Talk:Alger Hiss/Archive 4

verifying the hotel room and adding material

The following article seems to be at variance with a few items in the Wikipedia article. http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/spies/hiss/5.html constructive The confrontation with Chambers was not in a hotel room (as per here) but in the HUAC chambers. Is the article at the url above to be considered reliable? TMLutas 20:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've read a lot of the articles on crimelibrary.com. I've found that on controversial cases it likes to come down very strongly on one side of the other, but I would call it a reliable source. Joegoodfriend 20:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Perjury describes the first confrontation in great detail, saying that it occurred on August 17 in room 1400 of the Commodore Hotel. The crimelibrary.com article doesn't specifically say (unless I missed it) that the first meeting took place in HUAC chambers, only that "On this August 17 hearing, Whittaker Chambers himself was there". RedSpruce 11:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

How is 'Hiss readmitted to bar' not a partial exoneration?

Although Hiss was convicted for perjury, his conviction was understood to be treason, but he could not be convicted of treason because of the statute of limitations. Would the Massachusetts Supreme Court readmit traitor Hiss to the bar because of his good conduct, or because it was an attempt to correct a miscarriage of justice? Therefore, the readmittance of Hiss to the bar should be seen as a partial exoneration. Blindjustice 18:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No doubt some consider it a partial exoneration; and no doubt others consider it a misguided over-reaction to Watergate, which caused some to decide that anything Richard Nixon was involved in must have been crooked. Both views are opinions. RedSpruce 00:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The fallacy that it's a partial exoneration is why I put in the bit about what readmittances are and are not. In a procedure that explicitly claims not to examine guilt or innocence, how can readmittance be exoneration, whether partial or complete? I understand why you took my edits out if you're taking out the claim of exoneration, the two should be together or not at all. TMLutas 01:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Stating coram nobis opinions as facts

The coram nobis stuff is going beyond the pale again. It's a fact that the FBI did not reveal that some FBI agents knew how to modify a typewriter to make good forgeries of a known machine. It is opinion that their action in doing so was illegal. we could go around for another round of mass changes but maybe just a revert would be better? Even as partisanship, it's sloppy because the sources are much more careful than the article text, laying out facts but not going so far as to justify a libel suit. TMLutas 22:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that there's any danger of a "libel suit" -- Wikipedia only seems to be concerned about that when specifically named living persons are involved. However, I agree that the earlier version, where the points about illegal government misconduct aren't presented as facts, is more accurate. RedSpruce 11:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad you agree. On a tangent, I don't think that Wikipedia can be said to have an opinion in the singular sense on matters of libel. Rather there's a preponderance of editors who have an opinion and a great honking big bit of law that's just waiting for an attorney with time on his hands to define. TMLutas 18:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Top secret evidence in the news

One of the recurring fights on this page is the assertion as settled fact that it's illegal for the government to withhold the existence and the results of intelligence surveillance. It is not settled fact but a matter of some controversy even today. There is a modern case going on right now covering this exact issue Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. George W. Bush that's going before the 9th circuit. So at least until the Supremes rule on this can we have a vacation on the idea that what the government did on this front is without doubt misconduct? TMLutas 17:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Separately, I discovered that there is a wikipedia article that talks about the relevant privilege, the state secrets privilege. TMLutas 17:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The Nye Committee

Would it be irresposible to mention that the Nye committee found that bankers pressured Wilson into WW1 to protect their interests as a reason researchers suspect Hiss was framed? 65.44.144.18 22:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Since this theory is far from being widely-known, much less widely-accepted, I'd say it isn't appropriate for this article. Out of personal curiosity, however, I'd be interested if you know of anyone who has written such a theory. RedSpruce 01:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hiss' early family life

A very common feature of early life biographies is to mention siblings, even non-notable ones. Birth order, the presence of brothers and sisters, what their names were are staples of biography. Rereading the article, it struck me that there's very little about Hiss' family, just his mother and father and one brother who also was accused of espionage for the Soviets. Did Hiss have any other brothers and any sisters? TMLutas 01:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Did a bit of work and found this here:

Father: (d. suicide when Hiss was two)
Sister: Mary Ann (d. suicide, drinking cleanser)
Brother: Bosley (d. Bright's disease)
Wife: Priscilla Fansler Hobson (m. 1930)
Brother: Donald Hiss

Can anybody imagine a scenario where 2 suicides and a brother's death wouldn't profoundly affect the man? TMLutas 01:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this bio information should be added. I'll do it over the next few days, unless someone else does it first. RedSpruce 10:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I took a first stab at it. I grouped the suicides and then Bosley's disease but didn't want to start off with the gory details (Mary Ann's suicide method and Bosley's disease exacerbation due to drink). Are those relevant to a proper understanding of the man or is it just prurient? TMLutas 18:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not even close to Wikipedia's best Separate Trials Page Discussion

There is so much lacking in this article and it's so full of POV distortions on both sides I just wonder why it isn't deleted. At the very least I think there should be a separate page for the trials and all the attendent conspiracy theories/smears etc. There are a number of people involved with the trial who have their own pages (most notably Whittaker Chambers whose pages could benefit from a "see also" link. There is sufficient precedence on other pages to do this for this article.Including it as "biography" just seems futile since a determined lunatic fringe will forever be fighting their petty ideological battles here. Awotter 00:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you know what's even more deserving of deletion? It's discussion threads that attack the text while contributing nothing to improve the article, or provide any examples of their POV claims.Joegoodfriend 00:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I proposed a separate page for the trials and all the attendant conspiracy theories/smears etc. Thanks for the reasoned and detailed response why I or someone else shouldn't be working on that and for assuming I'm not. As to POV bias and just sloppy and inaccurate and uninformative material I'd be hard pressed to know where to start on this article, but just to cheer you up I'm going to add a page and material on Priscilla Hiss the Bryn Mawr graduate, author, Socialist party member and a major defense witness currently with no Wiki article and identified solely as Hiss's wife and a "schoolteacher" Awotter 06:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Um...nothing you said there indicates this lovely woman is even close to meriting her own encyclopedia article. But if you want to expend your energy on something that will be swiftly deleted, more power to you.—DCGeist 06:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The articles a mess, it doesn't come close to meeting Wiki standards and from the responses to my criticism(s) (and to others) not ever likely to be held up as a model of Wiki community behavior. When I do make appropriate suggestions and or changes or contribute and you delete it out of hand as you are threating, well more power to you also. She's (Priscilla Hiss) a historical figure by the way who played a more important role in the trial than 99 percent of what passes for inclusion in this article and is far more relevant than the 100,000 athletes, rappers and other such types added daily it seems to Wikipedia. Awotter 07:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh...my. That's a sharply reasoned (and exquisitely spelled) response. I guess you'll have everyone convinced--including them durn rapper types!—DCGeist 07:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Awotter, you've said in various ways that there are a lot of things wrong with this article, but you haven't named anything specific. So I think people are justified in saying you aren't engaging in constructive criticism. You've said that it would be an improvement to make a separate article about the Hiss trials, etc., but you haven't said why this would be an improvement. Alger Hiss has no notability apart from the espionage charges, so I don't see how this would be appropriate. Similarly, Priscilla Hiss has no notability in her own right. DCGeist wasn't "threatening" to delete such an article, he was making a well-educated guess that it would be deleted. WP has standards of notability for article subjects (see Wikipedia:Notability), and there are many editors who patrol new articles to enforce those standards. RedSpruce 14:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Alger Hiss has no notability beyond the perjury trials? Oh please. That's just silly as is the comment about Priscilla Harriet Fansler Hobson Hiss. In addition to being married to Hiss(a major defense witness in his trials) her prior marriage was to one of the more influential publishers in America. She was in her own right an author (and Carnegie Foundation grant award winner), editor, social activist and community board member. My main objection to this article is that what could be an outstanding source of objective material(s) relating to one of the most notable person in modern American political history instead appears to be a catch all for every nutbag theory based on information on biased and un-scholarly website on the web (pro and con Hiss)relating to the perjury trials. I'm sometimes too prickly for my own good, but I will take some time to study what makes good Wiki consensus and then work with-in that framework to make this article better. Awotter 00:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh please, indeed! Among other things, Alger Hiss was Secretary-General of the United Nations' founding Conference in San Francisco in 1945. There are a ton of sources to the effect that his role in the UN's founding was key.Bdell555 (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Stuff

To try to make make this article a little a little less obviously POV, we should probably make a separate section for statements cited from Tony Hiss' NYU website, like the separate section for Weinstein's Perjury, perhaps with a sub-category for Lowenthal, like the ones for the Soviet archives, Venona, Weyl, Field, etc.

As a start, I will try identifying Lowenthal and the statements cited to him in the text. Mark LaRochelle 07:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

To get agreement on that, you would first have to establish that this article "obviously POV." Since no one has complained about that for months, there doesn't seem to be widespread agreement on that count.

Second, essentially all the sources cited in this article could be identified as "pro-Hiss" or "anti-Hiss." I don't see how it's appropriate or useful to add identifying tags to each such source, and it's obviously inappropriate and POV to add tags only to some "pro-Hiss" sources.

Currently, most of the sections in the article denote some significant source of information on the Hiss case, or some significant event in the history of the case. Weinstein's Perjury was a very significant event in how the case is perceived, and that's why it has its own section.

RedSpruce 10:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was a current issue. The last post before mine, time-stamped 00:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC) seems to raise POV issues on both sides.

