Talk:Alger Hiss/Archive 4

message: The following article seems to be at variance with a few items in the Wikipedia article. 
http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/spies/hiss/5.html
constructive 
The confrontation with Chambers was not in a hotel room (as per here) but in the HUAC chambers. Is the article at the url above to be considered reliable? TMLutas 20:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read a lot of the articles on crimelibrary.com. I've found that on controversial cases it likes to come down very strongly on one side of the other, but I would call it a reliable source. Joegoodfriend 20:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perjury describes the first confrontation in great detail, saying that it occurred on August 17 in room 1400 of the Commodore Hotel. The crimelibrary.com article doesn't specifically say (unless I missed it) that the first meeting took place in HUAC chambers, only that "On this August 17 hearing, Whittaker Chambers himself was there". RedSpruce 11:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  verifying the hotel room and adding material 

message: Although Hiss was convicted for perjury, his conviction was understood to be treason, but he could not be convicted of treason because of the statute of limitations. Would the Massachusetts Supreme Court readmit traitor Hiss to the bar because of his good conduct, or because it was an attempt to correct a miscarriage of justice? Therefore, the readmittance of Hiss to the bar should be seen as a partial exoneration. Blindjustice 18:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt some consider it a partial exoneration; and no doubt others consider it a misguided over-reaction to Watergate, which caused some to decide that anything Richard Nixon was involved in must have been crooked. Both views are opinions. RedSpruce 00:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fallacy that it's a partial exoneration is why I put in the bit about what readmittances are and are not. In a procedure that explicitly claims not to examine guilt or innocence, how can readmittance be exoneration, whether partial or complete? I understand why you took my edits out if you're taking out the claim of exoneration, the two should be together or not at all. TMLutas 01:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How is 'Hiss readmitted to bar' not a partial exoneration? 

message: The coram nobis stuff is going beyond the pale again. It's a fact that the FBI did not reveal that some FBI agents knew how to modify a typewriter to make good forgeries of a known machine. It is opinion that their action in doing so was illegal. we could go around for another round of mass changes but maybe just a revert would be better? Even as partisanship, it's sloppy because the sources are much more careful than the article text, laying out facts but not going so far as to justify a libel suit. TMLutas 22:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced that there's any danger of a "libel suit" -- Wikipedia only seems to be concerned about that when specifically named living persons are involved. However, I agree that the earlier version, where the points about illegal government misconduct aren't presented as facts, is more accurate. RedSpruce 11:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you agree. On a tangent, I don't think that Wikipedia can be said to have an opinion in the singular sense on matters of libel. Rather there's a preponderance of editors who have an opinion and a great honking big bit of law that's just waiting for an attorney with time on his hands to define. TMLutas 18:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stating coram nobis opinions as facts 

message: One of the recurring fights on this page is the assertion as settled fact that it's illegal for the government to withhold the existence and the results of intelligence surveillance. It is not settled fact but a matter of some controversy even today. There is a modern case going on right now covering this exact issue Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. George W. Bush that's going before the 9th circuit. So at least until the Supremes rule on this can we have a vacation on the idea that what the government did on this front is without doubt misconduct? TMLutas 17:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top secret evidence in the news 

message: Would it be irresposible to mention that the Nye committee found that bankers pressured Wilson into WW1 to protect their interests as a reason researchers suspect Hiss was framed?
65.44.144.18 22:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this theory is far from being widely-known, much less widely-accepted, I'd say it isn't appropriate for this article. Out of personal curiosity, however, I'd be interested if you know of anyone who has written such a theory. RedSpruce 01:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Nye Committee

