Talk:Mitrokhin Archive/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Introduction

Would somebody care to explain for me what relevance the first footnote has to the sentence it is sourced to? From what i can tell, there's no relatinship whatsoever. If no answer is forthcoming on this then i'm afraid i'm going to need to delete it.Stone put to sky 06:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The ref buttresses the claim the archive is secondhand notes, not primary material. Abe Froman 14:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

More on Allende

The current text includes the following statement "He worked for the KGB as a "trusted source" under code name LEADER for many years." This statement is too broad and needs more specific citation info (see my earlier comments above regarding the problem with the citation). This current description of the alleged relationship could mean anything. We need to be more specific in terms of what services he supposedly rendered, and what the compensation was. Equally important, what was the time frame? The US government, for instance, gives money and advice to foreign leaders (and the CIA presumably gives them code names) all the time. If there is no specific service rendered, it is a huge stretch to say that they "worked for the US." Notmyrealname 21:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Allende sources

If the multiple sources on this section say different things, then they should not all be lumped at the end. Please put each source at the end of each statement that it supports. Notmyrealname 15:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

They all support statement made in this article. Therefore, such citation is appropriate. If they do not, please comment here. I only wanted to tell that statement about Allende could be elaborated further using multiple sources.Biophys 15:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not the appropriate way to use footnotes. You are supposed to use the most reliable source to back up the statement. You don't dump in others that either say the same thing or provide new information. If you have sources that need to be mined further, you should place them here on the talk page. Otherwise you are creating extra work for the reader. Notmyrealname 15:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no! I simply follow WP:SOURCE policy that requires encyclopedic content be supported by multiple reliable sources.Biophys 15:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm making a point about the form here, not the content. Please read over WP:CITE#HOW. You can't just throw up a bunch of repetitive sources and let the reader figure out why you listed them there. If you have a bunch of other materials that you think are useful, you can either incorporate them into the text, include them in a "further reading" section, or put them on the talk page here to let others work on it. Please note that my initial edit here was to remove a dead link. Some of the editors who work on this page have a history of edit warring. There is no reason for this technical issue to be the cause of an edit war. Notmyrealname 16:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Case in point, one link is to a book review in the entertainment section of the Sunday Times of London. The sole reference to Allende there is the following:

"Pinochet’s predecessor Salvador Allende was given the code name Leader by Moscow Control — an inappropriate choice as his total incompetence soon raised doubts about his survival prospects. This idol of the left, with a penchant for good wines and sexual voyeurism, ignored repeated warnings from the KGB to suppress the rising tide of disaffection in his army’s ranks. After the inevitable CIA- inspired coup of 1973, the Kremlin was left with a single champion in the New World, Castro, who continued to hurl defiance — and take its economic aid." This isn't "support" for the assertions in any way. This is just a sympathetic book reviewer who repeats a vague reference to Allende. It should be removed.Notmyrealname 17:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Another of the citations here is an excerpt from the book itself. This is useful, but also a good example of why this should be converted into footnotes so that this is clearer to the reader. I don't see how the excerpt cited here supports the claim in the article that Allende "took counsel and advice from his KGB case worker to reorganize Chile's military and intelligence service along lines suggested by the Soviet Union." The article makes plain that he ignored all their advice, although the KGB did go to great lengths to try to influence him. There's nothing here that shows that he did anything in return for the gifts and aid from the Soviets. It's no secret that Allende had relations with the USSR during his tenure. It's arguable that Allende even belongs here. If he does, this section needs to be changed to reflect the information provided in the sources. Notmyrealname 17:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

O'K, I will check Allende story in the original Andrew/Mitrokhin book later and make the changes accordingly. Biophys 17:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is all confirmed. At least 20 pages of this book describe the story of Allende in detail - how he worked for KGB, how much money he received for various purposes, how KGB helped him to be elected, how KGB case officer struggle with one of Soviet ambassadors in Chile for the "honor" to work with Allende, etc. If you wish, I can prepare a brief summary as time allows.Biophys 04:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that what the Archive purportedly contains is the author's description of the KGB's version of events. There is no confirmation on the Allende side of things. Footnote 7 just lists the book and the total page numbers. You need to list a specific page relating to a statement. If you are going to be citing more from those 20 pages, it would be most helpful if you could include the exact text from the part of the book you are citing here on the talk page, unless it is available on Google Scholar. Notmyrealname 15:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I included some materials about presidential elections in Chile. I will continue.Biophys 02:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This book by Andrew and Mitrokhin includes many hundreds of references to other publications, in addition to Mitrokhin's notes. So, they also cite some other sources with regard to Allende. There is no requirements for WP sources (see WP:SOURCE) to be availabe on line. I have provided and checked the reference by your request and have no obligations to do anything else. But if you insist, then fine, I can work more to improve this article, as time allows. Why not?Biophys 18:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, that's why I was requesting it. If you are able and willing to provide the text (if it isn't on Googlescholar already, as portions of the book are) then it would be most helpful if you could provide it. It is required, however, to cite specific pages when providing book citations to specific claims. There's been some issues with other editors making claims based on the A&M book that ended up not being supported by the actual text. It makes it easier to have a meaningful discussion (instead of a pointless edit war) if we're all looking at the same original material. Again, although providing page numbers is required, providing text is not, so any volunteer efforts on your part would be very much appreciated. Notmyrealname 18:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 7 is used four times, but there are no specific page numbers used. This is not a proper way to cite a book. Please use a specific page number for a specific claim or quote. Notmyrealname 03:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please explain yourself? I was trying to help you, since you said that my help "would be very much appreciated". You asked me to work with book, and I did it. Now you deleted a statement about the decisive importance of KGB. I do not care if this is true or not, but this is what has been claimed in the book. On the other hand, you inserted original research, something that was NOT in the book. I mean your claim that "Allende made a personal request to the Soviet government for support for his campaign to counter the $425,000 that the CIA gave to his political opponents." This nonsense has never been claimed in the book. Allende did not know how much money was allocated by CIA, and therefore could not request money from KGB "to counter the $425,000 that the CIA gave to his political opponents". Sorry, but this is obvious OR by you.Biophys 04:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No need to get excited. I asked you to provide examples from the book including page numbers so that others could check the accuracy of the quotations and citations. Since you hadn't done so yet, I found most of the references on Google Scholar (and have included those links on the page). I agree that my rendering that you cite above does not conform to the book and have changed it. I deleted the following sentence "It is believed that help from KGB was a decisive factor, because Allend won by a narrow margin of 39,000 votes of a total of the 3 million cast." "It is believed" are classic WP:Weasel words (no offense meant, that's just the official name for this type of passive voice construction). In fact, the authors make clear that this is what the KGB believed. The authors seem to find this plausible, but do not state that they too believe this, as your rendering implied. I have tried to improve the article by providing much more specific information backed up by proper citations of the sources.Notmyrealname 05:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but your changes do not really reflect statements made by the source. Authors do argue that Allende would not be a president without help from the KGB. Of course, description of this in more detail would require more space, which may be not appropriate in this article. So, I should either use footnotes for that purpose or create a separate article about KGB operations in Chile or perhaps in South America.Biophys 14:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I made a lot of edits. I'm sure that some things that I put in could be improved. If you see something that isn't right, go ahead and change it, or discuss how to improve it here. That's the Wiki way. If others are interested, please check the book pages that I linked to through Google Scholar. Notmyrealname 14:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Allende section, continued...

Before the recent edits, the Allende section read as follows:

• Salvador Allende accepted financial support in the election of 1970 and was given counsel and advice from the KGB after his election. In his KGB file, Allende was reported to have "stated his willingness to co-operate on a confidential basis and provide any necessary assistance, since he considered himself a friend of the Soviet Union. He willingly shared political information..." although Mitrokhin and Andrew do not indicate if any information was in fact provided. Mitrokhin and Andrew also note that although the KGB files listed Allende as a "confidential contact," he was never classified as an agent. During the Chilean presidential election, 1970 Allende made a personal request to the Soviet government for support for his campaign at a time when the CIA was giving $425,000 to his political opponents. The Soviet government gave $400,000 to sympathetic political parties to support the election and an additional "personal subsidy" of $50,000 directly to Allende. After Allende's victory in the popular vote, the KGB director Yuri Andropov obtained a permission for additional funds from the Central Committee of the CPSU to support Allende as he faced a final vote on his presidency in the Chilean Congress. The KGB continued to provide political and strategic advice to Allende after he took office, including "information on the activities of American intelligence officers trying to penetrate the leaders of the [Chilean] army and intelligence services," who were actively trying to overthrow the Allende government. The Soviet Union limited its support to financial aid and intelligence information during Allende's tenure as it entered a period of detente with the United States after Richard Nixon's 1972 visit to Moscow, and it's increasing disappointment with Allende's "unwillingness to use force against his opponents."

