Talk:Alger Hiss/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

This just in: Pravda Headline: Vassiliev Pawn of Capitalist West

Sorry... just couldn't resist.

callous dismissal of Vassiliev is utterly inappropriate.

Let us not forget this is where the Vassiliev saga began. Hopefully a book in itself. Story I heard was that Weinstein's publisher paid the KGB retirement fund a large sum for access to KGB files. I remember pictures of Weinstein toasting to bunch of KGB guys. And then things went down hill. When did all that start? It was for Haunted Wood right? Did Weinstein's notes ever make it to public access? I remember these was a lot of controversy over "inaccessible" reference sources.

Last I knew, when you pay writers—even professional journalists—they write. Is this still an accurate understanding of how things work?

CJK... you're the Spies Chapter one expert here... what do H&K say about the Vassiliev deals? DEddy (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If you have sources to back up the idea that Vassiliev's notes are unreliable you can present them at any time. Otherwise your original research is of no importance.

CJK (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll cut and paste the long list of people (noted on this page many times) who have called Vassiliev's notes and conclusions unreliable, then you remind me that they are all unreliable and/or non-notable -OR- you say it's not enough for them to question the reliability of the notes or Vassiliev's conclusions, they must say point blank, "the notes are fake." Wash, rinse, repeat.

Ok. Sources to back up the idea that Vassiliev's notes are unreliable: Lowenthal, Kisseloff, Guttenplan, Amy Knight, Labusov, Kobyakov, Navasky, Bird and Chervonnaya.

Right, that's your cue. You remember your lines don't you? Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You conflate two separate issues, whether the notes are accurate and whether the interpretation is accurate.

CJK (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK - If you have sources to back up the idea that Vassiliev's notes are unreliable

Easy. Are there corroborating sources? Sorry, VENONA naming Ales/Hiss doesn't count since much of that was public in 1995 & the sole Russian language version VENONA cable on Ales appeared in 2005. That's more than adequate time for Vassiliev to weave tantalizing tidbits into his discoveries.

Hard fact... Elizabeth Bentley's 1945 statement to FBI made no mention of Occupation Currency plates. Likewise her 1948 testimony (under oath, but so what) made no mention of the Occupation Currency plates. By 1954 Harry Dexter White was safely dead the McCarthy witch hunts raged. Now Bentley suddenly told the story—10 years after the actual events in 1944—that Moscow/Stalin had commanded Harry Dexter White to deliver the plates & out of his loyalty to the cause (entirely opposite to Chambers' description of White being his worst agent). Events had indeed happened... now it's time to spin up an interesting story from a stew of actual facts & incriminating spin. Who'll know, much less care about the actual details. Pretty much the same as the cries of: "FDR knew the Japanese were coming & suppressed the information." Easy to say on December 8, 1941 & find an eager audience that lives by Rapture theories.

That raises an interesting issue... I wonder what Spies says about the Occupation Currency plates story. Pretty sure it's not in chapter one. You're the expert here, can you save me the effort & tell how H&K handle Bentley's tale? DEddy (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

So yeah, I guess that means you have no sources.

CJK (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK - I guess that means you have no sources.

Wow. Trapped again. Should have seen that one coming.

BTW... despite there being 60+ index references to Elizabeth Bentley in Spies there appears to be nary a mention of the Occupation Currency plates. Not under "Occupation," "Currency," "Plates," "Germany" & likely several other various others I tried. Any suggestions? Maybe H&K were too busy vetting Vassiliev's work? DEddy (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

consensus

I can't believe we have spent 3 mos. arguing about the supposed need to say "there is a consensus" and "most historians agree" when we have always had three or four quotes in the footnotes stating just that! Do people even know how to read!! Geez. 173.77.76.189 (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC) That's in addition to the quote in the opening paragraph. How many times do we have to say it? 173.77.76.189 (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

we have always had three or four quotes in the footnotes stating just that!

Quotes that say what? There is or is not a consensus? A "consensus" quote coming from a William F. Buckley biographer is hardly likely to be acceptable as Wikipedia POV in a Hiss discussion.

I initially thought that "Carl T Bogus" was a pen name, but his web page at least appears to be serious.

The one thing we're missing in this consensus or not is a list of legitimate historians who actually so. The folks I've spoken to wouldn't touch Wikipedia with a ten foot pole & specifically instructed me to not refer to them since they fear being inundated by trolls like CJK.

The standard of consensus here is if 3 of 5 professional, legitimate, know the Hiss affair in depth historians are willing to say so either publicly or in their published books that Hiss was/was not a spy? Do they have to embrace to 100% accuracy of the Vassiliev notebooks? What if they haven't read the Vassiliev material? What if they say Vassiliev materials are interesting & possibly useful, certainly worthy of additional study, but not conclusive at this point? Hardly what I'd call a consensus for such a complex subject. DEddy (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You do not get to decide the terms for there being a consensus.

CJK (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK You do not get to decide the terms for there being a consensus.

My! Ok, so what is "a consensus?" One of the nice things about dictionaries is there are so many definitions to choose from. I'm going to take a wild guess here & assume the dictionary & definition you use isn't what I use. Since you've indicated you have a firm grip on the consensus issue, you go first. What is your definition of "consensus?" More specifically what do you consider to be consensus in the context of the affair Hiss?

Or—perhaps I missed it—are you conceding you do NOT have a definition for consensus? DEddy (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

"'Quotes that say what?"' You know how to read, don't you, CJK? Go to the article and look at the footnotes for yourself. If you can't do that, I really think you should withdraw from this discussion. Tying up the article for several months without even having read it is too much. And yes, the Bogus quote ads nothing and will have to go. Mballen (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You quoted Deddy, not me. Try to keep that in mind next time you have the insolence to accuse someone of not reading something.

CJK (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK

I's till waiting for your definition of what consensus is? Not that it'll help much I'll go first. My OAD says: general agreement. A bit fuzzy. After all these months can we point to a general agreement here? Ball's in your court. DEddy (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

CJK if you would be more courteous and follow protocol and indent your posts and signatures, there would have been less chance my failing eyes woul have mistaken what you said. Nevertheless, we do have in footnote 2 several quotes supporting James Barron's statement, so what I said still applies. (And it applies to myself as well, since I didn't re-read them, and probably to all of us.) You appear not to be satisfied with Olshinsky and Barron and even Chervonnaya saying there was agreement right here in the article. You want the editors to assent in that agreement and call those who don't agree "fringe", but that is not our job, especially when it is not true.

The more I have worked on this article the more I see that, in fact, it is skewed away from Hiss and his life, which is what it should be about, and toward Haynes and his co-authors, who receive far far too much space. It contains hardly any direct quotes from Hiss's autobiography, for example. Moreover there is nothing about Julian Wadleigh, who really did take documents, viewing it as not anti-American, but as anti-Nazi activity. And who was later blackmailed by Chambers for small sums. But if the article, even in its present flawed state presents Hiss to brightly for CJK and too darkly for others, an impartial person would probably judge that it presents him fairly. Mballen (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

GSN53 (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Censorship - Deletion of Talk Topic

Over the last week, I've made numerous posts regarding the controversy over Nixon's wording in the Watergate transcripts - regarding the Hiss trial, did he say "they got the typewriter" or "they got Piper?" After numerous back-and-forth posts, I'm suddenly seeing that the entire topic - the #5 topic under "talk" - has been deleted. Is this the way things really work here on Wikipedia?

This is disappointing - I had hoped that Wikipedia was an honest voice reflecting common knowledge and honest disagreements.

Now I'm starting to worry it's a controlled medium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSN53 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No one has deleted your comments, you can check the record.[1] TFD (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I think I know what happened. User GSN53 attempted to insert a new topic line and it didn't show up because it was not on a separate line. It's still there, though. The formatting on wikipedia is very tricky. 173.52.252.7 (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The topic line I created last weekend was akin to "Nixon Wording on Hiss Evidence: 'Typewriter' or 'Piper?'" It showed up until yesterday. The subject title is now gone and the discussions (all of them, as TFD points out) have been rolled into "concensus."

