Jump to content

Talk:John S. Service/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Base for article

I've provided what I hope is a good base for an article on John Service. I'd like to return later and provide more detail and information on various parts of his life, like the Dixie Mission, and his post war tribulations. I apologize for the Wade-Giles, blame it on laziness on my part. Feel free to swoop in and correct them to Pin-yin. RebelAt 22:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Notation

If we can begin providing some notation for this article, I believe we can make it a good one. As time allows, I will attempt to do so in the near future. Per usual, if you can do it now and have the time, please do so! ~ The Rebel At ~ 12:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an excellent summary of the role played by a key personality in US-China relations in the run-up to the cold war. Nonetheless I was struck by the omission of what I felt is one of the key observations made by J Service in his despatches as reported in "Lost chance in China" (and corroborated by a host of other prominent historians) ie the "two-legs policy". I'm referring to J Service's reporting of Mao's intention, endorsed by the CCP's leadership, to organize the PROC's post-WW II's reconstruction in close cooperation with the USA, with full respect and protection of the interests of foreign capital (sic..). As we all know history, and more specifically senator McCarthy assisted by the young Richard Nixon, have decided otherwise. It's only after this "two legs" policy (of a neutral but friendly relationship with both USA & USSR) was rebuffed by Cold War America that the PROC was pushed into a reluctant reliance on the USSR. It's clear this was a crucial turning point in the post-war relationship between the USA, USSR & PROC and had the potential to change face and scope of the subsequent cold war. Hence didn't this deserve some more attention?

Thought I'd answer this, since its been a while since posting. While its true Mao said these things, the split from a Pro-Communist China did not occur during the post-war period, but really once Patrick Hurley was sent to China. Hurley was a strong proponent of unifying the Communists and the Nationalists, and his decision to promote this position set the trend for all future American relations with China, seen by the follow up by George Marshall in '47, and then followed by General Wedemeyer. Once the United States' decided to follow a strategy of unification, all chances for supporting Mao and the Communist was lost. It was not so much a chance to prevent the Communist from aligning with the Soviets, but a chance to pry them away, which is how John P. Davies correctly viewed the situation. Thus, its probably not that important that this aspect be written into Service's article, but perhaps an article dedicated to Sino-American relations. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 15:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Civil War

The loss of the Chinese civil war by the Nationalists to the Communists, which the author attibutes to "Communist Efficiency," is hardly such a simple affiar. Historical records published by both the Nationalists and Communists are rife with propaganda, and must be taken with a grain of salt. The notion that the Nationalists lost the civil war entirely because of incompetance ignores other important factors such as Soviet support of Communists and the Nationalists having taken the brunt of the damage in the war against the Japanese. A comparison of the welfare of people in Mainland China, run by the Communists; and Taiwan, run by the Nationalists, hardly suggests that the Communists were more efficient nor more competant in running a nation.M-hwang

Quite right, but Service was writing in 1944-1945, not in the 1950's. No one can doubt that communism was dreadful for China--the purge, the Great Leap Forward, and Cultural Revolution. But what Service saw was efficiency in the communist organization in 1944-1945 compared to the nationalists during that period. And that is the point.

I've edited the section to hopefully meet expectations and removed the NPOV tags, which were more overkill than full on the point.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 23:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

M-hwang, if the Soviet Union's small support for the CCP was decisive, the USA's huge support for the KMT must have been wasted. There is ample evidence that corruption and incompetence defeated the KMT as much as the armies against them. Comparing the results of economic development decades later is just clouding the issue with unuseful information. You don't have to like the CCP, but in this forum, at least keep a NPOV. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The Rebel At, your basic article is good (I knew Jack Service at Cal, back in the 1970s and 1980s), but "No one can doubt that communism was dreadful for China" is bias. They were, after all, the first regime in Chinese history to feed the people, no? DOR (HK) (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is a whitewash of history

