Talk:Amy Elizabeth Thorpe

Starting out

This is my first attempt at an article, so please forgive my awkardness!..... Amy Elizabeth Thorpe, aka CYNTHIA, is not very famous but she should be and it is only because of the secret nature of her work that she is relatively unknown. Almost no women are credited with any major role in World War two but Amy Elizabeth Thorpe helped crack the ENIGMA codes used by the Germans and funneled vital information she collected secretly to Churchill and Roosevelt which was used to win (or at least more quickly end) the war. Her importance to the story of the war is IMO at least as great as conventional figures such as Patton, Montgomery, "Wild" Bill Donovan, Doolittle, Nimitz, etc... and I hope others will add to the few sources I have on hand to expand knowledge about this great almost-unknown lady in history.Leidseplein (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Today I added brief sections for Early Life, World War II and Legacy and Death. I also added more specific and general references and further reading. I am also adding links from other Wikipedia articles.Leidseplein (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Substantiate or delete this article

It is disconcerting to see a cock-and-bull story such as William Stevenson's about "Cynthia" (Amy Elizabeth Thorpe) and her supposed theft of Enigma secrets through an amorous aide of Polish Foreign Minister Józef Beck (in Stevenson's A Man Called Intrepid, 1976) once more being offered to the public as bona-fide history, over a quarter-century after historian Richard Woytak demonstrated its falsehood—and that of other fabrications presented by F.W. Winterbotham, Anthony Cave Brown and F.H. Hinsley—in his introduction to Marian Rejewski's "Remarks on Appendix 1 to British Intelligence in the Second World War by F.H. Hinsley," published in Cryptologia, vol. 6, no. 1 (January 1982).

Historical fiction such as this should not be presented as fact in an encyclopedia. Unless verification can be provided for other of the vague, unsubstantiated assertions that are made in this article and in Stevenson's discredited book, on which this article is largely based, the "Amy Elizabeth Thorpe" article should be deleted in its entirety. Nihil novi (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not historical fiction, it might be wrong but was also meant to be true.Slatersteven (talk) 20:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC

The matter of the Polish Enigma secrets is of course just one small part of Thorpe's work, and if it is a matter in controversry why not mention it as such? At best this is a case of whether you wish to believe an historian like Richard Woytak or an eyewitness like William Stephenson. In any event, Thorpe's work outside of the Polish Enigma matter is documented in several other works. Leidseplein (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Just what is it that Stephenson witnessed? Thorpe's trysts with an alleged, unnamed aide to the Polish Foreign Minister? And this aide had detailed technical information that was available in Poland only to a handful of persons with need to know?

We know how the British and French got the Polish-reconstructed German Enigma machine, along with Polish-developed techniques of decrypting Engima-enciphered messages — officially, in July 1939, on the eve of World War II, from the Polish Cipher Bureau. We know this from Polish, French and British intelligence sources. This information is available in Wikipedia articles on the Enigma machine, cryptanalysis of the Enigma, and Ultra.

There is no controversy about the allegation that Thorpe obtained the secrets of Enigma decryption for the Allies of World War II. She didn't. Until Rejewski turned up living, memory intact, after World War II, opportunistic writers in English-speaking countries thought that they had impunity to sell, to a gullible public, tall tales about a Jewish worker at an Enigma factory, Polish troops ambushing Enigma transports, and a promiscuous American woman. Nihil novi (talk) 05:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Stephenson witnessed the results of Thorpe's work, which was early help on Enigma. Stephenson already had an Engima machine and there were at least two others besides his available to Allied sources before any Polish contact of any kind. Thorpe, according to Stephenson, obtained operational information about how it was used from her time in Poland - rotor settings and other details. In any event, since any words that imply less than heroic status for Polish behavior seems to be so personally distressing, would you be placated if the article were changed to state something along the lines of "William Stephenson, head of BSC, gives credit to Thorpe for early help with Enigma obtained while her husband was a Diplomat in Warsaw, while Polish sources deny her role"  ?????? Leidseplein (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I spent about an hour today trying to confirm or deny the story of Thorpe and the Polish love affair, or lack thereof, but there is just not much written that doesn't ultimately trace back to one or two sources. I therefore removed the reference to Beck and the possibility Thorpe seduced Enigma information from his assistant. I added in later references to Thorpe's work obtaining Vichy and Italian codes. I hope this ends this dispute but if not let's discuss.Leidseplein (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me guess. The "one or two sources" on Thorpe's "Polish love affair" — would that be Stevenson's A Man Called Intrepid?

Anyone could openly purchase a commercial Enigma machine; the Polish Cipher Bureau bought one before 1932. Its possession was useless for purposes of breaking German military Enigma ciphers — which is what the whole business was about. If Stevenson claims that Stephenson "already had an Enigma machine" of the military type, with commutator, prior to Polish-British contacts, then he is lying. No one apart from the Germans and the Poles had a German military Enigma before the tripartite Polish-French-British Warsaw conference in July 1939.

Stevenson is useless as a source on Enigma decryption. What he has to say about it and Thorpe's alleged contribution to Enigma decryption is rubbish. Nihil novi (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Other sources (its up to you to use them)

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Za4kd9murKcC&pg=PA69&dq=Amy+Elizabeth+Thorpe&hl=en&ei=dsZ6TNORM8mD4AbEsNHPBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Amy%20Elizabeth%20Thorpe&f=false http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6BP6Bph006YC&pg=PA52&dq=Amy+Elizabeth+Thorpe&hl=en&ei=sMZ6TPP1HsPI4Ab27q3dBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Amy%20Elizabeth%20Thorpe&f=false http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7wHWT3WT_rYC&pg=PA23&dq=Amy+Elizabeth+Thorpe&hl=en&ei=y8Z6TL7XNtCI4AbglYXKBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Amy%20Elizabeth%20Thorpe&f=false http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sDVUcuAUCUwC&pg=PA36&dq=Amy+Elizabeth+Thorpe&hl=en&ei=Usd6TL6YIciR4AbHjuyyBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Amy%20Elizabeth%20Thorpe&f=false These may not substantiate all of the article, but they do go some way to disprove that this is all fantasy.Slatersteven (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If these four "sources" are equally spurious as Stephenson's A Man Called Intrepid — "perhaps the most detailed information about Thorpe widely available as told by her spymaster, William Stephenson" — then the credibility of this article does not appear to be stellar. Nihil novi (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The custom is to provide sources, other than Wikipedia itself, which tend to illustrate one's point. If you have sources indicating the 8 or so sources discussed in these Thorpe pages are all wrong, please provide them so we can consider them. Also, A Man Called Intrepid was written by William Stevenson, not William Stephenson.Leidseplein (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles noted in the previous section of this page provide exhaustive documentation on the Polish origins of Enigma decryption and on subsequent British wartime exploitation of the Polish achievements. Feel free to look up the documentation for yourself. Nihil novi (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The two points marked DUBIOUS-DISCUSS

Someone tagged two sentences in the article with dubious-discuss, but then offered no discussion. I hope that these will be brought up with published sources that tend to illustrate why they might be dubious...Leidseplein (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC

Please read the previous talk-page sections.