Please pardon my "newbieness." GSN53 (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

GSN53, I deeply sympathize with anyone who is confused by wikipedia's formatting. It is especially bad when, like me, you suffer from incipient cataracts and need new glasses! I can go in and try to insert your new section for you.

When you say: "As it now stands, the reader is left to believe that the matter of Nixon saying typewriter was incorrect, and that it’s now accepted that he said 'Piper'. They should understand there are still two camps on this issue." I don't quite agree with you. That is I agree with you that there are two camps. I also agree that the reader is left with the impression that "piper" is the "official" version. It's the official version, all right, according to Richard NIxon! Res ipsa loquitur. That's what the reader should understand. And I think that the astute reader will understand it, at least I hope so. That even Judge Younger, who was manifestly hostile to Hiss, agreed that Nixon probably said "typewriter", is very interesting, if true, but I am not sure how we can fit that into the article. If you read the transcripts from conferences on the subject on the History net referenced on the talk page, you will see that some of the historians who are experts on this case (including at least one from the US intelligence community) believe that the answers to what really happened will come out when the files in the USA, not those of the Soviet Union, as others are trying to argue, are finally opened. 173.52.252.7 (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the 'missing' section properly. Nothing had been deleted, but someone had added text prior to the start of the section header, which messed up the formatting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That was me. Was trying to do it in two stages, but probably didn't know how to do it correctly. Also, forgot to sign. Thanks, Andy. 173.52.252.7 (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

173.52.252.7 says: "And I think that the astute reader will understand it, at least I hope so." Admirable, but until a week ago I believed Wikipedia's #1 goal was to accurately and thoroughly inform the average reader, not to hope that astute readers would be able to read between the lines. The brick wall I'm sensing here is daunting and disappointing. I fully agree with you on the US files coming out. Who would have guessed 25 years ago that we'd get full access to the USSR files on these matters long before we'd get access to our own? GSN53 (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

GSN53, you have to understand that the article you see here is the result of a prolonged and painful compromise -- there are pages and pages of bitter disputes recorded in the talk page. I participated in some of these disputes, but right now I don't remember them in detail. I can't speak for other editors, but I myself would have no problem with your inserting the information about the different versions of Nixon's memoirs, say, right after the account of the 1952 appeal. My one concern is that it should be short, because the article is in danger of getting overly long. I also think it is ok to refer to primary sources under some circumstances, if it is clear and unequivocal to the reader and they can check them. Unless they are very precisely documented and easily verifiable they are likely to be deleted. It is depressing, in a way, but I think this situation holds for most wikipedia articles about events that are highly contested and controversial.173.52.247.35 (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I now understand more about how Wikipedia works, and I see the battles here are just as bitterly fought as those in print, in person and on radio & TV. Perhaps moreso, since editors here are relatively anonymous. I will return when I can document the language in the two versions of "Six Crises."

The Most Amazing Thread On Wikipedia

I have never seen such an archive of disputes. This huge talk page must be some kind of record; it should have an article of its own. It could also be cited in Cold War articles to show how polarising certain issues were and are, even today. That is my suggestion to improve several articles.

So, now that it's all over, why not just admit that Hiss was guilty? :-] 2.25.46.76 (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not up to us to "admit" anything, just report what sources say. I think the significance of the case to the Right is that they believe Hiss' guilt justifies many of their actions, from opposition to the war, appeasement of Hitler, mistrust of the UN, the post-war arms build-up, and hatred of the "elites", while liberals have mostly forgotten the case. TFD (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you just mention Hiss' guilt? Good of you, especially as you say it's not up to you. Still I suppose we are not supposed to discuss the case really, or re- hash discredited old lefty talking points, like the US starting an arms build-up against Stalin's peace-loving Soviet Union. Contributions to improve articles are what is needed. I will be contributing references to this thread to other Cold War Wiki articles, including a recommendation to read certain contributors to it as a way to understand the passions of a previous generation. I will not need to come back here for that, but do keep contributing, as it serves the purpose. 2.25.46.76 (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Why don't some "editors" like 2.25.46.76 just admit they have nothing to contribute? Joegoodfriend (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Well then, I wait in breathless anticipation for you dazzle us with your erudition. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no way that "liberals have mostly forgotten the case," as TFD asserts. Liberals are not yet satisfied that the Wikipedia Hiss article is neutral, fully described and documented. We believe the charges against Hiss were trumped up, and that Nixon admitted it twice - in writing and on tape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.123.29 (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not think you speak for the liberals. Obama could pardon him or request an inquiry. The only source that argues his innocence is The Nation, but it is a left-wing rather than liberal publication. Nixon never "admitted" to framing Hiss, and the guilt or innocence of Hiss does not rest on Nixon. TFD (talk) 07:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

TFD's posts are far from neutral - just review everything above. Nixon admitted to framing Hiss TWICE, 12 years apart - both followed by retractions (in the case of the Watergate tapes, the "retraction" is especially dubious). I await my ordered first edition of "Six Crises," which contains the first retraction. I will post the direct quote once I receive it. One admission? Maybe a mistake. Twice? Spare us. GSN53 (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, in one post TFD says "liberals have mostly forgotten the case." Later he says "I do not think you speak for the liberals." I have to ask why TFD thinks it's OK for him to have it both ways? At first he wants to generalize about what liberals think, then he chastizes an opposing view. Is this what passes for objective, neutral analysis on Wikipedia? GSN53 (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

No idea what you mean by that comment. TFD (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

71.166.123.29 (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)==NPOV tag== Suggest that the NPOV tag be removed from the article, as no NPOV argument has been discussed in over 90 days. What do the editors think? Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I think not. I'm not sure what you deem an NPOV argument, but there has been plenty of discussion over the neutrality of the article in the last 90 days. Also, please see my post above from a few minutes earlier under the "Typewriter" or "Piper" topic. GSN53 (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree it should be removed. An editor who is no longer here and argued extensively wanted us to assert as fact that Hiss was a spy. I think that most editors agreed that although the evidence against him was generally accepted, that there continued to be a reasonable argument in reliable sources that the case was not proved. But I do not see that we need to provide any more space to the argument that Nixon admitted he forged the typewriter. TFD (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, how about we remove the existing tag, and add a NPOV tag to the #Questions_raised_about_the_typewriter_in_the_motion_for_a_new_trial section? Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

It's sort of funny. It was put there because an editor thought the article was too even handed. I say by all means take it out. 173.77.14.208 (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

We should also remove the notices about "fringe" theories and self-published sources, since we have gone over and over this and the people mentioned are neither fringe nor "self-published", but important protagonists in the case. 173.77.14.208 (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

John Dean is neither fringe nor self-published. The edit I suggested at the end of Talk Issue #1 doesn't present a new theory - it simply sets forth Nixon's own words from "Six Crises" so that Dean's claim gets more balance consideration. Read it again - that's all it does:e:

However, regarding the typewriter, it should be noted that the First Edition of Nixon's 1962 book "Six Crises" contains statements setting forth a scenario similar to that presented by John Dean in 1976:

"Only six days remained before the term of the Grand Jury would expire. But now the FBI was finally given the go-ahead signal to dig out the facts in the case. A massive search was initiated for the key 'witness' in the case - the old Woodstock typewriter on which Chambers said Mrs. Hiss had typed the incriminating documents. On December 13, FBI agents found the typewriter. On that same day, I appeared before the Grand Jury with the microfilm." GSN53 (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The current non-neutrality is in Fleming's dismissal of Dean's claim based on Fleming hearing "We got Piper" on the tapes - which, again, makes no sense because Piper was Hiss's legal team (Piper & Marbury). Prosecutors do not "get" the defense attorneys into a case. I'm not proposing rebutting Fleming in the article - just calling the reader's attention to Nixon's words 11 years earlier . GSN53 (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with removing the fringe and self-published tags as well, but I worry about breaking the uneasy peace. There have now been not one but two months-long, 7-days-a-week edit wars over the lede of this article, and I don't think I can stand a third. Joegoodfriend (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't consider Fleming's dismissal of Dean's claim to be a violation of wikipedia's neutrality. I was under the impression that the transcript was actually altered to read "we got Piper" by whoever was or is in charge of editing the tapes in order to protect the Nixon team's legacy and is now the official version. It that is the way the transcript now reads, it is something we must report (even if we think it smacks of a coverup). Having Fleming as the source, in fact, adds balance, since he is manifestly not neutral but is hostile to Hiss. Balance means presenting both sides.

