Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CJK (talk | contribs) at 21:47, 5 August 2013 (→Hornbeck). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alger Hiss article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 10 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Maryland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Maryland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cold War High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Espionage Top‑importance Alger Hiss is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 3, 2008, August 3, 2009, August 3, 2010, and August 3, 2012.

Archives

to 26 August 2006 August 26, 2006 to April 11, 2007 April 11, 2007 to August 23, 2007 April 23, 2007 to December 2007 January 2008 through October 2008 September 2011 — June 2013 June 2013 –

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Dates of Nixon's political advancement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next step in the dispute resolution process

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

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

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

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

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

And where exactly is that in the article right now? All I see is a weasel-word equivocal statement In 2001, James Barron, a staff reporter for the New York Times, identified what he called a "growing consensus that Hiss, indeed, had most likely been a Soviet agent". 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."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compromise proposal 07.27.13

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

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

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

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

References:

(1) (Reference already in the article)

(2) Sources claiming a consensus.

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

(4) Sources endorsing Vassiliev.

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

(6) (Reference already in the article)

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

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

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

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

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

The consensus in not unanimous

By definition a consensus does not have to be unanimous.

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

Plus Field plus Venona.

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

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

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

The personal opinion of Summers is unworthy for lead status.

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

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

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

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

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

Definition of CONSENSUS

1

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

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

2

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

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

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

By definition a consensus does not have to be unanimous

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

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

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

We need to stick with the views of scholars.

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

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

Yes, fine by me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joegoodfriend--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How about:

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

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

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

Okay how about:

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

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

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

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

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

A restatement of the "consensus,"

Actually I never said consensus.

an endorsement of Hiss as Ales

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

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

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

and an unambiguous endorsement of Vassiliev

Again, there is no such endorsement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What word would you favor?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You had an account this entire time?

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

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

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

Then what is your problem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And which scholars agree with you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which reliable sources cite "Russian Intelligence officers"?

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

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

most historians now agree

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kai Bird and Svetlana Chervonnaya, on Hiss and Venona:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Misplaced Pages: No Original Research. Suggesting that these statements are taken seriously as evidence against the notes is original research because you fail to cite anyone who agrees with that idea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"See Misplaced Pages: No Original Research."

See what exactly, the entire article? Your suggestion is that it is forbidden to include relevant text from a reliable and notable source because the reader might infer that the information contradicts some other source? That is not "original research."

"Suggesting that these statements are taken seriously as evidence against the notes is original research because you fail to cite anyone who agrees with that idea."

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

Furthermore, read "Spies."

"The second allegation: "The co-authors, said Lubasov, 'were wrong when they put the name of Alger Hiss in the places where they tell about somebody who cooperated with Soviet special services, yes? So we are quite right in saying that we, the Russian intelligence service, have no documents... proving that Alger Hiss cooperated with our service somewhere or anywhere." So there you go, a "reliable source" taking the Soviet statements "seriously."

"it is irresponsible original research"

This says to the readers, "we are going to talk about Alger Hiss and the Soviet Archives, but statements on the subject from the Archivists themselves are forbidden to you to learn. This is nonsense. You're just trying to exclude relevant information you don't like. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Your suggestion is that it is forbidden to include relevant text from a reliable and notable source because the reader might infer that the information contradicts some other source?

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

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

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

Furthermore, read "Spies."

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

This says to the readers, "we are going to talk about Alger Hiss and the Soviet Archives, but statements on the subject from the Archivists themselves are forbidden to you to learn.

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

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

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

Unclear whose official state secret Russians or us?

Are you claiming our intelligence community is an open book?

