This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Dear Socrates 2008,

Have now received advice and some constructive comment from the three informed persons mentioned previously that I had approached for advice on the WP post DFG. Without exception they all advised that I should declare a conflict with current Editor Socrates 2008 and get a change to the make up of the Editing Team. Points made. 1. Blatantly obvious personal hostility and bias against the individual DFG displayed by language used, inclusions of poorly sourced unreliable information and exclusions of soundly sourced material previously mentioned. 2. Non – replies to questions as to Editor’s credentials for putting together a balanced non-partisan article on the subject. Furthermore no reply has been given to the ten “edge parameter” points submitted previously for consideration and confirmation! Why? . An unsolicited comment from one of the three above which even I considered excessively harsh was “ Ek dink ons moet hom inskryf as “mampara” van die week! He is obviously particularly focused on matters damaging to U.K, the R.N. and in complete denial of their support in propping up the Apartheid Government of the then “Republic of South Africa”. One is seemingly dealing with some kind of obsessive and disgruntled PFP (pack for Perth) South African ex British colonialist who is seemingly more fixated on sniping at the subject from the safety and confines of the remaining white laager situated behind the “boerewors” curtain of the virtual world rather than providing the readers of Wikipedia with a truly balanced, non biased and factual article on the subject. The dating utilization in the text is particularly confusing and needs major revision. As to using Janet Coggin’s book as a reference “Oh vey”! Janet’s story is so full of inconsistencies and apparent gaps in real knowledge of what was actually going on or what was hidden from her that one cannot take a great deal of what she is reputed to have said as a serious contribution to the debate.” My comment: The focus on the motivation of “revenging” father’s internment and further denial of the fighting apartheid “ seems overplayed and further distorts the generally accepted and judicially stated motive which is not mentioned in your most recent amendments to the post. Again the question –why this approach?

It would appear from the amendment you made to the page (see below) that you are over zealous in pushing your own pov despite evidence to the contrary – not only once, but twice in one para! Please, Please –not acceptable! Where are the comments and discussion of the other Editors? As to quoting Janet C ‘s observation that DFG was a traditional “Apartheid accepting South African –of course it would have been necessary to appear so in order to maintain cover. That Janet was not let into DFG’s confidence at the time is fully understandable as it would have placed at risk continued operations! Interesting however is a quote from James Sanders book Apartheid’s Friends (in the list of references) page 191 which perhaps gave a glimpse of his true feelings behind the necessary façade - nothing less than unprofessional and endangering to espionage operations!? Quote “A British colleague later told the Mail on Sunday “ He was certainly a lot more liberal than most white South Africans I met. There was no question about Dieter not sharing with coloured officers on our course. It was at the time quite open disregard for his country’s political views” Unquote

“Dieter Gerhardt was deported to South Africa and tried in camera in the Cape Town Supreme Court, with the potential prospect of a death sentence being handed down for high treason.[17] However Judge George Munnik sentenced him to life imprisonment in December 1983, while his wife received a 10-year sentence for acting as a courier. [23] In his trial, Gerhardt stated that the repulsion he felt towards his father's right-wing political beliefs drove him to fight apartheid in serving the USSR.[6][24] According to Gerhardt, he deliberately attempted to sow confusion in the trial by stating in his defence that he had spied for an unnamed third country that was not hostile to South Africa.[12] His first wife described him as a "traditional apartheid-accepting South African".[9], and claimed she thought he was in fact a double agent working for South Africa.[25] Munnik said that he would have passed the death sentence on Gerhardt that the prosecution sought if the information he had passed to the Soviet Union had lead to the death of a South African soldier.[12] His first wife described him as a "traditional apartheid-accepting South African".[9]. He had told her that he wanted to revenge against the South African government for interning his father, a Nazi sympathizer, during World War II.[16]

Before declaring conflict I would like to have your comment. Specifically, on the omission of the references given previously, namely

Simon’s Town Dockyard –the first Hundred Years Published by Simon’s Town Historical Society . Researched by Capt Bill Rice (SAN) Retd. ISBN  978-0-620-47932-5 published Sept 2010

Pages 166, 170-171and particularly 175 Quote “ Neither served their full sentence after 1994. Dieter Gerhardt was exonerated by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and had the rank of Rear Admiral (Junior Grade) restored”. Unquote.

Also Mandela’s letter to the subject in which the political credentials of DFG are clearly indicated. Why no mention?

At the next convenient talk session I intend to make proposals for specific amendments to be considered for incorporation in or deletion from the text to achieve some modicum of balance. That’s it for the moment Regards DFGéöàä

By all means, please go ahead and invite other editors to contribute. A few points of my own for the record:

• What's my supposed POV? How would you, as someone who is highly connected to this article, be able to recognise that?
• I don't see anyone else improving the referencing in this article, nor challenging unreferenced information to the extent that I have been, so I welcome any scrutiny with respect to "inclusions of poorly sourced unreliable information and exclusions of soundly sourced material previously mentioned". I also challenge any suggestion that my net contribution to this article has been anything other than overwhelmingly positive.
• I prefer to edit articles rather get involved in talk page disputes. Editors who provide referenced contributions find me to be very agreeable to work with.
• I'm flagging this talk page for attention at WP:COIN, where there are administrators who are well-versed in dealing with COI issues. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 08:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Attempts at Conflict Resolution Continued

Dear Socrates 2008, Responsibility for passing on the unkind and unnecessary comment made about your person was mine.Therefore I take full responsibility for any offense incurred No hums and buts! My sincere apologies! Getting back to the article I would appreciate if you could reply to specific unanswered questions raised. Will provide further comment subsequent receipt of your reply.Inputs from other current editors would also be appreciated

