Talk:Bill Sutch

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Should cause of death be mentioned?

According to the Herald article cited in the article, his death was from liver cancer.

Given that the death was just months after his acquittal on the espionage charges, is it worth mentioning this in the article, or is this too salacious? Kiore (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sutch Search

I don't have time to write it up just now, but I think it's eventually worth noting in this article that in his earlier life, Bill Sutch was lost in the Tararua Range north of Wellington for about 2 weeks (having planned to spend just a couple of days out), and with 3 other people including his future wife, Morva Sutch (nee. Williams), he was the subject of the largest land Search and Rescue operation that New Zealand had seen at the time. It's become popularly known as "The Sutch Search" (I'm unsure why because there were four of them and he wasn't even leading their trip), and it's widely credited as one of the key events that resulted in the structure of New Zealand's Land Search and Rescue Service for about 70 years since the 1930s. There's a heap of information with details in Chris MacLean's book titled Tararua: the story of a Mountain Range, and over the next few days I'm hoping to have a compilation of old Evening Post newspaper articles posted on my blog... the articles are tending around late April and early May of 1933. Izogi (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Career

This section is nicely written.....by someone who it would appear believes that Sutch was the greatest ever New Zealander. I've never read anything like It before in Wikipedia. And with no citations at all, this section has multiple issues.

I would appreciate it if the warning box at the top of the page could be edited to include those words, "multiple issues" and wouldn't it be great if this whole section or even the whole article could be written in a balanced way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boscaswell (talk • contribs) 23:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KGB Archives confirming Sutch a Spy

As noted above, the article seemed to have a bias against Sutch being a spy. In August 2014 KGB defector Vasili Mitrokhin's documents were released apparently showing the KGB ran him as a spy for 24 years. His daughter Helen Sutch has provided a media release retaining a Quixotic pretense this is not the case, however this seems a blatant cognitive dissonance; to believe in his innocence at this point it would be necessary to accept regular clandestine meetings with KGB agents may not have been treason as there is no proof what exact information was passed, and the KGB's description of him as a spy was a fiction sustained by successive members of the Soviets embassy for 24 years to boost their own importance. This is patently implausible. Given release of effective confirmation from KGB archives, I suggest a rewrite containing the new information, on the basis that Sutch was almost certainly a spy, his daughters continued protestations of his possible innocence forming a footnote. http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/10369208/Fresh-twist-in-40-year-old-Cold-War-spy-mystery , http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/251853/new-twist-in-sutch-spy-claims

As no comment have altered the article accordingly. The following reference was deleted as a Bot deems TV3 news an unreliable source (come on this item was broadcst before they sacked John Campbell... ^[1]

Hi there. Thanks for your edits. I've had a look through the articles you've linked, and tweaked the paragraph you've edited. Given that the articles note that the files don't actually name him, I'm not sure if we can authoritatively say 'Sutch was a spy'. So I've tried to make it clearer what the evidence says. Let me know what you think. Cheers — Ballofstring (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With apologiues to Ball of String, the Evidence Sutch was a spy is overwhelming.

The Mitrokhin archive material showed the KGB recruited from Wellington an Englishman, born 1907, New Zealand citizen, doctor of philosophy, former high level bureaucrat in government service, who retired in 1965. All of those details fit Sutch. There are no details that do not fit Sutch. The NZ Civil Service was and is small- no one else fits those details.

In addition to the information at the trial about signals with newspapers to arrange meetings with his handler in the Soviet Embassy and the fact he was caught red handed passing information, unclassified SIS information also includes analysis of various civil servants of potential use to the Soviet Union written with a degree of innocence thus; "Mr L has the most knowledge of anyone in the department and has been used in all areas except protocol. As a young man he was one of the left-wingers who were suspected by the Americans, but they didn’t have sufficient information to ask for his removal … Mr L’s sympathies, therefore, have to be kept very quiet and he himself is very careful at expressing left-wing views and he is in fact now more interested in sport (he’s a good cricketer) and his home than being a political person outside his work. However he is most sympathetic to the Soviet Union though this attitude is not shown in any of his conversation." That sort of assessment was never part of his job. There is no innocent explanation. In addition he he had unexplained wealth with hidden in Caribbean property even his family didn't know about.