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

Furthermore, read "Spies."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Convicted on 8-4 vote"

This is completely wrong. Conviction can only be by unanimous agreement of the jury. In actuality it was the first trial that ended in a hung jury with an 8-4 split for conviction. I tried to fix this, but the article is locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.72.159.156 (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, IP. Here is all this argument on trivia when a major fact is wrong. I hope an admin will fix that soon. Source. Source. Source. Yopienso (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If you will post an {{Edit protected}} request and provide exact wording you want to change to, I will gladly make the edit. Please be specific as to what needs to change to include sourcing. Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

At both trials, a key to the prosecution case was testimony from expert witnesses stating that identifying characteristics of the typed Baltimore documents matched samples typed on a typewriter owned by the Hisses at the time of his alleged espionage work with Chambers. The prosecution also presented as evidence the typewriter itself. Given away years earlier, it had been located by defense investigators. This trial resulted in an eight-to-four deadlocked jury. "That, according to one of Hiss’s friends and lawyers, Helen Buttenweiser, was the only time that she had ever seen Alger shocked – stunned by the fact that eight of his fellow citizens did not believe him."

In the second trial, Hede Massing, an Austrian-born confessed Soviet spy who was being threatened with deportation, and whom the first judge had not permitted to testify, provided some slight corroboration of Chambers's story. She recounted meeting Hiss at a party in 1935. Massing also described how Hiss had tried to recruit Noel Field, another Soviet spy at State, to switch from Massing's ring to his own. This time the jury found Hiss guilty. According to Anthony Summers, "Hiss spoke only two sentences in court after he had been found guilty. The first was to thank the judge. The second was to assert that one day in the future it would be disclosed how forgery by typewriter had been committed."

Yopienso (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done I made the edit as best I could: I obviously wasn't able to verify the sources, so if there are any problems please let me know (I'll add this page to my watchlist for a while). Also, as a side note, it would be helpful if you could actually include the wiki-markup in future requests...I had some difficulty with the references and wikilinks that were missing. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Adjwilley. I appreciate your disinterested help in improving the article.

As I said in the edit summary: "Hope this is accurate--hard to do in this format. Why don't you just block the disruptive editors and let the rest of us edit the article directly?" (You being the administration or whoever in Wikidom, not you or Mike Cline personally.) I think we don't usually insert footnotes on a talk page. I'll try one here to see what happens.

I supplied a link to an online book so you or any reader can check the ref. Here's another.

Anyway, thank you very much for fixing that major error. And thanks again to the IP who caught it. Yopienso (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I see I could have put in all the ref info--it just doesn't show up on the talk page w/o a Reflist. Live and learn. Yopienso (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Break: Unprotect?

Hmm...looking at the protection log it looks like it was protected in May 2013 for the reason "Edit warring/Content dispute" with indefinite full protection. That seems a little long for a content dispute, especially considering it had gone unprotected for years before that. I'd be willing to downgrade the protection from full to WP:Semi-protection which would allow registered users to edit it but would prevent IP editors...Does that sound good to people here? (Or would you just like me to lift the protection entirely?) @Mike Cline:..it looks like you were the protecting admin, and you've been observing the page for a while...what do you think? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

We have some very contentious registered users arguing incessantly on the talk page. I am rather new to this article and didn't realize how long-standing this was until I took a peek into the archives the other day. It seems to me a few of them should be topic-banned so the article can be open to editing by others. Yopienso (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

While editors had argued in previous years over how to present mainstream views of Hiss' guilt, the current dispute and discussion began in April, which is when Yopiensko and I joined the conversation. Since the article was probably locked because of edit-warring mainly between two editors, both of whom continue to be active on the discussion page, semi-protection would probably not help. You can see the beginning of the current discussion on 25 April, 2013 at Talk:Alger Hiss/Archive 6#The preposterous defense of Alger Hiss. That type of confrontational approach does not help to persuade other editors to cooperate. TFD (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I guess I'm one of the two 'warring editors'. Ask me anything you want. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not see that you were wrong - the other editor had no consensus for his changes and other editors reverted him or spoke against his edits. Over at the Iraq War, CJK has no support from any editor, his edits have been reversed by six different editors and he has been blocked twice for edit-warring. So he files a report against one of them for edit-warring, and that page is now locked too. Do you have any suggestions? TFD (talk) 19:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The best solution would obviously be for people to learn to work with each other and edit according to NPOV, consensus, etc. Letting the article languish under full protection until the end of time is less-than ideal, and goes against what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be (i.e. the encyclopedia that anyone can edit). Also, edit requests are somewhat tedious in my experience. I am inclined to unlock the article and then keep a close eye on what happens.

