Talk:Owen Lattimore

If ...
If Lattimore actually was a spy, what did he have access to that the Soviets would be interested in? What political/military/scientific info could he have passed to the Soviets? 12/7/05

IP number edits
There have been many IP number edits to this page, since late November. They collectively appear as slanting the POV of the page to guilt of Lattimore, by sheer bulk of allegations. The side-comments on other individuals are also at odds with what appears, or has appeared, on the relevant pages.

In other words, there seems to be an attempt here to rewrite history. The page should record the scholarly consensus, with proportionate mentions of dissent. No more and no less.

Charles Matthews 09:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Mr Mathews, Your comments make it clear that you lack a neutral point of view. What is your agenda? Lanny Budd 30 December 2005


 * Actually, they do no such thing. Charles Matthews 16:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, they do Mr. Mathews (if that is your real name).


 * My real name is Matthews. Do you always introduce yourself in this aggressive manner, Mr. Ladd? It goes down very badly on Wikipedia, and that I'll tell you for nothing. Do try to sign your edits, and pay attention to copying from line to line. That might possibly improve the impression you are making. Charles Matthews 09:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

-- This article does strike me as curiously biased. I thought that Lattimore was known as one of the United States' foremost scholars on China, with a catalog of many scholarly publications. I thought that was his legacy. I also thought he was absolved after McCarthy accused him. You don't get any of that from this article. It reads like an indictment by a McCarthyist obsessed with communism, rather than an assessment of a man's life. I have no stake in this game. I have no idea if Lattimore was a spy. I just came to this link to learn about Lattimore because I'm interested in Silk Road exploration, and instead I get kooky conspiracy garbage. I can't imagine who would have this kind of weird agenda against a man long-dead. --Splinters 18:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Bias in this article
This article has a general accusatory feeling about it. Lattimore was acquitted of all charges made against him by Joseph McCarthy, and there is no proof whatsoever that he was an agent of the Soviets, the Communist Chinese or any other related political entity, but this is not made clear in the article.

Further, there are items within the 'Accusations' section that seem to be cited from sources, with no sources given. For example:

"Lattimore's pro-Soviet outlook was expressed in a memo he wrote to the executive director of the Institute of Pacific Relations, a think tank financed by the Rockefeller and Carnegie foundations, which published his magazine:

For the USSR -- back their international policy in general, but without using their slogans and above all without giving them or anybody else the impression of subservience."

What is the source of the quote in italics, and what is the context of the quote in question?

Another example:

"While he was an advisor to Chiang Kai-shek Lattimore allegedly leaked information to the Soviets, and the Soviets considered him to be "working for them"."

Again, what is the source of this blatant allegation? This is sloppy work at the very least. If Lattimore is going to be so accused in this article, let's have it be more properly and professionally done.

In the final paragraph of the 'Accusations' section, it is claimed that 'A conservative organization, Accuracy in Media, claims that Owen Lattimore was correctly identified as a communist infiltrator.' There is a link added. No such accusation is made in the link, only innuendo. Further, the VENONA documents are mentioned here, but there is no link made between these documents and Lattimore. If Lattimore is named in the VENONA papers as a Soviet agent, where is the quote and the link?

This final paragraph is ridiculous and should probably be removed from the article altogether, based on its lack of proper sources and factual accuracy.

In my view...the entire article needs to be revised by someone with better research skills and a non-biased POV.

Bias
This article should be flagged for its bias. Frontpagemag is not a reliable source.