My concerns lie mainly in various inaccuracies in the article skewing the picture presented - e.g. despite several references in the press of MOD indicating that DFG had no access to information related any aspects of the Falkland Operations the claim persists in the text suggesting that I somehow had involvement in those operations and somehow indirectly caused the casualties then suffered by the RN. This is simply not a backed up fact -pure media speculation. A detailed review of the article will be now undertaken by the academics (one of whom is black) and these together with specific correction proposals will be passed on to you in due course - without any derogatory comments of course. I too must draw to your attention that senior black leaders in SA are weary of having whites (white controlled media) attempting to distort the past and I have a concern that there will be a severe backlash which will negate all the advances made in establishing a truly democratic , non-racist,non sexist country at the southern tip of Africa. That's it for the moment regards DFG éöàä

Comment on Socrates 2008 Points made for the Record

Dear Socrates, It appears that you do not intend answering specific questions raised by myself in connection with the article. additionally you continue to make insertions and deletions without reference to other editors on the team (or to me for that matter!).Like Wikipedia itself I am only interested in facts –not in self - aggrandizement or trying to paint a false picture of past events. In future, before making changes please put these proposals up for consideration by the other editing members. We are all busy people and this unilateral approach to editing is simply unacceptable. Regarding your comment “ please go ahead and invite other editors to contribute” It has now been acted upon and contributions from other highly informed and qualified sources will be made in due course. Addressing the points you made for the record:

▪ What's my supposed POV? How would you, as someone who is highly connected to this article, be able to recognise that? Comment : Having been subject to a full scale misinformation media campaign launched by the “psyops” department of the then SADF in the early 80’s without being able to reply at that time having been formaly banned from responding by Government decree I can assure that I am well able to recognize a particular POV being put over. Simply put, in your case, you have been attempting to paint a picture of me in the entry as a “uncaring, mercenary traitor with no political motive and no connection with the Liberation Movements in South Africa ”. Here I question your motive of trying to perpetuate the apartheid regime’s misinformation. Why? Have we not had enough of their lies in the past?! You have been provided with reliable references as to political motivation as well as confirmation that my motives were not mercenary! Why not use these instead of persisting in trying to put over your POV despite strong contrary evidence! Please address the questions raised by myself earlier on in the talk page! Every aspect of the above mentioned perceived POV will be refuted by using available verifiable references. Important is that you discuss matters prior to making any further entries or deleting relevant matters

▪ I don't see anyone else improving the referencing in this article, nor challenging unreferenced information to the extent that I have been, so I welcome any scrutiny with respect to "inclusions of poorly sourced unreliable information and exclusions of soundly sourced material previously mentioned". I also challenge any suggestion that my net contribution to this article has been anything other than overwhelmingly positive.

Comment : I disagree partially with the statement. Examples of soundly sourced material and references have not only NOT been included but also in some cases deleted leaving the article filled with factual errors e.g. under Nationality you state,”later Swiss”. Where did you obtain this incorrect information? I am South African with a Swiss Residence Permit! etc etc. Many more corrections of this nature need to be made but the undo interventions without discussion or reference to others prevents this occurring

▪ I prefer to edit articles rather get involved in talk page disputes. Editors who provide referenced contributions find me to be very agreeable to work with.

Comment: Again I disagree. I personally do not find you easy to work with, specifically because you fail to respond to direct questions and proceed to make amendments without consultation with fellow editors. For example, the following is an extract of recent talk raised by an editor Quote “wonder how you reconcile your call to work with other editors and your commitment to consensus (as read on the vela talk page) with your activity here, regarding the statement of Gerhardt’s wife that you have deleted (you didn't even answer to my latest comment referring to this) and the comment from a journalist about Gerhardt that you found relevant enough to include it, socrates2008.--Severino (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC) I get the impression that you may be finding Wikipedia's requirements for verification and reliable sources to be too onerous. I'll go back and look at what you said about his wife, as I've probably missed it - next time, I'd appreciate it if you could draw my attention without delivering a personal attack at the same time. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC) your "side blow" here (concerning your "impressions" about me, just for the record) is definitely more a personal attack...and, you add and delete material here (i cited 2 cases in my last comment) w/o having consensus.--Severino (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC) Kindly keep your discussion here limited to improvements to the article. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC) “ Unquote Not an example of a cooperative approach!.

▪ I'm flagging this talk page for attention at WP:COIN, where there are administrators who are well-versed in dealing with COI issues. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment : Hopefully the WP COIN will take up contact with me on this page and provide the necessary unbiased mediation! Such an intervention would be greatly appreciated by myself Thus far there does not appear to be any response to your flagging for attention?

In order to reach finality on a mutual acceptable text containing only undisputed facts I will shortly be making proposals for amendments and additions/deletions in current text - to be reviewed by another team appointed by Wikipedia which Severino is welcome to form part of. Regards DFGéöàä — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieter Gerhardt ( talk • contribs)

• I'm about to have a look at the article itself, which I will do with my uninvolved glasses on--uninvolved also because this talk page is a prime example of WP:TLDNR. Drmies ( talk) 04:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 10:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No, thank you. You're doing the work. I had a look at their initial revisions, but they don't strike me as very egregious violations of BLP or other acronyms, and since I'm not very familiar with the subject matter, I can't do much else. Thanks for your help. Drmies ( talk) 15:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've finally managed to find a SAPA news article that supports your claim of anti-apartheid activism, and have added a quote from it that I trust you will find agreeable. I have to re-iterate that reliable references that can be used to support your stance are extremely hard to find - hopefully you will understand that this is the core difficulty that WP editors currently face in expanding this article. So if you have any suggestions as to additional online sources that can be consulted, that would be appreciated. Lastly, could I request on behalf of everyone here that you keep your comments succinct and focused on article improvements - as Drmies indicated above, the large blocks are text above are imposing, and may not always be read by those that are busy in real life. Thank you. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 09:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Socrates 2008, I sill await answers to my various questions raised regarding amendments and alterations to the post DFG. One additional question of interest to me is why you personally are so involved in this post? Yes, I agree it is difficult to find reliable published reasons for my defection and commission of high treason against the then apartheid state of the Republic of South Africa. One article considered to be useful in this respect is “Love him or hate him, Dieter was a “pro”” Herald, Port Elizabeth 31 August 1992. Looking at the DFG post it is clear that the para on Military Career needs a complete rewrite because of a number of factual errors. Intend sending in a proposal in this regard in the coming week. Regards Dieter Gerhardt DFGéöàä P.S. I actually still have "real" work to do!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieter Gerhardt ( talk • contribs)

