Talk:Alger Hiss/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Stuck

So with no agreement happening, when are we going to be able to resume editing this article? Or some other dispute resolution process? CJK (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello? Anybody here? Are we going to be moving on? CJK (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I can see little hope of 'moving on' while contributors use this talk page as a forum for debate as to Hiss's guilt or otherwise. As I pointed out above, the RfC was malformed from the start in that it was asking contributors to make such a determination, contrary to policy, and it is unsurprising that it has gone downhill from there. The only resolution that appears possible appears to me to be one where the article complies with Wikipedia policy, and indicates that Hiss's guilt is contested. Wikipedia is not a court of law, and it is not our job to determine 'truth'. Instead, we should present, with due regard to weight, the differing viewpoints on the matter, and let our readers decide for themselves, should they wish to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"Contested" implies a closer split than appears correct -- what about "largely accepted" as a compromise? Thus not stating "guilty" in Wikipedia's voice, but also recognizing reality among scholars. Collect (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Collect (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hiss's guilt is contested That is already in my version. I wrote that Hiss's defenders continue to view him as a victim of a conspiracy. There are notes from the Soviet archives that directly implicate Hiss, I am still waiting for some sort of evidence that this is disputed outside of hardcore pro-Hiss people, even they do not generally think the notes are fake. CJK (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev said on p. 4 of their 2009 book that articles supporting Hiss' innocence continue to be published in "prestigious academic journals". TFD (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, their point is that this is being done by a minority in spite of irrefutable evidence to the contrary, such as the incriminating notes in question. I have asked over and over again if the users who oppose using the notes can identify anyone reliable who is disputing them. None did. CJK (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

TFD, you have grossly miscontextualized that quote. Here is the entire sentence from p. 4:

"Critics attacked The Haunted Wood on the grounds that only the authors had access to its underlying documentation, parsed the Venona project's 'Ales' message, and offered elaborate and convoluted interpretations of why 'Ales' might not be Hiss that were published in prestigious academic journals and promoted by left-wing journals of opinion such as The Nation."

Here's more context, starting on p. 3:

"Following Hiss's conviction in 1950 his supporters began a campaign that continues to this day to assert his innocence. Despite massive evidence to the contrary, some have maintained that not only is there no convincing evidence that Hiss was a spy, but also that Chambers was a fantasist who invented his own work for the Soviets. [. . .] Files from the archives of the Comintern supported key elements of Chambers's story about the existence of a covert American Communist Party apparatus headed by Josef Peters. [. . .] Finally, Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev's The Haunted Wood (1999) cited specific KGB archival documents that explicitly named Hiss as a Soviet agent.

After a brief period of silence and confusion Hiss's defenders regrouped and went on a counteroffensive. [. . .] Critics attacked The Haunted Wood on the grounds that only the authors had access to its underlying documentation, parsed the Venona project's 'Ales' message, and offered elaborate and convoluted interpretations of why 'Ales' might not be Hiss that were published in prestigious academic journals and promoted by left-wing journals of opinion such as The Nation."

And in conclusion, the authors state on p. 542:

"Soviet spies came in all varieties and from almost all corners of the Untied States. [. . .] Some, like Alger Hiss, were graduates of elite prep schools and Ivy League colleges, holding prestigious government jobs where they were entrusted with great responsibilities and pledged to serve the nation's interests but nonetheless cooperated with agents of a foreign power." Yopienso (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

How is that gross miscontextualization? Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev argue that Hiss was guilty, while acknowledging that others who continue to be published in "prestigious academic journals" do not. TFD (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Because you quote mined, totally leaving out the argument for guilt. See CJK's comment of 17:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC). Yopienso (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Could you please stop prefacing all your replies with personal attacks. It detracts from a collegial atmosphere and is an irrational argumentative style. If you read the discussion above at Talk:Alger Hiss#Scholarly consensus, DEddy said he did not consider Haynes & Klehr to be academics. I replied that they were then looked at their book to see what they actually said. I was merely replying to the sources and did not accuse anyone of misrepresentation or quote mining. It is the reponsibility of editors wanting to say that an academic consensus exists to find a source that supports their statement. TFD (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please review what is meant at WP by "personal attack." I'll continue to engage with you in a collegial manner.

As I have pointed out several times on this page, Ellen Schrecker--a fine scholar--claims that "only the most die-hard loyalists" argue Hiss was innocent. Haynes and Vassiliev, concluding the chapter "Alger Hiss: Case Closed" from the book you quote mined, say something very similar on pp. 30-31; I've bolded the similar part:

Any reasonable person will conclude that the new documentation of Hiss's assistance to Soviet espionage, along with the massive weight of prior accumulated evidence, closes the case. Given the fervor exhibited by his loyalists, it is unlikely that anything will convince the remaining die-hards. But to serious students of history continued claims for Hiss's innocence are akin to a terminal form of ideological blindness. The evidence from a myriad of sources--eyewitnesses and written documents, public testimony and private correspondence, fellow spies and Soviet intelligence officers, decrypted cables and long-closed archives--is overwhelming and conclusive. [. . .] Case closed.

The scholars Schrecker and Haynes, who bicker over historical philosophy and perspective, both cast Hiss's defenders as belonging to the fringe, not the consensus. Yopienso (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

How is it quote-mining to quote a book that someone else has presented as evidence? That is a personal attack. We will not get anywhere if you continue to misrepresent other editors and sources. Indeed Schrecker says, "it is unlikely that anything will convince the remaining die-hards." That is your problem though - as long as "diehards" in the academic community consider Hiss innocent and "prestigious" publications publish their arguments, we cannot say that there is an academic consensus that Hiss is guilty. And please do not trot out arguments why you think he is guilty - it is not up to us to decide. We merely report what reliable sources say. Incidentally, you are misrepresenting your sources by saying one view is consensus and the other is fringe. We need to accurately report sources, not misread them. TFD (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Pointing out that you are quote mining is not a personal attack. It is quote mining because you are taking the words out of their context and construing them to mean something the author did not intend.

There is a growing consensus about Hiss, as you yourself pointed out, although you don't seem to understand the term. We need to include this in the article. Please read p. 25 (Type in "bloodhounds.") and p. 208 (Type in "consensus.") [http://www.amazon.com/Alger-Battle-History-Susan-Jacoby/dp/B0085SLW6U in this book]. On p. 25, Susan Jacoby contrasts the "bloodhounds" with the "die-hard defenders." On p. 208 she specifically says there is a consensus ("If there is," using "if" to mean "although") among both liberal and conservative scholars "about Hiss's personal guilt." (Scroll up one page for her assertion that The Haunted Wood "persuaded a number of holdout historians of the left--and on the left--to throw in the towel on Hiss. 'Let's face it, the debate just ended,' said Maurice Isserman, professor of history at Hamilton College. Isserman is considered one of the best scholars in the young generation of historians . . .") Yopienso (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

In ordinary English, someone referring to "the remaining die-hards" is making a very explicit claim that the "die-hards" are now an extreme minority - thus the quote strongly reinforces the claim that the academic consensus is of guilt. Unless you can find any place in the world where "die-hard" refers to anything like a majority, of course. BTW, as TFD has accused folks in the past of "quote mining" and "google mining", the umbrage is faux.

[1] One who stubbornly resists change or tenaciously adheres to a seemingly hopeless or outdated cause Collect (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Collect, first, some editors have quote-mined in the past. But it is not quote mining to discuss a source that someone else has presented. Second, when versions of history become proved, whether evolution, the big bang, global warming, Oswald as lone gunman, 9/11 as an al Qaeda plot, prestigious academic journals do not publish alternative views, and universities do not host conferences and websites that present these views. To put it simply, once academics agree with one another, they stop arguing with one another, at least in academic fora. TFD (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

You did not discuss the source; you quoted from it selectively.

You may not understand about scientific and historical "proof."

There is ongoing controversy on every issue you listed, and not just from whackos. For two quick examples: global warming; Oswald. Yopienso (talk) 07:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. By way of illustration, Duquesne U. is holding a symposium on JFK's death this October. Why this tidbit is relevant to this page: some debates, including the one on Hiss, never end, even though there is a general consensus among reputable scholars. Yopienso (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

In fact "prestigious academic journals" do not continue to publish reports debunking global warming since the academic consensus supporting global warming emerged. No doubt one can also find astronomers who read their astrological charts, but astronomy journals do not publish those views. Notice that the controversial speakers at the Duquesne symposium have published their theories in the popular not academic press. TFD (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Um, in case you haven't noticed, controversial topics are avoided as subjects of academic conferences, especially when there are severe career penalties to be paid for holding unpopular views. I would say there is rather a discreet silence among historians, except for a vocal minority with ties to the intelligence/government/or military community, who appear to wish to shut down discussion in a way that real historians would never do. 173.77.14.10 (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not enough for them for people writing about the case to say they are agnostic and waiting for more evidence, to avoid being stigmatized by personal attacks, they must also declare themselves true believers in Hiss's guilt.173.77.14.10 (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

A consensus exists because people are penalized for supporting Hiss's innocence? Any shred of evidence to substantiate your nonsensical conspiracy theory? CJK (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not say that a consensus exists, I said there is a price to pay for declaring neutrality. Example? Anthony Lake. Another example is yourself, implying that I am a "nonsensical conspiracy" theorist for speaking out. The Hiss case is in no way comparable to global warming. Why? Because in global warming there is ample evidence is out there for everyone to examine and freely make up their minds, and not hidden in a Soviet or NSA archive. You can say there is a consensus if you like, but a true consensus can only be reached where evidence can be produced, without evidence it is mere speculation. 173.52.254.201 (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The interesting thing is that CJK attempts to portray me as having alleged (in his/her words) that "people are penalized for supporting Hiss's innocence". When what is really happening and also what I really said was that there are penalties to be paid (as in the case of Anthony Lake) from even expressing doubt about the statement that the "case is closed." 173.52.254.201 (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

And another thing, the NY T article linked to just above by Yopienso on Susan Jacoby does NOT state that Susan Jacoby unequivocally believes Hiss is guilty of espionage but that she believes he was guilty of perjury (in stating that he didn't know Chambers) and that "she is almost, but not entirely, persuaded that Hiss was also a Soviet spy." "Not entirely convinced" seems to pretty clearly admit a degree of doubt. 173.52.254.201 (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The degree of doubt is 1-2%. What Jacoby herself says on pp. 20-21 is:

I should say for the record that I believe Hiss was guilty of both perjury and spying, but I find evidence of the latter persuasive--very persuasive--rather than conclusive. If I were on a jury, knowing what is known now, I would certainly vote to convict Hiss. [. . .] If being only 98 or 99 percent convinced of Hiss's guilt . . . makes me a member of the Flat Earth Society as far as the political right is concerned, so be it. [. . .] It has been at least twenty-five years since orthodoxy, liberal or otherwise, has maintained anything other than Hiss's guilt. Yopienso (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Example? Anthony Lake.

