Talk:Alger Hiss/Archive 2

Reorganized article

I just did a major reorganization of the article, putting the content into a rational order, removing lots of duplication, changing the format of the footnotes, removing footnotes that no longer connected to any part of the article, copyediting for clarity, etc. Apart from duplicate material, I didn't add or remove any significant amount of material, though I did remove a paragraph or two that I couldn't make sense of. I didn't check every fact stated in the article, though I did check every reference to make sure it was valid and in fact supported the point it was supposed to support. A controversial topic like this one should have its facts checked and should have a lot more citations, so there's a project for anyone who's interested. KarlBunker 23:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Article intro

To merely state in the introduction that Hiss was convicted of perjury, and to omit the illegal actions by the U.S. government in obtaining his conviction is POV by omission. Hiss' partial exoneration by the state bar in Massachusetts cast major doubt on his guilt, and he was readmitted to the bar without the usual confession of guilt or expression of remorse which are nearly always required when a disbarred lawyer is readmitted to the bar. The case against Hiss was always flimsy. The only witness with first person knowledge to testify against Hiss was Chambers, an admitted perjurer, who changed his story several times. First Chambers said Hiss wasn't a communist, then Chambers said he was. First Chambers said Hiss was not a spy, then Chambers said he was. There was enough doubt about Hiss's guilt to result in a hung jury at first trial. The main reason Hiss was convicted, according to jury interviews after the trial ended, was the jury member’s belief in the FBI’s honesty; that is, they believed the FBI witness who committed perjury when he said it was impossible to forge a document by typewriter. Hiss may have been completely innocent. He may also have been guilty. The important thing is to present both sides of the story, starting at the introduction. Later revelations of FBI misconduct in the COINTPRO program before the Senate Church committee (so named for its chairman, Senator Frank Church of Idaho) demonstrate that the FBI did judicially frame innocent people; and people died due to government misconduct, such as Fred Hampton and actress Jean Seberg (see:

http://www.saintjean.co.uk/politics.htm

for information about the FBI's campaign to destroy Seberg.) If the government used illegal means to deny Hiss a fair trial, ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN DOCUMENTS obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, then subsequent accusations of Hiss' guilt, such as Venona, are also suspect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.174.90.152 (talk • contribs).; 17 September 2006

All the relevant points you mention are not omitted; they are in the body of the article. The introduction to the article confines itself to the most basic facts, as it should. The body of the article presents arguments and evidence on both sides of the issue, as it should. The introduction notes that Hiss was convicted, but doesn't suggest that this conviction was either just or unjust, and it notes that there is controversy around the conviction. To present one side of the issue in the introduction is, in effect, to declare that side the "winner," and to insert a POV. KarlBunker 10:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

All information which indicates Hiss innocence has been purged. Article now completely biased against Hiss. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.174.90.152 (talk • contribs).

That is not correct. However, if you think some specific piece of information is missing, by all means research it, get a reference for it, and add it to the article. That would be a more constructive approach than vandalizing the article. KarlBunker 01:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

68.174.90.152, I owe you an apology. I was just reading through the article and realized that a large block of it had been deleted by some past vandal. I don't know how I missed this vandalism when it happened, but I did. I've been basing my responses to your complaints on content that I "knew" was in the article, when in fact much of that content wasn't in the article. Mea culpa. The content has been restored, and as you'll see, it covers those points you said were missing from the article. KarlBunker 02:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Typewriter evidence

This article is simply terrible. It keeps trying to imply that the typewriter was forged, and that that was "proven," but the forged-typewriter theory is laughable. You can leave this misnformation in if you like, but I reserve the right to put in the evidence that shows how untrue this is. The desperate Hiss dupes have got to grow up.

The article doesn't state that any forged-typwriter theory is "proven". It did, however, come close to saying that, using wording which I don't believe was supportable. I RV'd your edit because it was non-neutral and removed valid information, but I did change the wording in question. KarlBunker 01:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Just in case anyone wants to know, there were FBI files released through the Freedom of Information Act that contained addmissions on the part of the FBI to presenting experts that deliberatley committed perjury to cover up the fact that, yes, a typewriter could be forged in the way that the Hiss defense alleged. This is a well known fact of history and if the person who started this post doesn't know this, then, well, that's his own problem.Rlh 1984 06:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

According to John Dean, Nixon admitted in front of witnesses that the typewriter was fabricated. Joegoodfriend 16:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hiss in Minsk

I'm rather amazed this individual still has defenders from those in the Old Left in America. Here's an interesting path some might wish to follow... In Minsk, there is the house where the 1st Congress of the RSDLP met. This became somewhat of a Mecca for worldwide Communists and Soviet sympathizers to visit. A visitor's log was maintained. In the mid-90's during one of my visits to Minsk, I came upon Hiss's signature in that log. I'm not sure whether the log remains available to the public these days given that the Lukashenko regime is pro-Soviet and has tried to whitewash everything Soviet (including Stalin and Dzherzhinsky), but it might be a worthwhile angle to investigate for scholars, at least those seeking the truth. Avraamrii 05:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Avraamrii, man, you're brilliant. In your sly, satiric way, you've exposed exactly what sort of standard of proof today's right-wing pseudo-scholars subscribe to: if it can be shown that Hiss visited a historical site that a lot of Soviet sympathizers also did, OBVIOUSLY he was a spy! You're Wikipedia's own Stephen Colbert! Much love, comrade. Best, Dan—DCGeist 06:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

---

I didn't know encyclopedias had opinions! Do encyclopedias serve as lawyers? This one seems to be very skilled at bending the truth. How can honest, balanced information seem so opinionated in its attempt to exonorate Alger Hiss? Stick with the facts, or risk losing (what's left of your) credibility! --regalseagull 10/30/06

Word UP, my brother! "How can honest, balanced information seems seem so opinionated in its attempt to exonorate Alger Hiss?" Wait! Could it be?! Could it be because honest, balanced information DOES exonorate Alger Hiss?!?! You and I are SO on the same page nobletern--where IS the beef?!?—DCGeist 06:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory riddled minds everywhere applaud your unyielding paranoia, Mr. Geist... There is -- and never has been a right-wing conspiracy against Mr. Hiss. He did it all to himself, and is lucky he didn't get charged with treason. I just want to know why this entry is so biased. Every single section defends Hiss (as if from the encyclopidia's point of view)... Did you know him or something? --regalseagull 11/02/06

You presumably meant to say "There isn't -- and never has been..." but I'll let that pass. The word conspiracy gets thrown around a lot to discredit people. I certainly don't believe in a right-wing conspiracy against Hiss, but I do believe that many people in the anti-communist movement were very unscrupulous and careless in their actions. (Remember the case of the cleaning woman who was called up before McCarthy's committee because her name was the same as that of an alleged spy?) Why are so many people shocked, shocked, at the suggestion that a politician is self serving and lacking in scruples? -- MiguelMunoz 23:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Hiss Slant

After reading this article, it's hard for me not to conclude that it was written by someone with a slant towards Hiss. "Hiss supporters" are cited repeatedly, and almost all the evidence against him is rebutted, but the evidence in support of him isn't. My other readings on the matter suggest that the ongoing debates on the matter are inconclusive. The conviction of Hiss still stands. Yet, according to this Wikipedia article, Hiss is almost always given the benefit of the doubt. I don't think that squares with accepted facts or judicial findings. Joe Descartes 03:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether it "squares with accepted fact" depends on who's doing the "accepting." It's true that the pro-Hiss side gets the last word in most of the sections of this article, but that's largely an artifact of the nature of the debate. Each section necessarily takes the form of "here is the evidence against Hiss, and here are the problems with that evidence." I believe that this article is clear that the case is inconclusive, and I believe it shows where doubt validly exists without giving Hiss "the benefit of the doubt." However, I'm personally open to the idea that the article may have an overall slant in Hiss's favor. If you can point to any particular examples where the writing seems biased or where some anti-Hiss evidence isn't given due coverage, I'd be interested in hearing about it. KarlBunker 11:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason Hiss is given the benefit of the doubt is because, ultimately, his perjury conviction has nothing at all to do with whether he engaged in espionage. Hiss was shown a picture of Chambers, who had gained fifty pounds, gone bald and shaved his mustache in the ten years since Hiss had known him. Hiss’ response was that he would have to meet the man in person to know whether or not he had known him in the past, and said of the matter, “I have never known anyone who had the relationship with me that this man has testified to.” HUAC decided that merely because it could prove that Hiss and Chambers had known each other, they could then prosecute Hiss for perjury. A jury agreed and Hiss served four years. Some may call that justice, but I don’t. Joegoodfriend 20:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that this article has a terrible pro-Hiss slant. It's far from unbiased. Just look at the selective use of sources! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.179.37.3 (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Hiss identified as ALES

The article claims that "Several analysts identified Hiss as ... ALES," but it's supporting evidence is of several people who accepted that identification as correct, which is not the same thing. FBI Special Agent Robert Lamphere apparently identified Hiss as ALES, but it's not all all clear that anybody else independently came to the same conclusion. It's fine to point out that many people believe this identification to be correct, but the phrase "several analysts identified Hiss as ALES" is misleading. One analyst identified Hiss as ALES. Several others agree. Perhaps the sentence should start "A footnote in the Venona transcripts identifies Hiss as ..." I haven't made this change yet because I want input from opposing views, but I have restored the "citation needed" to the word "several." -- MiguelMunoz 21:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. If no one comes through with a citation to back "several", remove it. Joegoodfriend 22:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, excellent catch. This is the sort of common, little slippage in language that can easily be picked up and become accepted as historically accurate--which, as you've clearly explained, it almost certainly is not. Really good work.—DCGeist 23:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; I've changed the wording. Of course it would be difficult for anyone to independently come to the same conclusion, since the "probably Alger Hiss" comment has been attached to the Venona document since long before it was made public. In the reference I added, with the well-known Venona image plus commentary by Douglas Linder, Linder states that "'ALES' is assumed by most scholars to be Alger Hiss." I wonder how correct this is -- if anyone had a head count of "scholars" on this issue. KarlBunker 03:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I like the new wording, especially since it has Lamphere's important qualifier "probably." It's amazing how easily "probably" can transform into "certainly" when nobody is watching. -- MiguelMunoz 22:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that Oleg Gordievsky, so often cited as a source in the Hiss case also made similar claims against Michael Foot, the Labour Party leader? The Sunday Times published these allegations, and was made to pay significant damages when it lost a libel suit brought by Mr Foot. Is it worth mentioning that Gordievsky's other, similarly high-profile accusations, did not stand up when examined in a court of law? NathanielTapley 19:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Given how he's mentioned, Gordievsky's credibility doesn't seem to be much of an issue in this article. KarlBunker 19:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

and then?

