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.