Who is not an academic, who is not an expert of the Hiss-Chambers case or the McCarthy era, and has not written books about them.

not hidden in a Soviet or NSA archive

No, the evidence is not "hidden". We have the VENONA material from the NSA and we have the notes from the Soviet archives. The obstinate refusal of some to accept this evidence does not mean it is "hidden".

The interesting thing is that CJK attempts to portray me as having alleged (in his/her words) that "people are penalized for supporting Hiss's innocence". When what is really happening and also what I really said was that there are penalties to be paid (as in the case of Anthony Lake) from even expressing doubt about the statement that the "case is closed."

Yeah, that's totally different from what I said. Thank you for correcting me.

CJK (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

:I understand that Vasilliev is the only one who has seen the notebooks and that the US also refuses to open its records although more than 60 years have past and, according to the criteria of Sir Walter Scott, events that happened "60 years hence" can be considered "history."

So, that shows the consensus was that Hiss was guilty.

From the Oxonian Review, (link) with my bolding for emphasis:

"Today, the Hiss case does not, as Jacoby claims, “strike chords located along ideological fault lines”. To the contrary, the Hiss case is one issue upon which consensus transcends ideological divides. With the election of Barack Obama, the torch has been passed to a new generation of American liberals—post-Baby Boomers who remember Richard Nixon as a historical figure rather than a real-life foe and who are perfectly willing to admit Hiss’s guilt. The Battle for History thus appears at the precise moment that its subject has lost his place in the progressive pantheon. To its credit, this book is a lively read. But it is not a timely one."

Yopienso (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yopienso, you have not adequately sourced your quote, which you present as though it clinches the matter. The author of the article (published in 2009) is one Daniel Hemel, who is described as a graduate student in foreign international relations and an editor of The Oxonian Review of Books. The article is a book review of Susan Jacoby's book. Hemel merely states what you are stating. He is also the author of two other reviews/opinion pieces, one arguing that Guantanamo is not so bad, and the other that the Neo-conservatives are not so bad. He is entitled to his opinions, but they are just that, opinions. 173.52.254.201 (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC) 173.52.254.201 (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yopienso, the IP is correct. It is just an opinion piece by a grad student in a student paper devoted to book reviews and current events. The book he reviews which is by Susan Jacoby and was published by the Yale University Press is however a reliable source. TFD (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The author of the book under Hemel's (lukewarm) review, by Susan Jacoby, states that she is almost, but "not entirely persuaded" that Hiss engaged in espionage. 173.52.254.201 (talk)

The section "Consensus" mistakenly implies that Carl T. Bogus and Stephen Greenspan are historians. Bogus, author of a biography of William Buckley, is a law professor and ought to be identified as such. As for Greenspan, author of popular books on psychology, he is a developmental psychologist, not a historian. The section now reads:

Historians are not unanimous and agree there are loose ends, but Bogus says "the present-day consensus among historians is that Alger Hiss was in fact a Soviet spy."[117] Greenspan says, "the consensus today (aided by the release of Soviet intelligence files) is fairly strong on the side that he had indeed been a spy."

Thus, as it stands, the section is highly misleading and does not support what it purports to prove. I recommend that it be deleted. 173.52.254.201 (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. How is a non-fiction book about Buckley a reliable source for academic consensus on Alger Hiss? One editor has been throwing around accusations of quote-mining. Quote mining is searching for a source that supports what one wants to add, instead of choosing good, relevant sources and reporting what they say. TFD (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The notes, revisited

I understand that Vasilliev is the only one who has seen the notebooks

Wrong. The notebooks are actually online, free for anyone to peruse. [2]

What exactly does the opinion of Congress have to do with anything? Scholars, not politicians, are the people who conduct academic inquiries. Your contention that controversial topics are avoided as subjects of academic conferences, especially when there are severe career penalties to be paid for holding unpopular views. is your personal conspiracy theory, unsupported by any evidence. Even if you did have a good reason for thinking that academics lie to advance their careers, it is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand because Wikipedia routinely operates on the assumption that academics know what they're talking about and are worthy of note in that respect.

CJK (talk) 13:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The statement that "the case is definitively settled and Hiss's guilt is established", which you and your military friends have made multiple attempts to insert in the article, is a statements of opinion.

Wholly apart from the fact I never inserted such a statement, I find it fascinating that you ginned up two more conspiracy theories out of thin air. First of all, that the other users are my "friends" (in reality there has been zero contact) and second, that if they are from the military they must be part of the Grand Sixty Year Plot To Frame Hiss.

CJK (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I imagine the IP meant that Vasilliev is the only person to have seen the files. He kept notebooks of the files which he has posted online. But it is not up to us to weigh the evidence and determine the facts. Rather we are supposed to report what sources say. TFD (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The sources I cited used the notes to say that Hiss was guilty. Show me evidence that any expert is disputing that these notes are genuine. CJK (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

1) The previous person/ or people who wanted to insert such statements about "consensus" and a "majority of historians" was indeed a member of the military, located in Canada, according to his own website. Here is a list contributed by yourself of the articles CJK has started:

• Articles that I have started [--by CJK]
• Timeline of events in the Cold War
• Operation Vulture
• Cambodian coup of 1970
• North Korean missile test, 2006
• EC-121 shootdown incident

I think one can conclude that your main preoccupation is with military matters, whatever your current occupation may or may not be. If there is a non-military topic on your list of contributions to wikipedia I must have overlooked it. Now you and the other "case closed" folks (whom I call your "friends", speaking metaphorically ), have no problems attempting to marginalize those question your (manufactured) "consensus" by calling them "Hiss's defenders", "HIssites", fringe people, "die-hards", "conspiracy theorists", "gullible", etc., etc. I could do the same and call you coterie of fanatical-defenders=of-NSA-and-the-Military intelligence=services-against- all-comers; neo-cons; revanchists-who-hate-the-New-Deal; a "remnant" (as William F. Buckley liked to style himself his followers), Of course, I would never stoop to such tactics.

2) Inquiring historians would like to know if anyone but Vassiliev seen the source material, yes or no? Also, I ask you this: is Vassiliev a historian, an academic? What is his level of education? How's his English? How competent is he as a translator? Is there any way to check this? Has any other scholar besides himself been inside the Soviet archives?

3) Finally, what about the substantive criticisms of "Consensus" [sic] section. Bogus and Greenspan--the non-historians. Crickets. Look over there, it's a "conspiracy theorist"!173.52.245.188 (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

located in Canada

CANADA?!? Say it ain't so! Those dastardly Canadians interfering in our internal affairs to frame Hiss!

I said "conspiracy theorists" because it accurately describes the intellectual gymnastics needed to maintain that Hiss could still be innocent, not because I have any evidence that they otherwise are engaged in conspiratorial thinking. Your contention that people who attack Hiss are doing so because they are pro-military, on the other hand, reflects somewhat bizarre bigotry on your part.

The bottom line with the notes, what I have been trying to get at for two months, is this: sources say that the notes show Hiss did it. Unless someone can provide a scholarly source that comprehensively disputes the notion that the notes show Hiss did it, there is no reason why it cannot be stated as factual.

CJK (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

John Lowenthal wrote an article "Venona and Alger Hiss", Intelligence and National Security, pub. by Taylor & Francis, 2000, which questioned the accuracy of Vassiliev's notes.[3] Vassiliev, Haynes, and Klehr comment on it in their book. But that is the wrong approach to take. We need evidence that they were accurate not that they were not. And we still need confirmation that there is an academic consensus that Hiss was a spy. IP, Alexander Vassiliev was a KGB officer writing for Pravda when it was a propaganda paper, and has no academic qualifications as an historian AFAIK. TFD (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Lowenthal didn't question the accuracy of the notes, he questioned whether Hiss was specifically named "ALES" in those notes, like in VENONA. In any case, Hiss's lawyer (or his son) is hardly scholarly material.

We need evidence that they were accurate not that they were not.

Really? I would say that we need a scholarly source that disputes the accuracy of the notes first, rather than a Wikipedia user making their own amateur judgments about it. Please don't play games. It is self-evident that the onus is not on me to somehow "prove" the notes are not fakes. If a piece of material is uncontested by scholarship nobody has to prove it is genuine.

CJK (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Lowenthal was not just a "lawyer", he was taught at New School for Social Research in New York City and at the CUNY Law School at Queens College. His article appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. He did in fact challenge the accuracy of the notes. And sorry we cannot assume that the account of one person is accurate without corroboration. Otherwise flying saucer articles would read differently. But you are taking us back into the time-wasting exercise of weighing evidence which is original research. We do not among ourselves decide what really happened, but report what reliable sources say. And the reliable source on which you rely says that some scholars dispute the conclusion that Hiss was a spy. TFD (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Lowenthal was Hiss's lawyer, not simply an independent scholar, as is well known.

He did in fact challenge the accuracy of the notes.

Please show where he did this. The article he wrote is about VENONA, not the notes. Vassiliev didn't even have the notes in his possession back in 2000, he was relying on summaries of those notes.

I do believe we're referring to two sets of notes. If memory serves in this puzzle palace... first there was a deal for Weinstien's publisher to pay US$100,000(?) to the KGB retirement fund for the notes used in Weinstein's "Haunted Wood." There was some sort of legal scuffle in the UK between Lowenthal & Vassiliev (I think Lowenthal won) & then another batch of notes appeared in maybe 2011 or so. Whether or not these are the same notes is difficult to acertain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEddy (talk • contribs) 22:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

And sorry we cannot assume that the account of one person is accurate without corroboration. Otherwise flying saucer articles would read differently.

Because Alger Hiss being a spy is exactly like flying saucers existing. I never thought I would have to type that.

We do not among ourselves decide what really happened, but report what reliable sources say.

Correct. Books have been published by scholars who have deemed the notes genuine and use the notes to justify Hiss's guilt.

And the reliable source on which you rely says that some scholars dispute the conclusion that Hiss was a spy.

Yes. But none of them have comprehensively disputed that the notes show Hiss's guilt, they just tend to ignore/downplay it.

CJK (talk) 20:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

If some scholars dispute the conclusion that Hiss was a spy, out article cannot assert that there is a scholarly consensus that Hiss is guilty. It doesn't matter a damn why they dispute it. And it certainly isn't up to us to decide that they are 'ignoring' or 'downplaying' anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what a scholarly consensus is. A consensus does mean 100% approval among scholars. It merely means widespread approval.

