Talk:Alger Hiss/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 14

The notes revisited, part 3

Let's look at the genealogy of Vassiliev's notebooks & the book "Spies."

First: GRU archives since Hiss was by multiple accounts a GRU resource. By his own words Vassiliev says: 1) he's KGB & GRU archives are in different location, and 2) GRU archives are in disarray & not indexed.

So whatever materials Vassiliev had access to were largely secondary

Second: Vassiliev interprets the secondary resources & transcribes them to his notebooks

No one else has had access to what Vassiliev transcribed

We have no information on the quality & consistency of Vassiliev's transcription abilities & practices.

Third: Haynes & Klehr distill the notebooks into "Spies."

We're at least 3 times removed from original source documents. DEddy (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK: You said "you and your military friends" were trying to change the article.

Well? 173.77.75.95 (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

to CJK" the great unanswered question...

From your silence, I assume your sole (dominant?) source of information for this topic is "Spies."

I think I've explained this about as thoroughly as I possible can. Vassiliev copied the text of certain documents into his notebooks. The notes have been deemed genuine by numerous scholars. The text of the notes indicate in unambiguous terms that Hiss was a Soviet agent. Spies reports this fact. There is, in particular, an incriminating document mentioning Hiss as an agent betrayed by Chambers written during a period of time when the KGB and GRU were merged, so it isn't just second hand information from the KGB.

CJK (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Which document was that and where do the authors say that the GRU agents shared information with KGB agents during the 11 months that they both reported to the KI? TFD (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

How am I supposed to identify it? It was written in December 1948 by two authors, one of whom was the deputy chairman of the KI (P. Fedotov).

where do the authors say that the GRU agents shared information with KGB agents

I never said that and they never said that. Are you actually going to use this an excuse to pretend that the deputy chairman of the KI had no basis for his statement that Chambers betrayed Hiss? They would have been privy to relevant information.

CJK (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: I think I've explained this about as thoroughly as I possible can.

I would say you haven't once answered my repeated questions. Is "Spies" the basis of your knowledge on this matter?

"Spies" is a single book in a long running saga. For a matter as complex as this, for a single book to stand above all others as THE definitive & absolute truth on the matter smacks of hubris of the highest order.

There's the little matter of verifiability here. Has anyone other than Vassiliev seen the source (more like secondary since Vassiliev by his own words in "Spies" did not have access to GRU archives) documents that are recorded in his notebooks. As to others declaring them "genuine" how can that be if they have not had access to the KGB archives that Vassiliev based his notebooks on? DEddy (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"Spies" is the scholarly source I am using for the purposes of including the incriminating notes in this article. I have read other material about Hiss, and I have read the notes myself online. If there is a legit, scholarly source that believes Spies is wrong, you or anyone else is free to present it at any time.

Nobody is known to have seen the source material besides Vassiliev. But he wrote over 1,000 pages of notes, and they do not look like a forgery or something he just made up. I am not an expert on this matter, so I keep wondering why you are asking me these questions that are best dealt with by scholars who are.

CJK (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, Military intelligence officers had already been transferred back to the military by mid-1948. Even during the brief period they were part of KI, they were part of a separate section. By the time the December report was written, Chambers had already publicly testified before HUAC, so for all we know that was the source of their information. In any case, the sources you quote do not make the conclusions that you do. TFD (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all your argument is original research. Second of all, the separation process began in mid-1948 but was not complete until early 1949.

Chambers had already publicly testified before HUAC, so for all we know that was the source of their information.

The Soviets sole source for the information about Hiss was to take at face value American public proceedings? I'm supposed to not laugh at that utterly preposterous suggestion?

CJK (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

No one has suggested, as far as I know, that Vassiliev "forged" or "just made up" the notes that he took. However, even the very best historian can misinterpret, or make a mistake in transcription, especially when working very rapidly. Without seeing the original materials there is no way to check for errors. Craig asserts that "If we take the Vassiliev notebooks literally though, what they actually demonstrate is that the KGB was under the impression that Hiss was connected to “the neighbors” —the KGB’s fraternal military intelligence organization, the GRU." He calls this hearsay evidence, inadequate, even if correct. 173.77.75.95 (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, you are quite correct that arguing from the information available to determine what actually happened is original research. But that is exactly what you have been doing. Incidentally, why do you think the KGB would not take believe HUAC proceedings? TFD (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: Nobody is known to have seen the source material besides Vassiliev. But he wrote over 1,000 pages of notes, and they do not look like a forgery or something he just made up.

So the fact that Vassiliev's notes are 1,000 pages long carries more weight than the fact that no one (at least in the States) has seen the actual secondary "source" materials that he used?