The recent edits have resulted in the following version:

• Salvador Allende provided political intelligence to the Soviet Union through "his own emissaries" in Latin American countries. He also reorganized Chile's intelligence on the KGB orders. Historian Christopher Andrew argued that financial support through the KGB channels probably played a decisive role for Allende victory during the Chilean presidential election, 1970

There are several errors and distortions that the second edit has created:

• The first sentence footnotes 16 pages from a book for a single sentence. This is not how you properly footnote a direct quote. Please see WP:CITE for a guide.
• The first sentence is incorrect. The actual quote is from page 81 and is from [here]. As is clear, this phrase was a suggestion from the Soviet agent. There is no evidence that any information was provided from Allende.
• The second sentence is nowhere to be found in the book. In fact, the authors repeatedly note that the Soviets were frustrated because Allende did not follow their advice on internal security.
• On page 72 (see here, the authors clearly state that it was the KGB that reported to their superiors that their financial help won Allende the election ("That, at least, was the view of the KGB"). The authors do not make that claim themselves as the second edit falsely claims.
• The claim in the footnotes that "Allende made a personal request for Soviet money through his personal contact, KGB officer Svyatoslav Kuznetsov, who urgently came to Chile from Mexico City to help Allende" is a) not quite what the book says, b) poorly constructed, and c) confuses several events and lacks an important context. On page 71 and page 72 the book says that "both the CIA ... and the KGB spent substantial amounts of money in an attempt to influence the outcome of the election." It says the CIA spent $425,000 and the KGB spent a similar sum. It says that Allende made a "personal appeal" to the Soviets, but the authors say it is unclear who he made the appeal to. My previous edit (the first section above) makes clear (as Andrew and Mitrokhin do in their book) that the Soviet money was spent to counter the CIA money. This is not a "POV fork," but what the authors clearly write.
• The edit again falsely claims that "Andrew argued that the help from the KGB was a decisive factor." See the note above referring to what the authors actually said on page 72.
• The bit about Andropov is unnecessary and not an improvement on the previous version. The rest are vague notes from the archives as it does not state what, if any, information Allende allegedly shared. The Soviet Union and Chile had diplomatic relations. It is hardly a revelation that they shared information. The authors clearly state that the Soviets were reluctant to provide much support to Allende because of improving relations with the Nixon administration (as cited in the original edit, page 84).
• The two sources randomly added at the end of the newer edit are a) from a book review, and b) from an excerpt of the book that is already available.

I humbly propose a revert to my previous edit. Notmyrealname 03:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Sorry, but there are no distortions here. Source 18 (the book), which I cited, claims exactly what was written. Please note that according to WP recommendations, we should not usually provide a direct citation, but provide a brief summary of the source content.

(1) This source tells that Salvador Allende provided political intelligence to the Soviet Union through "his own emissaries" in Latin American countries. Please see page 81 about "sending the emissaries" to Lantin America and China, and other portions of the text.

(2) It tells that Allende reorganized Chile's intelligence on the KGB orders. See, for example page 73 ("reorganizing Chile's Army and intelligence services, and of setting up a relationship between Chile's and the USSR intelligence services").

(3) Historian Christopher Andrew argued that financial support through the KGB channels probably played a decisive role for Allende victory during the Chilean presidential election, 1970. Please see page 72: "the closeness of of the result suggests that the KGB may indeed have played a significant role in preventing Allende be narrowly beaten into second place".

Furthermore, a scholarly source said that Allende asked for money, he received the money, and even tell how much. What else do you need?

I checked the source and absolutely sure that everything is properly described. Moreover, I removed a content fork, in agreement with WP recommendations. If you disagree, could you please follow standard WP conflict resolution procedures (Mediation Cabal, etc.) rather than revert war? Biophys 03:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

References

Preparations for sabotage against US, Canada and Europe

One of targets planned by KGB 13th Department (reorganized as Department V in 1965) was Hungry Horse Dam and the port of New York (most volunerable points of the port were marked at maps). Large arms caches were hidden in many countries for the planned terrorism acts. They were booby-trapped with "Lightning" explosive devices. One of such cache, which was identified by Mitrokhin, exploded when Swiss authorities tried to remove it from woods near Berne. Several others were removed successfully ("the KGB in Europe, page 475).Biophys 04:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The FSLN leader Fonseca Amador was described as "a trusted agent" in KGB files. "Sandinista guerrillas formed the basis for a KGB sabotage and intelligence group established in 1966 on the Mexican US border". Biophys 04:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Cite Sources

Regarding the recent changes, include allegations, not labeled facts. Mitrokhin's material is controversial. Also, include page numbers to meet WP:CITE. Readers should not have to take uncited pages on faith. Wikipedia is not faith based. Abe Froman 05:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to WP:CIV, you suppose to mark this first as {{Fact}} rather than delete immediately (this article is not a BLP). But I have no complaints whatsoever. To the contrary, thank you very much! You and user Notmyrealname stimulate my interest to Mirtokhin archive and Latin America subjects.Biophys 13:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Biophys said in an edit summary "please do not delete the perfectly referenced text. I provided a range of pages, because some of the claims are described on many sequential pages. If you have any problems, please use talk page." I have repeatedly asked you to use proper citation formats as required in WP:CITE. This means that you cite a specific page for each claim. If you didn't learn how to do this in school, there are many sources available on the web, including WP:CITE, that explain it. The reason for this is so that others who wish to verify your claim can then go to the exact source, rather than having to sift through dozens of irrelevant pages. When you repeatedly fail to do this after several warnings, and after having mis-stated what your sources say several times, it is not unreasonable to delete your passages until you properly source them. Notmyrealname 01:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The citation was completely appropriate. I cited pages that a reader must read to verify that statements are correct. This is not one page. So, I indicated several consecutive pages. Honestly, I met a lot of different people here, one of whom was even banned from WP, but even he never deleted sourced text on a such ridiculous ground as having several consecutive pages in a reference instead of a single page.Biophys 01:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this is because you didn't direct a reader to read 29 pages from a book to back up six different claims. Any college instructor can explain to you that this is not the proper way to cite a claim from a book. In fact it is just laziness. Seriously, no one is trying to prevent you from including information from Mitrokhin or Andrew's books, but you have to link specific claims to specific pages. Saying "here's a whole list of things from chapter 7" is not a valid citation. It forces the reader to sift through a large amount of irrelevant material to find the source of your statements. Of course, if the claim goes to more than a single page, you can cite multiple pages. I have done so myself. Look through any scholarly books and you will see what I'm talking about. As I have detailed above, you have previously misquoted and miscited these books, so removing your improper citations is perfectly legitimate. If you prefer, I will add the fact tag to them until you or someone else cleans them up.Notmyrealname 01:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This edit is much better, however please move them from "hidden text" to the proper format." A reader should be able to click on a footnote for a specific claim and check it against the original source. Notmyrealname 02:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I will do this later, when you finish your edits. Biophys 02:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

O'K, I included pages as hidden text. Not a big deal. The problem is that you deleted the text instead of marking it as {{Fact}} and giving me a couple of days to fix this.Biophys 02:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Again with the citing sources thing

In the section "Preparations for large-scale sabotage in the United States and Canada," Biophys merely replaced the cite sources tag by repeating the same five pages of a book for six different and very specific claims. Again, this is not the proper way to cite something. For each claim, you need to cite the exact page that the claim you are referring to was made. I am going to reinsert the tags until this is properly done. Is the information for Carlos Fonseca in the citation different from the source cited on the FSLN page? Notmyrealname 20:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, I cited five pages that describe all these specific claims as a continuous text. A reader must read these five pages to verify the content. Biophys 20:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation is about being very specific, like an index. You should only list the pages where the word or very specific incident (e.g. Carlos Fonseca) is mentioned, even if the larger context is discussed on other pages. This isn't about verification, it is about pointing the reader to the specific item mentioned. This is a very basic concept in citation. Notmyrealname 21:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Replacing a five-page cited range with a fact tag seems wrong. Even if the cite were an entire book with no page at all, removing the citation entirely is worse. If you really think a five-page range is too much, maybe add {{specify}}. Gimmetrow 21:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Main problem was that he completely deleted two other sourced segments of text.Biophys 00:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the {{specify}} tag. Biophys seems to have finally corrected the problem. He (sorry, I'm assuming "he" here, please correct if I'm mistaken), had earlier suggested using the fact tags in this case. I admit being a bit frustrated because I've been urging him to use citations more appropriately. Earlier he was citing 19 pages at a clip and ultimately corrected it. Here he was making very specific claims and quoting text but continued using bulk citations. I had left the multipage citation at the top of the section, so I wasn't deleting sources.