I've restored NPOV status to this article by removing POV accounts of Service's record and historical accounts. The section on "The Service Legacy 60 Years On" was outrageous to say the least. Whoever wrote it was purely playing the role of communist apologist, ignoring history and the facts. Service was a loyalty and security risk and engaged in espionage by giving known Communists State Department documents and military secrets. This has never been cleared execpt by the Tydings Committee who they themselves were merely doing the job of Truman to whitewash the accurate allegations. No one with any common sense accepts what this committee did as accurate. Please stop whitewashing this man's history. Jtpaladin 20:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. Just last year I wrote a 150 page thesis on Service and the Dixie Mission. The three professors on my committee gladly accepted the clearance of Service. You also ignored the Grand Jury which found in Service's favor. I would actually write that the criminality placed against Service was virtually the result of the hyper-Communist paranoia that plagued certain portions of the government at the time. All recent academic work on Service that I've read have favored his innocence against calls of disloyalty and treason. You're welcome to check out Carolyn Carter's work, Mission to Yenan, if you want. Its probably the most recent of the works which feature Service to any length. I also suggest seeking out a source other than the The Amerasia Papers, which in turn were both prejudice and inaccurate (and which Service's guilt rested entirely upon). Now if you think that Harry Truman, the man who established containment and went to war against Communist North Korea and China, was seeking to protect Communists in the government, you're welcome to, but I don't think there's much evidence for it. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 22:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
RebelAt, I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this issue and your previous work but your summary is total POV and the worst part is you removed my Buckley source. The only reason to do that is to hide the truth. I will give you the opportunity to restore it and failure to do so will result in a revert war between us. The section titled, "The Service Legacy 60 Years On" is the worst POV I have ever seen in all my years here at Wikipedia. It is so wrong that I was shocked at what I read. No ofense to you but what the heck are you doing? You also mention Service being cleared by a Senate committee, you fail however to state that it was the Tyding's Committee that did so and we all know what a joke that committee was. Service was NEVER cleared of the charges of passing State Department docs and military secrets to known communists. That much is valid. I expect you will stop trying to cloud the facts. You also fail to mention that the Grand Jury had no other option but to release Service because of the illegal methods the FBI used in order to gain the evidence against Service and the others. This does not make them innocent of the charges and it does not make them available for U.S. govt. work. You also neglect to mention any of these things just as you tried to pretend the Supreme Court totally vindicated Service when it was on procedural grounds that he walked. You've clouded the entire article. I will give you a chance to fix this out of respect to your previous work but if it's POV, I will return and fix it myself and will invite an Administrator to assist. I'll check back in 24 hours in hopes that you will have brought balance to this article. Jtpaladin 15:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Jtpaladin, what "shocks" you and what you think "we all know" is irrelevant. Furthermore, your personal attacks and threats are extremely inappropriate and a violation of WP rules. If you can present reliably sourced statements of fact or opinion about the subject of this article, please do so. RedSpruce 15:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Jtpaladin, let me respond to several of your statements. First, as noted in a message on my talk page, I restored the source by William Buckley. I accidentally deleted it the first time around, and went through the effort of researching the book. After realizing the book was published 53 years ago, and was sourced not as a primary document, but as a secondary, I felt that its academic value was limited. Try using a fifty year old secondary source in a citation in graduate school, you will get shot down. More recent scholarship is always required in academics. The only time such works are usually allowed is if they're continually upheld as excellent scholarship. The fact that McCarthy and His Enemies had only two to four reviews on Amazon.com, and only three available editions, both apparently out of print for the most part, made me believe that this was not the case. The only reviews appeared to show that the book was extremely patronizing to McCarthy and his actions, which for the most part have been universally condemned. Out of courtesy to you, and with recognition that Wikipedia users can use their own determinations on the validity of sources, I returned it. (p.s. I put it in proper notation as a bonus) And that was not out of response to the 24 hr ultimatum you placed on the page above.
The section titled, "The Service Legacy 60 Years On" is the worst POV I have ever seen in all my years here at Wikipedia. It is so wrong that I was shocked at what I read. No ofense to you but what the heck are you doing?

I'm using the skills learned in a graduate level history program to relay an accurate telling of history. I'm not sure what exactly you're finding "shocking" and POV in that article. I went in and even added scholarly citations to back up the material. History and research shows that the Communist WERE more effective than the Nationalists in rallying the Chinese populace to their side, in organizing grass root connections, and stamp down on corruption. Almost all the Americans who traveled to Yenan were shocked by its absence of such (mainly because the Communists crushed it with violent punishment). The Communists did win the war, which Service predicted. He also hoped that if the Communists had sustained a working relationship with the US, that the horrors that were later committed by Mao and Co., would not have occurred. None of this is false. No one is saying that these things did not happen. Lastly, any academic study of the collapse of American-Sino relations at the end of 1945 and later, 1947, pretty much absolve Service, and fellow "China Hands," of "losing" China.

You also mention Service being cleared by a Senate committee, you fail however to state that it was the Tyding's Committee that did so and we all know what a joke that committee was. Service was NEVER cleared of the charges of passing State Department docs and military secrets to known communists. That much is valid. I expect you will stop trying to cloud the facts.
Produce an academic and scholarly sources that claim the Tyding Committee was a "joke" and we can discuss this issue. Actually, if you read the interview by John Service in the external links, you'll see that going in front of the Tyding Committee was anything BUT a cake walk. It is entirely POV to make your claim, and if you're evidence is a fifty year old book written by a known McCarthy sympathizer, then you're running on fumes for your argument. Service was never cleared of charges because he never did anything wrong. He admits that he shared some of his notes (aka State Dept. documents) to the editor of the Communist sympathizing Amerasia magazine, and that was it. So what I've written is not clouding the issue, its the opposite. Its not doing what was done to Service in his lifetime, throwing unsupportable charges at him.
You also fail to mention that the Grand Jury had no other option but to release Service because of the illegal methods the FBI used in order to gain the evidence against Service and the others. This does not make them innocent of the charges and it does not make them available for U.S. govt. work. You also neglect to mention any of these things just as you tried to pretend the Supreme Court totally vindicated Service when it was on procedural grounds that he walked. You've clouded the entire article.
The illegal methods that the FBI used was breaking into his home without a warrant and taking his own personal papers and notes, then claiming they were classified State Dept. documents. The Grand Jury cleared Service of the charges because there was no case, as well as the illegality of what was done by the FBI. Service continued to work for the State Department after this affair, so I'm not sure where you came up with your comment on not being able to work for State. I never said the Supreme Court vindicated Service, I pointed out that SCOTUS specifically referred to the State Department, itself, clearing him of the charges, that he was ultimately fired upon. Which then led to the violation of Department protocol and the wrongful termination of Service's career. Its in the opinion in the link. For all the effort of firing someone due to "doubts", the State Dept. had to re-hire him and pay him back wages. Again, if this is not clear, then read the opinion.
I will give you a chance to fix this out of respect to your previous work but if it's POV, I will return and fix it myself and will invite an Administrator to assist. I'll check back in 24 hours in hopes that you will have brought balance to this article.

