:::"See Wikipedia: No Original Research." 
 :::See what exactly, the entire article? Your suggestion is that it is forbidden to include relevant text from a reliable and notable source because the reader might infer that the information contradicts some other source? That is not "original research." 
 :::"Suggesting that these statements are taken seriously as evidence against the notes is original research because you fail to cite anyone who agrees with that idea." 
 :::I did cite someone and you know it: D.D. Guttenplan.  
 :::Furthermore, read "Spies." 
 :::"The second allegation: "The co-authors, said Lubasov, 'were wrong when they put the name of Alger Hiss in the places where they tell about somebody who cooperated with Soviet special services, yes? So we are quite right in saying that we, the Russian intelligence service, have no documents... proving that Alger Hiss cooperated with our service somewhere or anywhere." So there you go, a "reliable source" taking the Soviet statements "seriously." 
 :::"it is irresponsible original research" 
 :::This says to the readers, "we are going to talk about Alger Hiss and the Soviet Archives, but statements on the subject from the Archivists themselves are forbidden to you to learn. This is nonsense. You're just trying to exclude relevant information you don't like.