Regarding the other comments about deleting "two other sourced segments of text," this is explained in the talk page above. Trento is an oddball conspiracy theorist (according to the reviews of his books on the linked site) with no academic credentials. His comments added nothing to the article and there are plenty of other credible sources endorsing the book in more useful terms. Further, Biophys himself said he didn't really care. The other section, as explained above, is not about Mitrokhin or his archives and doesn't belong in this article (there are many other places on Wikipedia where this paragraph would be just fine). Just because a statement is sourced, doesn't mean that it is in the correct article.Notmyrealname 02:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of relevant information from this article

A reference to Victor Suvorov and Stanislav Lunev has been deleted second time. This material is relevant for the following reason. If someone makes an unusual claim (such as those sabotage operations), a reader must be informed if this is something that specialists consider improbable, or this is something that everyone knows. For example, if I descibe in a WP article that a biologist "A" made a hypothesis "X", I must tell if his hypothesis was original and new, as follows from reliable sources. This is required by WP:NPOV, and this helps to create an interesting article. Same thing here. I referred to scholarly books by two best specialists in the world on the Soviet sabotage operations who have published anything on this sibject. Both Suvorov and Lunev were personally involved in finding the hiding places abroad for the weapons. Therefore, my reference to them is completely appropriate. Please do not delete this again.Biophys 18:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I was going to stop editing this article for now. If more work is needed, I will include a couple more paragraphs every time when a problem arises.Biophys 18:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC) I guess we need a few more paragraphs about front organizations of the KGB (false "liberation movements") and collaboration of the KGB with international terrorists.Biophys 18:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the section that I deleted: "Similar preparations agains NATO countries have been described by GRU defectors, Victor Suvorov [with a ref link to the following]Victor Suvorov, Spetsnaz, 1987, Hamish Hamilton Ltd, ISBN 0-241-11961-8 and Stanislav Lunev. According to Lunev, some of the hidden caches could contain portable tactical nuclear weapons known as RA-115 "suitcase bombs" prepared to assassinate US leaders in the event of war Stanislav Lunev. Through the Eyes of the Enemy: The Autobiography of Stanislav Lunev, Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1998. ISBN 0-89526-390-.

These are totally different incidents than the ones described by Andrew and Mitrokhin and therefor does not corroborate what A&M say. It is like saying that the fact that the CIA tried to poison Fidel Castro adds credibility to the claim that the CIA invented AIDS. This reference doesn't belong on this page and will be deleted again. Notmyrealname 20:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully but strongly disagree. Suvorov and Lunev did not describe any specific incidents, which are not connected to the sabotage preparations. They tell such preparations were a common practice. Their statements confirm that information by Mitrokhin is not bogus, which is important for this article. If you want me to continue expanding this article (and other related WP articles), fine, let's be it.Biophys 20:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If they do not mention any of the specific claims that M&A make, they do not belong on this page. Notmyrealname 20:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see article Origin of species. It not only describes the content of the book, but discuss how the book's concepts and ideas have been supported (or not supported) by other studies, even if these studies did not refer to the "Origin of species" directly. There are lots of similar examples.Biophys 00:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Mitrokhin is no Darwin. Both this example and the actual case of the Mitrokhin and Andrew info and the Suvorov and Lunev info are false alalogies. The M&A info and the S&L info neither prove nor disprove one another. They both say that the KGB made plans to do a bunch of nasty things. They don't mention the same things. This is not corroboration. Perhaps you should create a page of nasty things the KGB planned to do and you can include all this stuff there. As I mentioned above, the CIA did a bunch of nasty things. This doesn't mean that the CIA did every nasty thing that that anyone has ever accused them of. You earlier deleted my citation of Andrew and Mitrokhin discussing the CIA's support of Allende's opponents as a content fork (even though this well-documented fact was in the same paragraph in which A&M discuss the KGB's alleged support of Allende). This is a much clearer example of a content fork. If S&L mention some of the same incidents as A&M, then by all means specify this and include them. If not, they do not belong in this article. Notmyrealname 02:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No, this is not so. A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines (see content fork). This article is about Mitrokhin archive. This archive makes a number of claims. Thus, a reader may wonder if these claims are something new, or may be they contradict some well-established knowledge on the subject, or maybe Mitrokhin is telling something that everyone knows. Therefore, we must provide some background information (such as references to to Suvorov and Lunev) and the "Praise" and "Criticism" sections. We must do it precisely to follow WP:NPOV policy., and also to create an article that reader can understand. In your example, the "sandinista" article cites Mitrokhin, which is perfectly fine, just as citing Suvorov in this article is fine. However, citing someone who discuss Suvorov in this article would indeed be POV fork, because this article is not by any means about Suvorov. Therefore, I deleted Getty who discussed Mitrokhin in the article about Sandinista. That was indeed a POV fork.Biophys 02:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps it is not a fork. Who cares? The point remains that the paragraph you have included about Suvorov has no direct connection to Mitrokhin. Including this does not shed any light as to the veracity of the claims on this topic in the Mitrokhin archive, but instead confuse the reader into thinking that they do. I have a feeling that we aren't going to convince each other on this. I do feel strongly that the material does not belong on this page. If you insist on keeping it, I suggest we open up an rfc or something of that sort.Notmyrealname 03:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is a wider question. Many other claims by this archive must be also supplemented by very brief background information with links to other WP articles to make this material more readable and understandable. Is not it reasonable to provide some background information in WP articles? I would prefer to obtain some third opinions on this subject in general.Biophys 16:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, we must be sure that inserted "background" information is relevant and helps to improve an article. It is generally helpful to describe a subject or event in a wider context. For example, it is helpful to explain that rhodopsin is one of G-protein coupled receptors in the article about rhodopsin. Same thing here. It is helpful to tell that Mitrokhin notes is only one of many sources/authors who told about Soviet sabotage preparations, so a reader (who perhaps has no idea about this subject) would be able to look at other related WP articles and check this out. Biophys 17:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Political assassinations

Book "KGB in Europe" seem to describe involvement of the KGB in political assassinations of Bandera, Franco, Genarals Kutepov and Miller, Trotsky, Stashinsky, Reiss, Sedov, and many others. This needs to be described at some point.Biophys 02:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we provide some background information in WP articles?