I will not be changing any of the above, because it does not need changing. John Service was not the criminal or traitor that your words have been attempting to color him as. Your intimidation tactics, placing an ultimatum, threatening to call in Admin, will not work to afford you the ability to use your own POV to shape this article. If you want to call in an Admin, you're welcome to, but if I must put a citation after ever statement of fact, I have the academic resources and discipline needed to do so. History, and the supporting facts, are not on your side, my friend.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 21:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

RebelAt, I appreciate the time you took to discuss this issue. I also appreciate that you restored the Buckley reference. I'm sorry you don't think that this is a great source but the facts are that if you bothered to read the book, this was the first non-McCarthy written book that vindicated McCarthy on a number of issues. But no means did this book whitewash his history as it was critical as well. This is in contrast to what McCarthy's enemies had been doing in demonizing him.
I also clarified that it was the Tydings Committee that "cleared" Service, which allows the reader to decide for himself what he thinks about this clearance. I hope you won't disagree with that improvement.
Lastly, I disagree with your conclusions and examination of the evidence. You and I are looking at this from completely different points of view but for now, I don't have time to keep doing reverts with you when there is so much misinformation on other articles that need my attention. Thanks for your time. Jtpaladin 14:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Jtpaladin, thank you for the civil tone in your last response, it was appreciated. I have no intention of changing your last edit, its entirely in line with the history presented in the article. As per Buckley's work, one of the chief things a historian considers when regarding secondary sources are their proximity to the event they're covering. Many academics prefer to sit back and watch how following events unfold before re-examining and judging the topic to be covered. It is entirely possible that Buckley's work was an excellent piece that captured everything and has aged without developing weaknesses or flaws created by later scholarship. I don't know, but the lack of reviews that I could find seemed to indicate otherwise. For your own benefit, I would suggest searching for recent academic works that support the basic arguments found in Buckley's work and use those as your supporting sources. This will make supporting your arguments much easier, at least with academic types. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 21:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

June, '07 edits

RedSpruce's hatchet and self-congratulatory remarks are not appropriate. The Amerasia spy case was in 1945. McCarthy didn't level his charges until 1950. So McCarthy's charges did follow Service's indictment in the Amerasia matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.131.88 (talk • contribs)

71.166.131.88, I'm sorry if my edits or comments offended you. But if you're going to edit Wikipedia, you're going to have to realize that not all of your contributions are going to be accepted by other editors. This will be especially true while you are learning the stylistic and other conventions that are expected in Wikipedia edits.
You say above that "McCarthy's charges did follow Service's indictment in the Amerasia matter." Both your version of the article and the previous one make this chronological order clear, so that doesn't seem to be a point of contention. In one of your edit summaries you state that ""The Service Legacy..." is far to pompous and opinionated." I don't agree with that estimation, but I do think that another section heading could be used without harm to the article. I chose not to use yours ("The Service Reporting in Retrospect') because "The Service Reporting" is unclear and awkward wording.
It's clear that your edits were an honest attempt to improve the article, but there were several problems with them. Most of the flaws were due to you being unfamiliar with Wikipedia conventions, and my pointing them out below is not intended as a personal criticism. Some of the problems are:
  • You neglected to retain Wikilinks to terms like Joseph McCarthy, McCarthyism, Amerasia.
  • You use phrases like "reckless and uninformed attacks" to describe McCarthy's tactics. While such a description could be justified with proper citations, no such citations are given (nor would they necessarily be appropriate, since this isn't an article on McCarthy). Without such citations the language is unnecessarily non-neutral and provocative. In general, it's best to avoid language like this as much as possible.
  • You use phrases like "used this episode ... to blast him as a communist..." This is colloquial writing, not formal encyclopedic writing; as such it isn't in keeping with what is preferred in Wikipedia.
  • Likewise, the phrase "Service was mostly an innocent party in matter" is colloquial, in addition to containing a typo.
  • Similarly, the passage reading "However, one final review board ... One of these charges was that Service had had an affair... He did have an affair but the woman was not a spy. Nonetheless, the review board..." is written in a choppy, casual and unprofessional style.
RedSpruce 00:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by 12.77.113.127

12.77.113.127, you just tried to drop a huge mass of accurate, verifiable information published in reliable sources down the memory hole, in violation of WP:EP and WP:NPOV. I am reverting your vandalism. If you try this again, I will report you for Administrator intervention. If you have a problem with any information in the article, discuss it here. I will be happy to reason, compromise and negotiate with you. Mark LaRochelle 08:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching the changes. Before I make any in depth reviews, I do have several questions concerning the cited sources. One, the FBI Report, where is this available for looking over? Is this an actual FBI Report published somewhere? Second, the McCarthy book, how are you quoting from it, when its not released yet? Thanks. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 12:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I haven't been able to find an official WP policy statement on the matter, but I think it's inappropriate to use a book that isn't yet available to the public as a source. In the absence of such a statement, I'm not going to raise a ruckus over 1 or 2 minor uses of the Stanton book as a reference, but I request that make no major use of it until it's been printed and released.
Similarly, if an "FBI Report" is used as a source, I think some kind of indication of how or where the public can obtain the report (assuming they can) should be included as part of the footnote. RedSpruce 13:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I sat on the book for a while, waiting until it shipped before citing it. All FBI files and reports cited by me are available to the public at the FBI reading room, and also at the Education and Research Institute's (ERI) Center for Security Research (email to make an appointment). Either one will mail any of these files to you for a copying fee. I am also scanning and posting them online as fast as I can. I've got 26,000+ pages of the Silvermaster file online so far at http://Ultra-Secret.info/CSR/Holdings/Silvermaster/summaries.htm (compared to less than 2,000 pages online at http://foia.fbi.gov), and am working on IPR, Amerasia, Oppenheimer, Hiss-Chambers, etc. Mark LaRochelle 16:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
At least one other secondary source besides Evans has published this information from the Amerasia file: Harvey Klehr and Ronald Radosh, The Amerasia Spy Case: Prelude to McCarthyism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996) ISBN 978-0807822456. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark LaRochelle (talk • contribs) 16:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back so quickly, Mark. The one academic review of the book I found suggested the work is well cited an sourced, but errs out of an ideological desire to clear McCarthy's name. That said, once the book is released, approximately two weeks from now, I'll go to the bookstore and look it over for the sections concerning John Service. There was an incredibly strong bias against Service during the 40's and 50's concerning a perceived guilt, which later academics have pretty much refuted with the exception of the occasional conservative ideologue. The bias is shown with the two volume Amerasia Papers, which were rife with mistakes that Service himself had to come out and point out the errors in the print (I put the cite information for that in the Amerasia article resources). I still find it amazing that there are some very conservative individuals out there who seem to persist on condemning men, now dead, of crimes they were never guilty of half a century ago. Cold War is over! :)
As I promised, I'll check my resources and the changes made and see if they should be changed, edited, or removed, but hopefully, none of the former will be necessary. Thanks again for the quick response! ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 17:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. I look forward to seeing any additional historical resources you have made available for use in these articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark LaRochelle (talk • contribs) 17:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edit

