Talk:Samuel Dickstein

Untitled

I deleted the Soviet spy accusation - there were NO direct citations, sources, or even details; just a bald statement as fact, and an acceptance of a single source as definitive. Uh uh. --Calton | Talk 00:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I found mire than 50 sources -- your clim then and your claim now fails - there are a multitude of sources for him being paid by the NKVD.

[1] is sufficient in itself. Collect (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That link goes to a book review, not to independent reporting. Was Dickstein ever convicted of these alleged activities?   Will Beback  talk  16:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

John Wilkes Booth was nover "convicted" of assassinating Lincoln, Will. That cavil is, on its face, absurd. Collect (talk) 17:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The matters are quite different. As I understand it, the only evidence of the subject's involvement with the NKVD are NKVD files, as cited by Weinstein & Vassiliev. Is there other evidence? Do they allege that he actually spied for the NKVD?   Will Beback  talk  17:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

damning evidence he was a Soviet spy

Alas he was a spy. The details on his career as a Soviet spy appear in The Haunted Wood, pp 140-50, based on the KGB archives. Even strong anti-anti-communists agree that he was a spy. For example, Ellen Schrecker agrees. See her review in The Nation (May 24 1999) online at [[2]] She says "the KGB pay New York Congressman Samuel Dickstein thousands of dollars for inside information" and notes that he did not deliver much of value. Most historians think he did it mostly for the money. Further corroboration from Alan Theoharis another liberal historian can be found at [[3]]

Even strong anti-anti-communists agree that he was a spy. For example, Ellen Schrecker agrees. See her review in The Nation (May 24 1999) online

Horseshit. The review's source is, in the reviewer's words, "Allen Weinstein's limited excursion into the KGB's archives". You left off a few quotes from the review, where she talks about how shaky the source material is:

This sort of research is not the kind that inspires confidence within the scholarly community (especially given Weinstein's refusal to let other historians see the material he collected for an earlier book on Alger Hiss). Besides the ethical questions that buying exclusive access to official archives raises, it will be impossible to replicate--and thus check up on--the authors' research. Since they were not allowed to see the finding aids for the files, they were (and we are) completely at the mercy of the KGB's gatekeepers, whose principles of selection are unknown. In addition, because no photocopying was permitted, other scholars cannot verify how accurately the documents were transcribed and interpreted. Nor will they be able to identify those materials elsewhere, for the notes do not contain such basic information about the documents as who wrote them, for whom and when.

We must, therefore, take Weinstein's account of Soviet spying in the United States on faith. Perhaps he is purveying the product of a massive disinformation scheme involving thousands of forged documents created by a seamless, leakless network of Russian and American agents dedicated to historical fabrication; but it is hard to imagine why such a project would have been undertaken...

Even as Ellen Schrecker gives Weinstein the benefit of the doubt, she writes:

It is unclear whether all these people considered themselves spies. In their cables to Moscow, the Russians may well have been hyping their own work, portraying as "agents" unwitting sources who just thought they were discussing policy or trading information with friendly diplomats and political allies. The party's top US spymaster, Jacob Golos, and his courier-girlfriend, Elizabeth Bentley, tried to keep their Washington informants in the dark. They feared that these people might stop supplying information if they found out it was destined for the KGB instead of the party or the Comintern. Understandably, the Russians scoffed at such misgivings. They claimed that many of their US sources knew exactly whom they were working for and were, one Soviet operative boasted, "very proud of this fact."

So even assuming Weinstein was correct and the Soviets were passing on money to Dickstein, it's not a given he was spying. --Calton | Talk 15:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You can find a summary on p 156 in The Complete Idiot's Guide to Spies and Espionage by Rodney P Carlisle (2003) which is partly online at books.google.com at [[4]]

The Complete Idiot guides are NOT scholarly material nor research, just light reguritations of existing material for lay readers. Carlisle's source? Allen Weinstein's book. --Calton | Talk 15:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Both of ya'll are selectively quoting. If one reads Miss Schrecker article carefully, while she does say there are problems with how the KGB files were accessed, she beleives that much of the info in them is genuine. She quotes the part about dickstein without any specific disapporval.--Dudeman5685 05:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Another leading historian is Harvey Klehr; he says Dickstein was a spy in Morality and Politics v 21 p 156, which is online at books.google.com at