Please see my comment above. My point is very simple. If we are writing about Mitrokhin archive, an we have an obligation to provide some minimal background information, which would help a reader to understand and navigate. I only included one sentence with WP links to Victor Suvorov and Stanislav Lunev, so a reader can take a look at the corresponding WP articles.03:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biophys (talk • contribs)

Well, it's two sentences, but more importantly, they mention nuclear weapons, which the plans you cite from the Andrew and Mitrokhin book do not. That seems way beyond any reasonable definition of WP:NPOV. Notmyrealname 03:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see my answer above. This background information is relevant and helps to improve an article. It is generally helpful to describe a subject or event in a wider context. For example, it is helpful to explain that rhodopsin is one of G-protein coupled receptors in the article about rhodopsin. Same thing here. It is important to tell that Mitrokhin is one of several authors who told about Soviet sabotage preparations, so a reader (who perhaps has no idea about this subject) would be able to look at other related WP articles and check this out.Biophys 02:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think what constitutes "background" is much easier to distinguish in science. The claims in the Andrews and Mitrokhin books are indeed extraordinary, but the Suvorov claims are distinct and do nothing to corroborate it. Again, the CIA did many nasty things. This doesn't mean that all the things people claim they did are true. This is the kind of false implication that including this reference makes. It makes sense to have wikilinks to these other charges under "see also," but not in the text of the article. If you insist on including these unrelated items under the pretext of giving "wider context," then we should also include some mentions of the similarly nasty illegal acts of sabotage carried out by the CIA and their proxies (to help the reader understand the larger context of the Cold War, spy-vs-spy thing). Notmyrealname 04:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The text in question includes only this: "Similar preparations agains NATO countries have been described by GRU defectors, Victor Suvorov[53] and Stanislav Lunev. According to Lunev, some of the hidden caches could contain portable tactical nuclear weapons known as RA-115 "suitcase bombs" prepared to assassinate US leaders in the event of war." It tells that Mitrokhin is one of several authors who told about Soviet sabotage preparations, so a reader (who perhaps has no idea about this subject) would be able to look at other related WP articles and check this out. This is relevant and improves this article. Publications by Suvorov and Lunev do corroborate Mitrokhin, but I only made a very brief text about it (two phrases) precisely to avoid creation of content forksBiophys 04:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you have created a content fork. If this page were called "Soviet sabotage preparations" or something like that, these sentences would be appropriate. On this page, it is not. It gives a false impression that the different authors are discussing the same incidents. You could also have a page on "allegations made by Soviet defectors," and then include every accusation ever made by these folks. This page is about the information in the Mitrokhin Archive, not about the larger context as you define it. Again, include a wikilink in "see also," but leave out the rest.Notmyrealname 16:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you agree that some background information with regard to Mitrokhin's claims can be provided in this article? If you do, we could discuss how to make this better. If you do not, we need a third opinion.Biophys 17:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

More opinions are always a good thing. Regarding your question, I am concerned that we could be heading down a slippery slope. I think that the proper background for some of his claims would be information about similar activities (assassinations, disinformation campaigns, coups, etc) conducted at the same time by the CIA. This would give the reader a better sense of the context in which the alleged KGB activities took place. However, as I have stated earlier, for narrow articles such as this one (the title after all is "Mitrokhin Archive"), we should keep the material to what the books say, and any direct events that occurred as a result of them (e.g. people getting arrested or fired). There are plenty of other articles about the Cold War, the KGB, and the specific incidents detailed in the Archive where further background is both available and appropriate. So the short answer would be no, let's stick to the book here and include links to other related articles in the "see also" section.Notmyrealname 01:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many claims by Mitrokhin are not described at all in other WP articles. But I made a compromise version that basically includes only links to Lunev and Suvorov articles.Biophys 04:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No way! The phrase "corroborated in general" gives a very incorrect idea to any reader. L&S are talking about other incidents. They don't belong in the text of the article. Whether Mitrokhin claims are missing in other articles is something to be addressed elsewhere. To give a clearer example, say someone wrote a book saying that people from Earth landed on Venus. To back up their claim, they say, well, people from Earth have landed on the moon, so space exploration is possible... The Andrew and Mitrokhin claims and the Lunev and Suvorov claims are independent and do not corroborate each other. It is fine to list then in "See also" but that's it. The current version is absolutely unacceptable.Notmyrealname 16:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I honestly tried to compromise with you and made it shorter to basically leave only links. The books by Lunev and Suvorov do corroborate Mitrokhin claims. But we are going second and third circles here. I am trying to tell here something like that: this scientist made an unusual claim about rhodopsin, but several his collegues also made a very similar claim (so a reader can take a look at the corresponding WP articles). So, I am going to make one last attempt. Since it is not clear that books by Lunev and Suvorov corroborate Mitrokhin claims, I must provide more (not less) material to explain how exactly they support Mitrokhin claims. If you do not like next version, we will need more opinions.Biophys 18:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Code Names

I have provided a reliable source that verifies that code names were typically used by the KGB in reference to anyone, regardless of whether or not they were KGB. Articles have tried to use the fact that Patriarch Alexei had a code name as proof that he was a KGB agent. I have provided a source which shows that this is not the case. I see no reason why it should not be included in this article.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course everyone in KGB files had a code name. But code name is simply irrelevant here. These sources assert that he WAS a KGB agent not because he had a code name, but because the found documents indicate explicitly that he worked for the KGB. Furthermore, he admitted his work for KGB.Biophys (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

He did not admit that he was a KGB agent -- he has denied it emphatically. That he collaborated on some level with the Soviet government is another matter, and not one that is in dispute... since no bishop would have been allowed to function outside of a gulag under any other circumstances. There are different sources in question here. There is the Estonian KGB archive documents, which Patriarch Alexei claims are forgeries... and there are a number of reasons why that is a plausible claim (The Estonian governments attempts to remove Russian influence, and support the Estonian Orthodox Church against the Moscow Patriarchate. Anachronistic fonts used on the type of the documents, etc). Then there is the word of Gleb Yakunin... and if hearsay evidence is admissible, I know a priest who lived in Yakunin's home for a year while he studied in Russia, and he said he asked Yakunin what the bottom line was on what he found about Patriarchate Alexei, and beyond the fact that he had a code name, he said there was no smoking gun that he had done anything especially objectionable. Then you have the files associated with this article, which are not original documents, but alleged notes made by Mitrokhin which are suspect on a number of grounds. The only fact that has actually been established is that of the code name, and the code name proves nothing... as my citation demonstrates.Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

We do not and can not prove anything here. "Verifiability, not truth" - please see WP:Verifiability. As long as multiple reliable sources (see WP:Sources) claim certain information - we use this information. You also seem to assume that "original documents" are more important. No, it is exactly the opposite in wikipedia. It is strongly recommended to use reliable secondary sources (such as books by Albats abd Cristopher Andrew) per WP:Verifiability, because we can not assess reliability of various primary sources. And of course any private communications mentioned by you are not admissible. Basically, we are librarians, not researchers here.Biophys (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It is verifiable the majority of 5 year olds believe in Santa Claus. If Biophys wants to libel clergy in this article, at least make sure it is true beforehand. It is the very least he can do. Abe Froman (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Then one can make an article about Beliefs in Santa Claus. We have many articles about various beliefs including those promoted by the clergy, "scientific communism", 9/11 conspiracy, articles about fictional characters, and so on. Happy New Year! Biophys (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

I offer this passage as a compromise. It contains two passages, one for reactions, one for criticism.

Reactions to the Mitrokhin Archive

Characterized by the FBI as “the most complete and extensive intelligence ever received from any source” the Mitrokhin Archive , the publication of Mitrokinhs material has launched Parliamentary inquiries in Great Britain, India and Italy. The New York Times described the revelations as “far more sensational even than the story dismissed as impossible by the SVR (Sluzhba Vneshnei Razvedki)” when the first dismissed early reports of the existence of the archive and commented that Mitrokhin's archives may be the only references to a large volume of material that has since been destroyed by the KGB. Similarly. a review in the Central European Review described Mitrokin and Andrews work as “fascinating reading for anyone interested in the craft of espionage, intelligence gathering and its overall role in 20th-century international relations” offering “a window on the Soviet worldview and, as the ongoing Hanssen case in the United States clearly indicates, how little Russia has relented from the terror-driven spy society it was during seven inglorious decades of Communism” David L. Ruffley , Department of International Programs, United States Air Force Academy said that the material “provides the clearest picture to date of Soviet intelligence activity, fleshing out many previously obscure details, confirming or contradicting many allegations and raising a few new issues of its own” and “sheds new light on Soviet intelligence activity that, while perhaps not so spectacular as some expected, is nevertheless significantly illuminating.” The New York Times described the revelations as “far more sensational even than the story dismissed as impossible by the SVR (Sluzhba Vneshnei Razvedki)” when the first dismissed early reports of the existence of the archive and commented that Mitrokhin's archives may be the only references to a large volume of material that has since been destroyed by the KGB. Similarly. a review in the Central European Review described Mitrokin and Andrews work as “fascinating reading for anyone interested in the craft of espionage, intelligence gathering and its overall role in 20th-century international relations” offering “a window on the Soviet worldview and, as the ongoing Hanssen case in the United States clearly indicates, how little Russia has relented from the terror-driven spy society it was during seven inglorious decades of Communism” David L. Ruffley , Department of International Programs, United States Air Force Academy said that the material “provides the clearest picture to date of Soviet intelligence activity, fleshing out many previously obscure details, confirming or contradicting many allegations and raising a few new issues of its own” and “sheds new light on Soviet intelligence activity that, while perhaps not so spectacular as some expected, is nevertheless significantly illuminating.”

