Talk:Alger Hiss/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] VENONA

Redspruce, your objections to the inclusion of balanced information on the "recent" evidence about Alger Hiss is mystifying. Your allegation that undue weight is being given to this particular episode is laughable considering the undue weight given to Jonh Lowenthal's bogus theories.

Furthermore, I would like to see a source alleging that someone else besides the FBI could have created the typewriter. 65.185.190.240 23:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

240, First, a few points about discussing edits: It is not helpful to your position to give commands to another editor like "Do not remove it again", to say that you "will not argue with such nonsense," to declare that another editor's behavior is "unacceptable", or to use edit summaries like "sorry that some people can't handle the truth." This sort of thing is not conducive to productive discussion, to say the least. If you have a serious point to make, it's generally in your best interest not to act in a way that causes the person you're addressing to laugh out loud at your behavior.
Now then:
  1. If you want to contend that the typewriter forgery could only have been done by the FBI, the burden is on you to provide a citation that supports this. Otherwise it is what the WP policy makers term "original research."
  2. Regarding the portion of this edit dealing with Ales in Mexico City: The edit makes a somewhat valid point--that Hiss was in Mexico City, and that the Soviets who placed Ales in that city after Hiss returned may have been simply mistaken. It seems a slightly over-long edit, however, since all it says is "maybe X, or maybe not X". It's also poorly written, with an unclear reference to "skeptics." On the whole, I think this edit should be kept, with slight revisions.
  3. This edit states without support that Venona is the "most notable" of anti-Hiss evidence. It also uses POV phrasing with regard to Hiss defenders' "conspiracy theories."
  4. This edit declares that all of the Lowenthal arguments that follow are "now discredited." This characterization is not shown to be supported either by a plurality of scholars or by logic.
  5. This and this edit use a quote that is clearly an opinion on the part of Haynes and present it as a statement of fact. If it was presented as a statement of opinion, I think it would be a valid edit.
  6. Likewise, in this edit you insert the word "demonstrated" to convert what is actually an opinion into a statement of fact.
  7. This edit incorrectly states that the evidence of government misconduct revealed in the 1970s lead to the typewriter remanufacture theory. This theory was being posited long before the 1970s. In addition, the edit unnecessarily repeats the basics of the Venona evidence.
RedSpruce 01:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Ditto on that first para.
1. No. The burden of the proof is on the people making the allegations about typewriter remanufacturing. Evidence is not required to prove something was not alleged.
2. OK, what should be revised?
3. VENONA is the most well-known of the new evidence, but that isn't a major point. And yes, the Hiss defense relies off of a conspiracy theory about a forged typewriter and believes that The Haunted Wood was faked by the authors.
4. All of his theories have been discredited one by one through the documented evidence presented.
5. First of all, it is not Haynes who wrote that particular article. Second, it is not an opinion what the original Russian reads. The Russian version does not contain the same grammar ambiguities as the English one.
6. It was, in fact, demonstrated point by point that the evidence points to ALES not being Foote given the details in the message.
7. My mistake, I forgot that the theory was first invented by Alger Hiss. I believe a brief introduction is required to summarize the lengthy evidence.
65.185.190.240 21:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
1: Your response here doesn't address my argument, so I'll assume you're dropping this point.
2: I've re-added the gist of this edit, with both of the references you supplied. See [1]
3: The phrase "conspiracy theories" is derogatory and dismissive, and thus violates NPOV.
4: The list of items that you referred to as "now discredited arguments" aren't arguments, and there isn't any real possibility of them being "discredited." They are a list of items pointing to uncertainty around the Hiss/Ales identity. The validity of the first three depends entirely on matters of opinion: what constitutes a "group," how important one considers the difference between the types of intelligence apparently supplied by Ales and allegedly supplied by Hiss, and what level of risk it was likely that Soviet intelligence would have been willing to take after Chambers's defection.
5: My mistake re. the author. When you add a direct quote to a WP article, you should make it clear in the text who is being quoted as well as providing a reference. The level of ambiguity in any text is often a matter of opinion. In this case, Schindler's opinion especially has to be presented as an opinion, since non-Russian-speaking readers have to take his word for it regarding the absence of ambiguity in the original Russian. If we had the unanimous opinion of multiple authors on this point, then perhaps it could validly be presented as accepted fact. Schindler's opinion on this matter is notable however, so I've restored a mention of it to the article. See [2]
6 & 7: No further discussion needed, IMO.
RedSpruce 23:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
1. It is deceptive to not identify the FBI as the "culprit" in the remanufactured typewriter theory. The only actual evidence on the page that the typewriter was remanufactured comes from pointing to the FBI's deception. If the Hiss defense believes that someone remanufactured a typewriter independently of the FBI, present the evidence.
2. Wikipedia has an article called 9/11 conspiracy theories, which presents arguements of government complicity as equally unconvincing as the Hiss defense. So your arguement that the word is not appropriate to describe a case is unconvincing. The entire Hiss defense hinges on the idea that the FBI faked a typewriter to frame Hiss, which is a conspiracy theory.
3. I'll admit that the point about Hiss being at risk after Chamber's defection is a matter of opinion which can't be dismissed. The other points, however, are arguements which have been discredited logically and factually.
4. The onus is on the Hiss defenders who have read the original Russian to come forward and say that the Russian text leaves ambiguities. Until that happens, the statement should be treated as a fact just as gravity is, because this is not a matter of making a theory or an opinion.
65.185.190.240 22:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
You're just repeating yourself and ignoring the obvious now, so I guess we're done here. Your input has resulted in some real improvements to the article, so thanks for that. RedSpruce 10:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a completely dishonest statement. The reversions shall resume at once, ceasing when you are ready to talk seriously. 65.185.190.240 23:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Present an argument--i.e., something more substantial than saying "I'm right!"--and I'll respond. RedSpruce 03:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I will most certainly join RedSpruce in stopping the recent revisions, as they are inappropriate on two grouds. First of all, the new text clearly violates NPOV and it is unsourced. Second, the editor proceeds from a false assumption. That is, that he can make any change he chooses to existing text, and it's up to anyone who reverts that change to debate him at length. On the contrary, it is up to the editor who wants to change a long-standing consensus regarding existing text to build a new consensus before a change is made. Joegoodfriend 06:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
So reverters are under no obligation to justify their reversion, rather, justification is the sole reponsibility of positively contributing editors? Can you provide a reference for this Wiki policy?Bdell555 08:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm pretty sure that there's a WP policy against edits that are contrary to obvious fact, like this one. However, since you asked for a source, I've added one.
I could also find a source saying evidence for global warming or the historicity of the Holocaust is "controversial". At issue is what a majority of scholars/experts hold to be the case. Wiki calls for the citation of a COMMONLY RECOGNIZED REFERENCE TEXT for such summary judgments which is why I have provided one.Bdell555 11:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Whether the work "controversial" applies has been discussed with you at rather nauseating length already (see Talk archive #2 if you've forgotten). The consensus of other editors on this point is against you. There is no need to revisit this issue unless you have some new argument. RedSpruce 13:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The consensus of historians is otherwise and the "consensus of other editors" you refer to exists because not enough other Wiki editors are involved. The solution to this issue is to involve more editors and authorities and I am, of course, entirely supportive of taking this matter to some sort of arbitration or other mechanism that can get the conclusion of a TRUE consensus. Do you really think that a true consensus would agree with the sentiments of your "other editors" such as Joegoodfriend, who has attacked the credibility of even Britannica? Wikipedia policy, which at least reflects a TRUE CONSENSUS OF WIKI EDITORS, calls for a source here of a type which I am providing and you are not. Also, it was obviously the "consensus of other editors" that no source at all was necessary with respect to your claim that the evidence is "controversial" (as opposed to decisive or as opposed to no comment about the preponderance of the evidence at all) given that none of those "other editors" has put such a source into the introduction to date. If that "consensus of other editors" is really so infallible, why not apply your logic to yourself and revert back to the unsourced version the "other editors" obviously thought was satisfactory?
I don't need a "new argument" given that the "old" one remains unchallenged and given the number of additional sources I have cited, sources by experts in the area (unlike, say, experts in other areas like Stephen Ambrose). To give you yet another example, David Oshinsky, the Pulitzer prize winning History Chair at UT Austin and chair of the NYU’s “The [Hiss] Case as History” panel, says that the "“VAST MAJORITY of historians” accept Chambers' overall version of events. His book, the Conspiracy So Immense: The World of Joe McCarthy, won the Hardeman Prize and if you read it you will see that it is no McCarthy apologia. This is yet another source in addition to the many others that argue that claiming a majority of scholars believe the accumulated evidence is conclusive is far closer to the truth than your assertion that the accumulated evidence is "controversial".Bdell555 19:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Re. your other recent edits:
Here you inserted the text "it has been alleged," when the text that follows is based on a statement in The Haunted Wood itself. It's not "alleged" if Weinstein said it himself.
Emphasis on "if". "If" Weinstein said "himself" that he found "little evidence regarding Hiss" then where, exactly, does Weinstein use those words? In the meantime, you are ALLEGING he said that.Bdell555 11:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Weinstein, as quoted in the article: "we have been able to further clarify Alger Hiss's role as a Soviet agent only through his occasional appearance in NKVD/NKGB archives." "Only" and "occasional" are in keeping with the article's use of the word "little". RedSpruce 13:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
You are trying to put a meaning into Weinstein's words that is not there. Why not let Weinstein's quote stand as it is, then, if it is so self-evident that your dimissive "little evidence" remark follows from Weinstein's footnote? I've removed your your unsourced editorializing and let Weinstein's quote stand by itself, which is misleading as it is given since it occurs in a FOOTNOTE and as such is not intended by the author to be central to the thesis of his work.Bdell555 19:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
This is unreferenced, and it doesn't state whether this "belief" is based on some evidence known to the French, or is just a personal opinion of Daladier's.
Use the William Bullitt Wiki article if you like. Sources are necessary when there is genuine skepticism about whether what is claimed is true, such as when I contend that Weinstein did not say, above, what you claim he did. Do you really contend here that Daladier did not say what he did to Bullitt? If so, I can find you a source but it unnecessarily clutters Wikipedia, IMO, to cite every claim of historical fact when no point of view issue is conceivably involved. For what it is worth, PBS NOVA cites "French intelligence" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/venona/dece_hiss.html).Bdell555 11:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I made two points, and you haven't addressed either of them. RedSpruce 13:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
You called for a source and asked if it was Daladier's personal opinion and I told you, it is "French intelligence" and therefore not his "personal opinion". If you contend that it is a "personal opinion" then provide a source for this additional claim you are making. PBS NOVA is a source, by the way. If you don't like the source explain why. I have explained to you why I think citing a source is unnecessary: it is consistent with the practice on other relevant Wiki pages and the encyclopedia as a whole to not have a citation for every last sentence in an article. Finally, the Wiki convention is to add "citation needed" as required instead of wholescale reversion; - or is that yet another case of where the rest of the Wiki community is offside while you and your private "consensus" operate correctly?Bdell555 19:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Since this has Gouzenko stating only that "an individual in the State Department was a spy", it's not very meaningful. I'm pretty sure that the State Department employed more than one person in the 30s and 40s.
You would evidently prefer to have the reader conclude that it was Chambers' accusations only that caused Hiss to be investigated. That is simply not true. I find it remarkable that you could see that the work I cited, "Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White: The Canadian Connection", mentions Hiss specifically by name in its title and yet you decided to revert that cited edit on the grounds that it says nothing about Alger Hiss.Bdell555 11:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The edit you added said nothing about Hiss; therefor it was not correct for an article about Hiss. If the referenced source in fact says something about Hiss, then add what it says about Hiss. RedSpruce 13:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
If it is "not correct" then why did PBS NOVA consider it necessary to add? Do you have any argument for why PBS NOVA is wrong in approach and you are right other than your simple assertion? This Wiki article is incomplete without any mention of Gouzenko. I might also point out the clear fault in your reasoning by noting that, according to your logic, everything about ALES should also removed from the article because, of course, (in your minority opinion) ALES could refer to someone else.Bdell555 19:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
If you have a reference for this, I'd consider it a worthwhile addition to the article.
RedSpruce 10:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
A source has now been provided.Bdell555 11:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The phrase "In any case" doesn't seem appropriate, but otherwise I think that's a good addition. RedSpruce 13:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most historians...

Bdell555, I'm not going to respond to most of your latest comments above because you don't make any arguments with even a pretense of validity. On one point we may be able to have a meaningful discussion, however. As I said a long time ago, I personally believe that it's probably correct to say that most historians and Hiss scholars believe that he was guilty. However, my position is also that A) this does not mean that it's incorrect, or even arguable, to say that the issue of Hiss's guilt is "controversial", and B) a valid reference that documents in some way that, in fact, most historians believe in Hiss's guilt is required.
Point A is inherent in the definition of "controversial", and in the inarguable, well-documented fact that there is a still-continuing debate over the issue.
Re. Point B: Your reference to David Oshinsky's statement is the closest thing I've seen to such a valid reference. As you say, he's a well respected scholar, and an assertion from him--even one not based on empirical evidence--should carry some weight among Hiss defenders. Are Oshinsky's remarks in print somewhere? If so, then it may be possible to add something to the article that will be acceptable to you and other editors. I looked for this statement on the web and only found this. Unfortunately. this second-hand report is lacking some credibility, since the author makes an incorrect statement in the very same sentence in which he quotes Oshinsky: That Elizabeth Bentley corroborated Chambers's accusation against Hiss. RedSpruce 20:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

re "I'm not going to respond to most of your latest comments above because you don't make any arguments with even a pretense of validity"
I don't even have the "pretense"? How do you do that my concerns are not even good faith? Do you have some sort of secret insight that exposes a pretentious character in others? Meanwhile I have been trying to meet you in the middle by adding to and clarifying the article you evidently consider yours as opposed to reverting everything you've done and using solely my preferred material. More to the point, how is your response here different from what you would expect from someone who is simply unable, as opposed to unwilling, to respond?
I will concede your point that it is not "incorrect" to claim the controversy. The point is that is is highly misleading when the preponderance of evidence and expert opinion is on the other side. Wiki has a mechanism for identifying those situations called citing a REFERENCE TEXT, a mechanism which admittedly might be imperfect but which you simply insist on ignoring without comment.
re (B), I provided a reference way back when I first showed up here that a "majority" of scholars believe Hiss was a spy. It was not, and never was, an unsourced claim, unlike your "controversy". I furthermore provided many additional sources of various types that indicated that the "Hiss was no spy" crowd is a small and shrinking minority. And, of course, I just provided yet another source for you, above, that says "vast majority", which you challenge irrelevantly given that what you are reverting is a citation of BRITANNICA not Oshinsky! You are making zero effort to explain why your citation of Navasky is adequate when Wiki policy clearly indicates that it is not.
re Oshinsky, I believe his remarks were oral at the “The Case as History” panel so the only hard copy source might be minutes from that conference which are likely unavailable. There are various ways to confirm his remark, which would include e-mailing him and asking him point blank to confirm the remark in a response that he CCs you and the rest of your fellow "consensus". However, I question the point of any such efforts when you have already clearly conceded that it is "probably correct" that your "consensus" is offside with a majority of professional scholars . You simply refuse to concede that what is "correct" should appear in the article. Given that, why are you wasting our mutual time by discussing Oshinsky's claim at all?Bdell555 21:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
You continue to make the same false argument. That is, if you can find one or more sources that have concluded that most historians believe Hiss guilty, it is therefore reasonable to conclude that most historians believe him guilty. In fact, it would only be reasonable to reach this conclusion if you found that in some statistically significant survey of experts most had reached a conclusion regarding Hiss's guilt.
If I found that a couple of creationist scientists had stated, "Most legitimate experts believe that the earth is about 6,000 years old," this would not constitute a license to add an unqualified statement to a wiki article that "most experts have concluded that the earth is about 6,000 years old." Joegoodfriend 07:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you believe that is "reasonable" to conclude that most experts believe the earth is MORE than 6000 years old? Yes? Then you must have first found a "statistically significant survey of experts" to that effect, using your own logic. Can you provide a reference for this survey you found? If not, why don't you start applying the standards you demand of me to yourself?Bdell555 07:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
You have my solemn promise that I will apply the same standards to myself as I do to you. I hereby promise that I will not add any text to Wikipedia's articles related to earth on the subject as to whether any consensus exists on the age of the planet until I can find a reliable source surveying a statistically significant number of experts on the subject. Joegoodfriend 07:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
That's not applying the same standards. You are not ADDING to my contributions to this page. You are REMOVING them. Get out there and remove every implied and direct claim in Wikipedia about the preponderance of evidence on a given issue that does not cite a "statistically significant survey" and you will be applying your standards universally.Bdell555 07:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
So now I'm a hypocrite if I don't edit every article in the encyclopedia to your satisfaction. How very clever. But as to your point, ok fine. I hereby promise that I will not add to or remove any text in Wikipedia's articles related to earth (etc). Joegoodfriend 08:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not asking you to edit to "my satisfaction". I am asking you to edit to "your satisfaction", but to apply whatever satisfies you universally. And you are still not applying the same standards, I might add. At issue is not what you "will not" do but what you "will". You ARE reverting me, not ARE NOT reverting me.Bdell555 08:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's another try, I just took out the qualifiers and put it in for the general population. I'll be elaborating on this further. TMLutas 03:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The footnote to the statement “Some reliable sources have suggested that those who still believe in Hiss's innocence are in the minority of scholarly opinion,” reads: “See, for example:” There follows a list of citations from sources Time, Salon, The New York Times, FindLaw, and the American Scholar, in each of which the author indeed suggests that that the new consensus is that Hiss was guilty.

