Talk:Alger Hiss/Archive 6

additional citation

I would suggest adding (perhaps to footnote 29) a citation to th SJC decision where Hiss was reinstated to the Massachusetts bar. It contains the discussion (referenced elsewhere in the article) about reinstatement following a felony conviction. The citation is: "Matter of Hiss," 368 Mass. 447, 333 N.E.2d 429 (1975). Onesius (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

no subtance to the discussion of spying

So what did Hiss actually do as a Soviet spy? What secrets did he pass along? Whose lives did he endanger? There aren't even allegations as to any of this.

His only action regarding the Soviets, it seems, was at Yalta, to argue *against* their position on U.N. voting.

Other than that, all we have in this article are issues as to whether he was or was not a Communist, or a spy, or whether he lied about it or not. 24.44.225.248 (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)captcrisis

You are correct in your analysis 24.44. Until more evidence is produced there can be no certainty that Hiss was a spy. That is why so many people are agnostic on this topic.173.77.111.82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC).

Until more evidence is produced? What, is this some kind of fuc*ing joke? Most people are agnostic on the issue? Seriously, you need to leave the cave you have clearly been living in for the past few decades. The only people agnostic on Hiss's guilt are the same imbeciles still claiming there is not enough evidence to prove the Rosenberg's were guilty of espionage. In other words the only people who claim Hiss isn't guilty are a bunch of left-wing cranks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.6 (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Something I've never seen mentioned much less discussed... if all these folks—Hiss, White, Currie, Duggan, Lee, etc., etc.—were spies, how come J Edgar Hoover's vaunted FBI had to rely on walk-ins—primarily Bentley & Chambers—to get a clue when many of these baddies were literally right under Hoover's nose? DEddy (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Not only that, the people who believe Hiss is guilty also believe Harry Hopkins was a Communist spy! I kid you not. (Probably also Roosevelt, Eleanor, and Eisenhower, not to mention Jefferson and Lincoln).173.52.248.214 (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

DEeddy, As far as Hoover, a bio of Hoover from my reading I gather that Hoover did not believe Hiss to be guilty of espionage but disliked the idea of the United Nations so much that he was willing to see him "taken out" - as an example to others. I forget where I read this, but I could probably still find it. As the Cold War accelerated anyone who believed in peace (or racial integration) was considered a risk to the security state.173.77.98.180 (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

For example Curt Gentry recounts in J. Edgar Hoover, the Man and the Secrets, that Hoover put a wiretap on Hiss for 21 months from 1945 to 47 and found nothing incriminating. This could mean that Hiss wasn't a spy, or that if he ever had been a spy in the 1930s he no longer was. But Hoover did consider Hiss's ideas subversive was anxious to get him out of government.

http://books.google.com/books?id=cVzNFWV_rvEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=J+edgar+hoover+the+man+and+the+secrets&hl=en&sa=X&ei=s0MaT_O_O6OU0QGbwtXgCw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Hiss&f=false 173.77.98.180 (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Get over it. Hiss was a red. End of story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmer88 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Because he went through that prolific breeding ground of notorious Reds, Harvard Law School? DEddy (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The Ware Group

I don't understand recent changes that have been made about the Ware group, identified as such by Whittaker Chambers. Someone has removed the information that the name originated with Chambers, with no explanation. In 1953, former Communist party member Nathaniel Weyl, the only other person to independently corroborate Chambers' story about the existence of the group, said that he too had been a member but Weyl characterized it as a Marxist discussion group (in other words a Popular Front Group). Ware, the organizer, was an avowed Communist who had been in Russia. Weyl broke with the CPUSA in 1939 but never came forward to implicate Hiss. It is not POV to say "which Chambers called the Ware group. In fact, it is the opposite of POV. 173.52.247.163 (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Reference to "rehabilitation of Chambers" from Orrin Judd's blog removed (See http://www.rluxemburg.com/2005/11/26/who-is-this-orrin-judd-person-and-why-does-he-hate-me/) See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alger_Hiss&oldid=483028258 173.52.247.163 (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Assistant to an Assistant

10stones5 has removed a sourced statement by Amy Knight that the alleged spy at "Yalta was an assistant to an assistant" of Stettinius with no other grounds except that he or she believes it is incorrect. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alger_Hiss&diff=prev&oldid=482489021 I believe 10stones5 has to show another verifiable reference (not a POV blog) stating that Knight is incorrect, otherwise this is original research. If he or she can't do, so the prior wording should be restored. 173.52.247.163 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC). 173.52.247.163 (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The link provided by 10Stones5: //www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/venona-soviet-espionage-and-the-american-response-1939-1957/14d.gif is to a page of the CIA website evidently reproducing a fragment of a report (letter?) about information from (or rather speculation by) Guzenko, but neither the date nor author nor recipient of the document are given. Nor can the rest of the document be accessed, at least not by me. (You would think that after more than 65 years the documents are no longer critical to national security and could be made more publicly available!) Granted, this particular CIA (FBI?) document uses the term "assistant to Stettinus" and not "assistant to an assistant". However, that does not make Amy Knight wrong or a liar. Knight writes very specifically that there were several successive reports, and that the earlier ones, which included letters by Hoover to the White House, said "Assistant to an assistant", and the later ones said "Assistant to Setttinius" as the one provided by 10stones5 from the CIA website (how did he or she access it?):

...the FBI report repeated what Hoover had said in his earlier letter to the White House: “an individual identified to date only as an assistant to an Assistant Secretary of State under Stettimius in a paid Soviet spy” [italics added]. Up to this point the RCMP had been debriefing Gouzenko. But shortly thereafter, the FBI conducted its own interview with the defector. The results were provided in a second FBI report on Soviet espionage, dated September 24, and sent to the State Department. Anyone who saw both reports would have noticed immediately that the description of the spy in the State Department had changed: “Guzenko [sic] was questioned carefully regarding the possible identity of the individual in the Department of State under Stettinius who is a Soviet spy. Guzenko stated he did not know the man’s name but that he had been told that an Assistant to Stettinius was a Soviet spy [italics added].

This change was highly significant, as it narrowed down the list of possible State Department spies considerably. ……The statements of the defector in Ottowa gave the Chambers allegation new weight.[4]

But Gouzenko had told the RCMP initially that the spy was “assistant to an Assistant Secretary of State.” This was cited specifically in Hoover’s letter to the White House and in the first FBI report, so the FBI must have thought that the RCMP had recorded Gouzenko’s statements accurately.Amy Knight, How the Cold War Began (2007), p. 3.

173.52.247.163 (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It turned out the CIA file Gouzenko file is on the web, contrary to what I assumed earlier, and I added a citation referencing the whole thing and both of Hoover's letters. In an ideal world, what ought to be added to the article - or an article about the so-called Ware group, is the context. When FDR took office he recognized and established diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union for the first time, which must have upset many people, especially in the South. Also, many in the legal department of the AAA were young northern radicals, some of them confessed Communists (which was not illegal at that time). They wanted to help organize or at least give legal assistance to tenant farmers who were being held in horrendously exploitative conditions of debt peonage (earlier in the century the Catholic Church actually put up signs in train stations in Italy telling immigrants not to Mississippi because the working conditions were tantamount to slavery). Efforts to give even minimal legal assistance to the sharecroppers were fanatically opposed by Southern landowners and agribusiness and Agriculture Secretary Wallace quickly ended up firing his legal staff under pressure. I believe Alger Hiss's memoir goes into this though I have not yet read that book. Also Abt's memoir, published recently, apparently deals with it. (I haven't read that one either). I did read "Rising Tide" by John Barry (about the debt slavery), and the biography of Agriculture Secretary (later vice president) Wallace, "American Dreamer", which tells how he fired his legal staff for being too radical. There is also a movie, funded in part by Ophra Winfrey, "The Great Debaters", which depicts the heroism of black leftist union organizers in the 1930s. This, the roots of the Ciivil Rights movement, is the great untold story of 20th century American history. Unfortunately, this article is already way too long for it's fragmentary mosaic to be put into real context. 173.52.247.163 (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

James Barron

James Turman Barron, NYT staff reporter who wrote about "Hiss defenders online" for the NYT, apparently grew up in Virginia and has family connections to the intelligence community:

https://www.nytimes.com/?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1356192838-JRoHf0yAqAu/MCVFzhuboA

Paid Notice: Deaths:

BARRON, JAMES PRESSLEY Published: November 24, 2006

BARRON--James Pressley, 86, of Lynchburg, VA, died Tuesday, November 21st, 2006. Loving husband of Leirona Turman Barron; father of James Turman Barron and father-in-law of Jane-Iris Farhi of New York; and brother of Charles E. Barron, of Athens, GA. After serving in the United States Army in Europe in World War II, he joined the Central Intelligence Agency as an analyst and received the Intelligence Commendation medal when he retired in 1985.

[Emphasis added]

Barron's very short article contained the statement that, purportedly, "a growing consensus" existed that concluded "that Hiss, indeed, had most likely been a Soviet agent". As the son of a lifetime CIA agent, Barron's objectivity is open to question. Ironically, he was reporting about Tony Hiss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.96.170 (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lede of the Alger Hiss article be rewritten?

