Talk:Nathan Gregory Silvermaster
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
Greg Silvermaster should be Nathan Gregory Silvermaster.
The two pages--Greg Silvermaster and Nathan Silvermaster--should be collapsed to one.
these basic inconsistencies in wikipedia make me question the entire web site.
Wiki entries particularly around politically charged entries such as Silvermaster & allegations of Soviet espionage are problematic. Bottom line is there are as many authors as there are willing contributors, regardless of the depth of their knowledge.
When a book author writes on complex, highly charged topics like this that play out over decades, they will typically have a disclaimer in the Introduction... saying something to the effect that since there were many names for the various Soviet intelligence agencies, only a single name will be used in the writing of this book (because I'm in control & the author!). Unfortunately no such sensible consistency is available yet in Wiki.
Example (changing contexts to avoid controversy, but making the same point): my profession is computing, so I'm totally comfortable with EAM -> ADP -> MIS -> EDP -> IT -> IS -> Systems -> ??? The point it, the names evolve over time, the function stays the same, regardless of the label du jour. DEddy (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Use of MGB
MGB was the title of the main Soviet intelligence agency at the time the Venona project was begun, and is the term most frequently used to designate it in the notes to the decryptions, especially the American cables, where it contrasts with GRU (Soviet military intelligence). I have never seen NKVD or NKGB or INO or any other bits of the alphabet soup used in any of the notes, even for cables dating back to 1940-42. I have seen KGB used in a few of the Moscow Canberra messages; some of these were issued (or reissued) in the 1970s. For the European decryptions (London and Stockholm), MOSCOW is generally used in place of initials. Anyway, in this case, the editor was simply following the wording of the translators/annotators. There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the decryptions because of this. However, it does point up the problems in citing the original texts of the cables. The habit of doing this throughout many (most) of the Wikipedia articles on Venona gives a strong feeling of original research; better to cite the secondary sources which provide a much more convenient narrative framework, and also gives the reader the authority for the interpretations offered. Note also that the links are broken for all Venona texts that were cited before 2009, when everything was moved on the NSA server... Rgr09 (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)