I'm not personally involved. The Herald article is not available online - if you have a clipping that shows the date & publication, you may want to consider uploading it somewhere where it's accessible. I'm not surprised that the Military Career section is not completely correct as the sources are piecemeal - what I suggest is that you provide a high level timeline, then we can see how the information at hand can be re-organised to correlate with it. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 21:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Socrates 2008, Brevity requirement noted. Article as standing remains unbalanced. Two additional insertions quoting Gen .Magnus Malan’s Autobiography are noted. Aggravates the bias perceived He, an indicted murderer eventually found not guilty on insufficient available evidence Following general theme aspects need correction

• Anti apartheid aspects to be further reinforced and perpetuation of apartheid regimes misinformation campaign to be eliminated or placed in context with counter arguments recovered from reliable sources.

• I've searched long and hard, and added what I could find (e.g. see the quote in the article "... I was a political activist fighting the evil regime of apartheid..."). While I don't doubt your credentials, I've yet to find anyone other than yourself describing you as an anti-apartheid activist. Maybe that's because the spy story was more interesting to the media, but we can only use reliable and verifiable sources to expand the article. The TRC amnesty for example does not actually say why you were granted amnesty, only that your were granted amnesty. You need to help with sources here as I've exhaused the options. (e.g. Try searching Google for "Dieter Gerhardt"+anti-apartheid+activist)

• Excessive focus on damage done to R.N. and the UK to be reduced, specifically the claim that there was involvement in the Falkland Island dispute with Argentine. Work undertaken on aspects of anti – proliferation in the SA context to be given more emphasis.

• That weighing reflects the coverage by published sources and the lack information about other spying activities. As far as your public comments on anti-proliferation are concerned, there's a whole section devoted to this that can easily be expanded if you can point us to relevant sources.

• Aspects such as attributing my allegiance to the G.R.U. to be deleted. Altogether, or alternatively to be replaced for example by pre 1994 G.R,U/SACP post 1994 South Africa.

• The infobox relates specifically to your spying career from 1962-1983 for which you gained notoriety. During this time, the sources indicate that you passed secrets to and were paid by GRU, which is why it's reflected this way. We don't have a source for SACP post 1994 - the only mention I've seen about post-arrest political allegience suggests that you joined the ANC in 1992, so if you could point us at a source that says you are now an SACP member, I'll add it if you wish.

• Incorrect emphasis on monetary aspects to be deleted. i.e the mention of specific sums of money twice in the article intending to convey personal gain payments. Suggested substitution of The Hon. Judge R.N. Leon’s letter from the Indemnity Committee dd. 3 March 1992 should suffice para 3 Quote“ With regard to payment, there was evidence that it was the policy of the Russians to keep their agents free of problems related to monetary matters and the Applicant was assured that he should not have any concern about monetary matters in the future” Unquote.

• A number of sources say you were paid for information - what you say above does not appear to contradict this. There is a sentence in the article quoting "Bob" saying that money did not motivate you, and the article is also linked to Category:Opposition to apartheid in South Africa indicating an anti-apartheid motive. Your not liking content in the article is unfortunately not grounds for removal, as Wikipedia is not censored.

• Dating sequence of events to be corrected also incorrect facts e.g. Occupation either Rear Admiral (jg) S.A.N. Rtd . and /or Security Consultant ( not former Commodore in the South African Navy.)

• Please help by providing a correct timeline to work against, as requested in my last reply to you.

If agreement can be reached on these matters then the go ahead on the post will be welcome from my side i.e without declaration of conflict . Regarding uploading connected references propose that you take out an anonymous g. mail address. I will then download to you requested references documents for your perusal.

I'm not going to provide a personal email address as I prefer to keep all Wikipedia related discussions out here in the open. There are many public websites where you could upload an image; alternately, you could even upload it here to Wikipedia (where it will typically be deleted within a week for copyright violation, but that should be long enough to verify).

PS: I suspect you have not yet understood that one of the core underlying principles for inclusion of content in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. So, even if something is true, it can't be added if it can't be verified - i.e. I suspect there is very big gap between what you know and what is published about you, and that is unfortunately a handicap here. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 10:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Regards Dieter Gerhardt DFG éöàä — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieter Gerhardt ( talk • contribs)

WP 13 Dear Socrates 2008

Concur with your opinions regarding keeping the post free of censorship and have understood the difference between truth and verifiability. We should aim to incorporate both in the article. Also agree that discussion is kept in the open but I personally wish to do so within WP confines. Your reluctance to work via email is understood and accepted!Yes, There is a large gap between what I am aware of and what is in public domain. This will remain so in order not to contribute in any way to exacerbating racial tensions or convey further hurtful content to the already smarting apartheid denialists in SA where confrontational incidents have recently again reached unacceptably high levels. Nevertheless, I believe that within constraints of utilizing information already in the public domain it remains possible to improve post - both in balance and relevant factual content. Attempted to upload some scanned material (PDF’s/JPEGs) to the Dieter Gerhardt talk post via the Wikipedia Upload wizard. These uploads are apparently failing because the entry is locked?!!.Please advise on how to proceed Many thanks and regards Dieter Gerhardt DFGéöàä — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.3.160.248 ( talk) 07:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Socrates, The attempts to make PDF uploads to verify matters of concern to you have not been successful. Request once again advice on how to get photographic material on to the page DFG, alternatively please advise point where this data can be obtained. i.e your help is required in this respect. If this cannot reach you there is no point in continuing this discussion between us. regards DFGéöàä P.S. I am signed but this too does not seem to reflect in the talk page??!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieter Gerhardt ( talk • contribs)

