Talk:Alger Hiss/Archive 3

message: 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)
thread_title:  Priscilla Hiss 

message: 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)
replies: text: Can we discuss what you mean by "high revert mode"? Is everyone invited to go into HRM?—DCGeist 15:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reference section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  David Oshinsky: "vast majority of historians" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  3RR 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: So is the picture in the article from testimony prior to their "official" meeting or after? TMLutas 18:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chambers living in the Hiss's home 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ukraine/(White Russia/Byelorussia/Belarus) entry into the UN 

message: 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)
thread_title:  dating the photo 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV vocabulary 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed. RedSpruce 10:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV readmission to the bar 

message: 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)
thread_title:  npov government misconduct 

message: 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)
thread_title:  dumbarton oaks 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV Perjury trials, conviction and after 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No objection. "For the time being," man, does that speak volumes. Joegoodfriend 19:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Request for comment 26 July 2007

message: This article should have a neutrality tag, as it is essentially a platform for Hiss apologists.Bdell555 13:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Thank you for your concern. I will attempt to match or exceed your standards in this regard. TMLutas 17:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: POV

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It was a question of the quote. We're settled on this one. TMLutas 22:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Evidence of government misconduct" section 

message: 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."
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)
thread_title:  1938, 1939 and 1945? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Alger Hiss Rides Again