@The Four Deuces and Yopienso, I agree that semi-protection isn't great particularly since an IP editor is involved, and we don't want to put them at a disadvantage.

@CJK: do you have any opinion on the matter? You seem to be one of the most involved here on the talk page.

@all involved, if the article is unlocked, are you willing to follow WP:BRD to the letter and stay away from anything that resembles edit warring? (I personally recommend a voluntary WP:1RR). ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that I tried a solution in which I let ever word of CJK's edits stand while adding edits of my own. He refused to let a single word of my edits stand. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Adjw, for working on this. I'm mostly devoting my time to other endeavors now. Yopienso (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

testified under subpoena

The usual phrase is "testified under oath" not "testified under subpoena" which is used in the 2nd para of this article. Could somebody with edit rights fix that? TMLutas (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If you will post an {{Edit protected}} request and provide exact wording you want to change to, I will gladly make the edit. Please be specific as to what needs to change. Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

They mean two different things. "Under subpoena" means he was compelled to testify, while under oath means he was sworn to tell the truth. However, since testimony is always given under oath or affirmation, "under oath" is redundant. TFD (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The Four Deuces is correct on this point. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Third edition of Weinstein's "Perjury" should be used

The article should direct readers to the most recent available edition of book sources. The third edition of "Perjury" was released this spring but the article has not been accordingly updated. As Weinstein said three months ago, "....Hiss had been identified years earlier in the memoirs of defecting Soviet agent Oleg Gordievsky using the same alias , and my research in Soviet KGB archives also turned up major new evidence on Alger Hiss’s and Whittaker Chambers’s involvement in Soviet espionage, which I describe in the new edition of my book Perjury." Article also neglects to note that a State Department investigation while Hiss was still employed at State showed that he had been requesting information on nuclear and military matters that were beyond the scope of his position.--Brian Dell (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning it. Gordievsky is btw already mentioned in the article. I do not think the information about Hiss requesting information is not new but it does not appear to be in the article. The words you have quoted appear to refer to what was presented in earlier editions of the book, although the review says that new KGB documents have been released. TFD (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

We should also include a classic reference in Alan Brinkley's "The Publisher" (biography of Henry Luce), where Whittaker Chambers is Luce's foreign editor... a dispatch arrives from Theodore White in China saying realistic things about the situation under Chiang Kai-Shek... Chambers tosses the dispatch into the trash without reading it. Queue: "Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up." DEddy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. This is an article about Alger Hiss, not Whittaker Chambers.

CJK (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Just in case you are unaware of this, Whittaker Chambers was Alger Hiss's principal (sole?) accuser. Given that your knowledge of this overall topic appears to be confined to Chapter 1 of Spies, I deem it necessary to point out this "intersection" between Hiss & Chambers lives. Chambers's (alleged) grasp of reality is entirely relevant to an article about Hiss. DEddy (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Chiang Kai-Shek has nothing to do with Hiss.

CJK (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hiss was responsible for supporting Chiang from 1939-1944 and the loss of China to the Communists is believed to have played a role in his conviction. McCarthyists believed China was lost because of "treason" at the State Department. TFD (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

to TFD I've never heard Hiss's name associated with China, much less the (alleged) loss of China. I've never heard of Hiss being associated with The China Hands (likes of: John Paton Davies, John S. Service, & Theodore White (correspondent for TIME)). Is there a reference? DEddy (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK Chiang Kai-Shek has nothing to do with Hiss.