After a cursory look over the recent edits, I think my biggest concern is that the way its presented is that its trying to make Service appear guilty by association to events and people. Its documented how Service was continually found innocent of disloyalty charges, so the information in these edits should be presented as "facts that lead to suspicion." Right now, some of this information seems to imply that Service was cleared because of some back room deal when this wasn't the case. There was no "air tight" case against Service. Others need to be placed in more appropriate circumstances, such as the meeting with Currie and the other FDR assistant. Service was the top State Department official, outside of Davies, to meet and speak with the head of the Chinese Communists, so its no surprise that he met to discuss the situation with FDR's people. Thus, I think a large amount of the edit can remain, but it should be placed in the appropriate context. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 17:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd go further than that. There's no source given that says that all this guilt-by-association evidence in fact was a cause of suspicion. It's thrown into the article with the sole purpose of making the reader assume guilt. If no secondary source can be supplied showing that something like Service's roommates were a cause of suspicion, then it doesn't belong in the article. Likewise, of course, the fact that he met with Lauchlin Currie, Harry Hopkins and Harry Dexter White. Was this considered significant at the time, and was it one of the causes of suspicion? If so, provide a secondary source that says so. Are these meetings considered significant now, by a majority of current scholars? If so, present that view in the article.
The footnotes citing FBI reports are a classic example of why Wikipedia discourages primary sources in favor of secondary. We're told that "According to an FBI report, 'A highly confidential source, which is completely reliable..." Service was believed to be willing to give information to some people "engaged in Communist and Comintern activities." But what is the view of current historians on the value of this FBI report? "Completely reliable" to a 1945 FBI agent may be "totally full of bullshit" to a modern historian.
In the paragraph beginning "In the wake of the arrests," there are a lot of quotes, the meaning of none of which is clear. "get him out"? "understanding we had below about the cutting out of your name"? "Your man is Service. I got it"? "etc."? This use of actual quotes gives the impression of verisimilitude, though in fact there's nothing here but insinuation. This is a classic technique for the deceptive use of evidence, and is another example of why secondary sources are better than primary. If all of these sentence-fragment quotes in fact mean something (and/or were thought to mean something at the time) then the article should give the consensus view of what current scholars think they meant.
RedSpruce 19:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
And yet more likewise: Service visited the Institute of Pacific Relations on his return to Washington. Was this visit in itself unusual for a China diplomat recently returned from China? Or is mentioning this visit along with a recap of the 1952 charges made against IPR just another exercise in guilt by association?
My opinion is that there's nothing appropriate in Mark LaRochelle's recent additions. Some expansion of the coverage of the Amerasia affair (from the pre-LaRochelle version) may be appropriate, but the rest is all POV, IMO. RedSpruce 19:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
"Wikipedia discourages primary sources in favor of secondary"? Good grief, I hope not! Do we also prefer tertiary sources to secondary? I note that WP:NOR states:
Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about.. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations, published experimental results by the person(s) actually involved in the research; original philosophical works, religious scripture, administrative documents such as United Nations Security Council resolutions, and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs.
An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.
Secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims. For example, a journalist's story about a traffic accident or a Security Council resolution is a secondary source, assuming the journalist was not personally involved in either. An historian's interpretation of the decline of the Roman Empire, or analysis of the historical Jesus, is a secondary source.
If what you say is correct, it is a scandal. It means that if a historical document says X, but a commentator says that the document says Y, we should believe the commentator over the document itself!
Could you cite the policy or guideline that states the preference for secondary over primary source material? Mark LaRochelle 19:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The policy text on this matter is currently in flux (as it says on WP:NOR), and it used to be much more emphatic in preferring secondary over primary. The thinking is that primary sources are often open to interpretation (as in the examples I noted above), and it's up to reliable secondary sources (rather than WP editors) to make those interpretations. Often the "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" can be made by insinuation, for example by citing only one primary source when a synthesis of multiple primary sources (something that secondary sources do for a living) would lead to different conclusions. I don't agree that such a policy is a scandal; I think it's completely necessary. RedSpruce 19:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we should abide by the policy as it is, rather than as it was some time in the past. I suspect there is a reason why the policy has changed. I agree that adding additional relevant primary sources would improve the article. Mark LaRochelle 20:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The current policy marginally favors secondary sources in the degree of stress given to using caution when citing primary sources. (Primary sources ... may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care...)
However, this is somewhat academic and off-topic. By any policy, your recent edits to this article are highly POV. RedSpruce 20:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I am trying to use the primary sources in compliance with WP:NOR, to wit:
An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.