What did he do the last 50 years of his life? did he work again? I found he was a saleman and added it but it needs more.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.105.209.231 (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Good point. I've added a little post-conviction info. KarlBunker 16:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Soviet agent, proven "beyond a reasonable doubt"

Please take a look: Mitrokhin, Vasili, Christopher Andrew (2000). The Mitrokhin Archive: The KGB in Europe and the West. Gardners Books. ISBN 0-14-028487-7. Page 792 (note 81, VERNONA decrypts... "The corraborative evidence now availble puts that identification beyond the reasonable doubt..." Then read next paragraph. I think this should be reflected in the article. Biophys 07:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

All valid and notable opinions should be, and are, noted in the article. WP isn't supposed to "pick a winner," beyond making note of situations where a clear majority of scholars are on one side or another. KarlBunker 13:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The standard 'beyond reasonable doubt' could be established only by the court sentence. The Constitution of the United States of America states in fifth amendment 'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury'. i DON'T THINK THAT MITROKHIN or VERNONA ARE A GRAND JURY. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.184.225.28 (talk) 12:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

How very noble. I hope you will apply the same standard of fairness to any GOP or right-wing politician you'd otherwise savage based on what third parties say. BipolarBear 09:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The intro to the article states:

"Although new evidence has added a variety of information to the case, Hiss's guilt or innocence remains a controversial issue."

Well, only in the sense that the following "remain controversial":

• ocean and atmosphere temperatures are rising, and man-made activity is largely to blame
• The Armenian Gencocide occurred
• HIV causes AIDS

In each case, the evidence in one direction is overwhelming. There are some dissenting views. But the importance that should be attached to the dissenting views is far too small to merit the misleading phrase "remains controversial." Even more misleading is the first part of the sentence, which implies that the new evidence hasn't changed much. I have re-written.

So reads a key sentence of the intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.86.254 (talk • contribs)

If you know of some source that gives an indication of the number of Hiss scholars who stand on each side of this issue, I would love to hear of it. If not, you're just telling us your personal opinion about the evidence, which isn't useful for a Wikipedia article. KarlBunker 11:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, 74.12.86.254. You say the evidence in the Hiss case is overwhelming. Why don't you do us a favor, and tell us in a few brief sentences the key points of the incontrovertible evidence of Hiss' guilt. If the evidence is so overwhelming, it should be a piece of cake for you to explain it to us. Thanks. Joegoodfriend 18:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have cited http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hiss/hissvenona.html for the conclusion that "ALES", a Soviet spy, "is assumed by most scholars to be Alger Hiss". This law department has spent considerably time collecting and referencing documents related to the Alger Hiss case.Bdell555 02:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that statement is probably correct. But it's a contentious statement to make, as it essentially declares one side of a debate to be the "winner," and the author points to nothing that supports the statement. It's best for Wikipedia to avoid "declaring a winner" like this unless there's a very clear consensus among scholars. KarlBunker 10:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So "correct" statements that you consider "contentious" should be reverted for that reason alone? Please refer me to the Wiki policy that indicates that accuracy should be compromised for this reason. If we are to follow your argument, then we should revert the entire article, since many things in it and Hiss himself are "contentious" in somebody's eyes. A charge that a Wiki edit is "unsupported," not because it does not cite a source but because you simply reject what the cited source claims is such an expansive view of what constitutes necessary support that Wiki should be completely empty. What is the point of citing historians and experts if your reaction is to assume, without argument, that the cited author does not make out his or her claim to your satisfaction? Apparently you believe every cite must in turn be citation of someone else, which conveniently makes all human knowledge you wish to reject as impossible, since the loop of citations has to stop somewhere. The support for this source's conclusion is the extensive work done in collecting and reviewing the enormous number of primary and secondary sources on this case. The Wiki reader ought to be advised of this conclusion after which he or she can assess the sources on his or her own and come to a contrary personal conclusion.Bdell555 12:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you be consistent in your policy and also argue that there should be no statement in the Holocaust article to the effect of what most historians believe concerning that event? After all, the issue is still "contentious" to some. Or do you believe that particular event is not "contentious", which means we are right back to square one, whereby you simply revert on the basis of YOUR particular, unsupported opinion. There has to be an accepted procedure, applicable to all Wiki articles, in place here. That procedure has to be to accept cited sources whose neutrality and expertise/knowledge is generally accepted. In anticipation of challenges to the neutrality of the source cited here, I note that the author(s) indicate at another point that "If one accepts that "ALES" is indeed Alger Hiss..." The authors are accordingly not claiming that Hiss is a spy. Rather, they are arriving at a conclusion concerning what most historians believe. It is not reasonable to assume that if there were no consensus amongst scholars on Hiss, that the author(s) here would have nonetheless stated a false conclusion that there was.Bdell555 19:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally, why does YOUR opinion, which is evidently that expert opinion is essentially evenly divided (or, alternatively, that there is an expert consensus but that this fact should be suppressed), not required any support? Why should your particular opinion be the default one? I should think that at a bare minimum a statement in the introduction of a conclusory sort WITH A CITE should be preferred to a statement WITHOUT. Yet you revert to the uncited version.Bdell555 19:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

By my own account I am no expert with respect to the Hiss materials. I came to something of an interest in Hiss and Harry Dexter White on the basis of what emerged from the records concerning the war-time conferences. Some the decisions reached by US officials are simply astounding. For example, after Stalin laid out his demands concerning the post-war borders, negotations proceeded and both Stalin and the Poles were actually prepared to make a small concession concerning the German-Poland border. However, the next day the State Dept comes back to say no concession necessary and Stalin's border demands were ultimately approved to such a wild extent that even Stalin himself did not anticipate them according to his own border scribblings of as late as July 1944. The situation would be strange enough as it was were it not for the fact the move also sandbagged the British, who could hardly oppose both the US and Stalin on the issue. One could go on at length about number of instances were US policies regarding Stalin were inexplicably at odds with the principles of the Atlantic Charter. To take another example, White, a professional economist, advocated the intentional hamstringing of Germany's post-war recovery, which makes as much sense as a doctor advocating disease. In May 2005 the US President extended an apology to the former Soviet satellites with respect to Yalta. It is of historical interest as to how such an apology ever came to be necessary, yet it seems many continue to wish it remain a story untold.Bdell555 19:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What this edit does is to declare a majority view among scholars. In WP:NPOV#Undue weight it is stated that "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;" This edit takes the word of a single scholar, stating without visible evidence, that one view is the majority view among scholars. If Douglas Linder had conducted a survey among Hiss scholars, that would be different. As it is he's just one scholar stating an opinion, and it's inappropriate for this opinion to be stated as fact in the article introduction. In keeping with WP policy, if the article is going to "declare" a majority opinion, that declaration has to be "substantiate[d] with reference to commonly accepted reference texts."

As the opinion of a reliable source, I think it would be appropriate to quote Douglas Linder's opinion that "'ALES' is assumed by most scholars to be Alger Hiss" in the article, in the section on Venona and ALES. KarlBunker 19:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the citation is a clear violation of wikipedia's linking policy, WP:EL. Such a link is prohibited when the research in question is unverifiable. The website in question makes no attempt through documentation to justify the claim that "most" historians have concluded that Hiss was guilty. Furthermore, the website seems to me to fall under the heading of "personal projects" on the web, which are also prohibited by WP:EL. Joegoodfriend 20:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This is like debating holocaust deniers. You can never convince them but perhaps independent readers can see how outrageously they strain themselves in their arguments. The "documentation" is available right here:http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/hiss/hissbiblio.html It is 100% verifiable by reviewing the the secondary sources cited there to see if the claim that most historians consider ALES a spy is true or not. If this is a "personal project" than I suppose the "German Propaganda Archive" at http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/, which is a goldmine of primary Nazi-related documents, is a "personal project". What a convenient way to dismiss historical research you don't like! If there is are any dubious "personal projects" going on, it is the personal project of people like you to see Hiss exonerated as opposed to seeing Wiki readers accurately informed.Bdell555 20:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

To justify your reversion then, you must be contending that the reference here is not "commonly accepted". What is your argument and/or sources for deeming the source cited here is not acceptable? I am interested in your standard here and whether you will apply your criterion of an acceptable source to other Wiki edits. It is simply a lie to claim, as you do, that the claim that there is a majority opinion here is simply "the word of a single scholar". Earlier in this very same Talk section a source is cited who goes further and declares the issue settled "beyond a reasonable doubt". Where in the Wiki policy does it say that the definition of a "commonly accepted" source should be limited to surveys? No doubt you would have a take issue with a survey if one was done, by arguing that the survey was of the wrong people. So nothing can ever be proved because you will continually raise the bar as it conveniences you. I submit to you that the Wiki policy is the bar and that the source cited is commonly accepted. Finally, I am completely at a loss as to how YOUR preferred statement in this section, which is a totally UNCITED claim that Hiss' guilt is "contentious", satisfies te Wiki policy better.Bdell555 20:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with KB and Jgf, in substance. The Linder quote simply isn't near the standard necessary to appear in the article's introduction. Karl's interpretation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight is clearly correct here. The website, while it passes the "reliability" bar, is not close to a "commonly accepted reference text." We're talking about up-to-date encyclopedias, academic or general-interest histories of the cold war, academic or general-interest surveys of twentieth-century espionage. If you can find a couple of those that say something like "ALES is assumed by most scholars to be Alger Hiss," then of course the intro can and should be changed. I've yet to come across that claim in anything like a commonly accepted reference text. The comparison to Holocaust deniers—whose view is contradicted by innumerable commonly accepted reference texts—fails both logically and rhetorically.