Please control your obvious POV to defend Polish "honour" at all costs and your wish that your interpretation of history, narrowly documented, become accepted by everyone. Is there any reason to think than an obscure article (quoting Polish sources with a well-known agenda to overemphasize the Polish role in Engima and de-emphasize Allied successes or Polish weakness) is more pesuasive than the first hand accounts of the head of the BSC and BSC staff? Perhaps a compromise sentence could be added, "The Polish POV, as stated by Rejewski, is that Rejewski is entirely responsible for breaking the Engima and that Thorpe had nothing to do with it." Would this satisfy you? Leidseplein (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Also the following, by Richard Woytak:

In 1976, another British best-seller, A Man Called Intrepid by the Canadian William Stevenson, put up further candidates for Enigma laurels. Stevenson went one better than Cave Brown['s best-selling Bodyguard of Lies, 1975] by adding another Polish mathematician [to Marian Rejewski and Henryk Zygalski, who had been mentioned by Cave Brown]. Stevenson came up with "Jerzy Rozycki, Henryk Zygalski, and Mademoiselle Marian Rejewski" — thereby managing, with masterful economy of expression, to get wrong both Rejewski's sex and marital status. Then, apparently still having sex very much on his mind, Stevenson went on to an exciting story about a spy codenamed CYNTHIA, the "Minneapolis-born daughter of a U.S. Marine Corps major and Cora Wells, whose father was a Minnesota state senator." CYNTHIA, who was "married to a British diplomat, Arthur Pack, who had been transferred to Warsaw... formed a series of liaisons with top-ranking members of Poland's Foreign Service." Polish Foreign Minister Jozef Beck "was on good terms with Nazis in Berlin. [So were several thousand other people — which generates tremendous story-telling potential — R.A.W.] Beck's confidential aide was one of CYNTHIA's lovers."

In conversations with me, Rejewski, in Warsaw, and Colonel Stefan Mayer, the prewar chief of Polish military counter-intelligence, in London, have denied that there is any truth [to Stevenson's account of how Britain learned the secrets of military-Enigma decryption — in reality, British and French intelligence, at Warsaw in July 1939,

The role of Thorpe takes place BEFORE July 1939 and before Polish cooperation with the Allies. Just so you're feelings aren't hurt, no one is claiming she cracked Engima, rather Thorpe obtained early information from Beck's office (along with other British spies in Warsaw) that contributed to the Engima effort. Leidseplein (talk)

received from the Polish Cipher Bureau, at the behest of the Polish General Staff, the Bureau's reconstruction of the German military Enigma and the Enigma-cipher-breaking techniques and technology that had been developed, since December 1932, by Rejewski and his colleagues at the Polish Cipher Bureau]. [Richard Woytak, prefatory note to Marian Rejewski, "Remarks on Appendix 1 to British Intelligence in the Second World War by F.H. Hinsley," Cryptologia, vol. 6, no. 1 (January 1982), pp. 75–76.]

Nihil novi (talk) 07:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you understand that the article is not suggesting Amy Thorpe take credit for breaking Enigma? It merely mentions her early help in the area. Your goal of protecting precious Poland's role in all this is in tact, but do you accept that Rejewski et al. would have no idea what Thorpe collected in Warsaw, because it was secret from them, while Stephenson would? Is your agenda to redeem Poland's role in the war so intense that you can not accept others besides Poles contributed to cracking Enigma?

Leidseplein (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added in a sentence that shows the Polish view which denies a role for Thorpe in Engima. Of course the Poles had no knowledge of Thorpe's presence in Warsaw, nor of her secret role, nor of her work before Rejewski et al. decide to officially help the Allies in July 1939, but the Polish POV is important to note, even if it might be wrong.

Leidseplein (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

And just what exactly, pray tell, was the nature of the "early assistance" that Ms. Thorpe — Mrs. Arthur Pack — provided, apart from alleged amatory ministrations to cohorts of diplomats and officials on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean?

She found out through Beck's aid that the Poles had keys to some Germany army cryptograms; she copied items from Beck's safe that told the details about how and where the German's used Enigma...and she did this IN 1938, a year before what you are so pointedly arguing is the first source of Enigma information from Poland to the Allies - through Rejewski etc, when in fact Thorpe provides early information (non-cryptographic) which re-affirms other alerts Britain received to Rejewski's work...Leidseplein (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

We know pretty exactly what Marian Rejewski and his colleagues, and Dilly Knox and Alan Turing and their colleagues, did with Enigma, from documentation that began to be released before William Stevenson wrote his thriller about William Stephenson and the seductive Ms. Thorpe, but we know nothing about what she is actually supposed to have done with Enigma.

I have seen no credible documentation of any contribution that she may have made to Enigma decryption.

If no more information can be produced about Ms. Thorpe's "assistance" to Enigma decryption, I propose that all vague mention of that assistance be expunged from Wikipedia. Her amatory contributions to the Allied cause should suffice to secure her name in prewar and wartime history. Nihil novi (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: Please do not interpolate your comments within the body of mine, as you have done above. It is rude and confusing. Nihil novi (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Absent any Wikipedia rule, I will try to avoid doing so in your case in the future. Lengthy one-sided-POV diatribes like you quoted are often responded to on a point-by-point basis WITHIN the body so that the points and contrary sources can be compared more easily.Leidseplein (talk) 02:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

According to William Stephenson, Thorpe in 1938 was working on the Engima problem (BEFORE Rejewski etc... finally decided on the eve of war to help the Allies). "Poland's Secret Service was preparing for a war its politicians felt they could avoid...[Stephenson] was looking for details of the Enigma coding machine... and knew Beck was friendly with the Nazis". Thorpe persuaded Beck's aid to first discuss and later allow to copy documents from Beck's safe. [Stephenson already knew] "that Rejewski etc... had been working on the Enigma" and that Thorpe's information "reinforced earlier information" and sometimes "duplicated details from other sources," but "Stephenson always felt she [Thorpe] had contributed a great deal to the vital statistics that were required" by later code breakers at Bletchley. (Quotes from Stevenson's A Man Called Intrepid, pp 342-343.)