But I wasn't talking about the scholarly consensus anyway. I was talking about the notes that substantiate Hiss's guilt. Over a two month period not a single piece of evidence has been provided that these notes are seriously disputed by scholars.

CJK (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

"Lowenthal didn't question the accuracy of the notes,"..."I would say that we need a scholarly source that disputes the accuracy of the notes first" You see fellows, CJK has maintained a line of logic all through this argument that allows him to state that no legit source questions Hiss' guilt possibly implied by the notes. The notes refer to an agent known as "Leonard," for whom there appears to be no other candidate than Hiss. Re Vassiliev's work, Lowenthal alleged (per Vassiliev's unsuccessful lawsuit against him), "particularly in its use of KGB archival files, (Vassiliev's book about the notes) is unreliable and, for the most part, unverifiable. Where it is verifiable at all, it turns out to be wrong." Amy Knight specifically questioned the conclusion that Hiss was Leonard, and of Vassiliev's notes said, "the inconsistencies in the story of his research are disturbing. And the speed with which he accomplished his work strains credulity." I could on, but the point is this: Because no source has specifically said, "I question the accuracy of the alleged document that refers to agent, "Leonard," and sources have only questioned the conclusion that Hiss was Leonard, therefore no one has questioned the accuracy of the document, therefore the document is case closed that Hiss was an agent. See how it works? I think it's reasonable to infer that multiple reliable sources have cast doubt on the idea that the notes prove Hiss was a spy. Joegoodfriend (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I reiterate that Lowenthal, Hiss's lawyer, cannot possibly be considered a reliable expert on evaluating the authenticity of the notes for the purposes of this article, if he did indeed do so (I am still waiting for the full details of the specific points he was making). Surely if these notes were seriously problematic, you could easily find someone else besides Hiss's lawyer to trash them.

And, as I have already informed Joe above at least twice, Knight admits in her review (not a scholarly article) that the notes were taken from authentic SVR files. She disputes only one of the five or so documents, on the grounds that KGB officials might have been feeding false information to their superiors. Even if we were to take that nonsensical argument as fact, that still leaves four other documents she completely ignores.

CJK (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to infer that multiple reliable sources have cast doubt on the idea that the notes prove Hiss was a spy.

You infer this? What does that mean? There is a fundamental responsibility for people disputing the evidence to provide scholarly sources that not only address the issue but deal with the entirety of the evidence. This is what scholars are supposed to do.

CJK (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand academic publishing. The personal views of the writers are irrelevant to the facts contained in their articles, which are checked through peer-review. I assume you accept Vassiliev's notes as accurate because you believe Hiss was a spy, while you would accept notes of someone documenting secret government documents on UFOs because you do not believe UFOs exist. This is a red herring anyway. You said that if the notes are accurate, then Hiss was a spy. But that is beyond are role as editors. We merely need to determine whether or not there is a consensus, or do scholars still debate the issue. TFD (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand academic publishing. The personal views of the writers are irrelevant to the facts contained in their articles, which are checked through peer-review.

It isn't a matter of "personal views" it is a simple matter of conflict of interest. If a former Exxon lawyer wrote an article saying that emissions don't really harm the environment, nobody would take it seriously when writing an encyclopedia article on greenhouse gasses. In any case you still haven't given any quotes from Lowenthal so we could evaluate the exact points he was making.

I assume you accept Vassiliev's notes as accurate because you believe Hiss was a spy, while you would accept notes of someone documenting secret government documents on UFOs because you do not believe UFOs exist.

Um UFOs do exist, you were referring to "flying saucers". Vassiliev was actually in the archives taking notes related to espionage. Not even you can dispute that. Nobody has been permitted to visit the national archives take notes on supposed classified government flying saucer findings.

You said that if the notes are accurate, then Hiss was a spy. But that is beyond are role as editors.

Absolutely. I am not making my own personal claim, I was reporting what other sources said about the notes. You, on the other hand, are assuming an unwarranted role in dismissing information on the grounds that you don't personally believe it.

CJK (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

If your hypothetical Exxon lawyer wrote an article for a peer-reviewed journal on the environment, then it would be a reliable source, because an independent panel would have pre-screened the article and it would have been submitted to review by environmental experts. They would require that errors were corrected and that inconvenient facts were not excluded, before the article could be published. In fact, major corporations fund many studies that are reported in peer reviewed literature and some editors complain that the studies are funded by drug companies. But neutrality requires us to report what is published

Regarding your comment that I am "dismissing information on the grounds that you don't personally believe it." Not all at. I have no opinion on the case. I do not think there is sufficient evidence to form an opinion one way or another, but would not know that unless I spent several months reading everything available. But it is not up to us to decide, merely to report what sources say.

TFD (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that CKJ excludes the possibility of the existence of "an independent panel" because to be independent would require a degree of doubt on the part of the experts. And CKJ presumes Hiss to be guilty until "comprehensively" proven innocent. 173.77.97.232 (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Not to state the blindingly obvious, but this is getting silly. Wikipedia would not re-write facts in its articles in the event an Exxon lawyer somehow managed to get a peer-reviewed article. The Johnny Cochran of the 1940s is not a suitable source for this matter. You still won't give me information on the specifics of what Lowenthal argued, so you can't tell me that he somehow showed these notes are fakes, or that the notes do not implicate Hiss. In fact, this is quite impossible because back in 2000 Lowenthal had absolutely no access to the notes, and neither did Vassiliev. Vassiliev made summaries of documents to prepare the Haunted Wood in 1999 and did not regain the notes of documents he had directly transcribed until around 2001.

I have no opinion on the case.

Really? You seem to be investing an awful lot of time trying to discredit very specific information, even though you are in no way, shape, or form qualified to determine if it is valid or not.

And CKJ presumes Hiss to be guilty until "comprehensively" proven innocent.

Nope, not even close to what I said. I said that a scholarly source had to be provided that comprehensively disputed the incriminating notes. How is that unreasonable? Scholars are supposed to engage in detailed discussion. That is why they are scholars.

CJK (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

While I am enjoying this pleasant conversation with you, could please explain what specific text you wish to add to the article and which specific sources backs it up. TFD (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

What The Four Deuces said, and also, Vassiliev's notes cannot be "comprehensively disputed" until the originals from which he worked are made available. As it now stands the

Venona cables do not assert that ALES was Hiss. That was an inference made by the FBI. If they had, Vassiliev would not have gone to Russia seeking corroboration. We have Vassiliev's notes -- online. But they are not the sources, which are in a locked archive in Russia. Some people say Vassiliev's hurried transcriptions substantiate Hiss's guilt (CJK), et. al. Others say the the information contained in them is equivocal, because there is no way to confirm "Leonard" was Hiss. Still others (Russian intelligence officers) say there is no evidence in the KBG files that Hiss was ever a spy or "agent of influence" to begin with. Others suggest there are problems with Vassiliev's translations which cannot be verified since we don't have the original sources. Vassiliev sued several people who questioned his accuracy ---including an Amazon commenter (hardly the scholarly method!) and failed to convince an English judge and jury that he was a reliable person. The English judge specifically said in his acerbically worded censure of Vassiliev that just because someone is a relative or a lawyer does not disqualify him or her from weighing in on the case, and that to say otherwise is to engage in intimidation. That is where we stand. And furthermore-- Bogus and Greenspan are not historians, as the article now erroneously asserts.173.77.97.232 (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Lawyers and other people skilled in understanding the law are eminently qualified to make statements as to the law, and as to likely guilt or innocence. Historians do not have a special knowledge of such matters, and thus whether a person knowledgeable in the matters at hand has an opinion has nothing whatever to do with being or not being a "historian." Collect (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying they are not qualified to comment (or repeat talking points) on the case. I am saying that our text calls them "historians" when they are not. 173.77.97.232 (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

See also section

Once this article gets unlocked, can we please lose this section? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The notes revisited, part II

I am going to lay out in very precise terms what I am trying to get done.

I want the article to say in the introduction, citing relevant sources such as Spies, that "notes taken from multiple documents in the Soviet archives have confirmed Hiss's guilt."

Unless...

Someone can cite one single actual article written by an actual scholar who consistently asserts either:

A) They do not believe that Vassiliev's notes are substantively accurate copies of Soviet documents or at least are unwilling to rule out that they aren't.

OR

B) They accept that the notes are accurate but examine each instance Hiss is claimed to be referenced, and conclude that none of the references really show Hiss is guilty.

If anyone can provide a source with the above criteria I will give up this dispute and cease editing this article.

CJK (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You need to cite a source. Incidentally it always better to identify good sources and report what they say rather than determine what we think the article should say and then find sources. TFD (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, if you are going to rule out anything written before 2009 that rules out one of your sources, the developmental psychologist Greenspan, whom you erroneously call a historian. 01:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.97.232 (talk)

Have you looked at DocumentsTalk for an additional view? It's a lot of reading, but she makes some good points. http://www.documentstalk.com/wp/dossiers-on-alexander-vassilievs-notes Svetlana Chervonnaya's site. While it appears that her analysis of the Hiss notes hasn't been posted yet, other commentary is not entirely glowing about how Hayes & Klehr handled Vassiliev's notes. H&K come down hard on Harry Dexter White for being a spy when he's meeting with the Vice Chairman of the Russian National Bank, shortly after the Bretton Woods conference. In Spies H&K label the Russian a KGB agent.

Another thing... WHY is there such heat about Hiss? He was a minor official in the State Department which was majorly out of favor under FDR. What could Hiss possibly have known?

Do we know anything about what Hiss is alleged to have turned over? The only thing I remember is something about fire extinguishers & I'm not clear if this is something associated with Hiss. After 60 years this stuff gets a little fuzzy.

Regarding the issue of "conspiracy"... there absolutely was one. Hoover was an unquestioned rabid anti-communist back to 1918 when he arrested (mostly without warrants) & deported a bunch of people. I can only imagine how "Mr Spy Catcher" Himself must have been mortified to find a "massive" Soviet espionage ring in Washington, right under his nose. And the only way he found out about it was two very sketchy walkins—Chambers & Bentley. [Were some of their stories true? Clearly yes. Were they all true. Clearly no.] I can only imagine the embarrassment. Certainly wouldn't want to be the Agent in Charge of the DC office. My guess is the entire office was promptly banished to Missoula. Hoover did live by totally over-the-top retribution.

