| Revision as of 16:33, 26 July 2005 editTDC (talk | contribs)8,719 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:35, 26 July 2005 edit undoTDC (talk | contribs)8,719 edits →KGB statusNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| ==KGB status== | ==KGB status== | ||
| Could we take one paragraph at a time and discuss the text. Much of the Red-baiting POV and conservative attacks at least need to be cited to a published source so we can discuss them properly.--] 16:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Some writers, mostly conservative, have claimed that Stone had an involvement with the ]. These claims are disputed. | *:Some writers, mostly conservative, have claimed that Stone had an involvement with the ]. These claims are disputed. | ||
| I am sorry but this reeks. All who have commented on the subject acknowledge that Stone had some kind of cordial relationship with the KGB field office. Some argue that this went further, with the bulk of the research being done by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr (the foremost authorities on Venona). | I am sorry but this reeks. All who have commented on the subject acknowledge that Stone had some kind of cordial relationship with the KGB field office. Some argue that this went further, with the bulk of the research being done by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr (the foremost authorities on Venona). | ||
| As much as you might like to, lets not paint all those who believe that Stone was working for the KGB either as an "agent" or more appropriately an "agent of influence" as knuckle dragging right wingers. ] 16:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC) | As much as you might like to, lets not paint all those who believe that Stone was working for the KGB either as an "agent" or more appropriately an "agent of influence" as knuckle dragging right wingers. ] 16:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC) | ||
| Also, why do you continue to presnet Navasky's article as gospel truth? the least you could do is attribute it to him and write in an NPOV manner. | |||
Revision as of 16:35, 26 July 2005
I was under the impression that Izzy's legal name was Isidor Feinstein, which was his birth name, and that I. F. Stone was simply a pen name. On the other hand, it is possible that he legally changed his name to Isidor Feinstein Stone. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I am could clear this up, and change the article to reflect the situation Too Old 01:05, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)
Kalugin
Here is the proper citation FBI Venona FOIA, p. 37, ( under the section entitled "Vladimir S. Pravdin). I know, I know, "Have You No Sense of Decency...". Nobs01 19:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So he published a book about how the U.S. and South Korea "initiated casualties" and "planned for the conflict." OK... now how 'bout we add in the fact that it's now confirmed that the war was started by dear ol' Kim in the North? J. Parker Stone 06:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
LOL, didn't even realize that an edit war on this was already in progress... checked this article after seeing Mr. Lopez's references to IF Stone on Magdoff. J. Parker Stone 06:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
There are some pecularities regarding Stone I would be happy to discuss, in context with the larger edit war that same to be going on. nobs 21:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
KGB status
Could we take one paragraph at a time and discuss the text. Much of the Red-baiting POV and conservative attacks at least need to be cited to a published source so we can discuss them properly.--Cberlet 16:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Some writers, mostly conservative, have claimed that Stone had an involvement with the KGB. These claims are disputed.
I am sorry but this reeks. All who have commented on the subject acknowledge that Stone had some kind of cordial relationship with the KGB field office. Some argue that this went further, with the bulk of the research being done by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr (the foremost authorities on Venona).
As much as you might like to, lets not paint all those who believe that Stone was working for the KGB either as an "agent" or more appropriately an "agent of influence" as knuckle dragging right wingers. TDC 16:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Also, why do you continue to presnet Navasky's article as gospel truth? the least you could do is attribute it to him and write in an NPOV manner.