I am persuaded by the evidence submitted that the courts were correct in upholding Hiss's conviction, so I may be biased. But it appears to me that there are other editors involved who are just as persuaded that the courts were wrong. I am content to let them label the sources they perceive as "pro-Hiss" or "anti-Hiss" with accurate, verifiable descriptions attributed to reliable sources, as I attempted to do for Hiss's attorneys and relatives although, as I suggested, I imagine the article would look more even-handed (to me, anyway) if Lowenthal and Tony Hiss were treated the same way as Venona, the Soviet archives, Nathaniel Weil, and Noel Field, with their own sub-sections.

In any event, your continued use of the revert function for purposes for which its use is expressly prohibited is a violation of WP:EP. As I have demonstrated this by by citing chapter and verse to you previously here, you cannot plead ignorance of this policy. In the interest of keeping your constructive editorial input around, I am giving you a chance to undo this revert. If you do so, I will not report your recurring violations of WP:EP for Adiministrator intervention at this time. Mark LaRochelle 13:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's my understanding that inserting POV into an article is a wrong, and removing POV is right. If I'm mistaken about that and you can find an admin who will correct my misimpression, please do so.

"Flagging" every source that's used in an article as pro-something, anti-something, left-of-center, right-of-center, etc. isn't acceptable, because it's inevitably POV. Likewise attempting to undermine the credibility of a source by noting that it's being reprinted on a website that was the "brainchild of Hiss's son Tony" is POV, just as it would be POV to note that the publisher of another source article is "heavily funded by right-wing lobbying groups" or whatever. I explained the rational behind the current article format above. Your alternative seems to be to take information that you don't like and put it into separate sections; I don't see how that will make the article more neutral. RedSpruce 13:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

To note a specific problem with an edit of yours that I reverted:

According to Jeff Kisselof, the Managing Editor of a website that is largely the brainchild of Hiss's son Tony, Chambers gave varying dates for the time when he broke with the Communist party;

This is plain silly, and not just in its attempt to undermine the credibility of the source. There is essentially no source whatsoever that denies that Chambers gave varying dates for when he broke with the Communist party; it's a matter of public record. You might as well say "According to the New York Times (a newspaper described as "rabidly liberal" by several noted pundits), the U.S is currently engaged in an armed conflict in Iraq." RedSpruce 14:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And BTW, your most recent edit jumbles the facts somewhat. Chambers "produced" 65 typewritten documents, 43 of which would later be said to pertain to Hiss. And the handwritten memoranda weren't "copies of State Department documents", they were summaries of documents. This wouldn't be a big deal, except that the the number 65 appears elsewhere in the article, so the apparently conflicting numbers are confusing. So overall, the edit is both confusing and repetition of material already in the article. RedSpruce 18:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

RedSpruce--

You state: “It's my understanding that inserting POV into an article is a wrong, and removing POV is right.”

“It’s my understanding” is not good enough. Wikipedia has an actual editing policy. WP:EP says, “Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of deleting, try to: rephrase, correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content, move text within an article or to another article (existing or new), add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced, request a citation by adding the {{Fact}} tag.” Nowhere does it list revert.

WP:EP lists the exceptions to the imperative to “Preserve information.” These are duplication or redundancy, irrelevancy, patent nonsense, copyright violations, and inaccuracy. WP:EP nowhere lists POV as an exception to the mandate to preserve information. Nor does WP:POV.

I cited these passages for you here. You apologized there, but then reverted my edit here without prior discussion. I offered you an opportunity to undo that revert without escalation here, but you declined to do so. I am therefore submitting this dispute for WP:30.

WP:NPOVFAQ states:

"The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to remove text that is perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?"

"In many cases, yes. Many editors believe that bias is not in itself reason to remove text, because in some articles all additions are likely to express bias. Instead, material that balances the bias should be added, and sources should be found per WP:V…."

Even in cases of inaccuracy, WP:EP says “attempt to correct the misinformation or discuss the problems first before deletion.”

You failed to do that before reverting here, or here, here, here, here, here, here, here,…. Well, you get the point: This is not the first time you have flouted these policies and guidelines.

You state: “‘Flagging’ every source that's used in an article as pro-something, anti-something, left-of-center, right-of-center, etc. isn't acceptable, because it's inevitably POV.”

I agree that such “flagging” is counterproductive. That is why I have not flagged anything as pro-something, anti-something, left-of-center, right-of-center, etc. (unlike you, who reverted accurate, verifiable citations here on the basis of unsubstantiated POV “flagging” of exactly the sort you decry, in talk here and here.

You state that “attempting to undermine the credibility of a source by noting that it's being reprinted on a website that was the 'brainchild of Hiss's son Tony' is POV, just as it would be POV to note that the publisher of another source article is 'heavily funded by right-wing lobbying groups' or whatever."

I agree that name-calling like “right wing” or “left wing” is counterproductive, which is why I do not engage in the practice (unlike you, who reverted accurate, verifiable citations here on precisely this basis here). However, if a source being cited is heavily funded by lobbyists, I would want to know that information. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the source is unreliable, but if it is accurate and verifiable information, cited to a reliable source, I would want to know the identities of the donors. I cannot understand why you would want to censor such information. I am interested in third party opinions on this point.

You have reference to a passage that read (before my edits, which you deleted here):

“Chambers gave varying dates for the time when he broke with the Communist party; a point that was to prove important in his accusations against Hiss. For nine years, between September 1, 1939 and November 17, 1948, Chambers on more than two dozen occasions swore or stated that he had left the Party in 1937. The 1938 Party-leaving date only emerged on November 17, 1948, when, for the first time, Chambers swore that he had repeatedly been lying for the previous nine years. It was at that moment that Chambers first produced copies of State Department documents that he said Hiss had given him; the documents were dated 1938.[5]”

The information was attributed in then-footnote 5 to a web page by Jeff Kisseloff. The tagline on the page reads, “Jeff Kisseloff is Managing Editor of 'The Alger Hiss Story' Web site….”

“The Alger Hiss Story’ Web site is located at http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/. The New York Times reports that the site “is largely the brainchild of Hiss's son Tony.” It adds that New York University, where Hiss’s son works, “asked Tony Hiss to use a different Web address to designate it more clearly as a personal site rather than an academic one. The spokesman, John Beckman, said that the university felt that the old address, www.nyu.edu/hiss, suggested that the site was sponsored by the university.”

The words “personal site” are highly relevant: WP:RS says:

“Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. They may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, but such use is discouraged…”

WP:SPS adds:

“Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.[5]

“Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.”

The Times goes on to quote Columbia University historian David Greenberg saying, “I don't think anyone is going to treat this site as the repository of truth, except for those who have already made up their minds that Hiss was innocent.”

(Contrary to your implication, the web page cited gives no indication that it was “reprinted” from any reliable source. If it was, you might do better to cite that source, rather than a web page on a “personal site.”)

My edit read:

“According to Jeff Kisseloff, the Managing Editor[1] of a website that is largely the brainchild of Hiss's son Tony,[2] Chambers gave varying dates for the time when he broke with the Communist party; a point that was to prove important in his accusations against Hiss. For nine years, between September 1, 1939 and November 17, 1948, Chambers on more than two dozen occasions swore or stated that he had left the Party in 1937. The 1938 Party-leaving date only emerged on November 17, 1948, when, for the first time, Chambers swore that he had repeatedly been lying for the previous nine years. It was at that moment that Chambers first produced copies of State Department documents that he said Hiss had given him; the documents were dated 1938.[3]”

Footnote [1] attributed the identification “Jeff Kisselhof, the Managing Editor of a website” to the Kisselhof web page cited as the source of this attack on Chambers’ credibility, the tagline of which reads, “Jeff Kisseloff is Managing Editor of 'The Alger Hiss Story' Web site….” Footnote [2] attributed the identification “that is largely the brainchild of Hiss's son Tony” to the New York Times, which reports that the website “is largely the brainchild of Hiss's son Tony.”

You do not challenge that my edit was accurate and verifiable. If we disagree about its neutrality, suffice it to say that citing a “personal site” as if it were a reliable source (despite the admonition in WP:RS that “such use is discouraged”), and censoring accurate, verifiable information about it, is very far indeed from neutral.

You state, “Your alternative seems to be to take information that you don't like and put it into separate sections; I don't see how that will make the article more neutral.” You do not explain how your alternative — to revert any post that contains any information you don’t like — makes the article more neutral.

Actually, I don't care whether the statements attributed to Hiss's son and lawyer are put into separate sections, or the statements attributed to Venona, the Soviet archives, Nathaniel Weil, and Noel Field are taken out of their separate sections. My only concern is that whichever approach we choose, we apply it equally, so that sources that tend to support the courts and those that oppose them are treated even-handedly. A less lopsided handling of the prosecution and defense cases would enhance the credibility of this article, and of Wikipedia. Mark LaRochelle 00:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Calling an edit “plain silly” is hardly constructive. Better to point out what it is about the edit that you don’t like, and allow the community of Wikipedia editors to arrive at its own consensus regarding its silliness quotient.

You state: “There is essentially no source whatsoever that denies that Chambers gave varying dates for when he broke with the Communist party; it's a matter of public record.” If that is the case, why cite a source of a type that is explicitly warned against in WP:RS? Why not cite one of the multitudinous other sources that agree, but do not raise WP:RS issues? Better yet, why not cite that “public record” itself?