[[5]]

Klehr's quote:

KGB records shown to an American historian identify...Dickstein. The source? Guess who? Weinstein again. --Calton | Talk 15:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe all historians who have looked into it agree that he was a spy, so it's hardly a POV anymore. certainly the encyclopedia should report the consensus among scholars that he spent several years as a paid Soviet spy at $1250 a month. The $1250, by the way, was about the average ANNUAL wage for workers in 1937 so this was real nice money. It's probably true that he cheated the Soviets...one suspects his integrity. Rjensen 05:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe all historians who have looked into it agree That's not an argument, it's a statement of faith -- and all the refs you provided boil down to single, not necessarily reliable, unverifiable source -- Allen Weinstein's word, that the material he looked at -- and which he doesn't have copies of to allow comparisons -- was genuine in the first place, was accurate when it was written (assuming it's contemporary its purported time), refers to what he thinks it refers to, was translated properly, AND is being interpreted correctly by him. Yet Rjensen has no trouble spinning all of this up as a bald, multiply sourced statement of fact. --Calton | Talk 15:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

How about footnoting this in the article? It will make it a better article. Travb 01:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, i will footnote the article, Alan Theoharis actually quotes. the book The Haunted Wood. I will add this. Travb 01:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Rather odd here that people will have total faith in the weirdest stories (Butler-as-dictator) and yet distrust the Archivist of the United States, who was confirmed by the Senate last year. The idea that the Soviets faked their archives? That Weinstein faked archives so that he could attack a forgotten Congressman?? That the Kremlin did not try to get a spy in Congress? What next: no spies at Los Alamos? The problem here is the critics don't have a sense of history. They buy one outlandish theory without blinking and deny documentary evidence they don't like. When the entire history profession agrees on a point they say, the conspiracy is just HUGE... But remember this is an encyclopedia and when all the scholars in fact agree, we need to say so. Rjensen 16:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

How can you call him a spy if he never actually passed along any information? Taking money from the Soviets and not giving them anything in return is scamming, not spying. FCYTravis 02:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

He was a spy I agree that the information should be added back.

JJstroker 00:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

JJ, please stop adding this back. The criteria at Category:Soviet spies says,

• See also Category:Accused Soviet spies for those who were linked to espionage activities by the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation or other federal investigations, but who denied any complicity or who were never convicted of an espionage-related crime.

This subject was never convicted, hence "Category:Accused Soviet spies" is the correct category. -Will Beback 00:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

He was not convicted for one reason: He was dead when the proof came out in NKVD files! What an absurd cavil, though. I daresay that being a "paid agent for the NKVD" is enough if one wishes to say that he was not convicted after he was dead. I would point out that John Wilkes Booth was never convicted of assassinating Lincoln, Will. I think this means you should edit that article to remove any such claim <g>. Collect (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Verifiable facts belong in articles The claim that Dickstein was on the Soviet payroll is a verifiable fact using a reputable secondary source as recommended by Wikipedia standards for citations. I have added back the payroll claim, but have removed the charge that Dickstein was a "spy" and have removed the claim from the lead. If the objecting editor would like to add a sentence disputing these claims - backuped up by a reputable and verifiable source - he is free to do so. However, purging the claim entirely is a violation of Wikipedia's requirement for a Neutral Point of View. --Paul 23:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If the espionage claims are true, perhaps the article should reflect a little on the irony of it all. A founder of what became the House Committee on un-American Activities turns out to be -what is a neutral description?- to be a person who accepted money from Stalin's Soviet Russia in exchange for information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.149.136.2 (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

• A recent book: Spies : the rise and fall of the KGB in America by John Earl Haynes / New Haven : Yale University Press, 2009 verifies the claims made in The Haunted Wood and goes into greater detail on Dickstein's "espionage" career. I'll add some cites when I have the time.--Paul (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Dickstein's law school