We'll be replacing this with a new RFC
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here is the 'old' lede, which was a long-standing, hard-won consensus between a number of editors: Arguments about the case and the validity of the verdict took center stage in broader debates about the Cold War, McCarthyism, and the extent of Soviet espionage in the United States.[1] Since Hiss's conviction, statements by involved parties and newly exposed evidence have added to the dispute. In 2001, James Barron, a staff reporter for the New York Times, identified what he called a "growing consensus that Hiss, indeed, had most likely been a Soviet agent".[2] The previous year author Anthony Summers had observed that many relevant files were and would continue to be unavailable, including "ironically—even though the House Un-American Activities committee is long defunct—HUAC’s own documents. These were sealed in 1976 for an additional fifty years. Until we have full access, the Hiss controversy will continue to be debated."[3] That lead was deleted and replaced by: The typewritten copies of classified State Department documents supplied by Chambers, the testimony of Communists such as Hede Massing and Noel Field, and VENONA material describing a Soviet agent named "Ales" have tended to substantiate Hiss's guilt. Moreover, notes that were taken from multiple documents in the Soviet archives repeatedly identify Hiss as someone who was working with Soviet intelligence.However, Hiss's defenders continue to argue that the typewritten documents used at his trial were fabricated by the FBI and the military, and speculate as to alternative meanings of the other evidence. I updated the above as follows: The typewritten copies of classified State Department documents supplied by Chambers, the testimony of Communists such as Hede Massing and Noel Field, and VENONA material describing a Soviet agent named "Ales" have tended to substantiate Hiss's guilt. Some historians and researchers however continue to believe that Hiss may have been innocent. They point out that doubt remains as to whether or not Hiss gave classified documents to Chambers,[2] that Communists such as Massing and Field gave contradictory testimony regarding Hiss,[3][4] and that it cannot conclusively be established that Hiss was the agent known as "Ales."[5] Moreover, notes that were taken from multiple documents in the Soviet archives repeatedly identify Hiss as someone who was working with Soviet intelligence.[6] The accuracy of these notes is however contradicted by the research of retired Russian Generals and Soviet historians Dmitri Volkogonov and Julius N. Kobyakov, who have stated that Hiss, "had never been listed as a paid or recruited agent for the Soviet Union," and that Soviet archives contain "positive hard evidence that Alger Hiss had not had any relationship," with the USSR.[7][8] However, Hiss's defenders[who?] continue to argue that the typewritten documents used at his trial were fabricated by the FBI and the military, and speculate as to alternative meanings of the other evidence.[citation needed] Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC) the old lede works well. The revised version gives disproportionate weight to a handful of people (most of them connected to the Nation Magazine and not historians), while the great majority of historians agree that Hiss is guilty. Rjensen (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC) Joe, can you post diffs? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC) I was invited here by the RFC bot here but do not see any specific question/proposal presented. I think you are going to need to do that in order to get responses. North8000 (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed new compromise

To compromise, I've decided to leave out the material on Field, Massing, and Venona, on the grounds that they do not directly provide smoking gun proof implicating Hiss. The material on the typewriter and the notes will be maintained, as will the conspiratorial views of the Hiss defense. CJK (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't really work. Even Chambers did not claim it was Hiss himself who typed the documents; he claimed it was Priscilla.

You're not separating what implicates Hiss as guilty of espionage, and what implicates him as guilty of perjury.

Hiss's defenders continue to argue that he was a victim of an FBI-led conspiracy Are you going to provide a citation for who you're talking about?

and speculate as to alternative meanings of the evidence. How about, 'and to believe that Hiss may be innocent of charges of espionage?'

What is your attitude towards including some of the old lede along with what you've written?

Last question. If I add text to this along the lines of what I tried to add earlier, are you just going to revert it as 'POV pushing'? Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Um, the perjury was directly related to the espionage in question. Hiss had no reason for retyping the documents and he admitted it when he said he didn't do it. Nobody is claiming a memory lapse on the part of Hiss. I explained to you that a conspiracy would be necessary because that is the only way they could have obtained classified documents, forge them to link them to Hiss, and fabricate a typewriter. I clearly indicated they believe Hiss is innocent and a victim of a conspiracy. However, their speculation does not deserve equal weight to the re-typed classified documents and material in the Soviet archives that implicate Hiss. I'm not sure how you would want to incorporate it into the lead. CJK (talk) 21:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

what the RS say about the case is essential so I reverted a large deletion. Rjensen (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

To CJK: Let’s take a look at this in a slightly different way. Consider wikipedia’s policy of Wikipedia:No_original_research. "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves."

You are trying to write a new lede based on your personal conclusions, i.e., original research. You say, “Hiss had no reason for retyping the documents, ” and you,”explained… that a conspiracy would be necessary.” There’s no point in having these arguments with me or anyone else. Your conclusions are not directly relevant. Find a reliable source that agrees with you and cite it. You can’t add uncited POV to the text.

A couple of other things. “the perjury was directly related to the espionage in question.” But they are not the SAME thing. It makes more sense to me to state clearly which evidence substantiates charges of perjury, and which of espionage. And I still don’t get why you’re claiming Hiss typed the documents when that was not the prosecution’s assertion.

You say Hiss’ defenders, "do not deserve equal weight." Well, the old lede didn’t give them equal weight. You say that they, “speculate as to alternative meanings of the evidence.” That’s what we call weasel words. The article is not ruined when it acknowledges that some reliable sources have examined the evidence and believe Hiss was innocent.

I still believe that the old lede was better. And since you keep refusing to answer whether you would allow any of the text I added, we do not have a compromise. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It isn't original research, it's what Hiss's own lawyer claimed. He said the typewriter was a fake. He didn't claim Hiss didn't remember, or that there was an innocent explanation for the documents. The argument on the Hiss side has always been that Hiss did not arrange for the retyping of the documents. As is explained in the article, Chambers did not have the capability of making a fake typewriter. That means that the FBI or military did it. That's called a conspiracy. I use the word "speculate" because that's all it is. They're trying to prove a negative, and they have to say "oh, well maybe it means <insert nonsense>". Hiss is identified as a spy on five separate occasions in the notes. You want to give equal weight to people saying that we shouldn't take this explicit, smoking gun proof seriously.

There are always going to be people throwing around conspiracies and misreading the evidence for political reasons. We cannot simply mislead the reader by acting as if the clear, direct evidence implicating Hiss is somehow diminished by the "well maybe-ism" and conspiracy theories of the Hiss defense. CJK (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not helpful to disparage opinions by referring to them as "conspiracy theories." Both the theories that Hiss spied for the Soviets and that he was framed assume that there was a conspiracy. "Conspiracy theories" otoh suggest irrational explanations. TFD (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

CJK, I suggested that you stop trying to convince me of your interpretation of the evidence, and instead find reliable sources that agree with your text and cite them. Your response is to continue to argue your POV on the evidence.

You also continue to refuse answer my question as to whether you will allow text added to your text along the lines of what I added before that your reverted as 'POV pushing.' You are not making any effort to reach a compromise, you're simply ignoring those who disagree with you while posting the same text, with a word change or two, over and over again.

There are historians and subject-matter experts who believe that Hiss was or may have been innocent. Your text doesn't allow for that. It simply dismisses anyone who disagrees with the "consensus" as believers in undefined conspiracy theories or, using weasel words, as people who, "speculate as to alternative meanings of the evidence."

The old lede was a better summary of the case against Hiss as relates to an encyclopedia biography of his life. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, your version does contain weasel words. Like imputing the consensus about Hiss's guilt to a single reporter to the New York Times. And implying that the conspiracy would go away only if the documents were unsealed.

Let's go over this once again: Hiss was linked to the retyped documents. The response of the Hiss defense (this is not me making this up, this is actually in the article with sources) is to claim the FBI and the military did it. Hiss is explicitly identified as an agent in the Soviet archives. The Hiss defense claims that the Soviets just didn't know what they were talking about. Under those standards we have to throw out all convictions in history on the grounds that the government could have planted the evidence and the witnesses might have not known what they are talking about. We do not have to bow down an give equal weight to every crackpot conspiracy theory that appears. The consensus, as noted, is that Hiss did it. His innocence in maintained by a hardcore minority. CJK (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's what I want to know: what is the level of acceptable evidence (short of a confession by Hiss) that would be sufficient for Wikipedia to confirm unambiguously that he was a Soviet spy, qualified only by the existence of conspiracy theories asserting he wasn't? CJK (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

CJK... I take it you haven't read source documents from the Hoover/McCarthy era? At this distance in time, it's highly unlikely Hiss's innocence or guilt can be proved. Hoover was plenty motivated to hang someone to protect his reputation as a spy catcher. He certainly had the capability to gin up a fake typewriter. Hoover's idea of "evidence" was flimsy at best. His minions told him what he wanted to hear. Period. Calling this a "conspiracy" is not correct... power & greed is more appropriate. "Evidence" coming from the Soviet archives? Plenty of motivation to spin "facts."

Plus there's the little detail that Wikipedia is not a court of law, so "evidence" is not the correct expectation.

Hiss's conviction, of course, was in a Kangaroo Court, not a true court of law. DEddy (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

"Let's go over this once again". No, let's don't. We have already debated the basic points of evidence more times than is needed. CJK and I have a different point of view in what the evidence means, and there is nothing more to be said on that front. As I keep saying, I am perfectly willing to let CJK update the lede if he will allow me to update it as well. CJK refuses to compromise, so what, really, is left to discuss? Apparently, we're headed for arbitration. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

DEddy... I take it you haven't read source documents from the Nuremburg era? At this distance in time, it's highly unlikely the Nazis innocence or guilt can be proved. The Allies were plenty motivated to hang people to protect their reputation as victims. They certainly had the capability to gin up fake evidence. The Allied idea of "evidence" was flimsy at best. Their minions told him what they wanted to hear. Period. Calling this a "conspiracy" is not correct... power & greed is more appropriate. "Evidence" coming from the German archives? Plenty of motivation to spin "facts."