In other words, there is no dispute in any account that Rejewski et al. had early success against Engima. As Poland's politicians felt they could avoid war on their own, the Poles did not decide to share Enigma information until a few weeks before Poland was invaded, while Thorpe was working on details of the Enigma from Polish government sources IN 1938, without the knowledge of Rejewski. Thorpe it seems provided early details about where and in what services Enigma was used, while Rejewski etc... broke the code.

The only conflict here is created by the "historian" Richard Woytak who, in a now familiar way, is unable to see the NON CONFLICTING stories of Thorpe/Stephenson and Rejewski.Leidseplein (talk) 02:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

PS, I think you are personally obsessed with not only arguing Poles are underappreciated in the Engima story, but also making sure the world accepts the sources you like and rejects the sources you don't. I'm happy to include Rejewski's story, but also Stephenson's - who knew not only of Rejewski's role but of the roles played in secret by others Rejweski was blind to at the time. Stephenson knows and acknowledges Rejewski's role, Rejewski's story (especially as retold by Woytak) does not acknowledge simulataneous work on Enigma by British intelligence trough people including Thorpe, because he had no way to know about them in his lifetime.Leidseplein (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

After further review of the sources, there is NO CONFLICT between the story as given by early Polish expert Rejewski etc... and the account of BSC head Stephenson about the role of CYNTHIA (Amy Thorpe.) Thorpe provided NO cryptographical help but obtained items from Beck on how Enigma was used and she especially helped bring Rejewski's work to the attention of the British. Ironically in the face of all the Polish fanantics determined to salvage a critical role for Poland in winning the war, perhaps Thorpe's most practical point was when she in 1938 told Stephenson that Rejewski was able to decode some German keys. Rejewski of course had no knowledge of Thorpe's work, but Stephenson knew of Rejewski's work and correctly credits early decrypt work to Rejewski, nevertheless Stephenson felt Thorpe's work was imperative to the Allied effort at Bletchley Park. THE ONLY CONFLICT in sources is generated falsely by (Polish) historian Richard Woytak who misquotes Stevenson's writing on CYNTHIA as claiming she alone got the early details about Enigma from Poland. Woytak is apparently motivated by the now well documented Polish sensitivity to their role in the war in general and Enigma in particular, when in fact Stephenson says (in no conflict with Rejewski) that Thorpe basically highlighted Enigma's role, that Polish engineers had some Enigma keys solved, and provided some details about how/where it was used.Leidseplein (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Leidseplein|Leidseplein]] (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Lengthy one-sided-POV diatribe," indeed!

How do you know that:

"Poland's Secret Service was preparing for a war its politicians felt they could avoid"?

Quoted from sourced material. Leidseplein (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

How DO YOU think Rejewski et al. could possibly know about Thorpe's work in Poland in the 1930s?

"Beck was friendly with the Nazis"? He wasn't; and even had he been, then so what?

Quoted from sourced material, even your cherished Polish apologist Woytak admits they were friendly, the "so what" is because this point helps explain why Poles had knowledge of Enigma.Leidseplein (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Thorpe persuaded Beck's aid [sic!] to first discuss and later allow to copy documents from Beck's safe"? What was this aide's name? If still alive, he needs to be prosecuted for treason — and for stupidity. Can you imagine William Friedman sharing details of his Purple-breaking operation with U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull?

The aid's name is unmentioned, perhaps precisely because of the fanatical views of those who would want him prosecuted and the fanatical views of those whose point in life is to eliminate any evidence that anything but Polish efforts solved Enigma.Leidseplein (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"[Thorpe] had contributed [...] vital statistics that were required"? Something like 36–24–36, I presume.

If you have a contrary source on this point, provide it and we can probably include it. If you simply DON'T LIKE what Thorpe did and dearly wish only Poles were to get credit for breaking Enigma, while simultaneously deserve no blame for what happened to Poland during and after the war, then PROVIDE SOURCES.Leidseplein (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"the Poles did not decide to share Enigma information "until a few weeks before Poland was invaded" (your emphasis) "as Poland's politicians felt they could avoid war on their own"? The Poles, for security reasons, did not even share "Enigma information" with their ally, Gustave Bertrand, who in 1932 had supplied them with French intelligence material that had been crucial to reconstructing Enigma.

Your point here is to argue and defend the behavior of Poland, which is not the point of an article on Amy Thorpe.Leidseplein (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Thorpe it seems provided early details about where and in what services Enigma was used"? Do you have Public Record Office or other unimpeachable documentation on this?

There are numerous sources quoted here in this article, in further reading and on the internet with a simple google search, as you say above "feel free" too look them up, scary as they are for you to accept.Leidseplein (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Stephenson knows... Rejewski's role [while] Rejewski had no way to know about [Thorpe's role] in his lifetime" (your emphasis)? On the contrary, Rejewski was reading the fictions by Stevenson (1976), Anthony Cave Brown (1975) and others as they appeared, published to enrich their authors and to satisfy the curiosity of the gullible. And the omniscient Stephenson was evidently privy to Rejewski's role in such detail that he even "knew" that Rejewski (who was a married man) was a single female ("Mademoiselle Rejewski")! Nihil novi (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Polish part of Thorpe's work and the Enigma machine is a tiny part of Stevenson's book - it is hardly an effort to take credit for Enigma decoding since it is such a small part of the story. If the head of BSC Stephenson is not a trusted source and Stevenson's book is to satisfy the guillable, then barely-noticed "works" like a note to an article in an obscure magazine like Cryptologia is obviously nothing more than the ongoing Polish dribble which desperately seeks to take all the credit for Enigma into Polish brains, yet likewise blames Britain and America for both allowing the war and for allowing Poland to live under Communism for 50 years.... your raison d'etre is to defend Poland, great, but Polish sources which only expand the role of Poles and diminish the roles of everyone else are laughable propaganda.Leidseplein (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thorpe's work in Poland and on the Enigma machine takes up all of about 4 pages in Stevenson's 500 page book on Stephenson. Stephenson provides Thorpe's role here. Woytak's overly hostile attempt to diminish all but Polish Enigma efforts is also noted. As both sides of this minor point are given I think this is a suitable compromise and we can leave it at that.Leidseplein (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget that during 50 years non-Polish authors diminished Polish Enigma efforts.Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This kind of opinion-paranoia, which is shown in agonizing detail on this discussion page and is overly-sensitive to Poland's role in the war, may or may not be justified, but let's not be Nazis (irony intended) about it and quash dozens of sources because they don't credit Poland and Poles as much as we'd like - let Wikipedia readers see the sources and decide for themselves. Leidseplein (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Cryptologia is not so obscure. It was Marian Rejewski's remarks on F.H. Hinsley's grotesque account of the origins of Enigma decryption in an appendix to volume I of Hinsley's official history of British Intelligence in the Second World War — Rejewski's remarks published at Richard Woytak's initiative in Cryptologia — that forced Hinsley to include a more accurate account in a subsequent volume of his history.