To this list I added (at 21:27, August 2 2007) another citation, from the journal Studies in Intelligence, likewise asserting this consensus. An administrator deleted this source, with the explanation: “one person's view does not equal fact.”

I am confused by this explanation. Nowhere in the article is it suggested that the existence of such a consensus is a “fact.” The only fact posited is that “some reliable sources” assert such a consensus. The quote certainly supports this fact, as do the others in the list, which the administrator in question left in.

As a newbie, I apologize if I am going about this the wrong way, but I respectfully request that the deletion of this source be reverted, or else that the administrator involved clarify his or her reason for the deletion.

I apologize if I am mistaken, or violating policy. Any guidance in resolving this issue would be greatly appreciated. Mark LaRochelle

As I said on your Talk page, my edit summary comment to removing your added reference was misguided and incorrect. I apologize for that. My main objection is that because Ehrman's position is extreme, including him tends to reduce, rather than increase, the credibility of the footnote (or what used to be a footnote). If it looks like the article's statement is supported only by strongly anti-Hiss authors, the credibility goes down. By the same token, the best sources for the statement are pro-Hiss authors, like Kai Bird and Svetlana Chervonnaya. Still, I don't have any firm objection to including the Ehrman article. I just don't think it would be the best thing for the article. RedSpruce 18:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. The former footnote was to support an assertion of "a wide variety of scholars." A broader spectrum of scholars cited thus supports the credibility of the assertion better than a narrower spectrum. The spectrum from Bird-Chervonnaya to Ehrman presents a spectrum that would be less broad if either end were chopped off. There is no danger of the statement appearing to be "supported only by strongly anti-Hiss authors," because I am not proposing the deletion of strongly pro-Hiss authors like Bird-Chervonnaya. Since you have no firm objection to the inclusion of this citation, I propose that this deletion be reverted.

[edit] Priscilla Hiss

Priscilla Hiss/Hobson/Fansler was not a Quaker as stated in the article, but instead came from a Presbyterian family(Laughing Last, 47-48). Her use of "thee" and "thou" was an affectation from her college days at Bryn Mawr. I did not edit this this is my first login and I am not sure of the protocol. PDH1 03:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference section

Is there any reason why Chambers' book Witness is not mentioned in the references section?

I added the Ann Coulter book Treason to the references section. User Gdo01 removed it under the pretense that Ann Coulter is not a historian or expert. I contest that she is an expert, as a legal professional, and that the book was written as an expert treatise on the subject.

Can we discuss this before I go to high revert mode? Ajmastrean 17:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we discuss what you mean by "high revert mode"? Is everyone invited to go into HRM?—DCGeist 15:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I was mostly joking about HRM. I do think that this book deserves a better look as a serious reference. Ajmastrean 17:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Nothing Coulter has written has ever been considered a "serious reference" by any other writer of serious references. She's an entertainer, not a scholar. However, Treason is a book that devotes a chapter to Hiss, so I think it's valid to include it in the References and further reading section. RedSpruce 17:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
RedSpruce, you have the wrong context. My argument is that Coulter's book can be used as a reference in the discussion of Alger Hiss. Not as a reference to another book. She is not original source material, but she compiles and discusses original source materials. And she is still a valid author and legal professional. (Waiting for another supporting comment before re-reverting.) -Ajmastrean 21:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
My point in saying that her work isn't considered a serious reference by scholars in the field was a comment on her validity as a WP:Reliable source (next to none). I wasn't saying her book was an "original source" or "a reference to another book." RedSpruce 00:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha, RedSpruce. That makes more sense. In any case, the book is not an article source. It is meant as "further reading" item. If, in the future, it becomes an article source, I contend that, based on the extensive references and unchallenged (academically, journalistically) content, even that should be allowed.

Given that Coulter's book has numerous errors in the Hiss section (the Pro-Hiss researcher Jeff Kisseloff counts more than 100 in the chapter), I would argue that including it in the further reading supports a particular viewpoint rather than being historically enlightening. I do not think such slanted journalism improves the references/further reading.PDH1 01:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Make sure any works by Navasky are in there, though... I hear that guy is both a gentleman AND a "scholar", never mind that he apparently writes opinion columns for a living as opposed to working as a professor. Navasky doesn't suffer from that fatal problem of "supporting a particular viewpoint" either, does he?Bdell555 07:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "consensus" rationale for reversion

It seems that a half dozen editors have dubbed themselves a "consensus" such that dubbing alone provides a rationale for wholesale and indiscriminate reversion (see below for what I mean by wholesale and indiscriminate). Wiki policies provide various reasons for reversion, and I am not aware of "consensus" being one of them (if, with no small indulgence, it is given that there really is a consensus within the Wiki community of the sort claimed). Can someone provide a reference for this "consensus" policy, or even just a rationale (if it is invented)? I supposed Galileo's work should have been reverted back in the day, if the presence of a "long standing consensus" trumps any argument based on science, research, or argument!

What is curious is the lack of interest within this mini Wikiuser "consensus" in what the consensus amongst scholars, experts, and other professionals is. One might think that would be the more relevant consensus in terms of determining what is likely true and what isn't. However, I have yet to see anyone challenge me to a count. Rather, it seems the outcome of the count is conceded, and then dismissed as "undue weight". So perhaps the "consensus" doesn't really matter and isn't really a rationale after all....! So difficult to make up one's mind, I suppose!Bdell555 21:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Wiki policies provide various reasons for reversion, and I am not aware of "consensus" being one of them." So you can take the time to edit the articles here, and to write thousands of words supporting your positions, but you can't be bothered to look up wikipedia's policies on editing articles? Pretty weird, but whatever.
Regarding Consensus: "The basic process works like this: someone makes an edit to a page, and then everyone who reads the page makes a decision to either leave the page as it is or change it. Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community (or at least everyone who has looked at the page)." "No one editor can unilaterally declare that consensus has changed."
May I draw your attention to The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision. bit?Bdell555 06:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
You sure can. I propose blocking the change on several other grounds, not simply because of precedent. Joegoodfriend 07:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Then let's stick to those other grounds, shall we, given that the policy clearly rejects "already have made a decision" as acceptable grounds?Bdell555 07:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, no. A challenge to consensus suggests that the challenger must win support for changes. The "already made a decision" rule is in the context that other editors cannot stop changes by simply saying that they have already made a decision, they must discuss and consider proposed changes and reach a reasonable conclusion as to whether the community has changed its mind on a subject. Joegoodfriend 07:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
So you AND OTHERS "discussed and considered proposed changes" before you blocked the changes? That's patently not true. To take an example, you reverted my edit about how the NSA historian believes "probably" should be dropped without any discussion, by you or by anyone else. To take another example, Redspruce declared that "'controversial' ... has been discussed ... already ... The consensus of other editors on this point is against you." As a justification Redspruce's revert is therefore in direct violation of the Wiki instruction that a change not be blocked "on grounds that they already have made a decision"Bdell555 08:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
You are also violating the policy on Neutral Point of View. "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should each be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth."
Yes, you have already levelled this accusation against Britannica once already. No need to repeat it.Bdell555 06:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
No, I have not leveled accusation against Brittanica, I have leveled accusation against you for adding biased text to the article, that is, presenting Brittanica's conclusion without qualification when the older text you keep reverting is superior and is supported by consensus of the editors. Joegoodfriend 07:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The "biased text" is directly from Britannica. That amounts to an accusation of bias.Bdell555 07:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm accusing Brittanica of reaching a premature conclusion. If an editor tries copy this premature conclusion into the article here without qualification, I would call that a violation of wiki policies, as a viewpoint challenged by other editors being presented as unqualified truth. Joegoodfriend 07:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, your assertion that no one "has challenged you to a count" is untrue. If I may quote my comment from our previous argument on this, "You obviously have a knack for research. Just keep going until you find some sort of survey on the subject, and you can add a sentence like, “in a 2007 survey of 100 scholars who expressed an opinion on the Hiss case, 70 stated a strong belief in Hiss’ guilt while only 30 thought him likely innocent.”[3] Joegoodfriend 06:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Count the number of sources that support the contention there is no consensus among historians and I'll count the number that disagree. You count yours and I'll count mine. Deal? I'll start off with... Victor Navasky! (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070430/navasky_short)Bdell555 06:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
As I have already repeatedly stated, an actual scientific survey of experts is the only reasonable way to find out whether said experts have reached a consensus. Your original "research" on the subject has no place in the articles here. Joegoodfriend 07:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
What's "original" is your idea of "the only reasonable way", which conveniently makes 99.9% of human knowledge impossible. I found it profoundly ironic that your are reverting a Britannica cite in favour of a Navasky cite, yet Navasky himself speaks of "consensus historians"!Bdell555 07:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia prohibits editing articles based on original research by its editors. If you don't agree, why are you here? Also, I never said I endorse Navasky, only the text of the article. I don't think the sentence in question needs any citation. Citation is only needed if text is likely to be challenged, and it surprises me that anyone would challenge the idea that Hiss's legacy is controversial. Joegoodfriend 08:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I do agree with the prohibition against "orginal research". There is nothing "original" about citing Britannica, however. I'm not challenging the contention that Hiss' "legacy" is controversial. I'm challenging the summary contention that the "evidence" is controversial, a claim that implies that there is no consensus amongst experts concerning the preponderance of the evidence.Bdell555 08:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion Policy

The general convention on Wiki pages seems to me to be to add a "citation needed" clause where required as opposed to removing material that, in the reverter's opinion, is inadequately sourced. First of all, this is a much "friendlier" approach, since it accepts the good faith contribution of an editor and asks that more yet (namely, a source) be added. Such a "good faith" assumption is more consistent with Wiki policy. Obviously there are cases of vandalism that should simply be reverted but good judgment should be able to identify those situations. Secondly, it builds Wikipedia out incrementally. When you consider Wikipedia as a whole as it stands now, much of it is unsourced. But would it be better to add those sources or would it be better to first cut Wikipedia far back? I often try to find a source myself when I think a source is required. After all, this is a team effort, and playing like a team means that if one party contributes half of what should be done, why shouldn't I take it upon myself to contribute the other half instead of effectively telling the first party to go back and do it all again, this time to my satisfaction? Obviously I am not going to be able to easily find a source when there is good reason to doubt that such a source exists, but this suggests that a reasonable doubt about the veracity of the statement ought be part of a decision to revert. Statements that need sourcing have an element of implausibility such that a source is necessary for broad acceptance. When you know a statement is almost certainly accurate and yet you demand a source it looks very much like you take pleasure in creating "make work" projects for others, work projects you could take up yourself if you really felt them so necessary.

I might note that I have cited Britannica and have been reverted anyway, which raises the question of why I should bother going to the work of finding sources in the first place. In the circumstances, it is obviously a labour saving device to introduce an unsourced edit, see if the reverter would stop reverting IF ONLY it was sourced, and then find the source, as opposed to introducing a sourced edit from the get-go and having it reverted despite its being sourced.

The same reasoning that would apply to statements needing sources would apply to statements that need qualification or expansion. Why not add that qualifying remark yourself if you believe it necessary? I sometimes encounter the Talk page comment that an edit should have some sort of additional information, explanation, or qualification. Why not spell that out in the Article instead of the Talk page? The bottom line is that Wiki is a collaborative effort and is a great good faith signal to try and work with another's contributions to create something both you and the other party have contributed to as opposed to taking another's work and simply tossing it out wholesale. Finally, in the rare circumstance where another's work cannot be built upon, worked with, or finessed, a full explanation in the Talk pages should be provided, not just some "pov" remark. This has not been happening here. For example, the article should not indicate that federal agencies believe the identification of ALES is "probable" when the NSA's historian CURRENTLY believes "probable" should be dropped. Yet that edit of mine was reverted without explanation at all. There has also been no explanation for why my citation of Britannica has been reverted, aside from Joegoodfriend's claim the source is biased, a dubious rationale Redspruce and DCGeist appear eager to support given their continual appeal to the "consensus" reverters like that supposedly helped to create. That Britannica citation is being reverted in favour of a comment about the preponderance of evidence in the introduction (namely, that it is "controversial") that is not being sourced in a manner consistent with Wiki policy. It is possible for Wiki policy to be wrong and for it to be 100% demonstrable why the policy should not be applied, which is why I don't consider it absolutely decisive. However, the presence of a Wiki policy creates an extremely high bar with respect to justification, does it not? You cannot just walk away saying, "we've discussed this enough". It has to be indisputably proven why the policy does not apply.Bdell555 20:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

See also "Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. When you amend and edit, it is remarkable how you might see something useful in what you might be about to remove. Almost everyone – including you – has something useful to say. Deletion upsets people and makes them feel they have wasted their time; at the very least leave some indication of your rationale in an edit summary, if not in an entry on a Talk page or in a message to a user or users you think might be perturbed by your action." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot)Bdell555 10:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What you say is not true. I never suggested that Brittanica was biased. What I said was, "To restate my pervious point, if the Britannica text is allowed, it will be immediately qualified with an opposing view from (obviously) a source that has reached different conclusions. In other words, it would read something like, "While some scholars have concluded that new evidence has added a variety of information to the case supporting Hiss's guilt(Britannica cite), others have concluded that this same evidence tends to exonerate Hiss. In conclusion, the consensus text is still best."[4]
You are stating that Britannica cannot stand on its own. Why? Because its claims must "be immediately qualified with an opposing view". That's a charge of bias.Bdell555 06:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Please stop inserting your comments in the middle of my threads, it's very confusing. Why do you keep misstating what I have said and argued? I did not say that the Brittanica quote must be qualified, I said that it will be qualified if added to the article. This will undoubtedly be added to the article by some enterprising editor in order to provide balance to Brittanica's conclusion. Other editors here don't agree with the conclusion, so they would qualify it. Thus we would end up with a "some say this, some say that" kind of solution which would not be as good as the text that we currently have. Joegoodfriend 07:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I stand by my previous statements. You want to give undue bias to a certain point of view as if that view is undeniable truth. You cannot justify doing this in violation of consensus by other editors simply because you think that you have made arguments that others have not answered. Joegoodfriend 06:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Oshinsky: "vast majority of historians"

As noted above, it is evidently a waste of time to discuss Oshinsky's contention that the "vast majority of historians” accept that Hiss was a spy given that the regullar reverters around here have also insisted on reverting the milder, sourced statement that just a simple majority believe that (and have argued that, even if true, it doesn't matter because, according to them, any mention of what the professional consensus is would be a case of "undue influence", a concern that apparently does not arise with respect to their own comments about the evidence being "controversial"). But Redspruce has challenged the claim that Oshinsky said any such thing anyway so let's consider that for academic interest if nothing else.

Redspruce says the account by Jefferson Flanders, who attended the NYU Conference where Oshinsky spoke, is not "credible", this despite the fact that Flanders uses QUOTATION MARKS indicating that he made note of the exact words he heard. Apparently Redspruce also believes that Flanders misrepresented Oshinsky despite the fact Flanders also quotes Oshinsky as using the words "cheat history", strong words which would be consistent with Oshinsky believing a statement of finality should be made regarding the Hiss case. Redspruce says Flanders is not credible because it is not true, as Redspruce says Flanders claims, that "Elizabeth Bentley corroborated Chambers's accusation against Hiss". In fact that is not what Flanders said. He said that the "account" of Hiss' guilt was "backed" by Bentley, and indeed it did provide some, however limited, backing since Bentley testified that he she had passed documents from a high-ranking government official to the Soviets. Redspruce presumably maintains that Bentley's account provides zero "backing" to the charges against Hiss, despite the fact PBS NOVA mentions Bentley in the VERY SAME SENTENCE as Chambers' charges. If Flanders is not credible because he sees a link between Bentley's evidence and the case against Hiss, then it logically follows that PBS NOVA isn't credible either. And it isn't just PBS NOVA: Stanley Kutler also mentions Bentley and Gouzenko immediately after mentioning Chambers (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/books/reviews/20040806_kutler.html#bio). PBS NOVA and Kutler both mention Gouzenko immediately after mentioning Chambers' accusations, however when I edit this Wiki article to reflect this, it is reverted on the grounds that Gouzenko is irrelevant. Since I have named three (four including Flanders, see also Barros) sources who believe it IS relevant, perhaps Redspruce or someone else could do some similar source seeking and findsome sources that contend the negative (i.e. that Gouzenko is NOT relevant). Evidently the only other accusation that won't be reverted is French one (which, by the way, can be sourced at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_47_17/ai_80900413 if you really need one). All of this suggests that there is nothing in Flanders account that is a demonstrably "incorrect" claim of fact as opposed to an opinion Redspruce disagrees with. Just because Redspruce does not agree with all of Flanders' opinions (opinions about relevance Flanders shares with PBS, Kutler, Barros, et al) does not mean that when Flanders quotes a speaker he is just making up what goes into those quotes. If Redspruce's standard is the standard for credibility, then it follows that if I don't agree with one of, say, Lowenthal's opinions about relevance or irrelevance, I should revert any quotation in Lowenthal's work on the grounds it is not credible. Is it any wonder that even Britannica isn't credible under the standards demanded by our self-proclaimed "consensus"? Bdell555 01:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, here's a quote for you from no less than Navasky at the same NYU Conference: "If [Bird and Chervonnaya] are right, these two superb, indefatigable investigators have put the CONSENSUS HISTORIANS to shame" (my emphasis). It seems Navasky has read the Wiki policies!: though a view may be spelled out in great detail, IT MUST MAKE APPROPRIATE REFERENCE TO THE MAJORITY VIEWPOINT, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority viewBdell555 06:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

And here's another:

[That NYU Conference] consists of diehard supporters of Hiss whose attempts to explain away all the new available evidence are thoroughly unconvincing.