But Chambers has everything to do with Hiss. Are you aware of the connection? The point here is Chambers's overall grasp of reality. DEddy (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Chambers's behavior at TIME has nothing to do with Alger Hiss.

CJK (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

As mentioned above, in 1939, Hiss was an assistant to Hornbeck, US State Department advisor on China. Horbeck was a fervent supporter of Chaing Kai-Shek and loathed the Japanese, who at this time were not only brutally occupying China, but also fighting in an undeclared war against the Soviet Union on the frontier of occupied Manchuria. I think it would be valuable to add this information to the article. 173.77.75.75 (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

See also, Soviet Japanese border conflicts: Neutrality Pact. Hornbeck, a fervent anti-Communist, then went on to urge an oil embargo on the Japanese. These intriguing facts have provoked a lot of speculation, including vague right-wing fantasies that Alger Hiss was somehow responsible for Pearl Harbor. One historian, Robert Whealey of Ohio University conjectured (on the Humanities and Social Sciences discussion page that Hiss might have passed to Chambers some papers about French air-craft aiding the Soviets in Manchuria. He states that:

n any case, I remain agonistic about the whole case. The many books hostile to Hiss, never discuss what was in the pumpkin papers. They were probably low grade intelligence hardly harmful to the State Department or Roosevelt. Japan and the USSR were fighting an undeclared war on the Manchurian frontier.

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-hoac&month=0307&week=d&msg=zfJICAdjJ8LdssChyxAesQ&user=&pw=

In the same discussion, Sam Tanenhaus, Chambers' sympathetic biographer, admits that all this may not have harmed the National Interest of the United States (which at the time was strongly pro-China and anti-Japanese), but showed the arrogance of Hiss's and Dexter White's Popular Front "anti-fascism" in presuming to decide unilaterally what was best for our country. Tanenhaus apparently accepts that White was a spy.

(Of course its equally possible that Chambers might have stolen the notes from Hiss's apartment, as was his wont, and never sent them on to the Soviets, but rather kept them as part of his "life-preserver." Is there any evidence he sent them on? Hadn't he broken with the CPUSA at this point. Nor is it implausible that Hiss's notes would have been made at the behest of Hornbeck.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.75.75 (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC) edit 173.77.75.75 (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

What does it matter whether it was harmful or not? The documents were classified and sharing them would be an act of espionage. It is also quite a silly argument considering we don't know what exactly Hiss passed on after 1938.

Regarding the hand-written notes (separate from the re-typed documents) one referred to a telegram from Lithuania warning about a Soviet spy. That had nothing to do with the Far East, and Hiss initially denied he wrote it before it was examined by experts who concluded it was in Hiss's handwriting.

And by the way, the Soviet-Japanese border war didn't begin until after Chambers dropped out of the CPUSA in early 1938.

CJK (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Really? It was undeclared, so how does one date when it began? Misplaced Pages says it had been going on for many years, at least since 1937. At any rate, people other than myself have written about this, so you need to publish your own paper arguing with them. 173.77.75.75 (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The article Soviet–Japanese border conflicts makes clear that the first battle was not until 29 July 1938. Before then there were only a handful of isolated clashes.

CJK (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

At any rate, the hand-written note about Chinese purchase of French military aircraft was dated 2 March 1938. 173.77.75.75 (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

CJK, In 1939-1945, Hiss was assistant to Hornbeck, who had been head of the Far Eastern division of the State Dept. and was now chief adviser on far eastern affairs. The American Right tried to connect Hiss to China (McCarthy said Lattimer was his "boss") but of course there was no evidence at the time that Hiss was involved in espionage after 1938, and Lattimer was cleared. TFD (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Way to address a point I never disputed in the first place.

CJK (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK Way to address a point I never disputed in the first place.