The other interesting thing, slightly OT, is that Chambers admitted in his autobiography that he had no idea what (except for the summaries of telegrams in Alger Hiss's own handwriting, one of which was about the Moscow Passport Ring case) was going to be in the envelope that he found in the pumpkin and was quite surprised and taken aback by the envelope's heaviness. The simplest explanation is that the other material was inserted, not by Chambers, but by people or persons who wished to see Hiss convicted. This comports well with the tone of anguished guilt that characterizes his writings and statements about the case. As far as the tags, they are going to have to be removed eventually, but I have no particular objection to waiting. 173.52.253.11 (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC) 173.52.253.11 (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

First, I disagree that "Piper" is the "official" interpretation of Nixon's wording. Currently, the Wikipedia article admits that, even according to Fleming, the recording reflects an "indistinct phrase." There is no official revised wording of the tape. We're left to decide between "typewriter" (which is supported by the original WH transcript and the 1st Edition of "Six Crises") and "Piper," which as I've asserted before, makes no sense. No one has answered my question as to why Nixon would say they "got Piper." If anyone can demonstrate that the word "Piper" is positively confirmed, please do so. GSN53 (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Second, I'm not suggesting Fleming's dismissal of Dean's claim be removed as a "violation" of Wikipedia's neutrality. It's absolutely impossible to achieve absolute neutrality on a subject where there are such impassioned interests, even after 60 years. I'm very content to present Wikipedia's readers with "one view versus the other." By the same token, no one should consider my desire to add Nixon's own wording from the "Six Crises" 1st edition to be a "violation of neutrality." I'm only trying to introduce historic facts for readers to consider. We should always strike a balance. Currently, I find the article to be slanted against the "typewriter" interpretation and for "Piper." "Piper" makes no sense and strikes me as a convenient, if dim-witted, "out." But, hey, Fleming apparently has credibility, so who am I to inject common sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSN53 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

We do not add facts for readers to consider but present what reliable sources say. You need to read policy. This article should read exactly like a New York Times article on the case or an excerpt on the case in a college textbook about the Cold War. TFD (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Who is "we?" And "we do not add facts?" What is wrong with facts? No one here can dispute the words that are printed in the First Edition of Nixon's 1962 "Six Crises," but you maintain it must be vetted by "reliable sources?" This forum is an absolute joke. You're kidding yourselves. 71.166.123.29 (talk) 06:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

"We" is the first person plural pronoun and means you, me and everyone else discussing this article. What's wrong with facts? They need to relevant, and that is established in reliable sources. Again, you need to read policy. There are millions and millions of facts in the world - cricket is played with a bat, Albany is the capital of New York State, mutton is older sheep, etc., but no reason to add them to the article. TFD (talk) 06:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

Well, why don't you find the quotes and insert them. Be bold, as they say. Or, if you don't want to be bold, then try them out on the talk page. I for one would not consider adding them a violation of neutrality. Au contraire. They speak for themselves. Might even work as a footnote be inserted without comment. 173.52.253.11 (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Nixon's Statements on the Hiss Trial Efforts: "Typewriter" or "Piper"?

My problem is that the article currently says:

“Cold War historian John V. Fleming disagrees, arguing that on the White House tapes Nixon never says anything that would have corroborated Colson's statement to John Dean about forging a typewriter in the Hiss case. Fleming and others maintain that the indistinct phrase during a conversation with John Dean that sounded to certain transcribers like "we made a typewriter" is actually a reference to Hiss's legal team.[59]"

I'm not on board with this more modern interpretation of Nixon's wording in his February 28, 1973 Oval Office discussion with John Dean (why do we need to insert Colson?). The original White House transcript said "we got the typewriter," while some, like Mr. Fleming, maintain the newer, higher-quality House Judiciary version says “We got Piper” (Hiss’s legal team, Piper & Marbury).

It’s tough to hear it clearly – that’s why there’s still disagreement. But I believe he said “typewriter” because it makes much more sense than “Piper” in the context of the entire paragraph. Nixon was talking about getting evidence – to throw Hiss’ law firm name into a list of evidence that Nixon and other investigators were “getting” without help from FBI or DOJ makes little sense to me.

Here’s the original White House wording (2/28/73, p.71), which I feel should be inserted in the article so that readers can compare the two interpretations and decide for themselves:

“When you talk to Kleindienst – because I have raised this with (inaudible) thing with him on the Hiss Case – he has forgotten, I suppose. Go back and read the first chapter of SIX CRISES. But I know, as I said, that was espionage against the nation, not against the party. FBI, Hoover, himself, who’s a friend of mine said ‘I am sorry I have been ordered not to cooperate with you’ and they didn’t give us one (adjective omitted) thing. I conducted that investigation with two (characterization omitted) committee investigators – that stupid – they were tenacious. We got it done.

Then we worked that thing. We then got the evidence, we got the typewriter, we got the Pumpkin Papers. We got all of that ourselves. The FBI did not cooperate. The Justice Department did not cooperate.”

Here’s the subsequent House Judiciary Committee version of the second paragraph (insert “typewriter” or “Piper” in the blank – that’s the primary issue here):

“But we broke that thing…without any help. The FBI then got the evidence which eventually—See, we got ______ who—We got the, the, the, oh, the Pumpkin Papers, for instance. We, we got all of that ourselves…. The FBI did not cooperate.”

As I said above, Nixon was listing things they “got” by themselves. They did not “get" Piper, Hiss’s law firm. It’s simply makes no sense. You can argue that the word isn’t “typewriter,” but it sure isn’t “Piper.”

There’s also an obvious problem with the HJC version in that it creates an absolute contradiction. The HJC has Nixon saying:

“The FBI then got the evidence...."

The original has him saying:

“We then got the evidence…”

Nixon’s whole point was that the FBI refused to help them in any way. Why would he say the FBI got the evidence when he says, two sentences later, that “the FBI did not cooperate?” Again, it makes no sense. I believe the original version makes much more sense in the context of the paragraph.

I’ve never started a talk topic before, so I’m not sure of the protocol for agreeing on changes to articles.

But what I’m proposing is that these discrepancies in the wording be explained thoroughly, as I’ve done here. As it now stands, the reader is left to believe that the matter of Nixon saying typewriter was incorrect, and that it’s now accepted that he said “Piper.” They should understand there are still two camps on this issue.

I don’t want to start drafting suggested text revisions until I see some member buy-in, but I’ll take a stab at it if it’s agreed that these revisions are desirable.

--GSN53 (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Your original research is very impressive. Perhaps if you were to get it published in a reliable source it could be used here at wikipedia. Ordinarily we try to refrain from original personal interpretations of primary source materials. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Capitalismojo, thanks for your spot-on response to my initial post. I'm brand new to this, so I'm a bit clueless (is that like being a little pregnant?) as to how to approach it.

I apologize if my presentation gave the impression that I was interjecting any personal interpretations of primary source materials. All but one of the interpretations I presented have already appeared in materials published by very prominent and respected sources. My problem is that I didn't cite any sources, so you and the other members here can't tell what's coming from where.

