Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:20, 5 July 2013

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: 2 months

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 High‑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 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. 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 —

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

The preposterous defense of Alger Hiss

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

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

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

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

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

I rest my case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry for the holdup.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me try to make this very simple point:

1) Chambers had retyped classified State Department Documents

2) Hiss denied retyping these documents.

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

4) Therefore, Hiss was indeed guilty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed new compromise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

False and misleading statements made in Joegoodfriend's version

Let's keep this simple.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A couple of issues.

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

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

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

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

Opinions should not be submitted as fact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alger Hiss and the Soviet files

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

You cannot rely on the Soviet sources. Do tell!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scholarly Consensus?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Request for Comment?

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

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

Text:

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

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

Do the editors support or oppose the change?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What source materials have your read from this era?

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

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

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

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

I have two concerns regarding this approach.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brought to my Attention

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

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

Wikilinks Request Removal

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

RFC

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

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

CJK (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite your sources for the above? RfC's are intended to attract comment from uninvolved contributors, and it is unreasonable to expect them to have to look through reams of talk-page debate to find material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The sources are in this diff . But if they won't take the time to look through talk page material, why would they take the time to look up sources for themselves? CJK (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Am I right in then assuming then that the sources are this article by James Barron in the NYT, and material from Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America by Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev? If so, the latter at least is going to be problematic - it is unlikely that everyone responding to this RfC will have access to it. Dealing with the NYT piece, I cannot see how the change made in the diff can be justified - previously the article quoted the piece directly, and you have replaced a statement about something being seen as 'most likely' with an outright statement of 'fact'. The source simply doesn't say that, though if one is going to make a statement about scholarly consensus, I'd suggest that a scholarly work, rather than a NYT piece on Hiss's son, might make a better source anyway.

Dealing with the second issue, I've not seen the book, but as a general point, I don't think that Misplaced Pages should be making assertions of guilt based on a single source. Actually, given that there is controversy over this source (as is evident in the article section 'Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev'), I'd go further, and say that Misplaced Pages must not make outright assertions regarding Hiss's guilt or otherwise, based on this. It isn't up to us to determine 'the truth', but to reflect, with due weight, the differing opinions on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I would object to the words "scholarly consensus"... based on what? "Is still passionately debated" is more accurate. Has someone conducted a poll of interested period historians for which way they lean? I'm certainly not going to take a single NYTimes (or any other newspaper reporter) opinion. Reporters write on deadline. Was the piece fact checked?

The Vassiliev books are also highly suspect. How did he get them out of the KGB? Clearly the KGB has gotten too much mileage from this story to stop salting our tail now. While there certainly could be, I'm not aware of a detailed examination of the Vassiliev books. DEddy (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There is always several ways of rewording sentences. Unfortunately, when it comes to referencing them, it becomes limited. Does any other sources provide a reference for the information in question? If so, should it be sourced by two or more? Adamdaley (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

On question 1., I oppose the change.

The lede of the article has been stable for more than two years, the result of lengthy and hard-won consensus by the editors. It was felt by the editors that if the lede was to make a statement on Hiss' guilt, that the statement should be objective and factually accurate. This resulted in the text, Various reports suggest that those who believe in Hiss's innocence are in the minority of scholarly opinion. This evolved into the notation that the New York Times had observed a, “growing consensus that Hiss, indeed, had most likely been a Soviet agent.”

The text, “That there is a scholarly consensus of Hiss's guilt” should not be added because (1) it is not verifiable, as there is no survey of scholars available, (2) it ignores the significant scholars and subject matter experts (discussed below) who believe that Hiss may have been innocent of espionage. Thus the new text tends to violate wikipedia's neutral point of view policies.

On question 2., I oppose the change.

The “notes” in question do not prove Hiss' guilt. Far from it. These notes are what are alleged to be hand-copied transcripts of Soviet documents made by former Soviet agent Alexander Vassiliev. Vassiliev does not claim to have found information on any activities of spying by Alger Hiss, or whom he worked with. He asserts only that to have found a reference to an agent with the code-name "Leonard" and concludes that "Leonard" was Alger Hiss. There is no proof that the notes are accurate. Historian Amy Knight has questioned the notes' validity, noting, “the inconsistencies in the story of his research are disturbing.” She also notes glaring omissions in Vassiliev's use of Soviet documents to conclude that Hiss was guilty. “Not surprisingly, the authors of Spies (Vassiliev's book on the notes) omit evidence suggesting that the GRU did not know who Hiss was. Take, for example, a VENONA cable to Moscow written in September 1943 by Pavel Mikhailov, chief of GRU operations in North America since 1941. In his message, Mikhailov refers to someone “from the State Department by the name of Hiss”. If Hiss had been a GRU agent, Mikhailov would not have mentioned him in this way, especially using Hiss’s real name.” John Lowenthal says of the notes, "There is no way to verify the authenticity of the KGB documents; no way to check the accuracy of the excerpts and paraphrases; no way to study their context, such as the rest of the file from which a particular document came, which every historian and student knows can be crucial to a correct reading and interpretation. We do not even know whether the documents Vassiliev saw are in the Russian language and, if they are, who translated them and how accurately."

Then there is the matter of other studies of the Soviet archives and the statements of former Soviet officers. Soviet Foreign Intelligence office Boris Labusov stated that Vassiliev could not in the course of his research have possibly "met the name of Alger Hiss in the context of some cooperation with some special services of the Soviet Union." Generals Dmitry Volkogonov and Julius Kobyakov have stated that Hiss, "had never been listed as a paid or recruited agent for the Soviet Union," and that Soviet archives contain "positive hard evidence that Alger Hiss had not had any relationship," with Russian intelligence services. Svetlana Chervonnaya, a Russian researcher who had been studying Soviet archives since the early 1990s, stated that Hiss' name was absent from Soviet archives. To my mind, these statements are at least as significant to the question of Hiss' guilt as one man's (Vassiliev's) unverified claims of what he saw in the Archives. Joegoodfriend (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. My points are as follows:

1. The source for the consensus is not just the NYT piece there are other pieces in the note as well. The statement is that a scholarly consensus exists, not that Hiss is guilty. Attributing this fact to one reporter's single opinion is weasel wording and is not applied to any other source material.

2. Vassiliev does not claim to have found information on any activities of spying by Alger Hiss, or whom he worked with. He asserts only that to have found a reference to an agent with the code-name "Leonard" and concludes that "Leonard" was Alger Hiss. This is untrue, only two out of the five instances where Hiss is found in the notes is the term "Leonard" used, both of which are identified explicitly and implicitly as Hiss. I can supply all of the notes if you want to see them yourself.

There is no significant scholarly controversy about the notes. The notes have been examined by experts who have deemed them genuine. Even the Hiss defense is not really challenging the authenticity of the notes. They do challenge the meaning of the notes, but their views about this by and large represent only a fringe. I'm not sure how Boris Labusov would know that Hiss wasn't in the archives. Vologonov and Kobyakov have been explained repeatedly, the former recanted his statement, the latter merely referred to a Hiss relationship with the NKVD and not the GRU.

CJK (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Which other source states that there is a scholarly consensus that Hiss is guilty? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I too am baffled by this "scholarly consensus" allegation. From where? I look at that footnote & just get more confused. The references do not provide any substance. One is a broken link. One is a link to an inaccessible TIME article. Given Henry Luce's political views & Whitaker Chambers employment, TIME is hardly a scholarly resource is it? My guess is that if you stood up in a court of law & offered as evidence a TIME story, the judge would laugh you out of court. TIME was (is?) notorious for inaccurate reporting. Where does this consensus come from? DEddy (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

This is problematic. I actually agree with the truth of the proposed statements but this article needs to rely upon verifiability. The refs do not, in my opinion, fully support the proposed statements. I would not suggest such a change. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Really? What part is not supported? The NYT piece refers to a "growing consensus". Another link, from a Hiss supporter, also agrees that "most historians" believe Hiss is guilty. CJK (talk) 13:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The NYT piece cannot be used to assert something it doesn't say. It says that there is "a growing consensus that Hiss, indeed, had most likely been a Soviet agent" 'Most likely' means what it says, not what you appear to wish it to mean. And I see no reason to take the NYT as a definitive source for a statement regarding academic consensus. As for 'another link', which one? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

What can be said is that there is a scholarly consensus that Hiss had been a Soviet agent, and that Vassiliev et al reported that the claim was confirmed in Soviet records. etc. seem to indicate that this is not a really contentious point now - there are plenty of independent reliable sources making the claim. , etc. The NYT further notes that the charge is not only from Vassiliev but others as well In the interrogations, and in written testimony made during the same period, Noel Field categorically states that one of his most trusted accomplices in the Soviet underground was his close friend Alger Hiss. The two had met in the mid-1930's when both were idealistic young public servants drawn into the Communist underworld, the political night-town of New Deal Washington. which seems fairly dispositive of the issue. Thus statement one is correct, statement two should include Hungarian archives etc. as well. BTW, "consensus" does not mean "unanimity" as the NYT points out ... Collect (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Collect, I don't think anyone is arguing that there haven't been many works published that assert Hiss's guilt. What we need is a reliable source that unequivocally states that this is the scholarly consensus. Do any of the sources you link actually say that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I thinks Collect is right on point. His statements are those for which we have RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

How exactly is Collect on point? He hasn't provided a source for an assertion that there is a scholarly consensus on Hiss's guilt. All he has provided is evidence that there are sources that assert that Hiss is guilty. We know that already... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources support the assertion - thus "consensus." We do not need to show "unanimity" at all here, nor is it up to us to "prove" anything to anyone - we go by the clear preponderance of current sources - and they are clear. Vide

Given recent disclosures which have been made available to the author of Whittaker Chambers, the Hiss-Chambers case should finally be brought to closure. Tanenhaus, an author and journalist, has put together a convincing argument that Alger Hiss was not the victim of an elaborate plot but guilty of the charges levelled against him by Chambers. The author has benefited from the release in 1995 of Soviet cables, which were intercepted by American counterintelligence officers in the 1940's. Referred to as the Venona traffic, the National Security Agency disclosed the contents of more than two thousand cables sent from U.S. based Soviet agents to Moscow. The cables confirmed that there had been a large espionage network centered in Washington D.C., which included Alger Hiss. In one such cable, dated March 30, 1945, Soviet officials pointed to Hiss as someone who had been working for Soviet intelligence, and who was personally thanked by Soviet diplomat Andrey Vyshinsky for his devoted service.

Looks pretty strong here. Collect (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

We are not here to determine whether Hiss was guilty or not. Please cite a source for "The vast majority of sources support the assertion". AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Essentially every major article after Vassiliev is of the same opinion. TFD seems to think that opinions dated prior to Vassilief count <g>. In short - the peer-reviewed journals which before Vassiliev printed the denials, no longer do so. Which is what a "consensus" means, folks. Not "proof" but simply that the folks writing in the journals no longer deny that Hiss acted for the Soviets. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Exclude The book by Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev says on p. 4 that articles supporting Hiss' innocence continue to be published in "prestigious academic journals", which would seem to argue against an academic consensus. The NYT article actually says that there is a "growing" consensus, which is different from there being a consensus. A consensus cannot "grow". In any case, newspaper articles are not good sources for what academics say. TFD (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that the journal article published after the Vassiliev book do not seem to still have denials in them. The fact of actual documetation seems to have made the current consensus fairly clear. Vassiliev's book could not make statements about a later clear consensus, could it? In short - I would like to see prestigious current articles asserting that Hiss was innocent -- I dount you can find many (if any) at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

What journal article are you referring to? TFD (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Some of the many books and articles from after Vassiliev:

Scott and Jackson, 2004, Routledge VENONA provides persuasive evidence that all were guilty (though that does not, of course, justify the death sentences passed on the Rosenbergs). Hiss (Agent ALES), who was a member of the US delegation at the Yalta Conference, was personally congratulated afterwards in Moscow by the Deputy Foreign Minister, Andrei Vyshinsky.

Aron, 2004, Wiley There was no smoking gun to prove Hiss was a spy, but he was mentioned as one in at least one Romanian archive and one 1945 cable to Moscow. If anything, the new evidence pointed to Hiss's guilt.

Eichaer, 2004 "Modern Age" However, just as Soviet archives began to close on the subject of Hiss and Chambers, Cold War archives in Europe in America began to open. The revelations have not been happy ones for the Hiss campaign. ... In 1992, a Hungarian historian, Maria Schmidt, discovered the Hungarian K.G.B.'s files on Noel Field, a former State Department official, Soviet spy, and friend of Alger Hiss. Field had been imprisoned in Budapest from 1949 to 1954. While in prison, Field gave the Communist Party a detailed accounting of his extensive work as a Communist, including Alger Hiss's 1935 attempt to recruit him into the underground. (40) A year later, the State Department made public a 1946 internal security probe which revealed that Alger Hiss had purloined several highly classified documents on matters of national security, including China policy and atomic energy--documents Hiss was not authorized to access, which were unrelated to his official duties at State, but of obvious interest to Soviet intelligence. Soon after the investigation was concluded, Hiss quietly resigned. (41) In 1990, Colonel Oleg Gordievsky, a former high-ranking Soviet intelligence officer who defected in 1985, named Hiss as a Soviet spy with the code name "ALES." (42) In 1995, the National Security Agency released the Venona cables, a series of coded wartime communications between Soviet intelligence in America and Moscow. One Venona cable names "Hiss" directly. Another cable refers to an agent "ALES" who served in Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius's delegation at Yalta in 1944 and flew with Stettinius from Yalta to Moscow. While there "ALES" met with Soviet Foreign Minister, Andrei Vyshinsky, notable for being Stalin's first Prosecutor General, the official in charge of conducting show trials. It was Vyshinsky who conceived the method of extracting written confessions from the accused, a popular and highly effective tactic of the Great Terror. (43) During his meeting with "ALES," Vyshinsky personally thanked him for his many years of loyal service to the Soviet Union. The only member of Stettinius's delegation ever suspected of being a Soviet spy was Hiss. (44) ... More than fifty years after Alger Hiss's conviction for perjury, his most enduring deception is not the one he perpetrated on his own country, but the one he selfishly sustained on his own son. "Had Chambers's charges been true," writes Tony Hiss, "had the third Alger been the real Alger, then Alger's story would today carry an abiding balm and comfort--the knowledge that it now had ended, for better or for worse--and could be laid to rest with his ashes." (58) Perhaps only after Tony Hiss moves beyond denial can the world finally lay the Hiss Case to rest, along with the ashes of the Soviet Union on whose behalf Alger Hiss spied for so many years.

And so on -- no article or major WP:RS book dated after 2003 remotely suggests Hiss was innocent, folks. That's right - none in searching diligently. Collect (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America was published in 2009, not 2003, and hence was written after all your sources. TFD (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

RE:"no article or major WP:RS book dated after 2003 remotely suggests Hiss was innocent, folks. That's right - none in searching diligently."

