Talk:Alger Hiss/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 14

H-DIPLO academic roundtable

Interesting additional source. It explicitly talks about the consensus and suggests that now that the facts of the espionage are agreed to that discussion can move on to motivations. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The page I am looking at says, "At the CWIHP conference and in the commentaries, some of the familiar debates on the innocence or degree of involvement of Americans with Soviet espionage persisted. Nevertheless, consensus has emerged on the importance of the Vassiliev notebooks and their value to historians even if disagreements and qualifications will persist as indicated in the roundtable commentaries...."[1] Is that what you meant? TFD (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. To pick a comment at random (I've not read it all):

"Herein lies the problem we face with the Vassiliev notebooks: because no historian can check the raw documentation seen by and only by Vassiliev, no scholar of espionage worth his salt can, in all good conscience, ever consider any conclusion based exclusively on the unverifiable evidence gleaned from the Vassiliev notebooks as "conclusive." Evidence found in the Vassiliev notebooks is best used with and/or as corroborative of other verifiable evidence."

Bruce Craig, University of Prince Edward Island

AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It corroborates the other evidence against Hiss quite well. But I have no intention of saying that in the article. The facts should speak for themselves.

CJK (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

John Prados, Senior Fellow and Project Director with the National Security Archive, who was a participant in the 2007 conference with Bird and Chervonnaya, has a review of Spies, "Frustrated Spy Catchers", in the Wilson Quarterly, No. 3, (Summer) 2009 issue, pp. 89-92. This review certainly ought to be referenced in our article. (I think I may have mistakenly referred to Prados above as a CIA employee). I'll see if it is available in my library. 173.77.97.243 (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC) edited 173.77.97.243 (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

My library has it digitalized. I'll tuck it in here, and if the formatting annoys anybody they can correct or delete it.

A few important excerpts:

[Klehr and Haynes] note additional limitations in their preface I to Spies. They conclude, correctly, that the Vassiliev material is nevertheless the largest available compilation of KGB material. Still, historians' cautious attitude toward this evidence is understandable.

The book opens with a chapter that seeks to prove beyond doubt that Hiss was a Soviet spy, adding the Vassiliev notebooks to previous evidence. That was also the contention of The Haunted Wood. In the decade since the earlier book's publication, arguments have raged about Hiss, with disputes over cryptonyms said to refer to him, complicated by the fact that Hiss is said to have spied for Soviet military intelligence, not the KGB. The argumentation approaches me minute detail ofTalmudic scholarship, a level that persists through this long work.

Material on the actual Soviet intelligence gains from all this espionage remains sparse, with the exception of the activities of the atomic spies. So I wonder about the value of this book Yopienso (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Prados' review of Spies
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Frustrated Spy Catchers Reviewed by John Prados The two Americans who took part in writing Spies pose the essential question in the first sentence of their preface: "Is there anything new to be learned about Soviet espi- onage in America?" They answer in the affir- mative, of course. But the question needs qual- ification, because John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, and Russian coauthor Alexander Vas- siliev write only about the earliest part of the story, primarily before the Cold War, with some brief coverage of the late 1940s. This era has been endlessly picked over already, not least by the authors themselves. There is a huge story, yet to be told in a coherent fashion, of Soviet espionage during the Cold War. It is a story of secrets purloined, agents recruited- not just Americans but Western Europeans and others- and of Moscow's spy chieftains, their aims, their management of field officers, and their role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Spies is not that story. Rather, the authors delve into the pre-World War II and wartime exploits of the Soviet spymasters assisted by members of the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA). This terrain is all too familiar. Some of the episodes, such as the debate over the alleged treason of State Department official Alger	Hiss, or the "atomic spy"	cases epitomized by that of I Julius Rosenberg, became \ political litmus tests for I generations of Americans. I Ideological camps formed \ over guilt or innocence.	Political careers were built I on the investigations. Naming names of i alleged or real spies became the stuff of par-	lor games- and witch-hunts. Indeed, the \ exercise added the term "redbaiting" to the I American lexicon. Soviet spymasters must I have enjoyed this spectacle of the capitalist	dog eating its tail. It was probably their	greatest achievement. I To understand how Spies' authors could I claim to bring new information to the table I requires some discussion of evidence. There	are three main veins of material on this	subject One, the "old" evidence, consists of	contemporary accounts from the era, includ-	ing media coverage, the memoirs of confessed	agents and a few Soviet defectors, the testi-	mony and conclusions of congressional hear-	ings and certain trials and investigations-	most notably those of Hiss and J. Robert I Oppenheimer- and scholarly studies of the SPIES: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America. By John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, and Alexander Vassiliev. Yale Univ. Press. 650 pp. $35 Summer 2009 Wilson Quarterly ojj This content downloaded from 137.229.184.15 on Sat, 13 Jul 2013 20:51:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsCURRENT BOOKS Alexander Vassiliev, a former KGB officer turned journalist recorded his research in Russian intelligence archives in the mid-1990s in eight notebooks. The page above sketches the KGB's 1945 scientific and technical agent network and describes Julius Rosenberg's espionage circle. CPUSA. This vein has been mined deeply since at least 1955, when David J. Dallin published his (still useful) work Soviet Espionage. The second vein dates from the mid-1990s, when me National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency began the release of several thousand Soviet messages, bearing the code name | 'Venona," that had been intercepted and fully or | partially decrypted by US. intelligence. The most | recent of these messages dates from 1948, and the j bulk were sent during World War II. In addition, a | range of FBI documents on the Soviet spy cases ! have been declassified These materials fueled numerous studies, including ones by Haynes, a historian at the Library of Congress, and Klehr, a politics and his- tory professor at Emory University. . The third vein of mate- rial is based on internal records of the Soviet civilian intelligence service, which has had various names but- following the authors' own convention- will here be called the KGB. These records were made available from early 1994 to early 1996 to Alexander Vassiliev, a former KGB officer turned journalist, through an ar- rangement with American publishers. Vassiliev teamed with American historian Allen Weinstein to write The Haunted Wood, published in 1999. As the dates indi- cate, Vassiliev and Wein- stein already had access to the Venona material. The symbiosis between the KGB records and the Venona material gave The Haunted Wood much of its impact I The clear comparison is thus between that book I and Vassilievis new work in conjunction with I Haynes and Klehr.	It is important to understand that the three	veins of material, however rich, are inherently lim- [ ited In the case ofthe KGB records, Vassiliev was I | only permitted to take notes, not reproduce docu-	ments, at a location remote from the KGB archives, I | using materials selected by Russian intelligence I j officials. The officers who headed the post-Soviet I | intelligence service (SVR) directorates for I ! "illegals"- that is, undercover officers- and scien- 90 Wilson Quarterly Summer 2009 This content downloaded from 137.229.184.15 on Sat, 13 Jul 2013 20:51:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsCURRENT BOOKS tific spying denied all requests. Vassiliev and Wein- stein œuld ask for things, but the Russians could deny them at whim- and in the middle of this col- laboration, an incident that embarrassed the Rus- sians involving a document unearthed by a researcher at a different archive, plus generally deteriorating U.S.-Russian relations, halted the entire process. Access to the KGB records was never renewed. These facts raise a number of questions regard- ing the source material, which we will simply assume was itself authentic. The SVR managed the access; it presumably had motives and a certain image it wished to convey. The KGB filing system was inconsistent- which, Vassiliev writes in Spies, sometimes played in his favor- but there is no telling what was missed thereby. The SVR specifi- cally denied him the files on spy recruiter Julius Rosenberg and New Deal Treasury Department official Harry Dexter White- two of the major characters in this story- limiting Vassiliev to what he could cull from cross-references in other files, rich as they might be. Note taking, as opposed to photocopying, meant that only those aspects that appeared significant to Vassiliev at the moment, as he hurried through the documents, were captured, and termination of access meant that no one could go back to check or extend the research. Klehr and Haynes note additional limitations in their preface I to Spies. They conclude, correctly, that the Vassiliev i material is nevertheless the largest available compi- I lation of KGB material. Still, historians' cautious | attitude toward this evidence is understandable. I The key difference, we are told, between the I new book and the earlier Weinstein-Vassiliev | collaboration is that the authors now have available | the fullVassiliev notebooks rather than extracts I that Vassiliev took with him when he moved from 1 Russia to England in 1996. Fearful that his | notebooks would be confiscated at the airport, he | left them behind but has since retrieved them. This | access is certainly an improvement, but it does not | escape the limitations of the original research. I Meanwhile, the use of FBI files is hampered by | widespread and often extensive deletions. As a | source, Venona has its own imperfections, starting !	with the limited number of messages intercepted I and its restricted time frame. In those messages the I KGB referred to individuals, places, and subjects by I code name (cryptonym). This spawned a guessing	game about who is who and what is what among I intelligence officials and, since the declassification I of Venona, among historians and other observers. I Haynes has been a notable contributor to this cot-	tage industry. Haynes and Klehr published a book I on Soviet intelligence in the United States based on I Venona at the same time Weinstein and Vassiliev I broughtout7^itom^P^>odmthatbook, I Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, I they contrived to identify 349 agents for the I Soviets. brings the discussion to Spies. The book opens with a chapter that seeks to prove beyond doubt that Hiss was a I Soviet spy, adding the Vassiliev notebooks to previ- I ous evidence. That was also the contention of The I HauntedWood. In the decade since the earlier I book's publication, arguments have raged about I Hiss, with disputes over cryptonyms said to refer to I him, complicated by the fact that Hiss is said to I have spied for Soviet military intelligence, not the I KGB. The argumentation approaches me minute I detail of Talmudic scholarship, a level that persists	through this long work Spies goes on to cover a great deal of ground, including spying efforts related to the atomic bomb project, Soviet recruitment of journalists, spies who infiltrated the U.S. government, agents recruited from the American wartime intelligence organiza- tion (the Office of Strategic Services [OSS]), scien- tific and technical espionage, support personnel (read CPUSA), and celebrity spies such as business- man Victor Hammer. Among the highlights are claims that the journalist I. F. Stone did indeed work for the Soviets in the 1930s; the identification of a (minor) new atomic spy, engineer Russell McNutt; a concession that Oppenheimer (whatever his sympathies may have been) was not a spy but merely an object of KGB desires; and an assertion that Ernest Hemingway "toyed with Soviet intelli- gence." The book ends by raising the ante on the Summer 2009 Wilson Quarterly 91 This content downloaded from 137.229.184.15 on Sat, 13 Jul 2013 20:51:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsCURRENT BOOKS number of Soviet spies: There may have been in excess of 500. Despite all this detail, the story that really emerges is one of KGB failure. Consider the case of the OSS: This American intelligence agency created the foundation for what is now the CIA. The authors argue that the KGB developed "an astounding number of sources" within the OSS- they identify a dozen. By this standard, the CIA ought to have been riddled with Soviet spies from its inception in 1947. Yet it was the 1960s before the agency was afflicted by a mole hunt for KGB agents- now thought to have been spurious- and the 1980s until significant KGB penetrations of the CIA were actually uncovered. Similarly, the signal KGB success of World War II- uncovering American atomic secrets- was not matched by any consequential espionage presence in the United States' Cold War-era nuclear programs. For all the naming of names, the Soviets took home no secrets they had not gained in World War II or before it. The balance of power in the Cold War remained exactly what it had been then. During the 1930s, when the Soviet social enter- prise still seemed attractive, the democracies appeared to be threatened by fascism, and the impending conflict was epitomized, for many, by the Spanish Civil War, recruits for the Soviet	spymasters were legion. Most of the relationships	detailed in Spies date from that period. Joseph I Stalin's purges, which also cut deeply into the KGB, I affected management of its American networks. I His 1939 deal with Adolf Hitler soured the pot The I rising disaffection and Soviet paranoia led the	KGB, before the end of World War II, to actively i work to cut the CPUSA out of its spy operations. A I series of spy cases that began in 1945 with the I defection of a KGB operative in Canada and the I surrender of a CPUSA cutout to the FBI completed I the destruction. The controversial Hiss and Oppen- i heimer cases took their public toll at a moment	when KGB espionage in the United States was near	its nadir. I These observations are not so new And the I mteipre1^onsofmdividuals'rdesin5]pzesaredif-	ferent mostly in nuance from what has appeared	already. Material on the actual Soviet intelligence	gains from all this espionage remains sparse, with I the exception of the activities of the atomic spies. So i I wonder about the value of this book. The number i of spies has swelled from 349 to 500? This is angels	on the heads of pins. It is time to stop bogging	down in the Stalinist era and move on into the Cold	War. i John Prados is a senior fellow of the National Security Archive. His \ most recent book is Vietnam: The History of an Unwinnable War, \ 1945-1975, published earlier this year.

Thank you, Yopienso. I want to mention something that occurred to me. People criticized Weinstein for not knowing Russian, but, apparently, Haynes and Kehr also know no Russian. Yet they have spent their entire careers as historians with a specialty in the Cold War. If true, it boggles belief. Can anyone take seriously purported scholars who don't know one of the main languages of the field in which they are supposed to have expert knowledge? 173.77.97.243 (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

to 173.77.97.243: Can anyone take seriously purported scholars who don't know one of the main languages of the field in which they are supposed to have expert knowledge?

About the 2nd thing I was told in my first Russian history course was that since the school did not have a Russian language program, it would be impossible to do serious scholarship, since all "research" would have to be done in English. That fact doesn't seemed to have made it to Weinstein & H&K.

A most irritating, but certainly consistent issue with the telling & retelling of McCarthy era espionage allegations is that the story is told from our side of the table. What does the other side of the table say? Vassiliev's notebooks, offer at best a peephole view.

Were there Soviet agents? Absolutely. What did they get? So far we don't seem to know. Always remember... America's industrial base was founded on industrial espionage... government sponsored industrial espionage. DEddy (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not your business to decide what reliable, verifiable source is or isn't to be taken seriously. Clearly, nothing will ever convince you that Hiss did it but that doesn't mean we can't state the evidence we have.