DEddy (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

By the way, speaking of books written after 2009, there is a new book out (2013) which is highly critical of Vassiliev and Haynes (from what I can gather, haven't read it ) and seems to suggest Hiss was framed by the FBI and other security agencies to protect their investment in the informers they had recruited, namely Chambers and Bentley: Secret History by Martin Roberts. So there is one on the non-consensus side for you, CJK. Of course it is completely "bizzarre" to suggest Richard Nixon might be involved in anything underhanded. I bet in 10 years there'll be a consensus all right, but not the one CJK is hoping for. 173.77.97.232 (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

). 173.77.97.232 (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"I want the article to say in the introduction, citing relevant sources such as Spies, that "notes taken from multiple documents in the Soviet archives have confirmed Hiss's guilt."

This suggestion was raised in the RFC. It was rejected by the editors. I think it's unfair to re-raise it.

The editor has suggested that those doubting the conclusion that the notes "confirm Hiss' guilt" are either not "academic scholars" or are otherwise not reliable sources for wikipedia. I think this suggestion has also been rejected by the editors.

Let's take a closer look at what Lowenthal wrote, because I think it actually addresses pretty closely what the editor is looking for in terms of specific criticism of Vassiliev ( A) and B) above).

"Press officer Boris Labusov was still with the Foreign Intelligence Service when "The Haunted Wood" was published (1999), and I asked him what he thought of it. He said, "If you want to be correct, don't rely much on 'The Haunted Wood'.... When they put this or that name in Venona documents in square brackets, it's the mere guess of the co-authors. Whether they are right or not, we do not comment. And it concerns all the cases of square brackets in this book.""

"I was expecting Labusov's "We do not comment," in view of recent legislation in Russia tightening the restrictions on discussion of such matters by government officials; but I asked him anyway about Hiss's name appearing in brackets. "As far as Hiss is concerned," Labusov replied, "Our position has not changed since 1992." The co-authors, (Weinstein and Vassiliev) said Labusov, "were wrong when they put the name of Alger Hiss in the places where they tell about somebody who cooperated with Soviet special services, yes? So we are quite right in saying that we, the Russian intelligence service, have no documents...proving that Alger Hiss cooperated with our service somewhere or anywhere." "Mr. Vassiliev, while writing or completing his work on this book together with Mr. Weinstein, had no official copies of documents. He had only passages from them, citations." "Mr. Vassiliev worked in our press service just here in Moscow, but, if he's honest, he will surely tell you that he never met the name of Alger Hiss in the context of some cooperation with some special services of the Soviet Union." Joegoodfriend (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You need to cite a source.

I did. Its called Spies: the Rise and Fall of the KGB in America.

Also, if you are going to rule out anything written before 2009 that rules out one of your sources, the developmental psychologist Greenspan, whom you erroneously call a historian.

Firstly, I never inserted that material. Secondly, I'm not "ruling out" sources before the notes were first used (1999 not 2009) when it comes to the consensus aspect.

While it appears that her analysis of the Hiss notes hasn't been posted yet

Then why is this relevant?

Secret History by Martin Roberts.

Who is Martin Roberts, and what does he have to say about the notes? You have to give some concrete material.

Let's take a closer look at what Lowenthal wrote, because I think it actually addresses pretty closely what the editor is looking for in terms of specific criticism of Vassiliev ( A) and B) above).

Who, for the umpteenth time, is Hiss's lawyer, and not a scholar.

This really isn't that hard. Either you find scholarly source material that disputes the fact that the notes prove Hiss's guilt, or you have absolutely no right to keep the fact out of the article based on your own judgment.

CJK (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

You have absolutely no right to assert that "the notes prove Hiss's guilt". Or rather, you do - but not on Wikipedia. Your opinion on the matter is of absolutely no consequence whatsoever as far as article content is concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Right. Both my and your views are irrelevant. I'm using the source Spies: the Rise and Fall of the KGB in America to state a fact. There is no evidence that that fact has been disputed by scholarship.

Just an FYI on the Nixon thing: its pretty clear he thought Hiss did it. See this taped conversation on 17 June 1971 (excuse the website I'm using for the transcript, it was just the first thing to come up in the search engine):

Nixon: I hope to God - he's not Jewish is he?

Ziegler: [Laughing] I'm sure he is - Ellsberg?

Nixon: I hope not, I hope not.

Haldeman: [unclear] is Jewish. Why the hell wouldn't he be?

Nixon: Oh yeah, I know, I know, I know, but it's, it's, it's, it's a bad thing for us. It's a bad thing for us. It's a bad thing. Maybe we'll be lucky for once. Many Jews in the Communist conspiracy. . . . Chambers and Hiss were the only non-Jews. . . . Many thought that Hiss was. He could have been a half. . . . Every other one was a Jew - and it raised hell for us. But in this case, I hope to God he's not a Jew.

Haldeman: [Laughing] Well, I suspect he is.

Nixon: You can't tell by the name.

Haldeman: Or Halperin. . . . Gelb is -

Nixon: Gelb's a Jew. [4]

CJK (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTFORUM, repeatedly using this talk page to present your own arguments as to why Hiss is guilty may well be seen as a violation of policy. I suggest that you confine your posts to matters of direct relevance to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, did you read what I wrote? I'll repeat it for you a second time verbatim: I'm using the source Spies: the Rise and Fall of the KGB in America to state a fact. There is no evidence that that fact has been disputed by scholarship. The Nixon stuff was in direct response to what the IP posted above. Of course it is completely "bizzarre" to suggest Richard Nixon might be involved in anything underhanded. Why don't you rebuke him?

CJK (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you please provide the page no in the book that says, "notes taken from multiple documents in the Soviet archives have confirmed Hiss's guilt." TFD (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

[5] is an academic journal:

The opening of Soviet archives in the early 1990s together with the declassification of the so-called Venona papers -- translations of some 3,000 messages sent between Moscow and Soviet intelligence stations in the 1940s -- led to the publication, in the late 1990s, of four major works on Soviet espionage that proved without question "the Russians were running a good many spies in the Untied States in the 1930s and 1940s, that they recruited them from the ranks of the left, that they ran them to steal secrets, and when they got caught at it they went to ground and waited for a better day".(7) The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America -- The Stalin Era, by Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassilev; The Sword and the Shield, by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin; Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America, by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr; and Venona: The Greatest Secret of the Cold War, by Nigel West, all paint a picture of a "golden age"(8) of Soviet espionage. They conclude definitively that while Joseph McCarthy may have pursued a witch hunt without scruples, it was, in fact, a witch hunt with real witches. Their guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt: atomic spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg (both of whom were executed in June 1953), State Department officials Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White, and many others. Moreover, KGB archives revealed what could only be called a haemorrhage of Allied secrets, including plans for plants and equipment employed to construct the atomic bomb. The Soviets detonated their own bomb on 29 August 1949. The worst fears of American policymakers had now been realised.

Emphasis added. Scholarly source making specific strong quotable claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

A MAJOR omission here is the presentation of "translation of some 3,000 messages" should correctly read "partial translation." Those cables are cut up with huge swaths of "[xx groups unrecoverable]." Are we to assume this passage is from the questia site? And as always it remains unaddressed... precisely what did the Soviets actually get? I know next to nothing about the Rosenbergs but have seen it said multiple times that what the Soviets got sped up their nuclear bomb process by maybe 3 years. Fission was not an American secret. That the bomb worked was obviously not a secret. It was Mother Nature's knowledge waiting to be plumbed by diligent scientists.

Another issue with this questia passage... mixing Rosenbergs, Hiss & White into the same pot. I've never seen anything that says either Hiss or White knew anything about the Manhattan project, so why bring the Rosenbergs to the table? I've pointed this out before: White was in Treasury & ascendant. Hiss was in the State Department & in FDR's dog house. Given all I can see is seven out-of-context lines, the questia piece appears to be classic guilt-by-association. It also seems to be repeating a passage (without attribution?) from Senator Moynihan's "Secrecy" which makes the same statement about Hiss & White. Presents the Ales cable (with no analysis as I remember) & offers absolutely nothing (other than the accusation) against White. As far as I know Senator Moynihan's ghost writer has not stepped forward. DEddy (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

TFD, they did not say the direct words "notes taken from multiple documents in the Soviet archives have confirmed Hiss's guilt." That's me accurately summarizing what they said in Chapter 1 of their book which is titled "Alger Hiss: Case Closed". They go over what the notes say and how they show Hiss is guilty. I don't have the book with me right now, so I can't tell you the exact page numbers.

So as of now I have an actual referenced fact, and all four of you are trying to exclude that fact based on your own personal opinions that are not backed up by scholarship. That is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy.

CJK (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Please quote the wikipedia policy we are violating, and state clearly how we are violating it. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:EP says: Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies: Neutral point of view (which doesn't mean No point of view), Verifiability and No original research.

Clearly my edit met that criteria. After two months of discussion, nobody can show me that I was wrong. I inserted a sourced fact ("notes taken from multiple documents in the Soviet archives have confirmed Hiss's guilt"), but the fact was deleted and the page protected to preserve that deletion. Yet over a two month period nobody presented scholarly evidence that the edit was wrong. Joe, the IP, Deddy, TFD, and Andy have instead simply declared that they and Hiss's lawyer don't believe the information is factual. That's it. No scholarship, no proof, no nothing (except some bizarre conspiracy theories).

CJK (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that having page references and author and publication dates on hand would be prerequisite for contributing to a wikipedia article! Also, are we allowed to use references that are behind a paywall?173.52.254.147 (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we can use sources that are behind a payroll or even are not on the internet at all, provided they are reliable sources. CKJ, your source contradicted what you said, as I have repeatedly pointed out. Incidentally why are you quoting Nixon's comments on the Jews? TFD (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between objective fact and subjective opinion.

" James Barron, a staff reporter for the New York Times, identified what he called a "growing consensus that Hiss, indeed, had most likely been a Soviet agent" is a fact. "Various reports suggest that those who believe in Hiss's innocence are in the minority of scholarly opinion" is a fact. Your "proof" edit is an opinion not a fact, one disputed by numerous expert sources. And I will add, again, that you proposed this edited in the RFC, and the proposal was rejected by all the editors commenting on it. The editors have also rounded rejected the idea that you can simply disqualify all the expert sources you don't like. Please stop re-raising the issue of the "proof" edit. In three months of argument, you have not received ANY endorsement for it, much less a consensus of the editing community. The old edit is still consensus, and that is wikipedia policy. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

CJK, your statement above is grossly misleading. As far as I'm aware, I've not expressed an opinion regarding Hiss's guilt or otherwise at all. Instead, I have suggested that the sources presented don't enable us to state as a fact that there is an academic consensus that he is guilty, and consequently, we cannot state in that article, as a matter of fact, that he was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

All you guys need to do is to re-read the responses you just posted to confirm what I just said. Joe, the IP, Deddy, TFD, and Andy have instead simply declared that they and Hiss's lawyer don't believe the information is factual. That's it. No scholarship, no proof, no nothing.