How would you know that? Hornbeck is not referenced in Spies (well, at least not in the index). Are you implying you've read something beyond Spies Chapter 1? DEddy (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

How about this

Arguments about the case and the validity of the verdict took center stage in broader debates about the Cold War, McCarthyism, and the extent of Soviet espionage in the United States. Most scholars believe Hiss was indeed guilty, a conclusion bolstered by more recent evidence. This consists of information from the top-secret Venona program regarding a Soviet asset known as "Ales", the private testimony of Hiss's friend Noel Field, and notes from documents in the sealed KGB archives which identify Hiss as a Soviet agent. Those who oppose the consensus believe the new evidence is inconclusive and continue to argue that Hiss was framed by a fake typewriter created by the FBI and/or military.

CJK (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

A typewriter is an inanimate object, and incapable of framing anyone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Insert "using" between "by" and "a" and I believe your deep concerns will be addressed.

CJK (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

That is just POV OR. The fact someone thinks evidence is inconclusive does not mean they believe an alternative explanation or even that they believe Hiss was innocent. TFD (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, this is just a re-hash of the proposal the editors rejected in the earlier :RFC and possible compromise thread. The editors have already made it clear many times that they do not believe the article should be re-written to include the alleged "consensus" statement in the lede, nor to introduce the Vassiliev notes in the lede as factually identifying Hiss as a spy in the Soviet Archives. It is not appropriate for the editor to keep lobbying other editors on these same rejected ideas over and over and over again no matter how many times they say, "no." The RFC should have settled this.

Specific to the suggested text:

"Most scholars believe Hiss was indeed guilty," No evidence suggests this is true.

""from the top-secret Venona program regarding a Soviet asset known as "Ales"," Given the disagreement on "Ales" I don't think this is appropriate.

"the private testimony of Hiss's friend Noel Field," totally inappropriate considering that Field's last word on the issue was the Hiss was innocent.

"continue to argue that Hiss was framed by a fake typewriter created by the FBI and/or military." Although the Hiss defense team suggested such a conspiracy at the time of his trial, the "continued argument" has not revolved around conspiracy. Belief in a fake typewriter conspiracy is not required to conclude that Hiss was or may have been innocent. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No evidence suggests this is true.

You have to be kidding me.

Given the disagreement on "Ales" I don't think this is appropriate.

That Ales was a Soviet asset is not a matter of dispute.

totally inappropriate considering that Field's last word on the issue was the Hiss was innocent

Of course it was, he was repeating the party line. That's like saying "Hitler's last word was that he didn't start World War II".

Belief in a fake typewriter conspiracy is not required to conclude that Hiss was or may have been innocent.

The arguments in favor of Hiss's innocence rely upon the idea that the typewriter was a fake. That is the view stated quite clearly in this article, and no other alternative scenario has been presented.

CJK (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The 'alternative scenario' is that some people do not accept that Hiss's guilt has been conclusively proven. It may be difficult for you to understand that not everyone in the world sees things in the stark black-and-white terms that you do, but that is your problem, not ours... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hiss's guilt was proven back in 1949-50 by linking the retyped classified documents to his typewriter. Of that there is no dispute. What the Hiss defense has argued since is that the typewriter itself was faked by government agencies. If you think I am unfairly representing their views, then so is this article which in the parts defending Hiss concentrates exclusively on the idea that the typewriter was fake. No alternative scenario is presented.

CJK (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: Most scholars believe Hiss was indeed guilty,

You've really got to stay away from most. What is the evident for your claim? I admit it's possible I've missed something, but If you can produce more than a dozen scholars who even care about Hiss, I'd be astonished. DEddy (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: Hiss's guilt was proven back in 1949-50 by linking the retyped classified documents to his typewriter. Of that there is no dispute. What the Hiss defense has argued since is that the typewriter itself was faked by government agencies.

If there is no dispute why has this edit war been raging for 3 months?

