Bentley; when she first went to the FBI in '45, Venona of course didn't exist, but as it came on-stream in '48, it was imporant in considering what she had said (again, see Lamphere on this). Noel (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, reinclusions fine; I was just trying to prove I was serious about not mentioning anybody in this article since we haven't had a response in several days to several proposals. nobs 15:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * OK. Before I put anything back, Chris, can I ask you if you have a problem with the text:

 * In the early years of the Cold War, it was one of the West's most important sources on Soviet intelligence activity, and although unknown to the public, it was important in many famous events of the early Cold War, such as the case of Elizabeth Bentley, and the Rosenberg case.

 * Also, do we need to provide individual citations for the notion that Venona was important in those two cases, or is the bibliography good enough? Noel (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Chis (identified as Cberlet in Wiki decrypts) has no objection whatsoever. :-)  --Cberlet 20:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Collective Editing
I do not believe that Nobs has been made moderator of this article. Perhaps someone can point to this event. Otherwise, I will continue to make good faith edits that offer a tiny balance of skepticism.--Cberlet 17:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I keep getting a feeling not only of circular reasoning in these talk pages but as if there are gaping holes that many are missing. It seems as if Cberlet intends to plaster copious amounts of Navasky and Schrecker onto every page that barely mentions VENONA without specific relevance or even a regard to article flow.  So partisan arguments continue rather than a collaborative encyclopedic effort.  Navasky does not carry much weight and if the VENONA-relevant Schrecker material is insisted upon, then certainly we may also utilize partisan material on her and, in fact, Klehr's and Haynes's response in In Denial.  --TJive 22:36, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't know about y'all, but the last thing I am interested in is "partisan material". If you can find some quote about Schrecker's opinion of Venona, or about her specific book that was cited, I would find that appropriate to add in. Noel (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I do not mean to imply an inclusion of partisan attacks on her views but partisan criticism of her works; for very specific and relevant criticism, again, see In Denial. --TJive 23:05, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

This is the text I added:
 * "Skeptical analysts and historians claim that some writers have overbroadly interpreted the evidence provided in the Venona materials. as Ellen Schrecker argues:"Because they offer insights into the world of the secret police on both sides of the Iron Curtain, it is tempting to treat the FBI and Venona materials less critically than documents from more accessible sources. But there are too many gaps in the record to use these materials with complete confidence" (1998, pp. xvii-xviii)."

This is a "specific and relevant criticism."--Cberlet 00:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Text reads: "Skeptical analysts and historians claim that some writers have overbroadly interpreted the evidence provided in the Venona materials. as Ellen Schrecker argues"; who said ""Skeptical analysts....etc", since it obviously is not Schrecker. nobs 00:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Don't be obstructionist. I am asking for balance. Would you like the Schrecker quote just to float in limbo? Try to be fair.--Cberlet 01:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I may be able to access the book quickly to check the veracity as to if Schrecker's is in fact discusssing the Venona project. However, as presented, this is an anonymous gang-bang on Venona primary sources.  This will not fly. If Schrecker has criticism of how the NSA & FBI did thier job, Schrecker can speak for herself, unless she cites other "skeptical analysts and historians" by name.  nobs 01:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * What absurd claims. Nothing in the Wikipedia guidelines says that Schrecker has to cite other skeptics for the sentence I added to be acceptable. You cut every other skeptical person I cite.  I am trying to save space by quoting Schrecker and then the paragraph points to the Significance page.  Why are you having a fit simply becuuse one skeptical line is inserted into the precious article? You are well aware that I have cited several people skeptical of claims made by mainstream and right-wing analysts who have portrayed the Venonoa material in a POV way. I have even cited a CIA analyst who raises a cautious skepticism. I am not onjecting to their material being the main body of these and related pages.  All I am asking for is that there be a mention that skeptics exist.  Yet even this is too much for you to accept as a compromise. This is not constructive.--Cberlet 02:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I've offered a compromised, and we have not addressed (1) that such a political arguement does not belong on this page, (2) Schrecker is not qualified to stand next to Senator Moynihan; (3) mythmaking is not the subject of this article. nobs 02:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * You have not proposed a compromise. You have designed a way to get only your point of view displayed on the main page. Thus I disagree with your framing of 1. I simply disagree with 2, but am willing to make the mention of skeptics smaller than Moynihan. And for 3, I agree that moving material off this page to mask any criticism is a form of mythmaking, and I agree that should be stopped. --Cberlet 03:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * What if we were to poll if this article should be used for political arguements regarding the interpretive significance of Venona materials? Would you agree then to move the discussion over to Significance of Venona? nobs 03:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet's objections
Cberlet's main objection has been naming persons conclusively as "spies". To accomodate this objection,
 * The List of names has been removed.
 * All names of persons derived from Venona transcripts have been expunged.
 * The "Significance" sections has been pared down to two paragraphs outlining the overall question regarding the use of Government secrecy in a free and open society.
 * All non-primary source reference citations have been removed.
 * Link to Category:Soviet spies has been removed.
 * Links to five qualified Appendix's have been removed.
 * A concensus among contributing editors (I count eight) has emerged to move interpretive analysis to other pages, and leave this page for the technical art of cryptography.

I postulate this has gone a long way toward compromise. Yet Cberlet insists on inserting a political arguement, that is directed solely at interpretive analysis, based on secondary sources (who may not even be qualified to criticize, as they may never have even examined any of the evidence). If this exception to a general concensus that now exists is allowed to prevail, there is a licence then for anyone with a political POV, apart from the (1) the cryptographic & technical nature of the Venona project (2) the overriding questions regarding Government secrecy (3) the historical interpretaive analysis, to make reinsertions.