None of you bothered to respond to that straightforward complaint.

CJK (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I have replied. I have stated that you have misrepresented my position on the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What I said was "I have no opinion on the case." You could spin that to say I do not believe the evidence or that I do not disbelieve the evidence. If there were editors arguing for Hiss's innocence, they would probably spin it that I do not disbelieve the evidence. My advice is to leave one's beliefs at the door, or take them to blogs, and concentrate on accurately reflecting what sources say, whether or not we believe them. TFD (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

: I notice that both James Barron and Susan Jacoby parse their words very carefully. Barron, whose father was employed by the CIA, does not even say "there is a consensus", but rather that "there is a growing (i.e., a developing) consensus".that Hiss was guilty. Jacoby suggests, that on the contrary, there has always been a consensus about the guilt of Hiss, and that those who deviate in the slightest are always marginalized and stigmatized as unreliable and unsound of mind (example, being called a "flat earther"). From a quick look at Jacoby's book, I gather that she argues that, over a 60-year period, a right-wing cottage industry of Hiss haters has built entire careers on dogmatic assertions of Hiss's guilt', and that, contrary to what these ideologues claim about a supposedly pro-Hiss "liberal media", this constitutes "orthodox" (her word) opinion, including that of the mainstream media. Thus, in her opinion, a consensus, growing or not, that Hiss was guilty is nothing new. Jacoby says that she herself considers Hiss to have been guilty of perjury about not knowing Chambers, and, as far as espionage, she finds the new evidence (Venona, Vassiliev) highly persuasive but "not conclusive". She says she herself would have probably voted to convict, knowing what she now knows, but she fears that the Hiss-haters will consider her a "flat-earther" for admitting as little as a two percent amount of doubt. She is right, because she was rebuked in the NYT and elsewhere for even this teeny bit of agnosticism. BTW I notice that she and her diplomat husband were posted for many years in Moscow, so perhaps she has first hand knowledge of the need to adhere to the official line. 173.52.254.147 (talk) 22:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC) added comma 173.52.254.147 (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC) 173.52.254.147 (talk)

I hate to even have to respond to this, because it changes the subject. The subject we are discussing currently is the notes, rather than a consensus. I want to insert a fact about the notes. You want to exclude the fact. None of you provide any justification for such an exclusion, it purely based on your own POV that refuses to accept it. No scholarly material has been presented to substantiate said POV.

The brief point I will make is that you (IP) apply circular reasoning to come to the conclusion that their is anti-Hiss conspiracy. Rather than simply acknowledge the fact that pro-Hiss people are marginalized due to the strong evidence showing Hiss is guilty, you argue that said marginalizing actually means there is a conspiracy. This is the same exact position every single conspiracy theorist makes: the lack of people supporting X conspiracy is not proof of that X conspiracy doesn't exist, rather it points to the sheer thoroughness of the conspiracy. The position is a gold mine because it is totally un-falsifiable.

According to you: me, the CIA, the NYT, the military, the NSA, Vassiliev, Massing, Chambers, the FBI, foreign diplomats, academics, the U.S. Congress, Nixon, have been in cahoots to get Hiss for over 60 years. The more reasonable worldview would be that Hiss did it.

CJK (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

she finds the new evidence (Venona, Vassiliev) highly persuasive but "not conclusive".

What exactly is meant by that? Does she go into any detailed explanation of her views on the notes?

CJK (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

CjK, are you suggesting that Susan Jacoby is not a reliable source? If you want to know what she means, read her book. And by the way, as far as I know the only sources mentioned here that deal "deal with the entirety of the evidence" (as assembled by Vassiliev and Haynes) are Svetlana Cheronova and Secret History by Martin Roberts, who both find the evidence problematic, if not highly suspect. Other references, which claim that Hiss's guilt is a "proven fact" simply assert this in passing in book reviews or histories of other topics. I do think that on wikipedia all viewpoints that meet wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources should be represented and not one's ridiculed, disparaged, or discounted, as you have been doing. In any case, Susan Jacoby's view is important because she is one of the first to critically assess the latest information -- "comprehensively", or not. Jacoby has said that there has been a vocal contingent of right wingers whose careers have depended on Alger Hiss's guilt. They are hardly a conspiracy, since they are out in the open (the ones we know about, anyway). And that Orthodox Opinion has always held that Hiss was guilty (contrary to what this faction would have you believe). And by the way, Vassiliev's collaborator John Earl Haynes, although associated with an institution, does not have an academic appointment, and thus, strictly speaking, is not an academic, though, as a much-published author, he is a reliable source, among many others. 173.52.254.147 (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC) moved 173.52.254.147 (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I already asked you: who is Martin Roberts (is he a scholar) and what does he have to say about the notes? What is the basis for Susan Jacoby's statement that she finds the evidence "persuasive but not conclusive"? If it is just a statement saying "I don't believe the evidence" it wouldn't be good enough. There needs to be some sort of basis for their belief.

CJK (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, if Jacoby states that the evidence is "persuasive but not conclusive" it isn't up to contributors to argue to the contrary. That would constitute original research. Once again, I will remind you that it is not the purpose of this talk page to determine the 'truth' regarding Hiss's guilt or otherwise. Instead, it is our job to ensure that the article reflects, with due weight, what appropriate sources say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, Other people shouldn't have to do your work for you. If you want to find out more, there are google and public libraries, for a start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.254.147 (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not my responsibility to do your research. You cited them. You should be able to provide more information so we can determine what they said about the notes. All you have given are these very vague statements.

CJK (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that if it has been established that Jacoby stated that the evidence derived from the notes is "persuasive but not conclusive", we have entirely sufficient grounds to reject any definitive assertion that the notes have "confirmed Hiss's guilt", and the matter doesn't really need further discussion. It isn't our job to second-guess sources, and CJK's attempts to argue otherwise are beyond the remit of what contributors are supposed to do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Jacoby's book mainly concerns the political ramifications of the Hiss-Chambers case. If she doesn't provide any actual analysis of the notes, it doesn't count a scholarly refutation.

CJK (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite the policy which permits you to make such an assertion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

We are dealing with a factual statement. For that statement not to factual, it requires a scholar to examine and refute the information at least with some sort of justification. I'm asking for information on what that justification is.

CJK (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK I'm a little lost here. What is the factual statement you refer to?

Also... are you basing Hiss's unquestioned guilt on something said in "Spies" Chapter 1? What other books have you read on this topic? DEddy (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Very minor edit requested

The "Accusation of espionage" section begins

On August 3, 1948, Whittaker Chambers, a former Communist Party member appeared before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC)....

It needs a comma after the word "member", to close the parenthetical. --Trovatore (talk) 08:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Tucking in some excerpts from a journal

First, I dropped the ball above but don't see the point of editing up there to say yeah, forget that. I accept the criticism.

OK, the point here it to share the conclusion of an article, "The Grand Jury in the Hiss-Chambers Case" by John Berresford that was published in American Communist History, ISSN 1474-3892, 06/2008, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp. 1 - 38. Here's a link to his request for release of the grand jury notes. Here's the first page of the article, available to all. I think it's best to hide the rather lengthy excerpt.

Also, this review of Haynes and Klehr's writings by David Garrow finds Hiss (and Rosenberg) "guilty beyond any reasonable doubt of aiding Soviet espionage against the United States." Garrow concludes that "the historical consensus on the relationship between the CPUSA and Moscow has undergone a dramatic change since the Soviet Union's collapse. As In Denial details, some loyalists still refuse to see that the documentary record has been revolutionized. But Haynes and Klehr's valid complaints about these unyielding historians ought to be coupled with an acknowledgment of victory in behalf of those whose pursuit of historical truth has been conclusively vindicated."
"Whitewashing Reds: In Denial: Historians, Communism and Espionage" by John Earl Haynes; Harvey Klehr Review by: David J. Garrow; The Wilson Quarterly (1976-), Vol. 28, No. 1 (Winter, 2004), pp. 119-121