McCarthy
The article on McCarthy says he accused this person of being a Communist, not a spy.

no bias
Lattimore was indicted for perjury! Sorry to the poster above. It is known that he was one Yankeeroman(68.100.231.37 00:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC))

He was never found guilty of perjury...you are thinking of Alger Hiss. And if you do think it was Lattimore, then show some sources. Subotai Feb. 8, 2007

Bias Removed
I have edited out the irrelevant and unsubstantiated material that had been inserted in this article. DavidCartago 20:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't use inflammatory edit summaries. It is also far more polite to ask first for any missing sources. Charles Matthews 22:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Drive-by edits
There have been a few here. You are supposed to discuss matters here, not just take out material. There is not a lot of point doing that without making a case and raising the issues properly. Charles Matthews 22:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Uoper case
That section title as Lattimore's Theory on the Reciprocation between Civilization and the Environment is not house style. Charles Matthews 22:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed editorial comment on the charges arising from trip to the USSR.
I have once again removed contentious language about the reaction to Lattimore's National Geographic article. When I removed it before, that was not "POV hacking," it was just making the article stick to the facts.


 * So you mean Lattimore was at no point criticised for this? I think you may be wrong about that. But in any case, as I wrote above just moments ago, it is more polite to ask first about possible sources, rather than simply to cut. If I can explain, there have been a couple of edits, not just one, skewing (as I would see it) that passage, from left and right as it were. I had put it back to what it was before both edits, since neither impressed me. Charles Matthews 22:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course he was criticized, and my edits left that fact in place, while removing what appeared to be a partisan attempt to expand upon the criticism. DavidCartago 22:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's try this again
I did not intend to be inflammatory with my headline(s), and apologize for it. The wording in question is rather detailed and even argumentative, which seems disproportionate to the very tiny significance of the National Geographic article in a long scholarly career. I would like to see an attribution for it, and I question the relevance of Henry Wallace's alleged naivete. DavidCartago

quote half missing
the quote in the article is half missing. Where is the rest of the quote or remove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hmains (talk • contribs) 05:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Nicholas Poppe
1. I have changed his given name from Nikolai to Nicholas since that seems to be the name he took after emigration into the U.S. Or at least amazon gives a whole list of his books when typing Nicholas, as opposed to none when typing Nikolai.

2. I don't think the Wannsee Institute is infamous. The Wannsee conference rightly is, but the Institute does not seem to be directly related (though http://www.ghwk.de/sonderausstellung/villenkolonie/wannsee_institut.htm implies that employees of the institute played a role in mass killings in the Baltics and Poland and worked with the Einsatzgruppen). In any case, it's much less known than the conference.

3. I am not aware of any (even unsuccessful) german attempts to set up puppet governments (i.e. administrations that give an appearance of local souvereignity) in the caucasus. But this may just be my own ignorance. http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue23/oppenh23.htm states that he worked as an interpreter, which seems far more likely. Yaan 16:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up section on Accusations and adding new references
To make the section read more smoothly, I moved some of the detail from the first sentences to a footnote and added reference to M. Stanton Evans Blacklisted by History, which includes a detailed account of the accusations. I added material on the hearings from James Cotton's book and tried to highlight the accusations while also noting Lattimore's responses. cwh (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to change the section title from "Accusations," since the section actually discusses more. Perhaps "Lattimore on Trial"? Any suggestions? ch (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
As you can see from the additions I have made to the reference section, I am doing some reading about Lattimore. Sometime in the next month or so, I'd like to add more about his scholarly significance and contributions to make the article more balanced between the Cold War and the pre-war periods. This would involve some boiling down and rearranging. I will try to retain the various points of analysis, however. ch (talk) 05:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds great to me. The article sure needs a lot of work. Most of the material around his alleged pro-communist politics is currently based on far-right-wing authors like M. Stanton Evans, and there's no sense of what the balance of opinion among modern scholars is on this issue. I don't know enough about the subject to do any serious rewriting myself, but maybe your edits will inspire me to do the needed research to become involved as well. RedSpruce (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur. One would never get as much as an inkling from this that Lattimore was one of the finest area scholars of his day, whose work had a wide and compelling influence on Chinese studies.Nishidani (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe the very first sentence should be changed to "Owen Lattimore was an influential scholar of ...", i.e. that author and educator stuff removed? Or at least only mentioned further down the text? Yaan (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency
Quoting the article: "In 1952, Lattimore was indicted for perjury on seven counts. Six of the counts related to various discrepancies between Lattimore's testimony and the IPR records; the seventh accused Lattimore of seeking to deliberately deceive the SISS Lattimore's defenders,. . . Within three years, the charges against him were dismissed.'[25] In his book Ordeal by Slander, Lattimore gives his own account of this episode."

