![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed this from the article:
because it's very inaccurate. It was Random House who negotiated the contract with the SVR for archival access, not Weinstein, and a number of different authors were covered. (Among the others are Costello, for Deadly Illusions.) The authors did have "exclusive access", but given that Random House paid for the privilege, this is not as sinister as it may first sound.
(Without reviewing the contract, it's not clear exactly how "exclusive" this "exclusive" is, anyway - presumably Random House was only interested in protecting its commercial interest, i.e. the "exclusive" might simply mean that it's an exclusive license to reprint copyrighted material. That would not preclude e.g. others reviewing the material. But that's all speculation.)
Anyway, the principal reason no other authors can review the material is that the SVR closed off access to its archives to all outsiders in late 1995, for a variety of reasons. So it's simply incorrect to say that it's Weinstein who is "preventing other scholars from confirming his translations". Noel (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately.
— from the box at the top of this page.
I just removed a whole bunch of completely unsourced controversial material from the "Criticism" section. Current Wikipedia policy strictly forbids that sort of writing about any living person on any page on this site. Anyone who wants to restore it will need to say exactly who makes those criticisms of Weinstein, and give verifiable cites to Reliable Sources. CWC 23:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I've just made a substantial edit, using links provided by Bdell555. (Thanks for that!) The comment by Ellen Schrecker that Bdell555 found is undated; I got its date from here.
I made two unrelated changes. First I removed the following sentence:
WP:BLP requires immediate removal of uncited negative claims like this. I did a quick Google search but didn't find any WP:RSes. If someone can produce a cite, we'll put it back. (Important note: The Nation is clearly not a Reliable Source of the subject of Allen Weinstein.)
Second, having just come across a malignantly selective quote in another article, I was worried enough by the "weakness for mystification" quote to Google it. Guess what? No hits except for this article! My bogometer is well into the red zone. Plus that's a very strange thing to say about a successful historian; it's suggestive but uninformative. So I've deleted that too. If someone can produce a copy of "Tangled Treason", we can take another look at it to see if we can use it.
Cheers, CWC 15:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
"The Nation is clearly not a Reliable Source"?? Apparently this is because The Nation has published research criticizing Weinstein. NPOV requires that critical voices as well as celebration be recorded, as long as the record includes cited sources. Jonwiener ( talk) 01:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed
as unencyclopedic in its ironical vagueness (
litotes?). If she is usually a critic of
anti-communism, say so and provide a ref.
--
Jerzy•
t
20:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I inserted into the accompanying article the wording that i have bolded on this talk page, within the following sentence:
My wording would (presumably) be unnecessary if the source cited, namely
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)either
As a matter of fact, John Ehrman's CIA paper has the PoV that
essentially suggesting that any misquotes are insubstantial and Navasky's claims must rest on his implicit assertion that he has the ability to evaluate context and intention of third parties better than Weinstein. That doesn't show Navasky lied, but it means countervailing evidence for such a consensus is needed for the former claim.
As an alternative to finding on-line evidence for either of those two sets of circumstances, a classic use of the
fair use provision is quotation for the purpose of facilitating our discussion of how the source can accurately be paraphrased: an editor with a subscription can, without committing a copyvio, quote directly, here on the talk page, to the extent necessary to make their argument to those without subscriptions that Navasky's supposed evidence is prima facie evidence; likewise to answer our objections. But anything Navasky calls evidence, but may be regarded by other reasonable observers as not needing to be countered, amounts, in the absence of better sourcing than we have now, to just Navasky's or the editor's PoV that N presents evidence.
My reasoning in the preceding portion of this contrib might be disparaged as mere theoretical prissiness. In fact, the knowledge i had during early drafts of it would have made that label merely harsh -- if i had saved it at that point. But it turns out that John Ehrman's cited article attributes to Weinstein a claim to have the quotes on tape: so we have to believe that Navasky either
The first of those would be an extraordinary claim, calling for extraordinary evidence.
The second, based on that word presumably being given years after Weinstein's interviews, and perhaps soon after having been abused by Navasky with something like "what kind of fascist toadie would say what you said to Weinstein?", would amount to an extraordinary act of faith on Navasky's part.
--
Jerzy•
t
08:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Navasky's main claim and point here was that Weinstein demonstrates pretty poor standard of scholarship using a few examples as mere illustration of his point. Weinstein's distorsions and misrepresentations of sources and evidence, as well as unfounded speculations, deliberate ommisions and other dirty tricks serving to just one purpose - to vindicate Chambers and portray Hiss "guilty as charged" - are far more numerous. But what is the worst of all and what violates all basic principles of scholarly work is the fact that Weinstein kept his files closed for some thirty years (despite of repeated promises to make them public for other researchers to check his claims) and he is in the same work once again with The Haunted Wood. 88.101.177.121 ( talk) 03:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Honza73
I cleaned up the unreferenced career section and gave it a few more clear breaks in the Career section to make it easier to read. These edits don't involve your argument, but I hope you guys don't object with the edits. I will continue to polish this section and not interfere with the arguments about his scholarship,
Thanks much SADADS ( talk) 15:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Allen Weinstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Allen Weinstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed this from the article:
because it's very inaccurate. It was Random House who negotiated the contract with the SVR for archival access, not Weinstein, and a number of different authors were covered. (Among the others are Costello, for Deadly Illusions.) The authors did have "exclusive access", but given that Random House paid for the privilege, this is not as sinister as it may first sound.