You are expert enough to know the notes are not forged or just made up? How would you know this?

I am not an expert on this matter This has been evident from the beginning.

If there is a legit, scholarly source that believes Spies is wrong, you or anyone else is free to present it at any time. I can certainly point to non-Hiss material in "Spies" that is just flat out dead wrong, & H&K should have known it. I can point you to recent video refuting what H&K say in "Spies." For me, for these two "experts" to get this fact wrong, far outweighs all the yelling & shouting about Hiss, who was, after all, a very minor actor in the McCarthy witch hunts. To the best of my knowledge they have never issued a correction. I think, perhaps, you confuse the ability to write voluminously about a topic versus in-depth knowledge of a topic. Could it be that scholars simply do not want to write about this topic since it's been such a third-rail for so many years? DEddy (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

However, even the very best historian can misinterpret, or make a mistake in transcription, especially when working very rapidly. Without seeing the original materials there is no way to check for errors.

The full context of the notes makes perfectly clear that a mere transcription error here or there could not have possibly changed the meaning regarding Hiss.

Craig asserts that "If we take the Vassiliev notebooks literally though, what they actually demonstrate is that the KGB was under the impression that Hiss was connected to “the neighbors” —the KGB’s fraternal military intelligence organization, the GRU."

Yes, but there is also the December 1948 document which he ignores. It was written by the deputy of the chairman of the KI at a time when the KGB and GRU top echelons were still merged. It flatly says that Hiss was one of their agents betrayed by Chambers.

CJK, you are quite correct that arguing from the information available to determine what actually happened is original research. But that is exactly what you have been doing.

No, because I am using Haynes and Klehr as my source who, like it are not, are scholars in the field of American Communism.

Incidentally, why do you think the KGB would not believe HUAC proceedings?

They would "believe" the proceedings if it was consistent with their own information. Your "argument", that the KGB identification of Hiss as a GRU agent might have been solely due to their taking the HUAC proceedings as face value, is simply preposterous.

So the fact that Vassiliev's notes are 1,000 pages long carries more weight than the fact that no one (at least in the States) has seen the actual secondary "source" materials that he used?

I have already informed that the notes have been accepted by other scholars and that they are not disputed by legit scholars.

I can certainly point to non-Hiss material in "Spies" that is just flat out dead wrong, & H&K should have known it.

We are talking about Hiss. And scholars do not cease being relevant if they make mistakes.

CJK (talk) 01:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources I have read say that GRU agents were removed from the KI in mid-1948. Regardless we are not supposed to argue about what we think about the evidence, that is beyond the scope of this discussion page, and you are wasting your time and that of everyone else here. If you want to argue about the evidence, go to a blog where plenty of people will discuss your opinions with you. TFD (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: We are talking about Hiss. And scholars do not cease being relevant if they make mistakes.

But scholars who make BIG mistakes in material that they allegedly know does raise doubt at to their 100% iron-clad accuracy.

As best as I can tell, you are arguing that "Spies" is 100% proof, beyond any shadow of a possible doubt evidence that Hiss was a spy. From secondary evidence that no one, other than Vassiliev, has seen.

It would appear that Craig, as a professional scholar & published historian, has some doubts regarding the Vassiliev materials. DEddy (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

TL;DR Request for a summary

I'm dropping in after noting the failed ArbCom request to see if I can help mediate this content dispute. I'm a member of Historians of American Communism (HOAC), know John Haynes and Harvey Klehr and Alexander Vassiliev a little (although I'm usually on the "other team" on many matters of interpretation), have some grasp of the general scholarly dispute over Hiss, etc. Would it be possible for the benefit of me and any other newcomers dropping in for a couple of the disputants to state what this hubbub is about? Carrite (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

After checking the edit history and refreshing my memory, I will note that I did a pretty heavy overhaul of Vassiliev's biography (working with him during that). Anyway, yeah, if you need a mediator, I'll help. If not, that's okay, too... Carrite (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I will also note that this talk page is currently over 300,000 characters, so a request for a short summary doesn't seem that unreasonable... Carrite (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

One other tidbit worthy of mention so you know where I'm coming from, I'm a friend of Svetlana Chervonnaya and also did her WP biography (working with her during that). It's safe to say that Chervonnaya's views are closer to mine on most matters than John Haynes' — just to be clear. Carrite (talk) 04:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