The menu on the left of all Wikipedia pages has an entry called "Toolbox" - if you expand this, there's a menu option name "Upload file" which can be used to upload PDF documents or images. Further help is available in a number of places such as here, where there are many people willing and able to help. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 11:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Additional Comment pre Declaration of Conflict

Dear Socrates 2008, My attempts to upload PDFs of relevant source documents remain unsuccessful. The upload wizard fails to actually upload despite the following of instructions clearly. i.e. a complex process (also lengthy) process with no satisfactory final result. PDFs which I intended to download were: 1. page 175 Simons Town Dockyard First 100 years Simons Town Historical Society South African Naval heritage trust Compiled by Capt. Bill Rice –already included in your list of references. 2. Nelson Madela’s letter to DFG on his release from Prison in 1992 3. USSR-ANC relationship post 1960. Extract of Judgement by G.G. Munnik

The intention being to provide you with additional sources.. To make my POV quite clear I am also not in the business of censorship –at the same time I wish to reconfirm that my interest is getting verifiable and correct open source facts that are verifiable. An independent evaluation of the article by a well known SA Academic in the field of SA Contemporary History suggests that the article remains full of errors and appears to me personally to be fairly contrived and focused on relatively insignificant personal matters rather than looking at DFG’s influence on national events in the relevant period ofv SA history. Specifically, the fact that the State against which the treasonable activities took place was “ the Republic of South Africa”. Declared unilaterally by the National Party without reference to the majorities opinion i.e. May 31st 1961! The aim being to remove the country from British Commonwealth status . The same state that had legislated to subjugate and disenfranchise 88% of its citizenry –again in an unilateral manner! The article as currently written sets out in a very deliberate manner to promote what as come to be known in SA as “apartheid denialism” to this day still being practiced by a large number of the white SA community. Regarding Janet Coggin, As indicated previously I have no wish to enter into discussion on the first wife’s credibility as a source. Let me just indicate here that her book “The Spy’s Wife” is classified as a novel, a commercial enterprise, written long after DFG was released. Careful analysis of information she was a source of reveals many significant inconsistencies which call the various statements made by her on the subject DFG into doubt. Anyway, these have little relevance to the bio you are putting together., except maybe if you had also indicated that Janet’s father a graduate of the prestigious British institutions of Winchester College and Cambridge had been jailed in Dartmoor Prison in WW1 as a conscientious objector and thereafter release spent time in Königsberg (now Kalingrad) teaching English and reconfirming his socialist views!!!.For me it is also interesting that no comment is included in the article by Ruth Gerhardt his current wife (who, incidentally, has been married to DFG for the past 42 years ) It remains unclear to me what qualifies editor Socrates 2008 to write this article and put over a dubious POV (for what ever personal reason he may have)?).other than being in control of inputs and is able to delete those verifiable facts which suit him as an individual. Comments from other Editors seem to be absent?! My proposal is to avoid further bickering over this post we get three mutually acceptable academics with appropriate knowledge to revamp the whole article to replace the current unacceptable version in due course. Will provide suggestions in this regard.Suggestions are also welcomed from Socrates 2008 Regards DFG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieter Gerhardt ( talk • contribs)

RapidShare may offer you a more simple solution for uploading your material. There are other ways you can help too: e.g. you've complained about the timeline being inaccurate, but have yet to suggest a version that you consider to be accurate for us to work with. I urge you once again to focus on making sources and information available rather than trying to analyse or criticise WP editors. Regarding your proposal of involving academics, WP will of course accept any published academic works as references, but the requirement for sources will preclude even academics from adding any content to WP that is not correctly sourced. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 10:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Socrates 2008 Have placed Verification Material for your perusal on 4Shared. namely, USSR-ANC Relationship G.Munnik Judgement extract, Letter from Madiba to DFG , Newspaper Herald Port Elizabeth,Extract from 100Years Simon's Town Dockyard (+00years Simonstown Identification) Newspaper Article S.T. Apartheid Denialsim. it can be accessed via email address <dieter.dfgerhardt.gerhardt@gmail.com> Please indicate if you are able to access. Thank you and regards DFGéöàä

Thank you - do you have links to them please? Socrates2008 ( Talk) 22:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Public/USSR-%20ANC%20Relationship%20.%20Judgeme

Alternative route to get uploaded links to youHave deleted those elements which apparently cause the material to be blacklisted..To view just insert Normal editing changes apparently not permitted? DFGööää Links to Documents Uploaded

• http://4shared_com/00_Years_Simons_Town_Dockyard_.html
• http://4shared_com/zZlJJdwL/Apartheid_denialism.html
• http://4shared_com/QiVsmW1V/Herald_Port_Elizabeth_31_Augus.html
• http://4shared_com/wwOUuY8r/USSR-_ANC_Relationship__Judgem.html
• http://4shared_com/mLUuUtwO/USSR-_ANC_Relationship__Judgem.html
• http://4shared_com/a1MdQbsh/USSR-_ANC_Relationship__Judgem.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieter Gerhardt ( talk • contribs)