Hinsley makes no mention of Thorpe. Nor does any credible historian of World War II or of cryptology. Nihil novi (talk) 06:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Too bad for William Stevenson that he demonstrated his unreliability by writing tommyrot about Enigma. Nihil novi (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Stevenson is so unreliable in writing about Enigma that he introduced to the world Jerzy Różycki's work on the subject, previously unmentioned in major works. I wonder how Stephenson knew about Rozycki and you can accept that but can't accept that Stephenson knew about Allied spies in Warsaw who were obviously UNKNOWN to Rejewski, etc..??? Leidseplein (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevenson may, if nothing else, have read David Kahn's December 1974 New York Times review of F.W. Winterbotham's The Ultra Secret, in which Kahn gave the names of the three Polish mathematicians who worked at breaking Enigma, including Jerzy Różycki. Stevenson's mention of Różycki bespeaks no special knowledge on Stephenson's part, but rather the ignorance, a year earlier, of his fellow myth-maker, Anthony Cave Brown, in Bodyguard of Lies (1975). Nihil novi (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Polish POV is included in the article, dubious as it is. You continue to tag as dubious cited sources you don't like, when it is in no way dubious that this is what Stephenson said and thought. If his thoughts are dubious, that is not your function as an editor to mark or decide - you are here merely to report other cited sources, not offer your own analysis of the sources, especially those that don't mention Poles adequately enough for you.Leidseplein (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If you continue to insist that only sources you like be included, obscure and agenda-motivated though they are, then let us ask an administrator to weigh the evidence on each side. Leidseplein (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a dispute between editor Nihil novi and Leidseplein. I have asked for a third opinion as a prelude to arbitration and administrator action. To summarize the dispute, Leidseplein is for the inclusion of sources that indicate a role for Thorpe in 1938 discovering how Enigma was used by the Poles, such as:

http://books.google.com/books?id=EHtrn0Pzpz8C&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=amy+elizabeth+thorpe+enigma&source=bl&ots=KBEHGPvxrd&sig=SLY9ZXHwH3GOkFX7xXaupZDyuwY&hl=en&ei=qUWMTN3QGIGdlgew0qhg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CD4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=amy%20elizabeth%20thorpe%20enigma&f=false

and also Leidseplein supports inclusion of the source which proposes all the Allied information about the Polish Enigma came in 1939 from Polish sources such as

[Richard Woytak, prefatory note to Marian Rejewski, "Remarks on Appendix 1 to British Intelligence in the Second World War by F.H. Hinsley," Cryptologia, vol. 6, no. 1 (January 1982), pp. 75–76.]}}

so, It seems to me the dispute is whether to include both sources as Leidseplein proposes OR whether to exclude sources that propose a role for Thorpe in Enigma. I will await third party input.

Leidseplein (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been asked to comment but it should be n oted I have been invilved before. Having said that we inclvude both stories but make shure we attribute them. Such as "stevens claised in his book...Ect".Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the article to show that Stephenson says in Stevenson's book that Thorpe worked in 1938 to give information about Enigma to the Allies. Later in the article a sentence explains that Polish sources deny a role for Thorpe. Leidseplein (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Its not only POlish soiurces that dispute hber role, other (non Polish) sources do as well.Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Leidseplein, why do you repeatedly delete the 2 "dubious–discuss" templates from the article, while the discussion remains underway? Nihil novi (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You have given us a link, just above, to Mark Lloyd, The Guinness Book of Espionage pp. 77–78. All that he has to say on the present subject is:

... it was not until she went to Poland that she became a secret agent in earnest. Now working for MI6 she gained the confidence of a young aide to the Foreign Secretary, Colonel Beck. From him she gleaned considerable intelligence, some of which led directly to Britain gaining possession of the top secret German Enigma cipher machine.

All weasel words ("a young aide to the Foreign Secretary... considerable intelligence, some of which led to... gaining possession of the... German Enigma cipher machine") and no substance.

Can't you do better than that? What about a juicy, substantive quote from Stevenson / Stephenson? Nihil novi (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but we do not evaluate sources in this way.Slatersteven (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I am satisfied that the article as it now stands is accurate and fair - it represents the views of both those who do and do not agree that Thorpe was a spy in Warsaw in 1938 and obtained information for the Allies about Enigma at this time, but I will address some points recently made to me:

It is suggested that other non-Polish historians dispute Thorpe's role in Warsaw. Where are the non-Polish sources that dispute Thorpe's role as spy in 1938 Warsaw? The only source I've found or seen mentioned is Polish, namely, Richard Woytek's introduction to an article in the cryptography magazine Cryptologia. In any event, Woytek is trying to generate a controversy when there is none...from Rejeweski's point of view (Which Woytek relies upon), the Allies learned about Polish Enigma work in 1939 a few weeks before the war, because that's when Rejewski decided to share his work. From the head of BSC's point of view (William Stephenson), he had spies in Warsaw at least as early as 1938, one of them being Amy Thorpe, who gave initial information about Polish Enigma work, not including cryptography. Rejewski and probably no Polish source knew about Allied spies in Warsaw at the time, so naturally they believed themselves to be the first and only source about Polish Enigma work and sought to take the entire credit for themselves, which those who seek to promote Poland's role in Enigma and the war in general continue to seek to this day. However, Stephenson not only credits Rejewski with his initial cryptography work on Enigma but points out that he had other non-Polish sources in Warsaw (like Thorpe) which gave him the heads up of Rejewski's work even before Rejewski decided to share it on the eve of war.