What is this about? Fundamentally, it is about whether Wikipedia should state that (a) there is an academic consensus that Hiss was guilty, and (b) that notes from the Soviet archives have confirmed his guilt. Personally, I'm of the opinion that Wikipedia shouldn't say (a) without a reliable source which actually makes the same claim, and without (a) being sourced, we certainly can't say (b) without violating WP:NPOV. Unfortunately, this has all got rather lost in a series of attempts to 'prove' the Hiss case one way or another, and with at least one editor asserting that only he can decide who is qualified to cite as a source in the article - the qualification being of course that the person cited agrees with said editor's POV. Personally, I don't actually have a firm opinion on Hiss's guilt one way or another, and would prefer it if the article were to present the evidence, and let readers decide for themselves, rather than telling them what to think... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Carrite I welcome your help. I generally agree with Andy and also have no opinion on the case. I am concerned though that the article provide the proper weight toward various views. My understanding is that the majority academic view is that Hiss was a spy, but that some academics writing in scholarly journals but more particularly in The Nation oppose this conclusion. TFD (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

My impression is that we are arguing about whether or not the case is closed, not whether or not academic historians in the field of Cold War or Intelligence studies think he was a spy. Obviously, they do and always have. 173.77.75.95 (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

You got the wrong impression. The whole deal when I signed out a few days ago was whether or not historians think Hiss was a spy. I agree with you 100% and have provided sources for your statement: "Obviously, they do and always have." Yopienso (talk) 05:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Cutting to the chase... This is actually a pretty simple thing to solve. The language favored by one of the primary parties "there is a scholarly consensus that Hiss was guilty" is too strong, but not by much. Correct NPOV phrasing should be "there is a GROWING scholarly consensus that Hiss was guilty." That is accurate. It's a segue line, it doesn't necessarily need to be sourced if both sides can agree that it is a fair summary of the state of things today. If I'm making book in Vegas based on the current evidence, it's between 10:1 and 20:1 in favor of HIss having provided information to the Soviets. But it is not a 100% slam dunk definite fact. The overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that Hiss=Ales, but there are plausible alternative readings.

I've also made a point of collapsing the Soviet Spies footer box, which is half a screen when open and rather inflammatory that way. Vassiliev's notebooks are well regarded by serious scholars but one must bear in mind that they are notes about documents, not the original documents themselves. He is an honest man. Haynes and Klehr are also serious scholars, but they are also to at least some extent polemicists. One must be aware of that when reading them. Trust but verify. This is a very controversial, hot topic still but there is a phrasing that can be employed that will convey the information that Hiss was VERY PROBABLY guilty but not DEFINITELY guilty. Dr. Chervonnaya would say that is probably too strong; Mr. Haynes would say that is not strong enough. Perfect. The Nation (and I'm a Nation subscriber) are more polemicist than historian on this issue. It has been a hot button for them since Victor Navasky. That's my two cents dropping into the middle of this, about that one particular line, as to whether "there is a scholarly consensus that Hiss was guilty" — add a GROWING and you're there.

I do have some other observations to make about the article, too, but I'll leave them for now. I know that Dr. Chervonnaya was having trouble with her website and it was down for a while. I'll dig around and see if I can come up with a URL for that. She's a specialist on this 1940s stuff, I'm a specialist on the 1920s... —Tim Davenport /// Corvallis, OR /// Carrite (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if this has surfaced in connection with this article, but here's a piece from 2007 co-authored by Chervonnaya which should bolster my opinion above that "there is a scholarly consensus that Hiss was guilty" is too strong, but "there is a growing scholarly consensus that Hiss was guilty" is accurate. Consensus in a scholarly context isn't a Wikipedia-style super-majority vote, where if 80% of us can agree on something it's a consensus — it's a much higher standard, unanimity of all those who don't wear tinfoil hats to deflect alien radiation beams. Chervonnaya is a very, very serious scholar — a specialist, a PhD. List the top 10 Hiss scholars and she's on the list. It might be 9 to 1, but she's not ready to sign off on Hiss = Ales as a definite, unarguable fact. Is she wrong? Yeah, maybe. But it's no "scholarly consensus" is the point... Carrite (talk)