Plus there's the little detail that Wikipedia is not a court of law, so "evidence" is not the correct expectation.

The Nazis conviction, of course, was in a Kangaroo Court, not a true court of law. CJK (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I take it you haven't read source documents from the Nuremburg era? Most certainly not. What's the connection/relevance to the Hiss issue? DEddy (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess I should respond to Joe's specific edit points, even though I already did much earlier. First, he asserts there are questions as to how Chambers obtained the documents. As I have already pointed out repeatedly, the question is whether the retyped documents are authentic or not. This is clearly stated by the Hiss defense in the article, if you read it. Hiss's lawyer asserted that the typewriter was fake. The judge pointed out that Chambers couldn't have faked it. The article goes on to speculate that the FBI and military did it. That's called a conspiracy. I didn't make it up, it is in the article.

His other point is that someone else also looked in the Soviet archives, and claimed they could not find Hiss. That does not negate the evidence in any way. It merely means that he personally failed to locate Hiss. It would not be surprising, given that the KGB and it's predecessors only knew about Hiss in passing because of his relationship with the GRU, military intelligence. He only "queried" the GRU. So unless you can provided reliable sources from experts asserting that the notes are fakes, your point against the notes lacks validity. CJK (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The judge pointed out that Chambers couldn't have faked it. First: what would a Judge know about the ability to forge a typewriter? I expect forging a typewriter was well within the abilities of multiple agencies. Second: who says it was Chambers that did the forging? So unless you can provided reliable sources from experts asserting that the notes are fakes There are so many questions about those notes (assuming we're talking about Vassiliev's volumes)... one being: if he had to check his notebooks into some sort of security station when leaving the archives, how did he get the volumes out of the archives? DEddy (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

From CJK: "I am still waiting for a substantive response". I know I'm going to regret this, but on what exactly, have you not received a substantive repsonse? Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

On your "compromise" you want to insert language to deprecate the evidence and I am pointing out my objection to it, most recently immediately above. You have never responded to any of this. CJK (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

To CJK: Have you gone through Svetlana Chervonnaya's "Documents Talk" website? http://www.documentstalk.com/wp/dossiers-on-alexander-vassilievs-notes There's clearly a lot of material there. DEddy (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"On your "compromise" you want to insert language to deprecate the evidence and I am pointing out my objection to it," You want the lede the talk about specific points of view on specific points of evidence. Well, it so happens that there is more than one point of view. Deprecate means to deplore or belittle. Expressing a second conclusion on the evidence does not deplore or belittle the first conclusion. And I am willing to allow some form of, "most historians have concluded Hiss was guilty."

Consider the Soviet archives. We have Vassiliev saying he saw documents that convict Hiss. We also have Volkogonov and Kobyakov, who have stated that Hiss, "had never been listed as a paid or recruited agent for the Soviet Union," and that Soviet archives contain "positive hard evidence that Alger Hiss had not had any relationship," with the USSR. It's not up to you to say that Vassiliev will be represented in the lede but Volkogonov and Kobyakov won't. Other opinions are just as valid as yours, and other people have as much right to edit the article as you do. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank for responding. Vassiliev didn't merely claim to see documents, he actually took notes copying many of them as evidence. As is noted in this article Volkogonov subsequently stated he spent only two days on the search and had mainly relied on the word of KGB archivists. "What I saw gave me no basis to claim a full clarification", he said. Referring to Hiss's lawyer, he added, "John Lowenthal pushed me to say things of which I was not fully convinced. So that strikes against Vologonov. Kobyakov may well have not found Hiss, but he was contradicted not only by Vassiliev but also two other researchers (as noted in the article). I am not saying that he was lying (although Vologonov said his research gave him "no basis" for clarification) but he may simply have failed to find Hiss during his search. His denials do not constitute "proof" of an absence of Hiss and in any event are flatly contradicted by other researchers, one of whom is Vassiliev who took over 1,000 pages of notes. These notes have been examined by experts who concluded they are genuine. Even the Hiss defense by in large are not arguing that the notes are fakes. You have not challenged this point.

So you are, in fact, deprecating the evidence. The argument advanced is that since he claims that he personally didn't find Hiss, it means the notes could be fakes. That isn't reasonable and it is being argued solely be yourself. Meaning that you are not citing anyone who uses the official denials in order to attack the credibility of the notes. You are conducting original research. CJK (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

One more point I completely forgot for some reason: you have to carefully look at how Kobyakov words his statement. What he said was Mr. A. Hiss had never had any relationship with the SVR or it's predecessors.

Hiss, of course, was not accused of having a relationship with the SVR predecessor organizations. Rather, he was accused of being with the GRU, military intelligence. This a classic case of weasel wording and deeply undermines your argument. CJK (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point completely. As far as you're concerned, only your point of view is worthy of consideration in the lede, even if there is a difference of opinion among subject matter experts.

I submit at this time that CJK is in violation of wikipedia's policy on Ownership of articles. It says, among other things, by submitting your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) to Wikipedia, you allow others to challenge and develop them. It also notes that some editors, may try to promote their own point of view, failing to recognize the importance of the neutrality policy. Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy says of course that, Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you'd be better off actually responding to the substance of my complaint rather than throwing around bogus accusations. You are the one conducting original research. I just explained to you, in detail, that Vologonov admitted he wasn't being truthful and Kobyakov was making an utterly irrelevant point about Hiss not having a relationship with SVR predecessor organizations, even though Hiss was always believed to be with the GRU. Your response As far as you're concerned, only your point of view is worthy of consideration is an extraordinary act of bad faith that will in no way lead to the resolution of this argument. CJK (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I judge people by what they do. You have edited the long-standing, stable, consensus lede of this article to make it less neutral and more POV. You have done so without getting any buy-in from other editors. You have refused to allow any changes to what you have written. You have refused to describe what kind of compromise you'd be willing to make. You're violating wikipedia policy by not allowing collaborative editing. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

False and misleading statements made in Joegoodfriend's version

Let's keep this simple.

the alleged existence of documents establishing Hiss' guilt is contradicted by the research of retired Russian Generals and Soviet historians Dmitri Volkogonov and Julius N. Kobyakov, who have stated that Hiss, "had never been listed as a paid or recruited agent for the Soviet Union," and that Soviet archives contain "positive hard evidence that Alger Hiss had not had any relationship," with Russian intelligence services.

1. Volkogonov repudiated what he said later, saying he had been under pressure from Hiss's lawyer. This is detailed in the article and not possible to miss.

2. Kobyakov restricted his statement to a Hiss relationship with the SVR predecessor organizations. Hiss was accused of being with GRU, military intelligence.

CJK (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

"Volkogonov repudiated what he said later," Not true. He said, assuming this citation is actually correct, he was 'not fully convinced.' Hey, you think Noel Field's accusation of Hiss is worthy of the lede even though he totally, categorically repudiated it.

Romerstein and Breindel claimed in 'Venona Secrets' that Hiss was an NKVD agent.

But the fact that we're even discussing this suggests as least the possibility of a compromise.

Take a look at the Alger_Hiss#Soviet_archives section of this article, and the number of researchers suggesting that there was no reference to Hiss in the intelligence archives. There must be SOME form of reference to this research that would be acceptable for the lede. Well? Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The article reads Volkogonov subsequently stated he spent only two days on the search and had mainly relied on the word of KGB archivists. "What I saw gave me no basis to claim a full clarification", he said. Referring to Hiss's lawyer, he added, "John Lowenthal pushed me to say things of which I was not fully convinced." You do not agree that that is a repudiation? His so-called "research" lasted two days and gave him "no basis" for his previous statements.

I don't know who Romerstein and Breindel are, and I don't care what they think. The main allegation against Hiss from the very beginning has been that he worked with military intelligence, the GRU, not the NKVD. See the books Perjury and Spies.

We have notes from the archives. You are conducting original research by deprecating the notes without citing experts who share your opinion on them. CJK (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Volkogonov, the archivists who reviewed files with him, Vitaly Pavlov, Kobyakov and Chervonnaya have all commented in the negative on a Hiss relationship with the USSR. You cannot take the position that Vassiliev will be mentioned in the lede, but none of these others.

What is your proposal for a compromise? Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are repeating yourself instead of responding to the substance of what I just conveyed to you. None of the people you named have both a) combed through the archives in search of Hiss and b) unambiguously concluded and continued to maintain that there was no relationship between Hiss and the GRU. CJK (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand this statement None of the people you named have both a) combed through the archives in search of Hiss and b) unambiguously concluded and continued to maintain that there was no relationship between Hiss and the GRU. If there are more than a half dozen people involved in such research efforts, I'd be astonished. So how can you claim there is "consensus among historians"? Aside from the fact that the people who claim to have gone through the Russian archives are NOT historians. Vassiliev was, of course a "former" KGB agent & therefore I believe disqualified from wearing the "historian" crown. DEddy (talk) 00:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

A couple of issues.

