Talk:Harry Dexter White

Spy category

He did not confess nor was he convicted so Category:American spies for the Soviet Union is not appropriate. To leave him out of any spy category would be egregious, he belongs in Category:Accused American spies for the Soviet Union. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

For the McCarthy/Cold Warriors PROOF of White's alleged espionage activities was his being found in the VENONA cables. By that reasoning, FDR & Winston Churchill should be included as accused spies since they were also mentioned in VENONA.

 The above two sentences are ludicrous. "PROOF" is not merely being mentioned, but flows from 
 the information contained in VENONA about the individual in question. Added by MEO 4/15/10  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.34.238 (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 

By the time McCarthy paranoia dominated Washington it had been forgotten that in the 1930s & 1940s astute observers knew war was coming & if Germany were to be defeated, the Russians would have to do the bulk of the dying (their 20-30 million to our 400,000). Since it took us 3 years to get into the European war, clearly something had to be done to keep Stalin from pulling a 2nd Brest-Litovsk.

Knowing how FDR worked ("my left hand often does not know what my right hand is doing...") it is not outside the realm of possibility that White was given broad, ill defined, & NEVER written down, encouragement to feed information to the Soviets. It is not outside the realm of possibility that White observed how FDR juggled conflicting objectives & took it upon himself to pass encouraging information to the Soviets.

A spy "under party control?" Not a chance. Notice there has never been a word about where/when White "converted" to being a Stalin lackey.

Recent updates... Haynes, Klehr & Vassiliev have just published (June 2009) a new book, entitled "Spies" based on the notebooks of Vassiliev. At the Woodrow Wilson Center event in May 20-21, 2009, Bruce Craig (White's biographer) wondered to John Haynes why, if White were such an influential spy, he (White) at least in the Vassiliev notebooks the Soviets were trying to figure out who he was. DEddy (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This whole section upon the supposed Soviet spying activities of Harry White is disgusting. So now Wikipedia uses McCarthy era FBI allegations as fact. What a load of crap. Wikipedia is crap. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canuckistani (talk • contribs) 22:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Josephson?

There's a large section added in the 03:56, 17 December 2009 edit by 70.129.141.180 relying on a book by Emanuel Josephson, whose credibility is questionable at best. The Rockefeller-Soviet conspiracy which Josephson alleges is presented in these passages as fact. Josephson's opinions may be worth noting, but a fringe historian/conspiracy theorist's analysis ought not be given an unqualified 5 paragraphs of material.76.27.140.208 (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Strong agreement on deletion. Bruce Craig, author of "Treasonable Doubt" told me he'd never heard of Josephson. DEddy (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Vassiliev notebooks

Here's an interesting extract from Vassiliev white notebook #1, pg 44, left notation pg 95 "However, when we too had the idea of separating “Jurist” [Harry Dexter White] from “Pal’s” [Silvermaster] group and taking him over for direct communications, it turned out that he is not only not our probationer, but we hardly know anything about him at all, and “Sound” also knows very little about him and has a very fuzzy concept of the nature of his contact with “Pal’s” group."

After a series of earlier references in this notebook about how important White is & deserves a dedicated contact... suddenly it turns out the KGB doesn't seem to know much about him. Odd. DEddy (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing "odd" about it at all. On page 38 of White Notebook #1, the following appears:

 According to information we have received, “Jurist” at one time was a probationer for the
 neighbors. We will communicate detailed information about him separately. He should, at
 last, be properly recruited for work and taken on for direct communications. In view of
 Jurist’s” value and the necessity of adhering to the rules of covert work, we consider it
 advisable to assign a special illegal to work with him. You should have a better notion of
 how best to approach the implementation of this task. Wire us your suggestions.