Please let's go with this: "Correct NPOV phrasing should be "there is a GROWING scholarly consensus that Hiss was guilty." Yopienso (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The term "emerging consensus" was discussed. The only source for it was the New York Times, rather than an academic source. I find it confusing because it can mean that there is a consensus and it is growing or that consensus has not been reached but will be soon. I wonder about use of the term consensus. To me it means that the discussion has ended in academic circles, like whether the giant panda is a member of the bear family, which was once a topic of scientific dispute. In that case we would not say there was a consensus, merely state that Hiss was a spy and outline the evidence. If we mentioned people who did not believe it, it would be in the same sense that we mention people who do not believe the Warren Commission or the 911 reports. TFD (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't appreciate this attempt a "mediation" at all. These are simply the words of James Barron, reporter for the NYT written in 2001. I also don't believe that the Nation is any more polemicist than the late Eduard Mark, airforce historian, who considered practically everyone around FDR a communist spy; or Ronald Radosh, scourge of "Stalinists" and collaborator of Haynes. Besides, the article already quotes James Barron verbatim. Why should his opinion also stand as wikipedia's official editorial position. I thought wikipedia was an encyclopedia, not a branch of the NYT editorial page. The "consensus" theory of history, as described on wikipedia, was invented by a Marxist historian named Carr, and seems to be a version of post-modernism. It says that there is no truth, only what a majority of historians believe at any particular moment, and it is always in flux. Convenient for some people, maybe. Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't think these are the standards of the American Historical Association referenced by Craig as mentioned above.173.77.75.95 (talk) 06:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC) spelling173.77.75.95 (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

We're not using "consensus" in that sense. Please provide a link for what you are referring to. Caroline Hoefferle (The Essential Historiography Reader, Pearson, 2011) lists Hofstadter, Boorstin, Morgan, Bailyn, and Wood as consensus historians. This has nothing to do with whether present-day historians agree that Hiss was a spy. Just omit the word "consensus" and note that most historians agree. It's that simple.

Also, sources don't have to be "accessible", i.e., online. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Definition_of_a_source Yopienso (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

As for Ms Chevronnaya, she really should speak for herself, or write a book or paper that is less coy and more forthcoming than her website, which hasn't been updated in quite a while.. 173.77.75.95 (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

That can be arranged. She has edited WP as an IP. I really hate IP editing, by the way, what's your first name? (make one up if you feel it necessary). Carrite (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

We are only trying to determine the degree to which the academic community has accepted that Hiss was a spy, which is important to readers. Can you suggest any possible phrasing? The consensus version of history relates more to the analysis of history rather than specific facts in history. That Kim Philby or Anthony Blunt were spies for example is established by evidence and beyond question. How historians view their importance or motives may change over time. TFD (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

We already have Barron's 12-year-old opinion and no one has recommended removing it, I believe. I don't see how you could find out what scholarly academics think today without taking a survey, which would be original research. Philby and Blunt never denied they were spies. They fled to the Soviet Union. No one saw any need to take a poll of "academic" historians and declare truth by majority rule in their case. With Hiss you have numerous people denying he was a spy, including Hiss himself, both here and in Russia. You even have the people in the FBI who identified him in the first place confessing years later that they were never really certain -- if the NSA archivist who interviewed them is to be believed. Weinstein and Vassiliev's The Haunted Wood has been declared to be dodgy and fit for the dustbin (i.e., the garbage pail), and Vassiliev's credibility was successfully questioned challenged in a court of law. Craig notes that even Haynes and Kehr have stated that it would be preferable if the Russians would open their archives, and incidentally, perhaps NSA should open theirs after over sixty years. What you have is a degree of uncertainty, no matter what the academiic echo chamber has to say. Is wikipedia going to censor future editors who point all this out? 173.77.75.95 (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC). inserted better word173.77.75.95 (talk)

• Okay, IP173, do relax a bit and assume good faith here. I identified my academic perspective coming in so it is of course fair to weigh what I say through that lens; I want you to. Everybody has their biases, and that means me and you. Now, in the spirit of Too Many Words which seems to reign on this talk page, let me just rap a little about the academic backstory and my own impression of this page and when I get done, see if there isn't a very reasonable compromise language or not. There is such a reasonable, NPOV language and coming up with it is really not that hard if everybody can just WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH.

The question of Alger Hiss-as-spy has always been a bigger question than whether Alger Hiss was a spy. Originally, to the Right this was a sort of code for "Roosevelt was a dupe of the Communists (who are taking over the world) and you just can't trust the Democrats in positions of power." And to the Left (meaning in this case primarily the Democratic Party Liberals, as opposed to as well as the CP or the Socialists), the Hiss case was a sort of code for "the McCarthyites are reckless borderline fascists that are willing to destroy innocent people to cement their hold on power." Something like that. The case became a stalking horse for domestic politics in the Cold War era — and that continued up to the present day. This is a misguided approach by both sides, in my view, and it very definitely makes for bad, tendentious history. But that's a fact. The actual question of whether Hiss was a spy was less important than the fight over whether Hiss was a spy. There wasn't enough evidence to say with more than about 75% confidence that he was, and that was plenty of room for doubt.