Yopienso (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

So a writer says that some historians have proved Hiss was a spy but other historians are "in denial." And your reading is that historians agree that Hiss was a spy. TFD (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Excerpt from Berresford
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Trials of Alger Hiss and Afterwards Alger Hiss was tried for perjury twice. The first jury deadlocked eight to four for conviction.218 The second jury convicted Hiss on both counts.219 Probably more than any other single event, Hiss's conviction created a widespread public concern (legitimate in many respects) with internal Soviet subversion.220 Hiss was sentenced to five years in prison (the maximum possible). A model prisoner, he served only 44 months. He emerged from prison in 1954, so disgraced that he worked as a salesman of plastic combs and office supplies. One can only imagine his feelings as in these years he saw his once insignificant pursuer Richard Nixon became Vice President and then President of the USA. Hiss pursued vindication energetically in courts of law and in “the court of public opinion” until he died in 1996.221 He achieved a reputation as a martyr in some parts of the far left and among a few “beautiful people,”222 but he lost every attempt to overturn his conviction.223 His favorite post-trial theory was “forgery by typewriter,” that the incriminating Baltimore Documents were produced on a fake typewriter concocted by Chambers or the FBI to produce documents that looked just like ones typed on the Hiss Home Typewriter. This theory was demolished in court224 and in a 1962 book by Professor Herbert Packer of Stanford University Law School.225 An exhaustive study of the case, first published in 1978,226 and revelations from the files of the Soviet Union in the 1990s227 have convinced all but a few diehards228 that Hiss was guilty as charged. Indeed, the Soviet documents tend to show that not only was Hiss guilty of Chambers's accusations, but that he continued spying for the Soviet Union through World War II, by the end of which he was at a high level in the US government.229 Two biographies of Hiss have been published, one sympathetic230 and one not.231 After the trials Chambers found himself in a position not much better than that of Hiss. He was ostracized by many conservatives as a traitor, by many liberals as the man who tore open the soft underbelly of the Roosevelt–Truman regime, and by many ordinary people who knew of him only as a man who had become famous by ruining the life of a former friend (akin to Linda Tripp in the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal). He became convinced that he was a failure and that a new Dark Age would soon descend on the world. His best-selling autobiography Witness was published in 1952 to critical acclaim even by many liberals. It rescued him financially and became one of the sacred texts of the post-War right. William F. Buckley, Jr. and Ronald Reagan were strongly influenced by it. Chambers died at his farm in 1961, still believing, as he did when he abandoned Communism in 1938, that he had left the side that was going to win and joined the side that was going to lose.232 In 1984 President Reagan awarded him a posthumous Medal of Freedom. In 1988 Chambers’ farm was declared a National Historic Landmark.233 (The location of the famous pumpkin is now a paved driveway.) A sympathetic biography of him was published in 1997 and was nominated for a National Book Award.234 Conclusion In conclusion, this article now poses and then attempts to answer three questions. Why did the Grand Jury indict Hiss? Were the Grand Jury proceedings fair to Hiss? Finally, does this long missing chapter in the Hiss–Chambers saga teach us anything new about the case? Why Did the Grand Jury Indict Hiss? It appears from the transcript that the reason the Grand Jury indicted Hiss was simply that the government had done what it had to do–prove that Hiss had probably committed a crime, namely perjury, when he denied under oath spying with Chambers. It also appears that the crucial evidence that tipped the Grand Jury to indict Hiss was the FBI expert Feehan's opinion that the typed spy documents had been typed on the Hiss Home Typewriter. Feehan gave solid, expert support to the Chamberses’ colorful narratives. The jurors in the first trial who thought Hiss guilty noted similar type on the Baltimore Documents and the Hiss Standards.235 In this respect the Grand Jury predicted the thought process and the inclination of at least the first jury. The Grand Jury does not appear to have been prejudiced or guided by anything other than the law and the evidence that it heard. The transcript does not reveal a flock of sheep herded by barking government attorneys. The members of the Grand Jury seem to have started with an open mind and to have concluded in the end that the Chamberses were telling the truth and the Hisses were lying. This is the same long path that HUAC,236 many liberals,237 and the author of the definitive book on the case walked.238 The Grand Jury, like many students of this case before and since, may have wondered at two major gaps in Hiss's defense: the lack of any motive for Chambers to lie239 and any explanation, not laughably complicated, of how Chambers came to possess the typed documents. The Chamberses’ testimonies are more conversational and forthcoming than the Hisses’. Chambers and his wife seem to be trying to remember what happened.240 Chambers deferred to his wife's better memory more than once.241 In contrast, the Hisses’ testimonies are remarkably unforthcoming. Mrs. Hiss communicates only a dislike of the shadowy Crosleys, and almost nothing factual.242 Alger Hiss's testimonies to the Grand Jury are notable for the same things that Garry Wills found in his public testimonies: sluggish memory [and] … hedged denials of each Chambers story until external evidence forced him to remember or revise …. His life in the years when Chambers knew him comes out … as a curious blank, filled with nothing but official endorsements and separate denials, … [Hiss followed a] strategy of total and universal denial and forgetfulness from the very outset, [and a] refusal to volunteer autobiography …. 243 Given the contrast between the two couples’ testimonies, the circumstantial evidence that supported the Chamberses’ story of a long and friendly relationship, the typewritten documents, Feehan's expert testimony corroborating Chambers's story, and the Hisses’ lame attempts at explaining all that away, it is not surprising at all that the Grand Jury indicted Hiss. Were the Grand Jury Proceedings Fair to Hiss? Hiss complained that the right and, in particular, lame duck Republicans on HUAC244 wanted him indicted and Chambers vindicated.245 This is true, but it is equally true that many powerful Democrats wanted Chambers indicted and Hiss forgotten.246 In other words, each man had strong forces outside the Grand Jury rooting for him and against the other.247 Hiss's complaint is an unconvincing whimper: the head of a major foundation and former high government official cannot pose as a helpless waif overcome by cynical maneuvering. (Neither can the Senior Editor of Time magazine.) More important, there is no sign that the outside forces penetrated the walls of the Grand Jury room. The government attorneys, far from being bullies, were solicitous of some witnesses, urging one to consult a lawyer248 and making sure that another did not breach attorney–client privilege in answering questions.249 The government attorneys and Grand Jurors asked both men and their wives tough questions and hammered at the weak parts of their stories. The harsh questioning was directed equally at both Chambers and Hiss and did not exceed any bounds of propriety. It speaks highly for the integrity of the government attorneys, presumably Democrats, that they ultimately turned on the self-styled embodiment of their Party's stewardship of the nation's security and foreign policy. The cameo appearance of Representative Nixon has been characterized as an improper interference by a member of Congress in a criminal investigation in order to incite an individual's indictment.250 This claim is difficult. The government lawyers summoned Nixon to the Grand Jury;251 he did not barge in. Nixon opined about the evidence, but did not ask the Grand Jury to indict Hiss. He gave his opinion only after he was asked for it by a government attorney. It is difficult to find anything improper in a witness summoned before a Grand Jury answering a question that he was asked.252 Nor does it appear that Nixon's testimony harmed Hiss greatly. It is not what provoked Hiss's indictment. If any one thing turned the tide decisively against Hiss it was not Nixon's testimony on December 13, but Feehan's testimony on the next day. Nixon's testimony that was critical of Hiss is 6 pages out of his total of 52,253 and out of 2000 pages of testimony before the first Grand Jury. The other 1900 or so pages contained more than enough to indict Hiss. Indeed, Nixon gave the Grand Jury an excuse not to indict Hiss when he said that HUAC would press on with the case regardless of what the Grand Jury did. The transcript does not show the Grand Jury reduced to a zombie state by the charms of Representative Nixon.254 On the contrary, Nixon devoted the vast majority of his time before the Grand Jury to refusing to give it the films that it fiercely desired. Far from charming or swaying the Grand Jury, he so displeased it that it voted to demand that he surrender the films, implicitly threatening him with contempt and even prison. Do the Grand Jury Transcripts Teach Anything Us About the Case? There is no bombshell or smoking gun in the transcripts, but they may shed a little light on the enduring mystery of the case, which is why Hiss persisted robustly, decade after decade, to seek vindication. Many Americans who suffered, deservedly or not, for their Communist activities dusted themselves off and went on with their lives. Why did Hiss continue fighting and lying for almost 50 years if he were guilty? Many opinions have been ventured.255 One is that Hiss suffered from a mental illness and this opinion receives some slight support in the transcripts. This opinion is based on the observation of a Harvard psychologist who evaluated Chambers for the Hiss defense. The psychologist also saw Hiss on the witness stand at his trials and evaluated him in his spare time. The psychologist found Hiss to be suffering from a self-image as unvaryingly moral, intelligent, successful, and “unspotted by the world.” The psychologist warned Hiss's lawyer that he had to make his client human or lose the jury. Hiss's lawyer agreed and proposed to Hiss that he tell the jury about his failures and shortcomings in life. Hiss refused, however, to discuss “any aspects of himself that made him seem less than perfect.”256 The psychologist's evaluation of Hiss is consistent with Hiss's testimony to the Grand Jury and may have been shared by one Grand Juror, who asked HUAC Chief Investigator Robert Stripling, “Don’t you think Mr. Hiss is a sort of mental case, trying to block out something in his background?”257 Excerpt from footnote #228, my bolding: In 2005 one of Hiss's longest defenders, The Nation Magazine publisher Victor Navasky, stated merely “Every time I look at [the case], and I hear that the last nail has been put in Hiss's coffin, I look at the evidence and I don’t read it that way. But that's a thing that is still being argued, although I’m in a minority position.” After Words (C-SPAN transmission, July 11, 2005, with interviewer David Frum & guest Victor Navasky). A web page, The Alger Hiss Story: Search for the Truth, http://homepages.nyu.edu/th15/home.html (accessed August 16, 2006), contains a huge amount of useful and raw materials on the case, but is marred by its unrelenting pro-Hiss bias. One long time Hiss defender appears to have begun to change her mind. Ellen Schrecker, Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America (New York: Little, Brown & Co., 1998), 175: “The case … is not fully resolved and may never be.” But see Ellen Schrecker, “Stealing secrets: communism and Soviet espionage in the 1940s,” North Carolina Law Review, 82 (2004), 1841, 1844: Hiss “was probably working for … Soviet military intelligence”; 1864: “it appears likely that [Hiss] conveyed information to the Soviets.” I have quoted stronger words of Schrecker's three times above. Yopienso (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, there is a consensus, that is there would have been one, if only those pesky historians who didn't agree would agree to stop being "in denial." 173.52.254.147 (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You guys would be hilarious if you weren't so serious. No matter how many RSs say most historians agree Hiss was guilty, it ain't so cuz you don't want it to be so. Yopienso (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that 'most' historians consider Hiss guilty. What has been proposed however is that the article states that they all do... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The following news item is reproduced on the History News Network http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/37337.html

SOURCE: AP (4-5-07)

NEW YORK -- A Russian researcher, delving anew into once-secret Soviet files from the Cold War, says she has found no evidence that Alger Hiss spied or that Soviet intelligence had any particular interest in him.

In a speech to be delivered at a New York University symposium Thursday, Svetlana A. Chervonnaya says neither Hiss' name nor his alleged spy moniker, Ales, appears in any of dozens of documents from Soviet archives that she has reviewed since the early 1990s...

Calling her efforts "proving the negative," Chervonnaya says "a thorough combing of all the said archives combined has not produced a shred of evidence that Alger Hiss had ever been a member of the (American) Communist Party and was engaged in any behind-the-scenes interactions with the Soviets."...

Soviet defectors, retired KGB agents and U.S. officials, some claiming to have documentary proof, have come down on both sides of what remains one of the Cold War's most enduring controversies.

In 1995-96, U.S. intelligence agencies released the Venona Files, a series of decoded Soviet diplomatic cables on espionage matters during World War II. They mentioned a U.S. contact called Ales, who already had been identified by a defecting Soviet agent as Hiss.

Ms. Cherovonnaya calls the group of American scholars such as Haynes, et. al., who identify Hiss with "Ales", "traditionalists"; They, on the other hand, responded to her challenges with vehement attacks, sometimes using ad hominem (or ad feminam) arguments.

It is interesting, too, how Vassiliev's notebooks came to light. I believe they were first unearthed in 2007 by the investigative historian Jeffrey Kisselhoff who happened on them when he was seeking to bolster his defense of Hiss, among the papers of Allen Weinstein, which had been donated to a public archive. I don't know if our article includes this information. It was only after this discovery that Haynes and Vassiliev decided to publish them together with the book Spies in 2009. Some consensus! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.254.147 (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"Consensus" doesn't mean no one disagrees; on most issues, someone will always disagree. "Consensus" means most historians agree. In this case, the "die-hard loyalists" disagree. They are in the minority.