The KGB doesn't know much about him because he is working for the GRU, not the KGB. Added by 
MEO 4/15/10  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.34.238 (talk) 05:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC) 

You're saying White was under GRU "control?" [We'll ignore the meaning of "control" here... personally the idea of "controlling" someone like White is laughable beyond measure, but others like to believe otherwise.] Could have been true in the 1930s when it seems Whittaker Chambers had some sort of contact (nothing really solid has ever surfaced to my knowledge... the "White memo" in the Pumpkin Papers clearly could have come from someplace other than White's direct hand.) But by the early 1940s Elizabeth Bentley's story was that White (whom she admits she never met) was being "controlled" either by her or Silvermaster. Since the story seems to be that Silvermaster didn't want to let go of White, it would appear that the man on the ground—Silvermaster—was in control. Since Bentley was a KGB resource, I'd assume Silvermaster was too.

Whittaker Chambers was off the scene by either 1937 or 1938 depending on which version of his story one has read most recently.

Bentley built her story on her control of the Silvermaster group, so GRU really isn't a player here, are they? DEddy (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Accused is not proved

Those introductory 3 lines are going to have to be modified.

At best White is an accused spy, and to the best of my knowledge the VENONA cables prove nothing other than White was talking to the Soviets which was, after all, part of his job. The most seemingly incriminating cable (1119-1122) of 4 August 1944, was with a Russian banker (a fact that didn't surface until maybe 2000). That meeting was shortly after the Bretton Woods conference where the Russian (Kolt'sov in the cable) was an accredited attendee. Rather than a clandestine meeting, a far more realistic interpretation would be that White was continuing to sell the Soviets on the wisdom of joining the IMF. DEddy (talk) 03:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Passing documents

"A number of sources from the FBI and Soviet archives, and messages decoded by the Venona project, implicated him in the passing of government documents to the Soviet Union prior to World War II."

You're going to have to get a firmer grip on your timeframes here. What precise documents "prior to WWII" do you mean? There is the single offering of the "Baltimore papers" from Whittaker Chambers, who described White as his "least productive asset." For this document (a collection of 3 documents?) to the best of my knowledge there is no evidence White gave it to Chambers. Certainly it cannot be VENONA since those were only cables beginning in 1943. My knowledge of Soviet archives is less solid... references please. Please do not include "Sacred Secrets" as a source. The chapter on White lists 20% of the footnotes as "Soviet Intelligence Archives". This is classic TIME/LIFE making up facts to fit the story. "Sacred Secrets" is NOT a credible reference.

Are you aware of White's official interest in Russian gold production?

I duly notice you say "government documents" rather than "secret government documents." Is there a difference, or is it assumed a government document is by definition, secret ? DEddy (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Bretton Woods and Captialism

Removed the assertion that the goal of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank was to promote capitalism. The article early on states that White was a Keynesian, and also 'dominated' the Bretton Woods Conference with John Maynard Keynes himself. Keynes could hardly be considered a capitalist in any sense of the word. He was a prominent member of the Fabian Society, and argued for strict monetary control by governments. He is considered the antithesis of the laissez-faire capitalists. To suggest that White and Keynes were interested in spreading capitalism through their work at Bretton Woods in 1944 is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meshmonk (talk • contribs) 05:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

HUAC testimony sentence

The sequence of events in the last sentence in the opening paragraph is totally jumbled. Please do some homework & correct.

HDW testifies to HUAC ~August 1948

HDW dies 3 or 4 days after HUAC testimony

several YEARS later the FBI, using VENONA materials accuses HDW of being a Soviet source DEddy (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Too Controversial

The testimony of Elizabeth Bentley, the VENONA intercepts, and the Mitrokhin archives show that Harry Dexter White was very likely a soviet agent, acting under the code name "Jurist".

Clearly this is a highly controversial, loaded sentence.

Bentley herself admitted that the stories in her "Out of Bondage" were "fiction." One major story is her varied accusations that under influence White turned over the Occupation Currency plates to the Soviets. Her story was that currency samples were obtained from White, sent to Moscow, deemed impossible to counterfeit & returned to White. Such a trip from Washington to Moscow and return would have taken several weeks. In addition, the Bureau of Printing and Engraving only release currency samples to Treasury on March 27, 1944... slightly more than two weeks before the plates, inks, papers & supplies were officially released to the Soviets on April 14. The plate issue was thoroughly discussed amongst Treasury, State & War Department committees.