I assure you the only original "research" (not really research - it's just an observation I've never seen before) I presented was that it was silly for the HJC to revise the original transcript and assert that Nixon said "the FBI got evidence" when Nixon's whole point was that the FBI refused to help. Perhaps someone has recognized and published this before, but I'm unaware of it. Everything else I've regurgitated from previously-published materials - but having absorbed all those materials, I felt the Hiss article had some shortcomings in this area.

Admittedly, I'm way out of my realm here. As an absolute newbie (even though I'm about to turn 60), my goal was to promote a discussion among knowledgeable and experienced members in the "talk" section before getting involved with extensive documentation and citation. Perhaps they can save us all some trouble and explain to me why I'm way off base. It wouldn't surprise me!

If it's essential that I link all of my statements to previously-published materials before we can have a discussion, I will try to do so.

Again, thanks for your swift and complimentary response. To tell you the truth, I was concerned that all I would get was silence.

GSN53 (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

We mention both the original and the Judiciary Committee version, and point out that the second is considered more reliable. If subsequent scholarship says that Nixon said "typewriter", then you need to provide a source in order for us to include it. We mention Dean because he said Nixon told Colson he forged the typewriter and researchers thought Dean was referring to the conversation in the transcript. TFD (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes the original and HJC versions are both mentioned, but why not provide exact passages for the readers? And, yes, there is universal agreement that the HJC is considered more reliable because of improved technology, but the record is clear there is still disagreement as to whether Nixon said "typewriter" or "Piper." Or perhaps neither.

In fact, the current article is thoroughly unconvincing on this point - all it says is "Fleming and others maintain that the indistinct phrase during a conversation with John Dean that sounded to certain transcribers like 'we made a typewriter' is actually a reference to Hiss's legal team." So the current Wikipedia article admits that, even in the second (improved?) version of the transcript, the wording in question is an "indistinct phrase." To me, "indistinct" means that no one is sure exactly what words were uttered. That's why I'm suggesting that the article be revised to present both views of the wording.

My personal opinion that "Piper" makes no sense is irrelevant to the need to alter the article to present both views. That's my whole point. I'm not lobbying for revising the article to say that Nixon said "typewriter" and not "Piper." I'm lobbying to make it clear to the readers that the wording is still an unsettled matter.

I can't imagine a valid reason for refusing to present both the original White House transcripts and the subsequent HJC transcripts - and thus allow readers to decide (regarding an acknowledged "indistinct phrase") for themselves. This is a matter of presenting all versions of the original evidence - not personal interpretations.

GSN53 (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The article presents both views. While I think it is more likely Nixon said or meant to say "typewriter", we must give more weight to "Piper." I posted links to policies on your talk page which may help you follow the requirements for article content. TFD (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

This is quite frustrating. I'm not asking that the article present both "views" or give more weight to one view over another. I'm asking that both versions of the transcripts be presented. The transcripts are historic evidence. Present them verbatim and let the readers decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSN53 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It is in the footnote. What is important I believe is that neither of the versions say, "We forged the typewriter." TFD (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Footnote 59 quotes the later HJC transcript, but I see don't see the full original White House transcript (the 2 paragraphs I quoted above) anywhere. Neiter version talks of "forging" anything, but many researchers have given the same meaning to "we got the typewriter," because, as you know it was Hiss's wife that eventually "found" it, not the investigators.

96.234.185.90 (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The text is only important because of John Dean's 1976 claim that Nixon said, "The typewriters are always the key. We built one in the Hiss case." In 1996, when a tape was released where Nixon and Colson discussed the Hiss case, it was assumed that was the conversation. As you can see, Nixon made no such claim and no source interprets it that way. It does not matter whether he said Piper or typewriter If you think it does, then you need to provide a source that says it does. TFD (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Um, @96.234, I never read anywhere that Hiss's wife found the typewriter. Every source I have looked at said that Hiss's defense team (i.e. Horace Schmahl, private detective), found it. Can @96. 234 provide a source for the assertion that Mrs. Hiss found it?

Also, in the article there is a quotation from a certain Professor Irving Younger, "To leave the counterfeit Woodstock lying about for the defense to pick up and examine would serve only to expose the whole scheme to the risk of discovery—and for no reason." I looked up the source given for this, Allen Weinstein, but Weinstein gives no date or source for this statement. I can only guess that Irving Younger (who was the prosecutor who brought charges against Pete Seeger, and later a law professor at Cornell) may have said this in the 1970s (?) in an article published in Commentary magazine (a source hostile to Hiss), in response to the successful FOIA brought about by the defenders Hiss, and in particular Steve Salent, of but it is unclear why it is here, in the section about 1952. Weinstein's footnotes tend to all be of this alarmingly vague nature. This fact, and the fact that the people he interviewed for his book denied ever having said what Weinstein wrote they had said and he even lost a lawsuit about it, makes it very understandable why other scholars demanded Weinstein make public his notes and other source material (a demand he refused) and why R. Bruce Craig said Weinstein's work as a historian ought to be consigned to the trash. In fact, I don't see at all why Wikipedia should consider Weinstein a reliable source. Sam Tanenhaus's biography of Chambers, which faithfully adheres to the Trotskyist scenario outlined by Weinstein. appears to be some kind of an attempt at a clean-up of Weinstein's work, since it is biased, but written more clearly and properly written and footnoted. 173.52.252.7 (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC) 173.52.252.7 (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You're all complicating this unnecessarily. My concerns would easily be addressed by inserting the original WHITE HOUSE transcript of the 2/28/73 discussion between Nixon and Dean (hopefully with an explanation as to the continuing controversy):

“When you talk to Kleindienst – because I have raised this with (inaudible) thing with him on the Hiss Case – he has forgotten, I suppose. Go back and read the first chapter of SIX CRISES. But I know, as I said, that was espionage against the nation, not against the party. FBI, Hoover, himself, who’s a friend of mine said ‘I am sorry I have been ordered not to cooperate with you’ and they didn’t give us one (adjective omitted) thing. I conducted that investigation with two (characterization omitted) committee investigators – that stupid – they were tenacious. We got it done.

Then we worked that thing. We then got the evidence, we got the typewriter, we got the Pumpkin Papers. We got all of that ourselves. The FBI did not cooperate. The Justice Department did not cooperate.”

You say you "refer to" the original transcript. But why not present it?

You're asking for some type of published support. The transcript is a part of the historical record. It's the original White House transcript. My concern is that Wikipedia is presenting the "typewriter" vs. "Piper" wording as a settled matter - that . I don't see any such agreement - and I can't prove a negative.

Reference to a John Dean/Charles Colson conversation that took place years after the White House tapes were recorded is a classic red herring. The transcripts reflect a direct conversation between Nixon and Dean - Dean's years-later recollections about something Colson told Dean about what Nixon said should be given much less weight - if any at all - in this controversy. It's classic hearsay. The Dean/Colson conversation should have no relevance.

If Wikipedia would rather pretend it's a settled matter that Nixon said "Piper" instead of "typewriter" (or some other unidentified wording), even in the face of common-sense viewpoints that "Piper" makes no sense, so be it. Heaven forbid that certain historical matters be presented as no longer in doubt simply because "Cold War historian John V. Fleming disagrees." — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSN53 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You need to read the links I provided you on your talk page. Policy does not say we should provide all the evidence and let readers decide, but to present different views in proportion to their acceptance and to avoid basing the article on source documents. In order for you to pursue this, you need to find a reliable secondary source that says it is important. TFD (talk) 06:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I was the one who originally cited John V. Fleming, in accordance with the required model "some secondary sources say this ... others say that." I would be quite happy if someone could substitute another secondary source for Fleming. 173.52.252.7 (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

For a reliable secondary source, please consult Frederick Rasmussen's article in the Baltimore Sun dated 6/11/11. Rasmussen recounts his attendance at a 1974 speech by Hiss in which he referred to new evidence (the Watergate transcripts I'm trying to make sure are given adequate weight here) that Nixon admitted having acquired the typewriter. Link: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-06-11/news/bs-md-backstory-alger-hiss-20110610_1_alger-hiss-watergate-controversy-spy

Rasmussen wrote:

"Conflicted over Hiss' guilt or innocence, his Baltimore attorney, William P. Marbury, told The Baltimore Sun years later, 'When people ask me what I think, I say I don't know what I think.'