I find it curious that you can't find articles written since 2003 defending Hiss. If one searches for information on the web regarding Hiss, it seems that what one chiefly finds are articles attacking Hiss' defenders. Example: Consider John Haynes' own web site, where Professor John R. Schindler, notes, "Hiss’s defenders in the media and academia have consistently protested his innocence." Conclusion: Hiss has defenders.

Some articles you may not have found:

Amy Knight of the Times Literary Supplement, writing about her doubts on Vassiliev's "smoking gun," the identification of Hiss as agent "Leonard." (You can read this article using the public Username: library-ts-group@sjsu.edu and password: tlsonline ).

Kai Bird and Svetlana Chervonnaya, on doubts that Hiss was the agent, "Ales"

Lynn Duke of the Washington Post notes that, "Alger Hiss was a spy, many scholars say. He was not, say many others."

Some articles from long-time Hiss defenders: Victor Navasky . DD. Guttenplan . Jeff Kisseloff . And of course John Lowenthal, who admittedly hasn't commented since 2003 (his death).

Some of the relevant comment on the subject comes not from books and articles, but from interviews and statements of former Soviet Generals and archivists. Several have commented, all of them in the negative, on the Archives containing information that Hiss was a spy.

One additional note. In the 1950s, long-after his torture-induced "confessions," Noel Field affirmed his belief in Hiss' innocence and dismissed the evidence presented against him at his trial as "false testimony" and an "outrageous lie." Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow! I would point out tjat polemic sources are not WP:RS for statements of fact, and that some of your "sources" are exceedingly far from scholarly peer-reviewed positions entirely. 'CounterPunch", for example, fails WP:RS quite completely. Schindler also fails WP:RS but supports labelling Hiss as a Soviet agent:

I will conclude by noting that the identification of ALES as Alger Hiss, made by the U.S. Government more than a half-century ago, seems exceptionally solid based on the evidence now available

so your suggestion that he does not is rather odd indeed. Guttenplan simply cites Lowenthal for Lowenthal's position - and does not take the same position himself and, as you note, that pllaces this back in the 2003 context only. In short - looking at even a few of your "cites" one is left with exactly the same position I found myself in -- after 2003, no one in a scholarly context (peer-reviewed article or book) exhibited doub about Hiss being Ales.

And at least one of your Soviet Generals specifically stated later that he could not state that Hiss was not a Soviet spy - only that he had not found it himself.

Bird, by the way, only deals with "was Hiss 'Ales'" and not with whether the admitted Soviet cables using "Hiss" referred to ... Hiss. As this essay is an exercise to label Foote as "Ales" which is decidedly a fringe POV, I think we can safely treat it as "fringe" per Misplaced Pages policy. Unless, of cource, you find mainstream scholars in RS books and peer-reviewed articles making that charge? Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC) .

Collect, please explain why Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America (Yale University Press, 2009) is not a reliable source. TFD (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

RE:"no one in a scholarly context (peer-reviewed article or book) exhibited doub about Hiss being Ales."

Sorry, which of the sources you cited are, "peer-reviewed"? I see that "Modern Age" boasts of being, "America's leading conservative quarterly for more than a half century." Would you say it's more or less a "polemic" than the London Times Literary Supplement or the Washington Post? Would you mind explaining why this publication is a legitimate source, and The American Scholar is not? Are you going to argue that The Nation violates WP:RS? Shall we check and see how many Misplaced Pages articles use The Nation as citations? Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I consider Routledge, Wiley, OUP, etc. to meet WP:RS as being publishers of scholarly books. Clearly you demur. BTW, the book published ny YUP makes a case that Hiss acted as a Soviet agent - is there any reason to suppose YUP is not an RS publisher? As I never said it was not RS, the posiing of a claim that I said it was not is simply inane and useless argumentation entirely. Meanwhile, the section in the BDP misrepresents the content of some of the sources used to contradict that source -- which is not precisely how we are supposed to act. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Your sources are all good for WP:RS. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Collect, you need to distinguish between facts and opinions, in this case people saying they believe Hiss was guilty and saying there is a consensus that he was guilty. As noted in Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America (2009) some academics consider Hiss to be innocent. You need a source that says there is an academic consenus in order to say "there is an academic consensus" in the article. We cannot rely on your original research in this matter, where you search through and read every single article written about the subject since 2003. Since Google scholar shows 1,070 articles that mention "Alger Hiss" published since 2009, I do not understand how you are going to complete your project. TFD (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

TFD, you should learn to distinguish between "consensus" and "absolute truth." The clear current "consensus" is that Hiss was a Soviet agent, and that should be so stated. It is not a "fact" that Hiss was a Soviet agent - which I assume is your cavil here. I have given more than enough RS sources on this, and tendentious denial is not going to help you. Nor are the sources my original research as you seem to imply. Nor is using Routledge and Wiley and YUP and OUP published books "original research" on my part. It is in fact you who seems to be pushing your own OR here -- and denying the huge number of strong reliable sources now. BTW, if you look you will note I used Questia -- so I am at a loss as to why in hell you wish to use Google here! Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Collect, Misplaced Pages articles are based on published reliable sources. Please provide a published reliable source for the statement that there is a scholarly consensus that Hiss was guilty. If no source can be found, the article cannot make such an assertion, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Where zero WP:RS sources say that he was not an agent, and literally dozens say he was an agent, it is reasonable to say there is a "consensus". We do not need to find an historian using that specific word when we find wording like "it is increasingly apparent to historians" etc. Let's add The tone changed in the 1990s, when newly declassified Soviet and U.S. intelligence sources indicated that a few Roosevelt and Truman officials, most notably Alger Hiss, indeed were Communist Party members or sympathizers who passed information to the Soviets—just as anticommunist conservatives from Congressman Martin Dies (D-Tex.) to Senator McCarthy had charged.9 These findings reignited the disagreement between espionage scholars and those who emphasized the negative consequences of the Red scare. Each side accused the other of ignoring a grave threat to American democracy—espionage on the one hand, repression of political dissent on the other. The espionage historians have been very harsh, likening critics of the anticommunist crusade to Holocaust deniers, and castigating them as Stalin apologists bent on creating a left mythology of the “Lost Cause.” In their view, focusing on the repressive aspects of anticommunism implies a moral equivalence between the Soviet dictatorship and the U.S. government.10 If one wishes to dispute the clear consensus, then one ought to be able to furnish a reasonable umber of learned books and journals with a contrary view - so far, no one has provided one. And add for good measure -- need another hundred or so on this talk page before accepting the clear current consensus? While some still disagree that Hiss was a communist and spy for the Soviet Union, the documentation against him is overwhelming, sure seems to say that the "some" are a small minority. I assume you trust John Ehrman as RS (substantial author on intelligence matters)? See from the CIA Journal. WRT Volkogonov - "I only looked through what the KGB had," he said as he explained that he had not checked military or Communist Party files. "All I said was that I saw no evidence." rather undercuts any claim that he had exonerated Hiss by a few miles. Hiss's defenders stubbornly tried to rebut each revelation, but eventually they were overwhelmed. In Volkogonov's case, they emphasized the general's first statement and ignored his retraction Note the word "overwhelmed" which seems to imply that they were far from being a majority. Navasky--by now virtually alone in his rejection of the case against Hiss, who had died in November 1996--repeated his charges from 1978 Note virtually alone which seems to indicate "minority view". If you know of a better historian, pray tell us. At some point, this exercise in denial becomes an eensy bit ludicrous, indeed. Collect (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. From the discussions above we have found one major RS (the New York Times), and a fair number of academic sources on there being a "growing consensus that Hiss, indeed, had most likely been a Soviet agent" as James Barron, a staff reporter for the New York Times says. That is all we really need to improve the lede. All this back and forth about the guilt or innocence is beside the point. We have RS that says there is a consensus. It should be added. There is no reasonable policy I can think of for excluding it. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, you two have just concluded that the New York Times is a reliable source, but The Washington Post is not. Also that, "Modern Age," "America's leading conservative quarterly," is a reliable source, but The Nation, The American Scholar, and the London Times Literary Supplement, are not. Or am I reading this wrong? Joegoodfriend (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

As such does not represent what I have written above, who is the other person of "two"? All the RS books and peer-reviewed articles, including Ehrman;s article, seem quite in accord with each other. Collect (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Collect, your latest source says, "Findings from the Venona project and Soviet sources have convinced most scholars that the government officials Alger Hiss, Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, and Laughlin Currie, for example, shared information with the Soviets, chiefly during the Second World War." (p. 297) It is dishonest to use that source to say there is an "academic consensus." We should go with the sources, rather than with our hearts say. TFD (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

To complete the footnote (#9) TFD quotes: "Findings from the Venona project and Soviet sources have convinced most scholars that the government officials Alger Hiss, Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, and Laughlin Currie, for example, shared information with the Soviets, chiefly during the Second World War. About 350 Americans, most of them not government employees, are known to have engaged in espionage. Disagreement remains about how damaging their actions were to U.S. security. There is consensus that information from Julius Rosenberg and others associated with the Manhattan Project accelerated the Soviets' development of atomic weapons. For a brief review of this debate, see Ellen Schrecker, "Soviet Espionage in America: An Oft-Told Tale," Reviews in American History 38 (June 2010): 355-61." This very clearly supports Collect's argument; also please see my note about Schrecker above, posted 07:19, 27 April 2013. It is not in the least "dishonest to use that source to say there is an 'academic consensus'." Au contraire. Yopienso (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

No it does not. The "consensus" is about Rosenberg and others. AFAIK no one has suggested that Hiss had access to atomic secrets. TFD (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll bold what you appear to have missed: "Findings from the Venona project and Soviet sources have convinced most scholars that the government officials Alger Hiss, Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, and Laughlin Currie, for example, shared information with the Soviets, chiefly during the Second World War." "Have convinced most scholars" = "scholarly consensus"; "Alger Hiss" = "Alger Hiss"; "shared information with the Soviets" = "spied." Stripping down the sentence to what deals with Hiss, we read, "Findings have convinced most scholars that Alger Hiss shared information with the Soviets."

As I quoted Schrecker above, "There is now just too much evidence from too many different sources to make it possible for anyone but the most die-hard loyalists to argue convincingly for the innocence of Hiss, Rosenberg, and the others." And from the Schrecker article cited in footnote #9 you yourself posted, "Like everyone but Tony Hiss and a tiny handful of hold-outs, she accepts the guilt of Alger Hiss" (p. 360). Yopienso (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, "convinced most scholars" is not the same as saying there is a consensus. Whether the hold-outs are "diehard" or "left-wing", their views continue to receive attention in academic circles as pointed out by a 2007 review by the CIA. This case differs from the Oswald case for example, where a large number of people question his guilt, but there actually is a consensus that the official version was correct. TFD (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Certainly it is--that's what "consensus" means. Only the biased fringe disagree. The biased fringe There can always be alternative views, some held by nut jobs, but often by scholars of repute. See, for example, List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. There is a scholarly consensus on global warming, but some very bright and capable scientists demur. So, too, with Hiss--there's a consensus among scholars, but not a 100% agreement.

Pulitzer Prize-winning author Thomas Powers writes: . . . the end of the cold war . . . made available documents which have . . . definitively settled many old controversies about the guilt or innocence of people accused during the 1950s of having spied for the Soviet Union—the Rosenbergs, Julius and Ethel; their colleagues Al Sarant and Joel Barr, . . . the State Department official Alger Hiss and his wife, Priscilla . . . Yopienso (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The two situations are different. Most of the global warming sceptic scientists have no expertise in the relevant area and none of them publish their theories in peer-reviewed publications. There are defenders of Alger Hiss however who are experts and do publish their theories in peer-reviewed publications. When a consensus is found, whether on evolution, global warming, the Kennedy assassination, 9/11, the moon landing etc., dissenting views are relegated to the fringe and ignored. TFD (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken; these and many other scientists are eminent in the field:

• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow ANU
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Some eminent historians may disagree with the consensus on Hiss, but Kai Bird is not one; he is a fine journalist.

You will be more helpful at this article if you will set aside your opinions, read the sources, and accept what they say. Yopienso (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I said most global warming sceptic scientists have no expertise in the relevant area. But much more importantly, none of them, including the experts you listed, challenge climate change in peer-reviewed

BTW I have no opinion on the guilt or innocence of Alger Hiss.

TFD (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure they do, but that's beside the point. Richard Lindzen. Hendrik Tennekes. Garth Paltridge.

My apologies for reading into your comments a bias you do not hold.

Do we agree that most scholars hold the view that Hiss was a Soviet spy? Yopienso (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree that the statement that "there is a scholarly consensus of Hiss's guilt" has been adequately sourced. What is going to be cited for this? So far we only have the NYT, which is equivocal ('most likely'), and a questionable source for a dogmatic assertion regarding scholarly consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Yopienso, I do not mind saying that most scholars have that view, since that can be sourced. While I do not want to make too much of a distraction out of the climate change issue, the sources you provide do not appear to bear you out. While these writers do write articles that are highly critical of mainstream climate change science, the articles they actual publish in academic papers tend to be far less aggressive. Lindzen's article was written 20 years ago. Tennekes' article was published in the highly controversial Energy and Environment, which has poor peer review and little acceptance among scientists and has always been edited by a global warming skeptic. Paltridge's article has a narrow focus and does not challenge climate change science, unlike his highly polemical non-academic book, The Climate Caper. The point is that fringe views do not get expressed in academic writing, which is what WP:FRINGE means. The climate change debate is over, and skeptics publish their views outside academia. TFD (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Please put on your reading glasses, Grampaw Grump! :) This page cites to White, Shelton, Haynes & Klehr, Weinstein, Vassiliev, Schrecker, Aron, Richer, and of course VENONA. Yopienso (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

TFD--OK--the point is that consensus does not equal unanimity, even among the best experts. Yopienso (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It means unanimity in reliable sources. Obviously there may be astronomers who read their horoscopes, and nothing stops them from writing for astrology magazines, but astronomers' journals will not publish articles defending astrology. That is because it is not possible to make a reasonable argument in defense of astrology. TFD (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, it doesn't; not in history. History is an interpretation of facts, and scholars will disagree. (Scientists very often disagree, too.) Yopienso (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

When historians do disagree over interpretations of facts we follow WP:WEIGHT and disclose the various opinions. However historians agree on most facts - when the Declaration of Independence was signed, when Pearl Harbor was bombed, that Oswald killed Kennedy, etc. In those cases we do not even say there is a consensus, we merely state the facts. TFD (talk) 03:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy break

Reply to TFD: I have stricken my wording above wrt "biased fringe" and replaced it with "alternate views." We're not comparing history to pseudo-history here, but simply one historian's view with another. More precisely, we're balancing the majority view of historians of Alger Hiss with the minority views of other historians. Yopienso (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I could agree with the "consensus" among scholars about Hiss being guilty if it read "there is a consensus among scholars who rely mainly on ex-Soviet sources that Hiss was guilty". The evidence brought out at the trials and on appeal showed the exact opposite. For example, the now-forgotten author John Chabot Smith, who published in 1976, pointed out that the spy documents were copies or transcripts of non-confidential State Department documents. He gave his source for that statement. This is a matter that Professor Weinstein, for example,does not address. If they were not confidential, then Mrs. Hiss, often portrayed for reasons that escape me as a fanatical Communist, typed them out laboriously. Then Whittaker Chambers came from Baltimore to Washington, took the typed copies to his (communist) photographer in Baltimore, got them copied, then destroyed the typescript. Then -apparently the next day- Hiss took the originals which he had brought home to the State Department. The offence was enough to give him life imprisonment at least for espionage. What nonsense! On appeal, the Hiss defence produced an expert on questioned documents, who claimed- independently of her main testimony- that Priscilla Hiss did not type any of the typed documents. Indeed, she said that the testimony of the FBI expert on the typed documents was "absolutely worthless".