(Without reviewing the contract, it's not clear exactly how "exclusive" this "exclusive" is, anyway - presumably Random House was only interested in protecting its commercial interest, i.e. the "exclusive" might simply mean that it's an exclusive license to reprint copyrighted material. That would not preclude e.g. others reviewing the material. But that's all speculation.)
Anyway, the principal reason no other authors can review the material is that the SVR closed off access to its archives to all outsiders in late 1995, for a variety of reasons. So it's simply incorrect to say that it's Weinstein who is "preventing other scholars from confirming his translations". Noel (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately.
— from the box at the top of this page.
I just removed a whole bunch of completely unsourced controversial material from the "Criticism" section. Current Wikipedia policy strictly forbids that sort of writing about any living person on any page on this site. Anyone who wants to restore it will need to say exactly who makes those criticisms of Weinstein, and give verifiable cites to Reliable Sources. CWC 23:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I've just made a substantial edit, using links provided by Bdell555. (Thanks for that!) The comment by Ellen Schrecker that Bdell555 found is undated; I got its date from here.
I made two unrelated changes. First I removed the following sentence:
WP:BLP requires immediate removal of uncited negative claims like this. I did a quick Google search but didn't find any WP:RSes. If someone can produce a cite, we'll put it back. (Important note: The Nation is clearly not a Reliable Source of the subject of Allen Weinstein.)
Second, having just come across a malignantly selective quote in another article, I was worried enough by the "weakness for mystification" quote to Google it. Guess what? No hits except for this article! My bogometer is well into the red zone. Plus that's a very strange thing to say about a successful historian; it's suggestive but uninformative. So I've deleted that too. If someone can produce a copy of "Tangled Treason", we can take another look at it to see if we can use it.
Cheers, CWC 15:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
"The Nation is clearly not a Reliable Source"?? Apparently this is because The Nation has published research criticizing Weinstein. NPOV requires that critical voices as well as celebration be recorded, as long as the record includes cited sources. Jonwiener ( talk) 01:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed
as unencyclopedic in its ironical vagueness (
litotes?). If she is usually a critic of
anti-communism, say so and provide a ref.
--
Jerzy•
t
20:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I inserted into the accompanying article the wording that i have bolded on this talk page, within the following sentence:
My wording would (presumably) be unnecessary if the source cited, namely
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)either
As a matter of fact, John Ehrman's CIA paper has the PoV that
essentially suggesting that any misquotes are insubstantial and Navasky's claims must rest on his implicit assertion that he has the ability to evaluate context and intention of third parties better than Weinstein. That doesn't show Navasky lied, but it means countervailing evidence for such a consensus is needed for the former claim.
As an alternative to finding on-line evidence for either of those two sets of circumstances, a classic use of the
fair use provision is quotation for the purpose of facilitating our discussion of how the source can accurately be paraphrased: an editor with a subscription can, without committing a copyvio, quote directly, here on the talk page, to the extent necessary to make their argument to those without subscriptions that Navasky's supposed evidence is prima facie evidence; likewise to answer our objections. But anything Navasky calls evidence, but may be regarded by other reasonable observers as not needing to be countered, amounts, in the absence of better sourcing than we have now, to just Navasky's or the editor's PoV that N presents evidence.
My reasoning in the preceding portion of this contrib might be disparaged as mere theoretical prissiness. In fact, the knowledge i had during early drafts of it would have made that label merely harsh -- if i had saved it at that point. But it turns out that John Ehrman's cited article attributes to Weinstein a claim to have the quotes on tape: so we have to believe that Navasky either
The first of those would be an extraordinary claim, calling for extraordinary evidence.
The second, based on that word presumably being given years after Weinstein's interviews, and perhaps soon after having been abused by Navasky with something like "what kind of fascist toadie would say what you said to Weinstein?", would amount to an extraordinary act of faith on Navasky's part.
--
Jerzy•
t
08:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Navasky's main claim and point here was that Weinstein demonstrates pretty poor standard of scholarship using a few examples as mere illustration of his point. Weinstein's distorsions and misrepresentations of sources and evidence, as well as unfounded speculations, deliberate ommisions and other dirty tricks serving to just one purpose - to vindicate Chambers and portray Hiss "guilty as charged" - are far more numerous. But what is the worst of all and what violates all basic principles of scholarly work is the fact that Weinstein kept his files closed for some thirty years (despite of repeated promises to make them public for other researchers to check his claims) and he is in the same work once again with The Haunted Wood. 88.101.177.121 ( talk) 03:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)Honza73
I cleaned up the unreferenced career section and gave it a few more clear breaks in the Career section to make it easier to read. These edits don't involve your argument, but I hope you guys don't object with the edits. I will continue to polish this section and not interfere with the arguments about his scholarship,
Thanks much SADADS ( talk) 15:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Allen Weinstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Allen Weinstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)