I recall the Shriver Hall audience warmly greeting Hiss as he walked across the stage.

In his 45-minute talk, Hiss commented on the release of a 1973 transcript of a White House conversation between Nixon and his counsel, John W. Dean III, when the president referenced the Hiss case.

It proved, Hiss told his audience, that the ambitious Nixon wished to gain as much political traction as possible from a case that was stalled and about to die from lack of evidence.

'Then we worked that thing,' Nixon told Dean. 'We then got the evidence, we got the typewriter, we got the pumpkin papers. The FBI did not cooperate. The Justice Department did not cooperate.'"

Another reliable secondary source: the First Edition of Nixon's 1962 book "Six Crises," which makes the same claim about the Hiss typewriter. The language about the typewriter was removed in subsequent editions. Eleven years apart - same language, similar subsequent revisions.

This isn't going to qualify as an additional source (because I haven't yet confirmed its publication), but by way of background - I happen to be in temporary possession of numerous boxes of the files kept by Richard H. Popkin, a JFK assassination, Watergate and Ellsberg researcher who began his work in the mid-60's. Popkin is undeniably a "reliable source" - he wrote, and had published, "The Second Oswald" in 1966. There is a file containing January and February 1974 correspondence between Popkin, Hiss and Robert Freidman of the University Review in NYC. Popkin regarded Nixon's comments on "getting the typewriter" as an admission that the evidence against Hiss was contrived. (I have no way of transmitting these documents to Wikipedia, nor, apparently, would they matter.)

A few months later, we see Hiss speaking at Hopkins in Baltimore, as recounted by the Rasmussen article, quoting the new transcripts as evidence that he was framed. Does this not make the exact wording of the White House transcript something important to include in Wikipedia?

GSN53 (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Files are not acceptable as sources. While Popkin wrote books that would be reliable sources, his writings on Oswald were not published in academic books and gained no recognition in the mainstream. In any case the article mentions the issue and it has little significance to the case. TFD (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And with that you dismiss the Rasmussen article and the First Edition of "Six Crises"? I offered Popkin only as background. Your response reveals your non-neutrality. I only seek equal citation of the original White House transcript with the same prominence as your preferred (but silly) "Piper" verbiage, but you're fighting tooth and nail. I'm beginning to see why people scoff at Wikipedia.

Furthermore, to say that Popkin's "writings on Oswald were not published in academic books and gained no recognition in the mainstream" is balderdash. "The Second Oswald" was published in 1966, and the bizarre "appearance" of Oswald in Mexico City has been an intrinsic part of mainstream conspiracy theories ever since.

Who are you, and what authority do you have here on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSN53 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm beginning to sense I'm being railroaded and marginalized, not by some neutral Wikipedia editor with some authority, but by an individual member with an agenda. This "TFD" responds to my posts within minutes, presenting only vague objections and roadblocks to my points. I'm starting to think he's only a standard Wikipedia member, with an agenda, who's hyperactive. I would appreciate other members weighing in with their objective views. GSN53 (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"In any case the article mentions the issue and it has little significance to the case." And this statement - are you serious? How can you possibly believe that the possibility of government investigators planting the typewriter has little significance to the case? It was the heart of the case. Hiss and his defense team believed so strongly that finding the typewriter would prove his innocence - it was the centerpiece of their defense. How could the prospect of Nixon's multiple admissions of "getting the typewriter" have "little significance to the case?" Please explain yourself further.

GSN53 (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the argument here. That the official transcript was amended is a fact (reported by Fleming, who is just as good a reference as anyone else). If Mr. Popkin thought the emendation implausible, that information could be added to the footnote, with citation from the newspaper article, though I don't think it adds anything to the footnote. Popkin is mentioned by Weinstein, as it happens, in conjunction with Weinberg's belief that in his opinion (and that of Popkin?) liberals in the 1970s allegedly considered Hiss a precursor of Daniel Ellsberg--something equally or even more absurd IMO -- but that is neither here nor there. It's clear enough from the article that Hiss and his lawyers did believe the typewriter was faked and so did a lot of other people. 173.52.252.7 (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC) 173.52.252.7 (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, Nixon was listing things they “got” by themselves. They did not “get" Piper, Hiss’s law firm. Hiss got Piper. It simply makes no sense. You can argue that the word isn’t “typewriter,” but it sure isn’t “Piper.” Doesn't it strike you as odd that the HJC transcript revision made 10 years down the road (removal of the word "typewriter") repeats nearly the exact same revision made after the First Edition of "Six Crises?"

Yes, it's clear that a lot of people thought the typewriter was faked. The point here is that an admission by Nixon (twice) lends that view more credibility, and therefore the earlier version of the transcript (the 2 paragraphs I quoted several days ago) containing the word "typewriter" should be inserted in the article. Further, the passages revised between the first and second editions of "Six Crises," to which Nixon himself referred to in the first of those 2 paragraphs, should be added as well. GSN53 (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The section from Fleming in the footnote is a direct quote from the transcript. Therefore, we do have a direct quote from the transcript and do not need to add more. If you have page numbers for the references to the different editions of Nixon's memoir (and also precise references to different editions of the transcripts with page numbers), you should go ahead and add them also, I think. The problem is that if you say "it adds credibility" that is editorializing, which wikipedia cannot do. I happen to believe that it does indeed add credibility, but one would need a secondary source that says those words because there is a very vocal and dedicated contingent of editors on wikipedia who profess not to believe it adds credibility (incredible as that may seem) and who will delete such a statement as POV or find some other objection to it. 173.52.252.7 (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks 173.52.252.7, very thoughtful. Several points to address:

1. Yes, the Fleming footnote has a direct quote from the WH transcript, but only 4 words: "We got a typewriter." And it's a footnote; unless a reader checks the footnote, he/she is unlikely to ever see even those 4 words.

At the same time, the full HJC-revised paragraph is quoted verbatim right in the body of the article, and indented as well, so that the reader will not miss it.

My proposal is to add at least the entire matching paragraph from the WH transcript, not just 4 words, right in the body of the article, indented just as the HJC version is. So this would be added:

"Then we worked that thing. We then got the evidence, we got the typewriter, we got the Pumpkin Papers. We got all of that ourselves. The FBI did not cooperate. The Justice Department did not cooperate."

This would allow the reader to absorb the context of the original passage. I would be perfectly willing to have any of the "vocal and dedicated" editors control the explanation that the older version was developed using inferior audio technology. But, again, we're still talking about an "indistinct phrase" in the newer HJC transcript, as the article acknowledges. Why not explain all this to the reader in one focused spot?

In addition, I would suggest that the preceding WH paragraph citing the "Six Crises" statement be included as well. But, given the resistance to revisions I'm seeing, this is undoubtedly pie-in-the-sky.

2. Here is all the information that is needed for the wording in the first edition of "Six Crises." This is a section from Lowenthal's 6/26/76 article in "The Nation." It includes a verbatim quotation from the first edition, along with Lowenthal's discussion of the subsequent changes:

"Richard Nixon wrote in his 'Six Crises' (Doubleday, 1962) that the FBI found the typewriter two days before Hiss was indicted:

On December 13 [1948] FBI agents found the typewriter.

'On December , the critical last day [of the Grand Jury's term, and the day they indicted Hiss, an expert from the FBI typed exact copies on the old Woodstock machine and had them flown up to New York as exhibits for the members of the Grand Jury to see to see....The evidence was unanswerable. (P. 60.)