Of course, food fighting over this has lost its resonance with the American electorate by now — ask a few friends under age 30 who Alger Hiss was and you will get blank looks. And, news flash, the Soviet Union is not going to take over the world if the Democrats are elected (growth industry in "Obama is a Commernist!!!" buttons and t-shirts on ebay notwithstanding). The academic question of whether Hiss was guilty has lost a great deal of the "contemporary politics baggage." Now, mark this well: not with everyone. Messrs. Haynes and Klehr — good scholars and honest men both — are still very much driven by the "higher values" of the Hiss case (see, for example, their books In Denial: Historians, Communism, & Espionage and Red Scare or Red Menace?: American Communism and Anticommunism in the Cold War Era (Haynes)). There is still a Left-Right food fight going on, but things have shifted somewhat and the bogey is now the perceived Left Wing dominance of academia. It is mostly the Right throwing hamburgers and french fries; the Left has more or less moved along, bored and, ummmm, more or less in control of academia...

The big majority of serious scholars — and I mean a BIG majority — today believe that sufficient evidence has by now surfaced from still-greatly-hidden Russian documentary sources and partial Venona decrypts to demonstrate that Hiss was indeed a spy. A 75% level of certainty has now become 95%++, based on the equation "Hiss = Ales."

The failings of this Wikipedia article, and probably the cause of some of the strife here, is that it does not make that fact clear enough. There is too much space given to the earlier defenses of Hiss and their basis — which was reasonable, based upon his own personal testimony and the clear ulterior motives of the other side. That's part of the story, but it's a done part of the story. The reader dropping in is apt to scratch their head and say, "oh, gee, I don't know — he must have been innocent, look at all these people saying he was." Here's the deal: In general, those defending Hiss and the 25% chance of innocence (if you'll allow me the number) were wrong; those alleging he was guilty of spying seem, beyond a reasonable doubt, to have been right. I have explained above that this is not UNIVERSAL among serious scholars; it is a "growing scholarly consensus" but not a "scholarly consensus," if you will.

There will still be a tendency of some to make this WP subject into a stalking horse for other things. Don't let them. Tell the story, tell it honestly, tell it fairly, and don't pull punches on the overwhelming view of the scholarly community that "Hiss = Ales." BUT, be cognizant that this is NOT universal and avoid overbroad statements. The confidence level is 95%+, not 100%. That sort of a smoking gun document has not yet emerged. Maybe it will someday. Keep reading. —Tim Davenport /// Corvallis, OR /// Carrite (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

As to sources:

The Haunted Wood is not well regarded and should be used sparingly, if at all. Haynes & Klehr Spies and Venona are fairly well regarded but should be used carefully because there is a contemporary political undertone — their work is in part a polemic. Chervonnaya (her website the best source) is a committed skeptic so be alert for the commitment stepping on the toes of the evidence. There's a bit of bad blood between the parties. Herb Romerstein's book on Venona is even more polemic than Haynes & Klehr. Look for journal articles, which are often more tempered. Vassiliev's notebooks are widely regarded as accurate notes of original documents, but not original documents. These are primary sources and should be used only with extreme caution. Ditto the actual texts of the (partial) Venona decrypts. This is a really touchy subject and if can't do it dispassionately, do us all a favor and go write about something else — that's a message to all parties. Okay, I'm out. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree with with Mr. Davenport's assessment of history, namely with his assertions that 1) "the left" now dominates academica -- in his words, "is more or less in control of " (unless by "left" you mean mainstream liberal democrats, i.e., the overwhelming majority of the population of the blue states), and 2) that the Hiss case is less important in itself than as stalking horse for other things -- what does this mean, actually, inquiring minds would like to know? Mr. Davenport exhorts me to "assume good faith" but adds that he hates it when people write as IPs?! Well, if Mr. Davenport wants to write an article with citations, or even to supply citations or concrete details --- instead of impressions, which he conspicuously does not do, then I would be interested in what he has to say. As I said, IMO the whole conversation about the supposed consensus of historians is a red herring. I don't see why wikipedia should be in the business of "creating impressions" -- when we have Madison Avenue to do that very thing. (Carrite-- does this refer to Carr's theory of historical consensus, perchance?) 173.77.75.95 (talk)

Edit request

Alexander Vassiliev should be listed as a "KGB officer," not a "KGB agent." He corrected me on this and that is, indeed, the correct phrasing. An "agent" connotes an outside or undercover employee, an "officer" a career employee. In America we speak of "FBI agents" (technically "Special Agents") and "police officers." For the KGB, the word is "officer," not "agent." Carrite (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't think wikipedia allows subjects of articles to speak through intermediaries. Do you have a citation for this? 173.77.75.95 (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

[1] appears RS for calling him an "officer" AFAICT. [2] for lagniappe. Collect (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Possible compromise?