On another point, Brian, your discussion of the U.S.-Soviet postwar border negotiations is interesting. Was it intended more as an aside, or is it directly relevant to the article? That is, is there any evidence that Hiss did anything, either overtly or covertly, to affect those negotiations in a manner contrary to U.S. self-interest?—DCGeist 20:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What is being given "undue weight" is what you want to revert to, which is the claim that Hiss is a spy is "controversial". This implies that the source I cite is inaccurate, yet you seem to believe that no evidence need be offered for this claim of inaccuracy. I must accordingly ask why you agree with continuing to apply a double standard in this way where your preferred version evidently requires no justification. re "interpretation" of the "undue weight" policy, the words that require interpretation are what constitutes a "commonly accepted reference text". I have yet to see any argument as to why the cited source is not acceptable. Is the source just some biased blogger? Why should the presumed default be that a source is unacceptable unless proven acceptable? Where in Wiki does it say that? Accepted practice is that something that is cited is acceptable unless shown to be acceptable. If not, then why are you not turning over cited edits left, right and center? Why just this one?Bdell555 20:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The source I cite is part of a site that IS concerned with an alleged case of 20th century espionage. Please support your contention that it does not fall into that category. Am I to understand that your objection is that the source is electronic and not hardcopy? Please explain how that that is relevant to the issue of acceptability. Finally, you still continue to refuse to apply your standard to yourself, which is to lead the reader to thinking there is NO expert consensus, without citing any of the things you say should be cited. Re your question about acting "in a manner contrary to US self-interest", we would have to agree to a definition of what US self-interest is. I am not about to start further editing of the Hiss article until I see whether this is yet another Wiki page where a group of self-appointed guardians automatically revert what they don't like. I have wasted my time before on a Wiki article and it appears I would be wasting it again on this one, given that citing sources is evidently no protection from reversion.Bdell555 20:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You've completely lost the thread here, Brian. The sources cited in the article offer prima facie evidence that some scholars believe that Hiss was a Soviet spy, and some do not. As Karl has acknowledged, Linder qualifies as a "reliable" source, and his view may appropriately be quoted in the article text. As I have attempted to dispassionately explain, Linder's web-based text does not qualify as a "commonly accepted reference text," and thus his view--which is not, as far as I know, currently shared by such texts, does not belong in the introduction. Your problem seems to be with Wikipedia's own standards, as expressed in WP:NPOV#Undue weight. I encourage you to not keep ignoring it, but to back up your desired version of the lede by following the project's guideline: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." Find a leading encyclopedia, a leading current academic history of the era, a leading general-interest history of the topic that is seen as neutral that states something like "most scholars now believe Hiss was a spy." Then we'll be getting somewhere. Because Linder ain't the one to establish this in the lede.—DCGeist 20:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So I may edit the "article text" but "the introduction" may only be edited by yourself? Please cite the relevant Wiki policy that calls for such a policy. The Undue Weight policy does not suggest that any discrimination concerning "the introduction" and the rest of the article is in order from what I can see. You have not explained why the source is not a "commonly accepted reference text' apart from claiming that it is not found in a list of what you considered acceptable. You need to draw some sort of logical connection between restricting sources that may be used her to your specified list and why that would ensure the reader is accurately informed.Bdell555 21:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

re your contention that I've "completely lost the thread here", let's return then to your critical claim here, which is that my cited source "isn't near the standard necessary". You conclude that it fails the standard by adding additional criteria like saying cites in "the introduction" require a different standard and that web-based text is unacceptable. However, you provide no logic for adding these standards and your claim that your additional requirements are supported by citable Wiki policies is simply false. Meanwhile, you refuse to see your own, convenientialy stringent standard applied to your own preferred language in the introduction, which claims that that Hiss' guilt is "controversial" or that there effectively NO consensus. I continue to await a cite for this claim from your approved list of sources.

In any case, engaging in an continued edit war is childish and will not accomplish much so I surrender. However, perhaps the independent reader will read this discussion and from it draw a more informed conclusion about the accuracy of this article. I would also ask the reader to also reflect on the extent to which users who simply revert (CITED) contributions improve Wiki relative to those who RE-edit as opposed to practicing wholesale reversion.21:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Like all words and phrases in all languages, the meaning of "commonly accepted reference texts" is established by consensual understanding among the participating speakers. The consensus here is clear: Linder's web material is not close to qualifying as a "commonly accepted reference text."—DCGeist 21:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If when conversing with your friends “cat” means “dog”, that does not mean that “cat” henceforth means “dog” for the rest of us. Interpreting what the text of a policy means should reference how a particular interpretation serves the point of the policy. Here, the point of the policy is ensuring Wikipedia’s accuracy. To give the reader the impression that experts are evenly divided on Hiss, as you evidently wish to do, reduces Wikipedia's accuracy.Bdell555 22:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Who are "the rest of" you, Brian? Three editors understand Linder's website to not qualify as a "commonly accepted reference text." So far, you alone say it does.
• I don't wish to "give the reader the impression that experts are evenly divided on Hiss." I want the introduction to make incontrovertible statements of fact. It is an incontrovertible statement of fact that Hiss's guilt or innocence remains controversial; among the evidence adduced in the article is that some present-day scholars believe Hiss was guilty, others that he was innocent. It is not, at this point in time, an incontrovertible statement of fact that most scholars believe Hiss was a spy.—DCGeist 22:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

In my world, there are 3 possibilities: 1) most scholars consider Hiss a spy 2) most scholars consider Hiss NOT a spy 3) scholars are evenly divided. A minimum of one and a maximum of one of the three can be a "fact". You claim that (1) is not a "fact", while simultaneously rejecting as unnecessary any inference that you must therefore be claiming either (2) or (3) to be a fact. Perhaps you can explain how the laws of logic work differently in your universe than mine.Bdell555 00:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• The distinction between a Wikipedia introduction and the rest of the main text in this regard is clear. The introduction summarizes the primary facts detailed in the article. In general, Wikipedia introductions should not need citations, because all the statements they make are well evidenced in the cited text below. This is the well-established standard. It is a primary fact detailed in the article and abundantly evidenced by the cited sources that Hiss's guilt or innocence remains a point of controversy. Linder's claim about "most scholars" is plausible, but not sufficiently supported by commonly accepted reference texts to be established as a "fact" and appear in the introduction. —DCGeist 21:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your distinction may be “clear” but that does not make your distinction at all relevant. I could just as easily argue that it is a primary fact estabished by the rest of the article and elsewhere that a majority of scholars believe Hiss was a spy. But that would be engaging in circular reasoning just like you are engaging in, since whether your preferred introduction or mine is supported by your interpretation of the described evidence or mine is the very question at issue. I'd therefore say we were even, which is why citations are needed for resolution and on that count I have provided cites for the contention that there is a majority consensus while you continue to provide zero cites for the contention that it should be impllied that there is no such consensus.Bdell555 22:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Your statement is false and illogical. You have not provided "cites for the contention that there is a majority consensus." You have provided a single such cite. I do not need to provide new "cites for the contention that it should be impllied that there is no such consensus." The introduction states that Hiss's guilt or innocence remains controversial. The article already provides numerous cites to support that general statement of fact: among those cited in the article who are not part of the "consensus" for guilt you claim are David Lowenthal, Victor Navasky, Athan Theoharis, and Anthony Powers.—DCGeist 22:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not dispute that the issue is "controversial" in the sense that there are differing views. What I dispute is that the issue is "controversial" such that any claim that there is a majority view should be reverted. You are insisting that "controversial" be indicated without any qualification as to the relative strength of the evidence or the preponderance of views. Unless you can point to a specific claim by any of those authors you favour that, post VENONA, their view is not a minority view, then your cites here are irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is reverting a claim that there is a majority view exists.Bdell555 00:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." Please note the plural: texts. Please find one more reference text that (a) supports Linder's claim about "most scholars" and (b) is arguably "commonly accepted" (yes, published would be nice--acccording to consensus understanding, that's what "commonly accepted reference text" usually means), and your argument will gain some credibility. If your position is right, that should be easy.—DCGeist 21:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It is evidently time to bring my comments to a close since you are not reading them such that I have to repeat myself. I already noted earlier that this Talk section kicks off with another text that goes even further, saying Hiss’ guilt is beyond a “reasonable doubt”. Of course that source also conveniently fails your standard, doesn't it?Bdell555 22:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'd really like to appeal to your common sense about what qualifies as a "commonly accepted reference text," but I understand that someone who unapologetically compares this colloquy to dealing with Holocaust deniers is unlikely to appreciate a conversation on those terms. So let me ask you this: Does the Encyclopedia Britannica support your position? Does the World Book Encyclopedia? Last time I checked, they did not. But it's been a while. You do the work to support the position you so vehemently defend: if you can demonstrate that either encyclopedia backs your position, I'll back it too, straight down the line.—DCGeist 22:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My "common sense" tells me that the Wiki policy calls for commonly accepted references. You evidently believe it calls for references to the "Reference" section at the library and/or that "text" means "Textbook". I fail to see why that narrower interpretation is more relevant to the "common sense" point of the policy, which is simply that anyone who claims that there is or is not a majority opinion on the matter should be able to demonstrate it by providing references. For what it is worth, Britannica's single paragraph condensation on Hiss says that there is "strong evidence of Hiss's guilt." Nowhere does it state or imply that there is any "controversy". Neither is there any minimization or qualification of the "strong evidence of guilt" statement. May I again suggest that the obligation to "do the work" is as incumbent on the person demanding that their preferred version of the article stand to as it is on me, and I accordingly challenge you to live up to your own standards and name a "Reference section" "text" whose introduction includes some sort of rider or qualification to any statement about the evidence analogous to what is currently in this Wiki introduction (i.e. has an "although" rider and/or claims that there is a "controversy" without commenting on the strength of the evidence or number of analysts for one view relative to the other). As it is, I have conceded that it is not a proven fact that Hiss is a spy. However, a rider should be attached to that to the effect that there is "strong evidence" or a "strong liklihood" or "most experts believe" that he should be a spy. You want the opposite rider attached to the comment on the evidence, namely a minimizer to the effect that it is "controversial", and furthermore believe that your desired text deserves "default" status such that it need not be justified by any references or argument.Bdell555 00:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please. Your universe of three possibilities is unreasonably and unhelpfully narrow. How about five possibilities? There might be (a/e) a clear and convincing majority holding one opinion or its opposite--worthy of mention in the introduction, (b/d) a slim majority on either side--leaving us with an as-yet unresolved controversy, or (c) the unlikely and absolutely unprovable perfect division of opinion you rhetorically insist on. And please. "Controversial" is hardly the opposite of "strong evidence of guilt"; "strong evidence of innocence" or "little evidence of guilt" would be the opposite.