- Mark Kramer (http://www.jatsbulgaria.org/show.php?type=author&id=2)Bdell555 09:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

And another, which suggests something about the plausibility of the Oshinsky quote Redspruce is challenging:

What makes the March 30 [1945 Venona] cable so damning is the revelation that "Ales" remained a Soviet agent at least until 1945 -- far beyond the timetable presented by Whittaker Chambers. Worse, it further links the American Communist Party of the 1930s and '40s to espionage in the service of Stalin's well-oiled killing machine. This particular point is deeply resisted in parts of contemporary academe, where Marxist historians, in particular, treat the old C.P. with honor and respect. To accept the guilt of Alger Hiss is to admit the bitter truth about a small but sinister part of America's "progressive" past. And that may not be easy.

- David Oshinsky, "The Meaning of the Enduring Controversy Over Alger Hiss", The Chronicle of Higher Education, December 20, 1996

[edit] Bdell555's violation of the 3-revert rule

Editors, please note that Bdell555 blatantly violated the three-revert rule with the following four reverts to this article in the span of less than eleven hours: [5], [6], [7], and [8]. I have chosen not to report him to the administrators' noticeboard at this point, but I have warned him ([9]) that any further violation will result in his being reported and blocked. I would ask all involved editors to please keep an eye on this. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 08:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

DCGeist, I don't see your concern when RedSpruce violates the 3-revert rule. He does so on a regular basis, personally attacks other editors, and removes verifiable secondary sources. Why don't you keep an eye on on him? Jtpaladin 13:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
1) The 3RR notification calls on the violator to henceforth "made an effort to discuss his changes further". Thanks for that, my effort to discuss my changes could use some improvement, wouldn't you say? Now perhaps you will also take note of the 3RR policy, which says "Rather than reverting multiple times, discuss the matter with other editors." Too bad I may have to give up on this article for a few months again since the self-styled "consensus" continues to tolerate no changes to what they perceive to be their page.
2) A common sense definition of a reversion is an edit which makes no changes other than back to the previous version. I have NOT done that 4 times within 24 hours. Apparently you have a more expansive definition. Just how expansive is it? If 90% of a given edit is additional, 9% change, and 1% revert, the edit is still classed as a revert? If so, is it not amazing that Wikipedia got built out to 1.8 million pllus articles while the vast majority of its edits are "reversions"! If that 1% happens to be same throughout four consecutive edits then the whole project of the four edits together may be considered "edit warring"? I accomodated the Redspruce's request to drop "in any case" in one of those edits, which makes for a rather bizarre "war". Seriously, I think you have quite confused who is contributing and who is reverting here.
3) What could have possibly caused you to believe that other editors were NOT "keeping a close eye" on me?
4) My remarks in the section above concerning "Reversion policy" would apply here. I advance some proposals there for minimizing edit warring that have received no response from you.
5) Why don't you report yourself for violating the Wiki policy that calls for a "common reference text" cite for summary conclusions about an issue while you are it. That's the very same policy you called up and demanded I adhere to earlier. You've also called me, to take one example, a "shitty little prick", yet I've never seen anyone here call on "involved editors" to "keep an eye on" your personal attacks. Or do the rules only apply to me and not you?Bdell555 09:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Bdell et al - I don't think it is impossible to come to agreement on a text for the lead and elsewhere if people keep their heads cool. Bdell, you write above as if two propositions are contradictory - (a) that a majority of historians believe in Hiss's guilt and (b) that the case is still controversial. Of course these are not contradictory - as far as I can tell, both are true. The article should reflect this. Do you really disbelieve the second? - Do you think that "the majority of historians" does? - They certainly know that there are respected historians who still argue otherwise in respected periodicals and books, so this would be a strange belief. For a recent arguer, not among the "diehards" afaik - cf Amy Knight's 2006 book about Igor Gouzenko and the start of the Cold War. The article should also try to hew to the highest standard of scholarship - there is no reason for Wikipedia to not be better than most of the supposedly "reliable sources." As Knight pointed out in the Wilson Quarterly concerning new revelations about Soviet spying "But in the excitement produced by the new revelations, many of the standards by which scholars traditionally judge historical writings have been lowered, or discarded altogether."[10] From what little I have read, this appears to be the case.John Z 19:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The case is certainly controversial, as you suggest. However, that's not the issue here. The article claims that the EVIDENCE is controversial. If the evidence is truly controversial, then why doesn't Britannica say that, instead of doing what Britannica does, which is to call the evidence "strong"? Because Britannica jumps to "premature conclusions", to use Joegoodfriend's words?
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that your (b) proposition was that the "evidence is controversial", the same standard of proof that would apply to (a) ought to apply to (b). If a reference text cite, or a certain number of expert sources, is or are required for the one, the same is required for the other. It is interesting that you mention Gouzenko because it was Gouzenko's charges of a spy in State that help provoke the investigation of Hiss. PBS Nova's 600 word summary Hiss case mention this, yet this Wiki article, which is close to 5000 words, makes zero mention of Gouzenko. Why? Because some editors here, apparently think, like you, that Wikipedia can be "better" than "reliable sources" like PBS Nova!
I certainly agree that this article should "try to hew to highest standard of scholarship". You evidently think Tony Hiss' website (http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15) is the premier example of that, since you call attention to it as part of your call to be "better" than the "reliable sources". David Greenberg recognizes Hiss' website as "the best defense mustered of [Alger] Hiss by the dwindling band of those who believe in Hiss. I don't think anyone is going to treat this site as the repository of truth, except for those who have already made up their minds that Hiss was innocent". (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/16/technology/circuits/16HISS.html?ex=1183953600&en=1aeb9bd6710ec366&ei=5070). David Greenberg is a professional historian at Rutgers (http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~davidgr/).
re "They certainly know that there are respected historians who still argue otherwise in respected periodicals and books", may I refer you to
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v44i5a01p.htm
where, on a page that was last upated in May 2007, John Ehrman notes that "since [Weinstein's] Perjury appeared, no significant work has repeated the claim of a frame-up or argued that Hiss was innocent". This is the same John Ehrman whom the the left wing American Prospect has praised for writing "history rather than hagiography". By "respected periodical" do you mean something like the Journal of Cold War Studies (MIT Press), edited by Harvard's Mark Kramer? The Mark Kramer who said the NYU Conference where Navasky was keynote speaker "consists of diehard supporters of Hiss whose attempts to explain away all the new available evidence are thoroughly unconvincing"? Compare Kramer's resume (http://www.jatsbulgaria.org/show.php?type=author&id=2) to Navasky's and then tell me who is the real "respected historian".
The NSA historian believes "probably" should be dropped from the designation of ALES and NSA analysts have gone on record to say ALES could have only been Hiss, yet both of these facts, which I added, have been removed from the article. Moreover, DCGeist has alerted everyone to watch that I don't try and put those FACTS back in within a certain time period on pain of trying to get me blocked from Wikipedia. I supposed that's the "highest standardship of scholarship" in action.Bdell555 21:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I gave an example of a recent book, published by a respected historian, many months before May 2007, that does not agree with this "consensus." I "called attention" to this website because it had the only freely available copy of an article by the same author I was quoting. Navasky has argued in books against Hiss's guilt. Surely that was known to Mr. Ehrmann. What these examples given by someone, myself, with only a very lackadaisical interest in the subject, show is that Mr. Ehrmann is not the world's most careful writer, or the website is not up-to-date. Might I suggest not leaping to conclusions? - especially in a controversy which some say is about leaping to conclusions? That particular article, found by a google search, was the only time I had looked at that site for years if not ever. There's Bird and Chervonnaya's article in the latest American Scholar, too. What do you mean exactly by the "evidence" being controversial? Which evidence? Where does it say this in the article? You removed that his guilt was controversial, which is what I meant by the case being controversial. I read all your remarks last night, perhaps I was tired, but I didn't find them very easy to follow. I think any talk about arbitration is very premature. People should assume good faith, stop revert warring, read the earlier discussions, try to find out where they agree and disagree about the facts and source their agreements and disagreements and try to come to some consensus about a text. Again, perhaps clearer, is there anyone who disagrees that (a) most (>50%) historians think the evidence shows Hiss was guilty (b) some historians disagree, or that either statement can easily be given a source? I don't see why NSA analyst statements should be excised either.
When I said that Wikipedia can be better than supposedly reliable sources, I was stating a fact and a goal. I hope I am not breaking anybody's illusions, but there is a lot of crap written everywhere Sturgeon's Law - even in the most "reliable" sources. There's a lot of crap in Wikipedia, but some wonderful articles too. It really is possible to create an article which is the best source of information, bar none, on a topic, by editors coming together to contribute from their own points of view, and in addition, coming to a complete consensus about what in some supposedly reliable source should be left out because it is false or makes no sense, which is not at all an uncommon occurrence in controversial historical topics. The key to this is to collaborate, assume good faith, and above all, festina lente.John Z 23:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

If Redspruce wishes to continue to revert my edits, it seems to me we are at a dead end here, since Redspruce has ruled out any further discussion or arbitration. I suppose there is nothing else for me to do but to leave this article alone now, is there? For what it is worth, I'll take the opportunity to invite DCGeist to arbitration on the question of whether it should be stated in the introduction of this article that a majority of historians believe Hiss was a Soviet spy (or, in the alternative, that the evidence is "strong", without qualification) as well. since DCGeist apparently shares with Redspruce the view that further discussion would neither "interesting" nor "fruitful".Bdell555 22:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

My position actually falls somewhere between John Z's and Joegoodfriend's. I know it is true that (a) the case (i.e., the question of Hiss's guilt or innocence) remains controversial; I suspect it is true that (b) the majority (i.e., more than 50%) of historians now believe Hiss was guilty. It is easy to verify (a)--from our abundance of contemporary references, there is overwhelming prima facie evidence for this statement. Despite your many claims, it is still not possible to verify (b)--as Joegoodfriend wrote above, "In fact, it would only be reasonable [for Wikipedia] to reach this conclusion if you found that in some statistically significant survey of experts most had reached a conclusion regarding Hiss's guilt." I would be a bit more liberal in what I would admit as a reliable reference for the claim, but still, nothing you've yet offered comes close. Navasky's reference to "consensus historians" is (i) very, very far from scientific and (ii) ambiguous--he might be characterizing those historians who argue for Hiss's guilt as the sort who routinely accept uncritical interpretations of U.S. history.—DCGeist 06:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, in that case, in order to address your and Joegoodfriend's sensible concerns, a solution might be to find the most solid (and probably weakest) claim of "consensus" from the best source we can find, and then say "According to ..." while citing prominent people who disagree about guilt (easy) or existence of a majority view/consensus (might be harder to find).. I think some statement like Knight's that ordinary standards are being lowered is appropriate, along with a disagreement about that too.  :-) I think we should also keep in mind that it is not only the "majoritarians" who might like to exaggerate the state of consensus, but people like Navasky too. Everyone, scholars and journalists, not only Wikipedians, like to portray themselves as gallant lonely seekers of the Truth.John Z 07:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
There is still a disagreement over Hiss, and cliams on both sides are controversial. While may historians now suggest Hiss was guilty, there are a significant minority who claim the evidence is still cloudy. There is no point in demanding that one view or the other is the "truth," only an obligation here on Wiki to in a fair and NPOV manner report the longstanding and continuing controversy.--Cberlet 15:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
You would think Wiki has never encountered a situation like this before, such that DCGeist and Joegoodfriend have to suggest that a "scientific survey" (of who? University history department professors only, or guys like Lowenthal and Navasky as well?) is required because no applicable Wiki policies have yet been developed. In fact, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight recommends citing a "common reference text". Britannica is a common reference text. Case closed. Either Wiki policies, which reflect the consensus of the community as a whole, are applied or they are ignored. The fact that experts like David Oshinsky mention the "vast majority" simply corroborates Britannica's summation that the evidence is "strong" as opposed to "controversial", as if Britannica requires any corroboration. Joegoodfriend has attacked Britannica as making "premature conclusions" and DCGeist and Redspruce evidently fully concur given that they have offered no other reason for why they are reverting the Britannica-cited text. This is why the involvement of administrators responsible for the application of Wiki policies is required. No "scientific survey" will ever be done because no academic who has seriously followed the issue has any doubt about what the outcome of such a survey of expert opinion would be. If DCGeist and Joegoodfriend's "scientific survey" is required then why wasn't it required for the "global warming" article or anywhere else? I challenge them to identify even one article in Wikipedia that meets their standard, a standard that they have made up in the place of an already clearly applicable Wiki standard.Bdell555 16:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
This type of aggressive and combative response is hardly constructive. Assume good faith. Seek compromise.--Cberlet 16:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
First of all, Bdell555 continues to side-step the issue that if your change is allowed, it will soon be further changed to read, "Some sources have concluded that the release of secret Soviet cables in 1996 provided strong evidence of Hiss's guilt, however other sources have concluded that this same material has tended to exonerate Hiss." The current text already reflects the controversy.
Second, have you read the artice on global warming? It doesn't have an equivalent text, i.e., a statement regarding what "most" experts have concluded. The article does mention that at least 30 scientific societies have concluded that global warming has been cause by greenhouse gases, and only one has disagreed, but this is not the same thing at all as the subjective opinion, "Most experts have concluded (etc)."
Third, I ACCEPT YOUR CHALLENGE. The article on Lee Harvey Oswald includes the text, "most believe there was a second gunman or that other persons were involved." The citation for the text provided is a scientific poll conducted by ABC News that demonstrated that seven in ten Americans believe that Oswald did not act alone in the assassination. Joegoodfriend 16:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
With respect to your "side-step" point, Joegoodfriend, if it "will soon be further changed", then let's deal with that when it comes to that. Problems can be solved one step at time, each step IN FRONT OF the other. And your "Some sources ... other sources ..." line remains at the heart of the problem, since it continues to contravene the Wiki "undue weight" policy calling for "appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint". Cberlet's suggested reading also does not make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint which any qualification/editorialization/minimization of a commonly accepted reference text's summation of the evidence should, but given 1) the opportunity of advancing the article a step of whatever size towards greater accuracy, 2) a general reluctance on my part to reject and revert another's work (in this case, Cberlet's), and 3) recognition of a disagreement Cberlet has attempted to mediate, I will support Cberlet's edit.
With respect to your second point, yes, I've read the article on global warming, including the "A few individual scientists disagree" part you insist is not there (or do you simply believe the agreement of most does not necessarily follow given the disagreement of a few?).
Third, my challenge to you was to find a place in Wikipedia that meets your standard, which, in your words, is to cite "a statistically significant survey of EXPERTS", an example being, “in a 2007 survey of 100 SCHOLARS who expressed an opinion ..., 70 stated ... while only 30 thought ..." You evidently consider the entire American public "expert" or "scholarly", a contention that is prima facie incorrect because a term does not define anything if it includes an entire population.Bdell555 18:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Brilliantly argued, Joegoodfriend.
Cberlet, your recent attempt at a compromise was honorable. (I apologize if my edit summary sounded too curt.) Here was the major problem with it--yes, there is new evidence that tends to undermine (though hardly to disprove) Hiss's claims of innocence: specifically Venona cable #1822. However, there is also new evidence that tends to support (though hardly to prove) his claims: Venona cable #1579, which mentions someone "from the State Department by name of HISS." As noted in the article, "For the GRU to name Hiss openly, not by a codename, would be radically unorthodox for Soviet espionage protocols if he was, indeed, a spy. Both the NSA and the FBI have insisted that once a codename was assigned it was used to the exclusion of the real name." Multiple citations are available for the latter, just as they are for the former.—DCGeist 17:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll give you credit where it is due for letting the “National Security Agency analysts have also gone on record asserting that ALES could only have been Alger Hiss” line back into the article, DCGeist. However, that was just one edit of the several that you are reverting, and those several include edits that you have not challenged anywhere and even an edit you have conceded (given that I've provided a source for what Daladier told Ambassador Bullitt above). I find it remarkable, however, that you admitted this particular NSA edit into the article at almost the exact same time that here on the Talk page you cite the contention of Hiss’ lawyer, Lowenthal, who claims his contention is supported by the NSA!!! You do appreciate that you just undermined Lowenthal’s credibility by allowing that the NSA does not, in fact, support Lowenthal’s contentions that Alger Hiss is not ALES? This is but one of Lowenthal's many dubious contentions that somehow get more attention in this Wiki article than the work of professional Cold War historians. At issue here is how you (or Hiss’ lawyer) characterize Venona versus how ‘’Britannica’’ characterizes Venona. To revert Britannica's conclusion of incriminating in favour of Hiss' lawyer's view of equally exculpatory is POV if anything ever was.
Finally, you again referred to the “consensus” to justify your most recent reversion, which was primarily not of my preferred wording but of Cberlet’s (a fact that evidently didn't register amidst your enthusiasm to count me up to "3 reverts"). It seems to me that is becoming increasingly presumptous to refer to yourself, your briliant colleague Joegoodfriend, and Redspruce as the “consensus”, as if no one else over the last six months has ever had taken issue with you three concerning the pro-Hiss slant of this article.Bdell555 19:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Presumptous? Hmm, let's see. You're the guy who loves counting things, so:
Number of editors who have said to you, no, I don't agree with the changes you are making to the article: SIX.
Number of editors who have said to you, yes, I do agee with the changes you are making: ZERO. Joegoodfriend 02:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The self-contradictions and evasions of NSA researchers in grappling with the exculpatory nature of Venona #1579 hardly undermine Lowenthal.