The three experts, Elizabeth McCarthy, Dr. Daniel Norman and Dr. Evelyn Ehrlich, were all people who had contractual or professional dealings with government bodies, and were to that extent testifying against their own interests.

By the way, is Dr. Svetlana Chervonnaya an academic or not? And could the contributors to this text give me a clear account of her views? RhosfawrRhosfawr (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Neither lede The original lede, which has a direct quote, equivocated Hiss' guilt. The proposed lede, which summarizes the cites, hammers Hiss' guilt and, basically, calls those who think otherwise crackpots. I've read this discussion and looked up the cites (except the sign-in one, which didn't work for me) and I think neither lede works precisely. Rhosfawr has a point that while the tide has clearly turned to accept that Hiss did work with the Soviets, however some historians who focus on the Soviet 'evidence' hold that Hiss' guilt was manufactured. Can't the lede say that and leave the OR arguments of the case to the side?EBY (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Why would the post-Soviets forge Soviet documents to prove Hiss' guilt? Collect (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

No one has claimed that they did. TFD (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to clarify what I said. I have no basis on which to judge the academics who have studied the Soviet or Russian sources. Messrs. Haynes and Klehr, and for that matter Sam Tanenhaus, Professor Weinstein and numerous others, have had opportunities and access to sources that I do not have. But it has been possible for everyone with the time and money to study the American sources, and they tell a different tale. I believe that there is a qualitative difference between the American and the Soviet/Russian sources. The former have been as it were peer-reviewed. You can check the trial transcript against analyses based on other sources. For example, we know that Whittaker Chambers lied both in his book "Witness" and to the court. I would prefer to say that he fantasized. The fraudulent basis of the prosecution's case was shown in open court. Note that adjective "open". The Soviet files, and the trials based on that regime, have no such open basis. I do not know how many academics believe Hiss guilty, but that is hardly the important thing. We toilers in the US sources have discovered, for instance, that most of the documents the prosecution said Hiss gave to Whittaker Chambers were not confidential. To say that the Soviet sources provide a "consensus" among academics that Hiss was a spy, or for that matter that Harry Dexter White was a spy, ignores such facts. This is why I, for one, doubt the guilt of either man has been shown. The document we have from White, supposedly given to Chambers,is a summary of various facts which are in some cases irrelevant to the Soviet Union and in other cases obtainable from other sources. That is why the "blanket" statements by the "consensus" academics should not be taken as conclusive. The person who reads them without having knowledge of the background will think that OK, this matter is settled, I can go and play football without thinking further. RhosfawrRhosfawr (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 June 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request on 18 June 2013

Endnote 32 reads:

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

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

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

Perhaps something like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stuck

So with no agreement happening, when are we going to be able to resume editing this article? Or some other dispute resolution process? CJK (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello? Anybody here? Are we going to be moving on? CJK (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I can see little hope of 'moving on' while contributors use this talk page as a forum for debate as to Hiss's guilt or otherwise. As I pointed out above, the RfC was malformed from the start in that it was asking contributors to make such a determination, contrary to policy, and it is unsurprising that it has gone downhill from there. The only resolution that appears possible appears to me to be one where the article complies with Misplaced Pages policy, and indicates that Hiss's guilt is contested. Misplaced Pages is not a court of law, and it is not our job to determine 'truth'. Instead, we should present, with due regard to weight, the differing viewpoints on the matter, and let our readers decide for themselves, should they wish to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"Contested" implies a closer split than appears correct -- what about "largely accepted" as a compromise? Thus not stating "guilty" in Misplaced Pages's voice, but also recognizing reality among scholars. Collect (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Collect (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hiss's guilt is contested That is already in my version. I wrote that Hiss's defenders continue to view him as a victim of a conspiracy. There are notes from the Soviet archives that directly implicate Hiss, I am still waiting for some sort of evidence that this is disputed outside of hardcore pro-Hiss people, even they do not generally think the notes are fake. CJK (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev said on p. 4 of their 2009 book that articles supporting Hiss' innocence continue to be published in "prestigious academic journals". TFD (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, their point is that this is being done by a minority in spite of irrefutable evidence to the contrary, such as the incriminating notes in question. I have asked over and over again if the users who oppose using the notes can identify anyone reliable who is disputing them. None did. CJK (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

TFD, you have grossly miscontextualized that quote. Here is the entire sentence from p. 4:

"Critics attacked The Haunted Wood on the grounds that only the authors had access to its underlying documentation, parsed the Venona project's 'Ales' message, and offered elaborate and convoluted interpretations of why 'Ales' might not be Hiss that were published in prestigious academic journals and promoted by left-wing journals of opinion such as The Nation."

Here's more context, starting on p. 3:

"Following Hiss's conviction in 1950 his supporters began a campaign that continues to this day to assert his innocence. Despite massive evidence to the contrary, some have maintained that not only is there no convincing evidence that Hiss was a spy, but also that Chambers was a fantasist who invented his own work for the Soviets. Files from the archives of the Comintern supported key elements of Chambers's story about the existence of a covert American Communist Party apparatus headed by Josef Peters. Finally, Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev's The Haunted Wood (1999) cited specific KGB archival documents that explicitly named Hiss as a Soviet agent.

After a brief period of silence and confusion Hiss's defenders regrouped and went on a counteroffensive. Critics attacked The Haunted Wood on the grounds that only the authors had access to its underlying documentation, parsed the Venona project's 'Ales' message, and offered elaborate and convoluted interpretations of why 'Ales' might not be Hiss that were published in prestigious academic journals and promoted by left-wing journals of opinion such as The Nation."

And in conclusion, the authors state on p. 542:

"Soviet spies came in all varieties and from almost all corners of the Untied States. Some, like Alger Hiss, were graduates of elite prep schools and Ivy League colleges, holding prestigious government jobs where they were entrusted with great responsibilities and pledged to serve the nation's interests but nonetheless cooperated with agents of a foreign power." Yopienso (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

How is that gross miscontextualization? Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev argue that Hiss was guilty, while acknowledging that others who continue to be published in "prestigious academic journals" do not. TFD (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Because you quote mined, totally leaving out the argument for guilt. See CJK's comment of 17:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC). Yopienso (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you please stop prefacing all your replies with personal attacks. It detracts from a collegial atmosphere and is an irrational argumentative style. If you read the discussion above at Talk:Alger Hiss#Scholarly consensus, DEddy said he did not consider Haynes & Klehr to be academics. I replied that they were then looked at their book to see what they actually said. I was merely replying to the sources and did not accuse anyone of misrepresentation or quote mining. It is the reponsibility of editors wanting to say that an academic consensus exists to find a source that supports their statement. TFD (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please review what is meant at WP by "personal attack." I'll continue to engage with you in a collegial manner.

As I have pointed out several times on this page, Ellen Schrecker--a fine scholar--claims that "only the most die-hard loyalists" argue Hiss was innocent. Haynes and Vassiliev, concluding the chapter "Alger Hiss: Case Closed" from the book you quote mined, say something very similar on pp. 30-31; I've bolded the similar part:

Any reasonable person will conclude that the new documentation of Hiss's assistance to Soviet espionage, along with the massive weight of prior accumulated evidence, closes the case. Given the fervor exhibited by his loyalists, it is unlikely that anything will convince the remaining die-hards. But to serious students of history continued claims for Hiss's innocence are akin to a terminal form of ideological blindness. The evidence from a myriad of sources--eyewitnesses and written documents, public testimony and private correspondence, fellow spies and Soviet intelligence officers, decrypted cables and long-closed archives--is overwhelming and conclusive. Case closed.

The scholars Schrecker and Haynes, who bicker over historical philosophy and perspective, both cast Hiss's defenders as belonging to the fringe, not the consensus. Yopienso (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

How is it quote-mining to quote a book that someone else has presented as evidence? That is a personal attack. We will not get anywhere if you continue to misrepresent other editors and sources. Indeed Schrecker says, "it is unlikely that anything will convince the remaining die-hards." That is your problem though - as long as "diehards" in the academic community consider Hiss innocent and "prestigious" publications publish their arguments, we cannot say that there is an academic consensus that Hiss is guilty. And please do not trot out arguments why you think he is guilty - it is not up to us to decide. We merely report what reliable sources say. Incidentally, you are misrepresenting your sources by saying one view is consensus and the other is fringe. We need to accurately report sources, not misread them. TFD (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Pointing out that you are quote mining is not a personal attack. It is quote mining because you are taking the words out of their context and construing them to mean something the author did not intend.

There is a growing consensus about Hiss, as you yourself pointed out, although you don't seem to understand the term. We need to include this in the article. Please read p. 25 (Type in "bloodhounds.") and p. 208 (Type in "consensus.") in this book. On p. 25, Susan Jacoby contrasts the "bloodhounds" with the "die-hard defenders." On p. 208 she specifically says there is a consensus ("If there is," using "if" to mean "although") among both liberal and conservative scholars "about Hiss's personal guilt." (Scroll up one page for her assertion that The Haunted Wood "persuaded a number of holdout historians of the left--and on the left--to throw in the towel on Hiss. 'Let's face it, the debate just ended,' said Maurice Isserman, professor of history at Hamilton College. Isserman is considered one of the best scholars in the young generation of historians . . .") Yopienso (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

In ordinary English, someone referring to "the remaining die-hards" is making a very explicit claim that the "die-hards" are now an extreme minority - thus the quote strongly reinforces the claim that the academic consensus is of guilt. Unless you can find any place in the world where "die-hard" refers to anything like a majority, of course. BTW, as TFD has accused folks in the past of "quote mining" and "google mining", the umbrage is faux.

One who stubbornly resists change or tenaciously adheres to a seemingly hopeless or outdated cause Collect (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Collect, first, some editors have quote-mined in the past. But it is not quote mining to discuss a source that someone else has presented. Second, when versions of history become proved, whether evolution, the big bang, global warming, Oswald as lone gunman, 9/11 as an al Qaeda plot, prestigious academic journals do not publish alternative views, and universities do not host conferences and websites that present these views. To put it simply, once academics agree with one another, they stop arguing with one another, at least in academic fora. TFD (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You did not discuss the source; you quoted from it selectively.

You may not understand about scientific and historical "proof."

There is ongoing controversy on every issue you listed, and not just from whackos. For two quick examples: global warming; Oswald. Yopienso (talk) 07:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. By way of illustration, Duquesne U. is holding a symposium on JFK's death this October. Why this tidbit is relevant to this page: some debates, including the one on Hiss, never end, even though there is a general consensus among reputable scholars. Yopienso (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

In fact "prestigious academic journals" do not continue to publish reports debunking global warming since the academic consensus supporting global warming emerged. No doubt one can also find astronomers who read their astrological charts, but astronomy journals do not publish those views. Notice that the controversial speakers at the Duquesne symposium have published their theories in the popular not academic press. TFD (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Um, in case you haven't noticed, controversial topics are avoided as subjects of academic conferences, especially when there are severe career penalties to be paid for holding unpopular views. I would say there is rather a discreet silence among historians, except for a vocal minority with ties to the intelligence/government/or military community, who appear to wish to shut down discussion in a way that real historians would never do. 173.77.14.10 (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not enough for them for people writing about the case to say they are agnostic and waiting for more evidence, to avoid being stigmatized by personal attacks, they must also declare themselves true believers in Hiss's guilt.173.77.14.10 (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

A consensus exists because people are penalized for supporting Hiss's innocence? Any shred of evidence to substantiate your nonsensical conspiracy theory? CJK (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not say that a consensus exists, I said there is a price to pay for declaring neutrality. Example? Anthony Lake. Another example is yourself, implying that I am a "nonsensical conspiracy" theorist for speaking out. The Hiss case is in no way comparable to global warming. Why? Because in global warming there is ample evidence is out there for everyone to examine and freely make up their minds, and not hidden in a Soviet or NSA archive. You can say there is a consensus if you like, but a true consensus can only be reached where evidence can be produced, without evidence it is mere speculation. 173.52.254.201 (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The interesting thing is that CJK attempts to portray me as having alleged (in his/her words) that "people are penalized for supporting Hiss's innocence". When what is really happening and also what I really said was that there are penalties to be paid (as in the case of Anthony Lake) from even expressing doubt about the statement that the "case is closed." 173.52.254.201 (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

And another thing, the NY T article linked to just above by Yopienso on Susan Jacoby does NOT state that Susan Jacoby unequivocally believes Hiss is guilty of espionage but that she believes he was guilty of perjury (in stating that he didn't know Chambers) and that "she is almost, but not entirely, persuaded that Hiss was also a Soviet spy." "Not entirely convinced" seems to pretty clearly admit a degree of doubt. 173.52.254.201 (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The degree of doubt is 1-2%. What Jacoby herself says on pp. 20-21 is:

I should say for the record that I believe Hiss was guilty of both perjury and spying, but I find evidence of the latter persuasive--very persuasive--rather than conclusive. If I were on a jury, knowing what is known now, I would certainly vote to convict Hiss. If being only 98 or 99 percent convinced of Hiss's guilt . . . makes me a member of the Flat Earth Society as far as the political right is concerned, so be it. It has been at least twenty-five years since orthodoxy, liberal or otherwise, has maintained anything other than Hiss's guilt. Yopienso (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Example? Anthony Lake.

Who is not an academic, who is not an expert of the Hiss-Chambers case or the McCarthy era, and has not written books about them.

not hidden in a Soviet or NSA archive

No, the evidence is not "hidden". We have the VENONA material from the NSA and we have the notes from the Soviet archives. The obstinate refusal of some to accept this evidence does not mean it is "hidden".

The interesting thing is that CJK attempts to portray me as having alleged (in his/her words) that "people are penalized for supporting Hiss's innocence". When what is really happening and also what I really said was that there are penalties to be paid (as in the case of Anthony Lake) from even expressing doubt about the statement that the "case is closed."

Yeah, that's totally different from what I said. Thank you for correcting me.

CJK (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

:I understand that Vasilliev is the only one who has seen the notebooks and that the US also refuses to open its records although more than 60 years have past and, according to the criteria of Sir Walter Scott, events that happened "60 years hence" can be considered "history."

