Talk:Alger Hiss/Archive 2

message: I just did a major reorganization of the article, putting the content into a rational order, removing lots of duplication, changing the format of the footnotes, removing footnotes that no longer connected to any part of the article, copyediting for clarity, etc. Apart from duplicate material, I didn't add or remove any significant amount of material, though I did remove a paragraph or two that I couldn't make sense of. I didn't check every fact stated in the article, though I did check every reference to make sure it was valid and in fact supported the point it was supposed to support. A controversial topic like this one should have its facts checked and should have a lot more citations, so there's a project for anyone who's interested. KarlBunker 23:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorganized article

message: This article is simply terrible. It keeps trying to imply that the typewriter was forged, and that that was "proven," but the forged-typewriter theory is laughable. You can leave this misnformation in if you like, but I reserve the right to put in the evidence that shows how untrue this is. The desperate Hiss dupes have got to grow up.
:The article doesn't state that any forged-typwriter theory is "proven". It did, however, come close to saying that, using wording which I don't believe was supportable. I RV'd your edit because it was non-neutral and removed valid information, but I did change the wording in question. KarlBunker 01:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to John Dean, Nixon admitted in front of witnesses that the typewriter was fabricated. Joegoodfriend 16:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Typewriter evidence

message: I'm rather amazed this individual still has defenders from those in the Old Left in America.  Here's an interesting path some might wish to follow... In Minsk, there is the house where the 1st Congress of the RSDLP met.  This became somewhat of a Mecca for worldwide Communists and Soviet sympathizers to visit.  A visitor's log was maintained.  In the mid-90's during one of my visits to Minsk, I came upon Hiss's signature in that log.  I'm not sure whether the log remains available to the public these days given that the Lukashenko regime is pro-Soviet and has tried to whitewash everything Soviet (including Stalin and Dzherzhinsky), but it might be a worthwhile angle to investigate for scholars, at least those seeking the truth. Avraamrii 05:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Avraamrii, man, you're brilliant. In your sly, satiric way, you've exposed exactly what sort of standard of proof today's right-wing pseudo-scholars subscribe to: if it can be shown that Hiss visited a historical site that a lot of Soviet sympathizers also did, OBVIOUSLY he was a spy! You're Wikipedia's own Stephen Colbert! Much love, comrade. Best, Dan—DCGeist 06:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Word UP, my brother! "How can honest, balanced information seems seem so opinionated in its attempt to exonorate Alger Hiss?" Wait! Could it be?! Could it be because honest, balanced information DOES exonorate Alger Hiss?!?! You and I are SO on the same page nobletern--where IS the beef?!?—DCGeist 06:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You presumably meant to say "There isn't -- and never has been..." but I'll let that pass. The word conspiracy gets thrown around a lot to discredit people. I certainly don't believe in a right-wing conspiracy against Hiss, but I do believe that many people in the anti-communist movement were very unscrupulous and careless in their actions. (Remember the case of the cleaning woman who was called up before McCarthy's committee because her name was the same as that of an alleged spy?) Why are so many people shocked, shocked, at the suggestion that a politician is self serving and lacking in scruples? -- MiguelMunoz 23:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hiss in Minsk

message: After reading this article, it's hard for me not to conclude that it was written by someone with a slant towards Hiss. "Hiss supporters" are cited repeatedly, and almost all the evidence against him is rebutted, but the evidence in support of him isn't. My other readings on the matter suggest that the ongoing debates on the matter are inconclusive. The conviction of Hiss still stands. Yet, according to this Wikipedia article, Hiss is almost always given the benefit of the doubt. I don't think that squares with accepted facts or judicial findings. Joe Descartes 03:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether it "squares with accepted fact" depends on who's doing the "accepting." It's true that the pro-Hiss side gets the last word in most of the sections of this article, but that's largely an artifact of the nature of the debate. Each section necessarily takes the form of "here is the evidence against Hiss, and here are the problems with that evidence." I believe that this article is clear that the case is inconclusive, and I believe it shows where doubt validly exists without giving Hiss "the benefit of the doubt." However, I'm personally open to the idea that the article may have an overall slant in Hiss's favor. If you can point to any particular examples where the writing seems biased or where some anti-Hiss evidence isn't given due coverage, I'd be interested in hearing about it. KarlBunker 11:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the reason Hiss is given the benefit of the doubt is because, ultimately, his perjury conviction has nothing at all to do with whether he engaged in espionage. Hiss was shown a picture of Chambers, who had gained fifty pounds, gone bald and shaved his mustache in the ten years since Hiss had known him. Hiss’ response was that he would have to meet the man in person to know whether or not he had known him in the past, and said of the matter, “I have never known anyone who had the relationship with me that this man has testified to.” HUAC decided that merely because it could prove that Hiss and Chambers had known each other, they could then prosecute Hiss for perjury. A jury agreed and Hiss served four years. Some may call that justice, but I don’t. Joegoodfriend 20:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this article has a terrible pro-Hiss slant.  It's far from unbiased.  Just look at the selective use of sources! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.179.37.3 (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-Hiss Slant 