In the interests of bringing this dispute to an end, I would like to advance a new compromise.

Instead of outright saying that the notes have "confirmed" Hiss's guilt, we can simply say "Hiss is repeatedly identified as a Soviet agent in notes taken from multiple documents in the KGB archives."

We can let the reader determine if that evidence is good enough to show Hiss is guilty. We also need to trim down the views of non-experts in line with WP:FRINGE.

CJK (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

How exactly is stating as a fact something that is disputed supposed to be a 'compromise'? And as for your repeated attempts to portray those who question Hiss's guilt as 'fringe', I would suggest that you are either unfamiliar with what WP:FRINGE guidelines are about, or are deliberately misapplying them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• As someone previously completely uninvolved in this dispute, I must tell that view about Hiss not being a Soviet spy is indeed WP:FRINGE. But even if this is not fringe, clearly telling that Hiss was a Soviet spy per majority of scholarly sources (to comply with WP:NPOV) is our obligation. But I am not really surprised. For example, I saw a very long dispute about the question when WWII started, although this is something described in every textbook. My very best wishes (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

IMO, There is a scholarly consensus that Hiss had been a Soviet agent is absolutely reliably sourced as given above on this page, and should not be fought as a statement in the article. Collect (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

He is not repeatedly "identified". Usually a pseudonym is used. Fringe is not appropriate. If it were then articles questioning Hiss' spying would not be published in prestigious academic sources. Not because publishers would censor them, but because it would be impossible to defend their position given the available facts. Collect, it does not matter what your opinion is, but whether you can source it. TFD (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Interesting response since I did not use that phrase at all -- is there a reason why you wish to argue a point which is irrelevant to my post? And you seem once again to make inane personal asides which have nothing whatsoever to do with the price of eggs. Collect (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

He is clearly identified both by name and a pseudonym directly linked to his name. And it is a fact, not an opinion, regardless of the refusal of some users to accept that fact. The view that the notes are unreliable or do not point to Hiss is WP:FRINGE.

CJK (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a fact, not an opinion, that Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources, and not on the opinions of contributors. It is a fact, not an opinion, that there are qualified academics that question Hiss's guilt. It is also a fact that they are in a distinct minority, but that does not alter the fact that they exist. Given these facts, it is also a fact that your increasingly-histrionic demands that Wikipedia unequivocally asserts Hiss's guilt, and dismisses all those who have doubts as 'fringe', is in contravention of policy. Give the last fact, I suggest you climb down off your soapbox, stop channelling the ghost of Richard Nixon, and instead confine any further remarks to matters of direct relevance to article content. Should you fail to do so, I am inclined to raise the matter elsewhere, as your obstructive and belligerent behaviour has clearly prevented any progress being made concerning this article. Personally, I am of the opinion that you are far too emotionally involved with the article to ever be a useful contributor in a cooperative environment, and should be topic-banned accordingly. The choice is however yours - you can choose to work within Wikipedia rules, or you can continue, and face the possible consequences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow--I quit; several people seem to be simply contentious. Why in the world does the IP say, "My impression is that we are arguing about whether or not the case is closed, not whether or not academic historians in the field of Cold War or Intelligence studies think he was a spy. Obviously, they do and always have. 173.77.75.95 (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)" and then argue against his own stance? (As I pointed out above, he got the wrong impression.)

Carrite has lots of facts and sense and could help straighten out this article if people would listen to him. The Haunted Wood, however, does have considerable value. Here's a review in the NYT by Joe Persico. Yopienso (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The review dates from 1999. Distinguished historian Fraser Harbutt, writing in a book published in 2002, also said he found The Haunted Wood in his words "persuasive". Yet in 2009, you have Craig, surely not a "fringe" theorist, stating flatly that The Haunted Wood belongs in the garbage. Something has changed. And even "Carrite" (who has not responded as to the origin of his pen-name), states that : The Haunted Wood is not well regarded and should be used sparingly." Don't wikipedia readers deserve to be informed of these new developments? 173.77.75.95 (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll be happy to discuss E.H. Carr on my talk page. Ask there. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking into it further, I see that, originally, consensus historians were people like Arthur Schlesinger, inventor of the concept "The Vital Center"; and that this school was vehemently attacked in the 1960s as a mere smoke screen for a politically motivated effort to impose conformity of opinion through fear, by stigmatizing/stifling dissenters, specifically those who opposed the war in Vietnam (did Schlesinger oppose it? I don't remember). A different sort of people currently seem to subscribe to it. The wikipedia paragraph is quite inadequate about this, but mentions that the consensus theory is currently opposed by "empiricists". I certainly don't want to get into a discussion about philosophy with Mr Davenport on his page or anywhere else. I merely asked if Mr. Davenport took his moniker from E.H. Carr? If he doesn't care to answer, that is fine with me. It would be a more pro-social deed on his part if he were to improve the Carr and historical "fact" entries if he so desired. I I will say this, however, as far as the idea of Hiss case being merely a so-called "stalking horse", I find that truly peculiar, even perversely cynical. IMO John Ehrman had a far better grasp of the moral issues at stake here. 173.77.75.95 (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how I am supposed to respond to Andy, when nothing that he says has anything to do with reality.