message: There is so much lacking in this article and it's so full of POV distortions on both sides I just wonder why it isn't deleted. At the very least I think there should be a separate page for the trials and all the attendent conspiracy theories/smears etc.  There are a number of people involved with the trial who have their own pages (most notably Whittaker Chambers whose pages could benefit from a "see also" link. There is sufficient precedence on other pages to do this for this article.Including it as "biography" just seems futile since a determined lunatic fringe will forever be fighting their petty ideological battles here. Awotter 00:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, you know what's even more deserving of deletion? It's discussion threads that attack the text while contributing nothing to improve the article, or provide any examples of their POV claims.Joegoodfriend 00:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why I proposed a separate page for the trials and all the attendant conspiracy theories/smears etc. Thanks for the reasoned and detailed response why I or someone else shouldn't be working on that and for assuming I'm not. As to POV bias and just sloppy and inaccurate and uninformative material I'd be hard pressed to know where to start on this article, but just to cheer you up I'm going to add a page and material on Priscilla Hiss the Bryn Mawr graduate, author, Socialist party member and a major defense witness currently with no Wiki article and identified solely as Hiss's wife and a "schoolteacher" Awotter 06:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um...nothing you said there indicates this lovely woman is even close to meriting her own encyclopedia article. But if you want to expend your energy on something that will be swiftly deleted, more power to you.—DCGeist 06:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles a mess, it doesn't come close to meeting Wiki standards and from the responses to my criticism(s) (and to others) not ever likely to be held up as a model of Wiki community behavior. When I do make appropriate suggestions and or changes or contribute and you delete it out of hand as you are threating, well more power to you also. She's (Priscilla Hiss) a historical figure by the way who played a more important role in the trial than 99 percent of what passes for inclusion in this article and is far more relevant than the 100,000 athletes, rappers and other such types added daily  it seems to Wikipedia. Awotter 07:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh...my. That's a sharply reasoned (and exquisitely spelled) response. I guess you'll have everyone convinced--including them durn rapper types!—DCGeist 07:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awotter, you've said in various ways that there are a lot of things wrong with this article, but you haven't named anything specific. So I think people are justified in saying you aren't engaging in constructive criticism. You've said that it would be an improvement to make a separate article about the Hiss trials, etc., but you haven't said why this would be an improvement. Alger Hiss has no notability apart from the espionage charges, so I don't see how this would be appropriate. Similarly, Priscilla Hiss has no notability in her own right. DCGeist wasn't "threatening" to delete such an article, he was making a well-educated guess that it would be deleted. WP has standards of notability for article subjects (see Wikipedia:Notability), and there are many editors who patrol new articles to enforce those standards. RedSpruce 14:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alger Hiss has no notability beyond the perjury trials? Oh please. That's just silly as is the comment about Priscilla Harriet Fansler Hobson Hiss. In addition to being married to Hiss(a major defense witness in his trials) her prior marriage was to one of the more influential publishers in America. She was in her own right an author (and Carnegie Foundation grant award winner), editor, social activist and community board member. My main objection to this article is that what could be an outstanding source of objective material(s) relating to one of the most notable person in  modern American political history instead appears to be a catch all for every nutbag theory based on information on biased and un-scholarly website on the web (pro and con Hiss)relating to the perjury trials. I'm sometimes too prickly for my own good, but I will take some time to study what makes good Wiki consensus and then work with-in that framework to make this article better. Awotter 00:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh please, indeed!  Among other things, Alger Hiss was Secretary-General of the United Nations' founding Conference in San Francisco in 1945.  There are a ton of sources to the effect that his role in the UN's founding was key.Bdell555 (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Not even close to Wikipedia's best
<u> Separate Trials Page Discussion</u> 

message: There is a 3O request. However, after reading through the above it appears that the two editors involved in the dispute are talking to each other in an appropriate and civil manner and negotiating intelligently on the best way forward for this article. I will remove the 3O as it appears that things are proceeding as they should. Another request can be listed if either editor still feels they want an opinion. Regards. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 10:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Opinion 