The original concern was naming names. Several proposals remain on the table how to deal with all the interested contributors, in a structured way. Yet now we have a vailed political attack upon the United States Governments' counterintelligence programs. There may be valid questions; however, this is not the page where they should be addressed. All parties (except for a few sockpuppets who for the time being have been blocked) have shown good faith. I suggest for now, we simply leave this page the way it is, and begin the discussion afresh at Significance of Venona. nobs 05:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, quite right, lots of changes, and the article is better for it. That's the idea. Your idea that the people you are citing are not political while the people I am citing are political is precisely the problem. I am arguing that one small sentence say there are skeptics, and then the paragraph--dominated by your point of view--points to the Significance page. Yet when I make it a small sentence, you complain that there are no names and no cites; and when I add the names and/or cites, you complain it is too long. You have arranged the pages so that any mention of skepticism or criticism is banished to the back of the Wikibus. That is as transparent as it is improper. I never asked that the discussion of significance be moved to a new page. The result was that you buried all the criticisms.  Please, if it bothers you, move that section back. Actually, I think that would be a bad idea.  This page is now largely accurate and fair--which it was not before these editing discussions took place. So there are only a few remaining matters to discuss. And we can discuss them. And we will discuss them. But you are not the page moderator.  I am sorry you feel frustrated.  We all get that way.  But my concerns are valid, as are my edits. The main page needs some token statement that there are skeptics. --Cberlet 14:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * My friend, you still may be missing the point: the objective of guilt/innocence or KGB associations of individuals is about #3 on the list of what the Venona project and the Significance of the Venona project is all about. I invite you to participate in a full discussion of understanding, if you'd be interested.  But to attempt to make this the overriding central issue is a distortion.  There are valid arguements to be made, in their proper place.  I am proposing, momentarily, to put those issues aside, step back, and try to discern the forest from the trees.  Actually, I found Mr. Schreiner's article quite interesting; that may be a starting point.  Let's take that discussion to "Significance" page.  If you're not happy, we can come back here. nobs 15:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * No thanks, I don't like to be sent to the back of the Wikibus. I am talking about one sentence to make the page NPOV.
 * A full discussion of understanding? I was a professional document analyst and paralegal investigator for several years; reading unredated CIA, FBI, Military Intelligence, and local police surveillance files. I have read more than 100,000 pages of such files. I prepared numerous document summaries for depositions of government agents and informers, and prepared an analysis for a trial in federal court. I have published a number of articles and essays on intelligence abuse, including writing and co-writing op-eds in the New York Times, Boston Globe, Chicago Sun-Times, and Des Moines Register. I have co-written a long article for attorneys litigating cases of government surveillance abuse in Police Misconduct and Civil Rights Law Report. I wrote the entry on "Surveillance Abuse" in the Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment. I have been writing about government intelligence abuse for over 30 years.
 * And we are talking about one sentence. I have never sought to "make this the overriding central issue," for this page and to so claim is a clear "distortion."--Cberlet 15:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Let's not talk past one another; whole sections, paragraphs, links & citations have been removed. What is this "one sentence" you are refering to?  I thought it was already in the article. Also, thanks for the resume material, can we move forward now. Thank you. nobs 15:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

We are moving forward. I propose that the following be reduced to one short sentence, with the details on the Significance page:
 * "Ellen Schrecker, however, echoes the concerns of other skeptics (including Victor Navasky, Walter Schneir, and Miriam Schneir) when she writes: "Because they offer insights into the world of the secret police on both sides of the Iron Curtain, it is tempting to treat the FBI and Venona materials less critically than documents from more accessible sources. But there are too many gaps in the record to use these materials with complete confidence."

When I make it a short sentence, you delete it and demand to know who the critics are and ask for cites. I do not see why we can't just summarize the views of the various skeptics, and then cite them in full on the Significance page.--Cberlet 17:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * There's an obvious answer, but it may be misconstrued as partisan to utter it; facts are, your sources (or lack thereof) are coming to this discussion 10 years too late, and again, can't see the forest from the trees. nobs 18:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I have no idea what the above means. It is incomprehensible to me. What is your point? All I am asking for is a sentence that summarizes that fact that post-Venona authors have raised some skepticism about how the decrypts are being interpreted by mainstream analysts and professional anti-communist historians with an axe to grind. One sentence. What's the big deal?--Cberlet 18:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Let's assume momentarily that the Venona project is a partisan issue; facts are, Mr. Cberlet has no primary sources to work from other than (1) a vague reference in Schrecker's 1998 intro; and (2) The Nation magazine.
 * Now, assuming this is a partisan arguement, it is not the so-called "ring-wing's" fault alleged "critics" did not deem the release of Venona project materials in 1995 as very important. It is not alleged "proponents" of various theories actions that cause the "perpetually combated" to feel (a) combated, or (b) the necessity to update cut-and-pasted arguements from the Nation magazine, only with the insertion of the word "Venona" here and there; (c) the fact that so-called "left-wing" appologetics are caught unawares, and for the most part, have never read the Moynihan Commission on Government Secrecy Report.
 * This truelly is a crisis among those who deem themselves "leftists", because (as the theory states), all the lies they have (1) committted themselves to, and (2) many actually continue to believe, are now being challenged. The bogeyman is obvious, it's the big bad gubmint now in a conspiracy to smear the reputations of dead people.  Truelly, those "in the forefront of leftist thought" are at a crossroads.
 * So what has been the reaction? Turn it into a typical partisan left-right arguement, we're right, thier a bunch of devious minded selfish evil-doers with no respect for the human race, etc.  Meanwhile, we can buy time to respond to this resurgance of "McCarthyism".
 * I stand with Senator Moynihan on this point: Venona may offer hope for national healing & reconciliation, if we can grasp it's meaning & significance (and I do believe, Moynihan went to his grave not fully understanding it's meaning and significance, yet recognized hope was within those mysterious transcriptions). The real question we should attack first is, was Gen. Omar Bradley's decision the right decision, not this putting the cart before the horse bizness regarding can the NSA and FBI be relied upon, etc.
 * Simple question, Mr. Cberlet, have you read the relevent portions of the Moynihan Commisssion Report yet? nobs 19:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Totally misses the point. There are reputable published critics who are skeptical of some analytical conclusions of persons who have studied the Venona decrypts: Yes___________ No__________. If YES, the rules of the road for Wiki are that they deserve some mention in context and in proportion. The answer is YES. I am asking for one sentence which is in context and in proportion. None of the rest of the mountain of objections you have raised for weeks matter.--Cberlet 20:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * (1) "analytical conclusions" --> discussion belongs at Significance of Venona (2) "context"; there is no context regarding "analytical conclusions" on this page (3) "proportion"; out of context secondary sources refuting a primary source (i.e. Senator Moynihan, discolors the article, discussion, and understanding. (4) "reputable published critics", I assume this refers to secondary sources, always room for debate & would be happy to do so at Significance of Venona. nobs 21:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The page was redesigned by you to shove all possible criticism off the main page. That is what I challenge. That is what I find not acceptable. It is ludicrous. I reject your claim that this is a done deal. It is not. As long as there is a pointer to the Significance page (and there must be), there should be a short sentence explaining that there are some skeptical comments there. It is a perfectly reasonable request. It ensures NPOV. I am willing to make the sentence short. You cannot arbitrarily control the page so that your POV rules to the total exclusion of all other views. It is just plain unfair. It violates basic Wikipedia standards.--Cberlet 22:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually the history shows the List of names was moved by Ruy Lopez which I opposed; but when the Mattcrypto and some other cryptographers told me they'd like to see the arguements moved elsewhere, I went along. nobs 01:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I really think that you are unable to disuss this matter in a constructive manner. I am tired of this relentless refusal to discuss this matter in a serious way. I propose we seek a third party review or request comments --Cberlet 01:58, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The disagreement appears to be over the word "others" ("other skeptics" & other "more accessible material"). Who are these others? Well, they do not exist apart from The Nation magazine.  So the arguement is, in lapse of hard data & research material, we will invent a myth that "scholars" have steadfastly refuted the NSA & researchers claims as to meanings of decryts for the past ten years.  And this invented myth we'll call "balance" or NPOV.
 * Shcrecker is indeed a qualified critic of Haynes & Klehr. Problem is, Haynes & Klehr don't speak on this page, so Schrecker appears as a critic of Moynihan and the NSA.  This is false, and you sir, know it.  Schrecker states "Haynes overlooks other sources ... FBI files, in particular...."; Haynes responded in the Journal of Cold War Studies that Haynes & Klehr's book is based on FBI files, decrypted Venona messages, and Comintern and CPUSA documents from the Russian State Archive of Social and Political History (RGASPI).  So this is the wrong arguement, in the wrong place, directed at the wrong subject.  Further, this needs to be clarified in the article, that Shcreker is not criticizing Moynihan or the NSA. nobs 02:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. Above I wrote before reading your comments; meanwhile I got an idea for a solution. Should be done tonite or tomorrow AM. nobs 02:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid this debate is beyond me, but I'd like to point out that I only advocated moving the very long list of names to a separate article (because it's good style to split out long lists into list articles). As to how much "interpretive/significance/criticism" bits we include in this article, I didn't express an opinion. Let me make just one comment at present: in this article, I wouldn't think it entirely inappropriate to summarise the significance of Venona decrypts, the conclusions drawn, as well as any notable criticism of the conclusions drawn. — Matt Crypto 02:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Cberlet:I hope all concerns are dealt with now; I would suggest some qualifier added to Ellen Schrecker to introduce her. Perhaps we close to moving on?  nobs 19:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Varying opinions
Proposal: remove Schrecker from "Significance" subhead so as not to confuse her criticism of Haynes & Klehr as criticism of Moynihan, the Moynihan Commission, or NSA cryptographers; place a head-to-head arguement between Schrecker & Haynes under a subhead ==Varying opinions ==. Rough draft as follows:
 * Ellen Schrecker has criticized John Earl Haynes and Harvy Klehr, two of the recognized leading researchers on Venona project decrypted materials, saying "Because they offer insights into the world of the secret police on both sides of the Iron Curtain, it is tempting to treat the FBI and Venona materials less critically than documents from more accessible sources. But there are too many gaps in the record to use these materials with complete confidence" (1998, pp. xvii-xviii).