CJK (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

H & K may meet wikipedia's standards for RS, clearly they do, but objectively it is a real drawback. It's not as if they haven't had time, they've been at it long enough. You would think they would have some intellectual curiosity. 173.77.97.243 (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC) 173.77.97.243 (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, you continue to misrepresent this as a dispute between editors who believe Hiss is guilty, which you believe, and editors who believe he was innocent. Let me explain my position again. I do not care whether or not Hiss was a spy, merely that we explain what reliable sources say. Capitalismojo began this discussion thread by misrepresenting a source. If you want to talk to people about how you feel about the case, then go to a blog. Otherwise just accept that the article must represent what sources say. TFD (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Really? You don't care that Hiss was a spy, but you ignore all the evidence of a consensus and not once but repeatedly misrepresent the positions of users who pointed this fact out to you? And ignore the fact that your prime source is a violation of WP:RS and WP:V?

The reliable source I presented notes that Hiss was identified as a spy in the notes from the archives. That is what I am asking for inclusion in the lead, but you choose to ignore my argument because apparently you don't believe you could win the argument if you represented my views accurately.

CJK (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

See the first posting at the top of this discussion thread and my reply. It is about the conclusions of the H-DIPLO academic roundtable, not about what should be in the lead. These free-wheeling discussions about why you find the evidence conclusive are not helpful to improving the article. TFD (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The reliable source I presented notes that Hiss was identified as a spy in the notes from the archives. That is what I am asking for inclusion in the lead, but you choose to ignore my argument because apparently you don't believe you could win the argument if you represented my views accurately.

CJK (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The phase "Hiss's name appears in several of Vassiliev's notebooks" would be a better use of English than "Hiss is identified in several of Vassiliev's notebooks". I reiterate that there should, IMO, be a separate wikipedia article for Vassiliev's notesbooks, their fortunes and content. This is an article about the biography of Alger Hiss. 173.77.97.243 (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be clear that Hiss's name appears as a spy, not just that he was mentioned. Not everyone mentioned in the notebooks is mentioned as a spy.

CJK (talk) 15:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Um, CJK, aren't the words used "source" or "agent"? And there is controversy over what these words actually mean, no? 173.77.97.243 (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No, there isn't. Not in regards to Hiss anyway.

CJK (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? 173.77.97.243 (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The context makes perfectly makes perfectly clear, without any doubt, that Hiss was a spy. I gave an extensive quote in the previous section.

CJK (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: The context makes perfectly makes perfectly clear, without any doubt, that Hiss was a spy.

You read a SECONDARY source that has been translated from a language you don't read (since the only source you grudgingly admit you may have read is "Spies" I leap to the conclusion you are not fluent in Russian) & this is air tight evidence for you? DEddy (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with DEddy that CJK's contention that the meaning of "agent" is "perfectly clear without any doubt" from the context constitutes original research. Also, I looked at the Wilson Center copy of the document (copy? summary?) that CJK cites as cinching evidence that Alger Hiss was a spy, myself. To avoid ambiguity, this document is a copy (summary?) of a 1948 memo (not sure of the source) from Petr Fedotov and Konstantin Kukin to the "Chairman of the KI" (the name of the short-lived, temporarily merged GRU and KGB Agencies). http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Black%20Notebook%20Translated1.pdf

The memo mentions A. Hiss and D. Hiss by real name as among a group of "our former agents who were betrayed by Karl". It also says that Karl was born in Germany and that a proposal to set up faked documents purporting to show Karl was an undercover Nazi would be undesirable because it would transform the "betrayed" (denounced?) agents from "alleged [Soviet] agents" to real Nazi ones. "Karl" is supposed to be Chambers, who was not born in Germany, but in Philadelphia, Pa. Chambers dropped out of Columbia University, but I don't see where he ever studied in Germany. He is said to have learned enough German from a tutor to have translated "Bambi". I don't see how this garbled document can be offered as proof that Alger or Donald Hiss were ever spies. As far as I know, Chambers did denounce Donald, but Donald's name and reputation have long been considered completely in the clear. If "Karl" falsely accused Donald, why is it impossible that he also falsely denounced Alger? And "Karl" might refer to someone else entirely -- someone who was born and studied in Germany. 173.77.97.243 (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC) 173.77.97.243 (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The document I saw referred to Chambers by name, although it was in response to a telegram that used "Karl" as a cover name. It said "alleged" in an American legal context, it also says "they had worked for us".

According to Chambers, Donald Hiss never procured any actual documents but he was a member of a covert Communist apparatus nonetheless.

CJK (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It does say Chambers, you are right about that. But I don't know how you can show that "alleged" is used in an American legal context. Also, Svetlana Chervonnaya states that "worked for" is a mistranslation for "cooperated with", which, since the Soviet Union was our ally in WW2 and not our enemy is not such a strange statement. Did you see a different document than the one that was posted on the Wilson Center website and are you a Russian speaker? 173.77.97.243 (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I already gave the full text and I'll give it to you again:

The station’s proposal to manufacture and publish documents in our newspapers about the fact that the traitor Chambers is a German agent, conducted espionage work in the USA on assignment from the Gestapo, and on German instructions, infiltrated the CPUSA – cannot be accepted. The publication of such "documents" would undoubtedly have a very negative effect on our former agents who were betrayed by Chambers (A. Hiss, D. Hiss, Wadleigh, Pigman, Reno) and oth., because, knowing that they had worked for us, but having "turned" into German agents, these people could, for example, choose to cooperate with the authorities, give them candid testimonies, etc. Moreover, the transformation of these individuals from alleged Sov. intelligence agents into established agents for a country that had been at war with the USA would certainly not help them from a purely legal standpoint. The station’s proposal to manufacture and publish documents incriminating certain leaders of the ‘Committee on the Investigation of un-American Activities’ and Federal Court Justices as Gestapo agents should be studied and considered with care.

Where is the ambiguity in that?

CJK (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Your obstinate refusal to answer my questions suggests you are not in good faith. I repeat, how do you know "alleged" is being used in an American legal context? Do you speak Russian? How do you know "worked for us" is an accurate translation? And also, what about the previous statements about "Karl" being born and educated in Germany". 173.77.97.243 (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

how do you know "alleged" is being used in an American legal context?

Because it says the transformation of these individuals from alleged Sov. intelligence agents into established agents for a country that had been at war with the USA would certainly not help them from a purely legal standpoint.

How do you know "worked for us" is an accurate translation?

Because it says knowing that they had worked for us, but having "turned" into German agents, these people could, for example, choose to cooperate with the authorities, give them candid testimonies, etc.

"Karl" being born and educated in Germany

According to Spies Chambers knew some German, and they may have wrongly assumed this meant he was German. In any case this does not matter, we know they are talking about Chambers because they say outright "Chambers".

CJK (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK if you do not know Russian you cannot judge the accuracy of a translation. Period. Not from context nor anything else. Your original interpretations and speculations are not acceptable for an encyclopedia article. You should write your own article and publish it. All that can be done here is to report what scholars have said. And they have varying interpretations of what all this means.The fact that neither Haynes nor Kehr, not Weinstein know/knew Russian, added to the fact that they wrote their voluminous writings from a very polemical point of view, is very damning. Prados, Craig, and the rest maintain that the Vassiliev journals are valuable as far as they go, but without corroborating information they cannot be used to draw any definitive conclusions. 173.77.97.243 (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC) 173.77.97.243 (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, Vassiliev certainly knew Russian, and he believes that Hiss was a spy. It corroborates the other evidence against Hiss (typewritten documents, Massing and Field, Venona, etc.)

Actually, it is your argument that constitutes original research. You have shown no evidence that anyone is questioning the validity of this document's translation or interpretation.

CJK (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I have named several scholars, at least one of whom is Russian, who question the validity of Vassiliev's translation and interpretation. 173.77.97.243 (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

On this document? Context matters. Unless you can show that the translation and interpretation of this specific document is open to question it amounts to original research.

CJK (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No, all I have to show, which I have done, is that another scholar has questioned Vassiliev's translation of "worked for" and that other scholars have questioned the reliability of his document in general because it can't be checked against the originals. I don't have to weigh in one way or the other on whether or not he is right or wrong. It can't be checked so it is moot. It doesn' matter whether it is this document or another. 173.77.97.243 (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

And, if I were editing the article now, I would say that Vassiliev and Weinstein's The Haunted Wood was widely criticized because it was full of errors and questionable statements, and because and Weinstein didn't know Russian, and because the material he worked with (Vassiliev's material) could not be independently checked. And that in response to these criticisms Vassiliev has made his notes available and has acquired new, and more careful co-authors in producing the book Spies (though they still know no Russian), and that there is now a consensus among scholars that his notes are indeed a valuable addition. But that, nevertheless, many critics (such as Nicholas Lehmann, John Erhmann, Eric Alterman, and John Prados, to name a few) concur that they add nothing new and that the same criticisms that were made of The Haunted Wood, still largely apply to Spies. 173.77.97.243 (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You said Svetlana Chervonnaya states that "worked for" is a mistranslation for "cooperated with", which, since the Soviet Union was our ally in WW2 and not our enemy is not such a strange statement.

The statement reads: knowing that they had worked for us, but having "turned" into German agents, these people could, for example, choose to cooperate with the authorities, give them candid testimonies, etc.

So we're honestly supposed to take seriously the notion that when they said their agents "worked for us" they really meant "normal routine cooperation with us during World War II", even though they expressed worries about them cooperating with the authorities and giving "candid testimonies" as well?

The rest of your statement is callously indifferent in terms of the need to report the facts. The book does not require glowing reviews from every single person in order for us to report it's factual statements.

CJK (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

"Callously indifferent" ?? "Glowing reviews from every single person" ???-- this is gibberish. I don't know what the memo means, all I know is that the meaning is disputed, and not by me but by reliable scholarly sources who work in intelligence and speak Russian (some of them). Take it up with them on your own time. Wikipedia has to report what RS say, not what we think. And one tendentious source is not sufficient to determine "the facts." 173.77.97.243 (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the meaning of this document is disputed. All you said was that "work with" might mean "cooperate". I demonstrated that the context of the statement renders that point moot. Someone has to actually evaluate the context of the document in question in order to dispute it. Anything less is totally unreasonable because you can't assume that criticism that applies to some documents would automatically apply to all of them.

And one tendentious source is not sufficient to determine "the facts."

Please cite the Wikipedia policy which allows you to declare that facts cannot be determined from sources you label as "tendentious".

CJK (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It is bizarre to say that the notes are accurate because no one has questioned them. In order to show that they are accurate, you need to present the original documents and allow forensic testing. Do you know if any freedom of information applications have been made? (The FOIA was only passed in 2010!) That would enable us to compare the notes with the actual documents and determine if they were accurate. TFD (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

to FourDeuces: Do you know if any freedom of information applications have been made? (The FOIA was only passed in 2010!)

Minor detail. The originals are in the Soviet archives & 100% inaccessible. What has been made public here (in the States) are Vassiliev's notes from the originals.

Also: FOIA has been with us since 1974. Forty years. DEddy (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

According to Bruce Craig, the heart of the problem with much of the evidence cited from the Vassiliev notebooks is Vassiliev's: questionable and at times faulty interpretation of what constitutes historical fact. 173.52.244.188 (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

DEddy, The Russian FOIA came into effect in 2010, according to a website of the Open Society Foundations.[2] I do not know whether the KGB files would be covered. TFD (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Russian FOIA came into effect in 2010

Wow! Russian FOIA. Now there's an oxymoron. DEddy (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The notes have been widely accepted by scholarship. There is thus no need for me to prove their accuracy by comparing it to sealed files. I am very careful to source the accusation to the notes.

CJK (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The only way for scholars to verify that the notes accurately reflect what is in the files is to compare them with the original documents. AFAIK this has not been done. Can you provide a source that says the notebooks provide an accurate transcript of the records and that there are no errors or omissions? They are convinced that no names have been misspelled or any dates are wrong. That no other documents relating to Hiss or Ales etc. have not been overlooked. Or are they merely saying that the documents are probably accurate in most respects? TFD (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You are just making up your own policies. Nobody has to "verify" that the notes are accurate. It is enough that they are widely accepted as such.

CJK (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? TFD (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, TFD,, you're being tendentious here and insisting that CJK engage in OR. The scholars accept the notebooks with some caveats; that's all we need to know. The only qualifier necessary is to cite to Vassiliev. Yopienso (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Then you are agreeing with me. The notebooks are probably accurate in most respects, rather than definitely accurate in every respect, as CJK would have us believe. Furthermore we are supposed to rely on secondary sources that have examined the notebooks and decided what is reliable and how to interpret them, rather than us personally reading the notebooks and drawing and reporting our own conclusions about Hiss' activities. TFD (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

What your personal opinion of the notes is, is irrelevant. All that counts is that the consensus in reliable sources appears to accept those notes. Cheers - but the word "tendentious" is about to be uttered by a bunch of editors here. Collect (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Collect, I was agreeing with Yopiensko, who was discussing what the sources say, rather than what editors believe. If you disagree that scholars find the notebooks probably accurate in most respects, you you please present a source that supports your personal opinion. Also, could you please not jump into conversations to insult me and misrepresent my comments, but concentrate on improvements to the article. TFD (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Scholars formerly rejected Vassiliev's notes because they were not available for inspection by other scholars. They have now been made available for inspection and the scholars accept that. They do not accept Vassiliev's notebooks as "closing" the Hiss case as claimed by the hype accompanying their release. This needs to be made crystal clear in the article. 173.52.244.188 (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You make assertions without providing reliable sources for your claims. Absent such, we deal with what the reliable sources state - which is that there is a consensus that Hiss was a Soviet agent. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sure that in the books and news sources you read there is consensus. See for example Ann Coulter's book Treason. But what matters is what experts say. TFD (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I can provide reliable sources for my claims. 173.52.244.188 (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

See for example Ann Coulter's book Treason.

Boy, oh boy... I want to see someone stand up for Ann Coulter as a reliable source. DEddy (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Summarizing the problems identified so far

1. There is no source for the claim that Chambers had previously denied under oath that Hiss was a spy. Moreover, this is misleading considering the fact that Chambers identified Hiss as a secret Communist back in 1939.

2. Lead fails to make clear the important nature of the evidence against Hiss (the notes in particular), and the consensus against Hiss.

3. No source is provided for the claim that Hiss's work at Yalta was confined to the U.N.

4. The testimony of Bullit and Weyl seems unimportant to the case against Hiss.

5. Nixon is quoted out of context regarding how he handled in the investigation, which was not about convicting Hiss in court. Taped evidence that Nixon believed that Hiss and Chambers were Communists is ignored.