You state: “your most recent edit jumbles the facts somewhat. Chambers "produced" 65 typewritten documents, 43 of which would later be said to pertain to Hiss.” My edit read: “Chambers produced 43 typewritten documents and four handwritten memoranda,” and attributed this information to United States v Alger Hiss, 185 F. 2d 822, Second Circuit Court of Appeals, December 7, 1950, which states: “Mr. Chambers did produce on November 17, 1948, forty-three typewritten documents and four memoranda written with pencil.”

You write: “And the handwritten memoranda weren't ‘copies of State Department documents’, they were summaries of documents. This wouldn't be a big deal, except that the the number 65 appears elsewhere in the article, so the apparently conflicting numbers are confusing. So overall, the edit is both confusing and repetition of material already in the article."

I concede that your point here is irrefutable. Just one thing: the phrase “copies of State Department documents” was not written by me; whoever wrote it attributed it to Kisseloff on Tony Hiss’ personal site. If it is inaccurate, that is all the more reason to heed the WP:RS warning that such use of personal sites is discouraged.

Please stop abusing the revert function to censor accurate, verifiable information properly attributed to reliable sources. Do not use the revert function at all until you have discussed your proposed reverts on the talk page, as required by WP:EP. In fact, given your pattern of abuse, it might be wise for you to swear off reverts altogether for a while.

I like you, RedSpruce. I would like to keep you around. You have forced me to make my edits watertight, airtight and bulletproof, and Wikipedia articles benefit from that. But the system only works if we play by the rules. Undo this revert, and please cool it in the future.

Submitted to WP:30 for comment. Mark LaRochelle 22:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree completely. You say, "if a source being cited is heavily funded by lobbyists, I would want to know that information." Fine, do the research and find that out for yourself. This is an encyclopedia article on Alger Hiss, not a hyper-analysis on which historians cited in the article might be inherently biased.

Casting aspersions on sources this way is also a waste of words. If you can demonstrate that a citation of Kisseloff in the article is inadequate to support certain text because he is wrong on the facts or because the text in question in NPOV, then do so. If you can't, then you have no basis for altering the text.

Furthermore, you frame WP:EP as if it means that any editor can add anything to an article as long as it is factually accurate and doesn't violate any other policies. First of all, if that were the case, every article here would be book-length. Second, much of this article is based on consensus hammered out by editors over a period of years. To add controversial new text, you need to achieve consensus as well.

I support RedSpruce's edits. Joegoodfriend 00:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Joe. I agree that this article is too long. Important information is lost in a morass of trivia. I suspect that our only disagreement there is over how it should be tightened up. Banning the "paper of record" while leaning heavily on a personal website seems to turn WP:RS on its head. As for consensus, well, that is why I submitted this dispute for WP:3O. As WP:CON says, "Consensus is not immutable. It is reasonable, and sometimes necessary, for the community to change its mind." I trust the Wikipedia community to come to a reasonable consensus. Mark LaRochelle 01:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Very diplomatically stated. Perhaps most of the material on Perjury could be moved a separate article, given that the book is so well-known? Joegoodfriend 01:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you can get a consensus behind that. Sorry, but I am intrigued: If you discovered that a group being cited as a reliable source on the genetic basis of intelligence was secretly being funded by white-supremacist groups, would you really fight to censor that information from Wikipedia? How about a group being cited as a reliable source on smoking and lung cancer being secretly funded by Big Tobacco? As I said, I know it doesn't necessarily mean that they are an unreliable source, but is it totally irrelevant? Mark LaRochelle 01:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the questions you ask, the most analogous example I can find on wikipedia is the text on The American Association of Petroleum Geologists' statement that climate change may not be caused by man-made CO2 emissions [1]. It doesn't say anything about the fact that these geologists' careers and incomes are based largely on the work they do for oil companies, who are well-known for denying the scientific consensus on global warming. I would suggest that this is because that information, though useful, is not germane to an article on climate change, although it might be to an article on the AAPG itself.

I'm prepared to concede a point here, possibly it will allow you to effect the change you want. It IS the case that some articles include language that brings into question the accuracy, motivations, and agendas of sources cited to support text. You can find a number of these on articles related to JFK's assassination. Some of the "further discussion" of the sources found within the footnotes sections actually tends to contradict the sources themselves, or at least suggest a lack of objectivity. Practically every researcher and government source who has ever commented on the killing has been accused of error, bias, or misinformation at one time or another. These articles would be a tedious read indeed if their text explored all these accusations. Joegoodfriend 04:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was not trying to imply that since we allow accurate, verifiable identification of sources cited in other articles, we should allow it here; I was just curious to explore your thinking on the question. As I said, I am interested in third-party opinion on this particular point. My actual purpose her was to ask, if we avoid the use of such personal websites in other articles generally, as per WP:RS, why is this article such an exception? The question becomes more than academic in light of RedSpruce's own implication that this article's dependence on this particular site as if it were a reliable source is already responsible for misinformation and confusion being sown into Wikipedia. I thought it better to raise the issue in talk, as required by WP:EP, than to resort to deletion without discussion, which is some editors' preferred mode of operation. (Although in this case such high-handedness would at least have the virtue of upholding, rather than trampling WP:RS.) Mark LaRochelle 09:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark, Based on my brief scan of your typing marathon regarding WP editing policies above, it appears that you are mistaking guidelines for rigidly enforced policies. As long as you continue to add what I consider to be POV distortions to this article, I will remove them. If you think I'm committing a punishable offense by doing so, please bring the matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities, but PLEASE don't waste the lives of any more electrons with harangues like the above. No one, least of all me, is going to read them.
Regarding actual issues, it seems that Joegoodfriend has addressed some of your points. As far as I'm aware, none of the online sources used as citations in this article are "personal web pages" in any meaningful sense. Many of them are collections of material that has been published in other sources. If there's any particular point in the article that you think is both questionable and poorly sourced, please make a note of it here and I'm sure we can come to an agreement, either by changing or removing the statement or (vastly more likely) by using a more credible source. RedSpruce 10:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Redspruce-- As I have documented in preposterous detail twice now, you have committed multiple violations of the policy of WP:EP.

WP:EP Stands for "Wikipedia:Editing policy." Right at the top of the page, it says, "This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia."

Each time you reverted, without prior discussion, an edit that did not violate one of the listed exceptions to that policy, you violated the policy of WP:EP.

You have also committed multiple violations of the policy of WP:NPOV.

WP:NPOV states: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." (Again, the top of the page says, "This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia.")

Much as it offends your POV, a view upheld by every court in the land would prima facia qualify as significant; likewise, the New York Times would prima facia qualify as a reliable source; etc.

Each time you reverted such edits, as linked above, you violated the policy of WP:NPOV.

WP:NPOV also states: "The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."

Each violation of a policy is, as you know first-hand, a "punishable offence."

By repeatedly violating the policies of WP:EP and WP:NPOV -- by reverting edits that balance your view with other significant views published by reliable sources -- you you may be giving too much prominence to your own view, harming the credibility of Wikipedia.

I suspect that you say no one will read this dispute because you hope no one will. But Joe did, so maybe others will. I suspect that the editor community will not be indifferent to your repeated policy violations, nor to the potential impact on the reputation of Wikipedia, once they receive, as WP:CON puts it, "adequate exposure to the community."

Regarding the idea that you should do whatever you want as long as it's not a "punishable offense," please consider this Mark LaRochelle 17:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark, clearly you have no pity for the lives of the the electrons you're wasting, For shame, I say to you sir; for shame!

BTW, it there are any actual article-related comments in the above, please break them out into a separate edit so I'll see them. RedSpruce 18:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Be careful RedSpruce, "taunting" is a violation of WP:CIV, an "official policy."

You accuse me of mistaking guidelines for policies, implying that your violations have been only of the former, not the latter. When I demonstrate that your violations are indeed of policies, not just guidelines, you change the subject.

I agree with you that your many documented violations of policy are the more serious offenses, but habitual violation of guidelines is still disruptive. WP:CON ("an official policy") states: "Wikipedia works fundamentally by building consensus.... If we find that a particular consensus happens often, we write it down as a guideline, to save people the time having to discuss the same principles over and over."

I am pleased that you are interested in seeing article-related comments. That suggests a willingness to try to actually live up to WP:CON: "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite reasoning, cooperation, and if necessary, negotiation on talk pages, in an attempt to develop and maintain a neutral point of view which consensus can agree upon."

In that spirit, let us recap:

NPOV stuff, part 2

The paragraph that reads, "Chambers gave varying dates for the time when he broke with the Communist party; a point that was to prove important in his accusations against Hiss. For nine years, between September 1, 1939 and November 17, 1948, Chambers on more than two dozen occasions swore or stated that he had left the Party in 1937. The 1938 Party-leaving date only emerged on November 17, 1948, when, for the first time, Chambers swore that he had repeatedly been lying for the previous nine years. It was at that moment that Chambers first produced copies of State Department documents that he said Hiss had given him; the documents were dated 1938," is attributed to a web page located on a website reported to be a "personal site."

WP:RS (a guideline, not a policy), states: "Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

So this attribution might appear to transgress WP:RS, the very guideline you cited in reverting an edit here.

What do you think? Mark LaRochelle 10:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said earlier, this piece of information isn't disputed by anyone. Still, I agree that sources such as this should be avoided. Ideally, sites like "The Alger Hiss Story" website should only be used when the link is to an article that has also been published in some reliable-source outlet. I'll be happy to replace this and similar references -- perhaps with a page reference in Perjury in this particular case. It may take me a few days to get to that. You're welcome to do it yourself in the meantime, of course. RedSpruce 11:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

NYU Office of Public Affairs describes Kisseloff's web site on Hiss as follows[2]:

“The Alger Hiss Story” web site has been created for NYU Libraries with grants from The Nation Institute and the Community Foundation for Southern Arizona... The site has been compiled under the supervision of the NYU Libraries, with participation from members of the Hiss family.