 * Haynes, in the Journal of Cold War Studies responded Haynes & Klehr's research uses FBI files, decrypted Venona messages, and Comintern and CPUSA documents from the Russian State Archive of Social and Political History (RGASPI).

nobs 02:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * What, then, is the point of having a Significance page? Just a question. I really do not see why we don't just have a sentence on this page that says there are a few critics that disagree with the significance and meaning as outlined by Moynihan and others. Otherwise we should just move the entire significance section back in. And note that there are several writers who have been skeptical about how the Venona material is being interpreted, including a CIA historian.--Cberlet 13:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * If you could give the name of the CIA historian, and locate a quote from them, that would be really good. There are certainly questions on how the fine details of some messages are interpreted (what with the gaps, and the wide-spread use of code names - which was the subject of the disagreement between Vassiliev and Weinstein, IIRC), or is the problem that person has more significant?
 * FWIW, on the general subject of how useful/trustworth VENONA is, I tend to agree with this quote from West:
 * "VENONA remain[s] an irrefutable resouce, far more reliable than the mercurial recollections of KGB defectors and the dubious conclusions drawn by paranoid analysts mesmerized by Machiavellian plots." (Venona, pp. 330)
 * To "mercurial recollections", I would add many (most?) books by agents and ex-agents; those that came out during the Cold War (such as Philby's book) are known to be full of deliberate distortions for ideological and/or cover purposes (e.g. hide information from the other side), and later ones (such as Sudoplatov's) also have problems. Venona messages have their own issues (such as the careerism ones you pointed out), but the fact that remains that as internal contemporary written records (always the kind most valued by historians), they remain perhaps the best evidence we have from that side. (Also, a number have been cross-checked with originals in the KGB archives gives us validation that the cryptanalysts did the reconstructions properly.)
 * As to why have a separate page, I think the concept was to move the argument elsewhere, so that the main page wouldn't be subject to edit wars. At some level, I agree with you (and Matt) that it belongs here - but as long as some people on the left remain as skeptical as some are of what they mean in terms of the activities of such people as Coplon, White, Duggan, Currie, Halperin, etc, that may be the only solution.
 * From my perspective, Moynihan represents a pretty mainstream view, and people who think Venona (when tied in to other data) is not fairly definitive represent the kind of tiny minority viewpoint Wikipedia would normally ignore - the same way we ignore physicists who think General Relativity is wrong.
 * Perhaps a way of cutting this particular knot on "significance" - at least on this page - is to focus, not on what Venona can definitively tell the world in general now about these still-argued cases, but on how important they were then, i.e. to the US Government at the time they were decrypted - which was, from their perspective, one of their main CI assets. As such, in many cases (I went through yesterday and tried to list some of the best-known ones in the "See also" section), they were a main force in how those cases played out. That certainly is a matter of historical record, and well documented. We could then move the still-debated points to another page(s), either one about "Debate about what Venona means about Cold War spy cases", or to each individual's page. Noel (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Very well stated. nobs 18:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Lock for archiving
This page had gotten big, and needs to be archived: I'm going to lock this page for just a few minutes so I can do that without getting conflicting edits. Back in 'arf a mo'. Noel (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, all done. Also, I did a bit of formatting to make it readable (y'all seem to love indenting so far the text turns into a vertical column in the right-hand margin, making it unreadable outside an edit window - please try and reset the left margin every so often). Noel (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Significance & Meaning
Look, I am not disputing that Venona was and is significant. And I have no desire to be an apologist for Soviet espionage. All I am asking for is that there be a short sentence on the main page in the section where the pointer to the Significance page resides that says something like "A few writers are skeptical of some claims made by certain analysts of the Venona documents, and urge a more cautious interpretive approach." I fail to see why this is causing such a negative reaction by Nobs. I do not see a need for a new section or a lengthy tit for tat.--Cberlet 16:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Two points of clarification & a question: (1) the "Varying opinions" section (a) lowers Haynes & Klehrs primary research data to an "opinion" regarding conclusions (b) raises alleged "skeptics" to the status of having "opinions", though there is scant evidence any of these skeptics have examined Venona materials impartially. This I would suggest, adaquately fits the definition of compromise.

 * Question: (2) reference is made to "disagree with the significance and meaning as outlined by Moynihan". Please cite a critic to support this claim, if available. nobs 18:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Cberlet: looks good. I move we adjourn to Significance of Venona now. nobs 20:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Venona project/Archive 2


text:
Both Sides of the Brain

Both Sides of the Brain is the fourth solo studio album by American hip hop musician Del the Funky Homosapien. It was released by Hieroglyphics Imperium Recordings in 2000. It peaked at number 118 on the Billboard 200 chart.

Critical reception
Nathan Rabin of The A.V. Club gave the album a mixed review, saying that there is "much to like about the album" but also describing it as "a bit of a letdown". He describes Del's production work as "inventive" but "largely monotonous and unnecessarily repetitive" and adds, "Equally damaging is the album's lack of form and structure: Many of its tracks sound like marathon free-styling sessions no one had the heart to edit."

In 2005, Peter S. Scholtes of City Pages included it on the "Top 100 Albums of the 2000s" list.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Both Sides of the Brain


text: Category:Russian violinists

title: Category:Russian violinists


text:
Alliance for Welfare and Solidarity

Alliance for Welfare and Solidarity (in Albanian: Aleanca per Mirqenie dhe Solidaritet) is a political party in Albania. It is led by Koço Danaj.

title: Alliance for Welfare and Solidarity


text:
1748 in architecture

The year 1748 in architecture involved some significant events.