6. No sources are provided for the following POV pushing: Unlike the FBI, Military Intelligence had extensive experience forging typed documents, since every agent behind enemy lines during World War II required phony documentation to support his cover story. Moreover, with its special agent initiating the search for Hiss's typewriter while disguised as Chief Investigator for the Hiss defense, Military Intelligence could have planted forged evidence without arousing suspicion. Thus, the judges' reasons for disregarding forensic evidence of forgery do not apply to Military Intelligence. In the future, some of the misconduct previously attributed to the FBI by Hiss and his defenders may turn out to have been the work of Army counterintelligence.

7. Kobyakov is quoted as saying that Hiss never had a relationship with SVR predecessor organizations. This is fundamentally misleading to the reader because Hiss was accused of being with the GRU.

8. The statement In 2007, Svetlana Chervonnaya, a Russian researcher who had been studying Soviet archives since the early 1990s, stated that Hiss' name was absent from Soviet archives. is false. She said that the documents that she reviewed (mainly "publicly accessible files") do not show Hiss's name.

9. The section on Noel Field fundamentally misleads the reader by not mentioning the fact that Field was not being tortured and was in fact being "rehabilitated" at the time he implicated Hiss. In 1957, Field personally wrote Hiss a letter affirming his belief in the latter's innocence is POV pushing in the extreme considering that if Field was a Communist in league with Hiss he would never have admitted it on paper. Also ignores the fact he chose to remain in Communist Hungary for the rest of his life.

10. There is no business for giving Hiss's lawyer so much space on Venona, especially when much of his argument was discredited back in 2005.

11. The section on Oleg Gordievsky is unclear whether he got the information about Hiss from Venona or just the codename ALES.

12. Guttenplan admits he is not a scholar of the Hiss-Chambers case, rendering his speculations quite irrelevant considering the widespread acceptance of the notes.

13. The use of Kisseloff violates Wikipedia policy regarding self-published sources.

14. Non-existent "other historians" are used to push original research.

CJK (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'd summarise the problems so far as "CJK endlessly insisting that the article must assert that Hiss was guilty, and that anyone who suggests that there is even the slightest possibility he wasn't is an unreliable source because Hiss was guilty and anyone who suggests that there is even the slightest possibility he wasn't is an unreliable source because Hiss was guilty and anyone who suggests that there is even the slightest possibility he wasn't is an unreliable source because Hiss was guilty and anyone who suggests that there is even the slightest possibility he wasn't is an unreliable source, because Hiss was guilty and anyone who suggests that there is even the slightest possibility he wasn't is an unreliable source, because Hiss was guilty and anyone who suggests that there is even the slightest possibility he wasn't is an unreliable source, because Hiss was guilty and anyone who suggests that there is even the slightest possibility he wasn't is an unreliable source, because Hiss was guilty..." AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll carry on the discussion with the adults in the room, thank you.

CJK (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The passage about forging typewriters, I believe, has its source either in Anthony Summers or Steve Salent. Nevertheless it is common knowledge. See for example this passage from A Man Called Intrepid, the story of James Stephenson, the head British Wartime secret service : http://books.google.com/books?id=6khAintPuicC&pg=PA189&lpg=PA189&dq=Maschwitz+forge+typewriter&source=bl&ots=voETo15XJZ&sig=ECZaCM4o5XaBproNhYFnYOZ_nIY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YR_nUamhK8fj4APi0IDIBg&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Maschwitz%20forge%20typewriter&f=falsecomes

This repeats virtually word for word the account in No Chip on My Shoulder, the autobiography of Eric Maschwitz, who was in charge of document forgery in World War 2 and is also repeated Jennet Conant's The Irregulars in the recent biography of Roald Dahl whose wartime mission was to spy on Vice President Henry Wallace, whom the British suspected of being too favorable to racial equality and Indian Independence. It is s because the fact of typewriter forger in World War 2 is so widely known and written about that it was unnecessary to provide a source for it. 23:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.194.69 (talk)

CJK, they are not problems for us, because it is not our role to weigh the evidence and determine guilt or innocence. TFD (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

"2. Lead fails to make clear the important nature of the evidence against Hiss (the notes in particular), and the consensus against Hiss." Not a problem at all. We had a RFC on this - the editors did not agree with you. You don't get to simply keep re-raising the issues.

"7. Kobyakov is quoted as saying that Hiss never had a relationship with SVR predecessor organizations. This is fundamentally misleading to the reader because Hiss was accused of being with the GRU." No, it's your analysis that's misleading. Kobyakov did query the "sister" organizations (GRU) and his statement that Hiss has not worked for the Soviets was based on the response he received.

"9. The section on Noel Field fundamentally misleads the reader by not mentioning the fact that Field was not being tortured and was in fact being "rehabilitated" at the time he implicated Hiss. In 1957, Field personally wrote Hiss a letter affirming his belief in the latter's innocence is POV pushing in the extreme considering that if Field was a Communist in league with Hiss he would never have admitted it on paper. Also ignores the fact he chose to remain in Communist Hungary for the rest of his life." This entire argument is an original-research attempt to twist the facts. Field expressed his confidence that Hiss was innocent and that his accusers were lying. Field was a commie so he must be lying! But he wasn't lying that one time he made that accusation! GIVE ME A BREAK.

"10. There is no business for giving Hiss's lawyer so much space on Venona, especially when much of his argument was discredited back in 2005." I don't see anyone supporting your argument that sources are be discredited simply because they had a relationship with Hiss.

"12. Guttenplan admits he is not a scholar of the Hiss-Chambers case, rendering his speculations quite irrelevant considering the widespread acceptance of the notes."

"13. The use of Kisseloff violates Wikipedia policy regarding self-published sources." Not all sources have to be self-declared "scholars," and Jeff Kisseloff had taken part in university sponsored academic conferences on the subject of Hiss. The editor declares those who agree with him to be scholars, and anyone who disagrees is not. Again, this is not a "problem", the editor's arguments have been rejected by the editing community. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The source for Hiss's role at Yalta is Harbutt's definitive history of the conference. See also Conrad Black's letter to the Wall Street Journal of March 31,2013:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324789504578384912192286302.html :

Richard Hise in his March 26 letter mistakenly refers to Alger Hiss as "a top adviser to FDR at the Yalta Conference, where Roosevelt, and yes, Winston Churchill, ceded Eastern Europe to Stalin." Alger Hiss was a junior member of the delegation who had no contact with Roosevelt at Yalta and whose only advice, given to Secretary of State Edward Stettinius, was that the Soviet Union should not have three votes in the United Nations General Assembly. Roosevelt and Churchill gave nothing to Stalin, who pledged, in the Declarations on Poland and on Liberated Europe to vacate all occupied countries except the agreed Soviet zone in Germany and to assure free and democratic elections throughout those countries. This is a monstrous canard that has been debunked by almost all participants from all three countries and should have been disposed of decades ago.---Conrad Black, Toronto, Ontario

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.194.69 (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Harbutt, incidentally, maintains that it was Churchill and Churchill alone who ceded Poland and Eastern Europe to the Soviets (the pre-Revolutionary borders) in the earliest days of the war -- when it looked like Britain might lose to Germany -- in exchange for Soviet agreement to maintain the British Imperial sphere of influence in the Mediterranean and India. Neither Roosevelt nor Churchill felt the countries of Eastern Europe were of much strategic importance, according to Harbutt, in addition to regarding them as feeble and backward. Churchill, in particular was adamantly opposed to the right of self determination for small nations, while Roosevelt still had a somewhat isolationist mindset and was uninterested in world power politics, centering his hopes for peace instead on formation of the United Nations under American leadership. What Roosevelt was seeking at Yalta was a promise that Stalin would assist the USA in its war against Japan. Churchill's attitude to Stalin later changed abruptly when it looked like the Russians were laying claims to northern Iran and Greece, which were regarded as vital to British security. Harbutt hints that both Roosevelt and Churchill were aware of the truth about the Katyn massacre from the very beginning, incidentally, but chose to keep this knowledge under wraps in the interests of allied unity. 69.115.194.69 (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Responding in chronological order:

1. The statement Moreover, with its special agent initiating the search for Hiss's typewriter while disguised as Chief Investigator for the Hiss defense, Military Intelligence could have planted forged evidence without arousing suspicion. Thus, the judges' reasons for disregarding forensic evidence of forgery do not apply to Military Intelligence. In the future, some of the misconduct previously attributed to the FBI by Hiss and his defenders may turn out to have been the work of Army counterintelligence. is original research.

2. CJK, they are not problems for us, because it is not our role to weigh the evidence and determine guilt or innocence. I am not trying to determine Hiss's guilt or innocence in this section.

3. Kobyakov only did research in the SVR files. A mere "query" is not research. Thus it misleads the reader.

4. Field said that Hiss was a spy in private to the Hungarians. He would not be expected to admit it in public (or a letter to Hiss) given his pro-Communist leanings. This is just basic logic.

5. Please read WP:RS and WP:V regarding self-published sources.

6. What does Harbutt say about Hiss in his "definitive history" of the conference? A letter from FDR worshipping Conrad Black is not sufficient.

7. Neither Roosevelt nor Churchill felt the countries of Eastern Europe were of much strategic importance The entire casus belli of World War II was that Germany had encroached upon the Eastern European nations of Czechoslovakia and Poland.

CJK (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, if you are "not trying to determine Hiss's guilt or innocence", what is the purpose this discussion thread? TFD (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The purpose is to correct the systematic pro-Hiss POV-pushing in the article. Fixing that bias is not the same thing as declaring Hiss guilty.

CJK (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to be lectured on 'POV-pushing' and bias by someone who states that, "for those of us who live in the real world, the evidence of Hiss's guilt is irrefutably overwhelming" and that to disagree is "preposterous" and not "sane." Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Harbutt's history is based on archival research. If you do not agree with the conclusions he drew from his research, then take it up with him and publish your own book or article. However, his works are published by the Oxford and Cambridge University Presses and he is a well respected a historian of the Cold War era and as reliable a source as anyone could hope to find. . 19:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.194.69 (talk) 69.115.194.69 (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, if you want other editors to cooperate you need to phrase your statements in clear, non-judgmental ways. For example, consider your first statement: "There is no source for the claim that Chambers had previously denied under oath that Hiss was a spy. Moreover, this is misleading considering the fact that Chambers identified Hiss as a secret Communist back in 1939."

You could have phrased it, "The lead says Chambers had previously denied under oath that Hiss was a spy.' Please find a source". Or you could have tagged it.

Chambers said to HUAC (3 Aug, 1948), "I should perhaps make the point that these people were specifically not wanted to act as sources of information. These people were an elite group, an outstanding group, which it was . believed would rise to positions as, indeed, some of them did-notably, Mr. White and Mr. Hiss-in the Government, and their position in the Government would be of very much more service to the Communist Party."[3] Chambers did not identify Hiss as a spy until October 1948. Chambers, along with Hiss, was then investigated for perjury before HUAC. This is basic information you should know before suggesting wide-sweeping changes to the article. Also, your comment about "secret Communists" merely invites discussion about whether one can be one and not a spy, and goes well beyond what is necessary.

You are implying that other editors have deliberately inserted untrue statements in order to defend Hiss' innocence which is an egregious assumption of bad faith.

TFD (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe my initial phrasing was correct. Your quote of Chambers indicates that Hiss was not expected to be a traditional spy. It nowhere implies that Hiss never passed any information to the Soviets. It certainly does not justify the statement "Chambers had previously testified under oath that Hiss had never been a Communist or a spy". Indeed, the first half of that statement in the lead right now appears to be completely fraudulent. I would think that Chamber's statement about Hiss's Communist affiliation back in 1939 is of far more interest.

CJK (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Grand Juror: Can you "give one name of anybody who, in your opinion, was positively guilty of espionage against the United States government."

Chambers: "Let me think a moment and I will try to answer that. I don't think so but I would like to have the opportunity to answer you tommorrow more definitely. Let me think it over overnight."

Chambers (next day): I assume espionage means in this case the turning over of secret or confidential documents.

Grand juror: Or "oral information."

Chambers: "I do not believe that I do know such a name."

You may find those statements entirely consistent with Chambers' claim that Hiss turned over secret or confidential documents to him, but no reliable sources do. While it is not proof of Hiss' innocence, it is part of the story and belongs in the article. I do not know if Chambers ever denied Hiss was a Communist, under oath or otherwise, perhaps someone else could answer that.

TFD (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

"1. There is no source for the claim that Chambers had previously denied under oath that Hiss was a spy. "

The article says, Chambers produced new evidence indicating that he and Hiss had been involved in espionage, which both men had previously denied under oath to HUAC. This is true. Chambers initially identified Hiss are part of the Ware group, but stated under oath "no recollection" of espionage.[4]

"I would think that Chamber's statement about Hiss's Communist affiliation back in 1939 is of far more interest." It sure is. Berle said Chambers had told him only that the Hiss brothers were targeted for recruitment by Party members for a study group in Washington, not that they were communists. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

So, according to CJK's version of Chamberlain, Hiss would have been a secret communist who was not a member of the communist party and a secret spy who was not expected to do any spying? 173.52.251.250 (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

But he was expected to pay 10% of his earnings to the Communist Party, although Chambers did not collect the dues, he collected them once a month, he collected them 1 to 3 times, he did not know if Hiss was a dues-paying member. TFD (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

But why would the Soviets give a medal to someone who was a communist only in their secret innermost heart of hearts and who didn't do any spying? (Don't get the point about the dues.) Chamber collected dues? 173.52.251.250 (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Chambers kept changing his story on whether he collected the dues or if any were collected. I think though you are missing the elephant in the room. The right-wing view is that Hiss gave away Eastern Europe to Stalin at Yalta, while Owen Lattimore gave away China to Mao. (Communist agents also brought in the welfare state, de-segregation, fluoridated water - the list goes on.) TFD (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, they were guilty of thought crimes. 12:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.251.250 (talk)

There are some who still believe that China was on the verge of becoming a Presbyterian theocracy before it was sold out by atheistic liberals in the State Department. The US Presbyterians must have had quite a thing going in China. Not that I have anything against Presbyterians (except, perhaps, for Henry Luce and the Dulles brothers). As a child I once attended a marvelous Presbyterian summer Bible camp, run by an enlightened minister who had just returned from the far East, as a matter of fact, and will always have a soft spot for them. I once attended a lecture by Victor Mair, noted sinologist, and he let fall that he thought there were still millions of Presbyterians in China and that one day he thought it would become the dominant religion. He was reminiscing about his boyhood days in Bible school, as it happened. (Pearl Buck was one, too. Mme Chiang was a Methodist -- perhaps that's what was wrong with her.) 173.52.251.250 (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

TFD needs to provide a source to justify what amounts to his original research thus far. Joe, Chambers clearly said that Hiss was a secret Communist back in 1939, not that he was a target for recruitment. Berle wrote this in his notes. The statement that Chambers denied under oath that Hiss was a Communist is a clear falsehood.