As to why I remove the dubious-discuss tags, the reason is that I feel they are used incorrectly. It is NOT dubious to say that Stephenson gave credit to Amy Thorpe for early information about Enigma, he undeniably does along with other sources. It is not a correct use of the dubious tag IMO simply because one editor disagrees with the point Stephenson is making about Thorpe, the correct use of the dubious tag in this case would be if the editor disputes Stephenson said this about Thorpe. They are being tagged as dubious because Nihil Novi doesn't agree with what the source says about the subject, which does not make it dubious that the source (Stephenson) actually said it. The article makes clear that "Stephenson thought..." (or similar words) which would only be dubious if you have sources that say Stephenson DID NOT think or say this about Thorpe. You are arguing the underlying truth or untruth of what Stephenson thought - which is not the point - the point is Stephenson thought it and published his opinion as such (about Thorpe). If you are disputing that Stephenson said or thought this about Thorpe, that would be fine and we could discuss it, but there is no doubt that Stephenson, among at least another dozen sources, said and thought what is stated in the article - his own view of Thorpe's work.

As to the Guiness Book of Spies link, and the yet-again pedantic request for sources that go unchecked or unread by the agenda-driven-pro-Polish-editor, it is again NOT DUBIOUS that the head of BSC gave credit to Thorpe as mentioned in the article, he did. If you don't agree with him, that's fine, but other sources - here they are AGAIN, most mentioned previously on this page or article and easily available on Google, also tend to confirm William Stephenson's words:

"It has long been suspected that Cynthia made the connection that brought the Enigma cypher machine to Britain from Poland." Page 71. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Za4kd9murKcC&pg=PA69&dq=Amy+Elizabeth+Thorpe&hl=en&ei=dsZ6TNORM8mD4AbEsNHPBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Amy%20Elizabeth%20Thorpe&f=false

Tom E. Mahl, Espionage's Most Wanted: The Top 10 Books of Malicious Moles, Blown Covers... Evidently a superficial popularizer. (Why don't you identify the authors and their books?) Nihil novi (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"Pack began an affair with a Polish diplomat, Edward Kulikowski...." http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6BP6Bph006YC&pg=PA52&dq=Amy+Elizabeth+Thorpe&hl=en&ei=sMZ6TPP1HsPI4Ab27q3dBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Amy%20Elizabeth%20Thorpe&f=false

Simone Payment, American Women Spies of World War II, pp. 52–66 (some of the pages are not available at this on-line site). This is evidently copied from Stephenson; but where Payment got the name "Edward Kulikowski" from, I don't know. Nihil novi (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

EXACTLY you don't know where Payment discovered this information - our role here is NOT to provide original research or discount a published source because YOU haven't heard a piece of information before. Our role is to report the original research of others, whether we agree with it or not and whether we know where THEY got their research. You, shocking though it may be, are NOT aware of every source on this subject and in any event your role on Wikipedia is merely to report what other published sources say, not carry on your obsession with getting the world to honor Poland's role in Enigma, defend Polish behaviour in the War, etc... Leidseplein (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"In Warsaw [...] many of them men she was involved with held important posts; one of them included the personal aide to the foreign minister, Józef Beck." http://ww2db.com/person_bio.php?person_id=405

C. Peter Chen, "Amy Thorpe," on a site called "World War II Database": a 1-page summary of the Thorpe story in Stevenson's book. Again, hardly an independent authority on Thorpe. Nihil novi (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"From him Pack learned Polish experts were working on overcoming the threat posed by Germany's Enigma enciphering machine" http://www.historynet.com/amy-elizabeth-thorpe-wwiis-mata-hari.htm

"Amy Elizabeth Thorpe: WWII's Mata Hari" (3 pages on "HistoryNet.com") is largely, again, an extract from Stevenson but makes some departures, as when it states: "The extent of her contribution to the 'Ultra secret' that gave the Allies a crucial edge over the Nazis remains a matter of conjecture. [My emphasis.] In fact, however, Britain would owe its ability to decode so much of Germany's World War II radio traffic to the efforts of the Poles, who had cooperated with the French in working out the Enigma system."

Another departure: "The literary consensus is that Cynthia's amorous success contributed to British victories in the Mediterranean. The lady herself, who described her relationship with [Admiral Alberto] Lais as 'sentimental and even sensual rather than sexual,' said she received the ship sabotage information directly from the admiral and access to the sensitive [code] books from his assistant with Lais' full cooperation. Heirs of the admiral sued a British author in an Italian court for defamation in 1967, insisting Lais (who had died in 1951) had not betrayed military secrets, and won. In 1988, Lais' two sons protested publication of the seduction account in David Brinkley's best-selling Washington Goes to War and persuaded the Italian defense ministry to publish denial ads in three leading East Coast newspapers." Thus, this "source" on Thorpe registers doubts about some of Stevenson's stories... Nihil novi (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"Cynthia [Thorpe's codename], you mean the one who paved the way for us to get the Enigma machine and break the Ultra code." Quoting Dwight D. Eishenhower, http://books.google.com/books?id=fkgTTVIsHuUC&pg=PA312&dq=amy+pack+enigma&hl=en&ei=U4qNTL3sHsG78gbWobXBCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA# —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leidseplein (talk • contribs) 02:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Dick Puckett, Connecting the Dots: Reads like fiction — and probably is. On page 316, in the company of Allen Dulles, Dwight Eisenhower and his driver Kay Summersby, when Summersby praises General Eisenhower's contribution to victory in World War II, Thorpe mentally rehearses her own resumé as the person "who won the war." Item 3: "Slept with a Polish officer leading to the procurement of the coveted Enigma machine that allowed the breaking of the German Ultra code." Again, no details of that alleged achievement are provided. Nihil novi (talk) 08:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

...in other words numerous independent sources say Thorpe was a spy in Poland, had an affair with a Polish diplomat, and provided early details about Enigma to Stephenson, the head of BSC, including, most importantly, William Stephenson himself. The only source that I've seen that contradicts this is Polish - Woytak - whose life's work is to diminish any role in Enigma for any nationality unless they are Polish.

Anyway, as I said I am happy that the article as it exists now accurately represents both sides of the dispute in Thorpe's work in Poland and I hope we can all move on to expanding Wikipedia instead of arguing over this minor detail.