I do not think it is the kind of "personal" web site generally prohibited under guidelines from use as a source to support the text of articles. Joegoodfriend 15:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Joe. That is very useful information. Paired with Columbia University historian David Greenberg's reported comment that “I don't think anyone is going to treat this site as the repository of truth, except for those who have already made up their minds that Hiss was innocent,” it gives us a more balanced understanding of the site. Mark LaRochelle 16:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, RedSpruce, for that wise proposal. You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. Now I really do feel shame, or at least regret, per WP:CIV for the wisecrack above. I have removed it, as suggested by that policy.

Your negotiation here is commendable: your admirable compromise would remove any apparent taint of WP:RS and WP:NPOV issues in this paragraph, strengthening your case, improving the credibility of this article and contributing to enhancing the reputation of Wikipedia. I, for one, heartily approve. As far as I am concerned, once you make the changes you propose, my objection on this point will become moot.

I am a little concerned, however, that using any such site, as a reliable source for “an article that has also been published in some reliable-source outlet” might potentially introduce an unnecessary element of uncertainty in the minds of readers whether errors may have been introduced into the text at some point between the reliable source and the personal site, weakening the impact of the information it is reporting. As WP:Verifiability says, “caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.”

The information might be strengthened by citing if from the undisputedly reliable source itself, as I did here after you reverted an edit accurately reporting the same passages, citing (disputed) WP:RS grounds. Mark LaRochelle 16:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. RedSpruce 17:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfair to Hiss?

The statement: “Prior to Chambers's testimony, the FBI had already come to suspect Hiss of being a Soviet agent,” followed immediately as it is by Bullitt’s allegation, could lead readers to infer that Hiss had been an FBI espionage suspect for a decade, which is unfair to Hiss, and so far as I can see not supported in the attributed source, Weinstein p. 311.

Although a 1948 FBI report states "Chambers told Bureau agents that Alger Hiss and his brother Donald were members of the Communist Party underground organization in Washington which was headed by Harold Ware," I find no evidence in those portions of Hiss’s FBI files that have been declassified that he was “Espionage – R” (suspected by the FBI of being a Soviet agent) prior to the Gouzenko-Bentley allegations of September-November 1945. Until that time, as far as I can see, he was only “Internal Security – C” (suspected by the FBI of being a Communist).

I therefore propose replacing this statement with something fairer to Hiss, such as: “Six years prior, the FBI had reported allegations that Hiss had pro-Communist connections.”

I propose attributing this statement thus: “FBI Report: Whittaker Chambers, Internal Security - C, September 5, 1948, p. 88 (FBI file: Hiss/Chambers, Volume 1)”

What say you, sir?

• • • The notice was in a letter to Secretary of State Cordell Hull, dated March 24, 1942, noting reports that Hiss was allegedly a member of a Communist front organization (the Washington Committee for Democratic Action, which would be listed on the Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations by the time of Hiss’ perjury trial {Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations, The Federal Register 13, March 20, 1948} per President Truman's Executive Order 9835), (Harry S. Truman, Executive Orders, The Federal Register, U.S. National Archives), as well as "information set forth by a former fellow employee of Hiss' in the Agricultural Adjustment Administration that Hiss and his associates in the AAA were if not Communists fellow travelers." (According to this FBI report, although the Bureau had suspected Harold Ware of being a Communist since 1927, it did not learn of the Ware group in AAA until Chambers’ allegations of May 13, 1942.) Mark LaRochelle 16:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Some readers might construe the current text as saying that the FBI had suspected Hiss of espionage for the previous 10 years, but it certainly doesn't say that. It lists various accusations and sources of suspicion against Hiss, beginning with William Bullitt's report in 1939. I counter-propose the text:

"Prior to Chambers's testimony, the FBI had already come to suspect Hiss of having Communist or Soviet connections." And leaving the rest as-is. Secondary sources seem in agreement that the FBI had generalized suspicions about Hiss, certainly not solely because of alleged membership in some organization that was on the Attorney General's List. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedSpruce (talk • contribs) 17:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Your answer sort of illustrates my point, actually. Why start with Bullet's report, which he testified in 1952 that he made in 1940 (not '39) to Hornbeck of the State Department (not the FBI), who did not report it to the FBI (and in fact testified in 1952 and '53 that he had never heard any derogatory information about Hiss)? Why not start with Berle's 1939 notes, which the FBI did not obtain until '43?

If the secondary sources disagree with the primary source, we have to go with the primary source, the FBI file. There is no derogatory information about Hiss in the file until the 1942 letter to Hull reporting allegations (1) of Communist front membership, and (2) that Hiss' circle in AAA (later known as the "Ware group") were Communists or fellow travelers. There is no evidence that the FBI suspected Hiss of being a Communist before 1942, or a spy before '45.

Instead of beginning in 1948, then backtracking, the "Accusations" section should probably be chronological. I can post a proposed draft here if you like, and we can bat it around. Mark LaRochelle 06:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You make good points, and posting a draft here sounds good. I still think the "Accusations" section should start with Chambers, since that was the accusation that started the whole thing rolling. The rest of the history can be filled in with "flashback." What is your source for these FBI reports? Where/how are they available to the public? RedSpruce 14:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

See my reply to The Rebel At at Talk:John S. Service at 16:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Mark LaRochelle 19:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

There is a 3O request. However, after reading through the above it appears that the two editors involved in the dispute are talking to each other in an appropriate and civil manner and negotiating intelligently on the best way forward for this article. I will remove the 3O as it appears that things are proceeding as they should. Another request can be listed if either editor still feels they want an opinion. Regards. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

FBI chart

For the source of the FBI's Hiss chart, click on the image to view the associated Wikimedia Commons page. I have added a physical address, so that the source is now cited as: "Federal Bureau of Investigation: J. Edgar Hoover, Official and Confidential file #34 (FBI Reading Room, J. Edgar Hoover Building, 935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004)" That is where I got it, and that is where anyone else can get it.

For a more legible version of the document, click on the image to view the associated Wikimedia Commons page, then click on the image there for a higher-resolution (1.6 Megapixel), digitally-cleaned version of the chart, which you can magnify. (These files are about 60 years old, and are the product of generations of reproductions of reproductions; If they weren't so degraded, they might be OCR-readable, which would certainly make my job easier.)

As for propagandistic, this chart was created for internal FBI use and was classified, so it was clearly was not propaganda as commonly defined. If you disagree or have other issues, please discuss them here rather than reverting this edit. I will make necessary changes if possible to accommodate legitimate concerns. We should be able to reason our way to a compromise that will allow us to reach a reasonable, balanced NPOV consensus without burying this historic documentary evidence. Mark LaRochelle 21:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Your provenance has improved the sourcing of the image. But now the remaining problem is, why are we including it in the article? I don't notice any article text that refers to it. It is more like a 'colorful period detail' showing how the FBI drew pictures in that era. The illegibility means no-one will be able to figure out what information has been summarized. Even if the image weren't degraded, what point would you be hoping to make? EdJohnston 00:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making the image legible. Now, as you say, all one has to do is click three times, do a lot of squinting, and you get... what? Nothing that relates in any way to anything that's in the article. Something whose sole purpose is to be a piece of pro-FBI, anti-Truman administration propaganda. You can almost hear J. Edgar Hoover plaintively whining: "We tryyyyyyyyed to warn him, but would he listen? Noooooo." In other words, it has no bearing on this article. Please don't replace it until such time as you can justify its presence. Thanks. RedSpruce 02:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for joining in here, EdJohnston. The reason I propose to include the FBI's chart illustrating the dissemination of FBI reports on Alger Hiss in the article on Alger Hiss is laid out in the discussion above, under the section "Unfair to Hiss?" The discussion there concerns the paragraph beginning, "Prior to Chambers's testimony, the FBI had already come to suspect Hiss of being a Soviet agent. US Ambassador William Bullitt reported that he had learned in 1939 that French intelligence services believed both Alger and Donald Hiss were either Soviet agents or "fellow travelers..."

As I mentioned above, this juxtaposition could lead readers to infer that the FBI's pre-Chambers suspicion of Hiss began in 1939, or had something to do with this allegation by Bullitt, or involved suspected Soviet espionage, none of which is true, or fair to Hiss. Bullitt testified in 1952 that he made that report in 1940 to Hornbeck of the State Department, not to the FBI, and Hornbeck did not pass on this report to the FBI. The first FBI investigation of Hiss was the Hatch Act investigation of 1941, culminating in the letter to Hull mentioned above, recording the first derogatory information about Hiss in the FBI files. That information concerned allegations of Communist front membership and of being a Communist or fellow traveler, not of any Soviet connections.

We got as far as agreeing that this section on the FBI's pre-Chambers suspicion of Hiss needed clarification. The obvious way to clarify would be a chronological listing of the pre-Chambers FBI reports on Soviet espionage, the NKVD, the Comintern, etc. that mentioned derogatory information on Hiss. It occurred to me that this primary source document summarizes the relevant information concisely. If legibility is still an issue, we should at least list the reports mentioned therein, and the dissemination thereof. (Even if we do that, I think it would be a good idea to include the image as well.)