Events

 * June 24 – On the death of his father William, John Adam inherits his architectural practice in Scotland and the position of Master Mason to the Board of Ordnance, immediately taking his brother Robert into partnership.

Buildings

 * Duke Street, Bath, England, designed by John Wood, the Elder.
 * Holywell Music Room, Oxford, England, the oldest purpose-built concert hall in Europe, designed by Dr. Thomas Camplin.
 * Mansion House, Doncaster, Yorkshire, England, designed by James Paine, is completed.
 * Margravial Opera House in Bayreuth, Bavaria, designed by Joseph Saint-Pierre with interior by Giuseppe Galli Bibiena and his son Carlo, is completed.
 * Rebuilt Teatro San Samuele in Venice is opened.
 * Chapel at Fulneck Moravian Settlement, Yorkshire, England, completed.
 * German Church, Gothenburg, Sweden, consecrated.
 * Igreja Matriz de Belazaima do Chão, Águeda Municipality, Portugal.
 * Åkerö Manor in Södermanland, Sweden, designed by Carl Hårleman, built.
 * Honing Hall in Norfolk, England, built.
 * Garron Bridge on Inveraray Castle estate in Scotland, designed by Roger Morris and/or his kin Robert Morris, completed.
 * Dashashwamedh Ghat at Varanasi in India is built.

Births

 * June 22 – John Carter, English draughtsman and architect (died 1817)

Deaths

 * April 12 – William Kent, English architect (born c. 1685)
 * May 5 – Alessandro Galli Bibiena, Italian architect and painter working in Germany (born 1686)
 * June 24 – William Adam, Scottish architect (born 1689)

title: 1748 in architecture


text:
Great Doddington

Great Doddington is a village and civil parish in Northamptonshire, England, close to Wellingborough and just off the A45. At the time of the 2001 census, the parish's population was 1,061 increasing to 1,123 at the 2011 census.

The name Dodda's Tun probably refers to an Anglo-Saxon leader 'Dodda' establishing a stronghold in the strategic position overlooking the Nene Valley. Domesday Book records the principal landowner as Judith, widow of Waltheof II, Earl of Northumbria.

The Church of England St Nicholas Church dates back to Norman days and has a square tower and four 15th century misericords. The village contains a village shop, and two churches, St Nicholas' and a United Reformed Chapel.

The civil parish contains two wards.

title: Great Doddington


text:
Talk:Highest Hopes

This articles content was moved to an article with a more exact title; Highest Hopes: The Best of Nightwish. This leaves Highest Hopes to serve now as a redirect and a possible future disambiguation page. Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Highest Hopes


text:
1732 in architecture

The year 1732 in architecture involved some significant events.

Buildings

 * August – York Assembly Rooms in England, designed by Lord Burlington, are opened. The Mansion House, York, is also completed this year.
 * October 2 – Goodman's Fields Theatre, London, designed by Edward Shepherd, is opened.
 * December 7 – Theatre Royal, Covent Garden, London, designed by Edward Shepherd, is opened.
 * Trinity College Library in Dublin, designed by Thomas Burgh, is completed.
 * Nicola Salvi begins work on the new Trevi Fountain in Rome.
 * Work on Palais Rohan in Strasbourg, designed by Robert de Cotte, is started

Awards

 * Prix de Rome, architecture: Jean-Laurent Legeay.

Births

 * April 22 – John Johnson, English architect (died 1814)
 * July 21 – James Adam, Scottish-born architect (died 1794)
 * December 15 – Carl Gotthard Langhans, Prussian architect (died 1808)

Deaths

 * Giacomo Amato, Sicilian architect (born 1643)

title: 1732 in architecture


text:
User talk:HeartZ

Tamao Tamamura
You may want to verify which manga or anime this character comes from, otherwise it may be deleted. - x42bn6  Talk  13:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:HeartZ


text:
1794 in architecture

The year 1794 in architecture involved some significant architectural events and new buildings.

Events

 * date unknown – French confectioner Louis Jules Benois, forefather of the Benois family of artists, musicians, and architects, arrives in Russia following the French Revolution.
 * Construction of houses on the edge of Blackheath, London, designed by Michael Searles, begins: The Paragon (a crescent), South Row and Montpelier Row; they will be completed in 1805.
 * The interior of St. Nicholas Church, Leipzig in Saxony is remodeled by Johann Carl Friedrich Dauthe in the neoclassical style.

Buildings

 * Needle of Rijswijk, monument at Forest of Rijswijk, Netherlands.
 * Fru Haugans Hotel, Mosjøen, Norway.
 * The second Royal Presidio Chapel at the Presidio of Monterey in Spanish Alta California. The chapel, now known as the Cathedral of San Carlos Borromeo, is the first stone building in the province.
 * The Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
 * The Radcliffe Observatory building at Oxford, England.
 * Mumbles Lighthouse, Swansea, Wales.

Births

 * August 30 – John Rennie the Younger, English civil engineer (died 1874)
 * October 26 – Konstantin Thon, Russian imperial architect during the reign of Tsar Nicholas I (died 1881)

Deaths

 * February 23 – James Playfair, Scottish Neoclassical architect (born 1755; consumption)
 * February 27 – Jean-Rodolphe Perronet, French architect and structural engineer (born 1708)
 * April 10 – Antonio Rinaldi, Italian architect working in Russia (born 1710)
 * July 8 – Richard Mique, French Neoclassical architect (born 1728)
 * October 20 – James Adam, Scottish architect and furniture designer, brother of Robert Adam (born 1732)

title: 1794 in architecture


text:
The Sun (Lowell)

The Sun, also known as The Lowell Sun, is a daily newspaper based in Lowell, Massachusetts, United States, serving towns in Massachusetts around the Greater Lowell area and beyond. As of 2011, its average daily circulation was about 42,900 copies. It is owned by MediaNews Group of Colorado, which is owned by the hedge fund Alden Global Capital.

The Sun
The newspaper's headquarters are in the first floor of the former American Textile History Museum building in downtown Lowell. Before March 18, 2007, the newspaper occupied a succession of offices on Kearney Square, about half a mile away. One of the old news buildings, locally called "the Sunscraper," is a landmark high-rise topped with a huge neon "Sun" sign. The paper's most recent former home is across the street.

The paper's editorials have, for decades, espoused a conservative bent in a city and state where Democratic voters overwhelm Republicans. In the 1970s, editor and firebrand Clement Costello, who was known for walking around in a cape, wrote that the U.S. should annex Mexico and was credited with helping to ruin John Kerry's chances of winning the 5th Congressional District seat in 1972. In 2004, the newspaper again made waves when it endorsed President George W. Bush for re-election instead of Kerry, who was then the junior U.S. senator from Massachusetts.

People
The Sun was once known beyond its circulation area as the home base of the late columnist Paul Sullivan, who until 2007 hosted a nighttime talk show on WBZ radio in Boston. Before the newspaper moved, he would regularly tout scoops from "Lowell's great newspaper at 15 Kearney Square."