However, if there is no consensus here on what "consensus" means, :-) let's just leave the word "consensus" out and say "majority." No problem with that! The way the lede and article stand right now seems clear that most historians believe Hiss was guilty but other reputable historians don't. Yopienso (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe they were first unearthed in 2007 by the investigative historian Jeffrey Kisselhoff who happened on them when he was seeking to bolster his defense of Hiss

Your "belief" is wrong. They were first disclosed by Vassiliev during his trial in 2003. CJK (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean "their existence" was first disclosed? 173.52.254.147 (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"As explained in our preface to Spies, in 2005 we learned of the existence of the notebooks and traveled to London to examine them and discuss their provenance with Vassiliev." [6]

CJK (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

investigative historian Jeffrey Kisselhoff

From his own website: Jeff Kisseloff, the Managing Editor of this site, is the author of two oral history books, "You Must Remember This: An Oral History of Manhattan From the 1890s to World War II" and "The Box: An Oral History of Television, 1920-1961". He is a freelance writer in Ossining, New York. [7]

Where do you get "investigative historian" out of that?

CJK (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

So, Haynes and Klehr first saw them in 2005, and Kisselhoff saw them at the Hoover Institute in 2007 and enlisted Chervonnaya, as a Russian speaker, to help him interpret them? Is that the chronology? The pair questioned the use Weinstein had made of them, and Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev's Spies was published in 2009 as a rebuttal (or damage control), and the notebooks were rewritten and put on the web. Just asking. 173.52.254.147 (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting, CJK, that Oral history, as in http://www.oralhistory.org/about/ , is not a recognized field of study? Kisseloff has written five books, 3 of them oral histories and is also the holder of an MA in journalism from Columbia University.

I don't know who "Jeffrey Kisselhoff" is but Jeff Kisseloff (me) has been investigating the case on and off since 1975. In the off years, I've been working as a reporter and writing five history books. On the Hiss case, I draw my conclusions not from the loyalty to one person or idea or from opinions of others but from primary sources, documents I continue to obtain by the thousands each year and interviews I have done over the years. At the moment, Woodstock #230099 is sitting on my desk under a stereo microscope. That's pretty investigative. My email address is freely available and have always welcomed civil discussion on the case and feel my writing on the case (which will become a book addressing many of the questions raised in this conversation) stands for itself. Jeffisme (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Jeffisme

:My deepest apologies, sir, for repeatedly mis-spelling your name. My spelling, especially of names, unfortunately, is something I still need to work on, but I do know that investigative research is what you do -- if that is not a redundancy -- and I understand that interviewing and gathering of testimony, whether for the purposes of journalism, history, or social science, is a specialized skill, with its own best practices. 173.52.254.147 (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

So, Haynes and Klehr first saw them in 2005, and Kisselhoff saw them at the Hoover Institute in 2007 and enlisted Chervonnaya, as a Russian speaker, to help him interpret them? Is that the chronology? The pair questioned the use Weinstein had made of them, and Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev's Spies was published in 2009 as a rebuttal (or damage control), and the notebooks were rewritten and put on the web. Just asking.

I don't even have the slightest concept of the point you are trying make.

Jeff Kisseloff, whoever that user claims to be, is not a scholar much less an "investigative historian". He is a "freelance writer" that runs a website that is dedicated exclusively to the defense of Hiss. "Oral history" is not terribly relevant to this issue. We need people who are scholars in the field of the Hiss-Chambers case, American Communism, the Cold War, the McCarthy era, or espionage.

CJK (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, oral history is an academically recognized form of scholarship and is held to standards of accuracy just like any other history. Are you not aware of the fact there are numerous independent scholars? Many also have websites. Scholars are judged by whether their work is verifiable and by their publications, among other things, not by their credentials only. May I remind you that Darwin was an independent scholar and so was Einstein when he published his five papers on relativity, not to suggest that Mr Kisseloff is quite in that category. Nevertheless, Mr. Kissleoff has an advanced professional degree (from an Ivy League University) and has published five books. He certainly meets wikipedia's standards as a reliable source. Attempting to belittle him does not help advance your argument. 173.52.254.147 (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC) added "Ivy League", since credentials mean so much to CKJ 173.52.254.147 (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Vassiliev also does not have a history degree but has a degree in journalism. He also worked as a journalist - with the Communist Youth publication. TFD (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

John Earl Haynes's day job sounds to me rather indistinguishable from that of curator or archivist, which means that he is also, strictly speaking, an "independent scholar." 173.52.254.147 (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself for your benefit: "Oral history" is not terribly relevant to this issue. We need people who are scholars in the field of the Hiss-Chambers case, American Communism, the Cold War, the McCarthy era, or espionage.

I should note, though, that unlike you Kissleoff does not seem to believe that the notes are fakes, rather he merely imposes a preposterous interpretation upon them (saying that the Soviets were getting their information on who was and wasn't a spy from American newspapers).

Vassiliev also does not have a history degree but has a degree in journalism.

And your point is what exactly? Vassiliev was just the guy who wrote stuff down. Haynes and Klehr are the ones using the information to report a fact.

CJK (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not know whom you are addressing, but I cannot find where any editor called the notes "fakes." Incidentally the idea that one Soviet intelligence group would not have direct information about who worked for another group is not preposterous. As Haynes, Alexander Vassiliev and Klehr write on p. 536 of Spies, the KGB and GRU "were so comparmentalized that the right hand of Soviet espionage sometimes did not know what the left hand was doing." I mentioned Vassiliev`s qualifications because you mentioned Jeff Kisselhof`s. You are the one claiming that books by journalists are not reliable sources. What difference is there between them, except that V`s professional experience was as a KGB officer writing for a Communist paper? TFD (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

We need people who are scholars in the field of the Hiss-Chambers case, American Communism, the Cold War, the McCarthy era, or espionage. CJK, At the risk of being ignored, which of these credentials do you bring to the table? So far I get the impression that your first read on the Hiss case is "Spies." DEddy (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Deddy, I am citing a scholarly source, not claiming to be a scholar myself.

Honestly, I'm not even sure that, even if there were some scholarly sources disputing it, it would matter in terms of Wikipedia policy. The existence of so-called "scholars for 9/11 truth" does not prevent the September 11 attacks page from identifying al-Qaeda as the perpetrator without reservation.

What exactly is the difference between the 9/11 conspiracy theorists and the Hiss conspiracy theorists?

I do not know whom you are addressing, but I cannot find where any editor called the notes "fakes."

Great, then please stop excluding them.

Incidentally the idea that one Soviet intelligence group would not have direct information about who worked for another group is not preposterous.

Indeed, and that is not what was being discussed. What I said was saying that the Soviets were getting their information on who was and wasn't a spy from American newspapers.

What difference is there between them, except that V`s professional experience was as a KGB officer writing for a Communist paper?

I'm relying on Haynes and Klehr as scholars, not Vassiliev.

CJK (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK I'd still like to get an understanding on what your base of knowledge is for the Hiss matter. Is "Spies" you primary reference? What is your depth of knowledge on this topic, where I mean McCarthy era as the topic? I've had close to 60 years of this stuff & it's darned hard to keep track of the twists & turns & the bigger picture... what's the difference between political spin & probable reality. DEddy (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, can you name any prestigious academic journals or respected magazines for that matter that question whether Bin Laden's group was behind 9/11? I know that at one time some scholars and most mainstream US media claimed that Saddam Hussein was behind it and we would have reported that as a minority view at the time. TFD (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

courtesy break 2

I'm concerned that the debate is straying into ad hominem territory here, as well as arguing the topic itself and not the article. What are the proposed edits on the table so we can move the focus back there? Is this still a discussion on the notes and whether to include them in the lede? EBY (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

There are two proposed edits.

Proposal 1 is to say in the intro that there is a scholarly consensus of Hiss's guilt. More than enough evidence has been presented to confirm this, but as Yopienso eloquently describes the opposing party "No matter how many RSs say most historians agree Hiss was guilty, it ain't so cuz you don't want it to be so."

Without the notes there would only be about a 95% chance that Hiss did it, so "consensus" would satisfy me. However, in view of the fact that the notes raise the chances from 95% to 100%, I view "consensus" as utterly inadequate. The notes prove Hiss did it, and nobody can cite relevant scholarly opinion that shows otherwise.

Proposal 2 is to additionally insert in the intro that "notes taken from multiple documents in the Soviet archives have confirmed that Hiss was a spy" or something similar to that effect. Anything less would be no different than editing the September 11 attacks page to avoid mentioning that al-Qaeda did it (Or that there was merely a "consensus" that al-Qaeda did it) on the grounds that there are many conspiracy theorists who claim otherwise.

CJK (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the notes, which are purportedly based on documents whose contents can't be determined and which contradict other allegations against Hiss, don't "confirm" anything and declaring that even without them there's about "a 95% chance that Hiss did it" ignores decades of solid scholarship into the case. While a majority of recently published books on the case are by authors who claim that Hiss was guilty, that says more about the state of publishing than Hiss's innocence or guilt. Either way, your statement about consensus is not based on any empirical data. It simply repeats the statements of another. Conclusions drawn from erroneous research don't establish facts, they just spread erroneous opinions. If Wikipedia is to be a trusted source it should not be in the business of simply repeating and restating opinions and questionable research as fact.Jeffisme (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Jeffisme

CJK, please avoid personal attacks against other editors. You need a source to say there is an academic consensus. Your source says that articles supporting Hiss' innocence continue to be published in "prestigious academic journals", which does not happen once once academics have reached a consensus. Note that 911 truth versions are not published in academic journals or even in respected magazines and newspapers. TFD (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what the connection is between this Hiss debate (1950s) and 9/11? Why is 9/11 mentioned here? DEddy (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the notes, which are purportedly based on documents whose contents can't be determined and which contradict other allegations against Hiss, don't "confirm" anything

Can you cite a scholar (from the relevant fields) who shares this opinion? Otherwise it is just original research.

CJK, please avoid personal attacks against other editors.

It wasn't my personal attack, it was Yopienso's.

You need a source to say there is an academic consensus.

Huge numbers of sources have already been given above. I don't feel like going through them because the "consensus" aspect was never my main concern.

Your source says that articles supporting Hiss' innocence continue to be published in "prestigious academic journals", which does not happen once once academics have reached a consensus.

There are no articles that both examine the totality of the evidence and support Hiss's innocence in said "prestigious academic journals."

Can someone tell me what the connection is between this Hiss debate (1950s) and 9/11?

The argument that the government framed Hiss is fundamentally no different, at this point in time, than the argument that the government blew up the WTC.