So there IS a majority, but it is "slim"? Or there IS a majority but it is not "worthy of mention" (while your preferred text in the introduction is worthy? Henceforth if I revert any edit of yours which I deem to be part of the "introduction" simply on the basis that, in my opinion, it is not "worthy of mention" will you accept that without further argument?)? Is the issue now the strength of the majority? You said before not that it is a "slim majority" but that a "majority" is not a "fact". So are you changing your claim? We cannot make any progress here if you keep changing what the argument is about. You are moreover straw manning my argument by saying I claimed that "controversial" is the opposite of "strong evidence". I said mentioning the "evidence" and then adding an "although ... controversial" clause is a minimizing or weakening editorializer with respect to the evidence and THAT is, indeed, the opposite of a strengthener like "strong".Bdell555 10:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Britannica's summary is indeed worth something. Allow me to moot the following possible introductory sentence, the entirety of which seems well-evidenced by the present article's contents: "While heated debate continues over the question of Hiss's guilt or innocence, many present-day scholars believe the preponderance of available evidence indicates that he did conduct espionage for the Soviet Union."—DCGeist 01:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why Britannica is "worth something" as a source here but other sources are not is a prioritization of reliability that has still not been justified. It makes it more difficult to resolve the issue when you simply write off almost all other sources as illegimate. I have read many articles in Britannica and other encyclopedias and it is very rare to encounter specific language to the effect that "a majority of scholars/researchers/experts believe ..." According to your standards for acceptable sources, that entitles you to conclude a majority opinion on ANY issue is equally rare! Again, I obviously contend that my original edit is BETTER evidenced "by the present article's contents" (and would be even yet better evidenced if the bias of the "present" article were corrected) in addition to the external evidence (a cite for the conclusion was provided as opposed to simply providing my opinion on the article's contents) so you continue to beg the question when you assert what you assert here. Where is your citation for the presence of a "heated debate"? "Many" simply means more than one. I fully grant that more than one scholar think Hiss was no spy, just as more than one believes that human activity is not causing global warming. Britannica says the evidence is "strong" and provides no minimzer to the effect that there is any "debate" over it, let alone a "heated" one. The fact there is a debate happening here with a few persons on the fringe does not mean there is a true debate amongst most experts. If you are indeed changing your contention about "majority" and simply want a minimizer attached to the effect that it is a "slim" majority then let's see your citation for such a minimizer. I originally provided a simple, fully cited statement of fact that did not claim that Hiss was a spy. No unsupported speculation, editorializing or spinning like you offer here. If, with no small indulgence, the Britannica blurb (which is available at http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9367140/Alger-Hiss) is the only allowable source here, it still remains to be demonstrated why its statement about the strength of the evidence should be watered down to your preferred version, which creates a controversy or "heated debate" over it.Bdell555 10:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. Acknowledging that Britannica's view is relevant to how emphasis should be expressed is a far cry from asserting that its language should be copied. The presence of a "heated debate" is well-evidenced by the well-cited content of the article--it summarizes some of that content, just like the lead should. But now, lookee here, suddenly you've discovered that everyone arguing for Hiss's innocence is "on the fringe." How'd that happen?! I'm sorry you found nothing of value in my proposal. I guess we'll just have to live with the current version until you convince a "majority consensus" otherwise. Ta.—DCGeist 16:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So, after all of your demands that I produce supporting evidence and argument, demands I have endeavoured to meet, you are going to put zero effort into trying to provide the evidence and argument I have asked for? I am not asking you to "copy it", I am asking you to stop ignoring it, and the other sources you dismiss. For what it is worth, I never said "everyone arguing for Hiss's innocence is "on the fringe". You keep begging the question despite my demonstration of that logical fallacy so I suppose there is not much more to say here, is there?Bdell555 23:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Fact: Although many scholars have concluded that Hiss was guilty, this does not mean that most have done so.

Fact: The opinion of "strong evidence" against Hiss does not mean that most scholars have concluded that he was guilty.

Fact: There IS a debate amongst experts as to Hiss' guilt.

Fact: Although many books have been written concluding that Hiss was guilty, this again does not mean that most scholars have concluded that he was guilty. Many books have been written that have concluded that there was an alien presence at Roswell in 1947, but this does not mean that that most scholars have concluded that there was one.

For all the thousands of words now written on this argument, not a single justification has been provided regarding any conclusion reached by "most" scholars. The analogy to global warming is completely false. Hundreds of articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals have demonstrated that global warming is caused by man-made pollutants and is a danger. No article has ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal refuting this.

The editor's personal, subjective opinion on what "most" scholars have concluded regarding Hiss has no place here, as it is a violation of Wikipedia's policies against both original research by editors and POV. Joegoodfriend 16:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree! Although it is true that "most have done so", it is not true because it logically follows from "many" doing so! But where did I, or anyone else, ever advance this argument whose fallacy you are exposing?Bdell555 23:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So Britannica is just someone's "opinion"? I also read in Britannica that the world is round. I suppose that is also just someone's "opinion"? Anyway, again, what I have been arguing is that "most scholars believe Hiss is a spy" should not be reverted because it has been duly cited, other cites are available that are even stronger, and resources like Britannica are more supportive of a sentence like that than the current paragraph which claims that the "evidence" is simply "controversial".Bdell555 23:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So "books" aren't worth citing, since, after all, you can't believe everything you read on "books"? Is that your argument?Bdell555 23:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and there is a debate about global warming.Bdell555 23:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What about http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999GeoRL..26.1445B which fails to find "unusual warming during the twentieth century"? I would cite more if it wouldn't get us so far off topic. What do you have to say about Dick Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist with MIT, a member the National Academy of Sciences, and a a contributer to the IPCC Second Assement? I will tell you what I have to say: Lindzen is a genuine global warming scientist HOWEVER his views are in the MINORITY and a global warming article that cited his research should state that in the introduction that a MAJORITY of experts believe in anthropogenic global warming. Just like the situation here, where there are experts on the other side and various materials and arguments on the other side but who are in the MINORITY and the evidence that Hiss is a spy is "strong". There are many who go further, in publications like Salon, TIME, FindLaw Book Reviews, the CIA, etc:

"Hiss' defenders have dwindled to a small handful of true believers; their arguments have taken on the strident tones of the conspiracy theorist. Indeed, the front-page obits that appeared on Saturday in such supposed bastions of the liberal establishment as the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Boston Globe were striking in their dispassionate acceptance of Hiss' guilt (a "near-certainty," wrote Mark Feeney in the Globe)."

http://www.salon.com/media/media961119.html

"To a dwindling band of zealous believers, Hiss was one of the first victims of anticommunist hysteria, an American Dreyfus. Yet the weight of historical evidence indicates that Hiss was what he steadfastly denied ever being: a member of the communist underground and a Soviet spy."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,985571-1,00.html

"The basic question — whether Alger Hiss was a spy for the Soviet Union during the 1930s and 1940s — was finally settled during the 1990s ... Today, only a small band of true believers, headed by Hiss’s son, still tries to argue his innocence."

https://cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no4/alger_hiss.html

"the publication of the Venona intercepts of wartime Soviet espionage referring to "Ales" settled the matter -- to all but the truest of believers, "Ales" only could mean Alger Hiss."

http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/books/reviews/20040806_kutler.html

For my "research" to be "original" wouldn't I have to do some "research" first? I found an expert who says a majority of scholars think Hiss is a spy and cited him. What is so "original" about that? I will give you full marks for being original with this argument of yours! Where does my "personal, subjective opinion" enter the picture when I am just the messenger? I think you are confusing me with those here who are providing their personal, subjective opinion that there is a "controversy" or "heated debate" and that, moreover, it is not a "fact" that a majority of scholars think Hiss is a spy. If this is just a "right wing" vs "left wing" thing than why have even leftist scholars like Irving Howe and Garry Wills, endorsed Weinstein (http://www.historians.org/Perspectives/Issues/2005/0503/0503new2.cfm )'s "Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case"? The American Prospect, a magazine of left wing commentators if there ever was one, says at http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=4881 that Ehrman, the CIA analyst whose conclusion that Hiss' guilt is "settled" I quoted earlier, writes "history rather than hagiography". In sum, perhaps you will need to start treating White, Weinstein, Haynes etc like FDR did George Earle! (see https://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/winter99-00/art6.html for the story of Earle and Katyn, which just like Hiss "became a shibboleth in US politics")Bdell555 02:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It was not appropriate for you to split my previous post into pieces, so I’ve taken the liberty of splicing it back together.

In all your thousands of words, you still have failed to address the question at hand. You have failed to justify adding a statement to this article that most scholars have concluded that Hiss was guilty.