Not on the same plane of interest as whether he was a spy, but I question the statement that Dickstein graduated from "the New York City Law School." I know that this statement is to be found in the Congressional Biographical Directory, but even Homer nods, and I am not familiar with any institution by that name, past or present. Does anyone know whether Dickstein might have actually graduated from New York Law School or the New York University School of Law or another institution? Newyorkbrad 01:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

All I can find is his admission to the bar in 1908. No source for any specific law school for him at all. In 1908, it appears that the only specific requirement was "three years study" [6] and not even a specific degree. The source does not indicate just what the state board exam entailed at all. I can find "New York (City) Law school" as a school name - it may well be the NYLS is the same institution. I also found references to the "NYCLS" as being an evening school. Collect (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Spy

A significant number of books (not just one) now make the "allegation" that a person who was paid for many years by the Soviets was, indeed, a Soviet agent. Cheers - some more refs added to make this all fairly clear. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Please list the sources you'd like to use for this assertion. Also, please don't forget that anyone being paid can be called an "agent", but only those engaged in spying are "spies".   Will Beback  talk  20:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Check out <ref>[http://www.boston.com/globe/search/stories/books/weinstein_vassiliev.htm Spy vs. spy vs. spy The story of Stalin's spies in America: both worse and better than was feared] Boston Globe; Lynnley Browning, Globe Staff; February 14, 1999</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=wVmtloSHqXkC&pg=PT165&dq=dickstein+nkvd&hl=en&ei=P-erTp2JCJKjtgePnpH9Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=dickstein%20nkvd&f=false What Ifs? Of American History: Eminent Historians Imagine What Might Have Been] Robert Cowley; Penguin, 2004; 298 pages; page 164</ref> The [[Boston Globe]] stated: "Dickstein ran a lucrative trade in illegal visas for Soviet operatives before brashly offering to spy for the NKVD, the KGB's precursor, in return for cash."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/globe/search/stories/books/weinstein_vassiliev.htm Boston Globe] Feb 14, 1999 Spy vs. spy vs. spy: The story of Stalin's spies in America: both worse and better than was feared; By Lynnley Browning, Globe Staff</ref> Sam Roberts in ''The Brother: The Untold Story of the Rosenberg Case'' stated "Not even Julius Rosenberg knew that Samuel Dickstein had been on the NKGB's payroll." <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=z6HtGVvO6jEC&pg=PA117 The Brother: The Untold Story of the Rosenberg Case] Sam Roberts; Random House Digital, Inc., May 13, 2003, 584 pages; page 117</ref> Kurt Stone wrote "he was, for many years, a 'devoted and reliable' Soviet agent whom his handlers nicknamed 'Crook.' " <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=ACTF56SnaykC&pg=PA120 The Jews of Capitol Hill: A Compendium of Jewish Congressional Members] Kurt F. Stone; Scarecrow Press, Dec 1, 2010 693 pages; page 120</ref>

for "tip of the iceberg" cites - note that the latter ones are fully independent of the source you dislike. Collect (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Try adding the venal Soviet spy Congressman Samuel Dickstein spoke out publicly from The Dangerous Otto Katz: The Many Lives of a Soviet Spy By Jonathan Miles .

From Morality and Politics: Volume 21, Part 1 (Social Philosophy and Policy) (v. 21) by Ellen Frankel Paul, Fred D. Miller Jr and Jeffrey Paul : mercenary spy, Congressman Samuel Dickstein, a New York ..."

More on request - but these two specify the three letter word you dislike. Collect (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

All of those either cite the Weinstein book or are just reviews of the book. There's just a single sources for this: Vassiliev's claim about what he saw in secret files which can't be accessed by any other researcher. So we can report that the allegation has been made, but we should not then use Wikipedia's voice to assert that it is a fact. It's no different from a single source claiming that a dead person was a homosexual based solely on primary sources which no one else can confirm.   Will Beback  talk  05:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What is a "spy"?

Surely the problem here is that we have a case where the existing vocabulary is inadequate to describe reality. It's that old "to be" problem again.