Criticism of the Mitrokhin archive

Noted Russia historian J. Arch Getty of the UCLA, as published in the American Historical Review, found Mitrokhin's material to be a “fascinating," but he also questioned the tenuous plausibility that Mitrokhin could have actually smuggled and transcribed thousands of KGB documents, undetected, over 30 years. Other historians have raised questions about Mitrokhin's material, as his claims about the Soviet Union are unverifiable. Mitrokhin himself only took notes, not original documents. The archive itself is not a primary source for historians. According to Getty in the American Historical Review (106:2, April 2001): "Mitrokhin was a self-described loner with increasingly anti-Soviet views... Maybe such a potentially dubious type (in KGB terms) really was able freely to transcribe thousands of documents, smuggle them out of KGB premises, hide them under his bed, transfer them to his country house, bury them in milk cans, make multiple visits to British embassies abroad, escape to Britain, and then return to Russia, and carry the voluminous work to the west, all without detection by the KGB... It may all be true. But how do we know?" Former Indian counter-terrorism chief Bahukutumbi Raman also questions both the validity of the material as well as the conclusions drawn from them. [1]

TDC says use this graph

While J. Arch Getty of the UCLA and the American Historical Review found Mitrokhin's material to be a “fascinating read” containing “new detail on known events as well as a few sensational revelations”, he also questioned the tenuous plausibility that Mitrokhin could have actually smuggled and transcribed thousands of documents undetected over 30 years. Former Indian counter-terrorism chief Bahukutumbi Raman also questions both the validity of the material as well as the conclusions drawn from them. [2]

I happened to pick up a copy of The World Was Going Our Way last year when I saw it in the bookstore. The back cover spoke of how stupid the KGB was for believing that they were winning when they were not. But as the book was being sold, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Lula in Brazil, and China were all three rising in prominence. The idea that Communism died along with the Soviet Union is false. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that divestiture of Communism's greatest historical liabilities has expanded its horizons. I placed the book back onto the shelf, and wiped my fingerprints from it.69.255.0.91 14:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, the back cover of my copy doesn't mention "the stupidity" of the KGB at all. Prezen 12:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Getty doesn't seem to remember Kim Philby.Coloneldoctor (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

References

Praise overkill

The praise section needs to be trimmed. There are a lot of general statements that don't add any substance to the article. They read like back jacket blurbs for the book. Some don't hold up under closer examination. By what measure is Joseph Trento a historian? His main credentials are as a journalist. Most of the reviews posted on his own web site are highly critical of his writing and theories: "Trento employs circumstantial and marginally suggestive evidence throughout the book, which makes his conspiracy charges seem far-fetched and unbelievable. And although the book contains a nice account of the Berlin station, it sheds little light on the CIA's efforts to glean intelligence about the Soviet Union. He devotes only a few pages at the end of his book to this topic, where he tries to connect the compromising of the Berlin station to later CIA operations in Nicaragua, Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, and other events. He also briefly touches on the FBI's counter-intelligence failure in the Robert Hanssen case. About the only thing missing from this eclectic mix is a charge that Aldrich Ames was also one of the boys from Berlin." He's also involved in Kennedy assassination stuff. His endorsement raises more red flags than anything else. Notmyrealname 15:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

One could easily argue that Joseph Trento is notable enough to have an article about him in WP. See this [3], for example.Biophys 15:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a very low threshold! Many people are notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. The point is, it's a stretch to call him a "historian," and most serious scholars (quoted on that very site) consider him to be a hack. Why bother citing him? It also adds nothing to the article and should be cut. Notmyrealname 16:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It is very hard to argue who is more notable: Trento or Arch Getty. To be honest, I personally would remove completely both empty-worded "Praise" and "Criticism" sections and left only what the books by Andew and Mitrokhin say. But there are many other editors who would strongly disagree. So, it is better not to make any controversial changes.Biophys 18:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. Getty is a noted historian in the field with a PhD, is a professor at UCLA, and gets his books published by Cambridge. Trento does not appear to have any advanced degrees, and critics trash his books as loopy. Further, the criticism section is filled with actual commentary on the substance of the book, not back cover filler. Other serious comments in praise of the book are useful in giving a reader a sense of who finds the book useful and to what degree. The Trento is neither useful nor appropriate. Notmyrealname 01:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

So, you also do not like the idea to eliminate the "Praise" and "Criticism" altogether? That is fine. But Trento published more his own books than Getty who mostly was only an editor. I do not know who included Trento, but you may have a really hard time trying to prove this person that Trento does not belong here. I personally do not care much.Biophys 04:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Praise and Criticism should actually be in a General Reception category so the comparative reactions to the Archive are side-by-side. There is far too much politics and Wikiganda in each already.Coloneldoctor (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Go for it!Notmyrealname (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Prodi

Romano Prodi is listed in this article under the "Accused but unconfirmed" section. He was accused by the Italian Mitrokhin Commission (indeed, trying to nobble him seems to have been the Commission's raison d'etre), based on accusations procured from Alexander Litvinenko. But is he actually accused anywhere in the Mitrokhin archive? If not, he should be removed. 86.133.115.27 (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation of the documents authenticity by the MI-6, the CIA and the FBI

I have read in multiple sources that all the western intelligence agencies (the MI-6, the CIA and the FBI) had unanimously proclaimed the declassified KGB documents brought by major Mitrokhin as genuine.

Can we expand a little more on that issue?

Also it would be helpfull to give a more complete biography of major Mitrokhin and how he became senior archivist at the KGB central archives of Yasenevo.

Im copying an article of the NY Times about Vasili Mitrokhin and the declassified KGB archives:

[COPYRIGHT VIOLATION REMOVED]

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/a/andrew-sword.html

I hope this helps.Agrofelipe (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Do not copy entire texts of articles and paste them anywhere into Wikipedia. It is against the law. DreamGuy (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Big Spring State Park

This sentence has to be incorrect. Disruption of the power supply across New York State by KGB sabotage teams, which were to be based along the Delaware River in Big Spring Park.[57]

Big Spring State Park in Pennsylvania is in south central PA in Perry County, Pennsylvania and in the Susquehanna River basin. Gerry D (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Was anything from Mitrokhin's books disproved?

I am not en expert here. Can anyone explain: are his books reliable sources? The answer suppose to be very simple. Mitrokhin provided a lot of data and facts in his book. Were any of his specific factual claimes proven to be wrong? But if nothing was proven to be wrong, this segment is simply a propaganda:

"In 1972, for some inexplicable reason, Mitrokhin, who never achieved a rank above major in his entire KGB career, was given the sensitive job of overseeing the transfer of the KGB's entire foreign intelligence archive to its new headquarters outside Moscow. According to Andrew, Mitrokhin had two private offices and unlimited access to the KGB's darkest secrets. With the goal of getting back at his employers by telling the West about the KGB's foreign operations, Mitrokhin spent the next 12 years scribbling thousands upon thousands of notes from the files he saw. Incredibly, given the rigorous security rules in all Soviet archives, no one noticed what Mitrokhin was doing all day or checked him when he was going home at night."