CJK (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, original research means using unpublished sources. As you are no doubt aware, Chamber's testimony before HUAC and the grand jury have been published. In fact you have mentioned that Chambers was a witness before HUAC and the grand jury, so pretending that this is all news to you is disingenuous. TFD (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Using primary sources to draw your own conclusions is original research. Please read WP:NOR. CJK (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing to prevent one from drawing one's own conclusion in a discussion page! I am sure that any contribution TFD cares to make to the article will be properly sourced. It does not contribute to the discussion to tell people they are not allowed to think! 173.52.251.250 (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, see Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." Chambers' statements are straightforward, descriptive statements of facts [i.e., what he meant] that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. If you want to check books about the case and what they say go ahead - they say the same thing. Anyway you obviously have no knowledge of the case and you are wasting time by asking editors for sources about the most basic details of the case. TFD (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK says "Your quote of Chambers indicates that Hiss was not expected to be a traditional spy. It nowhere implies that Hiss never passed any information to the Soviets." For CJK the absence of evidence constitutes evidence. Using this logic Hiss could have been a Communist even if Chambers had not claimed he was. 13:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.251.250 (talk)

Ignoring TFDs typical insolence, he is applying his own interpretation to the statement made by Chambers. Furthermore, even if you were right you ignore the glaring falsehood in the lead when it says that Chambers denied that Hiss was a Communist. CJK (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, I do not know what books you consider to be reliable sources unless written by Hayne, Klehr, or Vassiliev, who do not discuss Chambers testimony before the Pumpkin Papers. If you can provide me a book about Chambers, Hiss, Nixon or HUAC, I will show you where it says Chambers changed his testimony. TFD (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I think CJK has a point on the "Chambers denied that Hiss was a Communist" text. The timeline laid out in the lede is also not correct. It seems what happened was:

late-1930s to 1947: Chambers talked to a number of people, not under oath it seems, about the Ware Group. Sometimes, Hiss and others are active Communists, other times, they are merely people targeted by the party.

8/3/48: Chambers appeared before HUAC, accusing Hiss of being a Communist but not a spy.

10/14/48: Chambers tells the grand jury in the Hiss libel case that he could not name anyone who engaged in espionage.

11/5/48: In a deposition taken by Hiss attorneys, Chambers indicates for the first time that Hiss gave him access to secret State Department documents.

Thus Chambers admitted perjuring himself to HUAC. Any way, it seems that the lede is wrong in that Chambers had ever denied under oath that Hiss was a Communist, and also wrong that he denied under oath that Hiss was a spy before he testified to HUAC.

How would you propose this be rewritten? If it's factually correct I'll endorse an edit request. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Additional problems that have been identified

1. According to Hiss's own account, his work at Yalta was "primarily" not solely related to the U.N. He said he was responsible for assembling background documentation and was "responsible for any general matters that might come up in relating to the Far East or the Near East". He said that before he left he participated in the meetings where the American draft of the "Declaration of Liberated Europe" was created.

2. Article ignores the fact that Soviet U.N. Ambassador Gromyko personally recommended that Hiss be appointed temporary secretary general due to his "fairness" and "impartiality".

3. Article ignores that Hiss asked the OSS in 1945 for documents related to the "internal security" of Britain, France, China, and the Soviet Union.

4. Article ignores how Hiss attempted to initially deny that he had written some of the notes produced by Chambers, and how he refused to take a lie detector test.

5. The statement when FBI files were disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act, it turned out that the FBI had also doubted that the trial exhibit was Hiss's machine and for exactly the same reasons is yet another distortion of the facts. An FBI laboratory test of the documents in December 1948 (before the typewriter was located) had concluded that the typewriter was made in 1929, the same date indicated by the serial number. Although there was later confusion over the date because of the testimony of two typewriter salesmen, the FBI concluded in October 1949 (based on typing samples from the machine) that it was indeed Hiss' typewriter.

6. More fundamentally it ignores how Donald Hiss concealed his knowledge of the typewriter's disposition to Hiss' lawyers.

CJK (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

to CJK Where are these "article ignores" statements coming from? Are they attributed to something? DEddy (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, since every time anyone else mentions a fact in the case you accuse them of "original research" and demand a source, I demand you provide them for yours, and the weight provided to each one. I assume you get your information from fringe sources that do not provide sources and am not here to do your fact-checking for you. TFD (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

1. 1 Perjury (1978) p. 352-353 #2 ibid p. 361 #3 ibid p. 362 #4 ibid p. 247 #5 ibid p. 578 #6 ibid p. 409

Please don't tell me that Perjury is not acceptable to you either.

CJK (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I have long argued against using partisan think tanks, whether left, right or center, or popular books and journalism, as sources. You realize of course that when you decide to use one with which you agree then you cannot argue against those of which you disagree, in this case the articles on Jeff Kisseloff's website.

I notice in (2) you ignore the context in which Gromyko "recommended" Hiss. First, Weinstein was quoting Stettinius, who had asked Gromyko who he thought should be general secretary, and Gromyko recommended Hiss as temporary secretary general. Also you ignore what Weinstein said before and after: "Gromyko urged that the United Nations be located permanently in the United States" and "it does not provide evidence Hiss had been or remained a formal undercover agent for the Russians in 1945."

We are supposed to report what sources say, not cherry pick what we think proves guilt.

TFD (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

You realize of course that when you decide to use one with which you agree then you cannot argue against those of which you disagree, in this case the articles on Jeff Kisseloff's website.

As has been explained to you multiple times Wikipedia rules forbid the use of self-published sources from non-experts.

First, Weinstein was quoting Stettinius, who had asked Gromyko who he thought should be general secretary, and Gromyko recommended Hiss as temporary secretary general.

Um, yeah, that is exactly what I said. Did you read it?

"it does not provide evidence Hiss had been or remained a formal undercover agent for the Russians in 1945."

You cut off the last part of the sentence "it indicates the extent to which they appreciated his usefulness". Before the 1990s it wasn't clear whether or not Hiss had continued to spy after the German-Soviet Pact.

CJK (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Other editors and myself have provided you far too much time, and apparently it has no effect. So unless you have anything new to say, I do not wish to pursue this discussion. Please do not take that as acceptance of your arguments. TFD (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Costigliola on Hiss

The tendentiousness here has kept me away. It would seem the purpose of the talk page has been diverted to argument for argument's sake rather than purposeful input to improve the article.

[Stops shaking schoolmarmish finger.]

I've been reading Frank Costigliola's new book, Roosevelt's Lost Alliances: How Personal Politics Helped Start the Cold War (Princeton, 2012). The link takes you to the first two times Hiss is mentioned in the book. Google books doesn't show the other two. One is a footnote from p. 241. It reads, "227. Plokhy, Yalta, 331. [S.M. Plokhy, Yalta: The Price of Peace. Viking, 2010.] Hiss was eventually convicted for perjury but not spying. Evidence from Soviet records indicates that although Hiss passed military information to his Soviet handlers, he was not asked to give them any political information. In fact at Yalta he advised Roosevelt to stand firm against the Soviets on several issues."

The final mention is on p. 289: "Alger Hiss, a Harvard-educated rising star in the Roosevelt State Department who played a small role at Yalta, would be accused of spying for the Soviets by a former Communist and self-confessed homosexual. Hiss's conviction for perjury (revelations decades later would indicate that he had indeed passed documents to the Soviets) seemed to bear out anxieties that America stood vulnerable to a dangerous mix of political and sexual 'perversion.'"

For what it's worth, I believe Costigliola's last parenthetical thought, (revelations decades later would indicate that he had indeed passed documents to the Soviets) is the proper stance for this article to take. Venona and Vassiliev indicate but do not prove that Hiss was a spy. Yopienso (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I would change "Venona and Vassiliev indicate but do not 'prove' that Hiss was a spy" to: "In the 1940s Donovan and Allen Dulles of the US secret services became convinced that Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy code-named "ALES", a code name mentioned in top secret Soviet Venona Project cables in 1945 as having attended the Yalta Conference, but were unable to share this conviction with the public for fear of compromising the Venona Program. The recently published notes taken by former KBG officer, Alexander Vassiliev, taken from KBG files in 199?, mention Alger Hiss by name several times, strongly suggesting to many Cold War historians that the Soviets indeed regarded him as an agent," Corroborative confirmation is still needed, however. Venona and Vassiev's KBG material nowhere indicate that Alger Hiss passed military secrets to the Soviets -- nor what kind of agent he was, if any. 208.105.83.202 (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I was not suggesting specific wording, but a stance--a viewpoint. If you or any other editor is a researcher or historian, certainly you still need corroborative confirmation. For Wikipedia, however, which does not permit original research, the mainstream view is that evidence from Soviet records (and other previously available sources) indicates that Hiss was a spy. We must stick with this narrative as the overarching tenor of the article, while also noting the controversy. The archives of this talk page are full of RSs that support and propound this view. Yopienso (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

No questions that the article should say that most scholars consider Hiss to have been a spy and the article already says, "In 2001, James Barron, a staff reporter for the New York Times, identified what he called a "growing consensus that Hiss, indeed, had most likely been a Soviet agent."" No one questions that the point could be expressed better. However CJK has turned this page into a discussion of the merits of the case, demanding we say that Hiss was a spy and accusing those who disagree with him of believing Hiss was not a spy. Ironically the significance of the case does not lie in whether Hiss was actually a spy but in its significance to domestic politics in the U.S. in the 1950s. TFD (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Just an FYI: I do not demand that we say Hiss was a spy. TFD's statement is a deliberate falsehood.

CJK (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Viewpoints and stances are appropriate editorial pages, articles, and monographs that try to make a case, not for encyclopedias. 18:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.83.202 (talk)

You are mistaken. Yopienso (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

We must report what RS say, not repeat buzzwords or catch-phrases from press releases by partisan actors representing viewpoints or "stances". And remember, this is an article about Alger Hiss. Entries can be made or added to for Vassiliev's notes, Donald Hiss, Yalta Conference, Cold War, etc. 19:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.83.202 (talk)

Precisely. What the RSs say must be the controlling viewpoint of the encyclopedic article. Yopienso (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Dates of Nixon's political advancement

The second to last sentence of "Perjury trials and conviction" currently reads:

... helping him move from the U.S. House of Representatives to the U.S. Senate in 1950, to the Vice Presidency of the United States in 1952, and finally to President of the United States in 1968.

But Nixon did not "move" into the positions cited on the dates given; rather, these are his election dates. Suggest erroneous text be replaced with the following:

... helping him win election to the United States Senate in 1950, the Vice Presidency of the United States in 1952, and the Presidency of the United States in 1968.

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The sense of upward movement is better preserved by "helping him move in an election-winning upward trajectory from the U.S. House, etc. etc." 173.77.96.35 (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Rico's suggestion is cleaner and more encyclopedic. Yopienso (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that "move" is used metaphorically and means exactly the same thing as "was elected", you could also say "rise" instead of move. Obviously, Nixon was elected --what other way is there to attain those offices in the US (unless one is appointed by the Supreme Court or the incumbent dies)? This is hairsplitting. 173.52.250.204 (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Looking at the content with a more critical eye, it's not really true that the Hiss case helped Nixon move into the presidency. It helped him get tapped for the vice presidency, but we don't generally think of being elected to that office. I suggest: Publicity surrounding the case thrust Richard M. Nixon into the public spotlight, helping him move from the U.S. House of Representatives to the U.S. Senate in 1950. He would soon be chosen to run for the Vice Presidency of the United States by Eisenhower, holding that office from 1953-1961. Or we could just leave it at Publicity surrounding the case thrust Richard M. Nixon into the public spotlight, propelling his political career to national prominence. Yopienso (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Candidates are not elected to the vice presidency? They are elected as part of a team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.14.123 (talk) 15:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Next step in the dispute resolution process

With the page still locked, where do we go from here?

CJK (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that you appear to have received little or no support for your position, I'd say that we go in the direction of not going over the same ground yet again. The consensus, such as it is, seems to be that the article as it stands reflects well enough the true situation: that while most academic sources support the view that Hiss was guilty, a minority don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"Most academic sources" is too strong. It should be rather,"a majority of American Cold War historians" or really, to be even more precise, "the authors of Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America (2009) claim that a majority of Cold War historians agree with the contention of their book that Hiss was guilty, but a minority continue to insist that until more evidence is made available the question cannot be definitively settled." But really the whole issue is absurd, and if there were truly a consensus and not a lively controversy we wouldn't be having this discussion. The whole idea about the majority versus the minority is a PR talking or framing point dreamed up by Haynes and co. to bolster their argument. Edit: To bolster their argument in the absence of definitive evidence -- I should have said. 16:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.248.129 (talk) 173.52.248.129 (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The consensus, such as it is, seems to be that the article as it stands reflects well enough the true situation: that while most academic sources support the view that Hiss was guilty, a minority don't.

And where exactly is that in the article right now? All I see is a weasel-word equivocal statement In 2001, James Barron, a staff reporter for the New York Times, identified what he called a "growing consensus that Hiss, indeed, had most likely been a Soviet agent".[2] The previous year author Anthony Summers had observed that many relevant files were and would continue to be unavailable, including "ironically—even though the House Un-American Activities committee is long defunct—HUAC’s own documents. These were sealed in 1976 for an additional fifty years. Until we have full access, the Hiss controversy will continue to be debated."[3]

Just an FYI, you also ignore every single one of the twenty individual complaints I raised.

CJK (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, CJK, you are calling James Barron's words in the NYT "weasel-worded and equivocal"? Also your 20 complaints were addressed, over and over. It is yourself, in point of fact, who consistently declines to answer points raise by other editors. Your style and manner are distinctly unhelpful and probably deliberately obstructive.