When it was pointed out to Nixon that the defense, not the FBI, was supposed to have found the old Woodstock, Nixon promptly disavowed that part of his book as 'a researcher's error,' and changed the passage in subsequent editions. Whether or not it was a researchers error, it and the other known assertions that the FBI or HUAC found the typewriter, and Newsweek's identification of the typewriter as 'an aged Woodstock, No. 200194 (July 24,1961, p. 20, col. 2). remain unexplained and provocative challenges to the authenticity of Woodstock No. 230,099 and the candor of the Government.'"

Link: https://files.nyu.edu/th15/public/lowenthaltyp.html

Lowenthal's passage provides the relevant page number in the "Six Crises" first edition - p. 60. I see no evidence of any dispute that Lowenthal's quotation is accurate. I have ordered a copy of a subsequent edition; I'm not sure I see the need to quote the revised wording, but will provide it if necessary.

3. My point about adding credibility was not aimed at having the article say something to that effect. It was my attempt to respond to your query that you didn't understand my (or "the") argument. I.e., it was only a discussion I thought we were having here in "talk." Thus, the "vocal and dedicated contingent of editors" would have nothing to delete in this regard.

GSN53 (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, but I am talking about things you could add to improve the article not the talk page. It's true, though, I didn't quite understand what you were getting at on the talk page, which is supposed to be about what can be done to improve the article. 173.52.252.7 (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Now I am reading more slowly and trying to take it in. One reason you will not see Lowenthal or The Nation quoted here very much is there are very vocal editors who object to any citation of Lowenthal and The Nation, whatsoever, on the grounds that it these sources are biased in favor of Hiss, as though this was beyond the pale and the equivalent of being a holocaust denier or a proponent of flying saucers. Weinstein, in fact, accuses all who mention the possibility of the typewriter being faked of being wild-eyed, off-the-wall conspiracy theorists, and he puts scare quotes around what they say. 173.52.252.7 (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You have an admirable ability to frame your "talk" section comments as informally as a discussion over dinner while remaining very exacting and communicative. I anticipated your point about Lowenthal; that's why I emphasized the value of his direct quote from the first edition of "Six Crises." This presents a dilemma for a newbie like me: I can't simply introduce the verbatim language from "Six Crises" (that would be original research?), but I also can't hope to utilize a Lowenthal article citing the book's language? Any advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSN53 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

My first edition of "Six Crises" is now in hand (and I've had the time to review it). For the purposes of context, I will first present much more of the text than I propose be added to the Wikipedia article. It is important to absorb the full relevant text rather than simply quote the sentence about the FBI finding the typewriter. Richard Nixon, in his book "Six Crises," First Edition, bottom of Page 59 through top of Page 60:

"Only six days remained before the term of the Grand Jury would expire. But now the FBI was finally given the go-ahead signal to dig out the facts in the case. A massive search was initiated for the key 'witness' in the case - the old Woodstock typewriter on which Chambers said Mrs. Hiss had typed the incriminating documents. On December 13, FBI agents found the typewriter. On that same day, I appeared before the Grand Jury with the microfilm. Justice Department officials demanded that I leave the microfilm with them. By this time, I believed that they would prosecute the case with diligence, but the full Committee had given me instructions that under no circumstances was I to surrender the microfilm without Committee approval. Alex Campbell threatened to ask the Judge to cite me for contempt. I, in turn, warned him of the constitutional question that would be raised if a member of Congress, appearing voluntarily before a Grand Jury, were so cited while carrying out a mandate of the committee which he represented. After a few anxious moments, I was allowed to return to Washington with the microfilm still in my possession but with the understanding that, in the event Hiss was indicted, I would take the responsibility of seeing that the Committee would make the microfilm available as evidence in the trial."

"It was still touch and go. Hiss and his lawyers fought down to the last hour of the life of the Grand Jury. On December 15, the critical last day, an expert from the FBI typed exact copies of the incriminating documents on the old Woodstock machine and had them flown up to New York as exhibits for the members of the Grand Jury to see. A typewriter has one characteristic in common with a fingerprint; every one is different, and it is impossible to make an exact duplicate unless the same machine is used. The evidence was unanswerable."

For those of you new to this talk topic, the issue is that Nixon, twice (in 1962's "Six Crises," and the original White House transcript of the Watergate tapes), - 11 years apart - stated that the investigation/prosecution team had "found" or "gotten" the Hiss typewriter. This is important information for this Wikipedia article.

My editing proposal is that the following be inserted into the article just after the paragraph containing Fleming's comments (and indented quotation) regarding the wording in the White House transcripts about the typewriter:

However, regarding the typewriter, it should be noted that the First Edition of Nixon's 1962 book "Six Crises" contains statements setting forth a scenario similar to that presented by John Dean in 1976:

"Only six days remained before the term of the Grand Jury would expire. But now the FBI was finally given the go-ahead signal to dig out the facts in the case. A massive search was initiated for the key 'witness' in the case - the old Woodstock typewriter on which Chambers said Mrs. Hiss had typed the incriminating documents. On December 13, FBI agents found the typewriter. On that same day, I appeared before the Grand Jury with the microfilm."

GSN53 (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say that is fine, except I would omit "However, regarding the typewriter, it should be noted that" as a bit wordy and just say something like: "Dean's statement is supported by the original White House transcript and the first edition of Nixon's 1962 book Six Crises, white states: "Only six days.. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.253.11 (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Your suggestion is well taken - your wording is more succinct and direct. I will try to get an edit done soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSN53 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Nixon's admission and retraction in succeeding editions of Six Crises that the FBI had found the typewriter

The Four Deuces has removed the paragraph inserted by User:GSN53 about Nixon's assertion that the FBI had found the typewriter on the grounds that it is unsourced. But I am inserting it into the record on the talk page, as User:GSN53 should probably have done in the first place and providing sources (as GSN53 also ought certainly to have done). The historical fact of Nixon's admission and retraction is amply sourced and has been discussed at some length by various historians (with the exception of Allen Weinstein). I would argue that it indeed belongs in the article. Here is GSN53's contribution.

Dean's statement is supported by two historical records 11 years apart - the original 1973 White House transcript and the first edition of Nixon's 1962 book "Six Crises," which states: "Only six days remained before the term of the Grand Jury would expire. But now the FBI was finally given the go-ahead signal to dig out the facts in the case. A massive search was initiated for the key 'witness' in the case - the old Woodstock typewriter on which Chambers said Mrs. Hiss had typed the incriminating documents. On December 13, FBI agents found the typewriter.”

What Nixon himself wrote in the first edition of Six Crises was:

A massive search was initiated for the key 'witness' in the case, the old Woodstock typewriter on which Chambers said Mrs. Hiss had typed the incriminating documents. On December 13, FBI agents found the typewriter. The same day I appeared before the Grand Jury with the microfilm. ..... [and] On December 15 an expert from the FBI typed exact copies of the incriminating documents on the old Woodstock machine. . . (Richard Nixon, My Six Crises [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1962], p. 59)

This statement apparently cause a minor furor and delighted Hiss's defenders (Summers p. 72), prompting the FBI to issue a denial, though Attorney General Robert Kennedy, that they had ever had the typewriter.

In the second edition of the Six Crises (1968) Nixon's apparent admission was changed to read:

"A massive search was initiated for the key 'witness' in the case, the old Woodstock typewriter on which Chambers said Mrs. Hiss had typed the incriminating documents. On December 13, FBI agents were unable to find the typewriter, but they did find some old letters which Priscilla Hiss admitted having typed on the Woodstock." (Richard Nixon, My Six Crises [Pyramid Books, 1968], p. 64.)

Nixon explained his statement in the first edition as having been due to "a research error." See Athan G. Theoharis, "The Alger Hiss Case" in, Melvin Small, editor, A Companion to Richard M. Nixon (Wiley-Blackwell, 2013), pp. 86 and 97. Anthony Summers says that Nixon's spokesman blamed the first statement on a December 13, 1948 article in the New York World-Telegram and asserted "ludicrously" that Nixon had not been closely involved in the Hiss case. Summers also recounts that when interviewed about the case, William Sullivan, the future FBI head of domestic intelligence who had worked on the Hiss case in 1948, admitted the FBI had the typewriter in its possession before it came into the hands of the Hiss defense team. (Summers, The Arrogance of Power, p. 72.)