This text provides no facts or data, it does not disprove any sinle fact from Mitrokhin archive, but only promotes suspicions based on nothing. This is pure propaganda that should not be in Wikipedia. Biophys 04:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The material in question was quoted and attributed to Amy Knight, who has standing to be quoted in an encyclopedia article on Mitrokhin. I notice even the quotation has been redacted since 2007. Nothing improper here; an encyclopedia article ought, covering something as potentially controversial as the Mitrokhin Archive, to present evidence both denying and affirming its veracity, as long as the quotations are of accepted sources and are not original research.loupgarous (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The answer is in corresponding section entitled Critisizm of Mitrokhin archive. No one should prove here something. It is encyclopedia, by the way and not a place for your russophobic conspiracy theories.Vlad fedorov 06:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This is Amy Knight comment:

While "The Sword and the Shield" contains new information, including the revelation that a British woman named Melita Norwood, now in her eighties, spied for the Soviets several decades ago, none of it has much significance for broader interpretations of the Cold War. The main message the reader comes away with after plowing through almost a thousand pages is the same one gleaned from the earlier books: the Soviets were incredibly successful, albeit evil, spymasters, and none of the Western services could come close to matching their expertise. Bravo the KGB.
...
However disappointing these spy histories might be for those who are looking for documented facts and objective analyses, they should not be rejected out of hand, because they are all we have (unless one wants to wade through the self-serving and arid Russian-language memoirs of former KGB officials such as Vladimir Kriuchkov). There is no point in waiting for the Russians to open up their foreign intelligence archives to public access so that scholars can actually do their own research. [4]

Only with selective quoting can Amy Knight be used to dismiss Mitrokhin. Prezen 21:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Mitrokhin's archive has only been supported by scholars directly involved with publishing his notes. Outside, uninvolved scholars have not seen the primary material Mitrokhin allegedly copied. KGB agents who would have been carrying out the conspiracies Mitrokhin alleged have not come forward to authenticate the archive, either. 16 years after the end of the Soviet Union, this speaks to suspicions about the archive's authenticity. Scholars like Knight and Getty who question the archive are documenting valid concerns. Abe Froman 00:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I eliminated the quote because it was selective and not representative for her column. As I did show last night, she explicitly said that Mitrokhin shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Furthermore, even if her column is interpreted as negative, it is a minority position of the several articles on the Mitrokhin archive, the remainder of whom were positive. I maintain that including the quote is giving undue weight to a minor part of her column and ignoring her summary which actually stated the opposite. Prezen 11:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what she was trying to state overall. Claiming it didn't bring much more light to things was out of place in comment on espionage, as any corroboration of known events is valuable, puts new "evidence" in its place, and allows evaluation of new revelations. Claiming a "bravo" for the KGB in a blanket statment is puzzling, as their major successes were largely nullified by Stalinist paranoia. Only in S&T can the Soviets claim remarkable success, and in this area the KGB were more go-betweens for walk-ins. Penetration of Cold War America was a dismal failure, and the Archive seems to reflect this until the name Aldrich Ames pops up.Coloneldoctor (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And the validity of Knight's criticisms is in this instance best left for the reader to judge. Amy Knight is a recognized intelligence historian; her criticisms of the Mitrokhin Archive are relevant even if not very well founded in one respect (her inexplicable comment that "none of it has much significance for broader interpretations of the Cold War"). Knight's "bravo the KGB" is a recognition of their excellent tradecraft, and few historians question the quality of their tradecraft; even after the revelations in the Mitrokhin Archive, there are probably still closely held operations we may never learn the details of, due to KGB's tradecraft and security. Stalin's paranoiac nonuse or misuse of KGB-obtained intelligence doesn't bear on KGB's competence, so that criticism of Knight's "bravo" isn't relevant. Knight's questioning of Mitrokhin's having been able to compile the Archive at all in the face of strong KGB security is appropriate; whether the question is fair to Mitrokhin or not, any intelligence service in receipt of such a windfall has to question whether it's too good to be true, and possibly released by KGB intentionally in support of a dezinform operation. It's happened before (the FEDORA and TOP HAT disclosures are a classic case in which such an operation is very strongly suspected, Golitsin's disclosures - disinformation or not - caused so much damage in their vagueness to British Intelligence and the American intel community that the question has to be asked there as well, and former Assistant Director of MI5 Peter Wright insists that even the information released to the West by Penkovskiy is very probably disinformation, intended at the very least to mislead the West regarding the accuracy of Soviet ICBMs).loupgarous (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Ghandi family

Another question. There is an interesting article [5]. Author make a reference to Evgenia Albats who had an access to KGB documents. It says:

KGB chief Victor Chebrikov in December 1985 had sought in writing from the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), "authorization to make payments in US dollars to the family members of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, namely Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Ms Paola Maino, mother of Sonia Gandhi." CPSU payments were authorized by a resolution, CPSU/CC/No 11228/3 dated 20/12/1985; and endorsed by the USSR Council of Ministers in Directive No 2633/Rs dated 20/12/1985. These payments had been coming since 1971, as payments received by Sonia Gandhi's family and "have been audited in CPSU/CC resolution No 11187/22 OP dated 10/12/1984.”

Very similar info can be found in the book The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World by Mitrokhin (see Mitrokhin Archive). Mitrokhin described in great detail how suitcases with KGB money traveled to Indira Gandhi office. Should it be mentioned in this article? Biophys 04:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, not only because of its significance in showing just how deeply the Soviets penetrated the Indian government under the Gandhis, but how the Mitrokhin Archive documented that. I am debating adding that this was confirmed partly by the former director of KGB's foreign counter-intelligence operation, Oleg Kalugin, in his book The First Directorate. Kalugin wasn't as detailed in his description of KGB bribery of Indian government officials, but he did mention that every relevant agency in the Indian government had someone taking KGB money. Mitrokhin simply detailed Kalugin's statement; Kalugin affirmed Mitrokhin's. loupgarous (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess this should described here, just like infomation about Daniel Ortega, some Palestinian leaders, Afganistant, etc. The role of heads of Communist states is hardly a revelation, but it should be noted as well.Biophys 15:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Negro Section of New York

Taking into account that, unlike Russian "Негр" (Black Man), "Negro" is racial slur, I would like to see some proof that original document (not translation made by authors of "KGB in Europe", who have whole warehouse of axes to grind) contained something similarly indecent. Otherwise "Negro section" should be changed to "Black-populated neighborhood" or something of this nature. KGB is bad enough as it is, there's no need to invent lies to smear it. RJ CG 20:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, no one is going to FAX you an original KGB document, and this is not needed. It is enough that a reliable primary/secondary source claims that. But I can double check this reference (no problem!) and correct it if needed. Contrary to your statement, no one "invents lies" here.Biophys 21:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Also see Negro. Biophys 00:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see some universally-accepted citation confirming that the word "Negro" is a racial slur. It has been declared to be obsolete, as has the term "black" to refer to people of African descent. But it's not a racial slur; moreover, the editor who quoted a citable source as using the term was correct in doing so. Redacting a quotation in the interests of not offending some proportion of the readership (a tiny one, I'd bet) isn't mentioned in WP guidance that I can tell. loupgarous (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Amy Knight quote

The problem with "none of the Western services could come close to matching their expertise. Bravo the KGB" is that Amy Knight doesn't know what the other side was able to accomplish. There has been no Mitrokhin for the CIA or SIS, or for NSA or others, so there is no basis for making a comparison. Franky, to judge from public sourced, it looks more like a tie. Gaintes (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Not our problem here in WP. The quote from Amy Knight appears in "public reception," and irrespective of the truth of her statement (debatable in one point, AFAIC) it IS part of the public reception of the Mitrokhin Archives. The Wikipedia reader is the best judge of ultimate truth after we've given him or her the verifiable information. loupgarous (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to contest

I would like to contest the part asserting “extensive penetration of the U.S. State Department starting in the 1950’s to an extent far greater than the accusations of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy.” I suspect that Mike18xx got that from Ann Coulter, who’s the only other person I have ever heard say that.

The Mitrokhin Archive (The Sword and the Shield) asserts that, in the 1950s, “the mood in the Centre at the beginning of the 1950s was anything but triumphalist. As a result of the identification of Soviet spies in the VENONA decrypts, following the earlier revelations by Bentley, Chambers, and Gouzenko, the Centre had to set about rebuilding almost its entire American agent network while operating under far closer FBI surveillance than ever before” (163-164). Also, “Throughout the 1950s, the Centre struggled to establish even one more illegal residency in the United States to add to that of Fisher” (165). Fisher was later arrested in 1957.

The Archive describes, “The KGB’s chief successes against the Main Adversary during the presidencies of Dwight D Eisenhower and John F Kennedy derived…from a series of walk-ins. The most important was probably a CIA “principal agent” in West Berlin and Germany, Alexandr (“Sasha”) Grigoryevich Kopatzky” (176). Kopatzky was primarily noted for betraying “the identities of more than a hundred American intelligence officers and agents in East Germany” (176). The Archive later notes, “In the United States itself the most remarkable KGB walk-ins during the Eisenhower presidency were two employees of the NSA” (178). Neither of these two NSA agents were ever described as doing anything to aid the KGB until the beginning of 1960. In 1960 they defected to the Soviet Union and were able to provide the KGB with code breaking information, but nothing else.