By including this information, I am not seeking to make any point. I am seeking to concisely clarify the section on the FBI's pre-Chambers suspicions of Hiss (which I think we agree is muddled in the current version) using the most reliable source available. The fact that prior to Chambers' 1948 testimony the FBI disseminated to the State Department, White House and Attorney General a number of reports featuring Hiss is not disputed by any reliable source I know of. This information is at least as relevant here as the Bullitt testimony, which was not made until 1952. It is hard to justify including the latter, while excluding the former.

Thanks again for your help here. Does anyone have any thoughts on any of this? Mark LaRochelle 04:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My ears perked up when I heard the phrase 'primary source' above. I doubt that a primary source belongs in this article, unless an extremely strong case is made. If no published secondary source has found this chart interesting enough to write about, or draw conclusions from, why should Wikipedia be the first place it is discussed? If it's already been referred to in print, then that secondary report might be worthy of note. EdJohnston 04:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Mark, it may be that you aren't trying to make any point with this chart, but to my eyes it's clear that whoever drew it certainly was, and I described that point and agenda above. As you say, some of the chronology of accusations against Hiss in the article could use clarifying. But at best, it would require an awful lot of patience on the part of a reader for this muddy chart to clarify anything. Like most charts, its purpose is less in its individual data items than in quickly conveying an overall point: the propagandistic, FBI-covering-its-ass point I described above. RedSpruce 12:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If the chart is hoping to illustrate some disagreement between FBI officials and the Truman administration, perhaps that point could be made better in the text by quoting from a published source. EdJohnston 17:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

reworked summary

I rewrote most of the summary to 1. Expand the information regarding Hiss's career occupations, both before and after the trial. Removed the State Department and UN reference because he worked for the Agriculture Department, was seconded to a Congressional committee as legal counsel (Nye), briefly was with the Justice Department before ending his government service with the State Department and that information is covered in detail later in the article. 2. Hiss was charged with, and convicted of perjury, and not espionage and that was incorrect in the summary, I felt it required more expansion and detail to show how that came about. I tried to do that in the most NPOV way that I could and just presented the minimum of facts that are expanded elsewhere in the article. 3. I did reword the summary conclusion, it seemed very awkward as it was. I don't necessarily think that was an appropriate conclusion but I felt it better to leave it and the references that were there since they had not been edited since I first started working on this. 4. Because many people without prior knowledge of this case or of the legal process might read this I wikified more basic legal terms than I might have otherwise. Awotter 09:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the change overall, I made some tweaks, as described in my article edit summary. And is there some clear-cut rule about capitalizing "communist/communism"? I'd sure like to see one. RedSpruce 11:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I further copyedited the lede for style and brevity. One sentence I changed contained a point that needs to be addressed. Before my edit, the first sentence of the second paragraph read: "In 1948 Hiss was publicly alleged to have been a member of an underground Communist group and a member of the Communist Party." This was (a) quite awkward in its at least partial redundancy and (b) not supported by our main text--there is nothing in the description of Chambers's initial 1948 accusations that speaks of an "underground Communist group" aside from and in addition to party membership (which, anyway, would logically--though not necessarily--come first). If there was an accusation of that nature, that should be added to the main text as appropriate. The lede can then be adjusted accordingly.—DCGeist 17:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, much better, IMO. The "underground communist group" is the so-called Ware group, which the article doesn't currently deal with properly. I'll try to get to that some time soon. RedSpruce 18:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

With its inclusion, we might then make the lede sentence something like: "In 1948 Hiss was publicly alleged to have been a member of the Communist Party and a participant in a subversive cell."—if that's an appropriate characterization of the original claim.—DCGeist 18:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"subversive cell" was how I was originally trying to word it, technically it should be "apparatus" as that's how it was described at the time. It was hard to simplify things as a summary without providing unnecessary, detail or slanting it one way or the other, (at least hard for me). thanks for the feedback. As to the Ware group and wording, the article could use expanding on the sequence of events leading up to the first public hearing. As I read it Chambers was initially there to corroborate Eliziabeth Bentley's prior testimony of cells and named some of the people in the Berle notes. Also, the NY Times 1948 article points out that in June of 1947 Chambers and Hiss had already testified in secret to the grand jury about similar information. Awotter 19:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

After copyediting the lede, I think we need to add a sentence or half-sentence to its last paragraph stating the essential fact of the case's significance--not only that Hiss's guilt or innocence is controversial, but that this specific controversy itself came to symbolize the debate over the alleged extent of Soviet espionage and the McCarthyist response. Difficulty of wording aside, agreed?—DCGeist 07:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely agree. RedSpruce 11:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Those issues are mostly outside the scope of the summary and were controversies that came after the trial and had many other elements (The Rosenbergs, the Army hearings etc.) I would agree that you could reference it (the trial and Hiss as architect of post war planning) as events that were to have an impact on the Cold War debate, but as to what the case symbolizes that moves into the realm of opinion, especially because those are arguments both sides who are pushing a point of view try and frame the facts of the case in. Shouldn't this article stick with Hiss and what happened as much as possible, letting the reader delve into the other stuff via the article? Awotter 19:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the content of the article unquestionably establishes the case's symbolic significance. I think we can (and should) refer to that significance in the lede in a neutral manner.—DCGeist 19:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, added sentence with the points mentioned here with reference. Also filled in background of why Chambers was subpoenaed to testify to HUAC. i think the article definitely needs a section on events/timeline leading up to the HUAC allegations as well. Again thanks all for the balance Awotter 21:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth Bentley

Elizabeth Bentley's role has been far over-emphasized in some recent edits of the opening section. While tt is the case that Bentley's disclosures were one of the causes of Chambers being subpoenaed to appear before HUAC, hers was still a very minor part in the overall drama. She was a part of the trigger, when the real story is in the explosion that followed, so to speak. If anyone disagrees with this. please provide documentation that shows that this level of coverage is proportionally comparable to any of the notable sources on the Hiss case. I'm happy to be shown wrong, but I have to be shown. RedSpruce 02:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The opening paragraphs of the article do not need an expansive discussion of Bentley's accusations. No single facet of the evidence should be over-emphasized in the leading sentences. Joegoodfriend 04:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You cannot be "shown wrong", because whenver you are, you simply refuse to engage anymore on the Talk page, go to arbitration, etc and instead simply continue to revert anyway. State clearly here that you will no longer insist on your supposed right to refuse these problem solving measures AND continue to revert and then it can fairly claimed on your part that you can, indeed, be "shown wrong".Bdell555 04:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

French intelligence

I used FULL CAPS to ask for the argument for why the charges of French intelligence, charges that appear in sources that include PBS Nova, are being eliminated from this article, and it seems that Redspruce still refuses to address the matter here on the Talk page before reverting this SOURCED FACT.Bdell555 04:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The text you added was misleading. There is no evidence that Daladier gave the information to Bullitt, we have only his claim.

How do we know that what DeToldeano writes is accurate? What exactly did Bullitt say, and when, where, and in what context did he say it? Joegoodfriend 04:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

How is it "misleading"? It now reads pretty much exactly as the Washington Post reported it. I've dropped all reference to DeToldeano for you.Bdell555 04:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It is important to differentiate between substantiated and unsubstantiated claims. It was I who added the John Dean claim that Colson told him that Nixon had admitted working up a typewriter. If I had written the text as "Nixon admitted building a typewriter," or as "Colson said Nixon admitted building a typewriter," I would have been misleading. The correct text states that Dean claimed that Colson had said that Nixon had admitted it, and that Colson denied Dean's claim.

Your updated edit is an improvement.Joegoodfriend 05:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, although I believe Bullitt's claims and the PBS Nova claim are rather distinct. I've footnoted the PBS Nova claim for now. I believe Weinstein mentions Daladier and/or French intelligence in _Perjury_ but am not certain.Bdell555 05:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's still questionable whether the Bullitt account warrants mention in the article. When Bullitt first got this information, all he did was to advise Hiss's superior, Stanley Hornbeck, to investigate the charges, and nothing of any consequence came off that. Hornbeck simply called Hiss into his office and asked him "what he knew about Communists and Communism." Hiss's answers satisfied Hornbeck that Hiss wasn't a "red," and that was the end of it. It wasn't until 1952, well after the trials, that Bullitt testified. So Bullitt and French intelligence had no influence on the course of events. Theirs was just one minor and extremely vague (since no one has ever said what the French suspicions were based on) piece of corroborating evidence against Hiss. Using the rule of proportional coverage, with Perjury for comparison, the incident is much less significant than other points that are left out of the article for the sake of brevity. RedSpruce 11:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If PBS Nova believes it important to mention French intelligence sources (in addition to Bentley and Gouzenko) in its 600 words on Alger Hiss, it is presumably worth mentioning in Wikipedia's 6000 words.Bdell555 (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your pet PBS Nova source is drek. It has no named author; it reduces the entire Hiss case to (as you note) 600 poorly-written words, and it is full of inaccuracies:

• "In the late 1930s[...] during the formative years of the United Nations" (oops)
• Stating that Elizabeth Bentley received documents from Hiss (no one has ever claimed this)
• It implies that Hiss's defense during the trials stated that the typewriter had been tampered with
• "Experts testified that Hiss had typed both the summaries and personal correspondence on the typewriter" (no expert testified about the identity of the typist, though it was said to be Mrs. Hiss)
• The chronology is jumbled, referring to the typed papers, then the trial, then the pumpkin papers and HUAC, and then the trial again
• Gives an unexplained special emphasis to the pumpkin papers, though the typed papers were far more significant as evidence, since it was these that matched the typeface of Hiss's typewriter.