One of the paper's most famous alumnus is Jack Kerouac, a Lowell native who worked as a sports reporter for The Sun before going on to greater fame as poet laureate to the Beat Generation.

Another Sun alumnus is Tom Squitieri, who won the Overseas Press Club Madeleine Dane Ross Award for his reporting on divided Cambodian refugee families living in Lowell and Thailand. The Lowell Sun is the smallest independent newspaper to have won an OPC award.

History
Print shop owners and brothers John and Daniel Harrington founded the paper as a weekly in 1878. In its earliest years, The Sun provided the growing Irish Catholic population a voice in a mill city that was run by wealthy Protestant factory owners. Over the years, the paper outlasted its competitors to become the only major newspaper in Lowell, converting to a daily in 1892 and buying out its last competitor daily, The Courier-Citizen, in 1941; a starting the Lowell Sunday Sun in 1949; and buying out its only Sunday competition, the Lowell Sunday Telegram, in 1952.

The paper remained in the hands of John Harrington's descendants—Thomas F. Costello, his sons John H. and Clement C. Costello, and grandson John H. Costello Jr. with a certain amount of drama and feuds —until it was purchased August 1, 1997, by MediaNews Group. The newspaper's circulation at the time was 52,234, daily, and 55,804, Sunday.

When he purchased the paper, MediaNews CEO William Dean Singleton noted that The Sun had "played a leading role in the development and growth of the Greater Lowell region," including downtown Lowell's rebirth and the establishment of minor-league baseball and hockey teams in the city.

Following MediaNews' purchase (through The Sun) of Nashoba Publications weeklies covering several towns between Lowell and Fitchburg, the company in 2002 consolidated printing for The Sun, Nashoba and the Fitchburg-based Sentinel & Enterprise' at a new US$7 million press plant in Devens, Massachusetts. The move was said to have a beneficial effect on traffic in downtown Fitchburg and Lowell.

title: The Sun (Lowell)


text:
User talk:M.corbett

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Viriditas | Talk 13:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:M.corbett


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kumm radio

 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECTED to KUMM. -Splash talk 22:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Kumm radio
non-notable. 202.156.6.59 13:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Quite, delete. --fvw *  13:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable JoJan 14:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I boldly redirected to KUMM. This is a real and notable radio station (save the jokes, they've heard them all) with an existing article. Someone please close this? MCB 01:41, 1 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:At the Opera House

Untitled
how does one remove this terrible box which has appeared around the track listing? please help :)

title: Talk:At the Opera House


text:
Earlswood

Earlswood is a suburb of Redhill in Surrey, England, which lies on the A23 between Redhill (in the direction of London) and Horley (next to Gatwick Airport). Earlswood Common is a local nature reserve that separates the suburb from the southern outskirts of Reigate and has two lakes and picnic areas. Earlswood station is on the Brighton Main Line. To the east of the line are Royal Earlswood Park, the East Surrey Hospital and Whitebushes.

History
When the straight turnpike, part of the London to Brighton railway, was cut between Earlswood Common and the railway line, there was a claim that traces of a Roman villa were discovered, but no evidence has so far been found to indicate any Roman presence. The area south of the common, locally known as Whitebushes, was formerly a wilderness containing many clay pits that may be linked to the reputed Roman remains. Most trees of the Weald that covered Earlswood Common were cut down in the 17th century by order of local noble, Lord Monson and the land was inclosed in 1886. Brickworks were a considerable employer in the Victorian period and in 1911.

In 1863 Earlswood joined Meadvale, Redhill and Reigate to become part of the newly formed municipal borough of Reigate when it was granted this status by royal charter.

Earlswood was home to the Royal Earlswood psychiatric hospital, founded as a 'national home' and opened by Albert, Prince Consort, which functioned until 1997. Also here was the Royal Philanthropic Society's reform school, from 1849 until 1988. The site has been redeveloped into a housing area called Royal Earlswood Park, providing apartments and houses.

The suburb is served by Earlswood railway station, with trains running from Bedford to Three Bridges via London Bridge. The station previously had a third platform which gave access to the Royal Earlswood Hospital.

Earlswood Common was converted the late 1800s from open pasture to a pleasure ground, which remained in use until World War II. The lower lake has a concrete bottom and was used during the First World War to test the ability of primitive tanks to cross flooded landscapes, having previously been used for summer swimming.

Demography
At the 2001 census area, the ward named Earlswood and Whitebushes had a population of 8,234; Earlswood is identifiable as Reigate and Banstead 14A, 14D and 14E (Lower Layer Super Output Areas) with a population of 5,049.

Geography
Earlswood Common is a Local Nature Reserve. It contains two artificial landscaped lakes, which are used for recreational purposes. The upper lake has ducks and wildfowl. Until 2019, much of Earlswood Common had formed Earlswood Common golf course. The golf course was forced to close in March 2019, after 130 years, due to the closure of the Redhill & Reigate Golf Club which had previously maintained the Earlswood course.

Earlswood
An area of predominantly Victorian housing, much of it terraced and semi-detached, immediately south of Redhill town centre bordered to the north by Hooley lane, to the west by the A23 Brighton Road, to the south by the Royal Earlswood Park housing development and to the east by fields. Redhill Brook runs north-south through the middle of Earlswood but is not visible in most of it. Two train lines run through Earlswood. The Redhill and Quarry Lines, both part of the Brighton Line, merge just north of Earlswood and run through Earlswood Station although there is no Quarry Line Platform. The Redhill to Tonbridge line passes through north Earlswood in between Redhill and Nutfield stations.

There are a nursery, primary and junior school over two sites in north Earlswood combined under the umbrella of the Earlswood Schools Federation. The schools are very popular and, along with the plentiful green space and good transport links, have attracted many young families to the area.

There are a few places of religious worship in Earlswood. There is St John's church on St Johns Road, opposite Earlswood, and there is also a Mosque on Earlswood Road, the Redhill Jamia Mosque Al-Mustafa. This is one of 3 mosques in the Redhill area, along with Masjid Al Yaqeen on Warwick Road, Redhill, and Masjid ul Emaan on Frenches Road near Watercolour and Merstham.

South Earlswood
One sub-area of Earlswood, South Earlswood is a separate neighbourhood containing approximately half of the housing, which constitutes the main land use in Earlswood. Separating it from the north are Earlswood Common and the Greensand Way, which follows the Greensand Ridge from Haslemere to Kent. Immediately adjoining South Earlswood is the village or neighbourhood of Whitebushes, which is contiguous therefore, apart from councillors, is difficult to separate artificially.

Whitebushes
A mixed housing estate built in the 1970s and early 1980s,mainly consisting of 4 and 3 bedroom homes and some flats.surrounded by pre-existing farmland, South Earlswood and the railway line. East Surrey Hospital opened in 1979 to its north. A small portion of farmland remains common land where (traditionally) gypsy horses, used for riding lessons and transport, have grazed since the 1950s.