Sorry, I can't access any of these links - appears that you've ommitted the domain name from each of them.Socrates2008 ( Talk) 09:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The domain name was omitted as it appears to be blacklisted by WP. suggest you insert the domain name with the number four followed directly by word shared then slashofficeslash before letters indicated above. The sharing domain suggested by yourself does not take my registering. Very frustrating process of getting verification material to you.Managed to load one PDF via Wikipedea but have no idea where it landed Feel the upload website could do with some improvement! DFGéöàä

OK, but you're going to have to help - what's the domain name please? Try replacing dots with _ if it's blacklisted (e.g. en_wikipedia_org for en.wikipedia.org) Socrates2008 ( Talk) 11:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Domain name is 4shared — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieter Gerhardt ( talk • contribs)

I've added the domain name, but the links are not valid. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 22:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/73235067/%2B00%20Years%20Simon's%20Town%20Dockyard%20Extract.pdf Let's try dropbox. Sample link attached. Please try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.3.99.223 ( talk) 07:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

class="autosigned">— Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
41.6.10.94 (
talk) 13:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC) 

Verification Document Links

• https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Public/USSR-%20ANC%20Relationship%20.%20Judgement%20Doc%20G.Munnik%201.pdf?w=307c86b5
• https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Public/USSR-%20ANC%20Relationship%20.%20Judgement%20Doc%20G.Munnik%204.pdf?w=5e47f6c0
• https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Public/USSR-%20ANC%20Relationship%20.%20Judgement%20Doc%20G.Munnik%206.pdf?w=7f58f345
• https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Public/%2B00%20Years%20Simon%27s%20Town%20Dockyard%20Extract.pdf?w=00754dbf
• https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Public/Apartheid%20denialism.pdf?w=d055b592

Dear Socrates, Let me know if all OK with the download links .Thanks DFGéöàä

• https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Public/Herald%20Port%20Elizabeth%2031%20August%201992.pdf?w=f758b42c
• https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Public/Letter%20from%20Madiba%20to%20DFG%20on%20release.pdf?w=18ff5a26

additional two verification links DFGéöàä — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieter Gerhardt ( talk • contribs)

Here's where I'm at:

Socrates2008 ( Talk) 09:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedea address apparently not authorized as a shared document address.Please provide an address (if considered necessary -utilise a cut out address ) which I can enter at drop box to authorize the release. You can send it to an email address <dfgerhardt@bluewin.ch> if you so wish.. Must admit to having severe cognitive dissonance with the Wikipedia editing function. This whole process of getting relevant information to you is so filled with caveats and restrictions that i feel it would be simpler to just go straight into conflict using the living persons clause an opt for the removal of the entire post.Dieter Gerhardt . It remains full of errors and in my opinion slanted DFGéöàä — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.6.105.169 ( talk) 06:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are the correct links:

• http://dl.dropbox.com/u/73235067/Apartheid%20denialism.pdf
• http://dl.dropbox.com/u/73235067/Herald%20Port%20Elizabeth%2031%20August%201992.pdf
• http://dl.dropbox.com/u/73235067/Letter%20from%20Madiba%20to%20DFG%20on%20release.pdf
• http://dl.dropbox.com/u/73235067/Letter%20Madiba%20to%20DFG%20on%20Release.jpg
• http://dl.dropbox.com/u/73235067/USSR-%20ANC%20Relationship%20.%20Judgement%20Doc%20G.Munnik%201.pdf
• http://dl.dropbox.com/u/73235067/USSR-%20ANC%20Relationship%20.%20Judgement%20Doc%20G.Munnik%204.pdf
• http://dl.dropbox.com/u/73235067/USSR-%20ANC%20Relationship%20.%20Judgement%20Doc%20G.Munnik%206.pdf

Last attempt DFGéöàä — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieter Gerhardt ( talk • contribs)

OK, I've managed to access all of these, however please take a close look as the list of files on the most recent list looks a bit different to the last one. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 09:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Your letter from Mandela has already been nominated by someone for deletion - I suggest you chime in. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 12:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Socrates, Thankyou for the swift update.Missing is the page from +00 Years dockyard which you apparently were able to read yesterday.Great to know that you have now been able to access all the other seven pages.Luckily I had assistance in finding the correct route to get this material to you for discussion.That you too have been agonizing over the situation is of concern to me -my apologies to you!.These dropbox communications were meant primarily for you personally and your fellow editors. Why someone should come in from the side to try and delete such a document selectively seems a little "odd" to me (or maybe not). Let's see how we go with factual and verifiable discussions.Yes, after these last few months of attempting to verify Open Source materials it has become quite clear, not only to me ,but also to the editors that there remains a residue of persons in SA who are determined to project a very negative pov by blocking off any facts that do not suit.I feel that the letter from Madiba should not be deleted as yet and should be used as a possible reference until the final narrative reached by consensus has been completed.It has significance in the context of the apartheid regime demise and perhaps in the current moves of present day SA to align itself somewhat closer to the BRIC countries. regards DFGéöàä