In short, I don’t see absolutely anything in the Mitrokhin Archive that comes remotely close to an “extensive penetration of the U.S. State Department starting in the 1950’s to an extent far greater than the accusations of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy.” In fact, the Archive doesn’t describe any penetration of the U.S. State Department whatsoever in this period.

As an aside, I would also like to contest the identification of Salvador Allende under the section “KGB Agents and Agents of Influence.” Allende is the only occupant of the section, and the Archive describes him as an agent of influence, not an agent. Even beyond that, it’s insulting to describe a head-of-state as an agent of any kind of a foreign power when all the Archive says he did was maintain covert and friendly contacts with the KGB. The heading should be changed to “Heads of State With Operational Contact With the KGB,” or something like that. The writing “conspired with the Soviet Union to transform Chile into a Soviet Satellite” is ridiculous. The source cited doesn’t come close to characterizing the relationship between Chile and the Soviet Union this way.

I’ll let this discussion item hang around for a while, and then I’ll change the article barring some significant protest or whatnot. --MarkB2 22:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You said "I would like to contest the part asserting “extensive penetration of the U.S. State Department starting in the 1950’s to an extent far greater than the accusations of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy.” I suspect that Mike18xx got that from Ann Coulter, who’s the only other person I have ever heard say that."

The US NSA/British GCHQ VENONA decrypts are widely regarded (except by Alger Hiss's lawyer in the most critical case) as having confirmed allegations by Elizabeth Bentley, Whittaker Chambers and other former Soviet operatives that the US State Department and other US agencies were penetrated by witting Soviet agents at several levels, and to an extent not publicly confirmed until NSA and CIA finally acknowledged the existence of the VENONA program in the early 1990s. Ann Coulter quoted from several extracts of VENONA decrypts in her remarks on Soviet penetration of US government agencies.

The unspoken subtext of your statement "I suspect that Mike18xx got that from Ann Coulter, who’s the only other person I have ever heard say that" is an attempt to tacitly debunk Mike18xx's contribution to the article by tying it to Ann Coulter. It's not Mike18xx's fault you didn't read Ann Coulter's source list or any analysis of the partial revelation of the degree of Soviet penetration of the US government by the VENONA program (which was a closely held US/UK intelligence collaboration until it was revealed to exist by a civilian writer, then acknowledged by the US NSA).

Barring any significant protest, I'll allow a week or so for additional comment, then restore Mike18xx's edit which you removed. Your removal is rooted in a POV issue - your apparent aversion to something you read in one of Ann Coulter's books. loupgarous (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed strong indicators of fashionably-Left academiaism in parts of the article. Amy Knight's use of the Archive to claim some sort of KGB triumph was notable, and a Quixiotic Knight is a rare find these days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coloneldoctor (talk • contribs) 17:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Amy Knight's "Bravo the KGB" is simply a positive assessment of Soviet tradecraft which has been confirmed by intelligence writers of all political persuasions and nationalities (including the FBI Counterintelligence investigator Robert Lamphere, who was anything but "fashionably Left," but who also praised the Communist bloc's tradecraft in his book The FBI-KGB War: A Special Agent's Story).

Praising the technical quality of Soviet intelligence work isn't an endorsement of Communism any more than praising the ability of German aviators and combined-arms commanders is an endorsement of Naziism. loupgarous (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Primary Sources

I have edited the article to indocate the primary sources this alleged archive represents have never been seen or studied. The archive cannot be represented as factual or authoritative until primary sources exist to back its claims. Abe Froman 18:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Froman, you are imposing a stricter criterion for verifiability than is generally used in WP. The Mitrokhin Archive has indeed been regarded as probably extant and authentic by recognized authorities in the intelligence field. Even one of its severest critics, Amy Knight, does not question its probable authenticity beyond asking questions which generically must be asked whenever reams of purported documents from a rival intelligence agency are brought in by a defector. And Mitrokhin's literary collaborator, Christopher Andrew, has been regarded as a recognized authority in the field of intelligence prior to his helping with Mitrokhin's books.

Can you furnish a verifiable source which specifically questions the Mitrokhin Archive's existence - with inline quotations to that effect? WP:PROVEIT would seem to apply here. Your allegations regarding the Mitrokhin Archive themselves cannot be represented as factual or authoritative until primary sources can be shown to exist, to be verifiable, and are cited acceptably (with inline citations specifically confirming your statements in the source text) to back your claims. That last criterion is WP policy whenever a cited text is used to support a statement which is likely to be challenged. The people who cite The Mitrokhin Archives and the books which refer to it as authentic have met that standard, and you must as well. loupgarous (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority of the commentary on the archive has been quite positive, and Andrew is a highly respected historian. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete cited material, as in the criticism section, without discussion first. Also, the statement that MI5 had the primary sources is not correct. They have Mitrokhin's notes. Is there support for MI5 having the original documents? Abe Froman 19:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I repeat my earlier insistence that Torturous Devastating Cudgel discuss deletions of cited material before doing so. I have not deleted his material without discussion. Abe Froman 20:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet again Torturous Devastating Cudgel has removed cited material without discussion. I am afriad this is heading for RfC. Abe Froman 20:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

J Arch Getty wrote the review, my version is the condensed version that has been in the article for quite some time now. Your version mentions Getty’s name as well as his comments twice, repeating them. Secondly, it is not correct to say that "mainstream historians blah blah" when you have only been able to cite one who actually holds this view. Lastly, this is not the page to debate a source for the article when that source had an article on it already. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The American Historical Review is the mainstream society for historians. Thus the passage deserves the appelation "mainstream." Getty wrote it, but it also represents the view of the American Historical Review. Lastly, passing this archive as fact when serious questions to its validity exist among mainstream historians is uncyclopedic, and must be noted. Why are the direct quotations from the American Historical Review removed by Torturous Devastating Cudgel? This editing seems tendentious to a high degree. Abe Froman 20:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, the review is not nearly as critical as you are attempting to portray it here

Vasili Mitrokhin worked as a KGB officer from 1948 until his retirement in 1984. Disillusioned by Soviet repression of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and influenced by the dissident movement in Moscow, Mitrokhin spent the last twelve years of his career secretly transcribing materials from the KGB's foreign intelligence archives, where he worked. In 1992, he emigrated to Britain with his secret archive documenting KGB overseas espionage around the world over several decades. Christopher Andrew, a prolific writer on Soviet intelligence, collaborated with Mitrokhin to produce this massive 700-page volume. 1

The book is a fascinating read. Separate chapters deal with Soviet espionage in individual countries, and the book provides both new detail on known events as well as a few sensational revelations. In correcting old stories, Mitrokhin's research shows, for example, that it was Arnold Deutsch who recruited the famous "Cambridge Five" in the 1930s, rather than Alexander Orlov. The "Odessa Partisans," heroes in the Soviet pantheon of World War II, were supposed to have heroically fought the Nazi occupiers to the last man but turn out to have quarreled with one another in their caves and executed each other as often as the Nazis did.

Since no one has replicated the entire article here on Wikipedia, it is impossible for you to claim that it is a negative review, at worst it is a mixed review. Secondly. the review is reflective of Getty's views and unless stated somewhere in the Journal it should be construed as such. As a matter of Fact the AHR specifically states that The AHA disclaims responsibility for statements, of either fact or opinion, made by the writers. So much for that. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This context argument is nonsense. How could the following passage be taken 'out-of-context'

"According to the American Historical Review (106:2, April 2001): "Mitrokhin was a self-described loner with increasingly anti-Soviet views... Maybe such a potentially dubious type (in KGB terms) really was able freely to transcribe thousands of documents, smuggle them out of KGB premises, hide them under his bed, transfer them to his country house, bury them in milk cans, make multiple visits to British embassies abroad, escape to Britain, and then return to Russia, and carry the voluminous work to the west, all without detection by the KGB... It may all be true. But how do we know?"