The area has been occupied since medieval times and probably before that, as evidenced by archaeological finds nearby of an axe and flint flakes. The surrounding farms date back to the 13th and 14th centuries, notably Hazelhurst Farm from 1203 and Dean Farm from 1316. There is evidence of a medieval farmstead in Woodlands Field, off Green Lane. This consists mainly of soil marks in a square of about 350m and an adjoining L-shaped mark. The pottery has been dated to 1250–1350.

In the 19th century a number of brick works sprung up in the area. The Reigate Isolation Hospital was established in 1884 and later renamed to the Reigate Rural District Infectious Diseases Hospital. In 1900 a second establishment, the Reigate Borough Isolation Hospital, was opened. Around 1927 the two establishments were combined into a single Isolation Hospital run by the Reigate Joint Hospital Board as part of the Redhill County Hospital. In 1960 the site was acquired by University College Hospital and renamed Jordan's Hospital for the treatment of Tropical Diseases, especially leprosy. The site was sold for development, demolished and in 1970 and the estate between Green Lane and the railway, including Jordans Close, was built. East Surrey hospital was built as a replacement for Jordan’s hospital in 1979

The Brighton Main Line passes the west of Whitebushes and was opened in 1841. An ancient trackway along what is now Green Lane, The Brow and the western leg of Bushfield Drive, links Whitebushes to Earlswood station to the north and Salfords station to the south. Somewhat circuitous routes under the railway link to the parking areas by these stations for those unwilling to walk.

Local governance
Surrey County Council Following boundary changes in response to the new communities built at The Watercolour and Park 25 developments East of Redhill, Earlswood is now split between two divisions at Surrey County Council level. Earlswood North falls with the Redhill East division and Earlswood South falls within the Earlswood and Reigate South division. This does cause some confusion as there is also a Redhill East ward at borough council level which Earlswood is not part of. Both are elected every four years. They are currently represented by:

Redhill East: Mr Jonathan Essex of the Green Party who, in being elected, became the first member of his party to sit on Surrey County Council.

Earlswood and Reigate South: Catherine Margaret Baart (Green Party (England and Wales)), was voted in by the electorate in 2021.

Reigate and Banstead At Borough council Earlswood North and South are combined to form one division, simply Earlswood. Three Earlswood councillors sit on Reigate and Banstead borough council, who are:

Amenities
Earlswood Common, an 89 ha local nature reserve, is managed by Reigate and Banstead Borough Council.

Football club Redhill F.C. has its ground, Kiln Brow, on a site in Earlswood on the east side of the A23, immediately north of East Surrey Hospital.

title: Earlswood


text:
Atsushi Kisaichi

Atsushi Kisaichi (私市 淳) is a Japanese voice actor and narrator currently affiliated with Aoni Production.

Anime

 * 1992
 * Crayon Shin-chan as Yuji

 * 1994
 * Aoki Densetsu Shoot! as Tooru Endo
 * Slam Dunk as Miura
 * Dragon Ball Z as Citizen (ep 243), Reporter (ep 231)
 * Sailor Moon S as Boy B (ep 105), Chin-Chin Tei (ep 107)
 * Marmalade Boy as Alex

 * 1995
 * Sailor Moon SuperS as Editor 2 (ep 134)

 * 1996
 * Jigoku Sensei Nube as Kimu Takera "Kimutake", Narumi
 * Dragon Ball GT as Oob, Ax (ep 25), Man in Store B (ep 3)
 * Sailor Moon Sailor Stars as Host (ep 191), Newscaster (ep 169), Resident (ep 183)
 * Brave Command Dagwon as Ryuu Hashiba

 * 1998
 * His and Her Circumstances as Hideaki Asaba
 * Kocchi Muite Miko as Kenta
 * Nazca as Kendo Judge
 * All Purpose Cultural Cat Girl Nuku Nuku as Rintarou Shimazaki
 * Yu-Gi-Oh! as Hirata (ep 17), Male Student (ep 10)

 * 1999
 * Pokémon as Isao (ep 87)

 * 2000
 * NieA_7 as George
 * Mushrambo as Volt

 * 2001
 * Offside as Hideki Yakumaru
 * Kirby: Right Back at Ya! as Meta Knight, Turbo (ep 90), Chief Borun, Boney (ep 89)
 * Mahoromatic - Automatic Maiden as Kiyomi Kawahara, Punk A (ep 9)
 * Project ARMS: The 2nd Chapter as Keith Green
 * 2002
 * Kanon as Yuichi Aizawa
 * Princess Tutu as Pualo (ep 6)
 * Mahoromatic: Something More Beautiful as Kiyomi Kawahara

 * 2003
 * Tenshi na Konamaiki as Aota
 * Planetes as Corin
 * Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo as Kazutaka (ep 3), Mysterious Person (ep 16)
 * Mermaid Melody: Pichi Pichi Pitch as Yuya Ishibashi (ep 10)

 * 2004
 * This Ugly Yet Beautiful World as Shinichi Asakura
 * Detective Conan as Yasuo Fujino (ep 368)

 * 2005
 * Gakuen Alice as Shuichi Sakurano
 * Sukisho as Gaku Ichikawa

 * 2006
 * Guardian Ninja Mamoru as Mamoru Kagemori
 * Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion as Nagata (ep 1), Shougo Asahina, Terrorist (ep 2)
 * The Story of Saiunkoku as Hakumei Heki

 * 2007
 * Big Windup! as Yoshirou Hamada
 * Gintama as Kyoushirou (ep 55)
 * Gegege no Kitarō as Ganbari-Nyuudou
 * Koi Suru Tenshi Angelique: Kagayaki no Ashita as Timka
 * D.Gray-man as Robert (eps 29-30)
 * Detective Conan as Man (ep 474)
 * Megaman Star Force as Gemini
 * One Piece as Debt Collector (ep 318)

 * 2008
 * Gegege no Kitarō as Hidemaru
 * Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion R2 as Luciano Bradley, Shougo Asahina

 * 2009
 * Mahoromatic: I'm Home! as Kiyomi Kawahara

 * 2011
 * Gintama' as Kyoushirou
 * Ring ni Kakero 1: Sekai Taikai-hen as Icarus (ep 5)

 * 2012
 * The Knight in the Area as Koichi Hibino

 * 2013
 * Saint Seiya Omega as Cyllène

 * 2014
 * The World Is Still Beautiful as Ocean Kingdom's Ambassador (ep 3)
 * Tonari no Seki-kun as Math Teacher (eps 11-12)
 * DRAMAtical Murder as Aoba

Movies

 * Dragon Ball Z: Fusion Reborn (1995) as Man (B)
 * Gundam Seed: Special Edition (xxxx) as Rusty Mackenzie

OVA

 * Future GPX Cyber Formula SIN (xxxx) as Phill Fritz
 * Saint Seiya: The Hades Chapter — Sanctuary (xxxx) as Papillon Myu