CJK (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The argument that the government framed Hiss is fundamentally no different, at this point in time, than the argument that the government blew up the WTC. Huh? You are asserting that the 1950s was the same as 2001? Are you at all familiar with the "mood" in Washington during the McCarthy era? Can you contrast that mood with 9/11 event?

What does 9/11 have to do with your allegations of unquestionable fact that Hiss was guilty? DEddy (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Whom have I attacked? No one. If someone feels I have, please clue me in so I can right the offense. Yopienso (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, you didn't. I was falsely accused of conducting a personal attack, by TFD and I assumed he was referring to when I quoted you.

Deddy, I don't know what you are getting at by talking about the "mood". I don't understand why you complaining about how bad Hoover/Nixon/Chambers are to justify Hiss trutherism is any different than complaining about how bad Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld are to justify 9/11 trutherism.

CJK (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK I've repeatedly asked you what you know about McCarthyism in general & the Hiss story in particular. From what you have said so far, it appears that you read "Spies" Chapter 1 "Case Closed" & immediately reached the conclusion that Hiss was guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Somehow 9/11 was tossed into the fire as I assume as a red herring. I keep bringing up Hoover/Nixon/Chambers/McCarthy to try to get some indication that you actually know something about the mood of the times, life inside the (to be built later) Beltway & the topic. So far you've stonewalled my questions. I certainly hope I haven't offended you by asking these contextual questions. Much against my better judgement, I am beginning to re-read "Spies" & have already found in Vassiliev's Forward an observation—in Vassiliev's own words—that is likely to cast doubt on your "Case 100% Closed" assertion.

So, please to offer some indication of your experience & depth of knowledge in this topic. DEddy (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Quote from Jeffisme, "Actually, the notes, which are purportedly based on documents whose contents can't be determined and which contradict other allegations against Hiss, don't "confirm" anything"

Response from CJK: "Can you cite a scholar (from the relevant fields) who shares this opinion?"

Jeff, you're a newcomer, so in case you haven't had time to read this whole page, we have course repeatedly cited experts sources who have discussed Vassiliev's notes in context and have continued to express doubt that the notes demonstrate Hiss' guilt as a spy. Examples: Kai Bird, Svetlana Chervonnaya, John Lowenthal, D.D. Guttenplan. And we've also discussed the statements of Boris Labusov and others in the Soviet sphere who have denied Hiss ever worked with them.

Of course CJK doesn't consider any of these people to be scholars, that way he can dismiss them even though they are considered to be reliable sources for wikipedia purposes (you can find them referenced in any number of articles).

And now Jeff, according to CJK, you're not a scholar either. Congratulations, you're in good company! Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all, regarding my qualifications to question the conclusions drawn by CJK in his/her efforts to make the article appear that Hiss's guilt is a certainty. Let me just say this: I have read and am familiar with both trial records, the appeals and the Motion for a New Trial. I have read every book written on the case. I have read through the entire Hiss-Chambers investigative file released by the FBI, plus the personal files of the major participants as well as the files of nearly 100 others involved in the case. I have read through the defense files, the grand jury minutes and the HUAC investigative file that was released a decade or so ago. I have also sought out and read the papers of numerous individuals involved in one way or another in the case. I have spoken at two conferences dealing with the Hiss case. I have established a Web site on the case and have written or co-written (and edited) articles that address many of the issues raised in this discussion (including the "preposterous" conclusions I have allegedly drawn -- an incorrect inference that to me is emblematic of much of the recent Hiss case commentary). I am also current on the more recent research through the Soviet files and am privy to much information that hasn't been released yet. As I stated before, I am also conducting scientific research on the Woodstock typewriter. Through the years, I have also conducted extensive interviews with people with knowledge about the case or who were directly involved in it, including, of course, Alger Hiss himself (and have always taken the position that should Hiss be found to have been a liar, it would be reported as such). I have visited and been inside Hiss's former DC residences. I'm sure I've forgotten a few things to list, but I'm guessing that my qualifications as a scholar on the case are probably a bit better than CJK's but that's just a guess. As for my comment on the notes, please see the relevant articles at algerhiss.com. If you have access to a recording of the conference that took place a few years ago in Washington, listen to what Amy Knight had to say. I also participated in that conference and brought up a number of relevant questions based on the facts. Jeffisme (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, you quoted another editor as saying, "No matter how many RSs say most historians agree Hiss was guilty, it ain't so cuz you don't want it to be so." You also said, "Anything less would be no different than editing the September 11 attacks page to avoid mentioning that al-Qaeda did it (Or that there was merely a "consensus" that al-Qaeda did it) on the grounds that there are many conspiracy theorists who claim otherwise." Those are personal attacks because you are accusing other editors of pushing views because that is their belief system and comparing them to conspiracy theorists. Ironically you on another article are pushing the conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Do you also believe the conspiracy theory that he was behind 911? TFD (talk) 06:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I knew I forgot something. I was the chief researcher (and actually helped write) the coram nobis petition based on material in the FBI files that Hiss filed in 1978 to overturn the guilty verdict. While the petition was unsuccessful in the courts, it was published by Hill and Wang as "In Re Alger Hiss" with all the cited ddocuments included. While there is sure to be disagreement on the merits of the petition itself, the documents provide a fascinating and important window into the FBI's investigation of the case. Jeffisme (talk) 07:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Jeffisme

It is a very straightforward question, Jeff. Can you cite actual scholars (from the relevant fields) who agree with your view of the notes?

Those are personal attacks because you are accusing other editors of pushing views because that is their belief system and comparing them to conspiracy theorists.

Um, yeah, because they are conspiracy theorists in case you didn't know. The whole Hiss trutherism concept is based on the idea that the FBI/military created a fake typewriter to frame Hiss.

Ironically you on another article are pushing the conspiracy theory that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Do you also believe the conspiracy theory that he was behind 911?

He did have weapons of mass destruction, at least until the summer of 1991. I'm sorry you were unaware of that historical fact.

CJK (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not a conspiracy theory to question evidence, just as it is not a conspiracy theory to believe that Hiss and Chambers were part of a conspiracy. Incidentally no one has questioned that Saddam Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction" in 1991, although the Reagan administration denied that he had used them at Halabja. The question was whether he had them in 2003. The U.S. government fabricated evidence that he did. Had the U.S. not invaded Iraq we would still be arguing whether or not he had them. No doubt you would call people who questioned their existence "conspiracy theorists."

Regarding the typewriter, it is not our role to debate points of evidence but to determine what experts say. In this case, experts continue to publish articles in prestigious academic journals questioning whether Hiss was a spy, according to Vassiliev, Haynes, and Klehr.

TFD (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The U.S. government fabricated evidence that he did.

Really? Because every other government involved thought he had them too. But we should stick to the subject at hand. Your evidence-free assertion simply confirms your lack of interest in neutrality and your dedication to promoting WP:FRINGE views.

In line with Wikipedia policy, I have merely requested evidence from a relevant scholar that also takes a pro-Hiss view of the notes (that they do not prove Hiss's guilt). Since nobody can provide one, the WP:FRINGE view that you and others advance should no longer have a stranglehold on this article.

It seems self-evident at this point that such a scholar does not exist, otherwise it would have been provided in the last couple months. The article needs to be unprotected so that relevant facts are no longer deliberately obscured.

CJK (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

See the book by Haynes, Klehr, and Vassiliev, p. 4, which says that articles supporting Hiss' innocence continue to be published in "prestigious academic journals". In fact Vassiliev even unsuccessfully took one of these authors to court. TFD (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Great. Then you should have no problem finding such an article (by an actual scholar in the relevant fields), one that examines the totality of the evidence and concludes that the evidence is still indecisive.

CJK (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I've obtained the full quote on p.4 from Yopienso (which was posted above): "Critics attacked The Haunted Wood on the grounds that only the authors had access to its underlying documentation, parsed the Venona project's 'Ales' message, and offered elaborate and convoluted interpretations of why 'Ales' might not be Hiss that were published in prestigious academic journals and promoted by left-wing journals of opinion such as The Nation."

So the articles published in the "prestigious academic journals" pertained only to the specific Venona-related argument that Hiss was ALES and not to the argument regarding the notes.

CJK (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

" The article needs to be unprotected so that relevant facts are no longer deliberately obscured."

I don't know what this means, but it seems to suggest that the editor will make another attempt to introduce the edits proposed in the Request for Comment.

Proposal 2. "That notes from the Soviet archives have confirmed his guilt" received no support from the commenting editors.

Proposal 1. "That there is a scholarly consensus of Hiss's guilt" received some support, but no consensus from the editors.

The current lede, which was created as a result of a long debate and hard-won agreement among the editors, is still consensus. It should not be changed to the text in Proposals 1. and 2. Joegoodfriend (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that we are debating what are regarded as the actual facts and not merely what is NPOV. No "consensus" justifies conduct that violates WP:EP, WP:FRINGE, WP:NOR, WP:OWN, and probably others.

CJK (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, since (as far as I'm aware) no source has been provided for (1), were it to be added, it would be entirely appropriate to remove it again, until such a source could be cited. And since (2) follows logically from (1), that could be removed too. The proposed changes are unsourced, and therefore invalid. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Other users apart from myself have provided ample sources regarding (1). However, even if they had not, your assessment that "(2) follows logically from (1)" is completely irrelevant as to the merits of (2). (2) says "notes taken from multiple documents in the Soviet archives have confirmed Hiss's guilt". It makes no mention of any "consensus" it merely reports a fact that has not been contradicted by qualified scholars.

CJK (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you please let me know which source(s) you intent to cite for (1). As for (2), it cannot possibly be acceptable to make a definitive statement to the effect that Hiss is guilty if the academic consensus does not support it: that would be a gross violation of WP:NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK: Proposal 2. "That notes from the Soviet archives have confirmed his guilt" received no support from the commenting editors."

One thing I noted in "Spies" Chapter 1 (or perhaps the Vassiliev Introduction) is that Vassilliev did his research in the KGB archives. He specifically mentions that GRU (Military Intelligence) archival collections are NOT indexed & therefore essentially impossible to find stuff reliably. Yet Hiss/Ales was a GRU resource. Assuming (always an ambiguous/dangerous word in this subject domain) Chambers was a GRU courier, how is it that Vassiliev has so much access to GRU information when he (Vassilliev) is doing his research from KGB archives?

It's been my life long experience that it can be difficult to communicate across organizational boundaries. Hence, I assume it is even more difficult to communicate across intelligence agency—competing agencies—organizational boundaries. I get the sense that GRU was first into Washington (with Chambers?). KGB appeared to be very hands-off with known GRU resources.

So how were there GRU documents available in KGB archives for Vassiliev to find? DEddy (talk) 15:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)