Talk:Alger Hiss

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives

[edit] Birth Dates Are Incorrect

The bio box with birth dates says Hiss' birthday is November 11, 1904, but it shows his children as "Bosley Hiss (1898-1926)" and "Mary Ann Hiss (c1900-1930)." Shawn D. (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the obviously incorrect "Children" info and the suspect "Parent" info for now. RedSpruce (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel words in use

"Some reliable sources have suggested that those who believe in Hiss's innocence are in the minority of scholarly opinion."

This is clearly a weasel statement. Thus it does not belong. The previous sentence mentions the controversy. This statement following serves one purpose, and one purpose only: to color and characterize the article in favour of Hiss being a spy. The writer probably wanted to imply Hiss's conviction was justified when clearly the evidence did not support it. I personally think he probably was a spy, but I have a big problem with people trying to re-write history, particularly in the case of these witch hunts. If there is so much controversy on this particular statement, then the appropriate way to deal with this is to make a request for comment to the community. I can't imagine this statement will survive this process, none-the-less, if you think it belongs here then feel free to make the request. When I deleted it, I specifically pointed out that this should be the appropriate response, not reverting it. I tried to find the appropriate discussion as suggested on the page. All I found was a jumble of barely cogent arguments and contributing there would come to nothing but a revert war which I assume was what happened previously. It is possible I wasn't able to find the discussion you are referring to. Feel free to provide directions there and I'll look at it, but as it stands, this statement just does not fit wiki criteria. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.66.156 (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you will read the archives, you will find that this sentence is a consensus compromise achieved after months and months of arguments, with literally tens of thousands of words exchanged on the talk page by the editors, some of whom have been contributing to the article for years. Have a look

here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Joegoodfriend (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The statement "some reliable sources have suggested that those who believe in Hiss's innocence are in the minority of scholarly opinion" is unnecessary. While it is true that less than 50% of scholarly opinion supports Hiss's being innocent, isn't it enough to simply present the story of his life?Flyte35 (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My friend, you're preaching to the choir. However, the sentence was arrived at by compromise after a nine month edit war that started in March of '07 and lasted through December. To summarize it as politely as possibly, an editor introduced the edit 'Most scholars have concluded that Hiss was guilty.' The editor would not be dissuaded by myself and others, and the compromise was reached. Have a look at the archives. Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the archives first to understand why such a silly sentence was in the article. The fact that it's a compromise doesn't make it any less ridiculous, but I guess it's not really worth trying to fix again if it'll trigger a lot of anger.Flyte35 (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That type of silliness is exactly why I suggested submitting it to the community for comment. Under such a process, a consensus with willing editors not invested in this particular article will be reached, and anyone attempting to color the piece with their raging bias will have no option but to accept it. In my opinion it is clearly a weasel statement. They are not allowed on Wiki. Period. The article has done in my opinion a surprisingly excellent and unbiased job of presenting both sides of such a controversial topic. I was expecting a mess after reading this ridiculous statement. The fact that the article manages to rise above such low expectations from the introduction is one reason this statement should be removed. The entire introduction and article are completely colored by this one out of place statement. If Mr. O'Reilly, or Hannity, or Ms. Coulter or whomever it is that insisted on this statement originally, returns to the mix, he/she will have to accept the community consensus, rather than bully others into accepting what is ultimately unacceptable. It is unfortunate you had to devote 9 months of arguing over something as silly as this when there are processes in place to deal with this type of vandalism/bullying.

I just looked at some of the arguments you were good enough to link to (thanks for making that trip through edit-hell a little easier). I wonder if some of the arguing that went on wasn't really semantics. I bring this up in case this type of thing should flare up in the future on this page. It seems to me there are three groups. The left-wingy "he was innocent", the right-wingy "better-dead-than-red, fry him like an egg", and the centrist "present the facts". How then do we reconcile the wingies to the center? The wingies are trying to prove "guilt" or "innocence". First, this is impossible with regard to spying with the current evidence and state of scholarship (or lack there-of) on the topic. Second, with regard to Hiss, guilt or innocence only really applies to what he was charged with, not what he actually may have done. Perhaps then, separating the guilt or innocence terminology from all of the talk about what he really did would lessen the conflict? Saying there is evidence he may have done this, or that, or may have been ALES is one thing. I think the flames ignite easiest when it is presented as "he was guilty because of this evidence he was ALES" or whatever (the same goes for innocence statements). He wasn't guilty if he was ALES, there was no substantive evidence presented that he had done these things at the time, thus the controversy. Remove the word guilt from the equation when talking about anything other than perjury and the specific evidence and the quality of the evidence presented at the time on that topic. It isn't like people won't draw their own conclusions on the topic based on the evidence presented on either side of the "he was a spy" argument. While the rest of the article is pretty good at balancing both sides of the argument, the only place I see remaining problems is the continued implications of guilt or innocence throughout based on the spying assertions. Just my two-cents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.66.156 (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC: Appropriateness of controversial statement in the introduction

A user has requested comment on biography for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCbio list}}.
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.

Is the statement introduced by "some reliable sources" in the "Introduction" an appropriate Wiki statement?

I think this is clearly a weasel statement. Other editors on this page are loath to remove it because it is the result of a ridiculously long fight with an intransigent editor, who may not even be around to fight with any longer. While no one is involved in a revert war at the moment and this may seem a rather sedate issue to submit for comment because of this, considering the history on this page, I thought this would be the quickest, easiest, and least painful method of fixing this page. Apart from this statement in the introduction, I was shocked to find an article on such a controversial subject with two viewpoints at extreme odds with one another in very good shape. Perhaps the risk of disturbing the calm by opening old wounds is contributing to the unwillingness to make what I think is an otherwise obvious edit. Cheers.