If you could cite where you think I transgress WP:NOR, I'm sure we can reach a consensus on this. Mark LaRochelle 20:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, if by "By any policy, your recent edits to this article are highly POV," you mean that I have violated WP:NPOV, please cite an example and quote the relevant passage of the policy. We should be able to hammer out an NPOV consensus. Mark LaRochelle 22:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained my reasoning in some detail above, in the comments beginning "I'd go further than that" and "And yet more". If you can't respond the my points then your edits should be reverted. RedSpruce 14:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your points. When I cited a secondary source by M. Stanton Evans, you reverted my edit without any prior discussion. When I cited the exact same passage from the primary source, you seemed satisfied. Now, when I cite primary sources, you demand secondary sources. This seems less than completely reasonable. If you want to add accurate, verifiable information representing a significant view from a reliable secondary source, please do so. Otherwise, please quote the relevant portion of WP:NPOV you say I violated, then quote the statement I made that you say is in violation, as I did for you, many times. I don't see any reason why we should not be able to negotiate a compromise as directed by WP:EP, by adding balancing information to achive an NPOV consensus, rather than by violating the WP:EP directive to "preserve information." Mark LaRochelle 00:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The relevant portion of WP:NPOV which you are violating is: "articles should be neutral." (Not a direct quote, but a paraphrase.)
We're going to have difficulty reaching a compromise if you insist on playing games instead of responding to the points I've raised. Until you do so I will assume you have no response and no defense of your edits. I'll wait to see what (The Rebel At) has to say. Perhaps he can "add balancing information" as you say, to correct the bias and/or show the relevance of the material you added. If he can't, and if he has no objection, then your edits are (to coin a phrase) history.
One other point from WP:NPOV that I'll paraphrase: When a secondary source is used to add synthesis, interpretation, opinion etc. to an article, either A) that source's views must represent the majority view among scholars, (something that will rarely be the case if it comes out of Evans' mouth), or B) the minority opinion being presented through that source must be represented as a minority opinion, with proportionally greater coverage given to the majority view.
RedSpruce 01:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that clarification, such as it is. Upon reviewing WP:NPOV to find a portion relevant to your paraphrase, I found, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)."
Under "A simple formulation" we find:
Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.
The facts you are apparently threatening to make 'history" are that FBI records cited contain the statements attributed to them under "Post China career." That the FBI records cited include these statements is indeed a fact, easily verifiable by anyone reading the records cited. If you are aware of any serious dispute over whether the FBI records cited include the information attributed to them, you owe it to Wikipedia to make an edit including that information. Until you do, the default assumption must be that no one seriously doubts that the FBI records cited include the statements attributed to them, in which case, we can feel free to assert as many statements from the FBI records as we can.
You state: "If [The Rebel At] can't ['add balancing information' as you say, to correct the bias and/or show the relevance of the material you added] and if he has no objection, then your edits are (to coin a phrase) history."
This threat suggests that you may be prepared to return to your past practice of violating WP:EP by removing information that does not meet any of the criteria listed as exceptions to the imperative to "preserve information." Since you have just violated WP:AGF by accusing me of "play[ing] games," I have taken the liberty of submitting this dispute to WP:3O and am soliciting opinions from any third parties who would care to comment. Mark LaRochelle 07:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm gratified, Mark, that you apparently find my original arguments so impenetrably well-reasoned that you're still refusing to address them. This being the case, I'll assume you accept my points and agree that your edits introduced an unacceptable bias to the article. Would you like to remove them now, or wait for [The Rebel At] to comment? RedSpruce 11:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Considering you haven't defended your edits or shown any interest in doing so, that [The Rebel At] may not be around to comment, and that (apparently) two other editors have shown agreement with the points I've raised, I'm going to return the article to the relatively balanced state it was in before your edits. If you want to discuss this (and by "discuss" I mean "discuss", not "copy-and-paste 6,000 words of WP policy pages"), let's start a new section, since this one is getting unwieldy. RedSpruce 10:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
When I created the article on John Service last year, I had no inclination that it would be involved in such tense and passionate disputes concerning the post war years of his life. My interest in Service had originated in what he did before the war was over and not what he did and had done to him after the war. This naive thought probably had to do a lot more with a lack of familiarity with Wikipedia, than with the subject!
With regard to Mark's edits to the article, in their entirety, they are not false or slanted towards a particular POV. Much of them relate a sequence of events that did happen. The problem that does arise, as I pointed out above, is that in the manner that some of the edits are presented they do take on an implied bias. I have been extremely busy over the weekend, but will try later today to edit Mark's work to include it into the article in a manner that is straightforward, respecting the facts as they happened, as well as Mark's own efforts to add to the story of John Service. With regard to the FBI report, please feel free to go ahead and upload the scans of the report, as I have done with archival documents such as Service's reports. Primary documents are important, sometimes as representing what happened, or what other people believed was happening. It is equally important, if available, to have secondary sources that analyze the primary documentation to help provide a historically agreed upon interpretation of what role they should play.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 16:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I have looked over the editing history of this article and the current state of the article. Everything appears to be progressing as it should. It is common for editors to disagree on various points and to discuss solutions with reference to the guidelines. Mark LaRochelle and RedSpruce are doing just that, and are doing it in a civil, though sometimes tense, manner. You are both to be commended on your work on this article which is currently going through the crucible of fire which enables articles to be become hardened and brilliant. And you are to be commended on the manner of your discussion which is avoiding the personal attacks or out and out edit wars that can mar other discussions. Well done on both those counts. I find that the article is working toward a comprehensive and detailed coverage of the accusations surrounding Service, supported by sources, though there are aspects of the article and the sourcing that still need attention. Much of the source material is not available on the internet, which is OK in itself, though that does create some problems for readers looking to those sources, especially if the readers are not in the USA and therefore would have difficulty accessing the sources. It would be appropriate at times to provide a longer extract from the source material to give a context - such as here:

Service was arrested as a suspect. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover regarded it as a "100 percent airtight case."[21] (FBI file, Amerasia, Section 59)

I'd like to see the full sentence quoted in the reference, as here for example. I'd also like more attention paid to sourcing the views expressed in section 4: Service's record in retrospect. Who, for example, is saying this:

It is difficult to say whether the United States would have been able to foster reform or restraint had the U.S. engaged the Communists in 1944-45, as was recommended by Service. But as the recommendations of Service and others were rejected, it is unfair to blame them for the Communist takeover of China.

I find it appropriate that all aspects of the accusations are documented; though, as pointed out, care has to be taken when selecting from primary sources that the Wiki editor is not either deliberately or accidentally presenting a biased view. I don't see that the primary sources are being used in an obviously inappropriate manner here - the article as currently written gives the facts of the situation in a neutral and balanced manner with evidence of the accusations, some explanation of why the accusations occurred, and then that Service was cleared, even if some doubt still remains. If I read the article correctly, all this is a matter of public record, and nothing has been inserted or implied in the article that is not a matter of public record. The FBI wiretap logs paragraph, however, may need more attention as it is not immediately clear what is being said, and the quoted statements appear to rely on an interpretation for clarity and understanding for which a secondary source would be helpful.

All in all I would say you guys are working well on this article and appear able to negotiate together to deal with the finer points. If you would like further comments please let me know. Regards. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful and helpful input, SilkyTork. I will address your points within the next 24 hours. Mark LaRochelle 22:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I added more context from the primary sources, as well as a secondary source commenting on this material, as suggested by SilkyTork. I also re-added the accurate, verifiable information from the FBI files that RedSpruce removed in his latest biased edit in violation of WP:EP and WP:NPOV.
If anyone wants even more context, and/or even more secondary sources, please let me know here. Due to the intense interest in this material, I am interrupting my sequential scanning schedule to make the posting of the primary sources cited in this article my next priority. They should be online and linked via the references within the next 24 hours. Mark LaRochelle 16:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

I have requested protection for this page due to repeated vandalism by IP 72.75.64.45. Mark LaRochelle 23:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Referring to these edits as "vandalism" shows either a profound ignorance of what the word means or (more likely) a willful misuse of the word. Referring to content-dispute edits as vandalism is one of the most childish forms of personal attack. I expect better from you, Mr. LaRochelle. RedSpruce 10:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous edits are not vandalism. It's worth reading this article and Wikipedia:Vandalism. I've looked back at the anonymous edits on this article and there is no evidence of vandalism. As the article I have linked to indicates, the bulk of the material on Wikipedia comes from anon edits so blocking anons from editing is a serious issue which would only be taken in the case of a history of vandalism, rather than editorial disagreements. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you RedSpruce and SilkyTork for that information. I apologize. I should have said "repeated violations of WP:EP and WP:NPOV very similar to the effects of vandalism" rather than "repeated vandalism." I will use more informed wording in edit summaries in the future. Mark LaRochelle 16:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

LaRochelle's edits

  1. In Chungking, Service shared a house with two roommates, Soviet spy Solomon Adler... This is guilt by association, plain and simple. If some source were provided showing that this roommate situation was a cause of suspicion, or that it has some other relevance, it might be acceptable. As is, it's extremely biased.
  2. During the war years, Service wrote increasingly harsh... This paragraph replaced a similar paragraph that already covered the same material, but with the unreferenced statement that it was Service's anti-Nationalist writing that "caught the attention of John P. Davies" (whatever that means).
  3. According to an FBI report, "A highly confidential source, which is completely reliable,... The rest of this paragraph is vaguely written in such a way as to suggest espionage activity without actually claiming it. The actual reliability of this alleged FBI source is not established by any reference to secondary sources who represent the majority view of contemporary scholars.
  4. Upon his arrival in D.C., Service met with President Franklin Roosevelt's Administrative Assistant Lauchlin Currie, Harry Hopkins and Harry Dexter White... More guilt by association, with no reliable, consensus-representing source establishing that there was anything unusual or notable about these meetings.
  5. He also visited the Washington headquarters of the Institute of Pacific Relations, which would be described in a unanimous 1952 report of the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee as... Still more guilt by association, again with no source establishing significance, and no source establishing whether the 1952 report is accepted by current scholars, or dismissed as just another example of McCarthyism.
  6. In the wake of the arrests, an FBI phone tap recorded the efforts of New Deal "fixer" Thomas Corcoran... A three paragraph section that represents an interpretation of events supported only by references from the right-wing scholars Harvey Klehr and Ronald Radosh. If you can show that this interpretation is the only interpretation held by current scholars, then this section is acceptable. If not, other views have to be proportionately represented.

I look forward to your responses to these points. Until they have been properly responded to, your edits are unacceptable. Replacing them will be contrary to WP:EP. RedSpruce 16:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Compromise Edit

I've gone in and interlaced Mark's edits, as well as added more information from my own sources, to the present article. While it might invite touch ups, I think its been done in a fair manner to allow some, if not all, the edits that Mark originally added to the article.

  • Roommates in Chungking. I removed this completely since none of the sources actually seemed to offer evidence that these men were roommates. I had never come across this information and the cites were only supporting the allegations of the roommates as spies and/or as communists.
  • FBI report. I summarized this and pointed out that Service had no knowledge of the information being passed to the married couple. The guy was in Yenan, after all, his only contact was through the United States Army and radio transmissions to the US Embassy.
  • Visitations. I wanted to make clear that Currie, et company, were involved with the China policy. This could probably be made even more evident. Service did not meet these men in a vacuum to pass off or discuss spy details, but to discuss the relevant professional topic of China. Currie and Hopkins in particular played a role in getting Roosevelt's attention to the idea of the Dixie Mission, which FDR approved, and played a central role in Service's career. As for Service's meetings outside of work, I probably will go back further and add more information about Service making no attempt to hide his meetings with such individuals. I did add a quote to emphasize that Service made no qualifications when meeting with others concerning specific topics.
  • Service's quoted comments. I moved them around and broke them up, as some were actually those he had made with considerable lapses in time between them. I placed them in the correct chronological areas of his career. I.e., before Yenan and during Yenan. I dropped the "bankrupted" quote, as I felt existing text already covered this feeling.
  • The Phone call. I've never encountered this, and as it was displayed, seemed to imply a lot without enough appropriate secondary commentary on how to interpret it. Basically, there was never enough evidence to indict Service, and the phone call information seemed to imply otherwise. I added his subsequent clearings from '46 to '51 to further point to his innocence.