VENONA cables are ambiguous. The most direct cables (1119-1122) describe White meeting with a Soviet banker who'd been a formal delegate at Bretton Woods. White was selling the Russian on the wisdom of joining the IMF. DEddy (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is only controversial according to your original research.--Brian Dell (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely you're not going to propose the FBI as a reliable source in this domain? DEddy (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Spies

Here is a clip from the Haynes/Klehr/Vassiliev "Spies"

[my emphasis added to new course]

pg 259

Moscow Center assigned a high priority to establishing direct access to White and wanted to remove Silvermaster as an intermediary, but this goal was difficult. First, as Elizabeth Bentley told the FBI in 1945 and as Venona decryptions confirmed, Silvermaster fiercely resisted being re-moved from the loop; jealous that it diminished his importance. Second, given White's high standing in Washington, direct meetings with a Soviet contact required great care. The KGB was not, however, concerned that

pg 260

White himself was under an illusion that his information only went to the Communist Party. Akhmerov reported: " 'When asked what 'Jurist' [White] knew about 'Pal's' [Silvermaster's] work, the latter replied that 'J' knows where his info. goes, which is precisely why he transmits it in the first place.' " A Soviet operative held the first direct covert KGB contact with White in July 1944. White answered a series of questions about American foreign policy, and the report on the meeting went on to say: "As regards the technique of further work with us Jurist [White] said that his wife was ready for any self-sacrifice; he himself did not think about his personal security, but a compromise would lead to a political scandal and the discredit of all supporters of the new course, therefore he would have to be very cautious.... Jurist has no suitable apartment for a permanent meeting place; all his friends are family people. Meetings could be held at their houses in such a way that one meeting devolved on each every 4-5 months. He proposes infrequent conversations lasting up to half an hour while driving in his automobile." Silvermaster, however, was angered by the meeting, and his hostile reaction to having been bypassed appeared to have caused the KGB New York station to defer additional direct contacts for a time. [118]

[118] "Maxim on Mer's first conversation with Pal." circa mid 1944, KGB file 35112, v4, p148, Vassiliev, White #3, 16. Venona 1119-1121 KGB New York to Moscow, 4-5 August 1944. The "new course" referred to a policy of American accommodation of Soviet foreign policy goals. Venona 1388-1389 KGB New York to Moscow, 1 October 1944.

The most interesting part of this passage—from VENONA 1119-1121—is the Spies footnote #118 which emphasizes how White, who died in 1948, is supporting a Soviet policy that didn't appear until 1954.

Much more likely in context here, new course likely refers to the post War IMF/IBRD effort, since the Bretton Woods conference establishing these institutions ended two weeks previous.

Also, the referenced VENONA cables 1388-1389 primarily discuss Silvermaster being upset at someone else approaching White. There is NOTHING about "new course" or Soviet foreign policy goals. Unless, of course there are additional versions of these cables that Haynes/Klehr/Vassiliev have access to.

I observe at least two serious distortions/errors/mistakes here: #1 the interpretation of new course and #2 the seemingly damning reference to the Silvermaster cable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEddy (talk • contribs) 19:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Svetlana Chervonnaya/documentstalk.com

Hi, DEddy. If one click on "about this site", it will take to the page[1] which show that the this particular site is a personal website of Ms Chervonnaya.

In earlier time of wikipedia, people with rather fringe view used these type minor websites as soapbox to push their view. Then the consensus emerged in wikipedia that only materials which has gone through peer review and/or editorial oversight should be cited.[2] So citation from academic paper, media reporting, statistics from government agency, etc are fine.[3] On the other hand, an entry from the personal website of a Nobel prize winner is not o.k. Without this rule, wikipedia article on, say, "Holocaust" or "UFO" or "Climate Change" would be littered by citation from denial or conspiracy sources. Of course, it does not mean that wikipedia takes anything from media or government as fact. If you can find a citation from media or books published by reputable publishing house which cast doubt on FBI finding, then you are free to add that contents to wikipedia. Then it would be up to readers to examine these conflicting materials and draw their own conclusion. Vapour (talk) 06:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a citation from media or books published by reputable publishing house which cast doubt on FBI finding, then you are free to add that contents to wikipedia.