”I don't understand why you are repeating yourself instead of responding to the substance of what I just conveyed to you. “ In case my response was unclear, here it is again. You and I have discussed all the major points of evidence at length. I have made clear what I think the evidence means, and why my conclusions are different from yours. If the lede is going to include specific interpretations of the evidence, (which I think is a mistake) I have as much right to include text as you do. But you refuse to acknowledge that. Instead, you add your interpretations, then declare all others to be wrong. This is not going to get us to a compromise.

”There is a scholarly consensus that Hiss was in fact a Soviet agent.” I hope you understand the difference between the objective facts and the subjective opinions.

Objective fact: “James Barron, a staff reporter for the New York Times, identified what he called a "growing consensus that Hiss, indeed, had most likely been a Soviet agent".

Subjective opinion: “There is a scholarly consensus that Hiss was in fact a Soviet agent.”

Opinions should not be submitted as fact.

I hope after a month of this we're all getting tired enough of this to reach a compromise, even if that compromise will be something that will make none of us are totally happy. That what a compromise is.

So, what is your proposal for a compromise? Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying the consensus is merely an opinion of one single reporter, and can't be proven to exist? If that's true, why does this one reporter's opinion deserve lead status in the first place?

This isn't a matter of compromising my POV with your POV. My POV is fully sourced and is factual. There are notes from the Soviet archives, and these notes prove Hiss's guilt. Your POV involves inserting "facts" that are downright false and misleading for reasons that I explained multiple times and you fail to respond to. CJK (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

"If that's true, why does this one reporter's opinion deserve lead status in the first place?" In my opinion, it doesn't. The inclusion of the NYT quote was a compromise at the end of a year-long edit war between one editor who wanted to add the text, "most historians believe Hiss was guilty" and those of use who believe that the lede shouldn't comment on the matter, because it's highly POV and doesn't improve the article. What you're doing is replacing text that at least has the virtue of being factual with text that is POV.

"these notes prove Hiss's guilt." No they don't because the documents behind the notes haven't been proven to exist. In any case, if they are going to be discussed in the lede, so should other investigations of the archives.

So how are we going to resolve this? Wait for one of us to die? Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

But again, I don't understand why you are denying that there is a consensus. Even the Hiss defense agrees that most scholars think he's guilty.

The notes have submitted to experts who concluded that they were genuine, and not forgeries. If you have some expert who says otherwise, I'd be glad to see it. Everything else is original research. CJK (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If I address the above questions, are you going to respond with your proposal for resolving this dispute? Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it, is that a threat? You seem to be saying that you are going to hold the article hostage by not responding to the points I have repeatedly given to you unless I agree to surrender to your version of "compromise" which involves, as pointed out to you literally over and over again, downright false and misleading statements. CJK (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

There is already someone holding the article hostage: you. I have repeatedly said I am prepared to compromise, you refuse to indicate any willingness to do so. There are two reasons why I don't feel the need to debate the evidence with you any further. First, we've already pretty much talked it into the ground, but more importantly, the only reason to keep debating it is to reach a compromise, which you refuse to do. Joegoodfriend (talk) 06:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

My version already includes language describing your side of the argument. That was the compromise. If it was just me writing this, that language would not be there. I dropped two pieces of evidence on the grounds they were indirect. That was another compromise. You have reciprocated by proposing a compromise containing false and misleading statements, which are the subject of this section. You refuse to acknowledge that they are false and misleading even though it has been pointed out to you with crystal clarity. For some reason you seem to think you can simply advance original research without having to respond to what other users have to say. That is not how conflict resolution works.

If you have another compromise, one that does not contain false and misleading statements, we would not be talking in circles right now. CJK (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Scholarly Consensus?

CJK - other than the single NYT reporter, obviously NOT a scholar, can you point to where this scholarly consensus is, please? I'm under the impression that academics don't much care about Hiss. It's been gummed to death. Minimal room for original research/publishing. Of course, I do not include Haynes & Klehr as academics. For a topic of this nature, their work is far too slipshod. Their stuff is like reading an FBI Special Agent's report (e.g. what do I write that will make my boss happy?) DEddy (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the purpose of source material. Newspaper articles are not cited with the view that they reflect exclusively the author's personal opinion. If I found and cited an article that said Barack Obama is taking a vacation I am not reporting a personal opinion of an author but rather a factual statement that is being conveyed by that author.

Your utterly uncalled for denigration of Haynes and Klehr as not "academic" reflects your personal, with all due respect, fanatical pro-Hiss POV that is not open to any contrary evidence. It really doesn't matter what you personally happen to think of people, DEddy. Sorry if that's harsh. In any event, if you bother to check the footnote it actually cites additional sources as evidence for a consensus, one by someone defending Hiss. CJK (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

My! So you're content with the quality & accuracy of H&K's various efforts? Would you alter your opinion if I pointed to a flat out wrong statement in one of their works? It's not just a trivial wrong year. I don't want to give you the reference unless you would like to see it. The point is, when someone claims to be an expert, this means they better dot their i's & cross their t's.

BTW - when I look at that footnote, one link is dead, one goes to TIME (hardly a reliable source for this topic) & the other 2 appear to be live. So where does this "most historians" thing come from? Two votes?

As to the "fanatical POV" I'm currently leaning towards thinking that perhaps Hiss was up to something. But whatever it was wasn't even remotely worthy of the destruction that Hoover, McCarthy & Co. visited on our diplomatic corps. Please remember all this handwaving is entirely one-sided. So far we haven't heard from the other side—the Soviets. Vassiliev's story is just too shakey to embrace. DEddy (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

All academics make mistakes, many are extremely biased. That doesn't mean they're not academics. And, as I explained to you, you misunderstand source material by acting as if it only reflects on that author's personal views, rather than carrying any factual weight. That standard is not applied to any research articles in the entire world. And, again, why does it matter that you personally do not believe Vassiliev? CJK (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Klehr et al say on p. 4 that articles supporting Hiss' innocence continue to be published in "prestigious academic journals", which would seem to argue against a consensus. I agree that we should use an academic source to say there is an academic consensus. I would also be interested to know how long Hiss supposedly continued to work for Soviet intelligence, what information he provided them and whether any of his activities at Yalta or the UN were Soviet-directed.

Klehr's book however remains an academic source. If there are factual errors they need to be addressed individually. His conclusions are another matter - we need to establish the degree of acceptance they have received.

TFD (talk) 23:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

New Request for Comment?

Proposed wording for new request for comment. This is the bare-bones wording, it can be expanded.

Title: RfC: Should the lede of the Alger Hiss article be rewritten?

Text:

Current last paragraph of the lede: Arguments about the case and the validity of the verdict took center stage in broader debates about the Cold War, McCarthyism, and the extent of Soviet espionage in the United States. Since Hiss's conviction, statements by involved parties and newly exposed evidence have added to the dispute. In 2001, James Barron, a staff reporter for the New York Times, identified what he called a "growing consensus that Hiss, indeed, had most likely been a Soviet agent". The previous year author Anthony Summers had observed that many relevant files were and would continue to be unavailable, including "ironically—even though the House Un-American Activities committee is long defunct—HUAC’s own documents. These were sealed in 1976 for an additional fifty years. Until we have full access, the Hiss controversy will continue to be debated."

Proposed replacement: There is a scholarly consensus that Hiss was in fact a Soviet agent. Evidence presented at his trials substantiated the charges against Hiss by demonstrating that he had arranged for the retyping of classified State Department documents that were subsequently given to Chambers. Hiss's guilt was further established by notes taken from multiple documents in the Soviet archives that repeatedly identify Hiss as working with Soviet intelligence. However, Hiss's defenders continue to argue that he was a victim of an FBI-led conspiracy and speculate as to alternative meanings of the evidence.

Do the editors support or oppose the change?

Please add your thoughts. Thanks, Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence Arguments about the case and the validity of the verdict took center stage in broader debates about the Cold War, McCarthyism, and the extent of Soviet espionage in the United States. was never removed by me, so it should not be there.

My proposal would be: Should the lead of the Alger Hiss article mention incriminating evidence against Hiss gathered from the Soviet Archives and cite this evidence as proof of his guilt? I would be willing to compromise the exact wording. CJK (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean that you just want to change the title of the Rfc and include the "arguments about" sentence? Is this otherwise ok in terms of the proposed new text? Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that I don't really care specifically how the lead is worded, but I want it to cite evidence conclusively showing Hiss's guilt. So I don't think it should mention replacing the text with any specific version, just whether or not it should cite the evidence from the archives that demonstrates Hiss's guilt. CJK (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not think that anyone who has not followed this discussion would understand the RfC. I do not think the lead is the place to present evidence in support of different views, just to explain that there are different views. TFD (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Um, yeah, except one "view" is strictly factual whereas the other "view" is based on conspiracy theories. CJK (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

At this distance, for a topic of this political complexity & passion, "strictly factual" really isn't an operative phrase.

Even Hoover said in Congressional testimony (I assume sworn) that Elizabeth Bentley's tales were "substantially correct," even when presented with hard evidence to the contrary.

re: "conspiracy theories" Would you accept "Witch hunt atmosphere"?

What source materials have your read from this era?