As for myself, I would be willing to move Anthony Summers' words to another part of the article and replace them with, say, something from one of the dissenting scholars who attended Haynes and Vassiliev's 2009 PR conference. If someone wants to add a reference to National Review editor, Staunton Evans's, recent book, Stalin's Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt's Government, which repeats the time-worn canard that Hiss sold out the Eastern European countries at Yalta, along with some references disputing this truly fringe view, that would also be all right with me. Didn't the Dulles brothers subscribe to this (subsequently discredited) theory? If so, that would be important historical information. 173.52.248.129 (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

you are calling James Barron's words in the NYT "weasel-worded and equivocal"?

No, the description--falsely attributing a fact as an opinion is what makes it weasel worded.

By Hiss's own admission he was a participant in the meetings where the U.S. drew up it's draft of the "Declaration of Liberated Europe" which was more or less accepted by the Soviets because it didn't include any mechanism for elections. Nobody can know for sure what role Hiss played but it certainly is notable.

CJK (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

to CJK Nobody can know for sure what role Hiss played but it certainly is notable.

Why is it notable? I'd assume others were present too... Churchill, Stimson, assistants to Churchill, etc. Was their presence more or less notable than Hiss's? Are you wanting to imply that Hiss influenced the outcome? As far as I know there were two dominant factors at Yalta: (1) Roosevelt wanted a commitment from Stalin to enter the war with Japan, and (2) Stalin was already occupying most or all of Poland/Eastern Europe. On what basis would you be advocating that Roosevelt/Churchill tell Stalin to withdraw from Eastern Europe? (A place that had invaded Russia 3 times in the previous 150 years.)

Is there any evidence that Hiss influenced the occupation of Eastern Europe? Please provide reference. DEddy (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Deddy, the American draft was drawn up in meetings prior to the conference. I don't know if Hiss influenced the outcome. I'm just saying I think his participation is of note.

And there's more: in 1941 Hiss was the personal aide to Stanley Hornbeck who played a key role in generating the crisis with Japan that led to Pearl Harbor at a time the Soviets had their backs to the wall. Obviously we shouldn't jump to conclusions, but certainly these are notable facts about Hiss.

CJK (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yalta is already mentioned in the article. However, as I said above, "The right-wing view is that Hiss gave away Eastern Europe to Stalin at Yalta, while Owen Lattimore gave away China to Mao." I think that should be in the article. I am not aware of the theory about Hiss and Japan. It seems to conflict with the popular right-wing conspiracy theory that Roosevelt allowed Pearl Harbor to happen, so that the U.S. could enter the war. If a reliable source is found that says the theory is widely held, then it might merit inclusion. TFD (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said, we shouldn't jump to conclusions but the basic fact that Hiss was involved in these issues needs to be noted in the biographical section. The reader can determine for themselves if it means anything.

CJK (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said, Yalta is mentioned. We can also mention that Hiss was an assistant to Hornbeck but cannot mention Hornbeck's "key role" in generating the crisis with Japan unless secondary sources connect it with Hiss. We should not juxtapose facts so that readers can draw their own conclusion because we are then implying that the facts could be connected, which is implicit synthesis. TFD (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hiss's role at Yalta is currently misrepresented in the article as being confined to purely U.N. matters, which conflicts with what Hiss himself said. That Hornbeck played a key role in the crisis leading up to Pearl Harbor is just a simple historical fact.

CJK (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

One could imagine anything, provided one "abandoned one's mind to it" (in the words of Dr. Johnson). And speaking of conspiracy theories, the book jacket to Stanton Evans's "Stalin's Secret Agents" has a blurb from Ann Coulter, describing it as "The greatest book since the Bible." 173.77.11.61 (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, that pigs cannot fly is a fact too, that does not mean it belongs in the article, unless secondary sources say that it is relevant. TFD (talk) 07:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

to 173.77.11.61 the book jacket to Stanton Evans's "Stalin's Secret Agents" has a blurb from Ann Coulter, describing it as "The greatest book since the Bible."

Finally! Factual substance we can embrace as RS. (this offered with extreme sarcasm)

to TFD I believe 173.77.11.61 is offering that Evans/Coulter factoid as sarcasm. DEddy (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk about defining facts down! These people live in an alternate universe. Where Alger Hiss is responsible for Al Queda, political correctness, and Barack Obama. 173.52.253.102 (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anyone making those charges. You, on the other hand, have asserted that the myself, the FBI, the CIA, academics, the NYT, the NSA, foreign diplomats, and the military are all part of a grand 65 year plot to frame Hiss.

CJK (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, I don't see how you can deny that these are the charges that Evans and co. make. They seem to feel that the New Deal, as epitomized by Hiss, represented a cultural betrayal that continues to this day. As far as yourself being a member of a conspiracy, this is a projection on your part, after I noted that your wiki contributions are almost exclusively military. This has nothing to do with the theories put forth by a recent author, an archivist from Belgium, that in the Hiss case the intelligence services were motivated by a desire to protect the reputations of their informants -- who, like informants everywhere, tended to be unreliable and mentally unstable. 173.77.78.93 (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Compromise proposal 07.27.13

Going back to the RFC, we have two major disputes:

One: The debate whether the lede of this article should state whether “most” historians believe that Alger Hiss was a spy dates back many years. The James Barron reference regarding the “growing consensus” is already a compromise between editors who want something about the “consensus” in the lede, and those like myself who don't believe the article should cite “consensus” when it is merely subjective opinion: no survey or poll exists on what historians actually believe.

Two: What Vassiliev's notes do or do not prove, show, demonstrate, etc. regarding Hiss. It's ok with me if we have something in the lede about the strong beliefs many historians have regarding the value of the notes in proving Hiss' guilt. However, if we're going to open the lede to specific evidence in the case, it seems to me that the statements of the former Soviet Generals, agents and archivists on the subjects are equally important and should also be included.

My proposal for a compromise paragraph is as follows. New text is in bold. Please keep in mind that the nature of a compromise as that nobody gets everything they want.

“ Arguments about the case and the validity of the verdict took center stage in broader debates about the Cold War, McCarthyism, and the extent of Soviet espionage in the United States.(1) Since Hiss's conviction, statements by involved parties and newly exposed evidence have added to the dispute. Sources suggest that there is a consensus among historians that Hiss engaged in espionage on behalf of the USSR.(2) The consensus in not unanimous.(3) Those historians concluding that Hiss was guilty cite documents unearthed in the Soviet archives as confirmation of Hiss' identity as a Soviet agent.(4) Former Soviet intelligence agents, military officers and archivists of the USSR have however stated that Hiss was never a Soviet agent and that no documents suggesting that Hiss had a relationship with the USSR exist.(5) In 2001, author Anthony Summers had observed that many relevant files were and would continue to be unavailable, including "ironically—even though the House Un-American Activities committee is long defunct—HUAC’s own documents. These were sealed in 1976 for an additional fifty years. Until we have full access, the Hiss controversy will continue to be debated."(6) ”

References:

(1) (Reference already in the article)

(2) Sources claiming a consensus.

(3) Sources who believe Hiss was or may have been innocent.

(4) Sources endorsing Vassiliev.

(5) References include Boris Labusov's statements on Vassiliev, and that, “the Russian intelligence service, have no documents...proving that Alger Hiss cooperated with our service somewhere or anywhere.” Volkogonov and associated archivists report that they had found no evidence Hiss ever engaged in espionage for the Soviet Union nor that he was a member of the Communist Party, and Kobyakov's disclosure that it was he who had actually searched the files for Volkogonov, and that, “After careful study of every reference to Mr. A. Hiss in the SVR(KGB-NKVD)archives, and querying sister services, I prepared an answer to Mr. J. Lowenthal that in essence stated that Mr. A. Hiss had never had any relationship with the SVR or its predecessors.” Also Vitaly Pavlov's statement that Hiss never worked for the USSR as one of his agents. Also Svetlana Chervonnaya, that Hiss' name was absent from Soviet archives.

(6) (Reference already in the article)

Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that a survey is required to explain what most historians believe, instead all we need is a statement by an expert explaining what most historians believe. My understanding of the term "consensus" is that the issue is beyond reasonable dispute. For example there is no dispute about whether there were Soviet agents operating in the U.S. But since the concensus about Soviet espionage emerged in the late 40s, we would not say there is a "consensus", but merely treat it as a fact. TFD (talk) 21:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This is just a slightly rephrased version of what we already have.

Sources suggest that there is a consensus among historians that Hiss engaged in espionage on behalf of the USSR.

If the sources are reliable there is no need to weasel words like "sources suggest".

The consensus in not unanimous

By definition a consensus does not have to be unanimous.

Those historians concluding that Hiss was guilty cite documents unearthed in the Soviet archives as confirmation of Hiss' identity as a Soviet agent.

Plus Field plus Venona.

Former Soviet intelligence agents, military officers and archivists of the USSR have however stated that Hiss was never a Soviet agent and that no documents suggesting that Hiss had a relationship with the USSR exist

Just how utterly misleading that is has been pointed out in detail at a least a dozen times. We need to stick with the views of scholars.

In 2001, author Anthony Summers had observed that many relevant files were and would continue to be unavailable, including "ironically—even though the House Un-American Activities committee is long defunct—HUAC’s own documents. These were sealed in 1976 for an additional fifty years. Until we have full access, the Hiss controversy will continue to be debated.

The personal opinion of Summers is unworthy for lead status.

CJK (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I would say, instead of "sources suggest" - "some", e.g., "Some historians maintain that there is a consensus -- others point out that ... " and provide references, as indicated above. 173.77.78.93 (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, where do you get your idea that a consensus does not have to be unanimous? The dictionary definition strongly implies unanimity. American Heritage has "collective agreement or accord." This is clearly not the case in talking about Alger Hiss.

This insistence on the word "consensus" is blatant POV pushing with the intend to de-legitimatize dissent.

And, according to http://dictionary.reference.com/ the first meaning of "consensus" is unanimity, with "most" being a secondary meaning.

Definition of CONSENSUS

1

a : general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports … from the border — John Hersey>

b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>

2

group solidarity in sentiment and belief 173.77.78.93 (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2013 (UTC)173.77.78.93 (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

all we need is a statement by an expert explaining what most historians believe.

You want to replace Barron with someone else?. Ok with me.

By definition a consensus does not have to be unanimous

If we're going to cite historians that have concluded that Hiss was guilty in the lede, then we're going to cite historians who believe he was or may have been innocent in the lede. I'm open to suggestion as to what text we write to tie in those citations.

Just how utterly misleading that is has been pointed out in detail at a least a dozen times.

How can the facts be misleading? Explain to me again why Soviet archivists are not RS for the Soviet Archives.

We need to stick with the views of scholars.

1. Uh, why? Are General Eisenhower's views on the Invasion of Normandy not appropriate to an article on the same because he is not a "scholar?" 2. What Wikipedia policy states that RS must be "scholars"? 3. In any case, this is neither here nor there. The archivists I mentioned are scholars.

I would say, instead of "sources suggest" - "some", e.g., "Some historians maintain that there is a consensus -- others point out that ... " and provide references, as indicated above.Some historians maintain that there is a consensus -- others point out that ... "

Yes, fine by me.

Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Note CJK's continual misleading use of the impersonal passive voice: "It has been pointed out out in detail at a least a dozen times", meaning that he, CJK, has pointed out at least a dozen times that in his opinion, etc., etc.," ad nauseum.

Also, I would say, "some historians and commentators, notably Early Haynes and Harvey Klehr, maintain that there is now a consensus, etc., etc., 173.77.78.93 (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment one, exactly right. Comment two, agreed, that's why the original text on "consensus" began, "Various sources suggest," rather than the Barron comment. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no, you don't. The facts are that "most historians and commentators, including John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, Allen Weinstein, Ellen Schrecker, John Ehrman, Susan Jacoby, Frank Costigliola, Ron Radosh, etc., maintain that there is now a consensus." Please review my comments above under Costigliola on Hiss. I'll go ahead and paste in what Costigliola wrote on p. 279:

A few influential U.S. officials--including Lawrence Duggan and Alger Hiss in the State Department . . . .--passed secret documents or discussed their contents with Soviet spy masters.

Radosh: Now we are living in the 21st Century, and these fights about Hiss and the Rosenbergs have all but ended. When Morton Sobell, the Rosenberg’s co-defendant confessed in 2008, and when Venona and other documents from the former Soviet Union proved Alger Hiss’s guilt, most reasonable people accepted the verdict. They were indeed, as we argued back then, Soviet spies.

We are all aware of the subterfuge employed in the denials. This is very, very simple: most historians believe Hiss was a spy. See the talk page June 12 and 26. Yopienso (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Not "most historians", but "Historians such as, " also you need to give page citation references with dated for each one. Radosh, by the way, is a POV source. If you give dates I'll warrant you will find that these folks have always believed in Hiss's guilt, so there has been little change in their opinon since 1948. 00:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.78.93 (talk)

No, you need the read the sources provided since April on this talk page. We need to source properly in the article, which has been locked due to contentiousness. Weinstein believed Hiss was innocent until his research convinced him otherwise. Schrecker and Costigliola are thoroughly reliable but lean to the left. Jacoby stops just short of finding him guilty of espionage, but thinks he's guilty of perjury (about spying!). No, these are not cherry-picked sources; you just are being contentious. Yopienso (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yopiensko, PJ Media is not a reliable source and Radoush did not "argue[] back then" that the Rosenbergs were Soviet spies. Like a good Communist, he claimed they were innocent. No idea what the party line on Hiss was. TFD (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Radosh would have been eleven years old during the Alger Hiss trial, and seems to have become a Trotskyite during his teens, or at least by 1959, so it is unlikely he would have argued that Hiss was innocent "back then" -- unless "back then" was when he was a schoolboy. 01:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.78.93 (talk)

IP, please sign your comments and leave an edit summary.

Ronald Radosh's website is reliable for his own views, which he has changed greatly over the past decades. (By "we" he may refer to his present, not his former, ilk.) Radosh is a notable historian.

But no matter--he is only one of a plethora of RSs that find Hiss guilty. Yopienso (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, he collaborated with Harvey Klehr on a book to that effect in 1996. 173.77.78.93 (talk) 02:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Putting aside Radosh, could the editors please comment on the larger issue: are we any closer to a compromise on the major points of contention? If the compromise I've suggested is not even close, then what should the compromise look like? The underlying conflict here is already about to enter its fifth month. If no two editors ever agree on anything, this will never be resolved. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure Radosh is rs for his own opinions, but since PJ, a publication best know for hiring "Joe the Plumber" as a war correspondent, is not rs for facts, then we need to attribute the opinion in-line. If it is rs for facts, as academic writing by Radosh would be, we get something like, "Most reasonable people now accept Hiss was a Soviet spy, as the American Right has argued all along." Is the wording you think the article should use? TFD (talk) 03:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, Radosh belies the contention that Vassiliev's notes introduced something new, since he claimed to have discovered Hiss's guilt in twenty-seven years ago in 1986, before even the existence of the top-secret Venona project was revealed, let alone Vassiliev's material. 173.77.78.93 (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

TFD and IP, you are engaging in tendentious behavior. You are grasping at straws and avoiding true engagement. What about Allen Weinstein, Ellen Schrecker, John Ehrman, Susan Jacoby, and Frank Costigliola?