Incidentally, there is no reason for the talk pages to be archived every 30 days as not much activity has been going on here. It is important that casual readers see what has been discussed on these pages. 173.52.250.185 (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC) 173.52.250.185 (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

And guess what? Anthony Summers notes that in 1972 Nixon incriminated himself on tape yet a third time on tape.

Yet again Nixon seemed to implicate himself again in an Oval Office conversation he had with senior aides on March 10, 1972, recorded on a tape released in 1996 and monitored during research for the book [i.e., Summers’ book, The Arrogance of Power]. The subject was the uproar over a press story that International Telephone and Telegraph had commited a huge cash donation to the Republicans, a payoff for government intervention in an anti-trust suit against the company. The story was based on a typewritten memo written by an ITT lobbyist, and Nixon wanted the memo declared a forgery. In the course of the discussion, the tape shows, Nixon harked back to the Hiss case and the Chambers documents and stated: I found the typewriter . . . [author’s italics]. (p. 72)

So your argument is... Nixon was a complete moron? He would have to be to write a book that included such incriminating information. And furthermore, why would it matter if the typewriter was found in December 1948? The FBI had a legitimate reason to look for it, if they had found it they could have just as easily switched it with a fake one right then and there instead of planting it in a different location to be found months later.

The real subterfuge was not by Nixon or the FBI, but by Donald Hiss who deliberately withheld the information he knew about the typewriters location for two months.

I'm not writing this for your benefit. There seems to be no circumstances in which you would admit to Hiss being guilty. I'm writing this for the benefit of people who may be confused by the smoke-screen of innuendo that accompanies any pro-Hiss position.

The irony, apparently lost on you, is that there is actually FAR more evidence that Hiss was a spy than Nixon ordered or covered up the Watergate break-ins.

CJK (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Self-published sources violations

I tagged the article back in August noting that self-published sources were being uses in violation of Wikipedia policy. WP:SPS says:

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.

So if no objections are voiced I will feel free to remove the self-published sources in the immediate future.

CJK (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@CJK:, SPS? List all of them here. OccultZone (Talk) 04:03, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

This can only be a reference to Jeff Kisseloff. The editors had this argument with you at extraordinary length last year, and concluded by consensus that Kisseloff is a reliable source for the article. Nothing has changed. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

SPS also says, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." That would make the sources acceptable if they were self-published, but they do not appear to be self-published, hence the section is irrelevant. TFD (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The issue is not whether it is a "reliable" source the issue is whether it is a self-published source. The so-called "Alger Hiss website" is in fact self-published. This was confirmed by an article which said

Even the site's address has not been without controversy. An N.Y.U. spokesman said that after the online magazine Slate published a column about the Hiss site in March, the university asked Tony Hiss to use a different Web address to designate it more clearly as a personal site rather than an academic one. The spokesman, John Beckman, said that the university felt that the old address, www.nyu.edu/hiss, suggested that the site was sponsored by the university.

"It wasn't a judgment about content," Mr. Beckman said. "The issue was whether it was official work of the university's." Because "my understanding is that he doesn't teach anything with regard to his father's case," the spokesman added, "this is a matter of personal scholarship, and it belongs on a personal home page."

Given its passion and point of view, how can the Hiss site be viewed? In publishing the column about the site in March, Slate had Sam Tanenhaus, the author of "Whittaker Chambers: A Biography" (Random House, 1997), look it over. "I think this belongs in the 'it's a free country' category, and Hiss's supporters have every right to push his case by whatever means pleases them," Slate quoted him as saying. "My only concern would be that the academic/institutional aegis, and the educational angle, might mislead some into supposing this is a balanced, scholarly Web site." [2]

CJK (talk) 15:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Jeff Kisseloff's work on Alger Hiss has been published by the New York University Center for the United States and the Cold War[3]. In any case, he has been recognized as an expert on the subject matter for this article for years, and your hyper-technical reading of wikipedia policies has not changed the consensus of the editors that Kisseloff is an acceptable source for the article. Furthermore, the editors had this argument with you at incredible length last year. I guess you think you can outlive us all. Good luck. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

He spoke at a conference as an "independent scholar". I have seen no evidence that his work on Hiss has been published by reliable third-party publications which is what policy requires. I am not making up the rules here.

CJK (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Note too that the website is used only as a source of the author's opinion, not as a source for facts about the case. TFD (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

That only applies if the author is talking about themselves and nothing else. The policy states: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves.

CJK (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

He is talking about himself, his opinion. TFD (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The opinion would also have to be related to himself, obviously. Otherwise the policy would be meaningless because anyone would be able to post stuff from their personal website under the guise of being an "opinion".

CJK (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

One cannot post facts from any source "under the guise of being an "opinion."" TFD (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Your word games tire me. The policy says we cannot post stuff from self-published sources unless it is directly related to them personally. Under your bogus interpretation of policy anyone could make a website and have his "opinion" inserted into any article.

CJK (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The policy does not say stuff. In fact a person's blog is a reliable source for what they wrote in that blog, even though it may not be a reliable source for the facts about which that opinion is expressed. So even if you were correct that the website is not rs for facts, it would be rs for what the author wrote. While you may not like that, that is how it has been interpreted at rsn.

The website for example is used as a source that Kisselhoff questioned the conclusions of Haynes and Klehr, then quotes him. Do you have any doubt that Kisselhof questioned their conclusions or that he made the statements attributed to him?

TFD (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

"The policy says we cannot post stuff from self-published sources unless it is directly related to them personally." It does not say that. It says, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert." I am satisfied that Kisseloff is an established expert. You are not. I understand that. But that's all we're arguing. Your attempt to convince the editing community that he does not qualify as an established expert has clearly failed. How many times are the editors expected to argue the same issue? Who's "tiring" who around here? Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

And the hurdle for using a self-published source for an author's opinion, which is how it is used here, is even lower. We merely need to believe that the source is genuine, that is it was not created by an imposter or hi-jacked by Anonymous. TFD (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

To TFD: What garbage. So if I made a website about Hiss, you would be fine with inserting it into the article so long as I made clear it was just my opinion?

To Joe: you simply have not demonstrated that the website complies with Wikipedia policy. Does consensus override policy?

CJK (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not we included your opinions would depend on their significance to the public debate. For example if an author wrote in a book published by the Yale University Press something like an article "elicited an equally impassioned counterblast from CMD, editor of an anti-Hiss website,"[4] then I would consider your webite significant, even though not reliable for facts. Incidentally Kisseloff is not the publisher of the website, it is The Nation Institute, hence it is not self-published. TFD (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You cite no policy. This is just you making stuff up out of thin air. Why am I not surprised?

CJK (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:NPOV. BTW I find your tone offensive and your continuous failure to accept other editors' comments extremely boring. TFD (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

If I'm boring you, you are free to leave. I'm not your personal entertainment service.

And yes, it is self-published. The website says the "Publication Project of the Nation Institute" gave it funding but nowhere does it indicate that they are the publishers. [5]

WP:SPS says: self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.

The exception is: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities

Specifically listed as impermissible is if it: involves claims about events not directly related to the source

The Alger Hiss website is self-published. Kisseloff is manifestly not an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. The information posted is not about Kisseloff personally, but about his views of the Hiss case rebutting a book by qualified experts. As such, it is exactly the sort of advocacy material that WP:SPS was designed to avoid. Any other interpretation of the policy would render WP:SPS useless, which was not the intention of the people who created said policy.