Leidseplein (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Question: I see that there's a third opinion pending for this page. Based on the discussion above, though, it seems you may have worked through the issue. Is that correct or is further help needed? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I am only one side of the dispute, but I think yes, it is resolved as the article currently stands. My point is that we should include both sides of a contentious point - namely whether Amy Elizabeth Thorpe Pack Brouse was a spy in Warsaw in 1938 and provided information to the Allies about Enigma during this time. AFAIK there is only one source that argues she was not a source of Enigma information and this view is included in the article (Woytek). We have not heard from the Wiki editor who has so long disputed the numerous sources I cite and wishes to rely only on the source with which s/he agrees: Woytek's contention that Thorpe had no role in Enigma information from Poland. If you have a moment, why not chime in on the issue? Leidseplein (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It's kinda hard to follow the whole conversation above due to lack of signing and indentation, but I'm not seeing the Woytek stuff in the article. Either way, your solution is correct: show both viewpoints with proper attribution (e.g. "Woytek wrote that blah blah blah...") and let the reader figure it out. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Even a casual reader of Leidseplein's on-line "sources," listed above, can see that they are worthless.

The test of credibility for a Wikipedia article is not how many specious "sources" may be provided, but the extent to which the article is based on solid factual evidence.

All the claims made above for Thorpe having somehow "procured the Enigma machine" — just what that means, and how it was done, is never stated — mirror Stevenson's / Stephenson's mystifications.

The true version of how Britain and France obtained access to the Polish Enigma double and decryption techniques and technology, is accepted by all serious historians and cryptology experts and may be found in works by, among many others, Gustave Bertrand, Gilbert Bloch, David Kahn, I.J. Good, Władysław Kozaczuk, Marian Rejewski, Hugh Sebag-Montefiore, Alan Stripp and Gordon Welchman. Amy Elizabeth Thorpe figures in none of their accounts.

You need only read Wikipedia's many articles on Enigma and its decryption to see that Stevenson's / Stephenson's vague tall tales are unnecessary for explaining how the British gained access to Enigma decryption.

Inclusion of those tales in a Wikipedia article, with a straight face, ultimately will only expose Wikipedia to ridicule. Nihil novi (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Um, okay. Can you briefly list out the sources that you find dubious and we can discuss them? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The principal source on Amy Elizabeth Thorpe and her supposed espionage work before and during World War II appears to be William Stevenson's A Man Called Intrepid (1976). Other, on-line "sources" cited by the author of the Wikipedia article to bolster his claims for her, seem to be derivative of Stevenson's book.

I have above identified and commented on on-line sources cited by our author — on Mark Lloyd; Tom E. Mahl; Simone Payment; C. Peter Chen; "Amy Elizabeth Thorpe: WWII's Mata Hari"; and Dick Puckett.

On the subject of Thorpe and Enigma, Lloyd gives only a couple of sentences, mirroring Stevenson's equally skimpy, insubstantial statements. Mahl: ditto. Payment evidently copied extensively from Stevenson, but attached a name of unknown provenance to a "Polish diplomat." Chen gives a 1-page summary of Stevenson's Thorpe story.

"Amy Elizabeth Thorpe: WWII's Mata Hari," in 3 pages, again summarizes Stevenson, but goes further to observe that "The extent of her contribution to the 'Ultra secret'... remains a matter of conjecture. In fact, however, Britain would owe its ability to [decrypt so much German] radio traffic to... the Poles..."

The "Mata Hari" article also undermines both Stevenson and another of our article's authorities, David Brinkley, when it describes actions that were successfully brought against purveyors of the story concerning Admiral Lais' alleged betrayal of Italian military secrets to Amy Thorpe.

Dick Puckett seems to be writing patent fiction, based on Stevenson's fiction.

What Stevenson himself writes about Thorpe and Enigma, and about much else, are brief vague allegations embedded within a matrix of innuendo, pontification, and generally-known background information about the period.

What unique, valuable information about Enigma did Thorpe pass on to MI6? "Stephenson always felt that she contributed a great deal to the vital statistics [huh?] that were required for a machine that later... became the first modern computer... 'Colossus'." (P. 343.) What sort of mumbo-jumbo is this? And how did Stephenson, a Canadian who only later became head of British Security Coordination in New York and was not at the time working with Thorpe, learn about Enigma? Was MI6 as careless with its vital secrets as the Polish Cipher Bureau is made out to have been?

The whole Stephenson / Stevenson story about Thorpe and Enigma simply does not hang together and has no plausibility — not least in its suggestion that an anonymous aide to the Polish Foreign Minister could possibly have known the names of "Mademoiselle Marian Rejewski" and his two mathematician colleagues at the Cipher Bureau (p. 343).

Remove the nonsense about Thorpe and Enigma, and about Thorpe and Lais — and what remains? At best, if you can believe it, a promiscuous lady safe-cracker.

I would question whether Amy Thorpe even meets Wikipedia criteria for notability — assuming, in the first place, that she actually existed and engaged in espionage.

William Boyd, in a 2006 Guardian newspaper article about a British Security Coordination history that was published in 1998, describes highlights of the BSC's wartime black propaganda operations in the United States. Boyd makes no mention at all of BSC's employee Amy Thorpe — who, according to Stephenson / Stevenson, as reported in our Wikipedia article, "would be seen as the greatest female spy in history, if her story were ever made public" (I have been unable to locate this assessment in my original 1976 edition of Stevenson's book). Nihil novi (talk) 09:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

this all appears to be your opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, so there are a few issues here. The first is that, yes, I think this article meets the notability criteria. You've got at least three independent reliable sources - Stevenson, Mahl and HistoryNet - for the subject. (Side note - apparently HistoryNet is considered to be a reliable source per this.)

Just because we have sources that contradict each other does not mean that one or both are invalidated. We're not here to pass judgment on the sources (assuming they're reliable); all we can do is echo what the sources state with proper attribution and let the reader decide. So to that end, we could say "William Stevenson says that blah blah blah. According to HistoryNet, blah blah."

With regards to the Enigma question, I think the article handles the issue fairly well. It gives one account with attribution and then shows the opposition with more attribution - but does so in an even-handed way that doesn't cause the reader to definitely pass judgment one way or the other.