While his daughter and son in law have a prolix and quixotic defence of his obvious status as a Soviet spy, (and will quite probably attempt to edit this), and New Zealand is not short of wishful thinking apologists for anything to do with treason in the cause of communism, any interpretation Sutch is not a spy is in denial of reality. The standard for Wikipedia is balance of probabilities. Sarah Gaitanos book pretty much nailed the evidence (and no excuse about it being a biography of his wife).

It is time to call him what he was.

Article corrected accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.29.209.224 (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your large rewrite suffers from WP:UNDUE. What about the previous iteration do you object to? Could you please propose your edits in smaller chunks here so they can be reviewed, rather than completely re-writing the article? Brycehughes (talk) 08:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective a large rewrite is a good thing, but can chunk it for the benefit of those who want to tweek rather than add content.

Puzzled by reference to WPUNDUE. Reviewed 6 articles and four books. Only family material and Wikipedia maintain he is not a spy. Included family disagreement for balance. In what way is this undue? Please how the policy applies rather than just citing a policy. Preferably referring to the source material discussed, not ethereal principles. As always, I am concerned about people who edit subjects they are not familar with; if you don't know much about Sutch and the cold war, perhaps reconsider editing or at least do some googling. If you do know something, write, don't just revert.

Also note reference to the cycle, but guide clearly states reversion is not desirable. Please. don't. do. it. Reversion where there there isn't blatant vandalism feels like edit warring to me. Stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.29.209.224 (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@161.29.209.224: Ok, thanks for the small edit you just made. Let's start with that—I'll hold off on reverting. Your edit explains that there are two biographies of Sutch's second wife that discuss her marriage to him. As written, this seems a bit tangential to Sutch himself. Can we modify that a bit—is there something particularly salient and specific to Sutch's personal life in those biographies that we can add there?

Regarding your comment above, that's great that you've read all that material, although one can imagine that even six articles and four books might take a particular shared perspective. Personally, I read this Wikipedia article a while ago, coming in knowing next to nothing about Sutch, and I left with the impression that Sutch was probably a spy. So, from that experience I thought the article was pretty well balanced. However, if you believe it tilts to far in one direction then that certainly can be addressed! Would you like to point out the sentences or paragraphs you think give the wrong impression and suggest edits? Brycehughes (talk) 10:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for talking :-). The second book - by the son in law is actually a joint biography, or story of the marriage. Shirley was an important intellectual in her own right and influenced her husband - yes I could outline the relevance better.

Suggest my main issues would be; Wikipedia article places less weight on archival KGB material than other sources. The SIS documents are characterised as showing nothing new and justifying innocence when they contained material not known earlier, and certainly did not justify innocence.

It is late in NZ I am going to bed but will take small bites at this. Do not wish to loose the alternate view of his children that he was not a spy, just balance it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.29.209.224 (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@161.29.209.224: Ok -- I'll let you tackle the relevance on that edit. Re KGB material, are you talking about the paragraph that begins "In August 2014, the University of Cambridge released details..."? Re the SIS stuff, I think I see what you mean there. Do you have another source that appraises the material differently? Brycehughes (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "KGB Papers Reveal Top Kiwi Diplomat a Spy". TV3 New Zealand. 11 August 2014. Retrieved 9 January 2016.

Copyright infringement from DNZB article

As it currently stands, this article contains a lot of thinly-veiled stuff from Brian Easton's Dictionary of New Zealand Biography piece on Sutch. Help would be appreciated identifying the bits which have been lifted from there and tidying them up with proper attribution/quotation marks/etc. While the material creates a good base, it's not really okay to have put in without any refs!! Cheers! Ballofstring (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri Razgovorov Photo

Does anyone know the copyright status/ownership of the photo of Dimitri Razgovorov running away from his meeting with Bill Sutch? It would be great to be able to include it in the page!

AtticEdit (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it's credited to the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service and NZ government works have a 100-year copyright, it's probably under copyright. Brycehughes (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[KGB_Papers_Reveal_Top_Kiwi_Diplomat_a_Spy,_TV3_News_11_August_2014-1] "KGB Papers Reveal Top Kiwi Diplomat a Spy". TV3 New Zealand. 11 August 2014. Retrieved 9 January 2016.

[1]