You're kidding, right?

I can most assuredly NOT speak to the greater Wikipedia, but in the context of this McCarthy era/Red Scare/Soviet spies issue, due to the extreme polarity of the views & opinions it is exceedingly difficult to find "unbiased/peer reviewed" materials. For certain NOTHING from the FBI was ever peer reviewed. From the 1920s to maybe 1995 or 2000 it was received, unquestionable TRUTH that what the FBI said either directly or indirectly was 100% unquestioned gospel. Now that all of the major players & I assume all the minor players are dead, there is a different version of "the truth" just beginning to appear... VERY slowly. This is very esoteric, complex material and one has to do a lot of reading, have known some of the players & bring tremendous amounts of historical knowledge to the table to grok what actually did or did not happen... regardless of the press releases.

What is or is not a "reputable publishing house" is of course a highly subjective judgement call. Example: the Schecter's "Sacred Secrets" where the chapter on Harry White has 54 footnotes, 11 of which (20%) are listed as "Soviet Intelligence Archives"... what kind of footnote is that? But it is a "published" book.

Then it would be up to readers to examine these conflicting materials and draw their own conclusion. Given that we (from the American perspective) have close to zero information about the Soviet view of all this, I find it difficult to grasp why you would reject DocumentsTalk because it's a "personal site." It's good material from a different perspective.

I would ask you... when you've been published have you been fact checked? DEddy (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would be good to have a Russian view point and it is good to have critical commentary on FBI sources. But that is not really the point here. In wikipedia, the threshold of adding contents to any article is not the truthiness but verifiability [4]. For example, contents from Ann Coutler's book "Slander" pass the threshold of inclusion in wikipedia not because she speak the truth (she doesn't, at least according to my personal opinion), but because the book is published by a subsidary of Random House, the largest general-interest trade book publisher in the world.

You're saying that since Coulter's works have have been published by Random house therefore they are verified? Please to explain this. DEddy (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Our job in wikipedia is not to investigate whether Ann Courtler's a liar or not, but find out what she says and what other say about what she says. It may be the case that what Ms Coutler says has less truth than what Ms Chervonnaya says. However, the public at large can check how much of bullshitter Ms Coutler is because there are vast amount of opinions about her available from established sources. This can't be said about Ms Chervonnaya. Wikipedia is not excluding Russian point of view or critical viewpoint of FBI. However, please find these from verifiable sources such as peer reviewed academic research, newsmedia or established publishing houses. Vapour (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

there are vast amount of opinions about her available from established sources. This can't be said about Ms Chervonnaya. I seriously suspect that TV/radio talk shows are not going to seek out Ms Chervonnaya... she's not on the inflammatory talk show circuit as is Ms Coulter. You're saying that Wikipedia policy ONLY includes peer reviewed academic research, newsmedia or established publishing houses. all others need not apply? That sounds like Big Brother censorship. DEddy (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You're saying that Wikipedia's "ok to be used" threshold is the size of readership? If you don't have an "established publishing house" behind you then you don't have a voice? Is that what you're tell me Wikipedia's policies are? DEddy (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

"peer review"... a very limiting, exclusionary practice. I thought Wikipedia is supposed to be inclusionary. Here's a true story about the power of "peer review"... a number of years ago I found a description of an interesting study/article from MIT's Sloan School. Topic was about software maintenance. I paid my money & got the full article. Yikes! While the abstract described a study about software maintenance the actual article pointed out that since a review of the academic literature was so lacking on the topic of software maintenance that the actual paper would discuss how object oriented programming would eliminate the need for software maintenance. Academics, on the publish or perish track, obviously live & die by "peer review." But the fact that academics don't publish or study software maintenance is to say that software maintenance does not exist? Huh?

That story aside... So you're saying the fact that someone like <ugh> Ann Coulter is published on paper is more important to Wikipedia than the accuracy of what she says? I obviously cannot speak to the corporate structure of Random house. But I'd guess that they too have some sort of "trash press" simply because junk that does sell.