So, that shows the consensus was that Hiss was guilty.

From the Oxonian Review, (link) with my bolding for emphasis:

"Today, the Hiss case does not, as Jacoby claims, “strike chords located along ideological fault lines”. To the contrary, the Hiss case is one issue upon which consensus transcends ideological divides. With the election of Barack Obama, the torch has been passed to a new generation of American liberals—post-Baby Boomers who remember Richard Nixon as a historical figure rather than a real-life foe and who are perfectly willing to admit Hiss’s guilt. The Battle for History thus appears at the precise moment that its subject has lost his place in the progressive pantheon. To its credit, this book is a lively read. But it is not a timely one."

Yopienso (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yopienso, you have not adequately sourced your quote, which you present as though it clinches the matter. The author of the article (published in 2009) is one Daniel Hemel, who is described as a graduate student in foreign international relations and an editor of The Oxonian Review of Books. The article is a book review of Susan Jacoby's book. Hemel merely states what you are stating. He is also the author of two other reviews/opinion pieces, one arguing that Guantanamo is not so bad, and the other that the Neo-conservatives are not so bad. He is entitled to his opinions, but they are just that, opinions. 173.52.254.201 (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC) 173.52.254.201 (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yopienso, the IP is correct. It is just an opinion piece by a grad student in a student paper devoted to book reviews and current events. The book he reviews which is by Susan Jacoby and was published by the Yale University Press is however a reliable source. TFD (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The author of the book under Hemel's (lukewarm) review, by Susan Jacoby, states that she is almost, but "not entirely persuaded" that Hiss engaged in espionage. 173.52.254.201 (talk)

The section "Consensus" mistakenly implies that Carl T. Bogus and Stephen Greenspan are historians. Bogus, author of a biography of William Buckley, is a law professor and ought to be identified as such. As for Greenspan, author of popular books on psychology, he is a developmental psychologist, not a historian. The section now reads:

Historians are not unanimous and agree there are loose ends, but Bogus says "the present-day consensus among historians is that Alger Hiss was in fact a Soviet spy." Greenspan says, "the consensus today (aided by the release of Soviet intelligence files) is fairly strong on the side that he had indeed been a spy."

Thus, as it stands, the section is highly misleading and does not support what it purports to prove. I recommend that it be deleted. 173.52.254.201 (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. How is a non-fiction book about Buckley a reliable source for academic consensus on Alger Hiss? One editor has been throwing around accusations of quote-mining. Quote mining is searching for a source that supports what one wants to add, instead of choosing good, relevant sources and reporting what they say. TFD (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The notes, revisited

I understand that Vasilliev is the only one who has seen the notebooks

Wrong. The notebooks are actually online, free for anyone to peruse.

What exactly does the opinion of Congress have to do with anything? Scholars, not politicians, are the people who conduct academic inquiries. Your contention that controversial topics are avoided as subjects of academic conferences, especially when there are severe career penalties to be paid for holding unpopular views. is your personal conspiracy theory, unsupported by any evidence. Even if you did have a good reason for thinking that academics lie to advance their careers, it is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand because Misplaced Pages routinely operates on the assumption that academics know what they're talking about and are worthy of note in that respect.

CJK (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The statement that "the case is definitively settled and Hiss's guilt is established", which you and your military friends have made multiple attempts to insert in the article, is a statements of opinion.

Wholly apart from the fact I never inserted such a statement, I find it fascinating that you ginned up two more conspiracy theories out of thin air. First of all, that the other users are my "friends" (in reality there has been zero contact) and second, that if they are from the military they must be part of the Grand Sixty Year Plot To Frame Hiss.

CJK (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I imagine the IP meant that Vasilliev is the only person to have seen the files. He kept notebooks of the files which he has posted online. But it is not up to us to weigh the evidence and determine the facts. Rather we are supposed to report what sources say. TFD (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The sources I cited used the notes to say that Hiss was guilty. Show me evidence that any expert is disputing that these notes are genuine. CJK (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

1) The previous person/ or people who wanted to insert such statements about "consensus" and a "majority of historians" was indeed a member of the military, located in Canada, according to his own website. Here is a list contributed by yourself of the articles CJK has started:

• Articles that I have started
• Timeline of events in the Cold War
• Operation Vulture
• Cambodian coup of 1970
• North Korean missile test, 2006
• EC-121 shootdown incident

I think one can conclude that your main preoccupation is with military matters, whatever your current occupation may or may not be. If there is a non-military topic on your list of contributions to wikipedia I must have overlooked it. Now you and the other "case closed" folks (whom I call your "friends", speaking metaphorically ), have no problems attempting to marginalize those question your (manufactured) "consensus" by calling them "Hiss's defenders", "HIssites", fringe people, "die-hards", "conspiracy theorists", "gullible", etc., etc. I could do the same and call you coterie of fanatical-defenders=of-NSA-and-the-Military intelligence=services-against- all-comers; neo-cons; revanchists-who-hate-the-New-Deal; a "remnant" (as William F. Buckley liked to style himself his followers), Of course, I would never stoop to such tactics.

2) Inquiring historians would like to know if anyone but Vassiliev seen the source material, yes or no? Also, I ask you this: is Vassiliev a historian, an academic? What is his level of education? How's his English? How competent is he as a translator? Is there any way to check this? Has any other scholar besides himself been inside the Soviet archives?

3) Finally, what about the substantive criticisms of "Consensus" section. Bogus and Greenspan--the non-historians. Crickets. Look over there, it's a "conspiracy theorist"!173.52.245.188 (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

located in Canada

CANADA?!? Say it ain't so! Those dastardly Canadians interfering in our internal affairs to frame Hiss!

I said "conspiracy theorists" because it accurately describes the intellectual gymnastics needed to maintain that Hiss could still be innocent, not because I have any evidence that they otherwise are engaged in conspiratorial thinking. Your contention that people who attack Hiss are doing so because they are pro-military, on the other hand, reflects somewhat bizarre bigotry on your part.

The bottom line with the notes, what I have been trying to get at for two months, is this: sources say that the notes show Hiss did it. Unless someone can provide a scholarly source that comprehensively disputes the notion that the notes show Hiss did it, there is no reason why it cannot be stated as factual.

CJK (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

John Lowenthal wrote an article "Venona and Alger Hiss", Intelligence and National Security, pub. by Taylor & Francis, 2000, which questioned the accuracy of Vassiliev's notes. Vassiliev, Haynes, and Klehr comment on it in their book. But that is the wrong approach to take. We need evidence that they were accurate not that they were not. And we still need confirmation that there is an academic consensus that Hiss was a spy. IP, Alexander Vassiliev was a KGB officer writing for Pravda when it was a propaganda paper, and has no academic qualifications as an historian AFAIK. TFD (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Lowenthal didn't question the accuracy of the notes, he questioned whether Hiss was specifically named "ALES" in those notes, like in VENONA. In any case, Hiss's lawyer (or his son) is hardly scholarly material.

We need evidence that they were accurate not that they were not.

Really? I would say that we need a scholarly source that disputes the accuracy of the notes first, rather than a Misplaced Pages user making their own amateur judgments about it. Please don't play games. It is self-evident that the onus is not on me to somehow "prove" the notes are not fakes. If a piece of material is uncontested by scholarship nobody has to prove it is genuine.

CJK (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Lowenthal was not just a "lawyer", he was taught at New School for Social Research in New York City and at the CUNY Law School at Queens College. His article appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. He did in fact challenge the accuracy of the notes. And sorry we cannot assume that the account of one person is accurate without corroboration. Otherwise flying saucer articles would read differently. But you are taking us back into the time-wasting exercise of weighing evidence which is original research. We do not among ourselves decide what really happened, but report what reliable sources say. And the reliable source on which you rely says that some scholars dispute the conclusion that Hiss was a spy. TFD (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Lowenthal was Hiss's lawyer, not simply an independent scholar, as is well known.

He did in fact challenge the accuracy of the notes.

Please show where he did this. The article he wrote is about VENONA, not the notes. Vassiliev didn't even have the notes in his possession back in 2000, he was relying on summaries of those notes.

I do believe we're referring to two sets of notes. If memory serves in this puzzle palace... first there was a deal for Weinstien's publisher to pay US$100,000(?) to the KGB retirement fund for the notes used in Weinstein's "Haunted Wood." There was some sort of legal scuffle in the UK between Lowenthal & Vassiliev (I think Lowenthal won) & then another batch of notes appeared in maybe 2011 or so. Whether or not these are the same notes is difficult to acertain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEddy (talk • contribs) 22:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

And sorry we cannot assume that the account of one person is accurate without corroboration. Otherwise flying saucer articles would read differently.

Because Alger Hiss being a spy is exactly like flying saucers existing. I never thought I would have to type that.

We do not among ourselves decide what really happened, but report what reliable sources say.

Correct. Books have been published by scholars who have deemed the notes genuine and use the notes to justify Hiss's guilt.

And the reliable source on which you rely says that some scholars dispute the conclusion that Hiss was a spy.

Yes. But none of them have comprehensively disputed that the notes show Hiss's guilt, they just tend to ignore/downplay it.

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

If some scholars dispute the conclusion that Hiss was a spy, out article cannot assert that there is a scholarly consensus that Hiss is guilty. It doesn't matter a damn why they dispute it. And it certainly isn't up to us to decide that they are 'ignoring' or 'downplaying' anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what a scholarly consensus is. A consensus does mean 100% approval among scholars. It merely means widespread approval.

But I wasn't talking about the scholarly consensus anyway. I was talking about the notes that substantiate Hiss's guilt. Over a two month period not a single piece of evidence has been provided that these notes are seriously disputed by scholars.

CJK (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

"Lowenthal didn't question the accuracy of the notes,"..."I would say that we need a scholarly source that disputes the accuracy of the notes first" You see fellows, CJK has maintained a line of logic all through this argument that allows him to state that no legit source questions Hiss' guilt possibly implied by the notes. The notes refer to an agent known as "Leonard," for whom there appears to be no other candidate than Hiss. Re Vassiliev's work, Lowenthal alleged (per Vassiliev's unsuccessful lawsuit against him), "particularly in its use of KGB archival files, (Vassiliev's book about the notes) is unreliable and, for the most part, unverifiable. Where it is verifiable at all, it turns out to be wrong." Amy Knight specifically questioned the conclusion that Hiss was Leonard, and of Vassiliev's notes said, "the inconsistencies in the story of his research are disturbing. And the speed with which he accomplished his work strains credulity." I could on, but the point is this: Because no source has specifically said, "I question the accuracy of the alleged document that refers to agent, "Leonard," and sources have only questioned the conclusion that Hiss was Leonard, therefore no one has questioned the accuracy of the document, therefore the document is case closed that Hiss was an agent. See how it works? I think it's reasonable to infer that multiple reliable sources have cast doubt on the idea that the notes prove Hiss was a spy. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I reiterate that Lowenthal, Hiss's lawyer, cannot possibly be considered a reliable expert on evaluating the authenticity of the notes for the purposes of this article, if he did indeed do so (I am still waiting for the full details of the specific points he was making). Surely if these notes were seriously problematic, you could easily find someone else besides Hiss's lawyer to trash them.

And, as I have already informed Joe above at least twice, Knight admits in her review (not a scholarly article) that the notes were taken from authentic SVR files. She disputes only one of the five or so documents, on the grounds that KGB officials might have been feeding false information to their superiors. Even if we were to take that nonsensical argument as fact, that still leaves four other documents she completely ignores.

CJK (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to infer that multiple reliable sources have cast doubt on the idea that the notes prove Hiss was a spy.

You infer this? What does that mean? There is a fundamental responsibility for people disputing the evidence to provide scholarly sources that not only address the issue but deal with the entirety of the evidence. This is what scholars are supposed to do.

CJK (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand academic publishing. The personal views of the writers are irrelevant to the facts contained in their articles, which are checked through peer-review. I assume you accept Vassiliev's notes as accurate because you believe Hiss was a spy, while you would accept notes of someone documenting secret government documents on UFOs because you do not believe UFOs exist. This is a red herring anyway. You said that if the notes are accurate, then Hiss was a spy. But that is beyond are role as editors. We merely need to determine whether or not there is a consensus, or do scholars still debate the issue. TFD (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand academic publishing. The personal views of the writers are irrelevant to the facts contained in their articles, which are checked through peer-review.

It isn't a matter of "personal views" it is a simple matter of conflict of interest. If a former Exxon lawyer wrote an article saying that emissions don't really harm the environment, nobody would take it seriously when writing an encyclopedia article on greenhouse gasses. In any case you still haven't given any quotes from Lowenthal so we could evaluate the exact points he was making.

I assume you accept Vassiliev's notes as accurate because you believe Hiss was a spy, while you would accept notes of someone documenting secret government documents on UFOs because you do not believe UFOs exist.

Um UFOs do exist, you were referring to "flying saucers". Vassiliev was actually in the archives taking notes related to espionage. Not even you can dispute that. Nobody has been permitted to visit the national archives take notes on supposed classified government flying saucer findings.

You said that if the notes are accurate, then Hiss was a spy. But that is beyond are role as editors.

Absolutely. I am not making my own personal claim, I was reporting what other sources said about the notes. You, on the other hand, are assuming an unwarranted role in dismissing information on the grounds that you don't personally believe it.

CJK (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

If your hypothetical Exxon lawyer wrote an article for a peer-reviewed journal on the environment, then it would be a reliable source, because an independent panel would have pre-screened the article and it would have been submitted to review by environmental experts. They would require that errors were corrected and that inconvenient facts were not excluded, before the article could be published. In fact, major corporations fund many studies that are reported in peer reviewed literature and some editors complain that the studies are funded by drug companies. But neutrality requires us to report what is published

Regarding your comment that I am "dismissing information on the grounds that you don't personally believe it." Not all at. I have no opinion on the case. I do not think there is sufficient evidence to form an opinion one way or another, but would not know that unless I spent several months reading everything available. But it is not up to us to decide, merely to report what sources say.

TFD (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that CKJ excludes the possibility of the existence of "an independent panel" because to be independent would require a degree of doubt on the part of the experts. And CKJ presumes Hiss to be guilty until "comprehensively" proven innocent. 173.77.97.232 (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Not to state the blindingly obvious, but this is getting silly. Misplaced Pages would not re-write facts in its articles in the event an Exxon lawyer somehow managed to get a peer-reviewed article. The Johnny Cochran of the 1940s is not a suitable source for this matter. You still won't give me information on the specifics of what Lowenthal argued, so you can't tell me that he somehow showed these notes are fakes, or that the notes do not implicate Hiss. In fact, this is quite impossible because back in 2000 Lowenthal had absolutely no access to the notes, and neither did Vassiliev. Vassiliev made summaries of documents to prepare the Haunted Wood in 1999 and did not regain the notes of documents he had directly transcribed until around 2001.

I have no opinion on the case.

Really? You seem to be investing an awful lot of time trying to discredit very specific information, even though you are in no way, shape, or form qualified to determine if it is valid or not.