Message to Editors and Editorial Staff concerned with Post Dieter Gerhardt It is with some regret that I as the subject of the post find it necessary to declare a conflict of interest with the current editorial team. This C.O.I declaration is formulated in accordance the terms Wikipedia C.O.I. policy and articles written on living subjects. Furthermore it is requested that either: 1. A new Editorial Team be appointed with the necessary and appropriate knowledge to undertake the task in a truly unbiased and objective manner. Specifically, this includes that the current individual editor Socrates 2008 is permanently withdrawn from the editorial team; or alternatively 2. The post in it’s entirety be removed from the Wikipedia N.B. The subject at no stage personally asked for an entry on his person to be made in Wikipedia and would be happy if all mention of him or his related activities were permanently removed from Wikipedea The insistence on Socrates 2008 recusing himself from further editing this post stems not so much with his capability w.r.t. organizing the editing process in general but rather with content inserted in the article which is considered to be too slanted in a anglo- centric manner and contains many errors as well as material drawn from unreliable or dubious sources .The article as it stands tends to perpetuate misinformation put out by the Apartheid regime and other western agencies with an interest in demonizing the subject at the time of his arrest in 1982. Other perspectives on DFG’s activities and contributions have seemingly not been incorporated, as were virtually all of the alternative suggestions made by myself and other contributors regarding possible amendments, inclusions, or deletions. The existing Editing Team’s bona fides are perceived at best as being non-objective regarding this particular post and are responsible for creating a biased and distorted narrative without allowing alternative view points to be incorporated. Subsequent failure to enter into discussion on matters in dispute has aggravated the situation further. The net result has been that the article remains an inaccurate start category item of little use to professional researchers. It is to be noted that when amendments points were put forward for consideration by editorial staff these were either ignored or “undone/deleted” or archived in the edit In this case the editors have not confined their efforts to edit verifiable facts but also have taken it on themselves to write the narrative. Not good practice for an Encyclopedia! The C.O.I. declaration is based on well founded doubts that any form of consensus will be reached on controversial points. The decision to opt out of Wikipedia was not taken lightly as one is well aware of the amount of work and research that is involved in preparation of a biographic article. However, I no longer am able to accept the inaccuracies incorporated without objecting. Additionally, Editorial privilege is seen to be have been utilized to try and hide obvious gaps in real knowledge related to the Apartheid Government’s past actions including heinous crimes against humanity, of cold war espionage, Moscow’s role as mentor to the A.N.C. during the S.A. liberation struggle. Also other critically relevant matters related to this post such as well based unbiased profiling of the subject signed DFGéöàä

Picking battle with individuals is not going achieve the outcome you desire - you have been encouraged several times to follow WP protocol by focusing discussion on article content, rather than seeking conflict with WP editors that you don't approve of. In response to a few of the points you raise above:

• I'm not a meat puppet and will not be chased off an article by someone who has a COI here. If you are wanting your personal point of view published, then you should consider starting a blog or writing a book, as Wikipedia is not a mechanism for self expression.
• This statement is patently false: "It is to be noted that when amendments points were put forward for consideration by editorial staff these were either ignored..." For example, the following article changes amongst others stem directly from input from you:
  • Inclusion of a quote stating that the spying activities were motivated by political activism against the apartheid regime
  • Inclusion of info from Bill Rice's book about the rank of admiral being restored
  • Inclusion of a letter from Nelson Mandela supporting anti-apartheid credentials (subsequently deleted by another editor on copyright grounds)

Examples of material that you supplied that has not been included:

• Anything that is already covered by other sources
• An interesting press article about "apartheid denialism" that makes no mention of Dieter Gerhardt, and that therefore has no bearing on the subject matter of the article ( WP:SOAP?) With respect to the matter of the crimes of Apartheid, you are free to edit any of the Apartheid-related articles on Wikipedia that are in need of expansion, as long as you follow the standard rules that any editor has to abide by ( no original research, use reliable sources etc.)

While you list a bunch of complaints above, I note that you have not been forthcoming with information that's specifically been requested of you, such as a timeline of events that can be used to improve the article. You have notably also not assisted in any way in filling gaps in the article, for example about the personal relationship with PW Botha or Russian handlers.

The Anglo-centric "bias" that you refer to stems from the fact that:

• this is the English Wikipedia (however I've made considerable effort to consult Afrikaans and Russian sources to address this inbalance, and I note that you did not volunteer any of the Russian material)
• the article mirrors widely-published information in newspapers, journals, books etc. The weighting in other words is dictated by what information is available in public sources.
• Those sources that match your point of view are extremely few a far between, partly because you are apparently not forthcoming - Andre Pretorius summed up this elusiveness very well: "Here is a human story that played out on the dehumanizing stage of South Africa in the apartheid era and the Cold War. But what was the story? It is a tantalizing question with an evasive answer."

I don't care for this type of discussion - I'd rather be updating the article, but the available reliable sources have been exhaused for the moment and you're not helping to unlock any more. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 11:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply.Please remember I am not in the censoring business - also I am accustomed to having various detrimental things said about my person. Nothing new! However, In the context of the articles content I reiterate the wish that the article contains at least a semblance of truth even though it may not end up in an as comprehensive format as you might eventually wish for. I will read your comment and attempt to respond not only to the points you have raised but will specify in detail those specific aspects of concern to me in the hope that these topics can be reviewed again. I refer you back to the edge parameters that needed to be agreed upon sometime back prior to being able move forward on scripting the post Regards DFGéöàä