IP, please read about edit summaries. Also, not sure if you're doing this or not, but it's helpful to others and easier for you if you edit one section instead of the whole page. That way we can click on your change from our watchlist.

Joegoodfriend--

One: The lede should say most historians believe Hiss was a spy for the simple reason that most historians believe Hiss was a spy. More than ample evidence has been presented on this page over the past several months.

Two: I'm not sure about opening the lede to discuss the perceived value of the Vassiliev notebooks. That should come later. Naturally any mention of Soviet generals, agents, and archivists should carry the caveat that they were not speaking of the same files Vassaliev perused and that absence of evidence proves nothing. Yopienso (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

"What about Allen Weinstein, Ellen Schrecker, John Ehrman, Susan Jacoby, and Frank Costigliola?" -- Well, what about them? They are the same old same old. 173.77.78.93 (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yopieoso, it is not tendentious to ask for a source that makes the statement you want to put into the article. I don't know why you think that we need sources for everything we put into articles, but suddenly when it comes to a statement about the degree of acceptance by scholars for various views we become experts and do not need sources, but instead can rely on our personal extensive knowledge of the scholarship and decide that an op-ed in a fringe publication is relevant while an article in the Nation can be safely ignored. Scholars are competent to determine the weight that has been assigned to scholars' views, and there is no reason why you cannot find a mainstream source. TFD (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• It is tendentious because this information has been provided already. See my links above for a few and the archives for the rest. All the names the IP so cavalierly dismisses as "the same old same old" are mainstream. There is no need to find newer sources; there is a great need to accept these same old same old.

I would appreciate your taking care to spell my user name correctly. Y-o-p-i-e-n-s-o It's "I think" in Spanish, without a space: Ithink. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

One: The lede should say most historians believe Hiss was a spy for the simple reason that most historians believe Hiss was a spy. More than ample evidence has been presented on this page over the past several months.

Two: I'm not sure about opening the lede to discuss the perceived value of the Vassiliev notebooks. That should come later. Naturally any mention of Soviet generals, agents, and archivists should carry the caveat that they were not speaking of the same files Vassaliev perused and that absence of evidence proves nothing. Yopienso (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

More than ample evidence has been presented on this page over the past several months (that most historians believe Hiss was a spy). Actually no evidence has been presented. Much opinion has been presented. I'm willing to further compromise on the wording if it will get us to an agreement. What about the wording of the text for dissenting sources?

Much evidence of historians' opinions has been presented. One last one before I leave this page again: "This website looks beyond the American post-Cold War consensus that the 'truth' about controversial early Cold War spy cases has been fully explored and 'definitively' proven." S. Chernvonnaya. Even she, who suggests overturning it, acknowledges the consensus. Again, some of us were asking not for the overstatement that Hiss's guilt is proven, but that it is indicated. Yopienso (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about opening the lede to discuss the perceived value of the Vassiliev notebooks. I happen to agree, but I'm willing to compromise if it will get the editors to an agreement.

Naturally any mention of Soviet generals, agents, and archivists should carry the caveat that they were not speaking of the same files Vassaliev perused and that absence of evidence proves nothing. First of all, this is not entirely true, some of the Soviet statements have been within the context of discussing Vassiliev and his claims. Second, as certain editors are so fond of pointing out, We must report what RS say. Official Soviet Archivists are RS for the Soviet Archives, and if they say that the Archives demonstrate that Hiss was not a spy, then that's what goes in this article. Anything beyond that is original research and out of bounds for wikipedia. Joegoodfriend (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm referring to Volkogonov's retraction. Yopienso (talk) 06:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yopiensko, it is not our role to collect and weigh evidence, draw conclusions and report them. That is original research. Considering that you have read countless books on the subject, surely you can find one that explains the state of scholarship. For example, in Aspartame controversy, a meta-analysis, "Aspartame: A Safety Evaluation Based on Current Use Levels, Regulations, and Toxicological and Epidemiological Studies", is used. The abstract says, "The purpose of this investigation was to review the scientific literature on the absorption and metabolism, the current consumption levels worldwide, the toxicology, and recent epidemiological studies on aspartame....The weight of existing evidence is that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener."[5] Using that study saves editors from reading through the 40,000 plus studies and determining what most of them conclude. TFD (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Good grief. Yopienso (talk) 06:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I suggest that a productive response to a compromise proposal is not to restate deeply entrenched position, but to instead make a counter-proposal, so we can see how far apart we are.

So tell me, how would you re-write the lede? Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

How about:

Arguments about the case and the validity of the verdict took center stage in broader debates about the Cold War, McCarthyism, and the extent of Soviet espionage in the United States. Most scholars believe Hiss was indeed guilty, a conclusion bolstered by more recent evidence. This consists of information from the top-secret Venona program regarding a Soviet asset known as "Ales", the private testimony of Noel Field, and notes from documents in the sealed KGB archives which identify Hiss as a Soviet agent.

CJK (talk) 16:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

A new lede which speaks solely for those who believe Hiss was guilty and the evidence they cite is not in any way a compromise. I fail to see how the above paragraph makes a single concession to the concerns raised by other editors. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay how about:

Arguments about the case and the validity of the verdict took center stage in broader debates about the Cold War, McCarthyism, and the extent of Soviet espionage in the United States. Most scholars believe Hiss was indeed guilty, a conclusion bolstered by more recent evidence. This consists of information from the top-secret Venona program regarding a Soviet asset known as "Ales", the private testimony of Noel Field, and notes from documents in the sealed KGB archives which identify Hiss as a Soviet agent. Hiss's supporters dismiss this and continue to maintain that Hiss was a victim of an FBI or military conspiracy.

CJK (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

So your idea for a compromise is everything you've lobbied for in the past 4 months, and the exclusion of everything that other editors have lobbied for that you don't like. Every single demand you've made is here:

A restatement of the "consensus," an endorsement of Hiss as Ales, your strange affection for Noel Field (whose last word on Hiss was that he was innocent and his accusers were lying), and an unambiguous endorsement of Vassiliev. None of these ideas are counter-pointed at all, because those in disagreement are lumped into a rabble of conspiracy theorists.

I know your arguments, I don't think I need to hear them again. What I'd like to know is, How the heck is this a compromise?! Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

A restatement of the "consensus,"

Actually I never said consensus.

an endorsement of Hiss as Ales

I did no such thing, I merely pointed out that Ales is used as evidence against Hiss.

your strange affection for Noel Field (whose last word on Hiss was that he was innocent and his accusers were lying)

Of course. Why would anyone expect Field to admit it publicly if he was pro-Communist his entire life (living in Communist Hungary until his death)?

and an unambiguous endorsement of Vassiliev

Again, there is no such endorsement.

None of these ideas are counter-pointed at all, because those in disagreement are lumped into a rabble of conspiracy theorists.

If you do not like the word "conspiracy theory" then Hiss's supporters dismiss this and continue to argue that Hiss was framed with the assistance of the FBI and/or military. would also work.

CJK (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly with Joegoodfriend. In addition, I repeat, the following words and locutions are not acceptable:

• "Most historians" = POV (proxy for "consensus" talking point/buzzword)
• "Hiss supporters" = POV (implies partisanship, not neutrality on part of those who have reservations or would disagree with long-time right-wing polemicists Earl Haynes and co.)
• "dismiss", as in "Hiss supporters dismiss" = POV (implies categorical rejection rather than reasoned argument on part of those who have reservations or would disagree with long-time right-wing polemicists Haynes and co.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.78.93 (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You know what I don't see in CJK's response above? Any explanation of how his "compromise" is NOT an outcome in which he gets everything he's been lobbying for without any concessions to anyone. His "compromises" is all merely word substitutions. Replacing "conspiracy" with "Hiss was framed" isn't a compromise, it's exactly the same concept with different word choice. The same goes for replacing Vassiliev as "proof" with the concept that the conclusion that Hiss was guilty has been "bolstered" by "notes from documents in the sealed KGB archives which identify Hiss as a Soviet agent."

Why did you ever ask other editors to suggest their ideas for compromise, if you're unwilling to compromise on a single one of your demands? Your not only continuing to demand the ideas for which you couldn't get endorsement in the RFC, your actually expanding your demands: now the lede should include Venona/Ales and Field. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

"Most historians" = POV (proxy for "consensus" talking point/buzzword)

This has been proven to you numerous times, despite your refusal to acknowledge it.

"Hiss supporters" = POV (implies partisanship, not neutrality on part of those who have reservations or would disagree with long-time right-wing polemicists Earl Haynes and co.)

As already pointed out to you numerous times, it is more than Haynes & co. Again, you simply refuse to acknowledge it.

"dismiss", as in "Hiss supporters dismiss" = POV (implies categorical rejection rather than reasoned argument on part of those who have reservations or would disagree with long-time right-wing polemicists Haynes and co.)

What word would you favor?

You know what I don't see in CJK's response above? Any explanation of how his "compromise" is NOT an outcome in which he gets everything he's been lobbying for without any concessions to anyone.

I do not assert Hiss is guilty and do not state that there is consensus.

Replacing "conspiracy" with "Hiss was framed" isn't a compromise, it's exactly the same concept with different word choice.

Do you actually dispute this? Advanced by no less than Hiss himself, the Hiss defense has always argued that the typewriter used to implicate him was faked by government agencies.

The same goes for replacing Vassiliev as "proof" with the concept that the conclusion that Hiss was guilty has been "bolstered" by "notes from documents in the sealed KGB archives which identify Hiss as a Soviet agent."

Again, it is widely accepted that the case was bolstered by the new evidence, regardless of whether or not everyone agrees with it.

CJK (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Why can't you find a reliable source for your statement about the status of academic opinion? I suggested it over a month ago and we could have avoided all these time-consuming discussions. If you cannot find a better source than the one already used, then I suggest we stick with it. TFD (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK's comments about Hiss's belief he had been framed (or railroaded) are fair. It is certainly not uncommon for such things to occur and people are exonerated all the time after having been convicted by an overzelous prosecution. I would also agree with CJK's contention that the case against Hiss was apparently "bolstered" by Vassiliev's notes. On the other hand CJK and Yopienso's flat refusal either to provide citations or to treat respectfully the arguments of those who don't see eye to eye with them in every respect on every single issue is very troubling. The same goes for their refusal to qualify their assertions in any way. CJK's attempt at revision remains unacceptable. 173.77.13.69 (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

There are also those that believe or suggest, Steve Salant, for example, and possibly the Belgian author, that Hiss may have been railroaded with doctored evidence by people who nevertheless had good reasons they felt they were unable to share (because of the top secret Venona decoding Project, possibly) to sincerely believe that Hiss was guilty of espionage but who knew that there would never be sufficient evidence to convict him in front of a jury. The question of whether Hiss was guilty of espionage therefore is separate from the question of whether the trial was a fair one. Those who insist that the Venona revelations and Vassiliev's notes should put an end any further discussion are effectively blurring the distinction, thereby deflecting discussion of possible misconduct at the trial -- and/or endorsing and excusing such tactics by default because they, too, believe Hiss was guilty anyway. 173.52.250.209 (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC) edit 173.77.14.196 (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

NB There is a parallel here with the excuses made by right-wing-self-described-anti-Communists for the excesses of Senator Joe McCarthy, namely that the great danger (he and they, but not other people, perceived) to the republic -- i.e., "Reasons of State" or National Interest -- excused possible trespasses on citizen rights (such as the right to a fair trial) and the Rule of Law and justified any collateral damage in the form of wrecked lives or careers. 173.77.14.196 (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with the issue at hand? The idea that myself, Yopienso, and Collect have not provided citations is utterly laughable.

CJK (talk) 16:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts. It would be difficult to overstate how truly depressing this exercise was. Apparently we'll still be here when the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved, and possibly when the Sun goes red giant. Have a good week. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

JoeGoodFriend It would be difficult to overstate how truly depressing this exercise was.

Don't let this little spat get you down. I've been dealing with this sort of junk for nigh on 60 years (I started VERY young). It's absolutely fascinating (appalling?) how counter factual the right wing gets (not that the liberal wing doesn't get loopy too), but the ability to constantly repeat the same mantra again & again & again is quite astonishing. If you want a real giggle (scare you witless) look up "Diana West." She's got a new book "America Betrayed" & calls her mentor M. Stanton Evans, "Stan." They repeat the same Chambers/Bentley drivel. Were some of their accusations accurate? Pretty much. Were some of them whopping lies? Absolutely, but for certain let's not admit that. The hard part is figuring out which is which. The real hoot is that West is trying to draw a continuum between communism (obviously under every bed) and Islam.

And then there's this one... have you ever examined the list of cover names? Ales --> Hiss, Jurist --> White, Pol --> Silvermaster, etc. It's a work of John Haynes. No where does he show how he—and he alone—reached the conclusions that connected cover names to real people. Strikes me as odd. I grew up learning: "Show your work. Showing an answer isn't good enough."

For me the question never even remotely touched on... at any point since the 1917 Russian Revolution has America been seriously threatened by either the Russians or the Soviets? Even the FBI admits the communist party at its peak was maybe 100,000 members, with 25%+ as paid informants. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's Secrecy opens (if memory serves me)... all you had to do was visit the Soviet Union to see what a shell (Potemkin village) they were. I'd be more than willing to argue that to this day they've never recovered from the NEP/famines in the 1930s & WWII.