And CKJ presumes Hiss to be guilty until "comprehensively" proven innocent.

Nope, not even close to what I said. I said that a scholarly source had to be provided that comprehensively disputed the incriminating notes. How is that unreasonable? Scholars are supposed to engage in detailed discussion. That is why they are scholars.

CJK (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

While I am enjoying this pleasant conversation with you, could please explain what specific text you wish to add to the article and which specific sources backs it up. TFD (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

What The Four Deuces said, and also, Vassiliev's notes cannot be "comprehensively disputed" until the originals from which he worked are made available. As it now stands the

Venona cables do not assert that ALES was Hiss. That was an inference made by the FBI. If they had, Vassiliev would not have gone to Russia seeking corroboration. We have Vassiliev's notes -- online. But they are not the sources, which are in a locked archive in Russia. Some people say Vassiliev's hurried transcriptions substantiate Hiss's guilt (CJK), et. al. Others say the the information contained in them is equivocal, because there is no way to confirm "Leonard" was Hiss. Still others (Russian intelligence officers) say there is no evidence in the KBG files that Hiss was ever a spy or "agent of influence" to begin with. Others suggest there are problems with Vassiliev's translations which cannot be verified since we don't have the original sources. Vassiliev sued several people who questioned his accuracy ---including an Amazon commenter (hardly the scholarly method!) and failed to convince an English judge and jury that he was a reliable person. The English judge specifically said in his acerbically worded censure of Vassiliev that just because someone is a relative or a lawyer does not disqualify him or her from weighing in on the case, and that to say otherwise is to engage in intimidation. That is where we stand. And furthermore-- Bogus and Greenspan are not historians, as the article now erroneously asserts.173.77.97.232 (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Lawyers and other people skilled in understanding the law are eminently qualified to make statements as to the law, and as to likely guilt or innocence. Historians do not have a special knowledge of such matters, and thus whether a person knowledgeable in the matters at hand has an opinion has nothing whatever to do with being or not being a "historian." Collect (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying they are not qualified to comment (or repeat talking points) on the case. I am saying that our text calls them "historians" when they are not. 173.77.97.232 (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

See also section

Once this article gets unlocked, can we please lose this section? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The notes revisited, part II

I am going to lay out in very precise terms what I am trying to get done.

I want the article to say in the introduction, citing relevant sources such as Spies, that "notes taken from multiple documents in the Soviet archives have confirmed Hiss's guilt."

Unless...

Someone can cite one single actual article written by an actual scholar who consistently asserts either:

A) They do not believe that Vassiliev's notes are substantively accurate copies of Soviet documents or at least are unwilling to rule out that they aren't.

OR

B) They accept that the notes are accurate but examine each instance Hiss is claimed to be referenced, and conclude that none of the references really show Hiss is guilty.

If anyone can provide a source with the above criteria I will give up this dispute and cease editing this article.

CJK (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You need to cite a source. Incidentally it always better to identify good sources and report what they say rather than determine what we think the article should say and then find sources. TFD (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you are going to rule out anything written before 2009 that rules out one of your sources, the developmental psychologist Greenspan, whom you erroneously call a historian. 01:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.97.232 (talk)

Have you looked at DocumentsTalk for an additional view? It's a lot of reading, but she makes some good points. http://www.documentstalk.com/wp/dossiers-on-alexander-vassilievs-notes Svetlana Chervonnaya's site. While it appears that her analysis of the Hiss notes hasn't been posted yet, other commentary is not entirely glowing about how Hayes & Klehr handled Vassiliev's notes. H&K come down hard on Harry Dexter White for being a spy when he's meeting with the Vice Chairman of the Russian National Bank, shortly after the Bretton Woods conference. In Spies H&K label the Russian a KGB agent.

Another thing... WHY is there such heat about Hiss? He was a minor official in the State Department which was majorly out of favor under FDR. What could Hiss possibly have known?

Do we know anything about what Hiss is alleged to have turned over? The only thing I remember is something about fire extinguishers & I'm not clear if this is something associated with Hiss. After 60 years this stuff gets a little fuzzy.

Regarding the issue of "conspiracy"... there absolutely was one. Hoover was an unquestioned rabid anti-communist back to 1918 when he arrested (mostly without warrants) & deported a bunch of people. I can only imagine how "Mr Spy Catcher" Himself must have been mortified to find a "massive" Soviet espionage ring in Washington, right under his nose. And the only way he found out about it was two very sketchy walkins—Chambers & Bentley. I can only imagine the embarrassment. Certainly wouldn't want to be the Agent in Charge of the DC office. My guess is the entire office was promptly banished to Missoula. Hoover did live by totally over-the-top retribution.

DEddy (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, speaking of books written after 2009, there is a new book out (2013) which is highly critical of Vassiliev and Haynes (from what I can gather, haven't read it ) and seems to suggest Hiss was framed by the FBI and other security agencies to protect their investment in the informers they had recruited, namely Chambers and Bentley: Secret History by Martin Roberts. So there is one on the non-consensus side for you, CJK. Of course it is completely "bizzarre" to suggest Richard Nixon might be involved in anything underhanded. I bet in 10 years there'll be a consensus all right, but not the one CJK is hoping for. 173.77.97.232 (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

). 173.77.97.232 (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"I want the article to say in the introduction, citing relevant sources such as Spies, that "notes taken from multiple documents in the Soviet archives have confirmed Hiss's guilt."

This suggestion was raised in the RFC. It was rejected by the editors. I think it's unfair to re-raise it.

The editor has suggested that those doubting the conclusion that the notes "confirm Hiss' guilt" are either not "academic scholars" or are otherwise not reliable sources for wikipedia. I think this suggestion has also been rejected by the editors.

Let's take a closer look at what Lowenthal wrote, because I think it actually addresses pretty closely what the editor is looking for in terms of specific criticism of Vassiliev ( A) and B) above).

"Press officer Boris Labusov was still with the Foreign Intelligence Service when "The Haunted Wood" was published (1999), and I asked him what he thought of it. He said, "If you want to be correct, don't rely much on 'The Haunted Wood'.... When they put this or that name in Venona documents in square brackets, it's the mere guess of the co-authors. Whether they are right or not, we do not comment. And it concerns all the cases of square brackets in this book.""

"I was expecting Labusov's "We do not comment," in view of recent legislation in Russia tightening the restrictions on discussion of such matters by government officials; but I asked him anyway about Hiss's name appearing in brackets. "As far as Hiss is concerned," Labusov replied, "Our position has not changed since 1992." The co-authors, (Weinstein and Vassiliev) said Labusov, "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." "Mr. Vassiliev, while writing or completing his work on this book together with Mr. Weinstein, had no official copies of documents. He had only passages from them, citations." "Mr. Vassiliev worked in our press service just here in Moscow, but, if he's honest, he will surely tell you that he never met the name of Alger Hiss in the context of some cooperation with some special services of the Soviet Union." Joegoodfriend (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You need to cite a source.

I did. Its called Spies: the Rise and Fall of the KGB in America.

Also, if you are going to rule out anything written before 2009 that rules out one of your sources, the developmental psychologist Greenspan, whom you erroneously call a historian.

Firstly, I never inserted that material. Secondly, I'm not "ruling out" sources before the notes were first used (1999 not 2009) when it comes to the consensus aspect.

While it appears that her analysis of the Hiss notes hasn't been posted yet

Then why is this relevant?

Secret History by Martin Roberts.

Who is Martin Roberts, and what does he have to say about the notes? You have to give some concrete material.

Let's take a closer look at what Lowenthal wrote, because I think it actually addresses pretty closely what the editor is looking for in terms of specific criticism of Vassiliev ( A) and B) above).

Who, for the umpteenth time, is Hiss's lawyer, and not a scholar.

This really isn't that hard. Either you find scholarly source material that disputes the fact that the notes prove Hiss's guilt, or you have absolutely no right to keep the fact out of the article based on your own judgment.

CJK (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You have absolutely no right to assert that "the notes prove Hiss's guilt". Or rather, you do - but not on Misplaced Pages. Your opinion on the matter is of absolutely no consequence whatsoever as far as article content is concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Right. Both my and your views are irrelevant. I'm using the source Spies: the Rise and Fall of the KGB in America to state a fact. There is no evidence that that fact has been disputed by scholarship.

Just an FYI on the Nixon thing: its pretty clear he thought Hiss did it. See this taped conversation on 17 June 1971 (excuse the website I'm using for the transcript, it was just the first thing to come up in the search engine):

Nixon: I hope to God - he's not Jewish is he?

Ziegler: I'm sure he is - Ellsberg?

Nixon: I hope not, I hope not.

Haldeman: is Jewish. Why the hell wouldn't he be?

Nixon: Oh yeah, I know, I know, I know, but it's, it's, it's, it's a bad thing for us. It's a bad thing for us. It's a bad thing. Maybe we'll be lucky for once. Many Jews in the Communist conspiracy. . . . Chambers and Hiss were the only non-Jews. . . . Many thought that Hiss was. He could have been a half. . . . Every other one was a Jew - and it raised hell for us. But in this case, I hope to God he's not a Jew.

Haldeman: Well, I suspect he is.

Nixon: You can't tell by the name.

Haldeman: Or Halperin. . . . Gelb is -

Nixon: Gelb's a Jew.

CJK (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTFORUM, repeatedly using this talk page to present your own arguments as to why Hiss is guilty may well be seen as a violation of policy. I suggest that you confine your posts to matters of direct relevance to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, did you read what I wrote? I'll repeat it for you a second time verbatim: I'm using the source Spies: the Rise and Fall of the KGB in America to state a fact. There is no evidence that that fact has been disputed by scholarship. The Nixon stuff was in direct response to what the IP posted above. Of course it is completely "bizzarre" to suggest Richard Nixon might be involved in anything underhanded. Why don't you rebuke him?

CJK (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you please provide the page no in the book that says, "notes taken from multiple documents in the Soviet archives have confirmed Hiss's guilt." TFD (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

is an academic journal:

The opening of Soviet archives in the early 1990s together with the declassification of the so-called Venona papers -- translations of some 3,000 messages sent between Moscow and Soviet intelligence stations in the 1940s -- led to the publication, in the late 1990s, of four major works on Soviet espionage that proved without question "the Russians were running a good many spies in the Untied States in the 1930s and 1940s, that they recruited them from the ranks of the left, that they ran them to steal secrets, and when they got caught at it they went to ground and waited for a better day".(7) The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America -- The Stalin Era, by Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassilev; The Sword and the Shield, by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin; Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr; and Venona: The Greatest Secret of the Cold War, by Nigel West, all paint a picture of a "golden age"(8) of Soviet espionage. They conclude definitively that while Joseph McCarthy may have pursued a witch hunt without scruples, it was, in fact, a witch hunt with real witches. Their guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt: atomic spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg (both of whom were executed in June 1953), State Department officials Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White, and many others. Moreover, KGB archives revealed what could only be called a haemorrhage of Allied secrets, including plans for plants and equipment employed to construct the atomic bomb. The Soviets detonated their own bomb on 29 August 1949. The worst fears of American policymakers had now been realised.

Emphasis added. Scholarly source making specific strong quotable claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

A MAJOR omission here is the presentation of "translation of some 3,000 messages" should correctly read "partial translation." Those cables are cut up with huge swaths of "." Are we to assume this passage is from the questia site? And as always it remains unaddressed... precisely what did the Soviets actually get? I know next to nothing about the Rosenbergs but have seen it said multiple times that what the Soviets got sped up their nuclear bomb process by maybe 3 years. Fission was not an American secret. That the bomb worked was obviously not a secret. It was Mother Nature's knowledge waiting to be plumbed by diligent scientists.

Another issue with this questia passage... mixing Rosenbergs, Hiss & White into the same pot. I've never seen anything that says either Hiss or White knew anything about the Manhattan project, so why bring the Rosenbergs to the table? I've pointed this out before: White was in Treasury & ascendant. Hiss was in the State Department & in FDR's dog house. Given all I can see is seven out-of-context lines, the questia piece appears to be classic guilt-by-association. It also seems to be repeating a passage (without attribution?) from Senator Moynihan's "Secrecy" which makes the same statement about Hiss & White. Presents the Ales cable (with no analysis as I remember) & offers absolutely nothing (other than the accusation) against White. As far as I know Senator Moynihan's ghost writer has not stepped forward. DEddy (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

TFD, they did not say the direct words "notes taken from multiple documents in the Soviet archives have confirmed Hiss's guilt." That's me accurately summarizing what they said in Chapter 1 of their book which is titled "Alger Hiss: Case Closed". They go over what the notes say and how they show Hiss is guilty. I don't have the book with me right now, so I can't tell you the exact page numbers.

So as of now I have an actual referenced fact, and all four of you are trying to exclude that fact based on your own personal opinions that are not backed up by scholarship. That is a blatant violation of Misplaced Pages policy.

CJK (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Please quote the wikipedia policy we are violating, and state clearly how we are violating it. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:EP says: Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies: Neutral point of view (which doesn't mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research.

Clearly my edit met that criteria. After two months of discussion, nobody can show me that I was wrong. I inserted a sourced fact ("notes taken from multiple documents in the Soviet archives have confirmed Hiss's guilt"), but the fact was deleted and the page protected to preserve that deletion. Yet over a two month period nobody presented scholarly evidence that the edit was wrong. Joe, the IP, Deddy, TFD, and Andy have instead simply declared that they and Hiss's lawyer don't believe the information is factual. That's it. No scholarship, no proof, no nothing (except some bizarre conspiracy theories).

CJK (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that having page references and author and publication dates on hand would be prerequisite for contributing to a wikipedia article! Also, are we allowed to use references that are behind a paywall?173.52.254.147 (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we can use sources that are behind a payroll or even are not on the internet at all, provided they are reliable sources. CKJ, your source contradicted what you said, as I have repeatedly pointed out. Incidentally why are you quoting Nixon's comments on the Jews? TFD (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between objective fact and subjective opinion.

" 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" is a fact. "Various reports suggest that those who believe in Hiss's innocence are in the minority of scholarly opinion" is a fact. Your "proof" edit is an opinion not a fact, one disputed by numerous expert sources. And I will add, again, that you proposed this edited in the RFC, and the proposal was rejected by all the editors commenting on it. The editors have also rounded rejected the idea that you can simply disqualify all the expert sources you don't like. Please stop re-raising the issue of the "proof" edit. In three months of argument, you have not received ANY endorsement for it, much less a consensus of the editing community. The old edit is still consensus, and that is wikipedia policy. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

CJK, your statement above is grossly misleading. As far as I'm aware, I've not expressed an opinion regarding Hiss's guilt or otherwise at all. Instead, I have suggested that the sources presented don't enable us to state as a fact that there is an academic consensus that he is guilty, and consequently, we cannot state in that article, as a matter of fact, that he was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

All you guys need to do is to re-read the responses you just posted to confirm what I just said. Joe, the IP, Deddy, TFD, and Andy have instead simply declared that they and Hiss's lawyer don't believe the information is factual. That's it. No scholarship, no proof, no nothing.