Dear Socrates 2008, I too do not care for this type of discussion! Again we move into an adversarial modus. Tiresome in the extreme! You are writing about my person and therefore I have every right to object to erroneous content in the article. Nor am I just “someone” trying to chase you off the post or “someone” in the censoring business who would wish you to be a “meat puppet”. The time (and possibly money too) you have spent on researching the subject is understood. However, it would be appreciated if you too would assist progressing the narrative by reexamining the previously stipulated edge parameters requested prior to the provision of more personal information for the article and thereafter providing comment. From the outset now let me repeat what was mentioned before i.e. that there is no intention of writing an autobiography just an attempt to correct existing text. The primary reason for not writing such a book at this stage is to avoid once again confronting the older generation of whites who served in the South African military/security forces with their racist past and the further exposure of associated crimes committed. They failed to take the opportunity to present themselves to the Truth and Reconciliation Committee as requested to do so. The implication being that there remains a great deal of “unfinished business” unattended to as yet! At the same time I prefer not in any way to contribute to reigniting the currently smoldering racial tensions in the country. These have the potential to destabilize the country and plunge it back into chaos and misery. The situation of the whites in the “new” SA is becoming increasingly precarious as old interracial resentments resurface, SA’s dependency on the west falls off and the Government aligns itself further with the BRICS. I do not wish in anyway to provide additional ammunition to aggravate the situation. Whilst the article on denialism did not mention DFG it’s purpose was to give you personally some additional insight into the strong feelings of the previously disadvantaged groupings as well as my own on this subject. So hopefully you will please respect my wish to avoid further exposing apartheid’s grim story as it really was. Perhaps also avoid reminding me of being “elusive” should I not respond on various topics as you may wish! I am aware. You have no propriety rights on my personal information! However, as Andre Pretorious confirms in his article he believes whatever was discussed with him was factually correct if not sufficiently elucidating. That having been said will now address, as indicated in my last entry, those specific clauses in the Post that I believe are erroneous or alternatively may require amendment or amplification. 1.The decision to get involved in the editing of the post originally centered on the possible deductions that might be made from the following entry and my objections thereto: “During the 1982 Falklands War, Gerhardt was allegedly able to use his position to supply the Soviets with detailed information about the locations of Royal Navy ships in the south Atlantic that the South African Navy intercepted at Silvermine.[6][19][20]” This claim by the press is repudiated both by myself as well as M.O.D. Navy and also by Admiral of the Fleet Lord Hill Norton R.N.(see ref. 19 you provided as well as page 196 of Apartheids Friends by James Saunders “the Ministry of Defence added that it was confident Commodore Gerhardt did not have access to classified information about the South Atlantic operation (the Falklands War).” The claims in the press that DFG might have in some way contributed to casualties experienced in that engagement was pure speculation on their part and is completely unfounded! I would like the para deleted from the post starting ”During the 1982 Falklands war…ending after…intercepted at Silvermine” 2. Regarding the incorporation of quotations from Janet Coggin in the article – I would wish that these be removed in their entirety as they are inaccurate. Whilst Janet had great significance in my life – not least because of joint children, at no stage did she have any direct insight into the espionage activities. That is – she was not informed of nor invited to join me in my operations. I suspect that It may have just been the prospect of financial advantage for her and her publisher to write a semi fictional novel so slanted that it would find special favour with the target market of British readership. A great deal of what was contained in the book the Spy’s Wife is rehashed material taken from press cuttings. On own admission she was not aware of spying activities until 1966.eight years into the marriage. At that stage we were no longer together and she was resident in Totnes Devon with a new live in partner. In the book she was not even clear about matters such as the employer – KGB or GRU?!

As indicated previously - at no stage was Janet under threat from the Soviet secret services. Whether she actually perceived this situation as reality I am not in a position to say. However I have my doubts? What is not mentioned is that she also received generous financial support for many years until the children reached their majorities. Regarding her claims iro of my apparently indifferent attitude to apartheid this is countered by a. Quote Apartheids Friends by James Saunders page 191 “A British Naval Colleague later told the “Mail on Sunday” ‘ He was certainly a lot more liberal than most white South Africans I met. There was no question about Dieter not sharing with coloured officers on our course. It was at the time a quite open disregard for his countries political views’ b. Our wedding photographs taken on the 16th October 1958 show “coloured” colleagues as guests happily participating in the festivities. Also omitted in her statements to the media are the many times we had “coloureds” as welcome house guests and the related close personal friendships that existed! In view of the above should there be a reluctance to delete the disputed clauses in the text there is an insistence on my part that the counter arguments are incorporated!

Should these amendments be acceded to I am prepared to call off the C.O.I. and provide further material to correct the many other existing texting errors. In the mean time I would wish you to mull over the significance of Madiba’s letter (even if it has now been deleted for copyright reasons (Strange! Would have thought that as the letter was addressed to me personally I would have a say over whether it is under copy write or not !) – also to the fact of restoration of rank under the new dispensation and the fact that I am free to travel and conduct my affairs without constraint world wide including being able to visit the UK. These considerations might also take into account the broader significance of the U.K.s and the west in general covert role in providing economic and military support to the apartheid government during the time I was operational. Finally, what was the meaning of Al J.Venter writing the following unsolicited remark in his book “ How South Africa Built Six Atom Bombs” page 65 . Quote” The resulting furore aroused heavy international pressure which forced the South Africans to call off the test and by that one act Gerhardt almost certainly changed the entire course of events in South Africa. Without his intercession, South Africa – like Pakistan a decade or so later, and more recently North Korea – would have become a member (whether inadvertently so or not) of that rather exclusive international entity currently known as “ The Club of Ten”” Unquote Regards DFGéöàä

• Comment from uninvolved editor: Hi, I think there are a few things you need to realize here:

1. There is no way for us to know whether or not you are indeed the subject of this article. However, apart from having a COI, it is not really all that important, given the next point.
2. WP is an encyclopedia and one of its core principles is verifiability. This means that, unlike a newspaper, we cannot write things because someone told us something. We need a reliable secondary source for that. Primary sources can be used to verify uncontroversial things, but nothing else. Basing statements on original documents (such as letters), is against the interdiction of original research.

Given that you are the subject of this article, I would expect you to know the secondary sources available better than anyone else here. So, by all means, tell us about any inaccuracies in the article and then please include a secondary source that confirms this, so that we can correct the article. I hope the links in the foregoing help you understand why we do certain things in a certain way, why this has to be so, and how you can help us improve the article. Thanks. -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 09:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The rationale for not publishing your story is, dare I say it, extremely tenative. Malan and PW Botha are long gone, and no, the country will not descend into anarchy on account of one person's personal story. As ever, I suspect there's more to this than you're saying, and of course that's your perogative, but that doesn't make it any less disappointing.

The Coggin book is not self-published, and is not categorised by Google books as fiction. Very simply, it meets WP's reliability criteria, so there's no policy reason not to use it. However I have tweaked the statement attributed to her to highlight that it was a claim.