As I stated in a previous edit summary, I believe the bit about Daladier and Bullitt merits inclusion if properly cited. It has yet to appear with a citation after it. What has immediately followed to date is this sentence: "Igor Gouzenko, who defected to Canada in 1945, also claimed that an individual in the State Department was a spy." That claim is far too broad to be included in the article. The Gouzenko claim has been followed by a citation of an article by James Barros. Is Barros also the source for the information on Daladier and Bullitt? If so, I would support the inclusion of the Daladier and Bullitt sentence in the article, followed directly by the Barros citation.—DCGeist 21:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you spell out what these "self-contradictions" are? You clearly believe there is more than one. And what is "evasive" about saying ALES could have been none other than Alger Hiss? Sounds like a direct answer to me. I have added a cite re Daladier and Bullitt that is web accessible. Re the part about Gouzenko being "far too broad" for this 5000 word article, PBS Nova's 600 word summary of the Hiss case felt it important to include. Your opinion is less POV than PBS Nova's? Where is your argument for why PBS Nova's account is inaccurate or otherwise distortionary? PBS Nova is not alone on this either. Finally, you have not provided any argument for why the opinion of Hiss' lawyer about Venona should be considered more authorative and less POV than Britannica's.Bdell555 22:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's some more quotes for you, this time from no less than Ellen Schrecker:
Allen Weinstein's _The Haunted Wood_ finally convinced me of the guilt of the major communist spies.
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.
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/comment15.htm
I'm happy to take these points one by one, to see if we're speaking the same language. I'll start with something simple.
"Evasion": John R. Schindler, former NSA intelligence analyst, counterintelligence officer, and historian, and now associate professor of strategy at the U.S. Naval War College, gives a lecture titled "Hiss in VENONA: The Continuing Controversy". He effectively concludes, as you put it, that "ALES could have been none other than Alger Hiss." Yet he never addresses Venona #1579 and its apparently exculpatory content. Given the title of his lecture, I call that a major evasion (a less charitable reader could well call it outright misrepresentation). Do you agree or disagree?—DCGeist 06:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Bob Lamphere of the FBI once tentatively identified JURIST as Samuel Rosenman but noted that "Rosenman is mentioned by the MGB... by his real name on one occasion and it has been noted that the MGB, once it designates a man by a cover name, thereafter uses the cover name to the exclusion of the individual’s real name". Now if it necessarily follows from that that today's NSA, which contends that ALES can be none other than Hiss, believes that #1579 is exculpatory then, yes, the NSA is contradicting itself. Yet
1) Lamphere didn't believe it was decisively exculpatory in Rosenman's case since he fingered Rosenman anyway at the very time he made his observation
2) ALES was run by GRU and GRU and the MGB were distinct intelligence agencies.
3) even if we assume that the "HISS" of #1579 is a "real name" identification of the same sort as in Rosenman's case AND pretend that Lamphere thought a real name identification was decisively exculpatory AND pretend that was true of the MGB's practices were necessarily true of GRU's, Lamphere was an FBI agent of decades ago not a NSA agent of today. There is no "contradiction", for example, between Lamphere's identification of ALES as "probably Alger Hiss" and the NSA's current identification of ALES as "Alger Hiss" without qualification, because there are many things that are known now that were not known then!
Like I noted before, by calling attention to the conclusions of a US government analyst like Schindler, you are calling attention to Lowenthal's inconsistency, not any imagined US government inconsistency, since Lowenthal rejects what that government analyst has to stay at the same time he puts the observation of another government analyst, Lamphere, at the foundation of his argument. It is Lowenthal, not the US government, who is trying to conflate things (like the MGB and GRU) to prove his charge of (US government) inconsistency.Bdell555 11:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The phrase "decisively exculpatory," which you employ twice, is entirely yours. I have been very careful to avoid any such assertion. I have said Venona #1579 "tends to support (though hardly to prove) [Hiss's] claims" and I have characterized it as possessing "apparently exculpatory content." I restate my question, Do you not find it evasive to title a lecture "Hiss in Venona" that claims to effectively establish Hiss's guilt while not addressing the one Venona cable in which the Hiss name appears, which from what we know constitutes exculpatory--though by no means definitively exculpatory--evidence?—DCGeist 12:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
After one begins with an observation that rejects "decisively exculpatory", one can make further observations that reject progressively weaker levels of "exculpatoriness" such that one may reach the point whereby what is left is negligably exculpatory. And indeed that's where Britannica and pretty much every other professional historian from Haynes on down to Schrecker have arrived. Yet we are supposed to revert Britannica's summary of Venona in favour of Lowenthal's? I dare say that any attempt to discredit Britannica would have to be "original research" by definition, given that Britannica is essentially a compendium of the state of current expert knowledge.Bdell555 12:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
In answer to your question, no, I do not think it is "evasive" to title a lecture "Hiss" as opposed to "HISS" and then talk about "Hiss" as opposed to "HISS". By the way, here are some quotes from Bird and Chervonnaya for you:
Most historians have conceded the argument to Weinstein...
The consensus historians — led by Weinstein — have largely succeeded in making Hiss’s guilt a piece of the conventional wisdom
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdell555 (talk • contribs)
Bdell555, I'm pulled in by curiosity here. Is your above "Hiss/HISS" comment a joke of some kind? Or are you trying to make some point? Are you saying that there's a distinction between "HISS" and "Hiss"? RedSpruce 14:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The Schindler piece argues that because of A, B, and C the evidence that ALES is Alger Hiss is "exceptionally solid". DCGeist says that Schindler is being "evasive" because he didn't discuss D and contends that Schindler's choice of title obligates him to discuss D. I am saying that nothing in the title means D must be a discussion of #1579 or that D even exists at all (i.e. that Schindler's title requires him to address anything at all beyond what he did address). In any case, even if D IS a discussion of #1579, 1) I have discussed it here and 2) if Schindler is correct and A, B, and C are sufficient for Schindler's conclusion to follow, D becomes logically irrelevant.Bdell555 15:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, okay. In other words, you're playing at sophistic arguments again. Thanks for the clarification; I can remove myself from the discussion now. RedSpruce 15:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
According to Webster's, "sophistic" means "plausible but fallacious". Just calling something fallacious does not make it so. If you think I am "playing" at abstractions, I can assure you that I can make it as concrete for you as you like. It is just a question of how much of that is necessary and how much oversimplication has to be done. Try this: Schindler made claims about ALES. He then claimed that no one fits ALES better than Alger Hiss. He then concluded that ALES is Alger Hiss. If it true that ALES is Alger Hiss that is SUFFICIENT to end the inquiry and Schindler is not being "evasive" for not going on at length about anything else in VENONA that does not have to do with ALES. Or try this: DCGeist thinks #1579 should be discussed. I discussed it. If my discussion was SUFFICIENT to show that #1579 does not exculpate Alger Hiss, that should be SUFFICIENT such that the question of whether Schindler discussed it or should have discussed it is irrelevant.Bdell555 16:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bird & Chervonnaya on ALES

The complete American Scholar article by Bird and Chervonnaya is available online here.—DCGeist 20:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the link in the footnote. The old link was to a NYT article that expired after 7 days anyway. RedSpruce 20:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I find it remarkable how you pick and choose from this article what you like, Redspruce. That article also states that "Most historians have conceded the argument to Weinstein..." and "The consensus historians — led by Weinstein — have largely succeeded in making Hiss’s guilt a piece of the conventional wisdom". Yet you revert all attempts to have this article indicate that there might be a consensus amongst historians AND, even more seriously, revert all attempts to dial down the constant attacks on Weinstein's scholarship in this article. This article reflects the view of a handful of Wiki editors that Weinstein's work is irrelevant or not respectable, and that is not the view of professional historians.Bdell555 23:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
This article should have a major added section that discusses Weinstein's "Perjury", IMO. I'll make that addition some time in the next few weeks, after I've finished the necessary research. Unlike you, I'm going to take the time to make sure my edits are correct and supportable, rather than just mindlessly re-inserting an edit that I can't defend or justify. RedSpruce 01:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
What edits "that I can't defend or justify" have I have been "mindlessly re-inserting"? You seem to forget that you are the one who has been walking away from calls to "defend or justify", not me. If you are not walking away, then respond to my reasons, given earlier, for why your claim that "in fact Weinstein and Vassiliev found little evidence regarding Hiss during their research" should not be in this article.Bdell555 23:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
My response to that was the second paragraph of this; your counter response was the third paragraph of this -- that "only" and "occasional" do not correspond to "little", and that something an author mentions in a footnote "is not the central thesis of his work". The first point is embarrassingly childish, and the second has nothing to do with anything -- of course it's not the central thesis of his work; the book wasn't about Hiss. RedSpruce 00:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I have never engaged in any "childish" nitpicking over the word "little". I asked why Weinstein's words could not stand on their own if it is so self-evident that they mean what you say they mean. In other words, if your argument is that the two sentences are identical (yours and his) then why the repetition? If "the book wasn't about Hiss" then why does a section on "Haunted Wood" exist at all? Why not go straight to the point and claim that "Haunted Wood" was nothing to do with Hiss instead of finding a footnote and then adding your interpretation of what the footnote means? And no, it is not irrelevant to note that you are trying to charactize an entire book from a single footnote as opposed to, for example, a featured claim in its introduction. This could be resolved easily enough if we were to ask Weinstein himself if he "found little evidence concerning Hiss". I don't suppose you are up for that? Meanwhile there is no counterbalancing statement anywhere in the article to the effect that most if not all historians believe that Weinstein has, in fact, found quite a lot of evidence concerning Hiss. Weinstein's "Prejudice" has been very influential, yet reading this article the reader would have to conclude that the Archivist of the United States is an academic fraud. Finally, you are also reverting the charges of French intelligence without any argument or explanation at all. It is fully sourced and you have not raised any objections about the reliability of the source. The charges of the Ottawa spy are also sourced. PBS Nova includes these accusations and yet you have produced no argument for why PBS Nova's practices are POV or otherwise unreliable.Bdell555 01:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of works that are "not about Hiss", I might also note that the B & C article says itself that it is not about whether Hiss was guilty of espionage. That and the dropping of Hiss' name from the article's title of course follows from the fact that no one can publish an article in the 21st century claiming Hiss was innocent and be taken seriously as an academic. Even then, this article is published in a magazine, not an academic journal.
We are not a magazine by or for scholars.
- Anne Fadiman, editor in chief, American ScholarBdell555 02:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
One might also note here that Chervonnaya's argument that ALES cannot be Hiss stands on his contention that Gorsky could not be wrong about whether Hiss remained in Mexico. Yet when Chervonnaya wants to discredit "Gorsky's List", which appears to implicate Hiss, he argues that Gorsky is not credible:
Gorsky thus might not have been aware of details of the group's composition.... he should have done a better job.
With his service's 'American line' archives at hand, Gorsky should have known better....
Most notable is Gorsky's ignorance of the fate of the long-time OGPU U.S. 'illegal,' Harry Rabinovich, who perished during the purges of 1938, and so could not possibly 'reside in the USSR' at the time that Gorsky was writing his report.
- http://homepages.nyu.edu/~th15/bundleanalysis.htmlBdell555 08:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Finally, Redspruce's "Weinstein and Vassiliev found little evidence regarding Hiss during their research" is not only unsourced, it is directly contradicted by Thomas Powers' claim that Hiss' "name or code name turns up in many documents quoted in The Haunted Wood" (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/118).Bdell555 22:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I've added two sentences to the Venona-Ales section, citing a London Observer article, with link, mentioning a coming book by Gerald Haines of the Library of Congress on Hiss. --Ajschorschiii 05:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Noting for the record that RedSpruce, in "fixing" the above reference on 17:19, 2 August 2007, deleted the subtitle from the David Smith article as it appeared in the Observer: "Top Cold War spy 'innocent': Historian says new evidence shows Alger Hiss did not give US secrets to Russia, but intelligence experts remain unconvinced," leaving only "Top Cold War spy 'innocent'." Keeping both title and subtitle would have kept better balance in the Wiki article, and provided readers with further information on the content of the Observer article.--Ajschorschiii 02:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh. puh-lease. RedSpruce 10:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oleg Gordievsky

Fraud - This page is a fraud pretending to be Encyclopedic, if a user tries to put stuff on that is not politically correct it will be scrubbed. If repeated then the administrators will be called in to protect this P.C. - - When I complained the evidence on the contributor he scrubbed. - - Can anyone tell me anything that would show that Oleg Gordievsky did not think *positively* that Hiss was a spy. Nothing *apparently* about it - -- 28 July 2007 210.49.180.74

A question has been asked (in a tone that was sufficiently hostile that another editor decided to delete the question as a troll post) "Can anyone tell me anything that would show that Oleg Gordievsky did not think *positively* that Hiss was a spy." The answer to that is in the footnote that the question-asker has attempted to remove several times. Most importantly, the entirety of the text in which Gordievsky mentions Hiss is in the footnote: The sole sentence in which Gordievsky relates personal information about Hiss is: "Akhmerov mentioned Hiss only briefly." That is all that is said about Hiss--that a Soviet intelligence officer briefly mentioned his name in a lecture. If there is a WP:reliable source that considers this mention sufficient to declare that Gordievsky positively identified Hiss as a Soviet agent, please quote that source. A second point of uncertainty is shown in the same quoted passage from KGB: The Inside Story: Gordievsky identifies Harry Hopkins as "the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States", and yet later describes Hopkins as "never a conscious Soviet agent." This indicates that even if Gordievsky had identified Hiss as an "agent," it wouldn't be clear what he meant by the word, since he obviously uses it to describe an important but unwitting source of information. RedSpruce 15:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