Are you aware than Ms Chervonnaya was initially "published" (I have no idea what the meaning of "published" is on the Web... Hey!!!! Isn't Wikipedia "published" on the web & not on paper?) in concert with The Nation?

re: verifiability Please to address the issue of the Schecters book being ok where clearly at least in the context of the domain of Harry Dexter White, the Schecter statements are clearly unverifiable. This is ok by Wikipedia practices? BTW... the Schecter footnote/resource is used at least several times as "verification" in this domain. DEddy (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is inclusive in term of who can use and edit wikipedia. Anyone (including unregistered person) can edit the article. It is not inclusive in term of editorial policy. Constant and wilfull violation of editorial policies could be seen as vandalism and could get a person suspended and/or banned.

As of "Sacred Secrets", the issue (wikipedia verifiability) is whether one can verify that the book is "properly" published or not. On the other hand, you are talking about if the truth of the contents can be verified or not. The job you describe is supposed to be done by academia and media and not by us. (NO original research is another policy of wikipedia, btw). And indeed, some academic published commentary on Sacred Secrets, one in LA Times. [5]. So yes, the book as well as commentary by Professor Radosh can be included in wikipedia but not a content from personal website. As of "software maitenance", it is unlikely that this issue get attention from computer science field. However, I'm sure there is a plenty of books about software maintenance so that is where you should be looking for. Vapour (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Rather speculating about what is reliable, just read the policy and guideline about the question: WP:SOURCES, WP:IRS. FurrySings (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

To both Vapour & FurrySprings... those "references" to Wikipedia policy/guidelines are both circular & highly ambiguous.

One thing I'd like to know, which I don't remember seeing is those polices... what is a "personal website?" What is the substantive difference between a "personal website" and a vanity press publication like "Sacred Secrets" (and many others in this domain)? What makes www.documentstalk.com a "personal website?" DEddy (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

For that matter... www.whitakerchambers.org is obviously a "personal website." Is it permitted by the aforementioned Wikipedia policies to be referenced? What's the difference between the sites? DEddy (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

DEddy. Please act with good faith. Unless you are a child, you should know what personal website is. documentstalk.com is a personal website because it is created and operated by a person. As of Sacred Secrets, you can find out that it is not a self published book by just checking amazon.com, or for that matter by the fact that it was reviewed in L.A. Times. As of whitakerchambers.org, it seems to be operated by a relation of Whittaker Chambers. So unless the site become a news on its own and its contents get referenced in something like newspaper, it does not pass wikipedia verifiability. If you find a content sourced from this site, feel free to edit it out. Vapour (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Vapour—"is a personal website because it is operated by a person." Huh? ALL websites are created & operated by a person(s). If memory serves me (very difficult here on the web) DocumentsTalk.com started as sponsored by "The Nation." Surely something that passed the sniff test of "The Nation" is at least on par with L.A. Times. Perhaps that's too liberal for you, but as far as I know, political censorship isn't the topic of this discussion.

From what you have said so far, sites that are large & commercial are the only referencable sites for Wikipedia. Is that correct? In your evaluation system are DocumentsTalk.com and WhittakerChambers.org equal since they are "created and operated by a person?" My guess is that if you banned "personal websites because they're created/operated by one person" Wikipedia would be significantly "lighter."

Are you saying that Sacred Secrets is superior to the two aforementioned "personal" websites simply because Sacred Sites was physically printed on paper and the websites are not? Since Sacred Secrets was written by a husband & wife & allegedly reviewed in the L.A. Times, the book becomes a superior verifiable resource?