RedSpruce (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll just start with your first "oops". The 1930s were indeed the "formative years". Go look at a Britannica from prior to 1945 and you'll see that "United Nations" was how the Allies styled themselves in the war. If you don't think the late 1930s were the formative years, then you must not think the late 1930s were the formative years for WWII, since the Allies and the UN at its founding were essentially one and the same thing. Your larger problem is that you don't seem to understand Wiki policies. What is relevant is whether something is sourced. PBS Nova is a legitimate source. There is no Wiki policy stating that sources should only be used if every claim in them besides the claim being sourced is proved to your satisfaction.Bdell555 (talk) 06:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not say that the "formative years of the U.N." were One Zillion B.C., when the first two caveman tribes agreed to stop bashing each other with clubs for a while?

Some sources are better than others, to state the obvious. A source that gives every impression of not knowing that the term "United Nations" wasn't used until 1942, among other mistakes, is a lousy source. A source that covers a subject in 630 words, when other sources have devoted hundreds of pages to the subject, is a lousy source. A source that has no named author is a lousy source. A source that has no "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:RS) is a lousy source. The TV show Nova has a good reputation for fact-checking, but the web site doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedSpruce (talk • contribs) 11:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, some sources are better than others, but Tony Hiss' website is not better than PBS Nova and the Encyclopedia Britannica simply because you say so. If PBS Nova's website is so unreliable, where are the complaints from sources other than yourself about it? If the TV show has a "good reputation for fact-checking" then you would have to concede that it is fact that "a massive Soviet spy network penetrated the U.S. government during World War Two" and "Venona also helps to settle the case of Alger Hiss" since that's exactly what the narrator claimed on air in February 2002, no? If PBS Nova's claims re French intelligence are bogus, why is your original research necessary to expose this? Assuming that that you HAVE any evidence, even from original research,contradicting their claim. In any case, you'll note that I footnoted the claim, and moreover haven't tried to reintroduce it after you took even that much out, given that you seem to object so strongly.Bdell555 (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

To continue the rhetorical question theme, if there's any validity to your arguments, why are you talking horseshit? RedSpruce (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As I just noted, while I might not prosecute my side of an edit war for every particular PBS Nova citation, at issue here is your contention that Wiki edits which cite PBS Nova's website may be reverted without presenting any evidence as to why what is specifically claimed by the edit is questionable. I note that you presented the same argument with respect to the sourcing of Oshinsky's "vast majority of historians" comment. The bottom line re this repeatedly used argument of yours is that there is no Wiki policy saying a source, which in this case this is a public broadcaster, must be shown to be in infallible with respect to its entire content, and in any case if there were such a policy, it ought to be applied to your preferred sources as well. Your approach is moreover contrary to the "verifiability" and "no original research" policies.

If, with no small indulgence, we assume that your caveman tribes comparison is appropriate, you would be closer to a meaningful analogy if you compared the founding of the UN to a cavemen tribe who decided to create something that would make it more difficult to challenge by force the territorial arrangements that they, or more accurately one of them (by the name of Stalin), had just won or were about to win by force. Neither the defeated belligerents nor the non-belligerents such as Sweden were invited to the founding conference Hiss presided over. Indeed, even the country amongst this group that began to fight on day 1, Poland, was not represented at the conference because it had lost its sovereignty to a fellow “ally”, an occupation that was progressively enabled by FDR’s America, whether it meant covering up Stalin’s atrocities (see the suppression of George Earle’s report), vetoing air support for non-communist Polish forces (see FDR’s reference to “Uncle Joe” re Lack of outside support in the Warsaw Uprising, or not taking seriously reports that senior officials who would ultimately be involved in the conferences with Stalin might be Stalin’s agents (an example of which you earlier provided in this very same comment thread).Bdell555 (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, there is way too much blood in the water over this issue. Sure the Bullitt claim belongs in the article. It's a good example of pretty much all the "evidence" in the Hiss case: A lot of hearsay corroborated by nothing. What's to worry about?

Let NOVA have their fun. Were there a lot commies in sensitive positions in the US during the war? Sure there were. Did Venona help "to settle the case of Alger Hiss?" Of course it did. The fact that the whole project never uncovered anything against Hiss just confirms what we already knew from the Soviet archives. If Hiss had been a Soviet spy, it would have been the greatest coup in modern espionage. The fact that there is absolutely nothing in Soviet military or civilian archives, or anything in the Venona communiques that implicates Hiss demonstrates his innocence. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

So, Joegoodfriend, VENONA "helps to settle the case", as claimed by PBS Nova, but it is not "strong evidence", as claimed by Britannica?Bdell555 (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Even after I agree with your edit you have to pick the scabs of old arguments. I guess there's no pleasing some people. I hope you and your precious encyclopedias will be happy together. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

using a source to make an argument the source would not support

Perhaps Redspruce can provide the original words of Harvey and Klehr with respect to #1579. However their words should be interpreted, clearly they should not be interpreted as proving that #1579 is exculpatory since H&K do not believe that. Given H&K's conclusion, a citation of them to make the exculpatory argument here could only be made logical in some sort of combination with Lowenthal's claims, which raises the question of original research. Assuming that the citation is accurate in isolation, the other larger issue is one of proportionality. As it is, the article gives a disproportionate amount of space to sources like Hiss' lawyer (a situation that arises because of the absence of professional historians who contend what Hiss' family and friends contend). To use H&K to further add to an argument advanced by Hiss' lawyer is highly tendentious. If Hiss' lawyer isn't the only voice in the world advancing the argument here, then surely if the argument needs to be even longer a source that fundamentally agrees with Lowenthal's conclusion about the significance of #1579 could be used instead. DCGeist contends that there is a "important fact of agreement" between H&K and Lowenthal here. I suggest we ask H&K if the agreement is truly "important". If an academic article finds 10 facts of evidence for anthropormorphic global warming and 1 fact that contradicts, would it be appropriate for the global warming article to cite the contradictory fact and then conclude that anthropormorphic global warming is controversial? That's essentially what DCGeist wants to do here by bringing back this cite of H&K while simultaneously insisting that any reference to the Encyclopedia Britannica's view that VENONA in general was "strong evidence of Hiss' guilt" be reverted.Bdell555 (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

BDell, you have a very bad habit of mischaracterizing my positions in this Talk page. For instance, I wrote the following on March 14: "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." I have never "insist[ed] that any reference to the Encyclopedia Britannica's view that VENONA in general was 'strong evidence of Hiss' guilt' be reverted." That is a falsehood, Brian. Whether it was committed deliberately, or sloppily, or ignorantly, you owe me and the other participants in this discussion an apology.—DCGeist (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