CJK (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou for copying policy. As you can see it allows the use of the website in this article as a source for the opinions of its author. If you have any reason to believe that Kisseloff is not the author of the articles on the website, please let me know. TFD (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities'

00:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The heck?[6] Since when are you allowed to start deleting my comments from this talk page? Any way, before you named yourself sole editor of talk, I said,

I submit that the consensus is that the source in question is acceptable within policy. The underlying question is interesting. The administrators of wikipedia do not arbitrate content disputes. Therefore, it is theoretically possible that a neutral observer would conclude that any given content is outside of policy, and that the editors have made a mistake. Of course if the admins did arbitrate content, you could just as easily dispute them. They say there's 3 sides to every story: yours, mine and the truth. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

In fact we are using Kisseloff's article as a source about himself, specifically about his opinion about the Hiss case. Hence we mention his name in the article and put much of what he says in quotation marks. No evidence has been presented that the website is false. CJK has not written to the author c/o The Nation to see if someone has hacked into it. We do not however use it for facts, for example when Hiss was born, where he lived or worked, the color of his hair. TFD (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I apologize to Joe, there was an edit conflict and I completely missed your comments, resulting in their accidental deletion.

The policy is very clear that the author's work in the relevant field must have been published by reliable third-party publications. Since there is no evidence of that, I would think that would be reason enough to discard the source in question.

In fact we are using Kisseloff's article as a source about himself, specifically about his opinion about the Hiss case.

His "opinion" is only notable if he complies with WP:V and WP:RS provisions, which he does not per WP:SPS. Person X cannot create a website tomorrow saying the moon landing was a hoax, and then insert in the moon landing article that "X is of the opinion that the moon landing was a hoax". This is so blindingly obvious that it is impossible to believe you are not fully aware of the abject absurdity or your own position.

CJK (talk) 03:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the follow up. Odd things happen on edit conflicts. I have not taken issue with any of the edits you've made since last summer, but I cannot agree on this one. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed his opinions meet "V" - why do you doubt that they are his opinions? And they are significant because sources, including ones used by you, mention them. TFD (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I posted information about this in the reliable sources noticeboard. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Alger_Hiss_website 15:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Anthony Summers in lead

Anthony Summers is obviously in the tank for Hiss. His opinion has no business being put in the lead as an objective neutral view (which it is manifestly not).

CJK 14:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we do not use sources by authors that have an opinion on the case? TFD (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

They should not be stating their personal views in the lead section. They can be in the main body though.

CJK (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

And the difference between a "personal view" and an opinion is ....? 173.77.75.221 (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, CJK, would you care to substantiate with citations your assertion that Summer is "manifestly in the tank", as you put it, for Hiss. Where exactly does Summers say that Alger Hiss is innocent of espionage? Do you have chapter and verse? 173.77.75.221 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Every time Summers is cited in the article it is him trying to demonize Nixon and cast doubt that Hiss did it. His bias is clear. I see absolutely no reason why his view should be placed in the lead section.

CJK (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you cite a passage from Summers stating that Hiss is innocent, or might be innocent? 173.77.75.221 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

He is quoted as saying

"'Had Nixon asked the FBI to manufacture evidence to prove his case against Hiss,' opined former FBI Assistant Director Sullivan, 'Hoover would actually been only too glad to oblige'. As to whether Nixon would actually have gone as far as to frame Hiss," Summers notes that, "the later record includes disquieting instances of forgery or planting false information."

The one substantive piece of information indicating typewriter forgery features the OSS and its chief, William Donovan. In late 1948, when the Hiss defense and the FBI began hunting for the Woodstock typewriter, a man named Horace Schmahl joined the defense team as an investigator. Schmahl had worked for either the OSS or army intelligence during the war, then joined the Central Intelligence Group, which operated between the closedown of the OSS and the inception of the CIA. After his stint for the Hiss side, Schmahl defected to the prosecution team.

Moreover, you yourself gave a quote back in December which said

Yet again Nixon seemed to implicate himself again in an Oval Office conversation he had with senior aides on March 10, 1972, recorded on a tape released in 1996 and monitored during research for the book [i.e., Summers’ book, The Arrogance of Power]. The subject was the uproar over a press story that International Telephone and Telegraph had commited a huge cash donation to the Republicans, a payoff for government intervention in an anti-trust suit against the company. The story was based on a typewritten memo written by an ITT lobbyist, and Nixon wanted the memo declared a forgery. In the course of the discussion, the tape shows, Nixon harked back to the Hiss case and the Chambers documents and stated: I found the typewriter . . .

Its safe to say he is in the pro-Hiss camp.

CJK (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

No, it is safe to say he is hostile to Nixon. In fact he never says that he thinks Hiss was a spy, only that he believes the OSS probably thought he was on the basis of information too sensitive at that time to make public (Venona). He doesn't weigh in on the truth or falsity of this information, as you appear invested in doing. 173.77.75.221 (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Either way I do not understand why his opinion is notable enough to be in the lead section.

CJK (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Does he actually say Hiss was innocent or does he merely comment on the prosecution? Also, you should cite your sources. It is important in this case to state when someone said something, so that we can compare it with what information was available at the time. Nixon btw resigned as president after most Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee voted to impeach him. He is universally considered to have abused his power. TFD (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

He strongly implies Hiss was innocent.

Nixon's so-called "abuses" of power pale in comparison to what Hiss's employer, FDR, did.

CJK (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

CJK says: "He strongly implies Hiss was innocent." Summers says nothing about Hiss's guilt or innocence. He strongly implies that the trial of Hiss was rigged so that he would be found guilty. He further says, I believe, that this could only have been done with the help of one of the US intelligence services. I believe that is what is in his book. But here on wikipedia Summer is simply quoted as saying that only if and when the archives are opened will it be possible to know if Hiss was or was not a spy. Incidentally, why won't CJK follow wikipedia convention and indent his posts like everyone else? He clearly knows how to indent. 173.77.75.221 (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

He strongly implies that the trial of Hiss was rigged so that he would be found guilty.

How on earth is that different than implying he was innocent? And I (and others) do not agree with his view of the archives having to be open in order to settle the Hiss matter. If the archives were opened tomorrow and nothing was found the pro-Hiss side would simply claim the material had been scrubbed.

CJK (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Historians are allowed to form an opinion on the case without disqualifying themselves as sources. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Summers ventures no opinion as to Hiss's guilt or innocence. He offers the theory, based a preponderance of highly suggestive circumstances, that whether Hiss was innocent or guilty, he could well have been framed by people who were convinced (rightly or wrongly) that he was guilty. Allen Weinstein spends a lot of time in his book branding such theories as conspiracy theories (in his words), as though that makes them ipso facto unbelievable. However, the people involved were later identified as being mixed up in a lot of very real conspiracies. And the subject of Summers's book, Richard Nixon, was forced out of office (by the future head of the FBI no less) because of it. The Hiss case doesn't even take up a lot of space Summers's book, which is mostly concerned with Nixon's later abuses of power. 173.77.75.221 (talk) 07:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The Hiss case doesn't even take up a lot of space Summers's book, which is mostly concerned with Nixon's later abuses of power.

That only proves his bias. Nixon's alleged "abuses of power" do not hold a candle to what past Presidents, particularly FDR, did.

CJK (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:ELNO

This link is not appropriate per ELNO. The personal site of an activist (no matter where hosted) does not fit under external link guidelines. It is clear at RSN that it is not a RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that it fails EL. Your edit summary btw is misleading because the issue determined at RSN was whether or not the site was rs for the opinions of its authors, which it clearly was. The site has been extensively discussed in rs and is important to readers who want to see various sides.

The proper forum to discuss the relevance of the link is at the "External links noticeboard". In the meantime I will restore the link. Could you please tell me which of the conditions of ELNO you believes it fails.

TFD (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Disagree with Capitalismojo. Consensus of the editors is, and has been for years, that the source is acceptable for wikipedia. "It is clear at RSN that it is not a RS." What does this mean exactly? Is there a link to what you're talking about? Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)