The passage states clearly why the premier, mainstream historical society in the United States objects to assumptions about the archive's validity. Removing it is tendentious to an extreme I find disheartening to see in an editor. Abe Froman 20:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The Context argument is not nonsense as these two paragraphs certainly seem to cast doubt on your assertion:

Vasili Mitrokhin worked as a KGB officer from 1948 until his retirement in 1984. Disillusioned by Soviet repression of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and influenced by the dissident movement in Moscow, Mitrokhin spent the last twelve years of his career secretly transcribing materials from the KGB's foreign intelligence archives, where he worked. In 1992, he emigrated to Britain with his secret archive documenting KGB overseas espionage around the world over several decades. Christopher Andrew, a prolific writer on Soviet intelligence, collaborated with Mitrokhin to produce this massive 700-page volume. 1

The book is a fascinating read. Separate chapters deal with Soviet espionage in individual countries, and the book provides both new detail on known events as well as a few sensational revelations. In correcting old stories, Mitrokhin's research shows, for example, that it was Arnold Deutsch who recruited the famous "Cambridge Five" in the 1930s, rather than Alexander Orlov. The "Odessa Partisans," heroes in the Soviet pantheon of World War II, were supposed to have heroically fought the Nazi occupiers to the last man but turn out to have quarreled with one another in their caves and executed each other as often as the Nazis did.

And, as stated above, The AHA disclaims responsibility for statements, of either fact or opinion, made by the writers. , so to source this to anyone other than J Arch Getty is not factually correct. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Characterizing the American Historical Review has 'mainstream' was the original argument. This is unrefuted. Calling it mainstream is conceded. Secondly, TDC has left out the original quotes from the article, which lampoon Mitrokhin's claims. The quotes TDC chooses to print are only laudatory. This gives an incomplete, and unenecyclopedic picture of the context in which the archive exists. I do not see why TDC is afraid, to a great extent, of including these quotations from the same article he quotes so liberally. Abe Froman 20:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem to miss the point, let me repeat it, you cannot cite the AHR as the source, as the AHR disclaims responsibility for statements, of either fact or opinion, made by the writers , so it has to be cited to Getty exclusively. Secondly, as his comments are not nearly as critical as you continue to portray them, this should be reflected in any citation of him. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

TDC is engaging in Wikipedia:Original Research by deciding which articles the American Historical Review stands by. I will not follow him. As TDC quotes from the very same article I am at a loss as to why including skeptical quotes from the article are forbidden by TDC, while laudatory quotes from the article are permitted. I see a POV bias that needs correction. Abe Froman 21:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC).

Go to the library and get a copy of the American Historical Review's journal, these words: The AHA disclaims responsibility for statements, of either fact or opinion, made by the writers. are taken directly from it, no WP:NOR here. As stated before, Getty's remarks are mixed, and his negative comments are certainly in the minority of opinion and to quote them at such length would give undue weight to a seemingly minority opinion on the subject. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please prove that Getty is in the minority at the American Historical Review... Oh, wait. According to TDC's Original Research, the American Historical Review stands by nothing it publishes. Nice Catch-22 you are in, my friend. Abe Froman 21:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have cited multiple positive things to your every one marginally critical, that would apparently be "minority" by definition. And if you take issue with the AHR's editorial policy, perhaps you should write to them. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with TDC on the general principle that Getty's remarks are his own view and not those of the journal as a whole. Also, his remarks, while significant, are not the same as a peer reviewed article, it is a book review. First, journals never back content except their own editorials, features, and other in-house content. The journal Nature did not decipher the structure of DNA, Nature published a report by Watson and Crick. Also, compare the author submission guidelines for book reviews [6] and articles [7]. Articles are reviewed in-house and then submitted for rigorous anonymous peer review. About one-tenth are accepted for publication. Book reviews are solicited from a pool of authors and subjected to in-house editing but not peer review. As such, Getty's views should be attributed to Getty and not the AHR, and his view, while significant (he would not have been invited to write the book review if he not not have appropriate qualifications and prior scholarship) is not as significant as it would be if he had published a peer reviewed article on the subject. (Note: it is not impermissable original research to examine the quality of a source. For example if Joe Smith publishes an analysis of UFO photos proving that they are real, it may be relevant to his credibility as a source to know that his previous book proved that Arthur Conan Doyle's photos of fairies were real.)

This is not to toss Getty and the AHR out the window. I think it is highly relevant to the story of the Mitrokhin Archive to point out that no one has ever seen the original documents, and it is excellent that you can quote noted historians as pointing this out. It is, of course, also highly relevant that the the intelligence services of many western nations believe the archives are based on genuine documents and that many of the things revealed in the archives have been proven true. There is room for both points of view, being careful in this case about the undue weight clause. Thatcher131 03:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Alexius

Do not you think that footnotes about Russian Patriarch are too extensive and off topic? This is article about Mitrokhin Archive, not about Alexius.Biophys (talk) 12:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

We could simply remove the statement and accompanying footnote regarding what other sources say, and then it would simply be a matter of fact recounting of what the archives assert. However, if you bring in other sources that agree with its assertions, then you have to allow other reliable sources that dispute it. What would you suggest? Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the entire thing looks like a content fork (even though it was me who initially included this). Le's leave only claims by Archive itself. I am placing the removed segment below if others want to discuss.Biophys (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Priests have also recruited intelligence agents abroad and spied on Russian emigrant communities. Similar claims are are found in other sources, though are countered by others.

Former KGB general Oleg Kalugin, in his book The First Directorate, throws light on the KGB's use of the Russian Orthodox Church, her Patriarch, and her priests. Gen. Kalugin confirms the existence of an entire KGB unit, the Fifth Directorate, charged with eliciting cooperation from Russian Orthodox Church priests and bishops. Pages 197 - 200 detail the work of Russian Orthodox clergy for the KGB's Fifth Directorate, and the pressures exerted by the Fifth Directorate, including sexual and other forms of blackmail, extortion of funds and even consecrated wine, and other forms of bullying to obtain this cooperation.

It seems to me that cooperation of Russian Orthodox clergy with the KGB was obtained not through the Russian Orthodox Church patriarch, but around him, by direct interference of the KGB Fifth Directorate with that Church's clergy.

On pages 200-201 of his book, Gen. Kalugin describes conversations he himself had with Patriarch Aleksei II regarding the Patriarch's cooperation with the KGB. The Patriarch, according to Gen. Kalugin (who had been the deputy director of the KGB's foreign intelligence directorate and employed in that directorate for most of his KGB career) elliptically referred to instances in his career where he and his subordinates publicly supported the policies of the Soviet Union (the following passage is quoted from page 201 of The First Directorate):

"You know, many clergymen had to cooperate with the KGB," Aleksei said in a cool and composed fashion. "Would you deny that we were right to defend Soviet foreign policy, which was aimed at world peace? Were our clergymen wrong to support the removal of American missiles from Europe? Were our clergymen wrong to go overseas and try to enlighten our Western colleagues about Soviet foreign policy? It was peaceful foreign policy, wasn't it?"

This passage seems to show Patriarch Aleksei II confirming that his priests, bishops, metropolitans and other functionaries of the Russian Orthodox Church certainly functioned at least as agents of influence under KGB guidance. While a few of these clergy were actual KGB officers (including the man who recruited the US Army military intelligence specialist who was one of the most productive spies the KGB had), the vast majority of Russian Orthodox clergy were informers, not actual employees of the KGB.

In his book, Gen. Kalugin also names two KGB colonels, Romanov and Timoshevsky, who were infamous not only for their recruitment of Russian Orthodox clergy as active KGB assets using intimidation and blackmail, but for stealing from the Church and collecting payments of money as blackmail from compromised Russian Orthodox clergy until the unit dealing with the Russian Orthodox Church was eliminated by the last head of the KGB, Vadim Bakatin, at Kalugin's urging.

I think that General Oleg Kalugin's The First Directorate should be used, along with the other sources listed by other editors above, to help evaluate the degree to which Patriarch Aleksei II and his clergy were co-opted by the KGB. Most of these sources agree that cooperation from those clergymen beyond mere public statements lauding Soviet policy (or the occasional KGB case officer working under Church cover) was compelled by the KGB's Fifth Directorate's brutal recruitment tactics and its abusive treatment of Russian Orthodox clergy by several notorious Fifth Directorate officers, not by the Church or her Patriarch. loupgarous (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

References