Are you saying it was impossible to fabricate/forge a typewriter in that day & age? I think Steve Salant's website ( http://quod.lib.umich.edu/h/hiss/ ) would dispute that. DEddy (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is that the fake typewriter conspiracy is the primary argument for justifying Hiss's innocence, in rebutting people claiming that a conspiracy is unnecessary.

CJK (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: No, what I am saying is that the fake typewriter conspiracy is the primary argument for justifying Hiss's innocence

The McCarthy/Hoover witch hunt atmosphere had nothing to do with the perjury conviction? DEddy (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

If you have evidence you can present it.

CJK (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Just because one explanation for Hiss' innocence could be a forged typewriter does not mean that is the only possible explanation. Even if it did, you would need a source that says that. Questioning whether guilt has been proved does not require proving innocence. TFD (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: If you have evidence you can present it.

You are saying the McCarthy/Hoover Red Scare had nothing to do with Hiss's perjury conviction? You're stating without dispute that McCarthy/Hoover simply didn't exist, and there was no such thing as unfounded accusations? I'm having a hard time processing this mental image. DEddy (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The forged typewriter is the only alternative explanation that has been presented in this article. Moreover it was advanced by no less than Hiss himself.

CJK (talk) 23:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: The forged typewriter is the only alternative explanation that has been presented in this article. Moreover it was advanced by no less than Hiss himself.

Per usual, having a hard time following your logic here... you're saying the entire Hiss case rests on the typewriter & Hoover/McCarthy had nothing to do with the result of the 2nd trial?

I thought the argument was that Hiss was 100% guilty because the Vassiliev notes said so. Did I miss something? DEddy (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The defense of Hiss hinges on the idea that the typewriter was a fake.

CJK (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It may well have done at the time. That need not imply that everyone now uncertain as to Hiss's guilt necessarily considers the typewriter particularly significant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the fake typewriter theory only developed after Hiss was convicted. And it has remained very central since then. If the typewriter was not faked then it would be extremely difficult to argue that Hiss did not retype the documents given how they were matched up to his typewriter.

CJK (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Your original research concerning what you think might be 'difficult to argue' is of no relevance to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: The defense of Hiss hinges on the idea that the typewriter was a fake.

Again I will have to make an assumption from how you present your arguments. I assume you've never been on a jury? NOTHING left to a jury decision—particularly something as complex, convoluted & politically charge as the Hiss trial(s)—is decided/hinges on a single issue.

I thought Hiss's certain guilt hinged on the authenticity of the Vassiliev notes?

Actually, the fake typewriter theory only developed after Hiss was convicted. The VENONA cables (what there is of them) only became known in 1995. Since they're after-the-fact "evidence" I move they be stricken from the record. That evidence or additional arguments appears after a trial means what? I'd never heard of VENONA until 1995. If the existence of VENONA was known outside of a very tight circle of IC insiders, I would have heard about it. DEddy (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone source any argument in favor of Hiss that does not involve the typewriter being fake?

CJK (talk) 01:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

CJK, to question whether there is sufficient evidence is not the same as arguing in favor of Hiss. TFD (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

During the trials, the Hiss defense alleged that Chambers or a confederate has stolen the documents from Hiss' office and at some point made the copies using the original, and not a fake, typewriter. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

But the fake typewriter theory is by far the most common among post-trial Hiss defenders.

CJK (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

CJK, are you actually incapable of understanding that it is possible to have doubts about Hiss's guilt without being a 'Hiss defender'? You certainly give that impression. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"But the fake typewriter theory is by far the most common among post-trial Hiss defenders."

Why are you evaluating what you consider to be non-reliable sources for reference in the article? Or do you consider some "post-trial Hiss defenders" to be RS? Which ones? Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

are you actually incapable of understanding that it is possible to have doubts about Hiss's guilt without being a 'Hiss defender'?

The only people expressing "doubts" unambiguously take the side of Hiss. Much like the people expressing "doubts" about 9/11.

do you consider some "post-trial Hiss defenders" to be RS?