So what you were objecting to was NOT a "reference to the Encyclopedia Britannica's view that VENONA in general was 'strong evidence of Hiss' guilt'"? What was it then? Please quote it again here so we can see how totally the edit I wanted in and you wanted out was not this. Your March 14 comment in fact suggested that you would continue to not allow anything along the lines of "strong evidence of Hiss' guilt" into the article because in addition to your old objections you did not like the "language" of the edit at issue. Furthermore, if your objection was not to the substance of what Britannica claims, then why did you refer to Lowenthal's argument when you rejected Cberlet's compromise proposal, an argument that claims the fundamental opposite of what Britannica claims, namely, that VENONA was exculpatory instead of incriminating? Bottom line is that there was never any indication that your acknowledgement of Britannica's "relevance" meant anything in terms of whether you would ever agree to any inclusion of Britannica's view that VENONA provides significant support to the case against Hiss. Are you now saying that Lowenthal no longer trumps Britannica, such that you WOULD agree to an inclusion of its view of the relatively recent evidence, depending on the "language"? What "language" would be acceptable to you that still states the substance of what Britannica says? In any case, you don't seem to have any comment about my fundamental point, which is that you are effectively trying to have H&K's observations argue against Britannica, a conclusion to which H&K would say their observations would not lead.Bdell555 (talk) 17:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again we come back to the distinction between the objective and the subjective. The sentence prior to this one in question tells us what Lowenthal "argues" to be "highly unorthodox". Is there a reason why the next sentence can't be similarly rewritten to say that H&K "suggest" that the use of the name would be "highly unusual?" Or am I missing the point? Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to change the wording to "suggest" because it's correct as it is. Bdell555 is saying that it's incorrect to use an isolated point that some scholar has written unless the overall conclusion that point is being used in support of is a conclusion that scholar would support. For example, if a scientist who doesn't believe in global warming had published evidence of, say, the increase of atmospheric CO2, it would somehow be "incorrect" for someone else to use this publication as part of an argument on the danger of global warming. This is, of course, a complete fiction. There is no such requirement in Wikipedia, nor indeed anywhere in rational discourse. RedSpruce (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you put quotes around incorrect because I am not aware of anyone who claimed it was "incorrect" in isolation. Assuming H&K's words accurately support Redspruce's phrasing, his edit cannot be challenged without reference to the rest of the article and its conclusions. It is an issue of proportionality as to whether this sentence be included. If we were to run with Redspruce's choice of analogy and suppose that the "vast majority" of climatologists did not believe in global warming, it would be aggravating the proportionality problem if the global warming article not only did not reflect that "vast majority" in terms of its count of sources pro and con but furthermore cited con sources in order to argue pro. It's adding a voice to the fringe that isn't even there, since it is created out of the words of a voice for the consensus. Suppose that there was not one single scholar anywhere that supported thesis X, but that some scholars wrote articles which contained a few details that supported not X. If we take Redspruce's position to its logical conclusion, there is "no such requirement in Wikipedia" that a Wikipedia article should not be built entirely out of citations that support "not X". You would end up with an article that not one single scholar agrees with as a total article despite each individual cite being valid. Such a misleading article would not be so readily built if other editors were especially demanding with respect to "not X" cites of "yes X" scholars. It is in this context that I think Redspruce should either provide us all with the actual words of H&K regarding this citation or leave the contention out of the article. Every individual citation may be legitimate in isolation, but in aggregate the summary effect may mislead the reader as to what the academic consensus is. My point remains that this sort of tactic should not be necessary: if more than one person out there agrees with Lowenthal re the relevance of #1579, it should be possible to cite that person as opposed to picking contrary points out of published works whose bulk do not support Lowenthal. At the end of the day, Wikipedia's proportionality policy is close to unenforceable because enforcing it requires particular, concrete excisions that are typically resisted when the particular element to be excised is legitimately sourced in isolation. If proportionality really meant something, however, this is the sort of citation that would be the first to go.Bdell555 (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You've completely missed, or are pretending to miss, the point of my comment. Come back when you've either figured it out or become willing to respond to it honestly. I'll wait. RedSpruce (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This thread began with a request on my part for the original words. I take it you are not going to provide that. I then raised the issue of proportionality. Your comment did not bear on the issue of proportionality. re your accusations of dishonesty, I suggest you back up your charges with evidence. Please refer me to the instances where you called on me to respond and I was unwilling to do so (either honestly or dishonestly).Bdell555 (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right: You did mention proportionality in your original comment. The heading you entered for this discussion, however, is "using a source to make an argument the source would not support", and that's the issue that at least some of your rambling comments have addressed. Proportionality is another issue altogether. Since you seem to have dropped the discussion of "using a source to make an argument the source would not support", I'll assume we're finished with that subject. If you now want to discuss whether the amount of coverage that this article gives to the two "sides" of the Hiss case are in proper proportion to one another, that's fine. I welcome you to open that topic under a new, correct heading. You can begin by presenting your evidence that the proportionality of coverage in this article is not comparable with that to be found in the scholarly literature on the subject. RedSpruce (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Proportionality is not "another issue altogether". It is related to "using a source to make an argument the source would not support" because edits which do this have more potential to create proportionality problems than edits which don't. You have not presented any argument against acknowledging such a relationship beyond simply denying that there is any relationship. "the scholarly literature", evidence you could start with would include the fact that since VENONA's release the number of professional historians who have published an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal contending that Hiss was not a spy is absolutely zero. I'd refer you to all the citations I have presented on these Talk pages that support an unqualified conclusion that the evidence is strongly incriminating. On that count I note that Joegoodfriend evidently still believes a conclusion of Britannica should be trumped by a contrary conclusion by Hiss' lawyer because Britannica is biased / lacking objectivity, and the reversion practices by the apparent gatekeepers of this article, you and DCGeist, suggest full agreement with this view.

I am not going to be able to address the proportionality issue in isolation overnight, since the lack of proportion is created by many, many edits, and history suggests that you and your two fellow travellers here are going to contest every last inch in an exceedingly long and drawn out ffair. To what extent have I influenced this article in comparison with the thousands and thousands of words I have written on these Talk pages? Correcting the lack of proportion will have to be one edit at a time, and I have given you a reason why this particular edit may a better place to start than others.Bdell555 (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Upon further reflection I may be unfair to Joegoodfriend to continue to belabour the Britannica citation, since although I don't believe he ever indicated that he had changed his view about Britannica's lack of objectivity, he did invite me at one point to throw the Britannica citation in with some others that he'd accept.Bdell555 (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If there's a connection between these two issues, you have not been able to demonstrate it in a comprehensible manner. If you want to discuss the proportionality issue, start a new topic, and present evidence. I'm done with this topic. RedSpruce (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

perjuries of hiss and chambers were NOT the same

This entry on Alger Hiss contains a vague statement (as of 2007.12.04):

A federal grand jury indicted Hiss on two counts of perjury; Chambers admitted to the same offense, but as a cooperating government witness he was never charged.

Chambers' perjury was general and received correction. Early in the "Hiss Case(s)" he testified that espionage had not been part of his (and Hiss') underground activity. When Hiss filed civil lawsuits against him, Chambers produced the "Baltimore Papers" to support his public claim that Hiss worked with him as a (Communist) spy and had therefore been a Communist (the basis of Hiss' lawsuit). From a legal viewpoint, Chambers corrected any perjury and furthered several separate investigations (Grand Jury, DOJ, HUAC, Baltimore civil courts) before his own perjury could cause any miscarriage of justice.

Hiss' perjury was specific and concrete -- and formed the basis of his criminal trials. By convicting Hiss, the jury had decided that he had (1) lied about not giving any documents to Whittaker Chambers (contradicted by the "Baltimore Papers") and (2) lied about not having seen Chambers after January 1, 1937 (also contradicted bt the "Baltimore Papers"). (Meanwhile, Hiss' civil lawsuits against Chambers came to a standstill during the two criminal trials and died with Hiss' conviction.)

If I may, I would recommend: 1. Deletion of the misleading sentence 2. If desirable, replace with proper explanation of the perjuries involved somewhere in article -- better, citing credible legal opinions. 3. Always keep in mind that the Hiss Case occurred +10 years after the facts, so precision about dates and such details should always receive cautious treatment, preferably explained in footnotes with references to balanced (or flagged-for-bias) interpretations.

Aboudaqn (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The statement is vague and confusing. It should be rewritten to incorporate the facts that Chambers admitted perjuring himself to the point that the committee seriously considered indicting Chambers rather than Hiss.[3] Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

An interesting issue. I can see how Chambers's perjury "received correction", but I'm not sure I see how it was any less "specific and concrete" than Hiss's. He testified that he hadn't engaged in espionage when in fact he had. People consider that to be a pretty important and concrete distinction. Regarding the matter of perjury that "receives correction", it doesn't seem to be the case that perjury ceases to be prosecutable if you later admit that it was perjury. As Joegoodfriend notes, it was seriously debated whether Chambers should be prosecuted for perjury.

Bottom line, this seems to be a legalistic distinction between types of perjury, perhaps of interest to legal scholars, but something that doesn't warrant expanding upon in this article.

RedSpruce (talk) 13:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

For a reputable historian's discussion of the differing nature of perjury by Hiss and Chambers, see John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr's Early Cold War Spies (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 109-110

Aboudaqn (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Britannica "highly skewed"

Your "highly skewed" contention is quite puzzling, DCGeist. I note that earlier on this page you demanded that I apologize for suggesting that you believed that "Encyclopedia Britannica's view that VENONA in general was 'strong evidence of Hiss' guilt' be reverted," and you cited your own previous comments that suggested your reversions were based on problems with the "language".

I jumped back into this when Redspruce reverted another editor on the grounds that it is "factually incorrect" that Hiss' legacy is "settled". Given that sources like PBS Nova (a source I regularly refer to since I am not aware of other neutral sources Redspruce has admitted as reliable) directly contradict Redspruce's contention of not "settled", I called for a source, and in the mean time acknowledged the Wikipedia policy which calls for the citation of a "common reference text" in this sort of situation. You now insist on reverting to Redspruce's preferred version, because Britannica's view is "highly skewed"? I think it's time to clear the air here, DCGeist, about what you really believe, lest you again be needing an apology for being misrepresented, no?Bdell555 (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Brian, you still owe me that apology. For that reason, and for making edits that can largely be summarized as disruptive soapboxing, I don't feel the need to address your repetitive claims any further. If you can ever get around to apologizing sincerely, my perspective may well change.—DCGeist (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If I have misrepresented you, I would think that you should be able to point to some difference between your position on a citation of Britannica's view of the evidence and what I have claimed your position on such a citation is. But that would entail telling us "what you really believe", wouldn't it?Bdell555 (talk) 03:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Bdell555, I'm gratified and flattered that you use my endorsement of a source as your primary justification for endlessly, endlessly, endlessly referring to it. Therefor I now officially revoke that endorsement. So to remain consistent, you are now and forever after obliged to avoid mentioning the PBS Nova source. Agreed?

As for recent edits, as you know, stating that Hiss' legacy is "settled" was completely and obviously incorrect. Half the references in this article stand as proof that the issue is not "settled." Supporting an edit that you know to be factually incorrect is vandalism and a blockable offense.

As you also know, the view that Britannica voices is far from universally held by Hiss authors and scholars. Therefor to present this view as the sole and final word on the issue is indeed "highly skewed". Not only is it inaccurate to suggest that this view is universally held, the unilateral emphasis placed on Venona evidence (by Britannica, editor Susannah Worth, and you) shows a profound ignorance of the Hiss case. RedSpruce (talk) 12:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Given your earlier remark that the "TV show Nova has a good reputation for fact-checking" while a transcript from that show has the narrator referring to the Hiss case as "settled", obviously something in your set of beliefs had to go since you also believe that it is "completely and obviously incorrect" to suggest that the Hiss case is "settled". I had merely hoped that there might be limits to the degree to which you would twist your perceptions in order to support your faith that Hiss was not a spy, since discussion and argument might then potentially resolve something. Evidently there are no such limits, which forces me to indeed agree with you that it is pointless for me to cite PBS Nova, or for that matter ANY source, since if you recognize a source as reliable, if elsewhere the source should dare to argue that Hiss was a spy, you'll simply withdraw your earlier recognition of reliability. There is truly no nailing you down when you evade even yourself, and I accordingly concede that if I'm logical I'm "now and forever after obliged to avoid" trying. Our "discussion" has become surreal anyway when you accuse me of vandalism and call for me to be blocked for seeing some value in another editor's edit when that edit is supported by a source you once said "has a good reputation for fact-checking". I'll extend the invitation to you now to reject Oshinsky's reliability, a source you find convenient with respect to your contentions about McCarthy, since Oshinsky inconveniently also holds that the "vast majority of historians" believe Hiss was a spy.