Please feel free to question any of these or other changes and additions.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 20:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the FBI report, Mark! After reading the report (It had to be 66 pages, didn't it?) the general gist from what the FBI culled, was that Service was in the wrong place at the wrong time. He had friends who wanted his name cleared as quickly as possible, that Service wanted to testify in front of the Grand Jury to clear himself, and that ultimately, the prosecutor dragged his role in the affair longer than necessary to get Service to agree to be a witness against the others arrested. Very interesting read! Glad to see it available for others. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 22:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this version works. I made some minor changes for clarity and emphasized the point re. Currie etc. as you noted. Probably there are more adjustments that could be made, but overall this seems good. RedSpruce 10:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Meetings with Currie, Hopkins and White

On doing some more research, I see that the identification of Harry Hopkins as "agent 19" or "source 19" is not by any means accepted by all scholars. Eduard Mark apparently expressed some doubt about this identification, and suggested that Hopkins was an authorized (by Roosevelt) back channel of communication to the Soviets. The meeting between Service and Currie is entirely explainable on legitimate grounds, and Harry White's status as a "spy" for the Soviets is disputed. The relevance of these meetings as a cause of suspicion is an unreferenced assertion in the article. If such a reference can be supplied, I'll be in agreement with restoring this passage. In the meantime, I'm taking it out. RedSpruce 14:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, as noted in my point #5 above, the meeting with IPI has no established relevance, nor does the 1952 Senate report have any established current-day credibility, so I'm removing that too. RedSpruce 14:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Edits by The Rebel At

Thank you, The Rebel At, for your attempt to re-insert some of the relevant facts that RedSpruce tried to remove from the article. I appreciate your comment that, contrary to his assertions, my edits were "not false or slanted towards a particular POV." I knew that, of course, but it was good of you to say so.

I shall engage your points sequentially. To start at the beginning:

You explained that you did not re-insert the information that Service shared a house in Chungking with Adler and Chi:


That is a fair cop. I cited sources for Adler and Chi being moles because I thought those might be controversial claims that might be challenged. I must confess that it never occurred to me that anyone might challenge that they were Service’s housemates.

Let's start with Adler: Service mentioned that he and Adler shared a flat in Chungking to Jaffe in the conversation (recorded by the FBI in section 39 of the Amerasia file) I cited earlier in the hotel room at the Statler; the Bureau summarized: "A highly confidential source has advised that Sol Adler was the roommate in Chungking, China, of John Stewart Service...." (FBI COMRAP Summary, p. 20 [PDF p. 24]) See also Service's testimony before the State Department Loyalty Board that in Chungking, "I moved into an apartment in the city with Solomon Adler," reprinted in the appendix to the Tyding committee report (p. 1969) and in the SISS report, The Amerasia Papers: A Clue to the Catastrophe of China (Jan. 26, 1970), p. 592.

I will post all these primary sources as my schedule permits. In the meantime, one secondary source condenses their relevant content thus:


I shall return to engage your subsequent points as time allows.

Thanks again for your help. Mark LaRochelle 17:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Good work in establishing the facts of this roommate-ship, Mark. Now all you have to do is establish that this has some relevance to the article, as per my point #1 above. RedSpruce 17:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, good work on providing citations. As per relevancy, this information seems important as for its impact on Service's problems concerning claims of disloyalty. Very conservative writers have tried to "prove" that Service was a Communist, was a spy, etc, for years, and generally, this has been rejected by most main works, recent and past, on Service. This article needs to preserve this mainstream opinion and avoid wordings that try and imply a guilt to Service. Along those lines, as I see it, the best way to include the roommate information into the article is to present it as a means of context for the suspicion, without making it, in itself, a vehicle to create suspicion in the modern day. That sounds complicated. Basically, present it in a manner that says, "Service's opponents tried to argue that Service was guilty by association, since he lived with and near these known Communist agents."
Thats how I'd incorporate it into the article, if I wanted it included. Service's innocence, however, must be carried out as the main theme, as thats how mainstream scholarship treats Service. The article doesn't exist otherwise to attempt to alter this perception. Great sources, though, and glad to see getting away from the original Amerasia papers that were published with surprising bias and error. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 02:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely. If this roommate situation was a cause of suspicion at the time of Service's loyalty hearings, then absolutely it's relevant. One question with regard to that is when it became known that Adler and Chi were spies. According to the Solomon Adler article, the evidence against him is Venona decrypts. That might make it impossible to determine when and to whom this information first became available. If the identity of Adler and Chi as spies is only a cause of suspicion now (i.e. since the Venona info became public), then that would have to be made clear. RedSpruce 10:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again, The Rebel At, for your assistance here. It seems that we are now in agreement that Service shared a house with Adler and Chi, and that, as you say, "per relevancy, this information seems important...." I therefore propose that this fact be re-inserted, along with the balancing information you mention. Here's a first draft we can bat around:
1) In Chungking, Service shared a house with two roommates, Soviet spy Solomon Adler of the U.S.Treasury Department (identified as the Soviet agent operating under the code name "Sax" in the Gorsky memo [transliterated "Sachs" in the Venona decrypts]). and Red Chinese secret agent Chi Chao-ting, both of whom would abscond to Beijing after the fall of China. Service's opponents tried to argue that Service was guilty by association, since he lived with and near these known Communist agents.
In addition, to save us from having to repeat it following every such fact, I propose that something like the following be inserted into the lede graph:
2) Very conservative writers have tried to "prove" that Service was a Communist, was a spy, etc, for years, and generally, this has been rejected by most main works, recent and past, on Service.
I invite you to suggest alternate wording or changes to these proposals. I think some such compromise will allow us to maintain an NPOV article without omitting facts that are, as you say, both relevant and important. Mark LaRochelle 10:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Re #1: "known spies" is unclear, and could be read as meaning that Service knew they were spies. And for about the umpteenth time, there should be a reference showing that, in fact, some of Service's opponents (other than, well, you) actually "tried to argue that Service was guilty by association." Presumably Evans can be used as a source for this. Also, guilt by association is an example of flawed logic, not something a person would be likely to espouse in so many words.
Re #2: Right idea, but poor wording. "Very conservative writers" is open to criticism as a POV evaluation, and the sentence doesn't really fit into the current lede. The current lede already deals with the historic accusations against Service and the outcome of those accusations. If the arguments of current authors are going to be included, that can go somewhere later in the article. It can be written as something like Some contemporary authors have revived the accusations of communist affiliations against Service,[citations to 2 or more sources] but these views are not held by the majority of scholars.[citation to a larger number of sources].
RedSpruce 14:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
One solution is to create a new subsection that concerns present day attacks on Service, and we could include the spy roommate information there (well, both 1 and 2). I would drop the reference on going to Beijing, and allow people to follow the links to the pages on those two men.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 01:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The record is very clear: Service was a not a spy. He was not disloyal. He was not a communist. Every review board except the last one cleared him, and that one raised "reasonable doubts" based on new information that turned out to be totally unfounded. Service was never given a chance to rebut it or challenge. Service was a honest, loyal American who reported what he saw in good faith while he was a Foreign Service officer in China. The worst that can be said was that he was naive and starry-eyed while visiting the communists in Yenan. There is no doubt that the nationalists were corrupt and incompetent. But the communists, with their land reform measures, genuine efforts to help the ordinary people in 1944-1945 and their overall competence in this period did seem to be the better group in China. And he was right that their greater competence at this point would probably lead to their victory. But some people can't get over that, and they continue to try to muddy his name. What is it with all this subtle innuendos about people and issues that have been thoroughly investigated and repudiated all before. Stop the slander! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.5.100 (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No classified documents passed to Jaffe?