Video games

 * Super Smash Bros. Brawl (2008) as Meta Knight
 * Yggdra Union: We'll Never Fight Alone (2008) as Durant
 * Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U (2014) as Meta Knight
 * Super Smash Bros. Ultimate (2018) as Meta Knight
 * Kirby series as Meta Knight
 * Dragon Shadow Spell as Kiriyama Laika (video game)
 * Mega Man Powered Up as Oilman
 * Gitaroo Man as Gregorio Siegfried Wilheim III
 * DRAMAtical Murder (2012) as Aoba Seragaki
 * DRAMAtical Murder Re:connect (2013) as Aoba Seragaki
 * DRAMAtical Murder Re:code (2014) as Aoba Seragaki
 * Dynasty Warriors 7 Empires (2011) as Xu Shu
 * Dynasty Warriors 8 (2014) as Xu Shu
 * Dynasty Warriors 9 Empires (2021) as Xu Shu
 * Monster Retsuden Oreca Battle as Ales
 * Tokimeki Memorial Girl's Side 3rd Story (2010) as Niina Junpei
 * Unlight, as Blaze
 * Soshite Bokura Wa, as Gray

Drama CDs

 * Akanai Tobira as Tayama
 * GetBackers drama CDs Sariel
 * Hana-Kimi drama CDs as Izumi Sano
 * Hoigakusha to Keiji no Aisho series 2: Hoigakusha to Keiji no Honne as Yuuji Ishida
 * Mainichi Seiten! series 1
 * Mainichi Seiten! series 2: Kodomo wa Tomaranai
 * Oishii Karada as Daiki Nosaka
 * Tsuki no Sabaku Satsujin Jiken as Akira Hayashi
 * Warui Koto Shitai as Nagahisa Aikawa
 * Yebisu Celebrities Grand Finale as Akira Sasao
 * DRAMAtical Murder as Aoba Seragaki

Dubbing

 * Batman: Brave and the Bold as (Speedy/Roy Harper)
 * Teen Titans as (Speedy)
 * Young Justice as (Speedy/Red Arrow/Roy Harper)

title: Atsushi Kisaichi


text:
Albanian National League

Albanian National League (in Albanian: Lidhja Kombëtare Shqiptare) is a political party in Albania, founded in 1997. It is led by Ismet Mehmeti. The party has taken its name from a historic nationalist movement, Albanian National League founded by inhabitants from the arbëresh village of Santa Cristina Gela in Sicily, Italy.

title: Albanian National League


text:
User talk:Poupou l'quourouce

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Native Latin speakers?
Greetings, fellow Latinist. If you have second, please share your thoughts in the discussion of a category for native Latin speakers who are also Wikipedians. --Flex 13:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Poupou ist lieb!

Poupou l'quourouce (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Poupou l'quourouce


text:
Parage (Bačka Palanka)

Parage (Параге) is a village located in the Bačka Palanka municipality, in the South Bačka District of Serbia. It is situated in the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina. The village has a Serb ethnic majority and its population numbering 1,039 people (2002 census).

Name
In Serbian, the village is known as Parage (Параге), in Croatian as Parage, and in Hungarian as  Parrag.

History
Since its foundation, the village was mainly inhabited by Serbs. First historical source citing Parage dates back to 1473. At the end of 18th century village with entire population was moved 4 km to north, due to high ground-water levels, but also to make space for expansion of Gajdobra, place colonised with Germans by Austrian monarchy.

Trivia

 * Prominent Serbian national songs author from 19th century, Filip Višnjić is said to have been visited Parage in 1812.
 * Railroad connecting Novi Sad and Sombor was made near Parage in 1890.

Notable natives/residents

 * Charles Alverson, British-American writer spent almost a decade living in Parage, before moving to Belgrade
 * Miodrag Radulovacki, Professor of Pharmacology in the College of Medicine at the University of Illinois-Chicago

title: Parage (Bačka Palanka)


title: User:Interiot/Test1


text:
Daredevil (Lev Gleason Publications)

Daredevil is a fictional superhero created by Jack Binder, who starred in comics from Lev Gleason Publications during the 1930s–1940s period historians and fans call the Golden Age of comic books before being retroactively established into the Image Universe by Image Comics in the 1990s as its first character. The character is unrelated to Marvel Comics' Daredevil, and recent renditions of the character have often renamed him Doubledare or The Death-Defying Devil to avoid confusion and potential lawsuits.

As a child, Bart Hill had been rendered mute by the shock of seeing his father murdered and himself being branded with a hot iron. Orphaned, he grew up to become a boomerang marksman, in homage to the boomerang-shaped scar left on his chest. Like Batman, introduced a year earlier, he took up a costume to wage vigilante vengeance.

Editor Jack Cole, who would create the classic Plastic Man a year later, revamped the character in the next issue as Bill Hart, pitting him against Silver Streak's lead character, the villainous Claw, for a five-issue battle that made Daredevil a star.

Lev Gleason Publications
This original Daredevil was created by Jack Binder for an eight-page backup feature in Lev Gleason Publications' Silver Streak Comics #6 (Sept. 1940). Upon his partial revamping in the issue following his debut, only Hill's identity, spiked belt, and the boomerang remained; the mute angle was dropped without explanation, and his original symmetrically divided bodysuit of pale yellow and dark blue was redesigned to a dark red and blue. The final installment was written by Don Rico, who would write the character through Silver Streak #17 (Dec. 1941).

By this time, publisher Lev Gleason had already launched Daredevil's own comic with Daredevil Battles Hitler #1 (July 1941), in which Daredevil and other Silver Streak heroes fought the German chancellor. As with Captain America Comics #1 (March 1941), in which Hitler also gets an ignominious sock in the jaw, the comic anticipated U.S. involvement in World War II. It was written and partially drawn by Charles Biro, who continued on the book when its title changed to Daredevil Comics with issue #2, and who in his 16-year run would make the character one of the most acclaimed of the Golden Age. Biro rewrote Daredevil's origin in issue #18 (August 1943), now depicting Daredevil's real identity, Bart Hill, as having been raised by aborigines in the Australian Outback.

According to Jess Nevins' Encyclopedia of Golden Age Superheroes, "his arch-enemy is the Claw, but there are Nazis to be fought, mad scientists, the Deadly Dozen, Wolf Carson (a wolf with a human brain), the Ghoul, Reve Venge (the Phantom of Notre Dame), and Crepto, the imbecile with the strength of fifteen men".

Biro introduced popular supporting characters the Little Wise Guys in Daredevil #13 (Oct. 1942). A "kid gang" similar to DC Comics' Newsboy Legion and many others, the group consisted of Curly, Jocko, Peewee, Scarecrow, and Meatball – the last of whom, with remarkable daring, was killed two issues later. By the late 1940s, with superheroes going out of fashion, the Little Wise Guys took center stage, edging out Daredevil altogether with issue #70 (Jan. 1950). The series lasted through #134 (Sept. 1956).

Image Comics
Daredevil is one of several public domain Golden Age characters to appear in Image Comics' Next Issue Project, spearheaded by Image's Erik Larsen, returning to Silver Streak, the book which introduced him to the public.

Daredevil also appeared in issue #141 of Larsen's Savage Dragon comic series. That issue served to resurrect a slew of public domain Golden Age characters. Savage Dragon #148 debuted The Dynamic Daredevil as a regular supporting cast member in the series. That issue also brought back the Little Wise Guys. Daredevil becomes deeply involved in the problems of Dragon's ravaged Chicago; he becomes severely injured battling a murderous version of Dragon. In 2021, the Dynamic Daredevil appeared as supporting character in a new Ant comic series, which was published in June, written and drawn by Larsen.