It is a fact, not an opinion, that Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources, and not on the opinions of contributors.

Yes, exactly. You need to cease your obstruction of the insertion of sourced fact, which is based solely on animus.

It is a fact, not an opinion, that there are qualified academics that question Hiss's guilt. It is also a fact that they are in a distinct minority, but that does not alter the fact that they exist.

And this has to do with my proposed compromise... how exactly?

Given these facts, it is also a fact that your increasingly-histrionic demands that Wikipedia unequivocally asserts Hiss's guilt, and dismisses all those who have doubts as 'fringe', is in contravention of policy.

Did you even bother reading what I wrote? My new proposal it so say "Hiss is repeatedly identified as a Soviet agent in notes taken from multiple documents in the KGB archives." I do not assert his guilt, just report the straight-up facts that happen to be inconvenient to you.

Give the last fact, I suggest you climb down off your soapbox, stop channelling the ghost of Richard Nixon, and instead confine any further remarks to matters of direct relevance to article content. Should you fail to do so, I am inclined to raise the matter elsewhere, as your obstructive and belligerent behaviour has clearly prevented any progress being made concerning this article. Personally, I am of the opinion that you are far too emotionally involved with the article to ever be a useful contributor in a cooperative environment, and should be topic-banned accordingly. The choice is however yours - you can choose to work within Wikipedia rules, or you can continue, and face the possible consequences.

Your personal attacks and blatant threats are simply unworthy of a response. I would suggest your bullying behavior should be the subject of disciplinary action.

CJK (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

A simple question. Is it a fact that the identification of Hiss as a Soviet agent based on notes taken from KGB archives has been disputed by some academic sources. Yes or no? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: "Hiss is repeatedly identified as a Soviet agent in notes taken from multiple documents in the KGB archives."

That's certainly moving in the right direction.

How about including something about the fact that the actual source materials in KGB archives have only been seen by one researcher? Or that while the Vassiliev notebooks appear to be useful they are one person's notes that have not been verified by anyone else, and the notebooks are not the original source documents? It would be useful to point out that sourcing Vassiliev's notes from the KGB is potentially problematic since Hiss is thought to be a GRU resource and that GRU archives are an unindexed mess. DEddy (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, Hiss is not "repeatedly identified" in documents in the archives - codenames are used. Also, your wording appears to imply that the KGB records were the decisive factor for scholars in determining that Hiss was a spy, ignoring evidence that was originally presented and the Venona cables. TFD (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it a fact that the identification of Hiss as a Soviet agent based on notes taken from KGB archives has been disputed by some academic sources. Yes or no?

As far as what I know, it is not disputed by scholars who are in the fields that pertain to this subject. Pretending that Guttenplan and Kisselhoff are relevant directly violates WP:FRINGE: A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Actually, even Kisselhoff agrees that Hiss is mentioned as an agent in the notes, he just claims that the Soviets were getting their information about Hiss solely from American newspapers. I think the reader should make up their own mind about that.

How about including something about the fact that the actual source materials in KGB archives have only been seen by one researcher? Or that while the Vassiliev notebooks appear to be useful they are one person's notes that have not been verified by anyone else, and the notebooks are not the original source documents?

I'm not sure how that would fit in the lead. No subject-related scholar is claiming that the notes are simply worthless because they were written by one person. I'm very careful to source the claims to the notes.

It would be useful to point out that sourcing Vassiliev's notes from the KGB is potentially problematic since Hiss is thought to be a GRU resource and that GRU archives are an unindexed mess.

What exactly is so "problematic" about it? I said explicitly that it was from the KGB archives.

As I said above, Hiss is not "repeatedly identified" in documents in the archives - codenames are used.

For the second time, Hiss is identified both by his real name, and by codenames that were explicitly linked to his real name. There are documents explicitly indicating that "Jurist" and "Leonard" were Hiss.