Perhaps I should ask... do you know anything about this topic, or are you just being a Wiki troll? Why is this conversation happening? Please explain WHY you object to DocumentsTalk.com as a reference. DEddy (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

In this context, a website created and/or operated by institution or organisations as opposed to "individual(s)" are not described as personal website. On the other hand, a website created and operated by a group of friends are still classed as a personal website. As of "the Nation", of course, the contents from the Nation, pass the threshold. Still, since documentstalk.com is no longer affiliated to the Nation, its content does not come under the Nation's editorial oversight. Wikipedia verifiability policy make no judgement in regard to "superiority" or "truthiness". It is explicitly stated in the policy documents that verifiability does not equal truth. The site is about presenting what is out in established academia, media and publishing world. documentstalk.com is not inclusion worthy simply because it is not a part of something wikipedia intends to reference. Vapour (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

the contents from the Nation, pass the threshold. Still, since documentstalk.com is no longer affiliated to the Nation, its content does not come under the Nation's editorial oversight So the content researched, vetted & published under The Nation umbrella suddenly becomes unworthy after it leaves that umbrella?

Wikipedia verifiability policy make no judgement in regard to "superiority" or "truthiness". It is explicitly stated in the policy documents that verifiability does not equal truth. So you/Wikipedia policy explicitly embraces that verifiability (because the reference is from established media) is superior to a different perspective? Do you see that you are advocating for publishing blatant falsehoods (e.g. Ann Coulter & the Schecters) because they are verifiable while another voice is not worth having available? What if the group of people who work on a company website/book are actually both friends & professionals. Because they are friends their professional work cannot be considered since it's "personal?" How do you draw/know the line between friend & professional?

site is about presenting what is out in established academia, media and publishing world So the message that is filtered through establishment media is superior to a different voice? Something the a national police force promulgates through it establishment media release process to hundreds of media outlets is "good" since it's verifiable & historical research work from an individual is not worth since it's not verifiable?

I have no idea if Jimmy Wales is still involved with Wikipedia, but do you honestly—do ponder this question before responding—believe that Mr Wales, or his successors, would embrace what you're telling me here about Wikipedia censorship policies?

Please answer... do you know anything about this topic? DEddy (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• It is the Nation "institute" not the Nation magazine. And the claim that "the content researched, vetted & published under The Nation umbrella" is unverifiable. You somewhat prove the point about wikipedia verifiability.
• Wikipedia does not say "Liberal hate America". It says "Ann Coutler says Liberal hate America". The two are not the same thing. And her assertion can be assessed by reading other verifiable statements written about her. This cannot be said about Ms. Chervonnaya. Whether someone in an organisation are friends is not an issue. What count is the editorial oversight exercised by academia, media and publisher.
• It is more verifiable. For a website like wikipedia which is open to editing by amature, it is an infinitely sensible policy to limit the contents to academia and media.

• That's a pretty motivational ruling for me to pull all my comments/edits off Wikipedia since it's clearly not an organization I wish to be associated with. Is that the kind of response you wish to encourage from your contributors? DEddy (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• If someone can't or won't follow the policies of this site, that person is not a contributor. I can help you if you want to edit under the wikipedia policies and guideline. If you are not willing to do so, then I can not help you. Vapour (talk)

• Jim Wales is the person who made three core contents policy (NPOV, verifiability and no-original-research) non negotiable.
• Yes. Vapour (talk)

• Yes, what? Impossible to tell what you're answering? DEddy (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
• My answer corresponds with your questions above. So "Yes" corresponds with your last question. Vapour (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Please answer... do you know anything about this topic? this is the question I was looking for an answer on, svp.

• How about venona_names Is this an acceptable website? Done by two people (one an academic, one not). Contents contents close to 100% unverifiable. Good? Not good? DEddy (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• I answered this question previously. Please pay attention to what I write.
• Hmm, I must apologise here. I said previously that "an entry from the personal website of a Nobel prize winner is not o.k.". This was the case in earlier time of wikipedia. The guideline appeared to have been modified. Please read the last paragraph of this section[6]. Anyhow, I'm assuming you are asking if this[7] page pass the threshold of inclusion. My guess is probably yes. John Earl Haynes`s credential can easily be verified. One just need to go to his wikipedia page and then cross reference it with something like amazon to know that he has a good track records of publishing materials in this field from reputable academic publishing house (Yale University Press). So this page probably qualify as something "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." As of Ms Chervonnaya, she does not appear to fall into this category.Vapour (talk)