None of you bothered to respond to that straightforward complaint.

CJK (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I have replied. I have stated that you have misrepresented my position on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What I said was "I have no opinion on the case." You could spin that to say I do not believe the evidence or that I do not disbelieve the evidence. If there were editors arguing for Hiss's innocence, they would probably spin it that I do not disbelieve the evidence. My advice is to leave one's beliefs at the door, or take them to blogs, and concentrate on accurately reflecting what sources say, whether or not we believe them. TFD (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

: I notice that both James Barron and Susan Jacoby parse their words very carefully. Barron, whose father was employed by the CIA, does not even say "there is a consensus", but rather that "there is a growing (i.e., a developing) consensus".that Hiss was guilty. Jacoby suggests, that on the contrary, there has always been a consensus about the guilt of Hiss, and that those who deviate in the slightest are always marginalized and stigmatized as unreliable and unsound of mind (example, being called a "flat earther"). From a quick look at Jacoby's book, I gather that she argues that, over a 60-year period, a right-wing cottage industry of Hiss haters has built entire careers on dogmatic assertions of Hiss's guilt', and that, contrary to what these ideologues claim about a supposedly pro-Hiss "liberal media", this constitutes "orthodox" (her word) opinion, including that of the mainstream media. Thus, in her opinion, a consensus, growing or not, that Hiss was guilty is nothing new. Jacoby says that she herself considers Hiss to have been guilty of perjury about not knowing Chambers, and, as far as espionage, she finds the new evidence (Venona, Vassiliev) highly persuasive but "not conclusive". She says she herself would have probably voted to convict, knowing what she now knows, but she fears that the Hiss-haters will consider her a "flat-earther" for admitting as little as a two percent amount of doubt. She is right, because she was rebuked in the NYT and elsewhere for even this teeny bit of agnosticism. BTW I notice that she and her diplomat husband were posted for many years in Moscow, so perhaps she has first hand knowledge of the need to adhere to the official line. 173.52.254.147 (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC) added comma 173.52.254.147 (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC) 173.52.254.147 (talk)

I hate to even have to respond to this, because it changes the subject. The subject we are discussing currently is the notes, rather than a consensus. I want to insert a fact about the notes. You want to exclude the fact. None of you provide any justification for such an exclusion, it purely based on your own POV that refuses to accept it. No scholarly material has been presented to substantiate said POV.

The brief point I will make is that you (IP) apply circular reasoning to come to the conclusion that their is anti-Hiss conspiracy. Rather than simply acknowledge the fact that pro-Hiss people are marginalized due to the strong evidence showing Hiss is guilty, you argue that said marginalizing actually means there is a conspiracy. This is the same exact position every single conspiracy theorist makes: the lack of people supporting X conspiracy is not proof of that X conspiracy doesn't exist, rather it points to the sheer thoroughness of the conspiracy. The position is a gold mine because it is totally un-falsifiable.

According to you: me, the CIA, the NYT, the military, the NSA, Vassiliev, Massing, Chambers, the FBI, foreign diplomats, academics, the U.S. Congress, Nixon, have been in cahoots to get Hiss for over 60 years. The more reasonable worldview would be that Hiss did it.

CJK (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

she finds the new evidence (Venona, Vassiliev) highly persuasive but "not conclusive".

What exactly is meant by that? Does she go into any detailed explanation of her views on the notes?

CJK (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

CjK, are you suggesting that Susan Jacoby is not a reliable source? If you want to know what she means, read her book. And by the way, as far as I know the only sources mentioned here that deal "deal with the entirety of the evidence" (as assembled by Vassiliev and Haynes) are Svetlana Cheronova and Secret History by Martin Roberts, who both find the evidence problematic, if not highly suspect. Other references, which claim that Hiss's guilt is a "proven fact" simply assert this in passing in book reviews or histories of other topics. I do think that on wikipedia all viewpoints that meet wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources should be represented and not one's ridiculed, disparaged, or discounted, as you have been doing. In any case, Susan Jacoby's view is important because she is one of the first to critically assess the latest information -- "comprehensively", or not. Jacoby has said that there has been a vocal contingent of right wingers whose careers have depended on Alger Hiss's guilt. They are hardly a conspiracy, since they are out in the open (the ones we know about, anyway). And that Orthodox Opinion has always held that Hiss was guilty (contrary to what this faction would have you believe). And by the way, Vassiliev's collaborator John Earl Haynes, although associated with an institution, does not have an academic appointment, and thus, strictly speaking, is not an academic, though, as a much-published author, he is a reliable source, among many others. 173.52.254.147 (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC) moved 173.52.254.147 (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I already asked you: who is Martin Roberts (is he a scholar) and what does he have to say about the notes? What is the basis for Susan Jacoby's statement that she finds the evidence "persuasive but not conclusive"? If it is just a statement saying "I don't believe the evidence" it wouldn't be good enough. There needs to be some sort of basis for their belief.

CJK (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, if Jacoby states that the evidence is "persuasive but not conclusive" it isn't up to contributors to argue to the contrary. That would constitute original research. Once again, I will remind you that it is not the purpose of this talk page to determine the 'truth' regarding Hiss's guilt or otherwise. Instead, it is our job to ensure that the article reflects, with due weight, what appropriate sources say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, Other people shouldn't have to do your work for you. If you want to find out more, there are google and public libraries, for a start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.254.147 (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not my responsibility to do your research. You cited them. You should be able to provide more information so we can determine what they said about the notes. All you have given are these very vague statements.

CJK (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that if it has been established that Jacoby stated that the evidence derived from the notes is "persuasive but not conclusive", we have entirely sufficient grounds to reject any definitive assertion that the notes have "confirmed Hiss's guilt", and the matter doesn't really need further discussion. It isn't our job to second-guess sources, and CJK's attempts to argue otherwise are beyond the remit of what contributors are supposed to do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Jacoby's book mainly concerns the political ramifications of the Hiss-Chambers case. If she doesn't provide any actual analysis of the notes, it doesn't count a scholarly refutation.

CJK (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite the policy which permits you to make such an assertion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

We are dealing with a factual statement. For that statement not to factual, it requires a scholar to examine and refute the information at least with some sort of justification. I'm asking for information on what that justification is.

CJK (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK I'm a little lost here. What is the factual statement you refer to?

Also... are you basing Hiss's unquestioned guilt on something said in "Spies" Chapter 1? What other books have you read on this topic? DEddy (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Very minor edit requested

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

The "Accusation of espionage" section begins

On August 3, 1948, Whittaker Chambers, a former Communist Party member appeared before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC)....

It needs a comma after the word "member", to close the parenthetical. --Trovatore (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Mr. Stradivarius 12:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Tucking in some excerpts from a journal

First, I dropped the ball above but don't see the point of editing up there to say yeah, forget that. I accept the criticism.

OK, the point here it to share the conclusion of an article, "The Grand Jury in the Hiss-Chambers Case" by John Berresford that was published in American Communist History, ISSN 1474-3892, 06/2008, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp. 1 - 38. Here's a link to his request for release of the grand jury notes. Here's the first page of the article, available to all. I think it's best to hide the rather lengthy excerpt.

Also, this review of Haynes and Klehr's writings by David Garrow finds Hiss (and Rosenberg) "guilty beyond any reasonable doubt of aiding Soviet espionage against the United States." Garrow concludes that "the historical consensus on the relationship between the CPUSA and Moscow has undergone a dramatic change since the Soviet Union's collapse. As In Denial details, some loyalists still refuse to see that the documentary record has been revolutionized. But Haynes and Klehr's valid complaints about these unyielding historians ought to be coupled with an acknowledgment of victory in behalf of those whose pursuit of historical truth has been conclusively vindicated."
"Whitewashing Reds: In Denial: Historians, Communism and Espionage" by John Earl Haynes; Harvey Klehr Review by: David J. Garrow; The Wilson Quarterly (1976-), Vol. 28, No. 1 (Winter, 2004), pp. 119-121

Yopienso (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

So a writer says that some historians have proved Hiss was a spy but other historians are "in denial." And your reading is that historians agree that Hiss was a spy. TFD (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, there is a consensus, that is there would have been one, if only those pesky historians who didn't agree would agree to stop being "in denial." 173.52.254.147 (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You guys would be hilarious if you weren't so serious. No matter how many RSs say most historians agree Hiss was guilty, it ain't so cuz you don't want it to be so. Yopienso (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that 'most' historians consider Hiss guilty. What has been proposed however is that the article states that they all do... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The following news item is reproduced on the History News Network http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/37337.html

SOURCE: AP (4-5-07)

NEW YORK -- A Russian researcher, delving anew into once-secret Soviet files from the Cold War, says she has found no evidence that Alger Hiss spied or that Soviet intelligence had any particular interest in him.

In a speech to be delivered at a New York University symposium Thursday, Svetlana A. Chervonnaya says neither Hiss' name nor his alleged spy moniker, Ales, appears in any of dozens of documents from Soviet archives that she has reviewed since the early 1990s...

Calling her efforts "proving the negative," Chervonnaya says "a thorough combing of all the said archives combined has not produced a shred of evidence that Alger Hiss had ever been a member of the (American) Communist Party and was engaged in any behind-the-scenes interactions with the Soviets."...

Soviet defectors, retired KGB agents and U.S. officials, some claiming to have documentary proof, have come down on both sides of what remains one of the Cold War's most enduring controversies.

In 1995-96, U.S. intelligence agencies released the Venona Files, a series of decoded Soviet diplomatic cables on espionage matters during World War II. They mentioned a U.S. contact called Ales, who already had been identified by a defecting Soviet agent as Hiss.

Ms. Cherovonnaya calls the group of American scholars such as Haynes, et. al., who identify Hiss with "Ales", "traditionalists"; They, on the other hand, responded to her challenges with vehement attacks, sometimes using ad hominem (or ad feminam) arguments.

It is interesting, too, how Vassiliev's notebooks came to light. I believe they were first unearthed in 2007 by the investigative historian Jeffrey Kisselhoff who happened on them when he was seeking to bolster his defense of Hiss, among the papers of Allen Weinstein, which had been donated to a public archive. I don't know if our article includes this information. It was only after this discovery that Haynes and Vassiliev decided to publish them together with the book Spies in 2009. Some consensus! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.254.147 (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"Consensus" doesn't mean no one disagrees; on most issues, someone will always disagree. "Consensus" means most historians agree. In this case, the "die-hard loyalists" disagree. They are in the minority.

However, if there is no consensus here on what "consensus" means, :-) let's just leave the word "consensus" out and say "majority." No problem with that! The way the lede and article stand right now seems clear that most historians believe Hiss was guilty but other reputable historians don't. Yopienso (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe they were first unearthed in 2007 by the investigative historian Jeffrey Kisselhoff who happened on them when he was seeking to bolster his defense of Hiss

Your "belief" is wrong. They were first disclosed by Vassiliev during his trial in 2003. CJK (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean "their existence" was first disclosed? 173.52.254.147 (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"As explained in our preface to Spies, in 2005 we learned of the existence of the notebooks and traveled to London to examine them and discuss their provenance with Vassiliev."

CJK (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

investigative historian Jeffrey Kisselhoff

From his own website: Jeff Kisseloff, the Managing Editor of this site, is the author of two oral history books, "You Must Remember This: An Oral History of Manhattan From the 1890s to World War II" and "The Box: An Oral History of Television, 1920-1961". He is a freelance writer in Ossining, New York.

Where do you get "investigative historian" out of that?

CJK (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

So, Haynes and Klehr first saw them in 2005, and Kisselhoff saw them at the Hoover Institute in 2007 and enlisted Chervonnaya, as a Russian speaker, to help him interpret them? Is that the chronology? The pair questioned the use Weinstein had made of them, and Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev's Spies was published in 2009 as a rebuttal (or damage control), and the notebooks were rewritten and put on the web. Just asking. 173.52.254.147 (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting, CJK, that Oral history, as in http://www.oralhistory.org/about/ , is not a recognized field of study? Kisseloff has written five books, 3 of them oral histories and is also the holder of an MA in journalism from Columbia University.

I don't know who "Jeffrey Kisselhoff" is but Jeff Kisseloff (me) has been investigating the case on and off since 1975. In the off years, I've been working as a reporter and writing five history books. On the Hiss case, I draw my conclusions not from the loyalty to one person or idea or from opinions of others but from primary sources, documents I continue to obtain by the thousands each year and interviews I have done over the years. At the moment, Woodstock #230099 is sitting on my desk under a stereo microscope. That's pretty investigative. My email address is freely available and have always welcomed civil discussion on the case and feel my writing on the case (which will become a book addressing many of the questions raised in this conversation) stands for itself. Jeffisme (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Jeffisme

:My deepest apologies, sir, for repeatedly mis-spelling your name. My spelling, especially of names, unfortunately, is something I still need to work on, but I do know that investigative research is what you do -- if that is not a redundancy -- and I understand that interviewing and gathering of testimony, whether for the purposes of journalism, history, or social science, is a specialized skill, with its own best practices. 173.52.254.147 (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

So, Haynes and Klehr first saw them in 2005, and Kisselhoff saw them at the Hoover Institute in 2007 and enlisted Chervonnaya, as a Russian speaker, to help him interpret them? Is that the chronology? The pair questioned the use Weinstein had made of them, and Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev's Spies was published in 2009 as a rebuttal (or damage control), and the notebooks were rewritten and put on the web. Just asking.

I don't even have the slightest concept of the point you are trying make.

Jeff Kisseloff, whoever that user claims to be, is not a scholar much less an "investigative historian". He is a "freelance writer" that runs a website that is dedicated exclusively to the defense of Hiss. "Oral history" is not terribly relevant to this issue. We need people who are scholars in the field of the Hiss-Chambers case, American Communism, the Cold War, the McCarthy era, or espionage.

CJK (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, oral history is an academically recognized form of scholarship and is held to standards of accuracy just like any other history. Are you not aware of the fact there are numerous independent scholars? Many also have websites. Scholars are judged by whether their work is verifiable and by their publications, among other things, not by their credentials only. May I remind you that Darwin was an independent scholar and so was Einstein when he published his five papers on relativity, not to suggest that Mr Kisseloff is quite in that category. Nevertheless, Mr. Kissleoff has an advanced professional degree (from an Ivy League University) and has published five books. He certainly meets wikipedia's standards as a reliable source. Attempting to belittle him does not help advance your argument. 173.52.254.147 (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC) added "Ivy League", since credentials mean so much to CKJ 173.52.254.147 (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Vassiliev also does not have a history degree but has a degree in journalism. He also worked as a journalist - with the Communist Youth publication. TFD (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

John Earl Haynes's day job sounds to me rather indistinguishable from that of curator or archivist, which means that he is also, strictly speaking, an "independent scholar." 173.52.254.147 (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself for your benefit: "Oral history" is not terribly relevant to this issue. We need people who are scholars in the field of the Hiss-Chambers case, American Communism, the Cold War, the McCarthy era, or espionage.