And the right wing gets all tied up in their shorts about "passing secrets." What makes you think there are secrets that valuable in Washington? Is there any record at all of an American secret being passed to the Soviets resulting in a major advantage to them? The bomb doesn't count... it wasn't our secret to hide. It was Mother Nature's & we'd demonstrated the nuclear theories worked. DEddy (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Encouraged to hold your ideological ground by DEddy's motivational speech? Fact is that this Talk page goes on and on and on about the neutrality of the article simply because readers come to this article, note that is does not reflect the AGGREGATE of the reliable sources, and try to fix it. You and DEddy then try to fight this and have no scruples at all about suggesting to these newcomers to the debate that they are offside the "editor consensus" when if fact you are quite aware that editors like myself would be supportive but simply don't follow this article year after year after year like you and DEddy do. This will be resolved long before "the Sun goes red giant" because all it would take to get the needed revision is for there to be editor turnover on the keep the article's status quo side like there is on the revise the article side.--Brian Dell (talk) 07:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

CJK and Yopienso refuse to accept the NYT's reporter James Barron as a reliable source, because, according to CJK, Barron uses the word "probably" which he considers one of wikipedia's "weasel" words. While Yopienso adamantly insists that no reliable source is needed, just a listing of five or six academics. This is exactly the kind of thing that Susan Jacoby was complaining of! In the meantime, the article stands as satisfactory to the two of them, apparently, because it contains changes to their liking. Most egregiously the inclusion of a popular writer on psychology as a reliable source and final word on the guilt or innocence of Alger Hiss. 19:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.14.196 (talk) edit 173.77.14.196 (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• For the record: I have never commented on James Barron. You need to take a break, IP/Mballen. Yopienso (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I said that you insist that no RS is needed, do you deny that? And if not, why is James Barron unacceptable to you? 173.77.14.196 (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Note, that while wikipedia considers "probably" a weasel word, it is used here as a quotation by someone else, a NYT reporter and a RS, who was by no means obliged to adhere to wikipdia's guidelines. Moreover, there are numerous occasions when "probably" is not a "weasel word" but an accurate qualifier, especially in news reporting and when talking about controversial historical events about which metaphysical certainty is not possible. 173.77.14.196 (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Once again: what are you talking about? It is you who has refused to accept James Barron (who never said "probably" BTW) because, according to you, he is in on a CIA conspiracy. [6] It is you who is satisfied with the current nature of the article, given how you have obstructed all efforts to improve it.

CJK (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Right. Correction accepted: not "probably", but "most likely", or did you object to "growing", as in: "a growing consensus that Hiss, indeed, had most likely been a Soviet agent". I agree that I have opposed CJK's efforts to make blanket changes that reflect his own point of view. I don't even agree with Barron. Personally, I don't see convincing evidence of a consensus, or even a majority, but I certainly accept, among other things, in the interest of compromise, the fact that he made the statement and that many people agree with it. Mballen (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You had an account this entire time?

What would constitute "evidence" to you of a consensus or a majority? A poll?

CJK (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

My personal opinion doesn't matter. 173.77.14.196 (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Then what is your problem?

CJK (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, I don't blame you for trying to solve this by arbitration. I wish they'd accepted the case.

"What would constitute "evidence" to you of a consensus or a majority? A poll?"

In a word, yes. Have you ever looked the old talk pages? We spent an entire year arguing this very point.[7]

Some RS's say most historians believe Hiss was guilty. Their evidence? No evidence at all, just their opinion. Some editors thought the article should remain neutral, others didn't. The compromise text was: "Various reports suggest that those who believe in Hiss's innocence are in the minority of scholarly opinion." This was eventually changed to the Barron reference and no one complained. Either version at least has the virtue of being indisputably factually true. Year-long edit war over. And so the consensus of the editors held for years without any major fights until...well I think we know what happened next. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Joegoodfriend, oops, please accept my heartfelt apologies for accidentally deleting your post! No idea how that happened, certainly did not intend to. Glad you restored it. 173.77.14.196 (talk) 02:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

:) Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No such polls exist and there is nothing in Wikipedia policy to suggest they are necessary.

CJK (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Polls do exist on some controversial subjects, and there is longstanding precedent for including polls results (whether of experts or the public) in the lede of Wikipedia articles. Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Some RS's say most historians believe Hiss was guilty.

Does anyone have a wild guess how many (professional) historians there are? Of that population (10,000s? 100,000s?) how many care about Hiss or McCarthyism or the witch hunts of the 1950s. From up close & personal, it is my observation that darned few care. Just look at the drivel put out by the Schecter's, Stan Evans, Ann Coulter & now Diana West. There are clearly people who call this junk "history." If there are more than a few dozen historians who care about Hiss & McCarthyism, I'd be astonished. DEddy (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Once again, there are no polls for this. Your suggestion that polls are necessary is not found in any Wikipedia policy.

CJK (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with DEddy. Did you know that "Historians Pretty Much Agree" That FDR Prolonged the Great Depression? At least according to Fox News. Now let us suppose that some other historians with an axe to grind say the same thing. Does that mean the text, "There is a consensus that FDR prolonged the Great Depression" belongs in articles about FDR and the New Deal? No, not without evidence that historians do in fact agree. DEddy is right: We have no idea how many historians have formed an opinion on the Hiss case, and I wouldn't be surprised if most have not.

"Your suggestion that polls are necessary is not found in any Wikipedia policy."

I never said they were necessary. I think in this particular case, given the controversial nature of the subject matter, it is inappropriate to state opinion as if it were fact with ANY evidence that the opinion is true. It would be best if the lede took a neutral position. If not neutral, then at least indisputably factual accurate: "Various reports suggest that those who believe in Hiss's innocence are in the minority of scholarly opinion." Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

And not only that, but many who make up the little community of Cold War "scholars" who find themselves in such marvelous agreement, in fact, belong to an incestuous little community of Trotskyites and former Trotskyites with a shared bee in their bonnet about avenging the death of their admired leader, Leon Trotsky, who was to lead the world into utopia, had he not met an end "justified" by "the means", which he himself subscribed to, namely murder. They are more like bug-eyed ideologues than dispassionate historians. 208.105.83.202 (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Joe, even liberals like Paul Krugman think FDR prolonged the depression (by insufficient spending).

I never said they were necessary. I think in this particular case, given the controversial nature of the subject matter, it is inappropriate to state opinion as if it were fact with ANY evidence that the opinion is true.

Why do they have to prove anything to you? Wikipedia goes with what the RS sources say. If you think the RS sources are lying about it, that is your problem.

Ip/Mballen's comments merely confirm how he is guided by his paranoid prejudices rather than any empirical reality. Trotskyists trying to frame people as Communists? WTF? I thought the military conspiracy was weird, but you managed to top that.

CJK (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Official Soviet Archivists have stated that Alger Hiss is absent from the Soviet Archives. Some editors refuse to allow this in the lede solely because their original research suggests to them that the Archivists are wrong. Why do they (the sources) have to prove anything to you?

The editors are allowed to write an article that they think is good. If we agree that excluding the Archivists is good, then that's the way it goes. If we agree to include the "consensus," or to exclude it, or something in between, then that's the way it goes. It seems to be your contention that you found a source that offers a opinion on a subject, therefore you're automatically entitled to include it in the lede of the article. As I said before when reverting certain edits, "the old lede was better."

You've shown a strong tendency to dismantle the hard-won, long-standing consensus that kept the lede of this article stable for years without getting anyone else's input. To me, that violates Wikipedia's policies more than anything we've discussed. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't change the subject. We were talking about the consensus, and I explained to you that you don't get to decide to pick and choose from what the reliable sources say.

You have thus far failed to cite one individual who has used the three Soviet archivists denials (one of whom retracted, one of whom used weasel words, and the other did no research) to argue in favor of the notes being fakes. Your insinuation is just original research on your part, because you are making an independent argument.

CJK (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

" (one of whom retracted, one of whom used weasel words, and the other did no research) "

Thanks for making my point for me. You won't let the official Soviet Archivists speak for the Soviet Archives because you don't like what they have to say, and so you'll just exclude them because you don't think their statements improve the article. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No, because you simply don't cite anyone to make the argument that you are making: that the notes should be put in doubt by the archivists' statements. It is therefore an original research judgment on your part.

CJK (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"you simply don't cite anyone to make the argument that you are making: that the notes should be put in doubt by the archivists' statements."

Wrong. The argument I'm making is that if official archivists, former Generals and intelligence directors say that Hiss was not a spy, and that there is nothing in the Archives to indicate that he might have been, that those statements are of enough value to include in the article and possibly in the lede. The fact that these statements tend to contradict Vassiliev is incidental.

But as for citing someone re Vassiliev, Soviet Foreign Intelligence office Boris Labusov stated himself that Vassiliev could not in the course of his research have possibly "met the name of Alger Hiss in the context of some cooperation with some special services of the Soviet Union." Maj. Gen. Julius Kobyakov said, in the context of discussing Vassiliev, had found in the SVR archives positive hard evidence that Alger Hiss had not had any relationship with the SVR or its predecessors, and that he had queried Soviet military archives and based on their answer still believed that Hiss was not a spy. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The argument I'm making is that if official archivists, former Generals and intelligence directors say that Hiss was not a spy, and that there is nothing in the Archives to indicate that he might have been, that those statements are of enough value to include in the article and possibly in the lede.

And which scholars agree with you?

CJK (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Official Soviet Archivists are RS for the Soviet Archives. They don't need other sources to endorse them. Some sources do so of course, and you're aware of those I would name. And I'm aware of what you'd say about them. These arguments are so old, we could just give them numbers instead of retyping them. Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If other sources do not think they are notable then they aren't notable to Wikipedia. You can't use Fact A to make Argument B if nobody except you makes Argument B. And you are making an argument because you are implying that they somehow cancel out what Vassiliev said. Who else agrees with that?

CJK (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"If other sources do not think they are notable then they aren't notable to Wikipedia." You want the article to discuss the Soviet Archives, but the official Soviet Archivists' statements aren't "notable?" That's just bizzare. Also irrelevant since other sources do think the Archivists are notable.

"And you are making an argument because you are implying that they somehow cancel out what Vassiliev said." I told you this wasn't my argument.

Getting a lot of endorsement, are you, for your one-editor crusade that redefines Wikipedia policy to say that only people with a narrowly-defined set of academic credentials are qualified as sources for historical subjects? Who else agrees with that? Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

They aren't notable if scholars don't think they are credible. You have not cited one.

CJK (talk) 17:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, in 2003, General Julius Kobyakov, retired deputy director of the KGB's American Division said:

I have found in the SVR archives positive hard evidence that Alger Hiss had not had any relationship with the SVR [GRU?] or its predecessors. My conclusion was in fact endorsed by the leadership of the SVR. As for the ALES thing, I would council against giving too much weight to that cryptonym, since at that time anybody who was somebody in Washington was given a cryptonym by the Soviet intelligence. Thus FDR was CAPTAIN, Secretary of State was MECHANIC, Harry Hopkins also had his moniker, etc., which is not to be taken as an indication that either one was a Soviet spy. Alger Hiss also had his cryptonym, but it was not (repeat: was not) ALES.

He also said he would "eat his hat" if it turned out that Hiss had been a spy, later amending that to a promise to drink to the success of the SVR in having recruiting Hiss while taking a bite out of said hat. Whether or not what he said was true is impossible to say. He seems to have been quite annoyed that the KBG sold temporary access to its archives to Random House publishers for money, as he put it. Nevertheless, Kobyakov is a highly notable person and his lively statements, including those about ALES, need to be available to wikipedia readers. Hanyes and co., incidentally, call those who disagree with them in every jot and tittle, "espionage deniers" (on the happy [not] model of "holocaust deniers") and, analogously to Mr. CKJ here, weirdly term Kobyakov's statements "undocumented". Such transparent maneuvers to unilaterally suppress relevant information casts a shadow on their integrity. 173.52.246.125 (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The SVR and its predecessors are completely separate from the GRU, which is military intelligence. Kobyakov is therefore knocking down a straw man, since Hiss has always been associated with the GRU, not the SVR predecessors.

CJK (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, Charles A. Rosenberg's entry on the "American Communist Party" in Glen P. Hastedt and Steven W. Guerrier's Spies, Wiretaps, and Secret Operations: An Encyclopedia of American Espionage (ABC-CLIO, 2011), p. 27 says "Reliance on Venona continues to be questioned by some historians. Russian language texts from which the original coding and decoding were done have never been released. Many of the references are fragmentary. and disinformation may appear in the record as sterling truth. The high profile case of Alger Hiss is still debated although Venona reports identify him with the code name Ales."

This ought to put an end to discussions about a so-called consensus among historians about the guilt of Alger Hiss. A search failed to turn up the wording consensus with regard to Hiss or to state that most historians agree in this matter. 173.52.246.125 (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I did find an article on Hiss in the same book that states that in the opinion of the author, Philip Deery, "Historiographical debate over interpretations of this cable [Venona] continues, but, as with the upholders of the Rosenbergs's innocence, Hiss's defenders are rapidly dwindling and weight of the evidence leans heavily toward Hiss being guilty as charged," p. 365. Nevertheless, this statement, highly qualified, in no way contradicts that of the first author, that the "high profile case of Alger Hiss is still debated"." The case is not "closed." Incidentally, the NYU pages are cited in this reference work, and so presumably can be cited here as well. 173.52.246.125 (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The original Russian text for the Ales cable was revealed in 2005. [8]

Since nobody is proposing to say "the case is closed" I don't understand what your point is.

CJK (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

My points are 1) that it would be misleading to suggest that most historians now agree on a matter that is in fact as controversial as ever, also 2) that in is unacceptable to exclude sources, such as the NYU pages or the statements of highly placed Russian Intelligence officers because they do not jibe with Haynes and Klehr's interpretations, since they are cited by unimpeachably reliable reference sources. 173.52.246.125 (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

1) that it would be misleading to suggest that most historians now agree on a matter that is in fact as controversial as ever,

No, it wouldn't. The fact that controversy continues does not void the fact that most historians are of the opinion that Hiss did it.

2) that in is unacceptable to exclude sources, such as the NYU pages or the statements of highly placed Russian Intelligence officers because they do not jibe with Haynes and Klehr's interpretations, since they are cited by unimpeachably reliable reference sources.

Which reliable sources cite "Russian Intelligence officers"?

CJK (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

To respond to your good faith query: 1) reliable sources cite the NYU pages, 2) the words of the highly-placed Russian military and intelligence officers can be cited directly, as you know very well but have perhaps momentarily forgotten, since they are a) very notable in themselves and 2) their words are also on record and can be easily checked by readers. In other words they are neither obscure nor fictitious. . 173.52.246.125 (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

most historians now agree

What is meant by most historians? I find that phrase extremely misleading (rather like a Joe McCarthy statement... "a crime so large"). There must be 1,000s/10,000s of historians, but how many know or care about the Hiss issue? If there are more than a dozen or so such historians who actually follow the endless twists & turns of the Hiss issue, I'd be astonished. Anyone want to start a list to get a sense of how many historians bother to care? DEddy (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy against self-published sources. This applies no matter what others happen to think.