To make an observation that the anonymous editor apparently cannot make, since you've had him or her blocked from editing the article and Joegoodfriend is blocking him or her from making any comments on these Talk pages, Gordievsky claimed in KGB: The Inside Story of Its Foreign Operations from Lenin to Gorbachev that "a handful of the most important agents were run individually. Among them was Alger Hiss (code-named ALES).... Hiss's wartime controller was the leading NKVD illegal in the United States, Ishak Abdulovich Akhmerov." That's calling Hiss an "agent", and that's not calling him an "unconscious" agent or an "apparent" agent. Moreover, Allen Weinstein has observed that Gordievsky claimed he had heard of Hiss's involvement during World War II.19:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
As is noted in the NY Times review that's referenced in the article, much of the material in KGB: The Inside Story is based not upon Gordievsky's own experience, but on existing sources, such as the first edition of Perjury. As is noted in the article, his source for the identity of Hiss as ALES was journalist Thomas Powell, who had seen the Venona decrypts. The only point where Gordievsky draws on his own experience with regard to Hiss is the 5-word sentence noted above. And lastly, the fact that an agent has a "controller" does not at all rule out that the person is an "unconscious" agent. If you know of a source that disagrees with any of this, please cite it. I'm willing to be shown wrong. RedSpruce 20:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
At issue is whether Gordievsky called Hiss an "agent", rightly or wrongly, or whether his calling Hiss an "agent" was some sort of apparition such that he did not really call Hiss an agent. Gordievsky's reason could be that the Alpha Bits in his cereal bowl told him that Hiss was an agent and that wouldn't detract one iota from the fact Gordievsky called Hiss an agent. Even if we ignore that, a reason Gordievsky identified Hiss as a agent is that Gordievsky heard Akhmerov identify him as an agent. I haven't seen any claims that Gordievsky was hallucinating or lying with respect to Akhermov's mention of Hiss. Where did Gordievsky ever claim that Hiss was an unconscious agent, as opposed to simply an agent? The burden of proof is on you to supply a source for your additional claim. Finally, you obviously believe Weinstein (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/983) is lying given your claim about "the only point..."Bdell555 21:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
At issue is what new information Gordievsky contributed to the Hiss case. If he named Hiss as an agent based on the fact that he read Perjury and was convinced by it, that isn't significant or notable. I don't know what you mean about thinking Weinstein is a liar. The Weinstein letter to the editor that you cite makes it clear that the only point of significance about Hiss in Gordievsky's book is "his reminiscence of the Akhmerov lecture." That's the interpretation of Gordievsky that the current content of the article is based on. RedSpruce 00:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Go back and look at what the anonymous editor is complaining about: "Nothing *apparently* about it". Where you see the article stating that "Gordievsky read Perjury and was convinced by it", I, and every other honest reader out there, sees "Gordievsky reported attending a lecture before a KGB audience in which Iskhak Abdulovich Akhmerov identified Hiss, apparently...". And let me spell out for you what Weinstein said since you seem to be unable to find it: "One of those who identified Alger Hiss as a Soviet agent, claiming that HE HAD HEARD OF HISS'S INVOLVEMENT DURING WORLD WAR II, was Oleg Gordievsky". If Weinstein is telling the truth, your claim that the "only point" where Gordievsky received information about Hiss was from Akhemerov's lecture is necessarily false.Bdell555 01:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see what you mean. When Weinstein writes of Gordievsky "claiming that he had heard of Hiss's involvement during World War II", he's referring to the Akhmerov lecture. That's the only point at which Gordievsky is relating new information, which is why that's the only point that Weinstein says is "unchallenged." Perhaps you're making the same mistake that the original anon. editor (now Reargunner) makes. The article does not apply the word "apparently" to what Gordievsky thought. The article discusses the new evidence that Gordievsky presents, saying that he attended a lecture "in which Iskhak Abdulovich Akhmerov identified Hiss, apparently as one of the Soviet Union's U.S. agents..." RedSpruce 10:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
One more time, then: note the words "DURING WORLD WAR II". Akhemerov's lecture was well as after WWII, a fact you were of course diligent enough to establish before you concluded that you had firm ground to declare the lecture was "the only point", right? So Gordievsky must have received no information about Hiss during WWII, according to you, a claim that necessarily implies Weinstein is making a false one. And the plain English reading of the sentence is that "apparently" is an adverb modifying the verb "identified". However there was nothing "apparent" about Gordievsky's identification of Hiss as an agent. Gordievsky might have identified him WRONGLY, just as Whittaker Chambers and everyone else might have identified him wrongly (however unlikely that is), but that does not mean his identification was some sort of apparition.Bdell555 17:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't currently have the Gordievsky book, so I wasn't aware of the date of the Akhemerov lecture. By the same token, I don't know what Weinstein is referring to when he says Gordievsky "claim[ed] that he had heard of Hiss's involvement during World War II". Does "during World War II" refer to when Gordievsky "heard of Hiss", or the time period of "Hiss's involvement"? If it's the latter, then it could be that he was referring to the Akhemerov lecture. Since the only "hearing of" that Weinstein goes on to describe is the lecture, that seems a likely interpretation. I have the book on order, so I'll be able to clarify this point when I receive it.
All of that notwithstanding, what's at issue here is not Gordievsky's opinion, but what new evidence he contributes to the case. According to Weinstein's letter, the only point at which Gordievsky clearly describes himself witnessing something is with regard to the Akhemerov lecture, and that's what the article deals with.
You're quite correct that "apparently" is an adverb modifying the verb "identified". And "identified" is a verb that immediately follows its subject, the proper noun "Iskhak Abdulovich Akhmerov". RedSpruce 17:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Now why would you need to order Gordievsky's book, when your claims indicate that you must already know what is in it? After all, you declared without qualification that a five word footnote is "ALL that is said about Hiss". Furthermore, you didn't have to have Gordievsky's book to learn that Akhmerov's lecture was in the 60s (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200101/ai_n8935656/pg_3), and even when you do receive the book, you won't be able to "clarify" anything, since it is entirely possible that the Gordievsky claim Weinstein is referring to is from another source. And, no, that is not the issue, the issue is whether the word "apparently" belongs in this article. The current question is when you are going to go through the article and add "apparently" with respect to every other person (and there are many) who identifies Hiss as a Soviet agent. If you want to address the issue of "what new evidence he contributes to the case" you could cut out that whole bit about Gordievsky's mention of ALES, since it doesn't contribute anything for or against.Bdell555 21:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I owned a copy of the Gordievsky book, but resold it on Amazon when I saw that it contributed little to the Hiss case, and at the time, the discussion of it here was settled to everyone's satisfaction. The issue at hand is what new evidence Gordievsky can contribute to the Hiss case. Apart from that, he's just another person with an opinion. Since the misunderstanding of his reference to the ALES codename has become rather widespread, making it into the revised edition of Perjury, I believe a discussion of that issue is warranted in the article.
You persist in arguing that there is some problem with the word "apparently". Since the word applies solely to the 5-word sentence describing Akhmerov's mention of Hiss ("Akhmerov mentioned Hiss only briefly."), I don't see where the problem is. If anything, it is being too generous to believers in Hiss's guilt to describe this sentence as "identifying Hiss, apparently as one of the Soviet Union's U.S. agents." Perhaps the article should be changed to read simply "Gordievsky attended a lecture before a KGB audience in which Iskhak Abdulovich Akhmerov mentioned Hiss's name." That would be more factual, but I think some editors would object to such a change as a whitewash of evidence against Hiss. RedSpruce 00:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
If you can't accurately recall what the book said, perhaps you should decline from declaring what the book said. "[A] handful of the most important agents were run individually. Among them was Alger Hiss (code-named ALES).... Hiss's wartime controller was the leading NKVD illegal in the United States, Ishak Abdulovich Akhmerov" is in the book and, contrary to your claims, that that is not a 5 word footnote. You continue to argue for inserting "mistakenly" or a word like that when the issue is whether the word "apparently" should remain. The identification may be mistaken (after all, it could be that Hiss was not a Soviet agent, just as I might be a Chinese jet pilot) but it that does not make the fact Gordievsky identified Hiss as an agent any less a fact. I might also add that it does nothing to advance the case one way or another to claim KGB sources have nothing on Hiss if Hiss worked for GRU. In any case, here is a suggested alternative: "Oleg Gordievsky, a key Soviet intelligence official who defected in Great Britain during the 1980s, claimed that he had heard of Hiss's involvement during World War II. In a 1990 book on the KGB — written with the British academic Christopher Andrew — Gordievsky described an early 1960s lecture to a KGB audience by Akhmerov, who mentioned Hiss among Soviet agents in the United States."Bdell555 06:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, with respect to the "widespread" "misunderstanding" you feel needs to be corrected, it is misleading enough as it is to have an article spend a sentence saying, for example, that Tanenhaus concludes Chambers was telling the truth in his biography or that Weinstein's work indicates Hiss was a spy and then spend a paragraph that "rebuts" 5 out of the 500 points the author made in support of that conclusion. It gives undue weight to the "rebuttal" and gives the impression that the other 495 points don't demonstrate anything (the enormous amount of coverage the detractors of Weinstein and others get in this article is, in fact, why some sort of corrective in the introduction so important). But here you are saying that not only should claims in this article be rebutted, but claims that are NOT in the article should be rebutted as well, just to clear up any "misunderstandings" out there! I don't think Wiki users would agree that that should be a general principle, given the need to have articles of a limited size. The proper solution is to keep any "misunderstandings" from going into the article in the first place, not to title a section "Oleg Gordievsky" and then rebut claims Gordievsky never made in the first place (e.g. that he had independent corroboration of ALES).Bdell555 08:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You're correct that Gordievsky never claimed to be corroborating the ALES codename. Neither did he ever claim to have any personal knowledge of "Hiss's wartime controller was the leading NKVD illegal in the United States, Ishak Abdulovich Akhmerov..." etc. Unfortunately, because of the way his book was written, it's unclear at times whether the text is based on his experience and knowledge or on outside sources. Hence the mistake that Weinstein made around ALES being corroborated. The only point where Gordievsky clearly claimed to have personal knowledge about Hiss was in his description of Akhmerov's lecture. His significance to this article is as a witness. The only passage where he describes himself witnessing anything relating to Hiss is the 5-word sentence. RedSpruce 10:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we perchance now have a rough agreement on the issues now? Can we move on to how to best word the passage so that it isn't misunderstood? As I suggested elsewhere, perhaps the following is sufficiently clear:

"In his 1990 book, Gordievsky reported attending a lecture before a KGB audience in which Iskhak Abdulovich Akhmerov identified Hiss, apparently as one of the Soviet Union's U.S. agents."

Leaving off "during World War II" makes it simpler, RedSpruce 20:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit War over the third sentence

For more than four months the BDell555 has engaged in an edit war with other contributors over the third sentence of this article, "Evidence revealed after Hiss's conviction has added a variety of information to the case, and the question of his guilt or innocence remains controversial."

Wikipedia articles are written by a consensus of the editors. By my count, Bdell555 has continued to reserve the right to edit this sentence at will despite the fact that no fewer than six editors (myself, KarlBunker, Redspruce, DCGeist, JohnZ and Cberlet) have come out against the change Bd wants to make, while not one editor has come out for it. Therefore, it becomes clear that Bdell555 will never respect the editing rules here.