I should note, though, that unlike you Kissleoff does not seem to believe that the notes are fakes, rather he merely imposes a preposterous interpretation upon them (saying that the Soviets were getting their information on who was and wasn't a spy from American newspapers).

Vassiliev also does not have a history degree but has a degree in journalism.

And your point is what exactly? Vassiliev was just the guy who wrote stuff down. Haynes and Klehr are the ones using the information to report a fact.

CJK (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not know whom you are addressing, but I cannot find where any editor called the notes "fakes." Incidentally the idea that one Soviet intelligence group would not have direct information about who worked for another group is not preposterous. As Haynes, Alexander Vassiliev and Klehr write on p. 536 of Spies, the KGB and GRU "were so comparmentalized that the right hand of Soviet espionage sometimes did not know what the left hand was doing." I mentioned Vassiliev`s qualifications because you mentioned Jeff Kisselhof`s. You are the one claiming that books by journalists are not reliable sources. What difference is there between them, except that V`s professional experience was as a KGB officer writing for a Communist paper? TFD (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

We need people who are scholars in the field of the Hiss-Chambers case, American Communism, the Cold War, the McCarthy era, or espionage. CJK, At the risk of being ignored, which of these credentials do you bring to the table? So far I get the impression that your first read on the Hiss case is "Spies." DEddy (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Deddy, I am citing a scholarly source, not claiming to be a scholar myself.

Honestly, I'm not even sure that, even if there were some scholarly sources disputing it, it would matter in terms of Misplaced Pages policy. The existence of so-called "scholars for 9/11 truth" does not prevent the September 11 attacks page from identifying al-Qaeda as the perpetrator without reservation.

What exactly is the difference between the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the Hiss conspiracy theorists?

I do not know whom you are addressing, but I cannot find where any editor called the notes "fakes."

Great, then please stop excluding them.

Incidentally the idea that one Soviet intelligence group would not have direct information about who worked for another group is not preposterous.

Indeed, and that is not what was being discussed. What I said was saying that the Soviets were getting their information on who was and wasn't a spy from American newspapers.

What difference is there between them, except that V`s professional experience was as a KGB officer writing for a Communist paper?

I'm relying on Haynes and Klehr as scholars, not Vassiliev.

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

CJK I'd still like to get an understanding on what your base of knowledge is for the Hiss matter. Is "Spies" you primary reference? What is your depth of knowledge on this topic, where I mean McCarthy era as the topic? I've had close to 60 years of this stuff & it's darned hard to keep track of the twists & turns & the bigger picture... what's the difference between political spin & probable reality. DEddy (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, can you name any prestigious academic journals or respected magazines for that matter that question whether Bin Laden's group was behind 9/11? I know that at one time some scholars and most mainstream US media claimed that Saddam Hussein was behind it and we would have reported that as a minority view at the time. TFD (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

courtesy break 2

I'm concerned that the debate is straying into ad hominem territory here, as well as arguing the topic itself and not the article. What are the proposed edits on the table so we can move the focus back there? Is this still a discussion on the notes and whether to include them in the lede? EBY (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There are two proposed edits.

Proposal 1 is to say in the intro that there is a scholarly consensus of Hiss's guilt. More than enough evidence has been presented to confirm this, but as Yopienso eloquently describes the opposing party "No matter how many RSs say most historians agree Hiss was guilty, it ain't so cuz you don't want it to be so."

Without the notes there would only be about a 95% chance that Hiss did it, so "consensus" would satisfy me. However, in view of the fact that the notes raise the chances from 95% to 100%, I view "consensus" as utterly inadequate. The notes prove Hiss did it, and nobody can cite relevant scholarly opinion that shows otherwise.

Proposal 2 is to additionally insert in the intro that "notes taken from multiple documents in the Soviet archives have confirmed that Hiss was a spy" or something similar to that effect. Anything less would be no different than editing the September 11 attacks page to avoid mentioning that al-Qaeda did it (Or that there was merely a "consensus" that al-Qaeda did it) on the grounds that there are many conspiracy theorists who claim otherwise.

CJK (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the notes, which are purportedly based on documents whose contents can't be determined and which contradict other allegations against Hiss, don't "confirm" anything and declaring that even without them there's about "a 95% chance that Hiss did it" ignores decades of solid scholarship into the case. While a majority of recently published books on the case are by authors who claim that Hiss was guilty, that says more about the state of publishing than Hiss's innocence or guilt. Either way, your statement about consensus is not based on any empirical data. It simply repeats the statements of another. Conclusions drawn from erroneous research don't establish facts, they just spread erroneous opinions. If Misplaced Pages is to be a trusted source it should not be in the business of simply repeating and restating opinions and questionable research as fact.Jeffisme (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Jeffisme

CJK, please avoid personal attacks against other editors. You need a source to say there is an academic consensus. Your source says that articles supporting Hiss' innocence continue to be published in "prestigious academic journals", which does not happen once once academics have reached a consensus. Note that 911 truth versions are not published in academic journals or even in respected magazines and newspapers. TFD (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what the connection is between this Hiss debate (1950s) and 9/11? Why is 9/11 mentioned here? DEddy (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the notes, which are purportedly based on documents whose contents can't be determined and which contradict other allegations against Hiss, don't "confirm" anything

Can you cite a scholar (from the relevant fields) who shares this opinion? Otherwise it is just original research.

CJK, please avoid personal attacks against other editors.

It wasn't my personal attack, it was Yopienso's.

You need a source to say there is an academic consensus.

Huge numbers of sources have already been given above. I don't feel like going through them because the "consensus" aspect was never my main concern.

Your source says that articles supporting Hiss' innocence continue to be published in "prestigious academic journals", which does not happen once once academics have reached a consensus.

There are no articles that both examine the totality of the evidence and support Hiss's innocence in said "prestigious academic journals."

Can someone tell me what the connection is between this Hiss debate (1950s) and 9/11?

The argument that the government framed Hiss is fundamentally no different, at this point in time, than the argument that the government blew up the WTC.

CJK (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The argument that the government framed Hiss is fundamentally no different, at this point in time, than the argument that the government blew up the WTC. Huh? You are asserting that the 1950s was the same as 2001? Are you at all familiar with the "mood" in Washington during the McCarthy era? Can you contrast that mood with 9/11 event?

What does 9/11 have to do with your allegations of unquestionable fact that Hiss was guilty? DEddy (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Whom have I attacked? No one. If someone feels I have, please clue me in so I can right the offense. Yopienso (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, you didn't. I was falsely accused of conducting a personal attack, by TFD and I assumed he was referring to when I quoted you.

Deddy, I don't know what you are getting at by talking about the "mood". I don't understand why you complaining about how bad Hoover/Nixon/Chambers are to justify Hiss trutherism is any different than complaining about how bad Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld are to justify 9/11 trutherism.

CJK (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK I've repeatedly asked you what you know about McCarthyism in general & the Hiss story in particular. From what you have said so far, it appears that you read "Spies" Chapter 1 "Case Closed" & immediately reached the conclusion that Hiss was guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Somehow 9/11 was tossed into the fire as I assume as a red herring. I keep bringing up Hoover/Nixon/Chambers/McCarthy to try to get some indication that you actually know something about the mood of the times, life inside the (to be built later) Beltway & the topic. So far you've stonewalled my questions. I certainly hope I haven't offended you by asking these contextual questions. Much against my better judgement, I am beginning to re-read "Spies" & have already found in Vassiliev's Forward an observation—in Vassiliev's own words—that is likely to cast doubt on your "Case 100% Closed" assertion.

So, please to offer some indication of your experience & depth of knowledge in this topic. DEddy (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Quote from Jeffisme, "Actually, the notes, which are purportedly based on documents whose contents can't be determined and which contradict other allegations against Hiss, don't "confirm" anything"

Response from CJK: "Can you cite a scholar (from the relevant fields) who shares this opinion?"

Jeff, you're a newcomer, so in case you haven't had time to read this whole page, we have course repeatedly cited experts sources who have discussed Vassiliev's notes in context and have continued to express doubt that the notes demonstrate Hiss' guilt as a spy. Examples: Kai Bird, Svetlana Chervonnaya, John Lowenthal, D.D. Guttenplan. And we've also discussed the statements of Boris Labusov and others in the Soviet sphere who have denied Hiss ever worked with them.

Of course CJK doesn't consider any of these people to be scholars, that way he can dismiss them even though they are considered to be reliable sources for wikipedia purposes (you can find them referenced in any number of articles).

And now Jeff, according to CJK, you're not a scholar either. Congratulations, you're in good company! Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all, regarding my qualifications to question the conclusions drawn by CJK in his/her efforts to make the article appear that Hiss's guilt is a certainty. Let me just say this: I have read and am familiar with both trial records, the appeals and the Motion for a New Trial. I have read every book written on the case. I have read through the entire Hiss-Chambers investigative file released by the FBI, plus the personal files of the major participants as well as the files of nearly 100 others involved in the case. I have read through the defense files, the grand jury minutes and the HUAC investigative file that was released a decade or so ago. I have also sought out and read the papers of numerous individuals involved in one way or another in the case. I have spoken at two conferences dealing with the Hiss case. I have established a Web site on the case and have written or co-written (and edited) articles that address many of the issues raised in this discussion (including the "preposterous" conclusions I have allegedly drawn -- an incorrect inference that to me is emblematic of much of the recent Hiss case commentary). I am also current on the more recent research through the Soviet files and am privy to much information that hasn't been released yet. As I stated before, I am also conducting scientific research on the Woodstock typewriter. Through the years, I have also conducted extensive interviews with people with knowledge about the case or who were directly involved in it, including, of course, Alger Hiss himself (and have always taken the position that should Hiss be found to have been a liar, it would be reported as such). I have visited and been inside Hiss's former DC residences. I'm sure I've forgotten a few things to list, but I'm guessing that my qualifications as a scholar on the case are probably a bit better than CJK's but that's just a guess. As for my comment on the notes, please see the relevant articles at algerhiss.com. If you have access to a recording of the conference that took place a few years ago in Washington, listen to what Amy Knight had to say. I also participated in that conference and brought up a number of relevant questions based on the facts. Jeffisme (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, you quoted another editor as saying, "No matter how many RSs say most historians agree Hiss was guilty, it ain't so cuz you don't want it to be so." You also said, "Anything less would be no different than editing the September 11 attacks page to avoid mentioning that al-Qaeda did it (Or that there was merely a "consensus" that al-Qaeda did it) on the grounds that there are many conspiracy theorists who claim otherwise." Those are personal attacks because you are accusing other editors of pushing views because that is their belief system and comparing them to conspiracy theorists. Ironically you on another article are pushing the conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Do you also believe the conspiracy theory that he was behind 911? TFD (talk) 06:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I knew I forgot something. I was the chief researcher (and actually helped write) the coram nobis petition based on material in the FBI files that Hiss filed in 1978 to overturn the guilty verdict. While the petition was unsuccessful in the courts, it was published by Hill and Wang as "In Re Alger Hiss" with all the cited ddocuments included. While there is sure to be disagreement on the merits of the petition itself, the documents provide a fascinating and important window into the FBI's investigation of the case. Jeffisme (talk) 07:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Jeffisme

It is a very straightforward question, Jeff. Can you cite actual scholars (from the relevant fields) who agree with your view of the notes?

Those are personal attacks because you are accusing other editors of pushing views because that is their belief system and comparing them to conspiracy theorists.

Um, yeah, because they are conspiracy theorists in case you didn't know. The whole Hiss trutherism concept is based on the idea that the FBI/military created a fake typewriter to frame Hiss.

Ironically you on another article are pushing the conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Do you also believe the conspiracy theory that he was behind 911?

He did have weapons of mass destruction, at least until the summer of 1991. I'm sorry you were unaware of that historical fact.

CJK (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not a conspiracy theory to question evidence, just as it is not a conspiracy theory to believe that Hiss and Chambers were part of a conspiracy. Incidentally no one has questioned that Saddam Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction" in 1991, although the Reagan administration denied that he had used them at Halabja. The question was whether he had them in 2003. The U.S. government fabricated evidence that he did. Had the U.S. not invaded Iraq we would still be arguing whether or not he had them. No doubt you would call people who questioned their existence "conspiracy theorists."

Regarding the typewriter, it is not our role to debate points of evidence but to determine what experts say. In this case, experts continue to publish articles in prestigious academic journals questioning whether Hiss was a spy, according to Vassiliev, Haynes, and Klehr.

TFD (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The U.S. government fabricated evidence that he did.

Really? Because every other government involved thought he had them too. But we should stick to the subject at hand. Your evidence-free assertion simply confirms your lack of interest in neutrality and your dedication to promoting WP:FRINGE views.

In line with Misplaced Pages policy, I have merely requested evidence from a relevant scholar that also takes a pro-Hiss view of the notes (that they do not prove Hiss's guilt). Since nobody can provide one, the WP:FRINGE view that you and others advance should no longer have a stranglehold on this article.

It seems self-evident at this point that such a scholar does not exist, otherwise it would have been provided in the last couple months. The article needs to be unprotected so that relevant facts are no longer deliberately obscured.

CJK (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

See the book by Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev, p. 4, which says that articles supporting Hiss' innocence continue to be published in "prestigious academic journals". In fact Vassiliev even unsuccessfully took one of these authors to court. TFD (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Great. Then you should have no problem finding such an article (by an actual scholar in the relevant fields), one that examines the totality of the evidence and concludes that the evidence is still indecisive.

CJK (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I've obtained the full quote on p.4 from Yopienso (which was posted above): "Critics attacked The Haunted Wood on the grounds that only the authors had access to its underlying documentation, parsed the Venona project's 'Ales' message, and offered elaborate and convoluted interpretations of why 'Ales' might not be Hiss that were published in prestigious academic journals and promoted by left-wing journals of opinion such as The Nation."

So the articles published in the "prestigious academic journals" pertained only to the specific Venona-related argument that Hiss was ALES and not to the argument regarding the notes.

CJK (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

" The article needs to be unprotected so that relevant facts are no longer deliberately obscured."

I don't know what this means, but it seems to suggest that the editor will make another attempt to introduce the edits proposed in the Request for Comment.

Proposal 2. "That notes from the Soviet archives have confirmed his guilt" received no support from the commenting editors.

Proposal 1. "That there is a scholarly consensus of Hiss's guilt" received some support, but no consensus from the editors.

The current lede, which was created as a result of a long debate and hard-won agreement among the editors, is still consensus. It should not be changed to the text in Proposals 1. and 2. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that we are debating what are regarded as the actual facts and not merely what is NPOV. No "consensus" justifies conduct that violates WP:EP, WP:FRINGE, WP:NOR, WP:OWN, and probably others.