The point regarding the Russian officials is that nobody has provided any evidence that their statements are taken seriously by anyone.

CJK (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The point regarding the Russian officials is that nobody has provided any evidence that their statements are taken seriously by anyone. So what? 173.52.246.125 (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC) 173.52.246.125 (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Given the well-known problems with those sources, if nobody thinks they are credible they do not deserve lead status.

CJK (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"The point regarding the Russian officials is that nobody has provided any evidence that their statements are taken seriously by anyone."

What you mean to say is, "nobody has provided any evidence that their statements are taken seriously by anyone," where "anyone" is defined as "any one of the few sources CJK considers acceptable."

Kai Bird and Svetlana Chervonnaya, on Hiss and Venona:

Could a person openly named in such a message be an agent of that service at the time the message was written or at any previous time? Not according to Lt. Gen. Vitaly Pavlov, a former KGB foreign intelligence officer who had supervised intelligence operations focused on the United States from late in 1938. When interviewed in 2002, Pavlov firmly stated that no one openly named in the VENONA cables could have been an agent. Why was he so sure? “Had he ever been an agent, the service would have his code name in the system.” Three years later, this opinion was upheld by another Russian intelligence professional, Maj. Gen. Julius Kobyakov. After reading one VENONA cable, Kobyakov told us that had Hiss been an agent, “it would be very unusual to put a true name in a cable: speaking about one of their assets, normally, they would use a code name.”

Historian D.D. Guttenplan said the following about Vassiliev's libel trial against Lowenthal for questioning of the value of Vassiliev's Archive notes:

After four days of arguments, testimony and cross-examination, the jury first had to decide whether Lowenthal's claim that Weinstein and Vassiliev "omit relevant facts" and "selectively replaced covernames with their own notion of the real names" was indeed defamatory. Likewise, Lowenthal's suggestion that Vassiliev, "if he's honest," would--quoting Boris Labusov, a press officer of the SVR, the successor to the KGB--have to concede that "he never met the name of Alger Hiss in the context of some cooperation with some special services of the Soviet Union."

Haynes and Vassiliev also took Labusov "seriously" enough to attack him in Spies. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The first one's statements has nothing to do with the archives. The second one is just quoting Hiss's lawyer. You need to provide evidence on the third one.

CJK (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The transcript of the 2009 conference is a reliable source. The letter printed in H-diplo. is a reliable source, whether the letter writers or the speakers are to be taken seriously by you has zero to do with it. Provided they are quoted accurately and this quotation is reproduced in a reliable source, it may be quoted in wikipedia. The NYU website is produced by people who have published books or articles, many of them with Ph.Ds. Because of that and because they are notable actors in the controversy they may be quoted so long as they are quoted accurately and their quotations can be checked by readers. The fact that they also publish on the web is immaterial. Nor may what they say be suppressed because they are relatives or friends of Hiss. In fact, that is what makes what they have to say more pertinent. You know this. Give it up, CJK. 173.52.246.125 (talk) 00:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I don't know if I have been unclear but I'm going to try explain myself again.

I am not proposing to say "Hiss is guilty". I am not asserting that there is nobody disputing the evidence or that the article should ignore them. What I am asserting is that using these Russian officials to attack the credibility of the notes, implying Vassiliev just forged them, crosses the original research line.

CJK (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The transcript of the 2009 conference is a reliable source. The letter printed in H-diplo. is a reliable source,

I remember being quite surprised at that H-DIPLO review. The two CIA guys & Gid Powers (FBI) were very clearly NOT triumphant/game over/case closed. If memory serves they were cautiously on the side of: "Interesting new resource that we haven't seen before." Your mileage may vary.

FWIW... assuming folks haven't read much of Richard Gid Powers, he's written several books on the FBI, mostly very favorable to the FBI. His most recent work, "Broken" is an examination of the post 9/11 FBI. Basic observation: the abilities of a street savvy FBI agent & an intelligence agent (regarded as a clerk in FBI culture) simply do NOT come in the same body. You get one or the other. A good intelligence agent won't make a good street agent & a good street agent won't make a good intelligence agent. Strongest agreement. DEddy (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"I am not asserting that there is nobody disputing the evidence or that the article should ignore them."

What you are doing is so close to ignoring them as makes no difference. You won't allow any of the arguments of anyone who suggests that Hiss was or may have been innocent because you've eliminated them all with your made-up definitions of reliable and notable sources.

"What I am asserting is that using these Russian officials to attack the credibility of the notes, implying Vassiliev just forged them, crosses the original research line."

This is a straw man, as the Archivists statements are relevant not even considering Vassiliev. But there's no original research involved. These sources are saying: yes, they're aware of Vassiliev, and they still say Hiss was not a spy and the Archives don't suggest otherwise. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the words they used were "misinterpreted" (or the equivalent), certainly not "forged". So there should be no need for hyper-defensiveness. 173.52.246.125 (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The quotes you cited, such as "he never met the name of Alger Hiss in the context of some cooperation with some special services of the Soviet Union" certainly imply to the reader that Vassiliev forged the notes. Such a judgment is original research absent someone else also taking that view.

CJK (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

In response to your good faith argument: The speaker is not a wikipedia editor but a Russian official. If Leon Panetta or General Petraeus says something, their words are not "original research" but noteworthy because of who they are. (e.g., If someone says, "I didn't not have sex with that woman" it is not "original research.) I think you are misconstruing the meaning of the word "miscontrued". It usually does not imply deliberate fraud, on the contrary. Methinks you are being a little touchy if you think Vassiliev is being accused of deliberately misconstruing what was in the Soviet archives for money, if that is the subtext. As a noteworthy person, he is supposed to have a thicker skin than that. If you can't stand the heat.... Suing Amazon because of a book review was rather bizarre.15:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.246.125 (talk)

to CJK: certainly imply to the reader that Vassiliev forged the notes.

Do you have evidence that 100% of Vassiliev's notes are totally accurate? Do you have a list of the consensus of historians who unequivocally swear the notes are accurate? My guess is—particularly if that H-DIPLO panel is representative—folks say something to the effect that Vassiliev's notes are an interesting & probably useful addition... but with reservations. Haynes & Klehr, of course, weigh in with total certainty "case closed."

What we have with the notes is... the notes. We have no access to the alleged underlying documents. So we don't know if the notes are 100% accurate, 95%, 50%? Whatever. If memory serves me, Vassiliev says he was/is a professional journalist. Writers are good at crafting plausible sounding stories. DEddy (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"The quotes you cited,...certainly imply to the reader that Vassiliev forged the notes. Such a judgment is original research absent someone else also taking that view."

First or all, this isn't true. Forgery isn't necessarily implied. The original sources for the documents might have been wrong. Or the preparation or handling or conclusions involved in creating the original documents might have been wrong. Or Vassiliev may have made mistakes. Second, your line of argument makes no sense. Including the Archivists doesn't say, or suggest, Vassiliev is a fraud. Yes it's possible that the reader may conclude the possibility of fraud, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of original research and its prohibition from Wikipedia. Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, forgery is implied. The statement is "he never met the name of Alger Hiss in the context of some cooperation with some special services of the Soviet Union". Not the original sources were wrong, or the conclusions were wrong, but that he never met the name Alger Hiss in the context of "cooperation". That is flatly contradicted by what the notes say, no matter how you want to interpret them. So he is calling him a liar. And for us to legitimize his view that Vassiliev is a liar, we need a more substantial source that agrees with his assessment.

CJK (talk) 15:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense, it's not calling him a liar. It's saying that he made a mistake or saw something that wasn't accurate or that he's a liar. This whole bit makes no sense to me. Where is it written that the article cannot include material that, although it does not mention Vassiliev in any way, might be construed by the reader as critical of Vassiliev? Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK "or us to legitimize his view that Vassiliev is a liar, we need a more substantial source that agrees with his assessment."

I love how you never answer a direct question... it reminds me of certain people.

You are asking/stating that Vassiliev's notes be 100% accepted as 100% accurate & truthful, correct? All I want to say is that the notes are not at this point in time—could be different story in 10 years, but that's in the future—proven Gospel (which, of course, is a great pun since we can't prove the Gospel... great stories, but lots of wiggle room).

Duly note... the much ballyhooed VENONA cables still remain unanalyzed. Used to embellish various points of view, yes. Analyzed, no. To date—particularly in the context of the prolific Haynes & Klehr—they are accepted at face value. So far we have only a single "native" cable (e.g. in Russian), the Ales one... which until it was released in October 2005 the official word was that there were no "originals," just the English translations with all their [xxxx GROUPS UNRECOVERABLE]. Point being: have you ever tried to make sense of a redacted document?

To date we have zero evidence of how the various cover names were tracked back to the real people. We just have Haynes list. No homework. I find that odd. Doesn't that Haynes list smell of "original research?" DEddy (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It's saying that he made a mistake or saw something that wasn't accurate

No, it said "he never met the name of Alger Hiss in the context of some cooperation with some special services of the Soviet Union", something flatly contradicted by the notes.

Where is it written that the article cannot include material that, although it does not mention Vassiliev in any way, might be construed by the reader as critical of Vassiliev?

See Wikipedia: No 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.

You are asking/stating that Vassiliev's notes be 100% accepted as 100% accurate & truthful, correct?

No, but you need sources if you want to suggest they are wrong. They are in fact widely accepted as authentic as proven over and over again.

Point being: have you ever tried to make sense of a redacted document?

It isn't redacted, and you are just piling on more original research.

To date we have zero evidence of how the various cover names were tracked back to the real people.

They based it on how they were described in the cables.

CJK (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK "You are asking/stating that Vassiliev's notes be 100% accepted as 100% accurate & truthful, correct?

No, but you need sources if you want to suggest they are wrong. They are in fact widely accepted as authentic as proven over and over again."

That's not very symmetrical. Your position is that the notes are correct because they exist. And no one can question them? Even though—I believe without question—is that Vassiliev's notes are from documents no one other than himself & internal KGB archivists have seen... so they cannot be verified. You do know that in a court of law such an argument over document authenticity wouldn't get very far. You & H&K are basing the "case closed" argument on "evidence" that cannot be verified. I believe this falls under the umbrella of hearsay.

To date we have zero evidence of how the various cover names were tracked back to the real people.

They based it on how they were described in the cables.

Interesting. Certainly the first time I've heard that claim. Can you point to a reference? Or is it just something you assume?

So where did the cover name information in the cables come from? DEddy (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Your position is that the notes are correct because they exist.

No, my position is that nobody has seriously disputed that they are authentic and it is irresponsible original research to imply otherwise in absence of scholars saying so.

CJK (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"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."[9]

"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. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

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?

The edit that you want to insert in the introduction is being used by you to denigrate the notes. You should provide sources of people who accept that argument.

I did cite someone and you know it: D.D. Guttenplan

Who a) was merely quoting Hiss's lawyer b) freely admits he is not a scholar of the subject matter of this article and c) is opposed by the overwhelming majority who have examined the notes.

Furthermore, read "Spies."

That is Vassiliev rebutting Labusov as a personal matter. No scholar considers the idea that Labusov's denials should prevent anyone from using the notes as a source. Neither should Wikipedia.

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.

You do understand that Hiss's status and Soviet espionage in general is still an official state secret, do you not? Why should anyone take seriously the denials of people who have an official interest in discrediting leakers? It is like saying "the oil and gas industry dispute they have anything to do with global warming."

CJK (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK "You do understand that Hiss's status and Soviet espionage in general is still an official state secret"

Unclear whose official state secret Russians or us?

Are you claiming our intelligence community is an open book?

Do note that until October 2005, it was officially denied there were any "original" (meaning in Russian, from the decrypts)... & suddenly the in Russian version of the Ales cable appeared. Miraculous. Probably a metadata filing error, eh?

Furthermore, read "Spies."

You're still basing all this handwaving on a single chapter in a single dodgy book?

To offer again... would you like me to point to an absolutely egregious factual error in Spies? It's "just" an example of 10 year old information that H&K evidently couldn't quite get around to correcting. It would mean you would have to read beyond Chapter 1. I can offer current video to corroborate too. DEddy (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

CJK, Yeah I think you just shot your argument in the head there buddy. Your suggestion (which is original research of course) is that the Soviet Archivists' statements cannot be mentioned in any context because they're "unreliable." (I guess they're a bunch of lying commie rats, eh?) You compare it to including in a wikipedia article fossil fuel industry statements that they are not involved in causing global warming.

Of course the article on global warming DOES include such statements:

"Dennis T. Avery, a food policy analyst at the Hudson Institute (which receives funding from ExxonMobil),[50] and whose educational background is in agricultural economics,[51] wrote an article entitled "500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares"[52] published in 2007 by the The Heartland Institute. After the publishing of this article, numerous scientists who had been included in the list demanded their names be removed after the list was immediately called into question for misunderstanding and distorting the conclusions of many of the named studies and/or citing outdated, flawed studies that had long been abandoned and deemed inaccurate.[53][54][55]"

So I guess by your own argument we CAN include the Archivists' statements on Hiss. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying that they need to be assessed as reliable if we are going to use them in the introduction to rebut Vassiliev. I have no problem with their opinions being in the main body.

CJK (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Once again, the Russian archivists's statements are unquestionably reliably sourced. End of story. However, I agree that they don't have to be quoted word-for-word in the introduction. A brief reference would suffice. I would be satisfied if the two quotations from Spies, the dictionary of espionage (not the book by Haynes and co.), one about the continuing controversy (i.e., lack of consensus) and the other about the increasing evidence (against Hiss) were included in the introduction as more current than the quotation from Anthony Summers, which could be moved elsewhere if need be. I would also like to see some of the H-diplo material included and the bibliography updated. 173.77.75.75 (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Adding the information that Hiss worked as an assistant to Hornbeck in 1939 would also definitely improve the article, along with a word or two about Hornbeck's longstanding interest in aiding China in its war against Japan at this time. 173.77.75.75 (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, in 1939, Japan and the USSR were fighting an undeclared war on the Manchurian frontier and this, too, should be mentioned. 173.77.75.75 (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)