You cite a number of sources whose opinion it is that most academics who have studied the case believe that Hiss was guilty. The points of view of these sources, no matter how many you find, are simply not allowable unless backed by actual research. Lindner is the perfect example. I submitted that Lindner had not documented the claim. You retorted that a list of books condemning Hiss constituted documentation of the claim. It doesn’t.

Seriously, my friend, you clearly have a great passion for this topic, and you may yet be able to effect the change you want in this article.

Consider this. I can tell you from experience that most of the editors on wikipedia believe that Oswald acted alone in killing JFK. Yet you will find the following in the article on Oswald: "Seven out of ten Americans, in a 2003 ABC News nationwide poll, believe the presidential assassination was the result of a plot and not the action of a single person."

You obviously have a knack for research. Just keep going until you find some sort of survey on the subject, and you can add a sentence like, “in a 2007 survey of 100 scholars who expressed an opinion on the Hiss case, 70 stated a strong belief in Hiss’ guilt while only 30 thought him likely innocent.”

One more thing. Most changes to articles on controversial subjects come about by winning consensus with other editors. Accusing them of bad faith or of being Holocaust deniers is not the way to go about this. Joegoodfriend 03:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My comments were put in the context of yours in order to make it clear what I was referring to. You had a laundry list of "facts" there without numbering them or otherwise making it easy to identify them apart from repeating them. By placing my responses out of context and mashing them together into a single block of text you are rendering my remarks difficult to comprehend and increase the possibility of reader confusion. re "just keep going until you find some sort of survey", (1) do you have a "survey" justifying the existence of a genuine "controversy" that you insist on or are you a "do what I say, not what I do" hypocrite? (2) If every cited authority must in turn have a citation, where do the citations stop? Or is human knowledge simply impossible (apart from Alger Hiss not being one of Stalin's spies) (3) DCGeist would not be satisfied with a survey because he has been demanding an encyclopedia reference. Hence about all the Hiss apologists here seem to have in common are demands re sources that would incidentally throw out 99%+ of human knowledge. re "bad faith", the primary problem here is not "bad faith" but an absence of research, self-contradictory reasoning, and undue weight. Even so, how am I to continue with the "good faith" assumption that, for example, DCGeist actually means what he says to me when (a) he says "Britannica's summary is indeed worth something", (b) Britannica says "In 1996 the release of secret Soviet cables ... provided strong evidence of Hiss's guilt." and then (c) DCGeist then reverts an edit introduced by someone unknown that read "New evidence has added a variety of information to the case supporting Hiss's guilt"? Can someone, particularly DCGeist himself, explain how his editing behaviour can be rendered consistent with what he has been telling me? What he is reverting says even less than what he had previously said was "worth something"! And Cberlet is right there reverting with him. You think I, or anyone else who is not a Hiss apologist, "may yet be able to effect" change in this sort of environment? If you don't think a review of the similarities between Hiss apologists and Holocaust deniers could fill a book, then you must think that "In Denial: Historians, Communism, & Espionage" by John Earl Haynes (Manuscript Division, Library of Congress) and Harvey Klehr (Emory) is not a book. Amazon.com, however, DOES describe it as a book!Bdell555 11:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The positions of the concerned editors have already been made very clear--please see above. The consensus is very clear--please see above. You rejected out of hand a proposal for a rewording that might have brought the consensus somewhat closer to your position--please see above. Nothing new here to discuss, except to congratulate you for reviving your lovely comparison between editors of this article and Holocaust deniers.—DCGeist 18:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not what the "consensus" is or what is "closer to MY position". The fact that there is a consensus amongst Hiss apologists does not mean there is any such consensus amongst scholars / experts / authorities. The consensus 2000 years ago was that the earth was flat. The issue is the truth and what is closer to a position that you yourself said was "worth something". Your latest reversion is a move further away from what Britannica stated, or do you contend otherwise on that point? Where in Britannica or ANY encyclopedia, which is the standard YOU have been demanding, is the "evidence" minimized by saying it is "controversial"? You state that there is "nothing to here to discuss" because you have presumably run out of argument, although in fairness you made a far better effort than KarlBunker or Cberlet. In these thousands of words I have provided many new citations and sources of information while you have produced zero. I have answered every point you have raised and if I haven't, re-raise it here so I can address it. If your contention is that there is no analogy at all with the tactics of holocaust deniers then instead of just asserting that without argument why don't you go through that book I mentioned and refute it point by point? Logic and fact can settle this issue, appeals to emotion and prejudice can not.Bdell555 07:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The editor first suggests that I am a hypocrite unless I can produce a survey regarding the position of scholars on the Hiss case. The accusation is false, as I am not trying to do what the editor was originally trying to do, which is to add a statement to the article as to what “most” scholars have concluded.

The editor asks if I can justify the existence of a controversy among scholars on Hiss’ guilt. Yes. The article itself does that, as it summarizes and documents good research on both sides of the issue.

Our argument has shifted from adding a sentence as to what "most" scholars have concluded to changing the existing text to read "New evidence has added a variety of information to the case supporting Hiss's guilt."’ Please read the page on achieving consensus in articles, because the problem with the change above is that it is a statement of fact that is not supported by a consensus of the editors because they don’t agree with the statement.

The Britannica text you want could be used I think, however, the sentence you want, were it added, would quickly be changed to read "While some scholars have concluded that new evidence has added a variety of information to the case supporting Hiss's guilt, others have concluded that this same evidence tends to exonerate Hiss." The text as it stands, "Hiss's guilt or innocence remains controversial" already makes this same statement more concisely and is supported by consensus.

Lastly, the editor asks a question that he can easily answer by reading Wikipedia’s policies. The editor asks, “where do the citations stop?” The page on citing sources answers this simply, "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." Joegoodfriend 23:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to revert to a statement that mentions the evidence and then minimizes it saying there is a "controversy" over it. Your logic does not follow in that you assume that this, your preferred edit, requires no justification simply because it is earlier in time.

As it stands now, the article gives undue weight to the contentions of Hiss apologists. Even so, I could just as easily argue that a statement in the introduction that "most scholars conclude..." or "there is strong evidence that..." is as supported by the article as your preferred version. That's why to settle this we need to go further. On that point, I have provided a source (and in fact multiple relevant sources here in the Talk) while you have provided zero. I could endeavour to edit the rest of the article but there is hardly any point given that even referenced, factual edits will apparently be reverted.

I am not necessarily arguing for the Britannica text. It was DCGeist who was demanding an encyclopedia reference, at least until he changed his mind about its "value". Most importantly, where do you get "others have concluded" that "evidence tends to exonerate Hiss" from Britannica???

Re "needs a source", I provided a source. It was reverted anyway (KarlBunker wanted it reverted not because it was not true but becaus it was "contentious" in his opinion). What you are demanding is that the citation in turn be a citation. Where in that Wikipedia policy you call attention to does it demand second order sourcing? You have yet to provide a first order source for why there should be a minimzer clause in the introduction that creates a controversy.07:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The editor now suggests that citing Britannica’s POV conclusion on the evidence without qualification (citation of differing conclusions) is justified because “I have provided zero” in terms of citations that a controversy exists and that some scholars believe that the evidence exonerates Hiss because I have not literally provided said citations on this talk page. Ok, fine. Anyone who bothers to read the article can find this citation: [1]

To restate my pervious point, if the Britannica text is allowed, it will be immediately qualified with an opposing view from (obviously) a source that has reached different conclusions. In other words, it would read something like, "While some scholars have concluded that new evidence has added a variety of information to the case supporting Hiss's guilt(Britannica cite), others have concluded that this same evidence tends to exonerate Hiss.[2] (The NYU cite is an excellent study of the evidence by historian Jeff Kisseloff.)

In conclusion, the consensus text is still best. Joegoodfriend 15:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and according to ihr.org many claims associated with the Holocaust are controversial. Nowhere, however, do even they deny that a majority of scholars consider it a historical fact and nowhere in your citation can I find any contention that the view of Hiss apologists is not a minority view. If a dissent, no matter how small, can create a "controversy", then will you be consistent and at least allow a "neutrality in dispute" header on this article? That would at least give the reader a bit of a warning. I see you are now dubbing Britannica "highly POV", and moreover saying that is not just your view but the "consensus" view, for not giving equal time to the fringe like this slanted Wiki article does. All I can say is that Britannica has done far more for human knowledge that you, DCGeist, KarlBunker, Cberlet, Redspruce and the rest of the Denial crowd here.Bdell555 08:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Bri--no, really--but David Lowenthal, Victor Navasky, Athan Theoharis, and Anthony Powers constitute j-u-s-t a tad more than "dissent, no matter how small." Sorry--no, really--but not every knowledgeable person in the whole wide world agrees with you. Oh, and as the grandson of Polish Jews who would have been gassed if they hadn't managed to get to Ellis Island a few years earlier, I'm just loving your Holocaust bullcrap, you shitty little prick.—DCGeist 09:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to be very, very clear about this. This is the fifth fucking time, Brian, that you have compared those who disagree with you about the phrasing of this article to Holocaust deniers. Which is about the sleaziest, most soulless accusation you could make. I reiterate: you are a shitty little prick. And I would treasure the opportunity to tell you so to your face. My name is Daniel Charles Geist, and I approved this message.—DCGeist 10:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to write Emory University, then, and ask them to revoke the Thomas Jefferson award they granted to Klehr, who has equated the tactics of Navasky et al. to holocaust denial (I provided the reference to his "In Denial" book earlier in this thread, when I invited you to challenge its contentions)? He has also been nominated to the National Council on the Humanities. Will you write the Council in order to advise them about what this "shitty little prick" has claimed? And what about Klehr's co-author, Haynes, who joined Klehr in making the "sleaziest, most soulless accusation [one] can make"? Are you going to write Haynes' employer, the Library of Congress? And what about that article published on the CIA website that not only concluded Hiss' guilt is "settled" but suggested Navasky's tactics vs Weinstein were less than scholarly? My name is Brian Alexander Dell, and I stand by my contention that an attack on the credibility of Britannica, to take but one example of what we have witnessed here in this thread, shows about as much concern for historical fact as holocaust denial, although I would suggest the most illuminating parallel with Hiss denial may be Katyn denial, as I noted earlier. In order to provide you with the personal encounter you "treasure", you would have to advise me of your preferred meeting location if I am to accomodate your request.Bdell555 18:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Some points in no particular order. Yes, I think the Britannica cite is highly POV because it is not a citation of facts, it is a citation of subjective opinion that doesn’t mention any facts. No, I don’t think the article needs a neutrality tag. I have yet to hear any coherent argument suggesting that the article is not balanced. Matter of fact, I think it’s a great article. Regarding the nasty turn this discussion has taken, DC, I am reminded of an old saying, “If you wrestle with a pig, you get dirty and the pig has fun.” Full disclosure, I have some German Jewish ancestry. Joegoodfriend 15:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