From what perspective did you live the McCarthy era? DEddy (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not an expert on Requests for Comment. I've been reading the existing ones to try and get insight. There are some rfc's that ask open-ended questions like, "should information about thus-and-so be included in this person's bio?" But that seems to be more for getting ideas rather than for resolving contentious issues. For disputed changes, it seems more appropriate to ask approval for a specifically-worded change rather than an endorsement of an idea. I would appreciate it if you would take a look at some existing rfc's and let me know if so see any that express what you are looking for in a Rfc here. Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

From WP:RFC: Keep the RfC statement simple and succinct. Statements are often phrased as questions, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?" The RfC bot will copy your statement (from the end of the RFC template through the first date stamp) to the list of active RfCs. A long statement will make the list harder to read. For technical reasons, statements may not contain tables or complex formatting, although these may be added after the initial statement.

So I don't see why a short, to the point question of including the notes in the lead would be inappropriate, to the contrary it seems to be recommended policy. CJK (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I have two concerns regarding this approach.

1. It leaves part of the dispute unaddressed. Specifically, whether the NYT quote is replaced with the "scholarly consensus", and, how the sentence regarding doubt about Hiss' guilt will read, either your version, "Hiss's defenders continue to argue that he was a victim of an FBI-led conspiracy and speculate as to alternative meanings of the evidence," or some other version.

2. Suppose that we write the RFC this way, and the answer comes back as a resounding, "YES." So that means I guess that you add the text, "Hiss's guilt was further established by notes taken from multiple documents in the Soviet archives that repeatedly identify Hiss as working with Soviet intelligence."

But then what? Does that mean no one is allowed to add text regarding doubts about the accuracy and value of the notes? And what about the other research and expert opinion on the Soviet archives? Can this also not be mentioned?

This RFC is the kind of thing I have in mind: [1]

Let the community weigh in on which version is better. That closes the dispute. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

We can list each proposed change separately. Does that mean no one is allowed to add text regarding doubts about the accuracy and value of the notes? I have asked you repeatedly to cite experts who believe the notes are fakes, but you never responded. CJK (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean one request for comment that includes several separate questions?

"I have asked you repeatedly to cite experts who believe the notes are fakes, but you never responded."

Ok. 1. Amy Knight of the Times Literary Supplement in a 2009 article entitled, "Leonard?", concluded that the Vassiliev notes are fakes. D.D. Guttenplan and Jeff Kisseloff have also questioned whether the notes reflect reality.

2. Regarding the value of the notes, John Lowenthal said, "There is no way to verify the authenticity of the KGB documents; no way to check the accuracy of the excerpts and paraphrases printed in the book; no way to study their context, such as the rest of the file from which a particular document came, which every historian and student knows can be crucial to a correct reading and interpretation. We do not even know whether the documents Vassiliev saw are in the Russian language and, if they are, who translated them and how accurately." He also pointed out problems with Vassiliev's work such as the fact that Vassiliev claims in "The Haunted Wood" that Hiss was "Ales", yet admitted under oath that he'd never seen a single document linking Hiss with the cover name "Ales."

3. Boris Labusov stated that Vassiliev could not in the course of his research have possibly "met the name of Alger Hiss in the context of some cooperation with some special services of the Soviet Union." Volkogonov and Kobyakov, have stated that Hiss, "had never been listed as a paid or recruited agent for the Soviet Union," and that Soviet archives contain "positive hard evidence that Alger Hiss had not had any relationship," with Russian intelligence services. To my mind, these statements are at least as relevant to the question as one man's unverified claims of what he saw in the Archives. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I meant one comment that includes several different questions.

1. Knight did not conclude the notes were fakes. In fact, she said they were taken from authentic SVR files. I need more context for the other two.

2. Hiss's lawyer (and his son) cannot be deemed neutral experts.

3. Vologonov and Kobyakov have been repeatedly explained to you.

CJK (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Concisely stated. Thank you. Would you care to write up your RFC proposal, both the title and the questions, for discussion? Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Title: Should the lead of the Alger Hiss article include the following information:

1. That there is a scholarly consensus of Hiss's guilt.

2. That notes from the Soviet archives have confirmed his guilt.

CJK (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok good job. If you'd care to submit it, besides this talk page it should appear here Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies and maybe on 'history and geography' as well. I'll kill off the old RFC. I'll need a couple of days before I can comment on the RFC once it's up. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I know what I'm doing but I tried to post it. CJK (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I think all you did was create a link to this thread. Read up on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_articles.2C_policies.2C_or_other_non-user_issues. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Brought to my Attention

I was informed of the ongoing discussion concerning Alger Hiss by Mike Cline at the WikiProject Espionage. I can clearly see that an edit war has been going on with the article and dispute of certain wording in paragraphs, which also includes a percentage of referenced material.

With my limited experience in writing such good and lengthy articles, information that is dubious has to be referenced to make it not so dubious. There are cases where very limited information such as this article has little or no confirmation of trying to reference with multiple sources. When a compromise cannot be met by several users, there should be a debate of information and how it is worded and the references are used. If the debate cannot come to an agreement it should be noted on the talkpage and archived for future referencing including the sources of the information. Remember that Wikipedia is an editable site and no individual owns a particular article. Of course this does mean the user who has greatly expanded a certain article can oversee new editions if verified. Adamdaley (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikilinks Request Removal

I proprose the removal of the Category "Harvard Law Review people" (at the bottom) and "Harry Vaughan" (located in the President Harry S. Truman addressing image caption) since they are redlinked. However these are just minor adjustments. Adamdaley (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Alger Hiss and the Soviet files

I am a new contributor so I will be brief. You cannot rely on the Soviet sources. Their authors were not required to corroborate what they said. The regime was based on lies, and truth was "class truth". By contrast, the US legal system , whatever its faults, had a standard of proof and corroboration as requirements. What I and some others say when we doubt the guilt of Hiss is that the trials showed evidence of fraud,forgery and lying - I should say fantasizing- by the main prosecution witness. If anyone disagrees with this assertion, I am prepared to show the evidence here or on the net.RhosfawrRhosfawr (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You cannot rely on the Soviet sources. [what's the emoticon for HEAVY sarcasm?] Do tell!

What I and some others say when we doubt the guilt of Hiss is that the trials showed evidence of fraud,forgery and lying - I should say fantasizing- by the main prosecution witness. The difference between Chambers & Hiss was described to me thusly: If Chambers told a story 17 times, each rendition would be different. When Hiss told a story, it would be exactly the same 17 times. Doesn't prove anything but it's a striking contrast. DEddy (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks you Rhosfawr. if Alger Hiss was a spy, it would have been the greatest coup in the history of espionage during the Cold War. As we've seen, no hard evidence of Hiss has a spy has come from Soviet Archives, and leading Soviet officers have denied it as well. Please continue contributing. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. In brief, your personal opinions with regards to Soviet intelligence are fascinating but Wikipedia is not based on editor's personal opinions. Thank you. CJK (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This is my third attempt to reply. I hope this one gets through. I did not state my "personal opinions". A lot of people have commented on the misleading nature of Soviet records. Have you not read George Orwell? Who do you suppose he was satirizing? A particular case is that of the famine in the Ukraine. Rumours about this got out despite the censorship. A journalist named Gareth Jones took the risk of going to see for himself. He reported the existence of a famine much worse than he expected, and the fact that the government used the famine for political purposes. Some sources say that they deliberately caused the famine. Jones had his permission to live in the USSR withdrawn. Incidentally, when he went to a remote part of China (pre World War II) the Soviets had him killed, no doubt for fear that he would investigate Communist activity in China.You can read all about it on Wikipedia in the entry under his name.

Since there is a move to accept the views of the "consensus historians" on the Soviet files as conclusive on the issue of Alger Hiss' guilt, I I would like to register my disagreement. The Soviets lied to us about most things for 80 years. Why should we suppose that the leopard has lost his spots? RhosfawrRhosfawr (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a consensus among historians that Hiss was guilty. This is not based solely on the access to the intelligence files following the fall of the Soviet Union. The declassification of US intercepts and decryption has played a large role. See Venona project. As to your question about leopards, the Soviets are gone. The Russians remain. This isn't a question of your trust, its a matter of verification. Hiss was convicted, leftists rushed to his defence. The growing evidence [[2]] since then has served to strengthen the case against Hiss. It does not rely on anyone's agreement or lack of agreement with Soviets. Capitalismojo (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want to believe that Hiss was guilty, you have to explain the reason why the documents that Chambers produced were of non-confidential documents. Most were about topics referred to in the " New York Times " of even date. Check it for yourself as I have done. The NYT is now online. There are numerous other reasons to be skeptical: for instance the fact that Chambers lied about so many things and the fraudulent behavior of the FBI. RhosfawrRhosfawr (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

See discussion below - I doubt that the Soviet cables were faked <g>. Collect (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 June 2013

In the 'Post-incarceration' section, the following occurs: "On November 11, 1962, following Richard Nixon's failed 1962 bid for governor of California, Hiss appeared in a segment titled (prematurely) "The Political Obituary of Richard M. Nixon" on the Howard K. Smith: News and Comment show on ABC television". "(prematurely)" is clearly editorialising, and of no relevance to the section. Please delete it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Agree Received opinion was that Nixon's defeat had ended his career. TFD (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

How is it editorializing? It seems clarifying to me. Just because Andy, TFD, and I know Nixon rose from the dead doesn't mean every reader of this international encyclopedia will. Yopienso (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not fussing or criticizing the removal of the word "(prematurely)." I'm seriously asking for a lesson on what is wrong with clarifying that although Smith (and, of course, nearly everyone else) declared Nixon's political death, the "obit" was premature since, unknown to the pundits, he was a future POTUS. Yopienso (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

To me 'prematurely' looks like negative commentary - with hindsight. It isn't normal to make comments about the titles of sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The meaning of the word "prematurely" on dictionary.com is here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prematurely?s=t . Maybe a better word to use in replace? Adamdaley (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The preposterous defense of Alger Hiss

Wow, I mean wow. Apparently Chambers, Nixon, the FBI, the NSA, the CIA (see above), the Military, Vassiliev, Haynes, and Klehr among others are all part of the grand conspiracy to frame Hiss at least according to this article.