Am I wrong? Joegoodfriend 19:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are wrong. My most recent edit was to maintain a version supported by Jtpaladin. I might also note that Cberlet, who has made something of a Wiki career out of editing in favour of leftist causes, does not support your sentence either since Cberlet changed it. DCGeist then reverted Cberlet, which is quite the "team" play! Finally, I don't believe you can say Karlbunker and JohnZ support your preferred sentence unless they say so themselves. I have done everything possible to avoid an edit war. Redspruce has declined my offer to seek mediation or arbitration and has furthermore said he is not interested in defending his positions on the Talk pages. This while remaining very interested in reverting myself and others. As for you, I am still waiting for your explanation of why the Global Warming article can get away with "A few individual scientists disagree" without citing the "scientific survey" you demand. In any case, none of this changes the fact that the vast majority of scholars believe Hiss engaged in espionage.Bdell555 20:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Before i posted this discussion, I asked myself, am I ready for Bdell555's next move, which will be to pretend that the consensus of the editors is not against him, thus requiring me to itemized all the objections?
The issue is, is the article improved by changing the sentence to either of the two versions you have championed, one which shifts it against Hiss, saying "New evidence has added a variety of information supporting Hiss' guilt" or one which states that "most" scholars have concluded Hiss guilty.
One the former, you were specifically criticized by DCGeist and Cberlet.
One the latter, a version of which you are trying to introduce now, KarlBunker came out against it, saying, "it essentially declares one side of a debate to be the "winner," and.... It's best for Wikipedia to avoid "declaring a winner" like this unless there's a very clear consensus among scholars."
John Z has also specifically criticized you on this change, saying that your version doesn't addresses the concerns of other editors.
So, since I don't think we need to debate RedSpruce's position, we still come up with the same score:
Number of editors who have commented here favoring changing the sentence to either state that new evidence supports Hiss' guilt and/or that most scholars believe him guilty: SIX.
Number of editors who have commented endorsing the change: JUST YOU.
Please stop violating consensus. Joegoodfriend 20:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1) Cberlet does not support your preferred reading either so neither of us should be counting him. 2) Jtpaladin commented on my Talk page supporting the change. 3) I believe KarlBunker supports the change as well given that there IS "a very clear consensus among scholars", additional evidence of which has been shown since KarlBunker's comment of some time ago. 4) Even if there is the "consensus" you say there is, the consensus would be in violation of Wiki policies and more to the point, is demonstrably wrong. 5) Why not put some of your energy here into substantive discussion that advances a resolution? Are you going just going to continue to ignore my observation about the Global Warming article, for example?Bdell555 21:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
1)You're totally wrong regarding Cberlet, on 3/22 he reverted the altered text to the consensus text, see this:[11]. 2)What Jtpaladin said was, "thanks for making a better edit." That could mean anything, especially by your hyper-technical definitions about who supports what. 3)So Karlbunker supports the change? That is a hilarious suggestion, considering that the next comment following the comment in question was YOU attacking him for not agreeing with you,[12] and the fact that in his subsequent comments on the matter he said,[13], "If you know of some source that gives an indication of the number of Hiss scholars who stand on each side of this issue, I would love to hear of it. If not, you're just telling us your personal opinion about the evidence, which isn't useful for a Wikipedia article." 4)How can a consensus be in violation of wiki policies? (and I thought it was now your contention that there is no consensus against the change) and 5)What is this global warming nonsense? We already have a resolution. The community has made it clear that it does not support the change. Joegoodfriend 23:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Cberlet has obviously changed his mind since that edit you refer to, since his most recent edit was to something else. I find it interesting, however, that by pointing out that edit, you demonstrate that the anonymous editor 66.71.90.175 would prefer the edit Jtpaladin and I support over your preferred wording. If Cberlet can change his mind, KarlBunker can as well. Why don't you go and ask him to read everything posted here on the discussion page since he made that remark and then he can speak up if he continues to be opposed to my edit (or Jtpaladin's edit or 66.71.90.175's edit if you prefer)? In the mean time you are not in a position to speak for him. Whether there are 2 or 20 "Hiss scholars" on one side or another is irrelevant if valid sources indicate that a "vast majority" are all on one side. A consensus can be in violation of Wiki policies if the consensus, for whatever reason, chooses to ignore the policies, that's how. re "this global warming nonsense", the question remains why you have no problem with the "A few individual scientists disagree" clause in that article when that clause is not cited the way you insist it should be cited. Or have you given up your demand for a "scientific survey"?Bdell555 02:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
You strategy is becoming clearer.
First you pretend that the editing community hasn’t come out against the change you want to make by making the argument that editors who have specifically come out against the change now support it simply because they have stopped reverting you as you continue to submit the same edit to the sentence. That is some torturous logic indeed.
Second, you continue to raise old, not to mention off-topic arguments as if we have not debated them ad nauseam, “Whether there are 2 or 20 “Hiss scholars” etc.
Third, having answered one “challenge” from you regarding the consistency of my opinions regarding this article as compared to other articles, [14] I’m an now supposed to answer another off-topic “challenge” re global warming.
Lastly, you make it clear on your talk page that you intend to continue introducing the same change, as you have for months now, despite the editing community being clearly against it, in the hope that circumstances will change and some new editors will appear who support you: “it will probably just go to an edit war. I think fair-minded people will support our edit so we just need to get more people involved.”[15]
I submit that you are not acting in good faith at all. Because the editing community has not agreed with you, the rules here clearly indicate that you need to stop submitting the same changes to the sentence in question. You instead are clearly going to ignore this in the hope that the consensus against you will simply exhaust itself and circumstances will change in your favor. Joegoodfriend 04:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
No, you have never answered my challenge to find a place in Wikipedia that meets the standard you demand, which, in your words, is to cite "a statistically significant survey of experts", an example being, “in a 2007 survey of 100 scholars who expressed an opinion ..., 70 stated ... while only 30 thought ..." I've pointed out to you the Global Warming article as a test to see if you believe in this standard of yours genuinely enough to revert those situations where it is violated. I said that I think "it will probably just go to an edit war" because "I think they've more or less given up contesting the issue". Indeed, all of the people you cite as part of your "consensus" have either A) simply disappeared from the Talk pages, B) declared that they are not interested in further discussion or mediation/arbitration, C) simply remained silent re select pieces of evidence I've presented, which, if accepted, would settle the matter, or D) all of the above.Bdell555 05:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
May I suggest a compromise on the first paragraph of the article? I suggest something like this for the final sentences of the intro: "The Hiss case, like that of Sacco and Vanzetti, persists as an iconic point of debate in American culture and politics. Evidence revealed after Hiss's conviction has added a variety of information to the case, and the question of his guilt or innocence remains controversial. Following further research by Allen Weinstein in 1970s and by the Venona project in the 1990s, fewer scholars today contend that Hiss did not engage in espionage.[1][2][3] This point is vigorously disputed by Hiss's supporters.(add more footnotes from the Nation, etc.)" My reasoning: 1. There are 12,400 instances in Google for Sacco AND Vanzetti AND Hiss. With so many writing about both cases, is there any reason to argue that these cases are not connected as cultural icons? 2. The continuing controversy is undeniable. 3. The declining number of scholarly supporters of Hiss is also deniable, but verifiable. 4. True also that Hiss's supporters vigorously dispute this. I therefore propose that the introduction recognize that there is a debate, give the sides of the debate each a sentence with initial footnotes, which also will describe the general lines of the debate for the reader. How about it?--Ajschorschiii 23:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
"The declining number of scholarly supporters of Hiss is also deniable, but verifiable." Ok, I'll bite. How is it verifiable? We've been arguing this exact point for four months. Joegoodfriend 23:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I also don't think that inserting a mention of Sacco and Vanzetti (or the Rozenbergs) is a valid addition to the introduction of the article. Doing so suggests that the two (or three) cases are so inextricably connected that you can't describe one even briefly without mentioning the other(s). And indeed they are inextricably connected, in the opinions of some authors -- but not all authors. I can see this being a valid part of a subsection within the article that discusses of the place of the Hiss case in history, a la books like Alger Hiss, Whittaker Chambers, and the Schism in the American Soul. In such a section, statements of opinion and analysis, like "The Hiss case... persists as an iconic point of debate..." should be presented as direct quotes from a notable scholar, as in "Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. has described the Hiss case as yadda yadda."[with a citation] If such opinions & analysis are presented without being direct quotes, WP is full of editors who will pounce upon such writing as "original research" and "[citation needed]".
RedSpruce 00:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll try to answer Joegoodfriend's question. I. The 2007 John Ehrman CIA article on the Hiss case makes that point that "since Perjury appeared, no significant work has repeated the claim of a frame-up or argued that Hiss was innocent." But how could we prove this one way or another? One way is to go to a professional bibliographic researcher at a university library, who can use computer citation software to search references in the literature. Depending on the time and resources available, statistics on what was published when on Hiss, and in what contexts (peer reviewed journals, books, popular articles, newspapers) can emerge. You can go fairly deep into these numbers, as long as you have the money to refine your analysis and extend your search, and the time and motivation to do it. Any one of us could visit a university library, and see 1) if anyone has done something like this already and 2) whether the library was inclined to help in this analysis. After the numbers are generated, one could see whether the John Ehrman point above is backed up by the numbers. You can still argue about the numbers, how they were generated, etc., but you'd have something quantitative to go on. II. We can also note there is a logical phenomenon going on here. A universal statement like "All are this," or "None are this," can easily be refuted with one counterexample saying the contrary, "But one is not this," or "One is indeed this." But since the discussion around this article is phrased around statements like "More say this," versus "More say that," we cannot reach resolution without evidence. The only problem with this is that evidence costs time and money to get. (I'm on vacation this week, but normally, I wouldn't participate in such a debate due to time constraints.) When you add to this the fact that people feel strongly about this issue (and I can't but help guess that some of the participating editors aren't themselves personally related to principals in the Hiss drama, which is a weakness of Wiki: not all of us reveal our actual names), we have two choices: We have an eternal edit war, or we compromise. III. So, since there is pretty obviously an edit war going on, and I don't have the time to fight it (I want to write something else on my vacation), and none of us probably has the resources to pull 21st century bibliographic statistics into the mix, my suggestion stands: We add four sentences to the introduction: One to situate the debate as iconic in our cultural and political life (the Ehrman article can be cited for this, with no reference to S&V), Two to state that the controversy continues, Three to state that evidence mounted against Hiss after 1989 (with references), Four to state that Hiss's supporters continue to dispute this evidence (with references). These are all reasonable statements. If no editor gives ground, then readers will get a different article on Hiss depending on what time of the day they log in, and whether one editor or another has left his or her computer long enough to wash their face. Do we want an article that stands the test of time, or do we want futility? What do you think? --Ajschorschiii 01:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
First, you deserve kudos for trying to mediate this mess. Second, two things occur to me regarding the proposed solution. One, the idea of starting our own survey quickly runs into a wall because of wiki prohibition against original research by the editors. Two, the phrase "Three to state that evidence mounted against Hiss after 1989." Again, we've been arguing this precise point all along. The devil's in the details: how exactly would the text read? Joegoodfriend 02:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
re
The 2007 John Ehrman CIA article on the Hiss case makes that point that "since Perjury appeared, no significant work has repeated the claim of a frame-up or argued that Hiss was innocent." But how could we prove this one way or another?
Assuming that there is no non-empirical (i.e. logical consistency) argument that shows Ehrman's claim to be necessarily false, the claim is simply stated, Ehrman is cited, and that's the end of it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability. If the expert's work alone wasn't enough to get it "over the hump" of acceptability, it is quite arbitrary to say that the little added by one of us amateurs repeating the expert's empirical research would put it over the top. If there is another source out there that disputes Ehrman's claim, it could be quoted as well, in order to indicate that the claim is disputed. There are no citable sources that dispute Ehrman's claim, however, so Redspruce and Joegoodfriend's argument is to claim that the sources they don't like, which would presumably include this one, are not "reliable". If they were ever forced to spell out a universalizable rationale for what it is "unreliable", however, they would have to concede that their standard for reliability is so exacting that if universalized, almost everything everyone (including themselves) have ever added to Wikipedia should be reverted. And, that, of course, is the bottom line reason for the continued refusal to critically examine their standards for reliability.Bdell555 06:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that original bibliographic research by the editors is not the solution, but I would guess that there is some bibliographer out there who may already have done some of the work, and that evidence would be allowable in WP. But let's say that's a long shot presently. In the mean time, here's how we might compromise, by using a third person, 'he said, they said' approach, beginning with the third sentence: "For almost sixty years, the case of Alger Hiss has 'continued to fascinate and stir controversy,' (footnote to Ehrman CIA report) in numerous books, articles, movies, and television programs.(footnotes) Evidence revealed after Hiss's conviction has added a variety of information to the case, and the question of his guilt or innocence remains controversial.[1] After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the opening of Cold War records, both a US government commission(footnote) and the CIA (footnote) have stated in public reports that Alger Hiss was indeed a spy, and claim that a declining number of scholars support his innocence. Supporters of Hiss continue to dispute these claims (footnote)." You don't have to agree with any or all of these sentences individually, but if we stick to describing one position, then answering with another, we can keep a factual tone. It's when one side or another insists on total victory that we don't get anywhere. I think we do need to give the reader (remember, we're talking about the folks who write term papers here are among the audience) a sense of the importance of this case culturally and politically in the introduction, and to outline the basic battle lines of the controversy to better frame the entire article. What do you think?--Ajschorschiii 04:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
If all the caveats that you note are kept in mind, I am fully on board with your approach, AJ. However, I would be very surprised if Redspruce or Joegoodfriend would tolerate
After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the opening of Cold War records, both a US government commission(footnote) and the CIA (footnote) have stated in public reports that Alger Hiss was indeed a spy, and claim that a declining number of scholars support his innocence. Supporters of Hiss continue to dispute these claims (footnote).
and the reason is because I could provide a boatload of support for the "declining number of scholars" or a "few scholars" line while they won't be able to come up with a single footnote for the contra statement (i.e. the number of scholars who "support his innocence" is rising or anywhere near a majority). As Herb Romerstein has noted, "they [Hiss's defenders] don't have any scholars. They have propagandists like Victor Navasky ... and anybody you actually identify as a spy, and the documents show that they are spies — these people claim that no, they're innocent, and there was a lot of spying going on, but nobody was doing it." I might add that even Navasky speaks of a "consensus" of historians, and that Navasky's latest cause célèbre, Moscow-based Chervonnaya, not only also admits that "Most historians have conceded the argument to Weinstein", but demurs from claiming that Hiss is innocent ("We do not propose to address the larger question of whether Hiss was guilty or innocent"), and even then only gets his article published in a magazine which, according to its editor in chief, is "not a magazine by or for scholars." Perhaps this is because a journal by and for scholars might, among other things, ask how Chervonnaya can consistently claim Hiss is not ALES because Gorsky wrongly has him in Mexico city while elsewhere stating that "Most notable is Gorsky's ignorance of ... Harry Rabinovich, who perished during the purges of 1938, and so could not possibly 'reside in the USSR' at the time that Gorsky was writing his report".Bdell555 07:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Brian, the compromise text you suggest above is not too bad. Seriously, I’m not kidding. I can’t deny that it’s accurate. I’ve always admired Senator Moynihan, and I was disappointed when he endorsed the report in question.
I also don’t deny that after the Cold War, many historians rushed to announce that new revelations had proved Hiss guilty. It’s just that they never gave us anything except, “Well, Hiss is a good fit for Ales, so there you go.” If you read ‘’Venona Secrets” by Romerstein and Breindel, or ‘’Looking-Glass Wars” by White or “Reds” by Morgan you’ll find that this is all they present in terms of evidence. By contrast, historians and archivists such as Kisseloff, Volkogonov, and Bird and Chervonnaya,have thoroughly demonstrated that the evidence uncovered since 1989 doesn’t condemn Hiss, it exonerates him.
It doesn’t surprise me that an historian as useless as Romerstein would claim that the Hiss side has no scholars. This from the same man whose book, ‘’Venona Secrets,” states on p.140 that the reason there is no record or Hiss in NKVD/KGB files is because Hiss was a member of GRU and not of NKVD, then he states flatly on p.512 that Hiss was an NKVD agent! Joegoodfriend 04:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest fourth sentence

I suggest a fourth introductory sentence: "The Case of Alger Hiss, like that of Sacco and Vanzetti and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, persists as an iconic point of debate between US cultural and political factions, even as new historic evidence has come to light." Such a sentence can properly put the intense debate on the Hiss case in a wider context.Ajschorschiii 02:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There is probably some way to integrate your suggested contribution into the article, since there are definite parallels, but, again, there is really no debate within the academic community any more. For example, with respect to the Rosenbergs, Britannica notes that
In the years after the Rosenbergs' executions, there was significant debate about their guilt. The two were frequently regarded as victims of cynical and vindictive officials of the FBI. Highly sympathetic portraits of the Rosenbergs were offered in major novels... [but] The controversy over their guilt was largely resolved in the early 1990s after the fall of communism in the Soviet Union and the release of Soviet intelligence information that confirmed the Rosenbergs' involvement in espionage.
Bdell555 05:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, without a source, drawing such a parallel is WP:Original research. And even with a single source, there wouldn't be any support for the notion that drawing such a parallel is a widely held opinion among scholars, making it worthy of mentioning in the opening paragraph. RedSpruce 10:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
From the above discussion, the sentence--"The Case of Alger Hiss, like that of Sacco and Vanzetti, persists as an iconic point of debate between US cultural and political factions, even as new historic evidence has come to light"--would therefore be acceptable if I provided several dozen references to support it? Perhaps a published analysis by trained bibliographers using the latest techniques of source quantification would also support the inclusion of this sentence. "Widely held opinion among scholars"--Please define how this standard is operationalized. RedSpruce's statement, "Even with a single source, there wouldn't be any support. . . " is self-contradictory: With a single source, there would be some support.Ajschorschiii 13:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the rule of thumb is that material that's included in an article intro should be pretty much inarguable. This means preferably sticking to statements of fact, with opinions and analysis of the facts included only if a clear majority of scholars in the field agree on that opinion or analysis. What constitutes "clear" depends on individual editors; hence the endless debate here about how "clear" it is that most scholars believe in Hiss's guilt. And BTW, the sentence isn't self-contradictory; a single source for a view doesn't demonstrate that the view is widely held. RedSpruce 14:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, yes, if "several dozen references to support" are provided your edit should stand. Redspruce's "pretty much inarguable" excludes that because, of course, his standard excludes EVERYTHING. If it didn't, he'd identify another Wiki article that met his standard, which he and Joegoodfriend can't. I've pointed to other articles like Global Warming and asked if the sourcing used there for conclusions about majority or consensus is adequate and these gentlemen apparently have "no comment". I have pointed out David Oshinsky's "vast majority" statement and Redspruce doubts if he really said it. Never mind the fact that Oshinsky's other remarks, which would include his praise for Tanenhaus' biography of Chambers, indicate that he clearly thinks the issue is settled, or that there is also a Wikipedia policy that applies in this situation which Redspruce continues to ignore at his convenience. The only people who won't concede a "consensus" are, in fact, a couple of my fellow amateurs here on Wikipedia. If there is actually a professional historian out there who agrees with them, you'd think they could find him or her. Redspruce's "single source" remarks are quite astounding, since at almost the very same time he writes that, he edits the introduction of this article to revert a MULTIPLY sourced claim suggesting the evidence is settled in favour of a SINGLE sourced claim suggesting the evidence is not settled, as if "not A" is any less a claim requiring proof than "A". It is "pretty much inarguable" that the evidence is "controversial", because ONE SOURCE, Navasky, says so! Never mind that this same Navasky speaks of a "consensus" of historians which disagree with him! Furthermore, since there is no consensus, according to Redspruce, you would think that would undermine Navasky's credibility as a source. But good for you, Ajschorschiii, for getting RedSpruce to put a token effort into defending his position, since he is unwilling to do so in response to me or before any arbitration body.Bdell555 18:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, my question still stands about operationalizing the terms "widely held opinion" and "most scholars." RedSpruce has not answered it. RedSpruce should state who qualifies as a scholar, and how we count them. Bibliographers among others have methods for doing this. Does RedSpruce use a generally established quantitative method for counting scholars? Also, RedSpruce changed the final sentence of his/her statement of 14:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC) to suit another more acceptable meaning. RedSpruce's original statement of 10:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC) including the words "single source" and "wouldn't be any" stands as contradictory on its face. Finally, if we were to hold to RedSpruce's standard of including in an intro only those items which are "inarguable," based upon the arguments in the Discussion page above, the third sentence of the introduction would have to go, wouldn't it? Ajschorschiii 15:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, RedSpruce changed the final sentence of his/her statement of 14:46, 30 July 2007... No, you misread it the first time. I changed the wording to make my meaning more clear. The rest of your queries I'll leave to someone else for now. RedSpruce 16:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
RedSpruce has not answered the question on operationalizing "widely held opinion" and "most scholars," and claims that I misread his logical error, while still taking the trouble to correct it, using a version of the "We ain't no delinquents, we're misunderstood" argument. RedSpruce won't explain the logic behind the rules, but is quite willing to apply them. So I agree that there is not much point in my continuing this thread of conversation either, with editorial illogic ruling supreme. Therefore I repeat my questions. Perhaps someone else can offer us an insight on 1) how to determine who qualified scholars are, 2) how to quantify (using numbers) their consensus without making things up, and 3) if all statements in an introduction should be "inarguable," then why isn't this rule being applied in the article?Ajschorschiii 18:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
If you can leave a defence of your reversion practices "to someone else else for now", common courtesy suggests that you can also leave the reverting to someone else for now, Redspruce. The questions that you are refusing to answer here go directly to whether or not a rational alternative to an edit war can be found. It could then be demonstrated that either A) sourcing that meets your criteria can be found or B) your criteria cannot be universalized (i.e. you can only apply them hypocritically), in which case your criteria must be rejected and other criteria, which are supported by editors from all backgrounds, adopted.Bdell555 19:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
how to quantify (using numbers) their consensus without making things up: Easy. Survey them. I can point out how this has been used to support controversial text in other wikipedia articles. Reaching a conclusion as to what "most" scholars believe by any other means is just subjective opinion. Joegoodfriend 00:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
OK then, go ahead and point to those surveys of scholars! The Global Warming article uses another means, by simply citing a single source which says "Few credible scientists now doubt..." Why don't you get over there and revert that "subjective opinion"?Bdell555 05:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
The article on global warming includes the text, “A few individual scientists disagree with some of the main conclusions of the IPCC.”
Please remember, the guidelines indicate that using citations to support the text of articles isn’t required until the text in question has been specifically disputed.
However, should this text come into dispute, then, yes, as I agree with the text I would cite it with a scientifically conducted survey of experts which factually demonstrates that the scientists disagreeing with the conclusion are, in fact, few in number compared to those agreeing. As many such surveys are available, no problem. Joegoodfriend 04:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fraud

This page is a fraud pretending to be Encyclopedic, if a user tries to put stuff on that is not politically correct it will be scrubbed. If repeated then the administrators will be called in to protect this P.C.

When I complained the evidence on the contributor he scrubbed.

Can anyone tell me anything that would show that Oleg Gordievsky did not think *positively* that Hiss was a spy. Nothing *apparently* about it Reargunner 06:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

This is being discussed above in the section "Oleg Gordievsk". RedSpruce 10:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has been discussed. Nothing added. Nor can I contribute as I and everyone else is locked out. This is a major misuse of the Wikipedia authority. 210.49.180.74 13:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about this issue above in the section "Oleg Gordievsk". You can contribute to that discussion, if you wish. At the moment the article itself is "semi-protected", meaning that users who don't have a user name or who have a newly-created user name (like you) can't edit the article. But you can discuss it on this page. RedSpruce 14:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
In Joegoodfriend's opinion, no, you can't contribute to the discussion, since you are just a "troll". Better get Joegoodfriend's permission first, since experience shows that Joegoodfriend will simply continue to delete the work of others until he decides to change his mind. And, yes, it is indeed quite notable that Redspruce is unwilling to involve adminstrators in mediation between users on an equal footing but wastes no time in running to them to deny other users equal editing power.Bdell555 20:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I thought the topic under discussion was Oleg Gordievsky... Joegoodfriend 23:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
We can have a discussion once everyone agrees that everyone has the right to say something. Are you OK with that or not?Bdell555 05:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
So the topic is not Oleg Gordievsky. Just checking. Joegoodfriend

[edit] 3RR

Ok, it looks like I miscalcuated and reverted that "controversial" claim in the intro (cited to Navasky) 4 times within 24 hours (although not within 23 hours). I apologize. I hereby impose an extended moratorium on myself so no one need freak out about this.Bdell555 07:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chambers living in the Hiss's home

From the article text:

...and had allowed him to live in his home when "Crosley" was destitute in the mid-1930s. Since Chambers had married in 1931 and would have been unlikely to take up housing without his wife this explanation was not reassuring to his interlocutors."