When Britannica says the evidence is "strong", it does not present that statement as its "subjective opinion" but as a "fact". Perhaps you have found a "In the opinion of this encylopedia" clause that I have not. It does not bother you that this "great article" is not consistent with any hard copy encyclopedia out there? Simply out of curiosity, I would ask when it was that you discovered I was "pig", Joegoodfriend, but I do not think it would be a conscientious use of this Wiki provided forum to use it to follow-up on such a question that is so far off the purpose of discussing the Wiki article.Bdell555 18:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you really have no concept of the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion? "George Washington was President of the U.S." is an objective fact. "There is strong evidence that Washington was a good President" is a subjective opinion." Also, I think this article is quite consistent with other encyclopedias, such as Encarta[3] which discusses the evidence without trying to reach an over-arching conclusion. Finally, I do not feel that my metaphorical statment should be construed as suggesting that you are a pig. I would not insult pigs in this manner. Joegoodfriend 20:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Why, then, is the "subjective opinion" that the "evidence" is "controversial" being claimed here? I see no support in Encarta, or elsewhere, for this prominently featured summary conclusion re the preponderance of evidence. I removed that unsupported, unsourced, "subjective opinion" and yet it keeps coming back in. There is more support for the objective fact that Hiss was a Soviet spy (while acknowledging the existence of a dissent). The Encarta article moreover does not seem to be current as it makes no reference to the VENONA decrypts. In any case, the larger issue here is that no published encyclopedia out there gives as much time and space to Hiss apologists as this article does. Finally, if you don't think DCGeist is "wrestling" with ME then you must think he is wrestling with himself, but that would imply that you think DCGeist is a "pig"! Just because he calls me names does not mean we should be calling him names, and claiming Jewish ancestry does not, by that fact alone, justify such behaviour, any more than I would be entitled to be outraged by people who admire a spy for Stalin because one of my relatives died in Stalin's gulags.Bdell555 00:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The typewriter conspiracy theory

Please state the rationale for removing factual information from the article. 65.185.190.240 01:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough request. But you--please refrain from glibly and inaccurately tossing around the word "vandalism," particularly in edit summaries. An edit based on difference of opinion is not vandalism. In addition, someone participating anonymously, like yourself, should be considerably more humble about policing Wikipedia contributions.—DCGeist 01:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I shall refrain from usage of such language if the opposing party does not inaccurately characterize factual information as "innuendo". 65.185.190.240 02:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the following sentence: However, both the FBI and the defense examiners had already concluded that the Baltimore documents had been typed by the Hiss machine by comparing the Baltimore documents to papers typed by the Hisses in the 1930s. The phrase about the FBI is repetition; it's established elsewhere in the article that FBI experts testified that the Baltimore documents were typed on the Hiss machine. The phrase including "the defense examiners" in the sentence suggests that Hiss's defense had completely (and, it is insinuated, irrevocably) confirmed and accepted that conclusion. In fact, by the time the apparent discrepancy around the serial numbers (referred to in the preceding sentence) came out, the defense had considerable evidence that the typewriter presented as being the one that formerly belonged to the Hisses was in fact a forgery. Therefor the sentence is inaccurate and misleading. The other removal I made was the word "eventually" from the sentence Chambers also produced in November four handwritten notes about military and intelligence matters which Hiss eventually acknowledged that he had written. This again relies on insinuation to suggest that Hiss admitted to writing these notes only after trying to dissemble on that point. That may in fact be the case, depending on the timing of when he admitted to writing the notes versus when he first examined them, and other facts. If it is the case, then it should be stated forthrightly, with references. Sneaking a POV word into the sentence is, well, POV. KarlBunker 02:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please help me out here. The paragraph in question may need a clarifying edit. Before the place where the controversial sentence appears/appeared--However, both the FBI and the defense examiners had already concluded that the Baltimore documents had been typed by the Hiss machine by comparing the Baltimore documents to papers typed by the Hisses in the 1930s--the last legal case mentioned is Hiss's "eventually unsuccessful libel lawsuit against Chambers"; the legal "defense" in question would thus logically be that of Chambers, not Hiss. The "defense examiners" in the controversial statement would thus be Chambers' team, not Hiss's. The point in question is significant: it concerns the association of the so-called Baltimore documents with Hiss by a means distinct from their comparison with samples produced by the typewriter entered into evidence and then much argued over. Did, in fact, examiners working on behalf of Chambers (or Hiss, for that matter, in the perjury case where he was on the defense) ever tie Hiss to the Baltimore documents by comparing them to papers inarguably typed by the Hisses in the 1930s?—DCGeist 02:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the paragraph is a mess. The issue around the serial numbers is jumping ahead to a time after both trials. The sentence beginning "This was seen as one of the weakest parts of the Chambers's story..." is unreferenced and not well supported by logic, IMO. The reference to "defense examiners" apparently refers to Hiss's defense, but that's out of place, as you point out. In answer to your question, the match of older documents typed by the Hisses to the Baltimore documents isn't really "distinct" from the possibly-forged typewriter. The theory of some Hiss advocates is that the FBI remanufactured a typewriter to match samples of old typed documents they had from the Hisses. This typewriter (the theory goes) was then used to create the Baltimore documents, which were then falsely claimed to be among the papers that Chambers had had in hiding for 10 years. KarlBunker 03:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Well then the controversial statement as it stands must either be cut, or moved and mightily rephrased.—DCGeist 03:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that, but it should be mentioned even if it is compatible with the "forgery by typewriter" theory. Perhaps it should be pointed out somewhere that it makes absolutely no sense for the FBI to plant a fake Woodstock for the defense(hiss) to find if the Hiss connection to the Baltimore docs was based largely on the comparison to the 1930s documents. 65.185.190.240 01:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't quite follow you, either here or in your article edit. I don't see what part of the theory doesn't make sense. I believe that, overall, it's a rather far-fetched theory, but I don't see any particular internal inconsistency to it. Your comment above seems to assume that the Baltimore documents were genuine, whereas it's part of the "forged typewriter" theory that these documents were fabricated for the purpose of incriminating Hiss. In your article edit you refer to the risk the FBI would be taking in planting a false typewriter for the defense to find, when the defense might have found the real typewriter at any moment, thus exposing the FBI's conspiracy. Both the FBI and the defense investigators were able to trace the movements of the typewriter after it left the Hiss household. It would have been simple for the FBI to get a step ahead of the defense investigators, and replace the actual typewriter with their forgery, destroying the real one to ensure it would never be found. KarlBunker 02:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That is completely false. Nowhere do I "assume" the Balt docs were genuine. My point is that if the FBI took the real typewriter before the defense found it there would be no reason to replace the typewriter with a fake one since Hiss was already tied to the Balt docs by the 30s papers. It would have made sense to destroy both typewriters so that the FBI could never be accused of forging the typewriter in the first place. 65.185.190.240 21:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I said your comment seemed to assume..." I also said I didn't understand what you're saying, and that was not a "false" statement. I think I understand you better now, but I still don't see how it's a valid point. If the FBI falsified the Baltimore documents, they would have had to have done so by remanufacturing a typewriter. Having done this, it would only make sense for them to then plant that typewriter where the defense would find it and take it as the real one.

As for the rest of your edit, "Remanufactured typewriter conspiracy theory" isn't a good section header. It's technically correct--it does describe a conspiracy theory, but it's unnecessarily inflammatory. The section currently titled "Freedom of Information Act evidence" could correctly be retitled "Documented lies and perjury by the FBI", but that would be unacceptable for the same reason. KarlBunker 00:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

On your first point, I reiterate that the FBI had no reason to plant a fake typewriter since Hiss was already tied to the documents by the 1930s papers. So even if the typewriter was not found it would not affect the evidence presented in the trial. Furthermore, if the defense found any inconsistencies between the fake and the original it could have unravelled the entire case. And the FBI would be criticized if information leaked out that it could make typewriters. So if the FBI made a fake typewriter it would "only have made sense" to destroy it and the original to avoid criticism in the first place.

But this is really a moot point. Documentary evidence in the FBI files indicate the reason that it was looking for the typewriter was to prevent the defense from hiding it and producing a fake one.