What I am saying is that the most prominent theory among Hiss defenders is the typewriter one. That is the only alternative theory presented in this article.

CJK (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

CJK, your obnoxious comparison between 9/11 "doubters" and those expressing doubts as to Hiss's guilt is beneath contempt. I suggest you retract it immediately, before I raise the matter at WP:ANI, as a violation of WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: What I am saying is that the most prominent theory among Hiss defenders is the typewriter one. That is the only alternative theory presented in this article.

Ummm, this clearly may be news to you, since I doubt if it was well covered in Spies Chapter 1... have you heard of the McCarthy era? What sort of tricks Hoover's FBI was up to? DEddy (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Andy... we've been over this before. Hiss is dead.

CJK (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, ANI it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: I'm not really seeing the BLP violation...might I suggest that you write it off as an Ad-hominem or Red herring or Strawman and move on? ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"What I am saying is that the most prominent theory among Hiss defenders is the typewriter one. That is the only alternative theory presented in this article."

Only as applies to the typed documents. Why should this be the only part of the Hiss defense mentioned? The defense against the accusation of his identity as "Ales" and the accusations of the notes are more under debate at this point in time. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Because even if there was no Ales and no notes the typed documents would still have to be explained away. Traditionally, this has been done by claiming that the FBI or military did it. CJK (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. Why should this be the only part of the Hiss defense mentioned? Why does the lede need to talk about Hiss' defense against the documents, but not against Venona/Ales and the Vassiliev notes? This seems especially incongruous given that you aren't lobbying for the documents to be called out as evidence against Hiss in the lede, but you are lobbying for Venona/Ales and Vassiliev to be called out in the lede. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Because the typewriter and the typewritten documents were key to convicting Hiss. I mentioned that they find the other evidence to be inconclusive. However the difference is that they generally do not believe that the new evidence is completely bogus while they generally do take the view that the original evidence was bogus. CJK (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This still makes no sense to me. You want to re-write the lede to focus on conclusions drawn from more recent evidence, but somehow the old documents are "key"? But this neither here nor there. You talk about the Hiss defense as "they". Who are "they"? Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The old documents were key originally and have been supplemented by the new evidence. I am pointing out that pro-Hiss sources generally do not believe the old evidence was genuine and view the new evidence as not proving anything. CJK (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

"I am pointing out that pro-Hiss sources generally do not believe the old evidence was genuine and view the new evidence as not proving anything." Painted yourself into a corner, haven't you? You want to pontificate on what pro-Hiss sources believe, but no matter how many times you're asked whom you're talking about, you refuse to say. Because if you did, you'd be admitting as germane to the article all the pro-Hiss sources you've repeatedly dismissed as not RS, not "notable" and/or not "scholars" (according to this policy on "scholars" you pulled out of your a-, er, made up). Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Guttenplan, Kisseloff, and Hiss's lawyer are the only three "scholarly" sources I complained about. Are you saying that those three people constitute the totality of Hiss's defenders?

CJK (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

So I get to figure out who you're citing by guessing and process of elimination? Or have I misunderstood entirely, and you want to discuss the views of pro-Hiss sources in the lede, but you consider them all unreliable and/or un-notable for wikipedia citations? Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Unlocked

I've unlocked the article, which has been full-protected for over 2 months (very long for full-protection). I understand there is a content dispute going on, but it's not fair to other editors to indefinitely shut down editing here for that. I don't expect the discussion here on the talk page to stop, however, I do expect that any edits to the article itself will be made with the same attention to consensus and NPOV that is required for making protected edit requests. I have added the article to my watchlist, and I'll be looking for edit warring and disruptive editing, so I encourage anyone who wants to edit to first read and then follow WP:BRD. Cheers, ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hornbeck