Unless there's a gap in my knowledge, this is completely incorrect. Hiss sublet his home to the Chambers family. Husband, wife, and two children. The Hisses were not living there at the time. Also, I think "interlocutors" (a person who takes part in a dialogue or conversation) isn't really the right word. Does anyone have a citation to show I'm wrong? Meanwhile I'll fix the article to mention the subletting and remove the apparent OR about how this was "unlikely". RedSpruce 10:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If he didn't invite him into his home, singular, to live with him, then it ceases to be strange and there's no problem with pulling my addition. It would have served its purpose. TMLutas 14:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

On another note, we have a picture of Chambers testifying with Hiss fairly close in the audience. We have text saying that Hiss needed a personal confrontation to identify him, as if he hadn't just recently seen him at Chambers' own testimony. This is at least strange but we pass on talking about it. Should we? TMLutas 14:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

They both testified several times, including after they had met face to face. Maybe that should be made clearer in the article. RedSpruce 17:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
So is the picture in the article from testimony prior to their "official" meeting or after? TMLutas 18:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ukraine/(White Russia/Byelorussia/Belarus) entry into the UN

For the record, the official UN list of member states with their entry dates can be found here. If we're going to be citing such basic facts, this article (and virtually every other complex article in Wikipedia) is going to have huge numbers of citations. Contrary to RedSpruce's edits, nobody argues that Ukraine/Belarus entered the UN in 1945, they just did. The argument, the speculation is whether Hiss' opposition to 16 extra votes for the USSR is a set up for eventual acquiescence to the 3 vote "compromise" or was it really a sign that Hiss wasn't working for the USSR. If one side's speculation is fair, so is the other and should be represented honestly with the best arguments for both sides (but brief). If one side's arguments are going to be consistently defaced and tagged then it's time to take both sides out and stick to the facts. Any comments? TMLutas 00:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I would think we could solve this one by finding proper citations for both views. Can anyone provide any insight on the origins of the two viewpoints? Joegoodfriend 01:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't asking for citations about whether or how Ukraine/Belarus entered the UN, but about Hiss's role in the number of votes given to the Soviet Union. Apparently some people say that Hiss influenced events in a way that was unfavorable to the Soviets, and apparently others say that he didn't, or that he did quite the opposite. I agree that both views should have citations, and I agree with taking the whole issue out of the article until we have references documenting it. Asking for citations isn't "defacing" an article, though I know sometimes it feels that way. In a contentious article like this one, a huge number of citations is common, and a good thing for the article. RedSpruce 11:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
To make things clear, I also do not think that putting a cite needed tag is defacing. It's a fair demand. But what happened was editing my addition to the point where it became not some other idea but just plain incomprehensible. Taking an intelligible sentence and turning it into gobledygook is defacing IMO. TMLutas 18:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible consensus/End of the first paragraph edit war

I see that the first paragraph has managed to make it a day and a half without an edit. Are we actually at or near consensus? Currently, that last two sentences read:

Evidence revealed after Hiss's conviction has added a variety of information to the case, and the question of his guilt or innocence remains controversial. Some reliable sources have suggested that those who still believe in Hiss's innocence are in the minority of scholarly opinion.

Are the editors satisfied with this compromise? Would it be more acceptable if “reliable sources” was changed to “expert opinion”? Brian, would you care to add the Britannica cite to the above, as well as the points you made regarding the US government and/or CIA findings on Hiss’s guilt? Is this acceptable to the editors as well? A five-month edit war, maybe we can this thing. Joegoodfriend 03:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the current form, and prefer “reliable sources” to “expert opinion.” I never cared much for the Britannica cite. For one thing, it's more of a cite for "His was probably guilty," rather than "most scholars think Hiss was guilty" (though that's true of one of the cites I added too).
I think it would be more accurate if we changed "Some reliable sources have suggested" to "Some reliable sources have stated". Any comments on that?
Anyway, it's interesting how it's a lot easier to agree with Bdell555 when he's not around to argue his case. RedSpruce 10:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, someone just jumped in and changed it without joining the discussion. Maybe we won't get a compromise and the war will continue. That's life. Joegoodfriend 16:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
A second editor has done this same. No response to the attempted compromise, nothing added to the discussion. No acknowledement that there is a difference between fact and the subjective opinion of a few sources. It's their way or the highway I guess. Edit war on. Joegoodfriend 17:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I think I am roadkill here. I just fixed the references format which is broken, and my edit was reverted as if it was about your discussion. Leandro GFC Dutra 18:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

No, there's not a consensus because there are two issues here that too many on both sides of the Hiss debate are conflating. The first is what is the opinion of scholars. I'm going to mostly leave that to the heavy ideological shock troops. The second is a general recognition that for most, this issue is long dead and buried and that Hiss was guilty. The cite, Flowers for Alger Hiss talks about:

1. just about everyone 2. Pro-Hiss liberals 3. the NSA 4. Hiss true believers 5. The front pages (and thus the editors who decide what goes on there) of the New York Times, Washington Post, and Boston Globe 6. Lance Morrow and Time Magazine's conventional wisdom regular column

Would anyone care to tell me which one of these identifiable individuals and groups of people qualify as scholars? And if anybody thinks these are scholars, could you also give some sort of newspeak definition of the word that could possibly make them fit?

This wikipedia article should not leave people with the astro-turfed delusion that pro-Hiss sentiment is anything but what it is, an sociologically interesting minority of people, generally on the left, who just can't move on past the Cold War. TMLutas 18:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

And I of course, totally disagree; recent research on the subject has tended to demonstrate Hiss's innocence. But let's stick to the point at hand: is there a compromise text that will end the edit war, or will this go on forever? What about, "Expert opinion has suggested that those who continue to believe in Hiss's innocence are a distinct minority."? Joegoodfriend 18:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure there's a compromise, in fact two of them. Mention the controversy and how few people actually believe in it or don't mention it at all. As a start, I just adopted the latter option. We can put back both cites or leave it bare. TMLutas 18:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Forgot to ask, do you or don't you concede that the Flowers for Alger Hiss is an appropriate cite for general opinion on the case? TMLutas 18:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A further observation, if you're going to propose compromise positions, either send a message on the talk pages of editors holding different views or at the very least put in an HTML comment in the text to see the appropriate talk page section. If you don't know how to make one, you can find instructions here. I saw the butchering that went on regarding my, what I though sensible, addition and went about fixing it prior to ever seeing the compromise suggested. An HTML comment would have avoided that TMLutas 18:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Suffice to say that after a 5-month edit war and week-long attempt at compromise I didn't think anyone needed further notice as to what is going on. It seems we've come around again to the same point we've been arguing since March. Yes, some experts have suggested that those who believe Hiss innocent are far in the minority, but we have have no numbers to prove that. I don't think the article is improved by adding these opinions. But can we not, as a compromise, cite these opinions, which were previously not refected in the article at all, but make it clear that they are opinions not objective facts, the way "Hiss died in 1996" is a fact? Joegoodfriend 18:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Look at the timestamps, The first post in this section was 03:11 in the morning of 8/3 and 13 hours later you're complaining that people aren't joining the discussion. Is it really so odd that I or others might not notice such a new discussion?
I'm somewhat new here so I'd like to see evidence on the Hiss defender side that there is a strong current of general or scholarly opinion that Hiss was innocent. Somehow I missed that. Care to supply an URL where this has been provided previously? I'm amenable to a "just the facts" presentation but that leaves the commentary on later evidence out entirely. Are you ok with that? TMLutas 19:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Ack. What a mess. The current "Scholarly opinion of Hiss' guilt" section looks awkward and "stuck in," and meanwhile the intro has gone back to declaring, on the basis of one article by some schmoe at Salon.com, that "a few people" consider Hiss's guilt an open question. And this mish-mash got started because someone apparently thought the article was too anti-Hiss?
I propose putting the intro back to this version, with an HTML comment begging editors to discuss before changing it. Maybe that will stick. RedSpruce 19:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
TM, since you have been following the edits for a few days, I presumed that you were fully up to speed on all aspects of this argument, if I was out of line I apologize. OK, do I really have to give you cites of recent expert opinion that tends to establish that Hiss is or may be innocent? Will that really change anything here? Wouldn't it be great if we could just reach a compromise?
Actually, that (the content of various recent revisionist critiques) is not what's been in discussion, rather I'm looking for any sort of evidence that any of this recent stuff you refer to has proven persuasive to the professional scholars. The recent Foote bit is, frankly, disgraceful and if slandering dead guys who objectively couldn't have been Ales for other reasons than their presence/non-presence in Mexico City on a particular date is what the pro-Hiss camp is reduced to, it's time to pack it in. Any small band of true believers can astro-turf up controversy or provide a pretense of popularity. Just look at Ron Paul's campaign for presidency and what his supporters are doing on Republican forums for a current events example that has nothing to do with the left. In the end, it is the pro-Hiss camp that has the uphill struggle to gain respectability. We can't just pretend that that camp's eroding position over the past half century just didn't happen. TMLutas 19:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the version cited by RedSpruce. But then I would, since, I wrote it. Joegoodfriend 19:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move sentence?

The sentence "Evidence revealed after Hiss's conviction has added a variety of information to the case, and to some people the question of his guilt or innocence remains an open question" strikes me as awkward and out of place in the opening paragraph. I suggest that it be moved to the top of the section on "Later Evidence." Mark LaRochelle 19:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with that TMLutas 19:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the incredible legs that this debate has (now having gone on for nearly 60 years) is the story, and the evidence that has come out afterwards is a major part of that story. The opening paragraph needs to tell us why an article's subject is significant, and a major part of the significance of this case lies in the fact that major evidence was still emerging more than 40 years later. And that it is highly debated, even today, is also of major importance, and thus also, IMVHO, belongs in the opening paragraph. Respectfully, Unschool 20:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Nonetheless, Mark, you are correct that that sentence was awkward. I hope my revision is, in some way, an improvement. Unschool 20:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The anti-anti-communist/communist tactical alliance had to pick some hill on which to plant their flag and rally the troops. Alger Hiss looked like such favorable ground. But it didn't turn out that way for them. Yes, the debate is a big story. But it's not a story for the biography of Alger Hiss. It's a story of the machinations of rival political movements and probably ought to go into its own page with a 2 para synopsis in the Hiss bio. That way we can get into all the dirty tricks all the way around, the growing desparation on the part of Hiss defenders, the scramble for alternate ALES candidates, and above all why Hiss' guilt or innocence is so important. What does it say about all those high powered Democrats who vouched for Hiss? How did this fight affect the course of Richard Nixon's career? There's a great article to be had there. TMLutas 01:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Do I take it that you presume from my edits that I am a Hiss supporter? Unschool 02:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know you from Adam and don't presume you to have any particular opinion. I'm certainly not looking to develop a dossier on you that would be a prerequisite to make such a determination. It's better for my blood pressure, I found out long ago, to assume good faith for as long as possible for as many people as possible. I try not to attack a person, individually, for an unwise, inflammatory, or otherwise wrong-headed edit. In fact, I often don't much pay attention as to who exactly did the edit that I disagree with. Keeping track of teams and who is us and who is them is exactly the sort of tribal BS that has made this and other controversial wikipedia articles such cesspits of POV and inaccuracy. TMLutas 18:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
An addendum on this point, the anti-webcomic jihad that is currently being run offends my wikipedia editor sensibilities just as much as the pro-Hiss fantasists. The only difference is that webcomics never killed millions and are thus a lot less consequential. The tactics of gangs coming in and imposing a viewpoint can and do change but there are strategic similarities including the fact that there is often little to no conscious coordination. It's a fascinating bit of human psychology that threatens the long-term reliability of Wikipedia and it's something the admins are going to eventually have to deal with or Wikipedia is going to end up replaced by a form of information collaboration that has dealt with it. TMLutas 19:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Reviewing the thread again, let me be clear, I've got nothing against stating the present status of the debate so long as it is accurate as to what it is and the weight of the various camps. In several comments I've laid out that the spin on both sides should be laid out or neither should be and I would be satisfied with either variant. Practically, the vast majority of people are currently satisfied that Hiss is guilty and when I tried in at least two different fashions to say this, it was quickly distorted to "most scholars" and then struck because most scholars haven't been professionally polled recently as to their beliefs on the case at least insofar as we've discovered. Now I can keep trying to get an accurate, NPOV statement about the current state of belief in and keep seeing it get distorted by other editors who seem to be psychologically unprepared to see the plain facts in black and white in the opening paragraph or I can admit that having both sides is simply not tenable due to whatever reason. Life's too short to figure out why this keeps getting distorted. Thus we have only two sustainable options standing as practical, we either don't cover it at all in the opening para or we let a biased version stand which seems to have been the case for some time now. Or shall we add a new sentence "no reliable sources contend that Hiss supporting scholars are in the majority"? It would be awkward and ugly but would, I guess, get the point across. TMLutas 19:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you are making a positive contribution here, and I’m losing track of who’s-reverting-what these days, so I wanted to say that you deserve credit for continuing to try and improve the article.
We’ve been debating this “most scholars” issue since March. There are statements as to what most people or scientists believe on both the Lee Harvey Oswald and Scientific opinion on climate change pages. These are backed by actual surveys, not subjective opinion. I ask that the article maintain a distinction between the objective “most scholars believe” and the subjective, “experts have suggested that most scholars believe.”
Now, with that out of the way, what fascinates me is how easily so many experts have become convinced of Hiss’s guilt on a guilty-by-suspicion basis. Have you actually read any of the well-known anti-Hiss sources, such as the books “Venona Secrets,” “Looking-Glass Wars” or “Reds?” Their case against Hiss seems to begin and end with “Hiss is ALES.”
Here’s what they fail to address: (1) No one has ever collaborated the story of admitted perjurer Chambers. (2) The pumpkin papers story is ludicrous. (3) Secret agents do not use code names that give away their real names. (4) If Hiss was a spy, he was easily the most highly-placed spy of the Cold War, yet there is zero in the Soviet archives to establish this? Dude, where’s my evidence? Joegoodfriend 23:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I assume you meant corroborated in which case Hede Manning at the trial and Noel Field in a Hungarian dungeon both did so. Who destroyed what in the Soviet archives and where is there surviving evidence is beyond my competence but if your bank account can stand the bribes, I'm reasonably sure that the Russian archivists are as much for sale today as they were in the past. TMLutas 16:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dating the photo

The circled photo should be dated because a proper date would prevent confusion of the "Hiss was at Chambers' testimony so why did he say he hadn't seen him?" variety. The Library of Congress sets the date of the Photo as August 25, 1948. TMLutas 19:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV vocabulary

A user by the name of Blind Justice has done a lot of editing over the past hour or so, and I agree with everything that he has done, except one thing. By inserting the word "egregious" into his description of the government's conduct of the case, he has, I feel, created an inflamatory and inherently POV edit. It is simply not necessary to use a word that is so clearly a subjective term to discuss this matter. Look, the intro has to be something that everyone can agree on, more even than the article as a whole, because many casual readers will go no further. I feel that my prior edit of the third sentence of the first paragraph contained nothing that anyone could disagree with. Sure, partisans on both sides might look at it and feel it doesn't go far enough (in their direction), but no one would argue that it was actually false. That is not true of Blind Justice's most recent version, which—by using inherently subjective language, is inevitably going to be objected to by someone. I will revert again, but I seek comments regarding this situation, to help guide me more. Unschool 05:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV readmission to the bar

The innuendo that the SC refused to nullify Hiss' conviction was due to its Nixon appointed members exercising raw political judgment is utterly unsupported and should be withdrawn. TMLutas 21:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. RedSpruce 10:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] npov government misconduct

I tried to bring this up to snuff but I simply don't have the time to do a good job of it. The cites don't agree with the accusations in all cases and all are heavily POV. (later added sig) TMLutas 01:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dumbarton oaks

The proposal for 16 votes for the USSR was not first made at Yalta. AFAICT it was made at Dumberton Oaks. The way things stand now, the article seems to imply that out of the blue the Sovs pulled their 16 vote proposal out and Hiss rallied against the Yalta surprise. That needs improvement. (added sig) TMLutas 01:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Perjury trials, conviction and after

A key bit of sleight of hand for dishonest Hiss partisans is to ignore that the typewriter is introduced by the defense. Another sleight of hand is to ignore what is common public knowledge about intelligence operations, that they are heavily compartmentalized. That somebody in the FBI knows how to forge a typewriter does not mean that the experts who testified either perjured themselves or concealed knowledge of that fact. The combined implication is that the typewriter was forged, put into play by the FBI and that Hiss was done wrong. Revealing that the defense introduced the typewriter and that the documents were carefully verified without relying on the typewriter in the prosecution's formal case (though the typewriter did play a key role in the psychology of the case) gives rise to the alternate possibility that Hiss might have known about the typewriter being fake and hoped to taint his conviction by inducing the prosecution into reversible error by relying on the typewriter for his conviction. That's bait the prosecution never quite went for. And where would Hiss get a forged typewriter from? The GRU looms large in any reasonable speculation.