You're right that Mahl is largely speculation, so I would probably avoid using that one. I find Lloyd to be far more usable here, though, and you could probably source to Lloyd anything you got from Mahl.

As a side note, I do find some of the sources listed to be unacceptable. The ww2db credits page (Chen?) basically says that it's just a site run by a guy. He's not really an expert in the field or anything, so I wouldn't use the site.

So okay, where to proceed from here. If that claim about her single handedly being responsible in the lead isn't in the book, then it should be removed. (Was that text added in the reissue?) If there's still a question about sourcing, I would say post on WP:RSN and let the people there evaluate the sources. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the article deals with sources giving contrary information adequately. Our role is not to evaluate published sources from serious journalists and authors so much as it is to report them and let the reader decide on their own. I'm fine with the article as it stands now. Leidseplein (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, The fullest easily accessible published information on Amy Elizabeth Thorpe Pack Brouse I've found is on pp 21-32 of Elizabeth McIntosh's Sisterhood of Spies (all 11 pages are available online here)

http://books.google.com/books?id=7wHWT3WT_rYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=mcintosh+sisterhood+of+spies&hl=en&ei=5w6QTKnvHoHG8wTLnZTGDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=snippet&q=code-room%20mata%20hari&f=false

Leidseplein (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This book, Mary Lovell's Cast No Shadows devoted to Amy Elizabeth Thorpe gives the account of her work on the Polish Enigma, explains why the British were suspicous of the Poles, why the Poles were not forthcoming with Enigma to the brink of war, etc... but since I don't have the actual book and can only read very partial bits and pieces online I'm reluctant to quote it in the Wikipedia article on Thorpe.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ol5nAAAAMAAJ&dq=montgomery+hyde+cynthia&q=poland+enigma

Leidseplein (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"why the British were suspicous of the Poles" - does the book explain why the British weren't suspicious enough of the Germans, Italians, Soviets?Xx236 (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Dubious Interwiki

de:British Security Coordination doesn't mention Thorpe.Xx236 (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Overquoting and other issues

As of this edit, this article has far too much quoting. And to have a blockquote with multiple references in it doesn't make sense; it's a direct quote from a book and has a single source, and that's all that should be referenced. (If the book had multiple inline refs like that, then it's another story, I guess.) As such I'm going to cut down the article to avoid this. Also, referring to the source as "Stephenson / Stevenson" is dubious and overly casts the source as questionable, which is unacceptable. For example, "According to Stephenson's / Stevenson's best-selling A Man Called Intrepid," is inaccurate - Stephenson wasn't the author of the book, so referring to it as such doesn't work. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

There are actually far more serious issues here than I realized. "A characteristic Stephensonian / Stevensonian suggestive stringing-together of undocumented allegations and innuendoes." is an entirely unacceptable thing to write in an encyclopedic entry, much less in a reference. The notes are not meant to be places of speculation or anything like that. Honestly I'm just going to jettison most of the text here, as it does not work at all. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You have deleted relevant documented information, while reintroducing trivia and "sources" of no value, one of which (C. Peter Chin) you previously said was "not really an expert... so I wouldn't use the site."

• Stevenson seems to imply (his style is murky) that one of Stephenson's sources concerning Enigma decryption was "Polish engineers [who] worked on the new Enigma models" — whatever "new Enigma models" might have meant. The three Polish mathematicians who broke and read Enigma from December 1932 were not "engineers". Stevenson is presumably referring to a story earlier given by F.W. Winterbotham (1974) and Anthony Cave Brown (1975) about a Pole working at an Enigma plant who provided information to British intelligence. No evidence exists that there was a Pole (or "Polish Jew") working in an Enigma factory. The only "inside" source (and quite a valuable one!) was Hans-Thilo Schmidt, an employee of the Wehrmacht Cipher Bureau, reference to whom you have deleted. Stephenson's ignorance of the true facts in this matter is suggested by William Stevenson's reference to mathematician "Mademoiselle Marian Rejewski, who was a man (and was married).
• In place of pertinent facts, you have reintroduced irrelevant references to Marlene Dietrich, Lotte Lenya, Julia Child and Virginia Hall.
• It is not clear why you deleted the quotation from T.J. Naftali, writing in Intelligence and National Security (1993).
• You reintroduced the statement that Thorpe "gathered embassy safe combinations and thus helped neutralize Axis spies and secret operations in the Americas" — supported, supposedly, by text on p. 365 of Stevenson's A Man Called Intrepid. There is no such reference to the Americas on p. 365.
• You eliminated a source that raises doubts about Thorpe having seduced Italian Admiral Alberto Lais, who, per Stevenson, was thus "persuade[d] to have the cipher and code books removed for microfilming" by Thorpe's confederates. Nihil novi (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I admit that I went back to a version before all of your edits, and some of the discussion here didn't make its way in. I just made the proper changes based on your writings above. I don't see why those references are "irrelevant" as you described them, though; it seems relatively okay to me. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The latest edit by HelloAnnyong fairly presents the available sources without imparting a personal POV. The role of Wikipedia in this case is very well served by allowing the casual internet user a quick review of the published accounts of Amy Elizabeth Thorpe - and makes clear that the sources are not entirely in agreement, thereby inviting a more serious reader to consult the sourced publications to make up their own mind. I note that there is an active editor here who is seeking to reject sources based only on the fact that other sources present a different view (and it seems because this editor is publicly engaged in an agenda to forward a pro-Polish view of WW2 history at the expense of all other historical literature). Leidseplein (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Naftali quote, supplied as "another critic" to bolster the solo critic Woytak, is not correctly used here. Woytak is in fact the only source that arguably contradicts the previous sources. Natfali is criticizing William Stephenson generally and Stephenson's allegation of supplying British intelligence with an Enigma machine. Natfali also is talking about actual DECRYPTION, which no source on Thorpe claims she did in Poland or ever. None of this is relevant to the subject of the article, Amy Elizabeth Thorpe and in no way speaks to the subject most upsetting to Nihil Novi - the role of Thorpe in obtaining early information about Polish Enigma work in 1938 before the Poles shared their work officially in 1939. In the interest of peace and harmony, I have stopped editing this article and will let 3rd parties decide any issues I point out from now on.Leidseplein (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing would make me happier than to discover that Thorpe, directly or indirectly, made a genuine, important contribution to Enigma decryption. And I agree that readers should be able "to consult the... publications to make up their own mind." That is why I provided those few lines from Stevenson (since removed as "overquoting") that pertain to Thorpe's supposed involvement with Enigma. And there is nothing there to substantiate Stevenson's suggestion (p. 343) that Thorpe made a "contribution... to success in the search for the ULTRA secret." Historians have determined exactly what German documents Hans-Thilo Schmidt gave to French intelligence, which Gustave Bertrand passed to Poland's Cipher Bureau. Also, historians can consult, at Britain's Public Record Office, German Enigma-enciphered messages that were decrypted during World War II at Bletchley Park. Why have no comparable documents surfaced that Thorpe is alleged to have obtained from Polish Foreign Minister Józef Beck's office?