"Ordeal by Slander" came out in 1950. How could Lattimore have written about events taking place in 1952 in 1950? At best this is ambiguous, if what is meant is that he discussed earlier events in the book. At worst, it's just wrong. 68.54.160.137 (talk) 01:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

World War II and after
I tightened the section and removed points which I could not find backed up in the works by Buck, Cotton, and Rowe. Using raw FBI reports seems to be on the edge of Original Research, so I also checked John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999, which does not list Lattimore in the index. On pp. 146-47 they say that Venona messages discuss Laughlin Currie and show that he "gave assistance to Soviet intelligence cautiously and on a limited basis." They call him "White House Aide as Soviet Spy," which seems to me to be stretching it since they do not say that he was under Soviet control or pay. But "spy" is certainly a flexible term. In any case, there is no Venona connection with Lattimore, so it seemed enough to stick with what is demonstrable about him. ch (talk) 06:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Commendable editing, thanks.Nishidani (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

oops -- made a couple of minor shifts and edits but forgot to log in. ch (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Original Research
I took the liberty of removing sections which were based on Original Research, which includes selective use of sources to advance a point of view. The accusations against Lattimore are represented in good measure, in fact, even more than any description of his scholarly work. In any case, the section logically should not begin with the later accusations, which, while given under oath, were not subject to cross examination or verification.

Perhaps I have missed it, but I don't see a discussion or explanation for reinserting these sections. I would be glad to discuss!

ch (talk) 07:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I added some material from John Earl Haynes Harvey Klehr, Early Cold War Spies: The Espionage Trials That Shaped American Politics (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006). Removing material that seemed Original Research was considered "vandalism," but perhaps I can revise the opening paragraph of this section to meet the concerns. Would this be ok? ch (talk) 07:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, actually, what you did was to completely remove a paragraph with three separate references to A. Barmine's congressional testimony and FBI interview on the identical subject, which was not in any way OR, but a matter of historical record, one that could readily be checked by looking at the McCarran Committee testimony (or just by reading the Time magazine article). Then, when it was replaced, you placed an autoblock on the restorer's IP address and moved the paragraph out of order to the end of another section. Dellant (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if I was out of order, but the "undo" was anonymous and offered no explanation. Thanks for responding! Wikipedia policy on Original Research is that it is better to use recent mainstream published scholarship rather than going directly to primary sources. As you say, the congressional testimony is "historical record" not the preferred standard of secondary analysis. Time magazine likewise.

If there is an autoblock, I didn't put it there. I moved the paragraph to what I thought was a more logical place -- since Barmine's original talks with the FBI were not public (and at first they doubted him), it seemed that the ordinary reader would find McCarthy's accusations a more compelling way to start the section. If you think that this leaves out something important, let's work it in. What do you think? ch (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A: Well CWH, the autoblock contained your page and message, so you can understand my suspicions. As to the Barmine reference to Lattimore as a Soviet agent, you will note that nowhere is it stated that what Alexander Barmine, a high-level Soviet defector who knew Trotsky, Berzin, and Stalin, said to the FBI and the McCarran Committee is actually true. It was placed under the section 'Allegations' (no, sorry, actually it was the slightly more pejorative title, 'Accusations'). And it was clearly depicted as a hearsay statement from Berzin, the Soviet GRU chief, to Barmine.

However, the fact that Barmine gave his testimony and said what he said when he did is indisputable, so any esoteric discussions of what is 'mainstream' and what is 'original research' is immaterial. We have the record of the testimony to the FBI and to the Committee, as well as the Time reporter's coverage of the latter (whose article, incidentally, was openly hostile to the McCarran Committee and its actions).