Other publishers
Daredevil is now in the public domain, and as a result many publishers have used him to varying degrees, most opting to make name changes in an effort to have something to own and to get around Marvel's Daredevil trademark.

AC Comics
In the late 1980s, AC Comics revived Daredevil as part of that publisher's superhero universe. Renamed Reddevil, he appeared as a guest character in Femforce #45 and #50  before starring in the one-shot title Reddevil #1 (1991).

First Publications
Daredevil was one of the many Golden Age heroes who showed up in Roy Thomas' Alter Ego mini-series. He is renamed as Doubledare.

Dynamite Entertainment
A variation on Daredevil appeared in the comic-book series Project Superpowers, by writer Jim Krueger and artist Alex Ross. In this series, he is billed and trademarked as The Death-Defying 'Devil. In 2008, Dynamite Entertainment spun off a solo miniseries for the character, written by Joe Casey with art by Edgar Salazar. In this series, someone from 'Devil's past – wearing a green version of 'Devil's costume and calling himself "Dragon" – believes that the returned hero is an impostor, and is determined to expose him. The Dragon turns out to be Curly, who reveals that the actual 'Devil died in 1987. Within the main series itself, the 'Devil is eventually revealed to be Bart Hill's costume, which had in fact always been sentient and was placed in the urn along with a single boomerang as part of a pact between Hill and the Fighting Yank. The costume does not explicitly reveal its nature to its allies, but eventually discards its pretense of being human by handing the Black Terror the dentures it had been using to create the illusion of a mouth. It possesses additional powers, such as the ability to grow new spike-like branches and the knowledge of an ancient language needed to banish the Claw, and is implied to have its own, sinister agenda.

Wild Cat Books
Daredevil also appears in Legends of the Golden Age (ISBN 0982087292), an anthology featuring prose tales of Daredevil and the Black Terror. Barry Reese contributed one of the stories in this anthology, which was released in January 2009 by Wild Cat Books.

Golden Age appearances
The Daredevil appeared in:
 * Silver Streak Comics #6–17 (Sept 1940 – Dec 1941)
 * Daredevil Comics #1–69, 79, 80 (July 1941 – Nov 1950)

Legacy
In homage to the Golden Age Daredevil, Marvel Comics' Daredevil would wear a similar costume in the alternate-reality Mutant X series in Mutant X Annual 2001. In addition, the 2000 Marvels Comics: Daredevil special had a group based on the Little Wise Guys. A similar, earlier homage came in DC Comics' Kingdom Come series, when Peter Cannon, Thunderbolt – a character whose regular costume was inspired by Daredevil's, according to creator Pete Morisi – wore a new costume very similar to that of the Golden Age Daredevil.

Film
Bart Hill appears alongside other Golden Age superheroes in the independent film Avenging Force: The Scarab, where he's renamed as Doubledare possibly in order to avoid trademark issues with Marvel's Daredevil.

title: Daredevil (Lev Gleason Publications)


text:
Jakob Marzel Sternberger

Jakob Marzel Sternberger (1750–1822) was the first mayor of the town of Kadaň, Holy Roman Empire, after the municipal reform of Joseph II. He was a mayor from 1788 till 1822.

title: Jakob Marzel Sternberger


text:
Faysal Ali Warabe

Faysal Ali Warabe (Faysal Cali Waraabe, فيصل علي ورابي; born 1948), also spelled Faisal Ali Warabe, is a Somalilander engineer and politician. He previously served as Director of Planning and Building as well as Regional Director of Somalia's Ministry of Public Works. Additionally, Warabe is the founder and chairman of the Justice and Welfare Party (UCID).

Life and education
Warabe was born in 1948 in Hargeisa, British Somaliland. He hails from the Eidagale clan of the Isaaq clan family. Members are decent with Ismail (Garhajis) Shiekh Ishaq. Faysal Ali completed his primary, Intermediate and Secondary education in Somaliland.For his post-secondary education, Waraabe studied at Somali National University where he learned courses in teacher training, Warabe studied in the Soviet Union. He earned an M. Sc. in Engineering in 1973 from an institution in Leningrad. Between 1997 and 2001, Warabe also matriculated at the University of Helsinki's Faculty of Social Sciences, where he attended courses in the Social Policy Department. He later moved to Espoo.

Warabe is married. He speaks several languages, including Somali, Arabic, English, Russian and Finnish. Warabe received Finnish citizenship in 1999.

Son's death
Warabe's son Sayid Hussein Feisal Ali Warabe (born 1991) died on 29 December 2017 in Syria. Sayid Hussein Feisal Ali, who had Finnish citizenship and who was also known as Abu Shuayb as-Somali (from Finland), had traveled from Finland to Syria in early 2013 to become a jihadi fighter, first joining al-Nusra and later ISIS. His cousin, Abu Mansuur Somali, also left Leppävaara for Syria and it is believed the two became radicalised together. Faysal Ali, who had warned Finnish authorities about his son, believes Sayid Hussein Feisal Ali was killed in an airstrike.

Career
An engineer by profession, Warabe began his career as the president of AYAAN, a local Somali construction company. He later worked as a Chief Engineer in Mogadishu.

Warabe subsequently served with the Somalia central government as the Director of Planning and Building in the Ministry of Public Works. He was later appointed the Ministry's Regional Director.

In 2001, Warabe founded the Justice and Welfare Party (UCID) in Somaliland. Serving as the political association's Chairman, UCID came in third place in the 2003 regional elections, receiving 16% of votes.

Work

 * Main offices:
 * Regional Director, Ministry of Public Works, Somalia
 * Director of Planning & Building, Ministry of Public Works
 * Chief Engineer, Mogadishu, Somalia
 * President of AYAAN construction company

 * Other positions held:
 * Chairman of Somaliland Society in Europe (2001)
 * Chairman of Somali Social Democrats Party (2001)
 * Chairman of Somaliland Association in Finland (1998-2001)
 * Chairman of Somali Social Democrats Party (1997)

 * Other activities:
 * Spokesman for Somaliland Peace Committee, 1995

title: Faysal Ali Warabe


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bagrat IV

 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily redirected. Nominator agreed to redirecting, no objections from other voters. - Mgm|(talk) 22:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Bagrat IV
We already have a full article on Bagrat IV of Georgia. This stub has no new information. --Valentinian 13:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC) My error. A redirect is of course the proper solution. --Valentinian 17:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thus, redirect to Bagrat IV of Georgia. I'd do it, but we're not supposed to do that while the AFD is in progress. Valentinian, do you want to change your vote to redirect? DS 14:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedily redirected per above. No reason to continue dragging this through AFD. Friday (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Someone already redirected it. I don't expect this merge to be controversial. If it is, this discussion can be reopened, but since the nominator agreed and since it's the most logical thing to do, I think it's save to close this debate. - Mgm|(talk) 22:47, 30 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.