The fact that "half the references in this article stand as proof that the issue is not 'settled'" is in fact proof of nothing more than this article's lack of balance. See Begging the question. I attempted to start correcting this by removing a largely redundant reference that inflated this reference count (by citing authors who do not support the argument for which their remarks were being used) and you would have none of it, as if this reference count is a consideration that only acquires relevance when you think it suits your purposes.

The "view that Britannica voices" is indeed not "universally held", since a couple journalists like Navasky and Hiss' lawyer dissent, although even Navasky concedes historians have reached a consensus. However that doesn't change the fact that the view Britannica voices is more than close enough to universal. Can you name a single professional historian who currently contends otherwise in a referred academic journal? In any case, you quite misunderstand how Wikipedia works if you think a citation of Britannica should be reverted simply because you believe Britannica's claim to be false. It is not incumbent upon me to "prove" what Britannica says. In any case, how is it that Britannica's view that VENONA is incriminating is "highly skewed" such that it needs to be reverted while the view of Hiss' lawyer that VENONA is exculpatory is not "skewed" at all? I would think that if Lowenthal is really so unskewed relative to the "highly skewed" Britannica, this outstanding source could make his argument without you having to move it along by furthermore citing authors who do not support Lowenthal's conclusions.Bdell555 (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If (as I doubt) you have any point in the above, Bdell, please summarize it briefly below. Given your well-established habit of repeating old arguments that have long since been fully addressed, I'm not slogging through that much text. RedSpruce (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

How is that you have "fully addressed" my arguments when you have not only refused to respond to them but, as of now, also refuse to read them in the first place? If someone keeps on making the same logical fallacy again and again, and I point it out again and again, yes, I get repetitive.Bdell555 (talk) 03:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll take that response as meaning no, you didn't have any point to make. Glad to hear I didn't miss anything. RedSpruce (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't condense the argument for why Hiss was not a spy into two sentences or less on my request, I'll take that as meaning you "have no point to make". I can't be bothered with having to read and respond to anything more. Sound fair??Bdell555 (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you don't get to tell me what my point is. My point certainly isn't that "Hiss was not a spy". Here's my point in one (1!) sentence: Don't add distortions or lies to the article. RedSpruce (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If you say you've got 2 apples in your left hand and 2 apples in your right hand, if I "don't get to tell you" that you have 4 apples in your hands that doesn't mean that when I say you have 4 apples I am not describing the necessary truth. And, yes, that repeats an argument I've made before, but that fact alone does not invalidate the argument. re what you say your point is, unsurprisingly, my point is the exact same, except with the additional points of not removing established facts from the article and not unbalancing the article with an excess of material (even if established fact) from partisan minority sources. If we agree on that much, the devil is in how to deal with the details, like whether the particular edit at issue here is a "distortion or lie" in need of reversion. If you're contradicting yourself, your reasoning with respect to this particular edit is wrong.Bdell555 (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen you enter or propose any established facts that aren't already in the article. The closest thing I can think of is your (adopted) edit saying that the Hiss case is "settled," and that, although presented as fact, was (as you know) a lie. As for whether the article is unbalanced, as I said a while ago, I'm open to discussion on that point. Just do some research and present your evidence and we can discuss it. RedSpruce (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not come across a statement by a professional historian stating that it is a "lie" to characterize the case as "settled". Presumably you have, since you reverted another editor on the basis that it is a lie. So where's your source? If your "source" is the efforts of you and your colleagues to bias the article, that's Begging the question. I've made that point before, but it has not been addressed at all, never mind "fully addressed". Moreover, if it is a lie then PBS, a source you once said a "good reputation for fact checking", is a liar too for claiming that "Venona also helps to settle the case of Alger Hiss".

The self-contradictions continue: whereas it was previously the case that "reasoning with a bucket of rocks is tiresome" now you are "open for discussion", albeit on your terms, which as you've recently indicated precludes responses over a certain number of sentences.

To return to the edit on hand, at issue is whether there is better sourcing available for the evidence being "strong" than for the evidence being "controversial". Again, the only cite I've seen for the latter is the partisan journalist Navasky (who moreover concedes that he is not amongst the "consensus historians") while the sources for the evidence adding up to strongly incriminating are extensive and diverse.Bdell555 (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right, discussing things with you is comparable to reasoning with a bucket of rocks, as evidenced by the above pretense of not knowing what the word "settled" means. In fact, I know it's safe for me to offer to discuss the balance of the article with you. For you to present any evidence for discussion on that issue you'd have to do some serious research, and I know there's little danger of you doing anything for WP that requires actual work. It's so much easier to just whine with endless, mindless repetition that articles aren't slanted the way you'd like them to be. RedSpruce (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to engage in original research, serious or unserious. I'm inclined to find, as I have found, reliable sources, of which Britannica is but one. Other sources include John Ehrman ("The basic question — whether Alger Hiss was a spy for the Soviet Union during the 1930s and 1940s — was finally settled during the 1990s"), the Moynihan Commission ("The complicity of Alger Hiss of the State Department seems settled"), Stanley Kutler ("In the end, the publication of the Venona intercepts of wartime Soviet espionage referring to "Ales" settled the matter"), David Oshinsky ("[t]o accept the guilt of Alger Hiss is to admit the bitter truth about a small but sinister part of America's "progressive" past"), Thomas Powers ("...much additional evidence about Hiss's involvement with the Soviets has turned up since the voluminous and explicit claims by Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley in the 1940s, claims which no serious scholar of the subject any longer dismisses"), Robert Beisner, Mark Kramer, David Greenberg, Weinstein, Haynes, Klehr, Mitrokhin, Tanenhaus, White etc.Bdell555 (talk) 04:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Surveying the literature on a topic isn't "WP:Original research", you knucklehead; it's the only possible means of determining whether the balance of an article reflects the balance of reliable sources. And thanks for illustrating my point about endless, mindless repetition. RedSpruce (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Once upon a time, the lead sentences of this article reflected the fact that Hiss's guilt or innocence is controversial, and left it at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdell555 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Then a certain editor arrived and decided that he had cornered the market on truth, historical consensus and the rules of wikipedia and judged that the opening paragraph needed to conclusively condemn Hiss.

This argument has been roundly rejected by the editing community again and again, but that hasn’t stopped the editor from violating consensus and acting in bad faith by introducing the same edit ad naseum.

I thought that allowing the introduction of the text regarding the “reliable sources (that) have suggested that those who believe in Hiss's innocence are in the minority of scholarly opinion” might placate the editor. I realize now that we never should have made that compromise as the editor clearly cares about no one’s opinion on this page but his own.

I hope the editors of Britannica chance to read this page. I’m sure they would be gratified to know that there’s a scholar who holds their subjective opinion on historical truth as more definitive than any Christian holds the Bible or Muslim the Koran. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You, Redspruce, and DCGeist do not constitute the "editing community", Joegoodfriend. Do you have some sort of proof that the editor Redspruce recently reverted is myself operating under a different name? The "consensus" amongst professional historians is that Hiss was a spy. That's a fact, my friend, like or not, and I'm not the one making edits that "violate" that consensus. I am not and have not claimed that Britannica is more authoritative than other sources, suce as refereed academic journals, other than to note a Wikipedia policy that says a "commonly accepted reference text" should be preferred in some circumstances. What I am disputing is that Britannica is somehow less authoritative than Hiss' lawyer, such that that party's view that VENONA is exculpatory is in this article and Britannica's view is out. Is this just about Britannica, Joegoodfriend? - do you have no objections to PBS Nova's view that "Venona also helps to settle the case of Alger Hiss"?Bdell555 (talk) 03:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas! In brief, the argument has never been about Brittanica. It's about two things. One, does the article need in its opening sentences a sweeping, subjective conclusion regarding Hiss's guilt or innocence? Answer: no. Two, as I've said before, if the Brittanica text is allowed, it would quickly be edited to read something like, "While some sources have concluded that the release of secret Soviet cables intercepted by U.S. intelligence during World War II provided strong evidence of Hiss's guilt, others have concluded that the lack of any direct reference to Hiss in these same cables and in Soviet archives is indicative of Hiss's innocence. The text as written already reflects the controversy. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

And a Merry Christmas to you. Briefly, no, the article should not "quickly be edited" to add "others have concluded" if, as here, those "others" are a distinct minority (if not non-existent) amongst professional academics. If experts have come to a "conclusion" then it is indeed necessary for the article to reflect that. The Alger Hiss case is no more "controversial" than global warming. For an elaboration of why I have issues with how you define "consensus" and the "editing community", see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joseph_McCarthy#definition_of_.22consensus.22Bdell555 (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your interpretation of what constitutes a consensus is an interesting one, as our arguments from last July indicate. Even when six editors come out against your edits, and none support them, you won't relent or compromise in any way. If you're going to keep this up, I see no reason to keep the attempted compromise regarding the sources and "minority opinion." Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

All right, then, I'll decline to "keep this up" lest you carry out your threat. I'm easily intimidated. ;)Bdell555 (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)