On your second point, the "typewriter" section is entirely a conspiracy theory invented by Alger Hiss himself and does not introduce any new evidence that the FOIA section does not have. 65.185.190.240 00:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Thanks for reiterating, but what I need is clarification. If Hiss was "already tied to the documents by the 1930s papers," is there something that establishes that this "tying" was done without the Baltimore documents being forged? What, or when, does "already" mean? As I said, the theory goes that the Baltimore documents were forged, before Chambers produced them publicly, using a typewriter that was remanufactured to match existing typewriting from the actual Hiss typewriter. Is there something in what you're presenting that makes that scenario impossible?
2. As for the section heading edit you want, you have not addressed the issue I raised about that. Would you consider it acceptable for the section currently titled "Freedom of Information Act evidence" to be retitled "Documented lies and perjury by the FBI"?
3. There is one other problem with your edit: It is very unclear, as evidenced by the fact that I'm still not sure I understand what you're trying to say, even after getting some clarification from you here on the discussion page, and even though I have some prior knowledge of the subject. Perhaps if you could name some source for this "take" on the typewriter forgery theory, I could look it up, come to a better understanding of it, and rewrite your paragraph to make it clear. KarlBunker 02:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I think you're misunderstanding me. Let's go through the scenario assuming that the Balt docs were forged on a FBI typewriter and the papers were given to Chambers. After analysis conducted by comparing the documents to papers typed by the Hisses in the 1930s, both the FBI and the defense concludes they were written by the same machine (without realizing forgery was possible). The defense goes off looking for the machine. The FBI cuts ahead of them and finds the machine first. Now, let's look at the situation: Hiss is already tied with sufficient evidence to the Baltimore documents. Thus, when the FBI finds the real typewriter it would make much more sense to not have replaced it with a fake one. Instead, the FBI should have secretly destroyed both typewriters to avoid any chance of the defense finding inconsistencies with the fake one. So while it is technically possible that the FBI could have replaced the typewriter, it would have had no good reason to do so.
2. Well, "Documented lies and perjury by the FBI" is a bit redundant since perjury means lying under oath. But I suppose one could title it "FBI-misconduct during the trial" if neccessary.
3. Generally I am following Weinstein's Perjury (1978).

65.185.190.240 00:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Phew. Thank you for that clarification. I think we're finally on the same page now. There is definitely some sense to what you say, and if I were J. Edgar Hoover in this situation, I'd certainly recommend that, as you say, both typewriters be destroyed. I don't agree that there would be "no reason" to take the risk of planting the fake one, however. Having the incriminating typewriter in the courtroom had a great impact on the trial. The prosecuting attorney in the second trial played up the typewriter itself (rather than the documents), calling it the "immutable witness", and stressing its importance even over that of Chambers himself. Anyway, my main misunderstanding until now is that I thought you were saying that there was something that made the forgery theory impossible or internally contradictory.

If & when I get to it, I'll look up this business in Perjury and see if I can come up with a good citation for the paragraph, and hopefully modify it to make it a little clearer in a way that will meet with your approval.

Thanks for your patience in sticking with this discussion. KarlBunker 02:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding today's change, is the John Dean accusation regarding the supposed admission to Colson by Nixon of typewriter forgery not worthy of continued inclusion? Thanks for your hard work. Joegoodfriend 22:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I mistakenly removed that bit. It's back now. Thanks for the kudos! KarlBunker 23:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed the title back to reflect what the typewriter conspiracy theorists obviously assert. That FBI agents reworked the typewriter in a conspiracy to frame Hiss. Hence the phrase, conspiracy theory. If this according to the theory was the work of one man, please explicitly say so in this section and give the name of this person if it is known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.216.216.222 (talk • contribs)

"Conspiracy theory" is a derogatory phrase that inserts POV. RedSpruce 10:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

81.216.216.222 has violated 3RR and should be blocked. Joegoodfriend 18:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The theory that the government was involved in a conspiracy is a conspiracy theory. If "conspiracy theory" is a "derogatory phrase that inserts POV" then remove it from the JFK assassination and 7/7 London bombing and other pages. In fact, every instance of the phrase should be removed from all Wikipedia pages if that is true. Alternatively, what contextual rules determine whether it "inserts POV" or not? In fact, if "theory" is used instead of "conspiracy theory", it implies that we should grant more credence to this theory than to other "conspiracy theories" involving the government. There is no basis to grant such credence. BTW, according to Wikipedia's entry for conspiracy theory, "[t]he term 'conspiracy theory' may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. To conspire means 'to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end.'"

Please block Joegoodfriend as he has violated the three revert rule.

Please stop reverting my edits.

The terms of the 3-revert rule can be read at the link given above. The important text is: An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Since you now no longer have the excuse that you didn't bother to click on the link, any repetition of your charge can only be an outright lie. Lying about another editor is a personal attack, and is prohibited by WP rules. RedSpruce 10:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I assumed that Joegoodfriend was doing the reverting. Since it doesnt look like they're going to block anyone for revert or good faith violations, I think whoever keeps reverting should talk about a title acceptable to us all. I realize that one man's conspiracy theorist is another man's corruption and tyranny-exposer and I certainly wouldn't put it past the FBI to pull a dirty trick like that against someone they were out to get. I changed it to "Typwriter speculation". Is that better?

No, it is not better. As for the idea that the subject heading should be "acceptable to us all," perhaps after the editor has reviewed 3RR, and also learned how to check page histories so as to avoid making false accusations, the editor could also review consensus to learn something about editing policies here. Joegoodfriend 15:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I never said the title "should be acceptable to us all". Read the first clause of that sentence. I meant as a practical matter to avoid having to revert ad infinitum (no more than 3 times a day now). I don't wish to be disruptive, I honestly disagree with you. It's a little frustrating to be reverted repetitively without any debate (from anyone doing the reverting). Also, I would think it's against Wikipedia policy (I can't cite the subsection) to have my (substantive) comments deleted. My "false accusation" (of a petty rule violation) does not mean your version is correct and mine is a mischaracterization. If there's a dispute, isn't there some process for resolving it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.216.216.222 (talk) 16:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

"what contextual rules determine whether it "inserts POV" or not?" is a valid question. The de facto rule seems to be that if an editor who isn't in a grossly disproportionate minority says something is POV, then it's POV. Regarding the use of "conspiracy theory" with regard to the JFK assassination etc., that's also a valid point. In such cases, the use of the term "conspiracy theory" is widely practiced by the majority of authors writing on the subject--often including those who themselves advocate a conspiracy theory. If you could demonstrate that a majority of authors on the Hiss case refer to the remanufactured typewriter theory in this way, I think you'd have a valid case for using that phrase here. Without that attribution, the section heading without the word conspiracy is clearly more neutral.

As a final point, if an editor is clearly ignoring consensus and reverting continuously just as a way of voicing protest, WP Admin.s aren't required to "allow" that editor 3 reverts in 24 hours before blocking. RedSpruce 17:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to return to the phrases, "I think whoever keeps reverting should talk about a title acceptable to us all," and "It's a little frustrating to be reverted repetitively without any debate."

The editor proceeds from a false assumption. That is, that he can make any change he chooses to existing text, and it's up to anyone who reverts that change to debate him at length. On the contrary, it is up to the editor who wants to change a long-standing consensus regarding existing text to build a new consensus before a change is made (and not to belittle the rules of Wikipedia, and accuse others of bad faith). Joegoodfriend 18:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess it's the word theory that bugs me (and lends credence where none is deserveed). Is a consensus of people really sure that conjecture about a typewriter merits the unqualified word "theory" (never mind a section in the entry, for that matter)? You're not talking about science here, after all. It hardly looks to me like a particularly complicated system of thought. And how exactly do you test this "theory" and what results of these test(s) would constitute its falsification? For all you how will site rules, look here: theory (Section 6,4)

Oleg Gordievsky section

User:BernardZ has a problem with this section, but I'm not sure what it is. The article states:

His cited source was journalist Thomas Powell, who had seen National Security Agency documents on Venona years before their release.

and the source given in the WP article states:

Gordievsky got his information not from Soviet files or from former Soviet colleagues but from American journalist Thomas Powers, who had seen National Security Agency documents on Venona years before their release.

The cited source also states that this issue with Gordievsky's source was sufficient for Allen Weinstein to publish a letter to the New York Review of Books stating that his earlier characterization of Gordievsky's claim as "collateral evidence" was incorrect. Could you expand on your issue here, BernardZ? KarlBunker 02:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to see this New York Review retraction. In a recent interview Allen Weinstein stated that Hiss was guilty so he obviously has not changed his mind.

Now the fact the Oleg cites many people including Thomas Powell. It means nothing. Many of his cites did know state secrets. That does not prove he knew them all or even some. Oleg Gordievsky claim in his book is that he once attended a secret lecture at which Akhmerov "mentioned Hiss" in the context of discussing wartime agents in the U.S. For your claim to be true you need a credible source to show that Thomas Powell knew the relevant Venona documents on this detail and not just in vague detail and that he told Oleg, then that Oleg lied about this lecture and then for some reason said this lie. Please present your proof.

For the time being I will take it out until you come up with something. BernardZ 15:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not "my claim," it's the claim of the cited source: Jeff Kisseloff, editor of "The Alger Hiss Story" web site. Although this site generally uses very well documented content, it's also a site with a clear POV stance on the issue of Alger Hiss, so I'll look for a corroborating reference. KarlBunker 15:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(Later). It appears that the section is/was correct but incomplete. As discussed in Weinstein's letter to New York Review here, Gordievsky's identification of Hiss with the codename Ales was based on a Thomas Powers article rather than his own knowledge, and as Weinstein says, "adds nothing to the VENONA evidence." A separate issue, however, is Gordievsky's recollection of "a lecture to a KGB audience [given] by Akhmerov, who mentioned Hiss among Soviet agents in the United States." So for completeness, the Gordievsky section should be expanded to mention this separate allegation of Gordievsky's. Because these two issues are separate, there is no accusation that Gordievsky "lied," only that Weinstein misinterpreted some of what he said. KarlBunker 16:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Later still. Here is my proposed rewrite of the section. Let me know if you see any problem with it:

Hiss was also identified as a Soviet agent in 1988 by Oleg Gordievsky, a high ranking KGB agent who defected to the West in 1985. Gordievsky reported attending a lecture before a KGB audience in which Iskhak Abdulovich Akhmerov identified Hiss as one of the U.S. agents who had been under his control during World War II.

In his 1990 book, Gordievsky also appeared to corroborate that Hiss had the codename identity of "ALES" (at a time before the Venona cables were revealed to the public), but it was later learned that Gordievsky's source for the ALES codename was an article by journalist Thomas Powell, who had seen National Security Agency documents on Venona years before their release.