CJK (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, since (as far as I'm aware) no source has been provided for (1), were it to be added, it would be entirely appropriate to remove it again, until such a source could be cited. And since (2) follows logically from (1), that could be removed too. The proposed changes are unsourced, and therefore invalid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Other users apart from myself have provided ample sources regarding (1). However, even if they had not, your assessment that "(2) follows logically from (1)" is completely irrelevant as to the merits of (2). (2) says "notes taken from multiple documents in the Soviet archives have confirmed Hiss's guilt". It makes no mention of any "consensus" it merely reports a fact that has not been contradicted by qualified scholars.

CJK (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you please let me know which source(s) you intent to cite for (1). As for (2), it cannot possibly be acceptable to make a definitive statement to the effect that Hiss is guilty if the academic consensus does not support it: that would be a gross violation of WP:NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK: Proposal 2. "That notes from the Soviet archives have confirmed his guilt" received no support from the commenting editors."

One thing I noted in "Spies" Chapter 1 (or perhaps the Vassiliev Introduction) is that Vassilliev did his research in the KGB archives. He specifically mentions that GRU (Military Intelligence) archival collections are NOT indexed & therefore essentially impossible to find stuff reliably. Yet Hiss/Ales was a GRU resource. Assuming (always an ambiguous/dangerous word in this subject domain) Chambers was a GRU courier, how is it that Vassiliev has so much access to GRU information when he (Vassilliev) is doing his research from KGB archives?

It's been my life long experience that it can be difficult to communicate across organizational boundaries. Hence, I assume it is even more difficult to communicate across intelligence agency—competing agencies—organizational boundaries. I get the sense that GRU was first into Washington (with Chambers?). KGB appeared to be very hands-off with known GRU resources.

So how were there GRU documents available in KGB archives for Vassiliev to find? DEddy (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Filing Arbitration

I filed a request for arbitration.

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Alger_Hiss

CJK (talk) 13:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK: Ok, what are we supposed to do with this? Doesn't appear to be any place to comment.

Am I to assume you decline to present your base of knowledge for the Hiss affair? I will assume your knowledge is solely based on reading "Spies" Chapter 1. DEddy (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

To respond, you'll need to add a new section 'Statement from DEddy'. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. I'd try to keep it brief, and on topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Disputes about what content should be in articles, or whether editors are accurately reading content policies is beyond the jurisdiction of arbitration. TFD (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have looked over the "request for arbitration" guidelines and I noticed that it says, "If you have taken 'all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, and the dispute is not over the content of an article, you can request arbitration."

1) Editor CJK has been asked to provide a reference for his claims, a reasonable step, but has not yet made a move in that direction. 2) This dispute IS over the content of the article and therefore does not meet the requirements for arbitration.

I don't know how to post this statement on the arbitration page. I'll keep trying to find out. In the meantime the above is my statement.173.52.246.85 (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have posted your comments and you can see an edit them by clicking here. I agree with your comments and expect that the request will be dismissed soon. TFD (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

A simple and direct question for CJK

(I'd appreciate it if other contributors didn't sidetrack this, and instead allowed CJK to give the simple and direct answers that seem to be required)

Is it still your position that the article should contain the following statements (as proposed in the RfC)?

(1) "There is a scholarly consensus of Hiss's guilt."
(2) "Notes from the Soviet archives have confirmed his guilt."

If so, can you please list here the sources you intend to cite for each statement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

As I repeatedly stated before, the source for (2) is Spies: the Rise and Fall of the KGB in America (2009) by Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev.

I will discuss (1) after we resolve (2). There are plenty of sources supporting (1) (posted by multiple users) if you read through this entire page. But right now, my focus is on resolving (2) not (1).

CJK (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Um, no. We cannot possibly make any definitive statement to the effect that archives (or anything else) have confirmed Hiss's guilt if there is no academic consensus to the effect that he is guilty - that would constitute a gross violation of WP:NPOV policy. I once again ask you to provide the source you are proposing to cite for (1). This is a simple request, and I can see no reason whatsoever why a refusal to respond should be taken as anything but an admission that no such source exists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

We cannot possibly make any definitive statement to the effect that archives (or anything else) have confirmed Hiss's guilt if there is no academic consensus to the effect that he is guilty

Um, no, that is simply your opinion. I don't want to confuse the issues. I am talking about the notes, not the consensus. Users Yopienso and Collect have already posted a number of sources confirming the consensus. There is a note already in the introduction that gives a number of sources for the consensus, including one that is explicitly pro-Hiss.

But I want to keep the focus on the notes, instead of getting distracted. If you think there isn't an academic consensus in favor of Hiss's guilt, why are you guys having such a hard time finding a legit source to critique the notes?

CJK (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no 'opinion' involved in suggesting that we can't assert that Hiss is guilty if the sources don't agree that he is. Since you are refusing once again to give a straight answer to a simple question, I shall be raising your stonewalling at the arbitration case you have initiated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Andy, the article already includes the following information that demonstrates a consensus:

Barron, James (2001-08-16). "Online, the Hiss Defense Doesn't Rest". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-08-29. See also:
"...the vast majority of modern American historians today and particularly those specializing in domestic Cold War accept Chambers’ overall version of events." Oshinsky, David (2007-04-05). "Transcript, Alger Hiss and History, Inaugural Conference" (PDF). New York University, Center for the United States and the Cold War.
"Yet the weight of historical evidence indicates that Hiss was ... a member of the communist underground and a Soviet spy." Elson, John (1996-11-25). "Gentleman and Spy?". Time.
"In the end, the publication of the Venona intercepts ... settled the matter — to all but the truest of believers." Stanley I. Kutler (2004-08-06). "Rethinking the Story of Alger Hiss". FindLaw. {{cite web}}: External link in |last= (help) "Most historians have conceded the argument to Weinstein. They have done so, however, not because the evidence against Hiss is clear and definitive, but because the evidence box — filled as it is with a morass of circumstantial detail — leaves them the easy option of finding him guilty of some form of espionage activity during his murky relationship with Chambers." Bird, Kai and Chervonnaya, Svetlana. "The Mystery of Ales". American Scholar. Summer 2007.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

There is no 'opinion' involved in suggesting that we can't assert that Hiss is guilty if the sources don't agree that he is.

Really? If I said "Obama went to Africa" citing a news report, would I have to first identify that there is a consensus among reporters that Obama went to Africa? It seems to me that the burden of demonstrating otherwise falls on those asserting he did not go to Africa.

CJK (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be 'citing' a number of sources - none of which actually appear to state that there is an academic consensus. Barron is equivocal as you are well aware, Oshinsky makes no general statement but instead refers to a subset of academics, Elson appears not to be doing anything but expressing his own opinion on Hiss's guilt, Kutler more or less states that there isn't a consensus, and Findlaw merely states that 'most' historians think Hiss is guilty. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, you need to show that sources say there is a consensus in order to say that there is a consensus. Misplaced Pages does not require sources to remove unsourced statements.

If you cited a book saying that Obama was a better/worse president than his predecessor you would need a source saying that there was consensus for that opinion in order to say there was consensus. Incidentally, of all places for Obama to visit, why did you choose Africa?

TFD (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

See, this is exactly what I am talking about when I say the issues shouldn't be mixed. You want to start a whole new debate about the "consensus" (which you arbitrarily define in a manner that will be impossible for anyone to fulfill) in order to avoid talking about the fact that you do not have the slightest justification for excluding the facts about the notes. The onus is not on me to show that there is a "consensus" to prove the notes. The onus is on you to show that these notes are not accepted by significant scholars as proof showing Hiss is guilty.

It is difficult to assume good faith when you insist on playing games like this.

CJK (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

it isn't me that is 'playing games' - it is you that are insisting we assert 'facts' for which there appears to be no consensus. We cannot state as a fact that Hiss is guilty if there isn't an academic consensus that this is indeed the case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact that after two months neither you or anyone else can muster an adequate source that critiques the notes constitutes proof that the notes are uncontested by scholarship. You are shifting the burden of proof where it does not belong. Saying "al-Qaeda organized 9/11" on the September 11 attacks page does not require someone provide a source explicitly saying there is a "consensus" that al-Qaeda did it.

CJK (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: The fact that after two months neither you or anyone else can muster an adequate source that critiques the notes constitutes proof that the notes are uncontested by scholarship

Could it be possible that just perhaps no one's been able or bothered to write & publish a book?

Vassilliev's notebooks didn't become available until May 2009, a mere 4 years ago. H&K had already written what 20? books on this topic. For them writing another book would be largely an exercise in cut &paste. When did H&K get their hands on the notebooks? When were the notebooks available to interested scholars? Could an interested scholar get funding to do yet another McCarthyism book?

The fact that so far there is no counter-balancing commentary says nothing. DEddy (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, the notes are a distraction to this discussion. Your proving the notes are genuine is neither necessary nor sufficient to support there is an academic consensus. Instead you need a source that says there is an academic consensus that Hiss spied for the Soviet Union. It is not the purpose of this discussion page to argue the evidence in the case. TFD (talk) 00:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

A "mere" four years ago? You don't think four years is sufficient time for one single enterprising scholar to critique the notes? In addition, general knowledge that Vassiliev got incriminating evidence against Hiss from the archives has existed since 1999.

CJK, the notes are a distraction to this discussion.

No, TFD, the notes are the subject of this discussion.

CJK (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

No. The subject of this discussion is what material can be included in the article, based on the sources cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, and the source cited says that the notes show Hiss was a spy. I don't need to somehow prove a "consensus" to you first for that fact to exist.

CJK (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

We can (and should) cite the source for the author's opinion that Hiss was a spy. Nobody has suggested otherwise as far as I'm aware. What we cannot do is assert this as a fact, while there isn't an academic consensus that this is the case. Just how difficult is this for you to understand? Misplaced Pages is not a court of law. We do not determine guilt or innocence. We leave that to sources - and while they disagree, we do not claim that they don't. End of story... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Haynes and Klehr are reporting it as a fact, not an opinion. It is your opinion that it is an opinion. Why exactly do I have to satisfy you beyond doubt that there is a consensus in order to insert relevant facts that are undisputed by legit scholarship?

CJK (talk) 01:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

So everyone who asserts that Hiss is guilty is stating a 'fact', while everyone who doubts it is stating an 'opinion'? Utter nonsense... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I am confident in our scholarship here: https://files.nyu.edu/th15/public/spies2.htmlJeffisme (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Jeffisme

What is "nonsense" is that I have to find a source saying the exact word "consensus" before you agree to accept the evidence.

And what's ironic is that I did give you a source saying "consensus" and you arbitrarily rejected it as "equivocal". Proving that nothing would satisfy you on this.

CJK (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Navasky

The New Republic was nevertheless right about one thing: Most of the historians and journalists cited above--including, by the way, Weisberg and Marshall--share in the "consensus" that Alger Hiss and the Rosenbergs, defendants in the two most famous cold war cases, and scores if not hundreds of others, were Russian spies. Further, they believe that, as Radosh, Klehr and Haynes collectively put it in The New Republic, "the CPUSA was not just another American political party.... Its Soviet ties defined its very raison d'etre." It was, in other words, primarily an instrument of the international Communist conspiracy.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the rehabilitation. The same cadre of historians and journalists who share the consensus and would seem to be endorsing the von Hoffman proposition that McCarthy was, after all, more right than wrong, still want to distance themselves from McCarthy himself. David Horowitz, for example, took to cyberspace to make clear that neither he nor any of those dubbed New McCarthyites by Marshall deserved the label. Each of those denominated, he complained in a column he writes for Salon,

Clearly states the "consensus" is that Hiss was guilty.

Lew is refers to the "consensus of later historians."

Johnson also speaks of "consensus".

Hammond et all. In fact (system burped on rest of post, alas, which had conclusion and more cites Collect (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC))

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 00:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The Nation article you quote is reporting the opinion of the New Republic, hence the "scare quotes." "Scare quotes" are used to show that writers do not endorse what another source has said. TFD (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope the "quotes" are not "scare quotes" - they indicate a "quotation" here -- and the "right about one thing" clearly refers to the Hiss consensus quote. The NR uses the term "most" itself, which is what a consensus means, TFD. And the other cites you seem to ignore - though each and every one uses "consensus" and not in "scare quotes" as you misstate - do you think they are chopped liver? Cheers -- and please do not say "scare quotes" when the usage is not as a "scare quote" - it does not help anyone here at all. Collect (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Collect, we have had this discussion many times before about other articles and it is pointless to explain it to you again, but for the benefit of other editors I will. There is a difference between claiming something is true and saying that someone else claims something to be true. Are you aware that your source, The Nation has consistently questioned Hiss' guilt? TFD (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Supposed "Fact" of Hiss's guilt

The conference moderated by Oshinsky in 2007 states the opposite of what CJK asserts. Far from stating that Vassiliev's notes "prove", as a “true fact”, that Hiss was guilty of espionage, The transcript shows both Oshinsky and John Prados, Senior Fellow National Security Archives, stating that the Vassiliev's notes prove nothing and that if there is any consensus about Hiss's guilt, it must be based on earlier information. Oshinsky further stated flatly that no new evidence would ever be forthcoming, from Vassiliev or anyone else, but that older evidence should be looked at more carefully. Unless I read the transcript wrong, John Prados also says that he personally interviewed the FBi actual agents who identified ALES as Hiss in Venona and they told him the evidence in the Venona cable was not conclusive and they had always had doubts about the identification. (I am surprised that this is not more widely known! This is oral testimony from the horse's mouth!) Oshinsky and Prados seemed to feel that what was conclusive was that there really were members of the Communist Party who were employed by the New Deal in the early 1930s, and that Moscow knew about them, and they answered to Moscow, which was troubling, since Stalin was a bad guy One of these known Communists was Victor Perlo, who never denied it, and who left government work in 1937; and another was Noel Field, who also never denied it, and who resigned from the State Department and left the country in 1936 (if I remember rightly), because he didn't thing his ideological commitments were compatible with working for the US government. Non of this is exactly news. In any case, these historians can hardly be used to prove that Vassiliev's notes (or even the Venona cables) "prove" much of anything, much less the supposed "fact" of Hiss's guilt. This also appears to be the opinion of Chevonnaya and Bird. What emerges from these conferences is far from unanimity.

As far as the supposed references about scholarly "academic" consensus that CJK provides: Elson 1996, Kutler 2004, Oshinksy 2007, and Barron 2009. He himself, speaking of Kisseloff and Bird, has suggested f that journalists don't count as scholars. Elson, writing in 1996, was an editor of Time Magazine (former employer of Whittaker Chambers), not an academic historian. Nor is Barron an academic historian. He is a reporter, and we know he hedged his words. Nor has he written numerous investigative books on the New Deal, McCarthyism, or anything else, as Bird and Kisseloff have). That leaves Stanley Kutner, a bonafide scholar of American Constitutional history, and Oshinsky, who has studied McCarthyism. Both believe in Hiss's guilt, but Olshinsky at least does not do so on on the basis of Vassiliev's notes. 173.52.252.74 (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to post where you are getting this information from. The transcript I saw made no mention of the notes whatsoever.

CJK (talk) 13:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• 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
• High-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)
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment