I am not in the least interested in refighting the cold war, and it is possible that I may have very little in common politically with those who are. I am however interested in understanding it., as part of a general interest in contemporary history. We should cover it objectively, rather than hide from it. Espionage both by the Soviets and others is of major significance in this history, and we should cover to the extent that reliable secondary sources are available.
The Verona transcripts are part of this history, both in their own right in giving a unique window into soviet espionage, and also in how they have been used for domestic political purposes. (They further shed light on the judicial processes of the time, which were influenced by the need to conceal the existence of the transcripts)
The identification of some individuals is quite firm; of others less firm. Many of the people in question are public figures quite apart from these transcripts, though in some instances the transcripts had a major role in their career. The reliability of the transcripts should be discussed in the articles--there are certainly sufficient sources to do so. (The general articles on them, and the reliability of specific individual identifications in the individual biographical articles.) We won't reach a conclusion there, but we do not have to and indeed are not supposed to: WP reports accurately the events as described by others, and opinion on them, as given by others. The readers will judge. We are not supposed to guide or prejudice their judgment.
I do not accept any arguments that obviously significant events or people should not be discussed because they weren't notable in the WP sense, when there are sources. This is censorship by evasion. Redirects for controversial people are evasion of our responsibility for NPOV if an article can be written. (I accept that in some cases there may be so little known that an article may not be possible.)
Remember, our source is not the transcripts, but the books and articles on the transcripts. They are as reliable as any other political or historical books or articles on a partisan matter: potentially dubious enough to require that all views must be represented.
On some specific question raised, I think it is folly to construct general rules based on the details of a specific instance like this. We should keep to the general rules, and how to apply them is always a matter subject to discussion.
None of what I've written is intended as personal with respect to any of those discussing the matter.
David Goodman DGG David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.