message: The article claims that "Several analysts identified Hiss as ... ALES," but it's supporting evidence is of several people who accepted that identification as correct, which is not the same thing. FBI Special Agent Robert Lamphere apparently identified Hiss as ALES, but it's not all all clear that anybody else independently came to the same conclusion. It's fine to point out that many people believe this identification to be correct, but  the phrase "several analysts identified Hiss as ALES" is misleading. One analyst identified Hiss as ALES. Several others agree. Perhaps the sentence should start "A footnote in the Venona transcripts identifies Hiss as ..." I haven't made this change yet because I want input from opposing views, but I have restored the "citation needed" to the word "several." -- MiguelMunoz 21:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. If no one comes through with a citation to back "several", remove it. Joegoodfriend 22:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, excellent catch. This is the sort of common, little slippage in language that can easily be picked up and become accepted as historically accurate--which, as you've clearly explained, it almost certainly is not. Really good work.—DCGeist 23:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; I've changed the wording. Of course it would be difficult for anyone to independently come to the same conclusion, since the "probably Alger Hiss" comment has been attached to the Venona document since long before it was made public. In the reference I added, with the well-known Venona image plus commentary by Douglas Linder, Linder states that "'ALES' is assumed by most scholars to be Alger Hiss." I wonder how correct this is -- if anyone had a head count of "scholars" on this issue. KarlBunker 03:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I like the new wording, especially since it has Lamphere's important qualifier "probably." It's amazing how easily "probably" can transform into "certainly" when nobody is watching. -- MiguelMunoz 22:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Given how he's mentioned, Gordievsky's credibility doesn't seem to be much of an issue in this article. KarlBunker 19:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hiss identified as ALES 

message: What did he do the last 50 years of his life? did he work again? 
I found he was a saleman and added it but it needs more.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.105.209.231 (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I've added a little post-conviction info. KarlBunker 16:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: and then?

message: Several editors repeatedly remove the infobox installed, here I will explain why I put an infobox on it, and why we need it:
# He was convicted of a crime, so he fit the definition of a "criminal" and one of the Wikiproject WP:CRIME's goal is clearly to add an infobox to articles about convicted criminals. See other biographies such as Kenneth Lay, Charles Manson, Julius Rosenberg, etc.
# An infobox clearly help a reader get a summary of the biography.
Please reinstate the infobox, thank you!
--WooyiTalk, Editor review 20:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at other pages referenced, the editor makes a pretty good argument. I am not opposed to the change, although I think it's better that criminal charges which might theoretically have been brought but for the statute of limitations be left out. Joegoodfriend 20:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the problem with a "criminal" infobox: let's look at the four examples we have. All four persons were, verifiably, convicted of crimes. However, the primary definition of "criminal" (n.) in Webster's is not "a person who has been convicted of a crime," but "one who has committed a crime." That accords with my perception of how most people tend to understand the term. Since their convictions, there has never been any serious debate over whether or not Manson and Lay committed the crimes of which they were convicted. After Rosenberg's conviction and execution, there was a serious debate over whether he was, in fact--rather than by law--a criminal. That debate has been resolved; there is a clear consensus that he committed crimes similar, if perhaps not identical, to the ones of which he was convicted. There is a continuing debate, and no clear consensus, over whether Alger Hiss was in fact a criminal. As a result, I believe a "criminal" infobox is inappropriate in his case, at least at this time.—DCGeist 21:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another problem is the question of what Alger Hiss is primarily known for. He isn't primarily known as a "convicted perjurer". (And it should have gone without saying that speculating on what the charge might have been if not for the statute of limitations is grossly inappropriate.) Also, it isn't--or certainly shouldn't be-- the case that every WP biography of a person with a criminal conviction in his/her past gets one of these "criminal infoboxes." To use such a thing is to state that the person in question is, first, last and above all, a criminal. I submit that there might just possibly be a teensy amount of POV insertion involved there. RedSpruce 22:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. He's primarily known as an accused spy. For the time being, if any infobox is to be used, it should be a straight Biography infobox. If a consensus ever develops that Hiss was, in fact, involved in espionage, a Spy infobox (yet to be created) would be an arguable alternative; the Criminal infobox just isn't appropriate in this case.—DCGeist 23:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: This article is very confusing.  It is reasonably understandable until it gets into the back and forth business about Hiss' possible guilt or innocence.  Then it starts to get really difficult, twisty and in a way, boring (because it is harder to follow).  There seems to be a conflation of issues -- questions dealing with whether Hiss was mistreated regarding his rights at trial (as he alleged) are intermixed with issues of his guilt or innocence a spy.  The two are not the same thing but they get conflated.  All-in-all, the article reads as though advocates for Hiss have gone pretty far to present evidence in his favor, but in a piecemeal basis and with some redundancy, lack of cites and perhaps with NPOV problems. The article could stand a serious re-write. --Blue Tie 11:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs lots of work

message: These attempts to deny the well-known, ongoing controversy over Hiss's guilt or innocence are pretty feeble. Here are just three references, all since 1997:
"The controversy over Hiss has been compared to France's celebrated Dreyfus case. Dreyfus, however, was exonerated after a relatively short time, while the Hiss case has been going on now for over half a century." (p. 37)
and
"[I]t looks like--until definitive documentation appears from the files of the Soviet military intelligence (separate from the KGB)--that the Hiss-Chambers saga is going to continue to attract fresh debate." (pp. 35-36)
(Cultural Foundations of Political Psychology, Paul Roazen [Transaction Books, 2003])
"To this day, the guilt or innocence of Alger Hiss is still debated." (p. 261)
(AP U.S. History, Stephen Armstrong [McGraw-Hill, 2003])
"The controversy that the [Hiss] case can still generate makes understandable the passions it aroused a half-century ago" (p. 97)
(Nixon, Iwan W. Morgan [Oxford University Press, 2002])
Like the man said, Case closed.—DCGeist 00:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mainstream published references to ongoing controversy