To simply delete events or incidents in an effort to whitewash any historical figure is just silly. Like Stalin's attempt to erase Comrade Yezhov from the Party's collective memory, it's not going to work, and people will learn the truth anyway. Also, such overreaction to a single section just further agitates and invites retaliation from those who are diametrically opposed to your point of view, in this case, persons who don't like Lattimore and his political associations. These people will then feel compelled to introduce a new wave of allegations from all kinds of legitimate and illegitimate sources. It's all so senseless.

As an author, I am often asked by others if Wikipedia is an accurate source or not. I have to reply that if it concerns a controversial historical person or event, OR a popular celebrity or 'thing' (car, motorcycle, etc.) one should be very skeptical. Some persons regard any criticism of any highly-regarded person or event as a reason to 'sit' on the article and constantly sanitize it. Curiously, none of their excruciatingly high standards for evaluating cited sources of information ever seem to be imposed in other articles. Other established contributors (I don't include those here) don't like newcomer contributions of ANY sort, no matter how carefully referenced with academic sources (just try adding a sentence and source on ancient Roman or Greek battle tactics sometime).

If you want to put the Barmine paragraph at the end of the renamed "WWII and after" section, I'm not going to oppose it. But I would at least ask you to restore the original sentences you cut off, such as the reference to the McCarran Committee testimony, - and correct the spelling of 'public'. Special:Contributions/Don (Don) 19:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * From my reading of Autoblock you may have set if off by posting from more than one place. If it was me, then please accept my apologies -- it was inadvertent, as I didn't even know such a thing existed until you mentioned it.


 * I'm not clear whether you think I am whitewashing Lattimore or attacking him! Comparing me to Stalin isn't necessary. I'm trying to develop a balanced account, and am grateful for your help. My next task is to develop the first part of the article on L's actual career rather than the controversies. ch (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Portrait
A small portrait of Lattimore would be useful at the top of the article. "[A Turki man] was built in ovoid curves. The smaller end of this fleshy ellipse was decorated ... with an embroidered skullcap of mulbery plush, while the lover outlines were veiled more with hangings than clothes ... his shirt hung out like a wilted sporran. He spoke fluent--nay copious--Chinese of a high-flown sort in a saccharine voice like a nightingale choked with Turkish delight ..."--purple prose by Lattimore.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Evans Blacklisted by History
I undid the addition, with no page citation: "For a more recent work that suggests that McCarthy's allegations about Lattimore and others were indeed true see M. Stanton Evans, "Blacklisted By History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies," (Three Rivers Press, New York, 2007)."

The closest I can find to Evans' conclusion is: "As to whether such charges were valid when McCarthy made his later retracted 'espionage' allegation, given the condition of the files, it's hard to judge but the probabilities are against it (and even if the charges were true it's hard to see how McCarthy could have proved them)." (p. 397) ch (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Owen Lattimore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150404090330/http://www.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/file/1401/honorary_graduates_2014 to http://www.leeds.ac.uk/downloads/file/1401/honorary_graduates_2014

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Leeds
In 1963, he was recruited from Johns Hopkins University to establish the Department of Chinese Studies (now East Asian Studies) at the University of Leeds.

I think Lattimore left Baltimore, which he characterized as a 'sleepy English village' in contrast to Leeds 'the driving creative American city', because he was not given study leave or tenure. He was unhappy in Baltimore, and that is why he left. Leeds very sensibly offered him a job.(Pamour (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC))

Publications format
Would anyone be opposed changing the format of the publications to remove the irregular placement of the publication year at the beginning? I propose that we list his publications in MLA format, in the interest of using a more universal standard.

If anyone has thoughts on this please let me know. If you’re the author and there’s a particular reason you did it this way, I’m happy to leave it alone.

Neighborhood Nationalist (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)