The word "spy" conjures up the image of someone finding out military or quasi-military secrets and passing them on to a foreign power. In this sense, Jonathan Pollard is a spy.

But is, for example, a Chinese dissident who passes on information to an American reporter about Chinese government cover-ups of environmental disasters, a "spy"? The Chinese state will certainly call him one, but I think we need a richer vocabulary for such people.

My own guess is that Mr Dickstein, like many liberals of the time, saw the Soviets as allies in a war against a deadly enemy, world fascism. This didn't mean that he necessarily wanted a Soviet America, or even approved of everything that was happening in the Soviet Union. (A useful analogy might be the attitude of many American conservatives towards the 'death squad' governments of Latin America a couple of decades ago, when they were exterminating communists. It's not that conservatives necessarily personally approved of the wholesale rape, torture and murder of young radicals, trade unionists, and peasants ... it's just that, in a war, you don't have control over your allies. How many leftists took any interest in the mass rapes by the Red Army as it moved into Germany?)

Of course, if we could get access to the NKVD archives, we might know if Mr Dickstein passed on any information other than details of American fascists and their organizations, such as American military secrets. That would justify calling him a "spy".

In any case, I propose removing the last sentence from this article, which is pointless information. It would be like saying "As of [current date] no one has proposed changing the name of [public school named after Robert E Lee or any other Confederate leader] to someone who was not a slave-owning insurrectionist traitor to his country."Doug1943 13:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug1943 (talk • contribs)

Requested move 17 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 18:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

---

• Samuel Dickstein (politician) → Samuel Dickstein

– Per pageviews and Google book results, this subject seems like the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in regards to the name "Samuel Dickstein" versus the subject at Samuel Dickstein (mathematician). (Note: The page currently at Samuel Dickstein is a disambiguation page with only two entries, so this move request would probably require that page to be deleted.) Steel1943 (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

• Support With neither currently at the base name, the politician seems to be getting around 99 percent of page views. No need for a DAB page, a hatnote will suffice.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, the other individual is from the non-English-speaking world and though less popular on Google, no less significant in having accomplishments worthy of note. I hesitate to engage in a major debate over WP:Primary issues in a case like this, as it risks ranking an American politician against a Polish Jew whose family died in the holocaust. We really don’t want to go there, even if they were both Jewish. Montanabw^(talk) 15:55, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

• To call one topic a primary topic isn't necessarily to dismiss the importance of another topic, and certainly shouldn't be seen as pitting one against another. But in this case, the metrics by which we would determine a primary topic in both usage and long term significance are both fairly clear. In this case, because usage is so overwhelmingly one sided, we'd need a fairly strong argument on the long term significance, but all the measures we would normally use -- like book results, where even a search for Samuel Dickstein & Holocaust brings up English language results almost exclusively about the politician, indicate we would have a primary topic. Again, this isn't meant to diminish the importance of another -- the entire country of Georgia isn't a primary topic! -- but rather what we use to aid reader navigation.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Except in extremely clear cut cases (i.e. George Washington), this sort of hair-splitting is problematic, particularly as it becomes a popularity contest that favors more recent people and and people who lived in the English-speaking world. Further, when there are names like this one — arguably common, there are apt to eventually be more than two. Montanabw^(talk) 15:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Honestly it seems like your issue there is more with our entire approach on primary topics than this specific case then. Very few primary topic cases are George Washington level -- most are "well known movie star of the 1980s vs. olympic athlete who won gold for Sweden in 1912" sort of level. But certainly strongly disagree with the assumption that there cannot be a primary topic because there could eventually be more people with this name that will get entries -- if that's the case, we can always re-approach the question in the future!--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:PRIMARYUSAGE and WP:TWODABS. The congressman gets overwhelming pageviews and with only two articles, a hatnote is just as good as a dab page for the small minority seeking the mathematician. Station1 (talk) 08:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support, yes the politician is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in terms of page views. But in the grand scheme of things both get very low amounts of pageviews and I'd be perfectly fine keeping DAB at base name.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.