"Hiss was the personal aide to Stanley Hornbeck, who would play an important role in the events leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor" Knowing what I now know, this sentence seems dodgy to me. The phrase "The events leading up to Pearl Harbor", especially, sounds insinuating in a vaguely sinister way (without being an actual lie). It would be better to say: "Hiss was an assistant to Stanley Hornbeck. A special adviser to Cordell Hull on Far Eastern affairs, Hornbeck was well known for taking a hard line toward Japanese aggression in China." Was he "the personal aide" to Hornbeck? Where does that phrase come from? 173.52.254.175 (talk) 18:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Other sources say "Hiss joined the staff of Stanley Hornbeck" even better because active verb. 173.52.254.175 (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, we'll go with Hiss was an assistant to Stanley Hornbeck, a special adviser to Cordell Hull on Far Eastern affairs. Hornbeck played an important role in pushing for the trade sanctions against Japan that would lead to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

CJK (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Your edit is unsourced. I have no objection to saying "Hiss was an assistant to Stanley Hornbeck, a special adviser to Cordell Hull on Far Eastern affairs." However your comments on Pearl Harbor are disputed, and in any case it is POV to add it. I assume you are implying that Hiss caused Pearl Harbor, and you need a source that makes this connection. On the other hand if you are not implying it then it makes no sense that it is included. TFD (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

What part about it is disputed? I am not implying Hiss caused Pearl Harbor but the fact that Hornbeck played a role is certainly notable. Most readers are probably unaware of who Hornbeck was and what he did.

CJK (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: Most readers are probably unaware of who Hornbeck was and what he did.

I thought Harry Dexter White in Treasury was the cause of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. At least that's what Operation Snow says. (Not a single footnote in the entire book, but let's not sweat the details.) You are aware that State Department was in FDR's dog house & Morgenthau's Treasury was ascendant? DEddy (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's article on the Pacific War makes no mention of Hornbeck. The war was caused by Japanese unrelenting aggression in China, not by any special action of the State Department. The entire Roosevelt administration with many (if not most) conservative Republicans soundly behind it was hugely anti-Japanese. See also Misplaced Pages's article on Clarie Lee Chennault:

By early 1941 the U.S. was preparing to send American planes flown by American pilots under American command, but wearing Chinese uniforms, to fight the Japanese invaders and even to bomb Japanese cities, all using the Flying Tigers, as soon as they were in place. A year before the U.S. officially entered the war, Chennault developed an ambitious plan for a sneak attack on Japanese bases. His Flying Tigers would use American bombers and American pilots, all with Chinese markings. l with Chinese markings. The U.S. military was opposed to his scheme, and kept raising obstacles, but it was adopted by top civilian officials including Henry Morganthau (the Secretary of the Treasury who financed China) and especially President Roosevelt himself, who made it a high priority to keep China alive.

Not to mention John Wayne's Flying Tigers (film), in production before the Japanese surprise Dec. 7, 1941, attack. It would be downright weird and certainly misleading to single out Hornbeck or Hiss. 173.52.254.175 (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC) 173.52.254.175 (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

CJK, it is not relevant. Consider for example, "Hiss worked for FDR, who had polio. Roosevelt, who would lead the U.S. in WW2, replaced Hoover, who was of German descent. Hoover was Commerce Secretary under Harding, who was a heavy drinker." TFD (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

To Deddy: Nobody is saying that other people didn't contribute as well.

To IP: pretty much nobody disputes that the trade sanctions imposed by the Roosevelt administration spurred Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. Whether or not they were justified is a separate issue.

To TFD: Apples? Oranges?

CJK (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Summers, Anthony. The Arrogance of Power: The Secret World of Richard Nixon, (Penguin-Putnam Inc., 2000), 73-77.

• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Crime-related articles
• High-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• B-Class Maryland articles
• Low-importance Maryland articles
• WikiProject Maryland articles
• B-Class Cold War articles
• High-importance Cold War articles
• Cold War task force articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class Espionage articles
• Top-importance Espionage articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• B-Class United States Government articles
• Low-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Selected anniversaries (August 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2010)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2012)