IP editor 137.187.166.166 has inserted an edit asserting that none of the documents Service gave Jaffe were classified. I reverted this once as unreferenced and asked this editor on their talk page to add a reference. Looking through The Amerasia Spy Case with Amazon's "Search Inside" I don't see any claim that Service did give Jaffe or Amerasia any classified documents, but a valid source supporting this statement should be added. Since Klehr and Radosh write from a perspective of huffy indignation over what those bad ol' lib'ruls did in the Amerasia case, it may be that there's no statement in their book documenting that Service didn't do something egregious. So some other source may be needed. I'll look around, and I wish 137.187.166.166 would too. RedSpruce 19:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Service did give personal copies of his papers to Jaffe, which were labeled classified. The kicker is, however, that Service was the one who classified them, not any government agency. I.E., it was his own discretion, and the documents he passed to Jaffe were later considered to be more like press releases. Apparently, in China, it was quite customary at the time for this kind of relationship to exist between the embassy staff and journalists. I read a line the other day that journalists in China actually expected handouts from time to time. I've a busy schedule this week, but will try and find time to put something relevant up.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 02:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean: "Service did give personal copies of his papers to Jaffe, which were labeled classfied." Either the documents he gave were classified or they were not. Another source for this discussion is "The Amerasia Papers: Some Problems in the History of US-China Relations", Chinese Research Monographs, Number Sever, Center for Chinese Studies, UC Berkeley, by John S. Service, May 1971. This is Service's own defense of his conduct, in which he quotes large sections of testimony and conclusions from the Tydings Committee Report. According to Service, he "permitted Jaffe to read and to retain for a time in his possession eight to ten of my personal copies of descriptive reportorial memoranda which I had written in China" (p. 28). The man in charge of the prosecution of the Amerasia case was Robert M. Hitchcock (p. 29). He testified before the Tydings Committee as follows: "The personal copies which Service admitted lending Jaffe were never part of the State Department files" (p. 29 in Amerasia Papers, p 1008 in Tydings manuscipt). Senator Tyding asked, "[I]f Service had given Jaffe his own personal copies, would he have violated any injunction of secrecy as to State Department documents?" (Ibid). Hitchcock: "To my knowledge he would have violated no law whatsoever or injunction the State Department may have had with reference to Service's personal copy..." (Ibid in Amerasia; 1007 in Tydings Report). There is plenty more in this volume about the case, the prosecution, with large quotes from the Tydings commission report. As Service himself said in Amerasia Papers, the copies he gave "bore no official classification, were never part of the State Department or any other government files, and lending them to a journalist was not a violation of law..." (Amerasia Papers, p. 29).

Likely for these reasons, Service was never indicted or prosecuted. The Amerasia Spy Case book deals with many other actors in this saga, some of whom likely did do nefarious things. Klehr and Radosh seem to absolve Service of illegal activity, though his behavior throughout the episode--both during the case and later during the investigations--did not appear to be completely angelic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.187.166.166 (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If you had read past the sentence you quoted, you would have noted I said they were classified by Service, not by the State Department. I'm aware of the source by Service, as I posted its referencing information in the Amerasia article. Its probably the best refutation to the errors in the official Amerasia publication. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 01:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing Service passed on was labelled classified--whether by himself or the State Department. Little or nothing of what he passed on was "classified" in a general sense, meaning mostly information that was previously or later officially labelled as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.187.166.166 (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, I don't have time. This weekend I'll provide a source that Service classified his own papers. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 15:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The Foreign Service officers who write cables (or reports) usually are the ones who classify these documents. An officer who writes a report in 2007, for example, will write his report in a special room, with special classified computers. He or she chooses to classify the report. I fail to see how whether Service or the department classified his reports is particularly relevant if the material he lent to Jaffe was unclassified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.187.166.166 (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_S._Service/Archive_1&oldid=1140144031"