Have added a note to the Falklands reference that Hill-Norton contradicted this view. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 12:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Editors,Following a reply to points raised

Comment from uninvolved editor: Hi, I think there are a few things you need to realize here:

1. There is no way for us to know whether or not you are indeed the subject of this article. However, apart from having a COI, it is not really all that important, given the next point.

• Since involving myself with this post I have made it quite clear that I am the individual being portrayed in the post. A contact email address has also been passed on to Socrates2008.You are welcome to take up contact privately on any points in the article which are of concern to you. However, as you have indicated in the overall scheme of Wikipedia entries it is not really important whether or not I am who I claim to be (at any rate,at this stage prior to some form of litigation being instituted)

2. WP is an encyclopedia and one of its core principles is verifiability. This means that, unlike a newspaper, we cannot write things because someone told us something. We need a reliable secondary source for that. Primary sources can be used to verify uncontroversial things, but nothing else. Basing statements on original documents (such as letters), is against the interdiction of original research.

• This comment is noted as are the core principles of Wikipedia entries. Presumably, if I am who I say I am then I will be considered as a primary source and if the edited inclusion in the narrative is uncontroversial it will be accepted? Statements based on original previously unpublished letters/documents are against the interdiction of original research and thus, as I understand, unacceptable? Kindly confirm.

Given that you are the subject of this article, I would expect you to know the secondary sources available better than anyone else here.

• Yes, I am aware of many open source printed secondary sources available – and subject to you accepting my bona fides I in turn would be happy to provide these via Dropbox or email (cut out or direct) to you for scrutiny. They may be in Russian,German,French or English.

So, by all means, tell us about any inaccuracies in the article and then please include a secondary source that confirms this, so that we can correct the article.

• I will list these inaccuracies (including what I consider as ill-informed biases) with what are in my view accurate and verifiable secondary sources as and when time and opportunity permits for further consideration.

I hope the links in the foregoing help you understand why we do certain things in a certain way, why this has to be so, and how you can help us improve the article. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• I too hope that we can improve the article. If Wikipedia’s criteria for judging the value of an article is the readers opinion then we are currently in the situation of a start quality with a high bias component!

The rationale for not publishing your story is, dare I say it, extremely tenative. Malan and PW Botha are long gone, and no, the country will not descend into anarchy on account of one person's personal story. As ever, I suspect there's more to this than you're saying, and of course that's your perogative, but that doesn't make it any less disappointing.

• Unfortunately cannot find the word “tenative” in my dictionaries. Also I accept that you are correct that the country SA will not descend into anarchy because of a single individuals personal story. This was not a claim made by myself. However, I repeat the wish not to contribute in slightest way to aggravating the present inter racial tensions in the country - these are,as perceived by myself,are in a very precarious state.

"Tentative" Socrates2008 ( Talk) 12:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The Coggin book is not self-published, and is not categorised by Google books as fiction. Very simply, it meets WP's reliability criteria, so there's no policy reason not to use it. However I have tweaked the statement attributed to her to highlight that it was a claim.

• Have contacted Constable and Co. the publishers asking them to categorize the book in a more precise manner. Currently the book is listed by Google as “True Crime”. Have also re-read the book in it’s entirety. Will make further comment ,particularly on the phrase "no policy reason not to use it" after a reply has been received from the publisher.

Regards DFG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieter Gerhardt ( talk • contribs) Have added a note to the Falklands reference that Hill-Norton contradicted this view.

• Thank you for that. However, unfortunately, it still leaves the question hanging in the air “Did he or did he not in any way contribute to the losses experienced by the R.N. during the Falklands war between the UK and Argentine?” I say again no!

Regarding the personal letter from Mandela have included an additional reference for verifiability which quotes the letter’s content almost word for word, namely in The Star Johannesburg Wednesday September 2 1992 DFG

• https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ld78sc3lkxl0twf/blpuXQkjio
• file:///Users/dfgerhardt/Dropbox/Public/SA%20Frees%20Soviet%20Spy%20Gerhardt%20%202%201.pdf
• https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ld78sc3lkxl0twf/jL1J8EDNVg/SA%20Frees%20Soviet%20Spy%20Gerhardt%20%202%201.pdf
• https://www.dropbox.com/s/mitjq34q3rnfm7e/SA%20Frees%20Soviet%20Spy%20Gerhardt%20%202%20
• file:///Users/dfgerhardt/Dropbox/Public/SA%20Frees%20Soviet%20Spy%20Gerhardt%20%202%203.html
• https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ld78sc3lkxl0twf/5QnGeI1aM9/SA%20Frees%20Soviet%20Spy%20Gerhardt%20%202%203.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dieter Gerhardt ( talk • contribs)

"Litigation"? Please read WP:LEGAL. End of discussion as far as I am concerned. -- Guillaume2303 ( talk) 09:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any litigation threat above. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 12:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

He referred to this stage of the discussion as the one "prior to some form of litigation being instituted", which implies that there is a plan to institute litigation - which could be viewed as a legal threat. And Guillaume is correct in noting that a standing legal threat pretty much ends most discussions. That's why they're prohibited. Mr. Gerhardt, it seems that there are several editors willing to discuss these issues with you, but threatening litigation is not a good way to show your willingness to cooperate with them. Even though it is not a classic Legal threat as contemplated by our rules, could you state with some certainty that you are not planning litigation over this issue? With that out of the way, we can continue discussing the issues at hand. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Gerhardt justifies his actions by pretending it to be anti apartheid activities. Why did he conduct espionage against the Uk? This person was paid by the ussr to spy, he received payment for his treason. If he was this moral pillar he espouses to be he would have refused payment... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.237.13.96 ( talk) 14:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)