message: I rewrote most of the summary to 1. Expand the information regarding Hiss's career occupations, both before and after the trial. Removed the State Department and UN reference because he worked for the Agriculture Department, was seconded to a Congressional committee as legal counsel (Nye), briefly was with the Justice Department before ending his government service with the State Department and that information is covered in detail later in the article. 2. Hiss was charged with, and convicted of perjury, and not espionage and that was incorrect in the summary, I felt it required more expansion and detail to show how that came about. I tried to do that in the most NPOV way that I could and just presented the minimum of facts that are expanded elsewhere in the article. 3. I did reword the summary conclusion, it seemed very awkward as it was. I don't necessarily think that was an appropriate conclusion but I felt it better to leave it and the references that were there since they had not been edited since I first started working on this. 4. Because many people without prior knowledge of this case or of the legal process might read this I wikified more  basic legal terms than I might have otherwise. Awotter 09:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the change overall, I made some tweaks, as described in my article edit summary. And is there some clear-cut rule about capitalizing "communist/communism"? I'd sure like to see one. RedSpruce 11:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I further copyedited the lede for style and brevity. One sentence I changed contained a point that needs to be addressed. Before my edit, the first sentence of the second paragraph read: "In 1948 Hiss was publicly alleged to have been a member of an underground Communist group and a member of the  Communist Party." This was (a) quite awkward in its at least partial redundancy and (b) not supported by our main text--there is nothing in the description of Chambers's initial 1948 accusations that speaks of an "underground Communist group" aside from and in addition to party membership (which, anyway, would logically--though not necessarily--come first). If there was an accusation of that nature, that should be added to the main text as appropriate. The lede can then be adjusted accordingly.—DCGeist 17:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, much better, IMO. The "underground communist group" is the so-called Ware group, which the article doesn't currently deal with properly. I'll try to get to that some time soon. RedSpruce 18:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With its inclusion, we might then make the lede sentence something like: "In 1948 Hiss was publicly alleged to have been a member of the  Communist Party and a participant in a subversive cell."—if that's an appropriate characterization of the original claim.—DCGeist 18:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: "subversive cell" was how I was originally trying to word it, technically it should be "apparatus" as that's how it was described at the time. It was hard to simplify things as a summary without providing unnecessary, detail or slanting it one way or the other, (at least hard for me). thanks for the feedback. As to the Ware group and wording, the article could use expanding on the sequence of events leading up to the first public hearing. As I read it Chambers was initially there to corroborate Eliziabeth Bentley's prior testimony of cells and named some of the people in the Berle notes. Also, the NY Times 1948 article points out that in June of 1947 Chambers and Hiss had already testified in secret to the grand jury about similar information. Awotter 19:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After copyediting the lede, I think we need to add a sentence or half-sentence to its last paragraph stating the essential fact of the case's significance--not only that Hiss's guilt or innocence is controversial, but that this specific controversy itself came to symbolize the debate over the alleged extent of Soviet espionage and the McCarthyist response. Difficulty of wording aside, agreed?—DCGeist 07:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely agree. RedSpruce 11:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those issues are mostly outside the scope of the summary and were controversies that came after the trial and had many other elements (The Rosenbergs, the Army hearings etc.) I would agree that you could reference it (the trial and Hiss as architect of post war planning) as events that were to have an impact on the Cold War debate, but as to what the case symbolizes that moves into the realm of opinion, especially because those are arguments both sides who are pushing a point of view try and frame the facts of the case in. Shouldn't this article stick with Hiss and what happened as much as possible, letting the reader delve into the other stuff via the article? Awotter 19:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the content of the article unquestionably establishes the case's symbolic significance. I think we can (and should) refer to that significance in the lede in a neutral manner.—DCGeist 19:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, added sentence with the points mentioned here with reference. Also filled in background of why Chambers was subpoenaed to testify to HUAC. i think the article definitely needs a section on events/timeline leading up to the HUAC allegations as well. Again thanks all for the balance Awotter 21:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reworked summary 

message: Elizabeth Bentley's role has been far over-emphasized in some recent edits of the opening section. While tt is the case that Bentley's disclosures were one of the causes of Chambers being subpoenaed to appear before HUAC, hers was still a very minor part in the overall drama. She was a part of the trigger, when the real story is in the explosion that followed, so to speak. If anyone disagrees with this. please provide documentation that shows that this level of coverage is proportionally comparable to any of the notable sources on the Hiss case. I'm happy to be shown wrong, but I have to be shown. RedSpruce 02:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The opening paragraphs of the article do not need an expansive discussion of Bentley's accusations. No single facet of the evidence should be over-emphasized in the leading sentences. Joegoodfriend 04:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You cannot be "shown wrong", because whenver you are, you simply refuse to engage anymore on the Talk page, go to arbitration, etc and instead simply continue to revert anyway.  State clearly here that you will no longer insist on your supposed right to refuse these problem solving measures AND continue to revert and then it can fairly claimed on your part that you can, indeed, be "shown wrong".Bdell555 04:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elizabeth Bentley