KarlBunker 17:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that and thanks for tracking down the facts so well and fast BernardZ 00:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please checkout p287 KGB: The Inside Story, by Oleg Gordievsky, p.287 "Early in his career in the KGB, while working in FCD Directorate S, Gordievsky attended a lecture in the Lubyanka given by Akhmerov, by then silver-haired and in his sixties. Akhmerov mentioned [Alger] Hiss only briefly. The main subject of his

Now Gordievsky's claim here no one challenges. That what I was trying to say.

BernardZ 02:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made (and restored by RV) the following changes:

I inserted "apparently" to "identified, [apparently] as one of the Soviet Union's U.S. agents". The reason for this is clear in the footnote I added; when relating his own personal knowledge, Gordievsky devotes only a 5-word sentence to Hiss, saying "Akhmerov mentioned Hiss only briefly." The footnote gives this sentence and some of the surrounding text for context. There would seem little reason for Hiss to be mentioned other than as a Soviet agent, but the word "agent" is not used by Gordievsky, so putting it in the article text without qualification wouldn't be right. Furthermore, part of this context refers to Harry Hopkins. Here Gordievsky does use the word "agent", but as the rest of the reference shows, he later, in effect, takes back the word, saying that Hopkins was "never a conscious Soviet agent." This diversion about Harry Hopkins may seem irrelevant at first glance, but I felt it was needed for two reasons: First, to further justify the word "apparently." It shows that even when Gordievsky does use the word "agent" his use of the word is vague. Second, having mentioned Harry Hopkins for context, I didn't want to leave the incorrect impression that he is "known" to be a Soviet agent. KarlBunker 13:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that Gordievsky is quite specific that Hiss is an agent but I can see your point. Let us leave it as is. BernardZ 05:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

OK, I have a question for the keepers of this article: what amount evidence is required in order to state flatly that Hiss was a Soviet agent? His name was found in the Soviet archives!

In order to declare that Hiss was innocent, one must assume that Chambers, the FBI, the NSA, Weinstein, Vassiliev, and presumably the Czech and Soviet archives were all lying. If those assumptions are good enough to leave Hiss's guilt in doubt then we can not declare any person to be guilty of anything anywhere. 65.185.190.240 23:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where was Hiss's name found in the Soviet Archives? Please be more specific. Joegoodfriend 00:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I presume that you are referring to Anatoly Gorsky’s report to General Savchenko, SVR file 43173 vol. 2v. Hiss’s name appears in the document under the heading “Carl’s Group,” “Carl,” of course, referring to Whitaker Chambers.

First of all, as to whether this report actually names Hiss, we have only the claim of Alexander Vassiliev, who was given exclusive access to the Archives along with Allen Weinstein. Furthermore, Vassiliev has told contradictory stories as to the circumstances under which he made his notes of the documents.

Second, the “Carl’s List” section of the document contains a number of contradictions regarding the names and covers of various agents, and it is just as likely that Gorsky was using for his memo a mixture of names and information that could have been taken from Whittaker Chambers' story as he told it publicly rather than actual documentation of the activities of agents available to Gorsky. [4] Joegoodfriend 19:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't just that particlar memo which names Hiss, and some guy's theory that the KGB relied off of public statements by Chambers should not exclude the possibility. The point of the matter is that most of the evidence leans toward Hiss's guilt and it should be reflected in the article, with a section about conspiracy theories concerning the FBI, NSA, Chambers, Gorksy, Weinstein, and Vasiliev.

Nobody can win with the Hiss defenders. They want everybody to believe that even though almost everybody named by Chambers was indeed a spy, Hiss was not. Chambers was just a gay psycho. And if Hiss's typewriter matched the Baltimore documents, then the FBI remanufactured it. And if Hiss is named by the KGB as a Soviet source, it is because the KGB was incredibly incompetent in writing it's own memo. 65.185.190.240 00:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you honestly want to debate the evidence in the context of the article, or do you want to waste words hurling a lot of invective about about how dumb or dishonest Hiss's defenders are? What evidence, exactly, that points toward Hiss's guilt is not already reflected in the article? And it doesn't take a conspiracy for one man to lie, others to believe him, someone to make some error-ridden notes on the case and historians to reach the wrong conclusions. Granted the idea that the typewriter was manufactured by the FBI is a conspiracy theory, but this is already reflected fully in the article. Joegoodfriend 03:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well first of all there's the memo which continues to be removed for no reason. Even if you believe that the memo was made based on Chambers's testimony, it deserves a mention. Then there's the other archival evidence in The Haunted Wood which also is not mentioned. The deceptions comitted by Hiss during the trial are missing too.

But I pose the question once again: what amount of evidence is required for us to declare that the available evidence at least tends to point toward Hiss's guilt? 65.185.190.240 23:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Re the memo you refer to: Do you mean this? As it stands, this is nothing more that a list of names that includes Hiss. Some indication of what this list is based on is needed to give it some worth. The heading of "Alexander Vassiliev’s Own Translation of his Notes on Anatoly Gorsky’s December 1948 Memo..." is hardly enlightening. If this is a valid and important piece of evidence, there must be some better reference to it somewhere. Likewise, if there's relevant material from The Haunted Wood that should be added, please add it, with references.

As to your question: it's the wrong question. It isn't the job of Wikipedia to declare a "winner." WP is supposed to present the facts and reliably sourced arguments in a balanced way and leave it at that. In some extreme cases (flat earth, to use an old chestnut), WP may state that "most scholars agree...", but that's the exception. It's always better to say something inarguable like "John Doe was convicted of..." rather than "John Doe was guilty of..." The actual conviction is supposed to happen in a court, not in Wikipedia. RedSpruce 02:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you actually trying to say that Alexander Vassiliev did not transcribe that memo and that it was made up? I will not argue with such nonsense. The source is there. If other people think that the KGB was incompetent or that Vassiliev is a liar, put it in there.

I'm not asking to declare a winner. I'm asking to end the shell game which pretends that valid points are made by both sides when they aren't.

With regard to VENONA, your behavior is utterly unacceptable. I provided a source for my information, and unlike yourself, tried to add details to enhance the reader's understanding of the topic instead of removing info I did not like. Do not remove it again. 65.185.190.240 23:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Several editors repeatedly remove the infobox installed, here I will explain why I put an infobox on it, and why we need it:

1. He was convicted of a crime, so he fit the definition of a "criminal" and one of the Wikiproject WP:CRIME's goal is clearly to add an infobox to articles about convicted criminals. See other biographies such as Kenneth Lay, Charles Manson, Julius Rosenberg, etc.
2. An infobox clearly help a reader get a summary of the biography.

Please reinstate the infobox, thank you!

--Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 20:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at other pages referenced, the editor makes a pretty good argument. I am not opposed to the change, although I think it's better that criminal charges which might theoretically have been brought but for the statute of limitations be left out. Joegoodfriend 20:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem with a "criminal" infobox: let's look at the four examples we have. All four persons were, verifiably, convicted of crimes. However, the primary definition of "criminal" (n.) in Webster's is not "a person who has been convicted of a crime," but "one who has committed a crime." That accords with my perception of how most people tend to understand the term. Since their convictions, there has never been any serious debate over whether or not Manson and Lay committed the crimes of which they were convicted. After Rosenberg's conviction and execution, there was a serious debate over whether he was, in fact--rather than by law--a criminal. That debate has been resolved; there is a clear consensus that he committed crimes similar, if perhaps not identical, to the ones of which he was convicted. There is a continuing debate, and no clear consensus, over whether Alger Hiss was in fact a criminal. As a result, I believe a "criminal" infobox is inappropriate in his case, at least at this time.—DCGeist 21:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Another problem is the question of what Alger Hiss is primarily known for. He isn't primarily known as a "convicted perjurer". (And it should have gone without saying that speculating on what the charge might have been if not for the statute of limitations is grossly inappropriate.) Also, it isn't--or certainly shouldn't be-- the case that every WP biography of a person with a criminal conviction in his/her past gets one of these "criminal infoboxes." To use such a thing is to state that the person in question is, first, last and above all, a criminal. I submit that there might just possibly be a teensy amount of POV insertion involved there. RedSpruce 22:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. He's primarily known as an accused spy. For the time being, if any infobox is to be used, it should be a straight Biography infobox. If a consensus ever develops that Hiss was, in fact, involved in espionage, a Spy infobox (yet to be created) would be an arguable alternative; the Criminal infobox just isn't appropriate in this case.—DCGeist 23:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Article needs lots of work

This article is very confusing. It is reasonably understandable until it gets into the back and forth business about Hiss' possible guilt or innocence. Then it starts to get really difficult, twisty and in a way, boring (because it is harder to follow). There seems to be a conflation of issues -- questions dealing with whether Hiss was mistreated regarding his rights at trial (as he alleged) are intermixed with issues of his guilt or innocence a spy. The two are not the same thing but they get conflated. All-in-all, the article reads as though advocates for Hiss have gone pretty far to present evidence in his favor, but in a piecemeal basis and with some redundancy, lack of cites and perhaps with NPOV problems. The article could stand a serious re-write. --Blue Tie 11:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream published references to ongoing controversy

These attempts to deny the well-known, ongoing controversy over Hiss's guilt or innocence are pretty feeble. Here are just three references, all since 1997:

"The controversy over Hiss has been compared to France's celebrated Dreyfus case. Dreyfus, however, was exonerated after a relatively short time, while the Hiss case has been going on now for over half a century." (p. 37)

and

"[I]t looks like--until definitive documentation appears from the files of the Soviet military intelligence (separate from the KGB)--that the Hiss-Chambers saga is going to continue to attract fresh debate." (pp. 35-36) (Cultural Foundations of Political Psychology, Paul Roazen [Transaction Books, 2003])

"To this day, the guilt or innocence of Alger Hiss is still debated." (p. 261) (AP U.S. History, Stephen Armstrong [McGraw-Hill, 2003])

"The controversy that the [Hiss] case can still generate makes understandable the passions it aroused a half-century ago" (p. 97) (Nixon, Iwan W. Morgan [Oxford University Press, 2002])

Like the man said, Case closed.—DCGeist 00:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)