Instead of such documentation, we are given references to internet sites that, with few exceptions, merely mirror Stevenson's unsubstantiated assertions.

As to Marlene Dietrich et al.: Marcus Binney's book The Women Who Lived for Danger (2002) discusses the careers of 10 prominent female agents (including Virginia Hall) of Britain's wartime Special Operations Executive. Why does this article pass over most of them? Nihil novi (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

A masterpiece of idiocy

"her work in helping the Allies understand how the Enigma machine was used and that Polish mathematicians were breaking Enigma ciphers.[6] Enigma machines would be used throughout the coming war by the Axis Powers, whose enciphered messages would frequently be read at Britain's Bletchley Park." — It seems that the good Amy "Bond" outsmarted the bad Poles...

"Ultra" quotes Gordon Welchman: "Ultra would never have gotten off the ground if we had not learned from the Poles, in the nick of time, the details both of the German military... Enigma machine, and of the operating procedures that were in use." Why, if they knew everything from the smart Amy? Xx236 (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Leidseplein: "the role of Thorpe in obtaining early information about Polish Enigma work in 1938" — What exactly did the British government do with the knowledge? How much money did they invest in decryption in 1938? Xx236 (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Stevenson's story about Amy Thorpe and Enigma is indeed a masterpiece of idiocy. Nihil novi (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If until 29 August 2010 there was no Wikipedia article on William Stephenson's / William Stevenson's Amy Thorpe story, there is a reason for it: There seems to be no substance to the story — certainly not to the parts involving the Enigma cipher. Nihil novi (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Redeeming Poland's Role

Leidseplein wrote:

"Is your agenda to redeem Poland's role in the war so intense that you can not accept others besides Poles contributed to cracking Enigma?"

Just out of curiosity. What was the Poland's role in the war that Leidseplein feels should need redeeming? I hope for an answer. Thank you.--SylwiaS | talk 00:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I too await Leidseplein's response. The quotation seems to illustrate an octopus strategy — the release of turbid clouds of ink — to distract from the inanity of William Stephenson's / William Stevenson's Amy Thorpe fabrications. Nihil novi (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis and generalization

The following discussion was moved from User talk:Nihil novi.

I have removed the paragraph you added. Although having these sources is obviously good, I am not convinced that the statement they are connected to is anything more than a overly broad generalization, and perhaps an editorialization on your part. I suggest that if these sources debunk specific stories, they be brought up in connection to those stories in the article, not as general sources in the lede. Also, bear in mind that court cases have two sides, and one side's "debunking" does not necessarily make it true. BMK (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

No need to "bring [the sources] up in connection to th[e] stories in the article." The sources already are linked to the respective stories. In adding a second paragraph to the "Amy Elizabeth Thorpe" lead, I added NO NEW SOURCES. Nihil novi (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Do not revert me again. Your BOLD edit has been REVERTED and now we DISCUSS, per WP:BRD, but the article stays in the status quo ante. I've told you what I think, that your statement is overgeneralizing and a POV. Go read WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTHESIS again instead of edit warring. If none of those sources says "Most of the published stories of "Cynthia's" (Amy Elizabeth Thorpe's) exploits of seduction-and-espionage have been impeached by historians, by relatives of her deceased alleged targets of seduction and espionage, and by courts of law" then you can't say it, and it can't be in the article. BMK (talk) 04:28 March 2015 (UTC)

If you honestly believe in the stories of "Cynthia's" espionage exploits, please cite, in "Amy Elizabeth Thorpe", full texts from published sources, rather than mere vague mentions of the exploits. Nihil novi (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

End of moved discussion

You've been here for 8 years, you've got 35K edits, you should know how things work around here. What's in the article is sourced. If you don't like the sourcing, find better ones, but you CANNOT make a broad generalization from your own interpretation and analysis of what multiple sources say, it's forbidden by WP:SYNTHESIS. Any positive statement such as you tried to add must be accompanied by a citation from a reliable source that specifically supports that statement. If you provide three sources for a statement, all three must specifically support the statement. You cannot (and the fact that you apparently don't know this after being here for so long is disturbing), give three sources that say different things and use them to support a generalization that you made up. That's your own analysis or interpretation, and it's just plain not allowed, verboten, against the rules. If you keep trying to do that, I will continue to remove it and leave the article in the status quo ante as prescribed by WP:BRD. BMK (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

You are also apparently unaware that moving talk page discussions from one place to another without the permission of all participants is considered to be quite rude. BMK (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

For the information of readers who would like to understand what this is all about, this is the disputed second paragraph that I had added:

Most of the published stories of "Cynthia's" (Amy Elizabeth Thorpe's) exploits of seduction-and-espionage have been impeached by historians, by relatives of her deceased alleged targets of seduction and espionage, and by courts of law

References

Nihil novi (talk) 05:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Use Picture and refs ?

Photo -- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3552906/

Text -- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3674051/

Book reference -- "The Last Goodnight" by Howard Blum pub. April 2016

-- I hope someone can make use of these sources to supplement wiki listing.

.. Anne

AnEyeSpy (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)AnEyeSpy

Birth of first child

I think the birthyear of the first child is incorrect. 1930 makes sense. 1931 does not. jengod (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Ra social memory complex as Thorpe aspect

Thorpe is all I have to average Ra social memory complex for my protection. The only way to convert the Orion material to Venus is with their aspects that are military prostitutes and spies. Thorpe may be the finest Maldekian-Venusian material Ra has to offer as the Orion conversion is so clean and fast. Simply, she is able to reject masculine material at the fastest possible rate and bring it to terminal velocity of consciousness. I do not average Mohammed or Allah with Ra. I put Britain and America on them. I will not incarnate in a warzone ever again. The CIA and NSA and their immune funding will know me here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.8.134.220 (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)