Now this is speculation and without evidence so far as I can tell but so is an awful lot of the typewriter stuff that is actually in the article so if you want to keep the GRU typewriter theory out, you need to be evenhanded about it. Where we have the facts (that the defense introduced the typewriter) they should be included. Where we don't know (whether the FBI actually sent experts to testify who knew about forged typewriters and thus perjured themselves) we should lay out the alternatives and say we don't know for sure. So here are the no nos that I think make the section NPOV

1. Chambers is being dragged in hear far to heavy handedly. "The first trial started on May 31, 1949, and ended in a hung jury on July 7, 1949, after Chembers was forced to admit on the witness stand that he committed perjury while under oath in his past testimony when he asserted that Hiss was not a Communist nor was Hiss a spy." -- could alternately read-- "The first trial started on May 31, 1949, and ended in a hung jury on July 7, 1949, despite Chambers being forced to admit on the witness stand that he committed perjury while under oath in his past testimony when he asserted that Hiss was not a Communist nor was Hiss a spy."

The second implies a much stronger prosecution case, one that the eventual conviction seems to bear out. Lots of mob bosses and other criminals are convicted on the basis of insiders who lied in the past and broke away from the criminal enterprise for many motives, few of which are noble.

2. Alger Hiss presented nothing, his defense did. (ok this one isn't really NPOV but more just plain inaccurate as far as the US legal system is concerned).

3. FBI experts are real live human beings. The accusation in the second paragraph is that they committed felonies. Just because a libel does not formally use the target's name does not make it any less libel. There's no cite proving they knew that typewriters could be forged. Pull it until you can prove it.

4. Noel Field was a communist agent and an ideological communist to the end of his life. He is not just a party host who brought together Hede Massing and Alger Hiss

5. What, exactly, was McCarthy's role in Hiss' trial? And beyond that, the name redacted security evaluations of state department employees certainly counted as evidence, just not evidence against anybody you could press to get fired. The reference should be pulled or substantiated

6. How could you possibly talk about "conviction and after" without mentioning Venona and the effect that release had on his quest for reversal? This is really blatant whistling past the graveyard for the pro-hiss side.

There may be other issues. Feel free to add them in this section. TMLutas 04:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed the substantive issues you list, namely #1, #3 and #5. Regarding #6, The Venona evidence is discussed at length, along with other post-trial evidence, elsewhere in the article. RedSpruce 11:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment 26 July 2007

The template seemes not to have worked properly so this is an attempt to fix it. The text in the template is:

There has been an ongoing dispute, going back to March 2006, over whether or not the Alger Hiss article should indicate that a majority or consensus of scholars or historians believe that Alger Hiss engaged in espionage for Stalin. Thousands of words have been written on the Talk page concerning this matter and other Wiki users are invited to review the lengthy discussion and comment should they be so interested. 04:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If this dispute is resolved please remove the template. If it is not then please continue to discuss it here. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe this dispute is settled, for the time being. Does anyone disagree? If no one objects, I'll remove the tag above after a while. RedSpruce 16:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
No objection. "For the time being," man, does that speak volumes. Joegoodfriend 19:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Since there were no objections relating to the issue named in the RFC, I've removed the template. RedSpruce 23:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This article should have a neutrality tag, as it is essentially a platform for Hiss apologists.Bdell555 13:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

So what's stopping you from hanging a neutrality tag? I've been doing it section by section because the article's just too long to take in one swallow but you're right that it's a POV cesspit and my changes have only resulted in marginal improvement. I hope that as the Education and Research Institute puts up the original files, we're going to be able to rely more on original sources and less on ax grinding partisans. TMLutas 03:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
TMLutas, to my view, a number of your recent edits have added a POV slant to the article, or have otherwise been unjustified and incorrect. To avoid revert-warring, I request that in the future you open a discussion of any non-trivial edit before you make it. I will do the same. Thanks, RedSpruce 11:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern. I will attempt to match or exceed your standards in this regard. TMLutas 17:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what your response means, but judging from your edits it doesn't signify agreement. I'll continue to try to work with your edits, improving them where I think I can and starting a discussion myself on the points that need further discussion. Hopefully that will make the process workable for you. RedSpruce 21:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I just happened upon this article and I have to say, I have never seen such gyrations to neutralise what virtually everyone even marginally less devoted to the NKVD than Stalin knows to be fact. "POV slant?" Understatement in the extreme. This is amateurish garbage; a joke to anyone with any honesty. This is a perfect example of why Wikipedia is considered a joke to learned people everywhere. fjsylkya 11:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noel Field

When a Soviet spy (read his wiki page) hosts a cocktail party and then later denies witty repartee about his spying at an accused Soviet spy's perjury trial, that would have implicated the defendent, it's pretty on point to emphasize that the denier's word isn't worth much. I'll be putting edits in to that effect. TMLutas 17:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you aren't making your point very clearly, and you make it even less clearly in article article edits. In your article edits you seem to think that pointing out that Hiss was at the home of someone who turned out to be a spy is a piece of significant evidence against Hiss. Whatever point you're trying to make, it's original research unless you find a source that makes the point you're trying to make. RedSpruce 20:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Since the reference has been eliminated, this is just to tie up loose ends. Noel Field's refutation of Massing has a credibility problem because he was, well, a Soviet spy. It's not original research to point out that Soviet spies will tend to try to cover for each other and thus having a spy vouch that an incriminating conversation did not happen is less than convincing.
As a separate issue, Field is the only named refutation. Who are the others and are they similarly credibility impaired? You can answer in this section or break out another one. TMLutas 22:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] citation needed

Redspruce in his 10:57 edit takes out my citation needed tag on theoharis' supposed statement "a series of questionable speculative conclusions:" with the rather rude remark "Can't find any evidence that theoharis actually calls it that."? Try buying the book before you declare that a citation is inaccurate)

There was no prior cite for the quote so I couldn't have been declaring that a citation is inaccurate. I was saying that a citation is needed. The action (getting rid of citation needed) and the comment don't match.

Instead of saying something like "quote from the book in cite 54" I get snark that doesn't make much sense. Are we getting a little too emotionally involved Redspruce? TMLutas 18:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was obvious that when there's citation to a Theoharis book at the end of the paragraph that includes a quote and a paraphrase of what Theoharis said, the citation applies to the quote and the paraphrase. So given the odd statement "Can't find any evidence that theoharis actually calls it that", the obvious interpretation is that you're questioning the citation. RedSpruce 20:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
It was a question of the quote. We're settled on this one. TMLutas 22:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discuss first is not a legitimate reason to wipe out a change

Redspruce wiped out my change on the allegations against Hiss in the opening paragraph for no other stated reason than I hadn't put it up for discussion here first. That is not a legitimate reason, at least not on wikipedia. A review of WP:BOLD is in order. You can revert an unreasonable edit but you have to give an actual reason why it's a legitimate revert. Otherwise it's just an abuse. There are no mandarins. Nobody owns this page. All the information I put in is a distillation of information that's been well discussed elsewhere in the article and the talk page. What I really don't understand is that Redspruce didn't open up a discussion section either. Do as I say, not as I do, Redspruce? TMLutas 21:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have opened up a discussion on that point, but I was dealing with others first. Now that you've opened it...
It's extremely questionable to say Hiss "was privately accused of being a Soviet agent in 1938, 1939" By whom? Chambers's comments in his meeting with Berle were ambiguous enough that many authors argue that no accusation of espionage was involved. Bentley got his name wrong and had only vague information on him, and Gouzenko didn't have any name at all. Sources are divided on the significance of the French accusation. And in any case, at best this edit repeats in a misleading way information that is given later in the article. As far as a "short version" of the story is concerned, the only significant date of accusation is that of Chambers in 1948. RedSpruce 22:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Bullitt's sworn testimony regards events in 1938, Chambers' original private information was given in 1939. And I differentiated between spy and agent so please don't stuff words in my mouth. One can be an agent for a foreign power without being their spy and that was the original Chambers story of 1939 and the various wartime rehashings.
I find nothing misleading in saying that there were private accusations regarding Hiss. It's a simple fact that there were. Whether they were true, false, or somewhere in between is a separate matter. Chambers wasn't alone and the 1948 accusations didn't just come out of the blue as a surprise. While you may personally feel that the only signficant accusations are the 1948 batch, others may disagree, as I do. TMLutas 22:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Whether "spy" or "agent", it's not at all clear that Chambers accused Hiss of being either in any "private information." He might have been saying that Hiss was a Communist party member or a sympathizer. So the edit as you wrote it was incorrect, and I'm in agreement with Joegoodfriend's removal of it. RedSpruce 11:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
So just to clarify, you're just looking for a web cite on 1939 but that 1938 and 1945 are ok with you TMLutas 15:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Evidence of government misconduct" section

I'm in partial agreement with TMLutas's recent edits to this section, in that it's not correct to refer to accusations of illegal conduct on the part of FBI agents and the Hiss prosecution as "facts" when there was no court decision finding those actions to be illegal. On the other hand, to simply remove any mention of these accusations (as TMLutas has done a few times), when they're supported by documents from the Justice Department, is unjustifiable. I think I've written a good compromise version, putting these accusations in the context of the writ of coram nobis filed by Hiss's attorneys and referring to them as points that were argued, rather than facts. RedSpruce 21:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm ok with relaying Hiss' arguments, only fair. The one thing that looks funny with this version is the progression of dates in the 1st para in the section. Is there a typo so 1983 reads 1973 for the USSC denial? TMLutas 23:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1938, 1939 and 1945?

The reference in the opening paragraph to Hiss being accused privately on the above dates is not supported.

1938: All we have on this is the claim by Ralph De Toledano that Bullitt claimed in sworn testimony to have received the information. I don't see any confirmation of Bullitt's claim, or even when and where he gave this "sworn testimony."[16]

1939: There is no reference in the article to Hiss being accused in 1939. Did I miss something?

1945: This is justified somewhat by the Bentley claim, but it's not a direct accusation.

All we have that proves that Hiss led the opposition to the USSR's 16 vote plan is Hiss' assertion to the NY Times. De Toledano's claim is no less credible. If you Google, you can find tertiary confirmation pretty easily but nothing that really merits inclusion at the present moment as a justifying footnote. As for 1939, that's the year that Chambers first mentions Hiss in his testimony as a Soviet agent of influence (not a spy but still illegal). TMLutas 15:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alger Hiss Rides Again

The recent Slate article on Hiss defenders' slander of Wilder Foote seems on point for this article. How should we be using it? TMLutas 18:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to "External links." I believe all the notable points this article makes are already mentioned in this WP article. RedSpruce 20:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that the central point that Hiss' defenders have been reduced to behaving as the worst stereotypes of McCarthyism is a notable point, explosive, and something that is not currently addressed in the article. TMLutas 19:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Nor should it be, since it's just a statement of opinion by one author, and has little bearing on the Hiss case per se. Pro- and anti-Hiss writers have been throwing insults at each other since the case opened; nothing new in that. There might be a place for briefly discussing some of the more interesting back-and-forth barbs if there was a section on "The impact of the Hiss case" or "The Hiss case in American culture" or something like that. RedSpruce 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
This is not an article about the Hiss case but about Alger Hiss which includes his life-long campaign to clear his name. Are you suggesting we break out the case and its impact from the man himself? We could do that and have the more controversial stuff in a different article. The Hiss page would look rather short though and I don't see there being major support in either camp for it. That Hiss' campaign has led to a sort of Hiss McCarthyism should not be buried. TMLutas 17:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not suggesting the article be broken up. As I said, "that Hiss' campaign has led to a sort of Hiss McCarthyism" is just another insult in a long history of insults from both sides. And not a particularly compelling or well-argued or interesting one, IMO. RedSpruce 17:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the Foote business is not going to have legs. The promised evidence will not be forthcoming and over time efforts to exonerate Hiss are going to turn more desperate. We'll see TMLutas 17:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Facts are being deleted to support POV that Hiss was guilty

In an article in the New York Times written on August 6, 1975, "Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court orders Alger Hiss reinstated to Massachusetts Bar," a significant point was that Hiss was readmitted to the bar without the typical confession of guilt and expression of remorse which is usually required in cases of disbarred lawyers being readmitted to the bar. This article, which appeared after the Hiss FOIA suit resulted in the release of government documents revealing egregious misconduct committed by the government against Hiss at his trial (withholding of evidence which would have acquitted Hiss, spying on the Hiss defense team, testifying falsely that typewritten documents could not be forged, etc.), indicates that the Massachusetts Supreme Court believed a miscarriage of justice occurred. Yet this important fact, which has been properly sourced, has been removed entirely. Why? Because it introduces doubt about Hiss' guilt?

This page is systemically being edited to remove or hide facts which cast doubt about Hiss’ guilt and to give prominence to opinions that Hiss was guilty. An example of hiding facts is that the subhead of Hiss being readmitted has been removed entirely, and the details appear at the end of a very long section, that is, buried. Instead of giving top billing to one-sided opinions (guesses) about Hiss' guilt, why not give the undisputed facts first, and save opinions to the end of the article? Blindjustice 21:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is moving closer to the "average" opinion of scholars in the field, which is what Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect. According to various sources, Hiss's readmission to the bar happened before the FBI documents were released by the FOIA suit. So it doesn't seem to have anything to do with "later evidence," which is why I moved it out of the "Later evidence..." section. I added a quote about the stated reason for Hiss's reinstatement (that he had demonstrated "moral and intellectual fitness"), but removed the bit about "without the typical confession of guilt and expression of remorse which is usually required..." Hiss was the first lawyer to be reinstated in Massachusetts, so it may not make sense to talk about what is "usually required" for such reinstatement. I've just now added an additional reference to the article that documents these points. RedSpruce 10:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
To provide context to the Massachusetts decision reinstating Hiss to the bar, I added a citation giving the date of the government's release of the Pumpkin papers, which occurred shortly before the reinstatement. Nixon's claim that the five rolls of film revealed the most treasonous betrayal which ever occurred in our country was refuted by the fact that three of the five rolls had nothing incriminating on them: the one blank roll and the two rolls of non-classified material. Additionally, the information which was classified and which was introduced at the trial did not result in any damage to our country, as opposed to, say, Benedict Arnold's treason. This, coming after Nixon's resignation, was additional evidence that:

1) Nixon was willing to use the big lie technique to destroy his political opponents,

2) Hiss may be completely innocent, since Nixon's exaggerated description of the Pumpkin papers was finally refuted, but it took 25 years.

I added a citation which provides additional details about Hiss being readmitted to the bar, which also talks about previous reinstatements of disbarred lawyers from Massachusetts. If you have a source which states that Hiss was the first lawyer to be reinstated in Massachusetts, then this event is even more significant, and should be given more prominence, such as mention in the introduction. Blindjustice 16:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Of your edits, my only major objection was the wording "partial exoneration" in the heading -- that's too POV. The referenced NY Times article says that Hiss was the first lawyer in MA to be reinstated (you can get the article from their web site for $5), but of course it's possible that they got that wrong. RedSpruce 22:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
2 rolls of classified documents is 2 rolls too many. The idea that Nixon exaggerated and therefore Hiss is innocent just doesn't follow logically even if you grant the premise that Nixon's characterization is refuted. Furthermore, even if you grant that Nixon exaggerated the evidence, that does not make it a big lie, a technique that does not exaggerate a kernel of truth but makes up outrageous falsehoods without a scintilla of truth.
Frankly, this case stinks of evidence that never made it to court. The Venona intercepts are an example. It bears a certain resemblence to Al Capone's trial for tax evasion. Everybody knew that the issues at hand in both the Capone and Hiss trials were not just what was in the court documents. Nobody could touch Capone for his larger crimes and Hiss was protected from espionage prosecution by a short statute of limitations and the fact that releasing all the evidence we had would not have been in our national interest. So we end up with a shadow prosecution and a lot of things being said between the lines. TMLutas 20:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree re. Nixon's exaggeration. Harping on the "fire extinguisher" film rather than the classified documents film smacks of whistling past the graveyard. I don't see how the Capone analogy says anything about the evidence, though. RedSpruce 20:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The Capone analogy doesn't say anything about the evidence. It says everything about the prosecution. Why was Hiss prosecuted but not Chambers? If you understand it as a pure matter of perjury, it makes no sense, much like Capone's overlong sentence for tax evasion. If you see it as a way to get a national security threat out of the government, it makes perfect sense, just as Capone's sentence does as a way to get a notorious gangster out of circulation. I'm not particularly wedded to this analogy, especially if you've a better one. TMLutas 20:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)