Unfortunately, for those of us who live in the real world, the evidence of Hiss's guilt is irrefutably overwhelming. To illustrate this, I would like to call attention to a particularly brazen lie that is given in one of the citations in the article used to criticize Haynes and Klehr's book. The context is that while he believes that LEONARD in a memo written by Gorsky in 1948 or 1949 is Hiss, he does not believe it constitutes sufficient proof that he was an agent.

The authors add one final reference to their arguments against Hiss. This concerns a 1950 document which, according to Vassiliev's notes, mentions the trial of "Leonard," a reference they say was to Alger Hiss. Leonard was only an operational code name for Hiss, coined in 1949 to give him a reference name when discussing reports about his case. It is not proof that he was in any way associated with the Soviets. Mostly like, this seems to be another example of information gathered from public sources; the trial of Alger Hiss for perjury had come to a close that January. Oddly, the same document is cited in "The Haunted Wood" (p. 297), but in Weinstein's citation of this document, there is no mention of "Leonard." [3]

Let me quote directly from the exact memo he claims "is not proof that he was in any way associated with the Soviets". It is dated 16 March 1950 and titled "Plan of measures for the 1st Department, 1st Directorate of the KI to improve intelligence work in the USA" and is written by S. Savchenko (Source: Vassiliev black notebook pp. 81-82 accessed here [4])

“After the treachery of the traitor to the Homeland, Gouzenko, in Canada, American counterintelligence agencies increased their work against us and were able to strike heavy blows against our agent network in the USA. The most appreciable blow against our operations was struck by the betrayal in November 1945 of our former group handler, “Myrna,” who betrayed over 40 of our most valuable agents to American authorities. “Myrna” (the wife of our illegal station chief “Sound,” who died in 1943) collaborated with us for many years and, owing to improper organization of work, personally knew a lot of our agents. The significance of this failure can be judged by the fact that, of the people betrayed by “Myrna,” the majority occupied key posts in leading government agencies: in the State Department, in branches of American intelligence, in the Dept. of the Treasury, etc. Side by side with “Myrna’s” betrayal, four groups of agents (working outside of the agent network led by “Myrna”) failed in this same time period, i.e., since the end of 1945, as a result of testimony given to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by former agents of the MGB USSR and the GRU GSh VS – the traitors “Berg,” “Buben,” “Karl,” and “Redhead.” These four groups contained more than 30 valuable agents, including former employees of the State Department, Treasury Department, the Dept. of the Interior, etc. The open investigation of these cases coincided with July-September 1948, and the trial of the GRU GSh VS agent “Leonard,” the chief of one of the main divisions of the State Department and a member of “Karl’s” group, ended in his conviction at the beginning of 1950.

I rest my case.

Of course, I don't expect anything to actually change around here. After all, this evidence has been available for years, but it wasn't even hinted at until I inserted it today. I'm sure some convoluted explanation will be forthcoming shortly. CJK (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a curious phenomenon regarding those editors who have contributed to the Alger Hiss page and who also are convinced of Hiss' guilt. That is, they can never let their edits simply speak for themselves. Rather they must lecture the editing community at length regarding their shock and disgust that a wikipedia article might actually be written from a neutral point of view. Yes yes, you've cornered the market on truth, and anyone who disagrees with you is an obtuse troll. You know what? We've heard it all before. You're just boring.

Can we see the memo you refer to? Why am I supposed to take Vassiliev's claims at face value? To quote a review of Haynes' book "Spies", "Vassiliev’s own credibility gap: In 2003 he lost a libel trial in Britain—where the law is notoriously stacked in favor of plaintiffs—after a jury found that a reviewer’s characterization of Vassiliev as “an unreliable author whose identification of persons who worked for the KGB is in part wrong, in part based on out-of-context information, and in part mere guesswork” was perfectly reasonable. And as the historian Amy Knight pointed out in the Times Literary Supplement (June 26, 2009) Vassiliev’s most recent account of his note taking in “Spies” contradicts his sworn testimony from that 2003 trial."

I tell you what. Why don't you just summarize, right here on the talk page, the evidence that conclusively demonstrates that Hiss was a spy. And by evidence, I mean something other than Vassiliev. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to top Ellen Schrecker. "“There is now just too much evidence from too many different sources to make it possible for anyone but the most die-hard loyalists to argue convincingly for the innocence of Hiss, Rosenberg, and the others." Ellen W. Schrecker, “Comments on John Earl Haynes' 'The Cold War Debate Continues: A Traditionalist View of Historical Writing on Domestic Communism and Anti-Communism.'” Journal of Cold War Studies, Volume 2, Number 1(Winter 2000). Wikipedia shouldn't reflect a "die-hard loyalist" view. Yopienso (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

So you are arguing that Vassiliev simply forged over 1,000 pages of notes out of thin air? Please direct me to the experts who have examined his notes and have concluded that they are fakes. Even Knight admitted that they were taken from authentic SVR files. The Alger Hiss defense website does not dispute that the notes are genuine, only their meaning (which they brazenly lie about). I clearly identified the source of the memo in my post, it would take you no more than a minute or two to find it yourself.

The issue isn't putting one side's view over the other, it's that one side uses evidence and reason while the other side grasps at straws and peddles conspiracy theories about Nixon, Chambers, Field, Massing, the FBI, the military, the CIA, the NSA, Vassiliev, all out to get Hiss. CJK (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry fellas, but you fail the exam. The exam question was, "Cite evidence which would tend to lead the neutral observer to the conclusion the Alger Hiss was, beyond question, guilty of acting as an agent of the USSR." Now let's look at your answers.

1. Ellen Schrecker, etc. If you'll have a look at the talk pages for this article, you'll find a year long edit war over inserting text stating that "most" historians believe Hiss guilty. Apparently the meme is that so many historians have said Hiss is guilty, that to suggest otherwise is just silly. I don't have to agree. Accusations, even a lot of accusations, are not evidence.

2. Vassiliev claims to have seen documents demonstrating Hiss' guilt, though no one else can even verify that these specific documents exist. So am I arguing that Vassiliev simply forged over 1,000 pages of notes out of thin air? No. The notes can be 99.99% accurate, and Vassiliev would still only need to make a mistake or alter or forge a reference here and there to be able to make headlines. "The Alger Hiss defense website does not dispute that the notes are genuine, only their meaning (which they brazenly lie about)." I disagree. Since the website in question considers Hiss innocent, I think we can take it as read that it does not completely vouch for notes on a document that refer to Leonard-as-Hiss as a Soviet agent. I can wish that the footnote in question regarding the document explained the web site's interpretation in a more transparent way, but it doesn't.

If the case against Hiss is unassailable, I would think it would be unassailable even exclusive of Vassiliev's notes.

Is it? If so, let's see the evidence Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Please stop. Do you know who Ellen Schrecker is? Did you read the article?
• No good historian is going to assert a 100% certainty that Hiss was a Soviet spy; all will concede there is substantial evidence that he was. The case is not unassailable, but is strongly supported by evidence accepted by the best scholars.
• You seem to lack a grasp of WP:NPV. You said, "Apparently the meme is that so many historians have said Hiss is guilty, that to suggest otherwise is just silly." WP presents the mainstream view and, with due weight, mentions alternate views.
• We cannot simply ignore the Vassiliev notebooks.
• Certainly you don't have to agree! You can think whatever you want; you just can't put your personal opinions in Wikipedia.
• Your opening words about us fellas failing the exam is a tad offensive, especially since the words you put in quotation marks did not previously appear verbatim. Please remember you are neither our instructor nor our interrogator; let's try to collaborate here collegially as peers. Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 19:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

My words are offensive, but you're not bothered by, "Unfortunately, for those of us who live in the real world, the evidence of Hiss's guilt is irrefutably overwhelming." Why don't you go lecture somebody else? Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

"Cite evidence which would tend to lead the neutral observer to the conclusion the Alger Hiss was, beyond question, guilty of acting as an agent of the USSR."

Well, let's see. The typewritten documents that were linked to him and his wife during the trial? The testimony of Hede Massing and Noel Field? The Venona documents that narrow it down to four people, the specific details of which just so happen to fit Hiss the best? His actual identification by high level Soviet officials in the archives?

I would say any sane person examining the above would conclude that Hiss was guilty. An un-neutral person, on the other hand, would dismiss it all as a huge conspiracy. They would claim that Chambers, Nixon, the FBI, and the military all conspired to make fake typewriter to frame Hiss just because they were mean. They would claim that Field and Massing by pure coincidence both randomly implicated Hiss because they were under duress. They would claim that the Venona documents point to a guy who was publishing newspapers in 1930s Vermont, rather than Hiss who was in a position to obtain actual government information. They would claim that Vassiliev is also in on the plot against Hiss even though his 1,000 pages show no signs of forgery and would be quite valuable even without Hiss.

If Vassiliev really wanted to frame Hiss, wouldn't he have explicitly identified him as "Ales" (his probable Venona name) instead of "Leonard" which simply gives the pro-Hiss loons some more straws to grasp at?

And that's the whole problem with the Hiss defense. Every time people present evidence against Hiss, they just invent a new conspiracy or some laughable excuse. So let me turn the question around and ask explicitly: "Cite evidence which would tend to lead the neutral observer to the conclusion that there is a massive 65 year long conspiracy to frame Hiss". CJK (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like I've got some research to do. By the way, I see you've put the NPOV tag at the top of the article. What specific points regarding the article's violation of NPOV are you calling out? And what do you propose as a solution? Oh and thanks a lot for suggesting I'm insane. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

For starters, we need a clear statement that the evidence implicates Hiss. For example: "Typewritten documents, testimony of related Communists, Venona intercepts, and documents in the Russian archives have tended to substantiate Hiss's guilt. However, Hiss's defenders continue to argue that he was framed by a conspiracy involving the FBI and/or military and that the available evidence is still inadequate." CJK (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I've never seen the NPOV tag used with such irony. According to wikipedia, the tag means the article in question does not conform to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, defined as, "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view."

But your dispute is actually the opposite of what the tag describes; you want the article written to a greater bias to a certain point of view. I think that's unfortunate, given that the article provides a good balance of evidence for and against Hiss now, and the reader can form their own opinion as to what the evidence means.

You've asked me to address some specific points of evidence. I'll give you the quick version now and deep-dive the research later at necessary.

1. "Typewritten documents." Ok let's consider the evidence from Hiss' original trial. The Baltimore Papers were typed on the same kind of typewriter as one owned by Hiss. Chambers submitted State Department documents in Hiss' handwriting, as well as mircofilm he claimed Hiss had given him. What does all this mean? Not much of anything. It's been established that Chambers, a self-admitted perjurer, had access to the Hiss household where he might have obtained the notes. Is there some reason why Hiss would give Chambers blank microfilm and film documenting the use of fire extinguishers and life rafts to "hide" so that they can be the subject of espionage? Not only does this evidence not prove Hiss was a spy, it barely suggests he might have been a spy.

2. "testimony of related Communists." In Hiss' first trial, the Judge ruled Hede Massing's testimony irrelevant. He was right. The sum value of her testimony was to claim that Hiss said, "So you are this famous girl that is trying to get Noel Field away from me." Both Hiss and Field worked for State Department. Field, who offered Hiss' name as a communist under torture, later wrote Hiss a letter affirming his belief in the latter's innocence and calling Hede Massing's dinner party story "the false testimony of a perjured witness" and an "outrageous lie".

3. "Venona intercepts." In 2001, Romerstein and Briendel published "The Venona Secrets," I read this carefully cover to cover, as it claimed to have "the details of the spying activities" of Hiss and others. On P.140: "Romerstein (the author) points out that Hiss was an agent not of KGB (NKVD) but of military intelligence (GRU), that's why there's nothing about Hiss in the NKVD files. Then they turn around and say, P.512: (Regarding the Order of the Red Star) "Several NKVD agents who served in the United States during the war received this honor, including...Alger Hiss. So which is it, guys? Please try to keep your unsubstantiated accusations straight.

Do the Venona transcripts have anything to offer on Hiss, except the infamous "Ales" identification? This article already covers "Ales" in great deal, and I don't see how anyone reading all the evidence would come away with the impression that Hiss was, without question, "Ales." Besides, does it make sense that an agent named Alger Hiss would go by the code name Ales? James Bond doesn't use the code-name "Jimmy."

4."documents in the Russian archives." In 1992, Russian historian Dmitri Volkogonov stated that he had examined govt. archives in Moscow and determined that Hiss had never been an agent of the USSR. In a follow-up interview Volkogonov was specifically asked whether he had looked through military intelligence files. Volkogonov responded, "Yes, we also asked to examine the military intelligence files and there, too, no traces of Alger Hiss have been found." General Julius Kobyakov, a retired Russian intelligence official, was revealed to be the person who actually searched the files for General Volkogonov. Kobyakov in his postings said that he prepared his 1992 report that there was no indication that Alger Hiss had been either a paid or unpaid agent of the Soviet Union only "after careful study" of KGB archives and "after querying sister services" (military intelligence).

One more note. "You say you want to add that, "Hiss's defenders continue to argue that he was framed by a conspiracy involving the FBI and/or military." What is your citation for this?

You say that the defense of Hiss is preposterous and that those who don't believe he's guilty are insane. I put it to you that you have not cited a single concrete piece of evidence that Alger Hiss was a communist and spy for the Soviet Union. Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the holdup.

1. I don't understand what you're getting at. Chambers had classified documents that had been retyped by Hiss, something that would not be done for innocent reasons. The only response by the Hiss defenders is to invent a conspiracy where the FBI and/or military fabricated the typewriter and forged the documents in order to frame Hiss.

2. Actually, Massing said that was in the context about which Soviet apparatus that Hiss would work with. Field's confession regarding Hiss was not extracted under torture, only his statements fabricating the existence of him being part of the CIA was extracted under torture. Given that Field was a committed Communist his entire life, it isn't surprising that he publicly denied it.

3. You are just randomly speculating. The Venona document description pretty much matches exactly what is known about Hiss.

4. I just gave direct access to the notes that implicate Hiss, your only response is that you don't believe them and instead take the official denials at face value. Well, I'll just say that I don't believe the official denials when we have substantial proof showing otherwise. As is stated in the article, the first guy was pressured by Hiss's lawyer to make that statement. Regarding the second guy, he may simply have failed to spot the documents at the time, and he only "queried" the even more secretive GRU.

CJK (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC) CJK (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

So that's it? You intend to replace the long-standing consensus lede with highly POV observations unsupported by citation?

"Chambers had classified documents that had been retyped by Hiss, something that would not be done for innocent reasons." Debatable, and speculative on your part. Does not prove that Hiss was a spy.

What is your citation that Field's identification of Hiss is somehow more relevant than his subsequent denials?

"The Venona document description pretty much matches exactly what is known about Hiss." Again, your opinion. Have you read the article? Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The citations are in the main body of the article. Hiss denied ever retyping the documents, as he would have had no real reason to do so. So if it can be proven that they were typed by him or his wife it would point to his guilt. This part is not a disputed point, the best the Hiss defense can do is to make up a conspiracy. Not only did Field confess, but his confession is fully corroborated by internal Soviet documents in the notes which I can point out to you. Venona is not just my judgment, it was the judgment of the people working on the project at the time who decided and wrote that Ales was "probably Alger Hiss". It describes Ales as someone who went to the Yalta conference and then later to Moscow. Hiss went to the Yalta conference and went to Moscow with a small group of people. A separate document in Vassiliev's notes said that Ales went to Mexico City.

This narrows it down to four people who went to Yalta, then Moscow, then Mexico City: the Secretary of State Edward Stettinius, H. Freeman Matthews, Wilder Foote, and Alger Hiss. Now, since this document also claims that Ales was still in Mexico City at a time when Hiss and Matthews had already left, the Hiss defense says it means Wilder Foote was Ales. But it's equally possible that they were simply unaware that Hiss returned early. Moreover, the Venona intercept says that Ales had been working for the GRU since the 1930s, yet Foote was in Vermont in the 1930s and didn't arrive to take a job at Washington until 1941. The description offered of Ales in the intercept is largely consistent with Chamber's description of Hiss, and there is no evidence that the other three candidates were spies.

So while taken by itself the Venona intercept does not prove Ales is Hiss, when combined with the other evidence it does tend to substantiate it, which is what I wrote.

CJK (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Understood. If you feel the need to edit the lede, please provide citations from reliable sources, and mention the sources by name in the text so that the opinions do not appear to be original research. It's not like I'm dying for an edit war. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Say what? What is the basis for reverting the edits I added? Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You say I have not responded to the points you made. Ok, I thought I'd been pretty clear, but here goes.

Yes, some historians, perhaps even "most historians" agree with your interpretation of of the major points of evidence. But not all historians.

I dispute that the testimony of Hede Massing and Noel Field tends to substantiate Hiss' guilt. I think that your last sentence needs citations.

To summarize, I don't think your changes in the article are good changes. Your attitude seems to be that minority views are irrelevant and should not be mentioned at all. The old lede was better. I am willing to accept your changes, but you have to be willing to accept new text as well. What I added was relevant, factually accurate and supported by citation. And I'm stunned that your reasoning is that my edits are 'POV pushing'. More so than yours? Hardly.

We can end this dispute right now. I am willing to compromise. Are you? Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not about my interpretation. I said that these things tend to substantiate Hiss's guilt--which is self evident--and that he is identified in the archives. Of course Massing and Field substantiate it. You and others may think they were making it up, but that constitutes speculation. CJK (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Undisputed facts are self-evident. Points of view are not. "Hiss was born in America" is a fact. "Certain points of evidence tend to substantiate Hiss' guilt" is a point of view. All of your points of view are at least somewhat in dispute. It makes no sense that only one point of view, even if held by a majority of sources, should be represented.

I can also point out again that what I added to the lede and you reverted was relevant, factual and supported by citations.

But this is neither here not there. As I said before: We can end this dispute right now. I am willing to compromise. Are you? Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't agree with your belief that a neutral person would not conclude that the evidence at least tends to substantiate the charges. Not prove, not remove any doubts, but rather tends to substantiate. I clearly indicated that there were alternative views based on conspiracy and speculation. CJK (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't agree with your belief that a neutral person would not conclude that the evidence at least tends to substantiate the charges. I don't believe I said that. And I submit that there are alternative views based on examination of the facts; not on conspiracy and speculation. I have already explained this at length, specific to each point of "evidence." The text I added that you reverted was entirely factual. I'm not going to endlessly debate you on the meaning of the word "substantiate." Now, yet again: We can end this dispute right now. I am willing to compromise. Are you? Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The idea that the FBI forged a typewriter, that Massing and Field were both lying, and that ALES does not most closely match Hiss is indeed conspiracy and speculation. It is not neutral in any way, shape, or form for the reasons I have already explained. By your standards we can make absolutely no conclusions about the criminal convictions of anybody in the world on the grounds that the evidence oould have been planted, the witnesses could be liars, and the later evidence could theoretically point to other people even if it obviously points to the convicted. CJK (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with the above comments. By your standards we can make absolutely no conclusions about... criminal convictions. We can conclude that John Wilkes Booth killed Abraham Lincoln and let the lede reflect this, as there is absolutely no reliable source that suggests otherwise. Many persons who constitute reliable sources have made conclusions regarding the Hiss evidence. Some of them have concluded that the evidence points toward his innocence. That is not speculation, and it does not require belief in a conspiracy to believe that Hiss might be innocent.

As I've said, I do not intend to debate the minutiae of the evidence with you ad naseum.

I have asked repeatedly if you are prepared to compromise. You have refused to respond. I take it then that you are not prepared to compromise.

At this time I would like to bring up wikipedia's policy on Ownership_of_articles. It says, among other things, by submitting your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) to Wikipedia, you allow others to challenge and develop them.

I have suggested three solutions to this dispute. (1) Return to the old, better, consensus lead, (2) allow every word you've written to stand, but to add some relevant facts of my own or (3) for you to propose a compromise.

I submit that you are not making any effort to resolve this dispute.

When the request for comment runs its course, I will submit a request for arbitration or whatever other dispute resolution seems appropriate. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

But the only reason for the conspiracy and speculation regarding Hiss is that it is a heavily politicized event due to the McCarthyism angle. And again, I noted their views as such. But putting them on the exact same basis as the real, hard evidence against Hiss would be similar to providing equal weight to both evolution and creationism. I don't understand why you believe the old lead would be a "compromise" because the whole reason I am making changes is because I felt the old lead to be flawed and misleading. For example, it quotes someone as saying we need to wait until all the documents are declassified. That's not how conspiracies work. When the documents are declassified they will simply say that the documents were purged or still being hidden.

Let me try to make this very simple point:

1) Chambers had retyped classified State Department Documents

2) Hiss denied retyping these documents.

3) Investigators were able to link Hiss to the documents via examining the imprints and the typewriter.

4) Therefore, Hiss was indeed guilty

5) Unless... wait for it... there was a conspiracy in the FBI and the military to make a fake typewriter to frame Hiss. For some reason J. Edgar Hoover now takes orders from Richard Nixon, then a congressman.

I feel I have been very moderate, doing little to change the bulk of the article. CJK (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

there was a conspiracy in the FBI and the military to make a fake typewriter to frame Hiss. For some reason J. Edgar Hoover now takes orders from Richard Nixon, then a congressman.

Consider this: was Hoover motivated? Absolutely. He was finding Reds under every bed in 1919. Was Hoover/the FBI capable of creating a fake typewriter? Highly likely... all sorts of skills were developed during WWII.

Remember there was enormous bungling to be denied. Hoover stumbled across the "massive" Red spy ring right under his nose when two walk-ins—Chambers & Bentley—showed up. How did Hoover miss this, particularly when Chambers "confessed" to Berle in 1939?

Consider this: think how much fun the Russians must be having with salting our tail over this all these decades. Ahhhh... the 20' tall, all seeing, all knowing Russian bear. Surely you jest! DEddy (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I have come rather late upon this discussion. I do not think that the talk about conspiracy is helpful. The reason why some of those who believe Hiss to have been innocent, or doubt the governments case, go in for conspiracy theory is that they were working for a not-guilty verdict. This was what Hiss sought, and it has spread to his supporters. The antics of HUAC, and particularly Nixon, who believed Hiss was a superspy, show that they themselves started the conspiracy theory. When spies come in at the door, reason flies out the window. I doubt the correctness of the verdict for very different reasons than conspiracy theory. Quite simply, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It also acted fraudulently. I am prepared to prove or argue these points with anyone interested. The judges of the case on appeal also contributed. They used the "due diligence" rule- that appeal courts will not hear cases based on evidence that the defence could with due diligence have discovered at or before the trial- in a very partial manner. The rule is obsolete. Cases nowadays should not take account of the rule where scientific evidence emerges after the conviction. One recent British case in recent years, R.v.Kiszko, had the conviction set aside because scientific evidence ignored by the prosecution was brought up many years later by the defence. The new evidence in the Hiss case was, among other things, the fact that the prosecution had acted fraudulently. It does not matter whether they were consciously or unconsciously fraudulent. The prosecution was hopelessly tainted and the defence failed to compel them to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, they tried to DISPROVE some of the prosecution evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. They succeeded in doing this with various stories told by Chambers, among other things. Their skill and patience demands admiration, but it was misconceived. Chambers always had new stories to tell, and because he believed all of them, he was a hard nut to crack. So Hiss paid a very high price for his wish to be SEEN as innocent.RhosfawrRhosfawr (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 June 2013

Endnote 32 reads:

32. ^ David Halberstam, The Fifties (New York: Random House, 1993), p. 16. Halberstam concludes that "Whether Hiss actually participated in espionage was never proved and the evidence, was at best, flawed" (Halberstam [1993], pp. 14–25)."

This cite could be improved: The quote actually appears on page 15, rather than "pp. 14-25." It's also NPOV, presenting Halberstam's opinion as a conclusion ("Halberstam concludes..."; a more NPOV formulation might be "Halberstam writes...") It's also taken out of context, omitting the previous sentence, stating that the evidence against Hiss "was incriminating." It's also somewhat misleading: Hiss was not convicted of espionage, but of perjury. NPOV might be at least partially restored by adding Halbertam's clarification: "I am inclined to believe that obviously Hiss knew Chambers, despite his denials. I am inclined to believe that either Hiss was a member of the Communist Party or he was protecting his wife who was." David Haberstam, "Book Discussion on The Fifties, at 26:33, C-SPAN, July 1993, C-Span Video Library. Video and transcript: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/transcript/transcript.php?programid=173584 71.178.55.43 (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

For clarity, please state exactly what you'd like the endnote to read. I will make the edit, but want to be clear exactly what text the endnote should contain. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps something like this:

32. ^ David Halberstam, The Fifties (New York: Random House, 1993), p. 16. Halberstam called the evidence at Hiss's trial "particularly incriminating," adding, "Whether Hiss actually participated in espionage was never proved and the evidence, was at best, flawed." (Halberstam [1993], p. 15)." Halberstam later elaborated: "I am inclined to believe that obviously Hiss knew Chambers, despite his denials. I am inclined to believe that either Hiss was a member of the Communist Party or he was protecting his wife who was." David Haberstam, "Book Discussion on The Fifties," at 26:33, C-SPAN, 11 July 1993. C-Span Video Library. Video and transcript: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/transcript/transcript.php?programid=173584

Frankly, it still seems somewhat NPOV: If we cite Haberstam's opinion, why not Christopher Andrews'? Mark Kramer's? Jonathan Brent's? The whole thing -- including the claim by Hiss's lawyer (hardly a disinterested party) that Hiss was "shocked" by the verdict -- might be removed without losing any substantive facts. 71.178.55.43 (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Since Halberstam wrote before the release of the Venona files, so his conclusion may or may not be still valid. His personal views on whether or not Hiss knew Chambers or was a Communist do not seem to be important. TFD (talk) 03:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I also question whether Halberstam's 1993 view is still valid. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the importance of Hiss/Chambers relationship. The question about whether Hiss knew Chambers (and how well) goes back to Hiss' initial defense. He asserted that he did not know Chambers, had never met him, had no idea he was a communist. It turns out each of these items were disproved. It turned out that he knew Chambers well, had rented him a room, had gifted Chambers an automobile (no small thing), and did in fact know that Chambers was an active communist. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I meant that Halberstam's opinion of the relationship was not important. Since Hiss said that Chambers called himself "George Crosley", it is not unreasonable that when he was asked if he knew Whittaker Chambers he was telling the truth. TFD (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"He asserted that he did not know Chambers, had never met him,"

Not so. When Hiss was first made aware of the accusation, he was shown a current photo of Chambers. In the time since Hiss had known Chambers, Chambers had apparently gained 100 pounds, lost his hair and a lot of his teeth. Hiss conceded that the face "might look familiar" and asked to see Chambers in person. When Hiss and Chambers both appeared before a HUAC subcommittee on August 17, 1948, they had the following exchange: HISS: "Did you ever go under the name of George Crosley?" CHAMBERS: "Not to my knowledge." A publisher named Samuel Roth came forth with a sworn affidavit that Chambers had submitted poetry to him using the pen name of George Crosley. The Hiss defense decided not to use this information, however, because Roth had been prosecuted for obscenity. Chambers, also, admitted in secret testimony to the FBI that it was "entirely possible" that he had used the name Crosley during the time he knew Hiss. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)