Also, your wording appears to imply that the KGB records were the decisive factor for scholars in determining that Hiss was a spy, ignoring evidence that was originally presented and the Venona cables.

Wait, now you are saying that Hiss was a spy? In any case, I do not "imply" anything at all.

CJK (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, can you cite a source that describes the theory that Hiss may not have been guilty as 'fringe'? Or are you merely basing the assertion that it is a fringe theory on the fact that it is a minority viewpoint? If the latter is the case (as I suspect), you have gravely misinterpreted what WP:FRINGE is about. There is nothing whatsoever in the guideline that indicates that minority views are necessarily fringe, and you seem to be engaging in circular logic to 'prove' that they are. Again, this comes down to you making assertions not backed up by sources. If you want to cite WP:FRINGE as grounds for exclusion, you'll need to provide evidence that the policy is relevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, can you cite a source that describes the theory that Hiss may not have been guilty as 'fringe'?

Since I did not make that claim I see no point in responding to it.

CJK (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit: "Pretending that Guttenplan and Kisselhoff are relevant directly violates WP:FRINGE". AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Pretending that they are not relevant violates wikipedia's mission as a reference work. 173.77.75.95 (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

They are fringe because, as WP:FRINGE says, they are not in the relevant fields (Cold War, espionage, McCarthy era, etc.). In particular Guttenplan, a London journalist for the Nation, goes out of his way to say he is not a scholar of the Hiss-Chambers case. Moreover, the people who are in the fields overwhelming disagree with the notion that the notes can't be taken seriously. Acting as if Guttenplan's 2009 book review should prevent us from taking the notes seriously, when they are accepted as credible by virtually everyone else, including the Journal of Cold War Studies and even pro-Hiss people like Kisselhoff and Chervonnaya, is a scandal. An analogy: a person is an expert in pottery is not going to be cited in a theoretical physics article even if they happen to have a strong opinion of theoretical physics.

CJK (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, circular logic.Along with a complete misinterpretation of what WP:FRINGE says. As for your 'analogy', it is ridiculous, even for you. We have already established that, as TFD wrote, "Guttenplan has a doctorate in history from the University of London, was a research fellow at the Freedom Forum Media Studies center at Columbia, and taught American history at the University of London". AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

"Guttenplan has a doctorate in history from the University of London, was a research fellow at the Freedom Forum Media Studies center at Columbia, and taught American history at the University of London".

What does that have to do with anything? Guttenplan himself admitted he was not a scholar of the very subject of this article. I think that should be good enough for you to figure out he isn't an appropriate source to justify the exclusion of information.

CJK (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Nope. You have asserted that a historian who taught American history is 'fringe'. Provide a source that asserts this. And cut out the crap about 'exclusion of information' - it is you that is arguing that we should exclude the information that not all scholars consider Hiss guilty from the article, based on your own unsourced assertions that they are 'fringe' because they don't agree with the majority view. There is nothing whatsoever in WP:FRINGE policy that permits us to exclude individuals based on our own subjective opinion of their 'fringeness', which is based in turn on nothing more than the fact that they hold a minority opinion. That is circular logic, plain and simple. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: What exactly is so "problematic" about it? I said explicitly that it was from the KGB archives.

It is not my intent to open a can of worms here, but personally—oops! an unverifiable personal opinion—I'm of the impression that intelligence agencies are not all that good at sharing competitive information. I noticed in the May 2009 Woodrow Wilson Center presentation of the Vassilliev papers that it was very clear that KGB did not want to barge into GRU territory. The (alleged) connection here is Chambers as the courier for both Hiss & Harry Dexter White. At the Woodrow Wilson conference a passage read from Vassiliev's KGB based notes said something to the effect: "Who is the guy White? Do we know anything about him?" For someone who'd been (allegedly) a resource since sometime in the mid 1930s this seemed to display an intriguing degree of bureaucratic lack of awareness (or whatever word is appropriate).

Point being: sensitive or competitive information often does not travel well between secretive bureaucracies. DEddy (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

it is you that is arguing that we should exclude the information that not all scholars consider Hiss guilty from the article, based on your own unsourced assertions that they are 'fringe' because they don't agree with the majority view

You are twisting my words to suit your agenda. I'll post a response when you answer what I actually wrote.

At the Woodrow Wilson conference a passage read from Vassiliev's KGB based notes said something to the effect: "Who is the guy White? Do we know anything about him?" For someone who'd been (allegedly) a resource since sometime in the mid 1930s this seemed to display an intriguing degree of bureaucratic lack of awareness (or whatever word is appropriate).

There is little to no uncertainty expressed about Hiss like that in the notes. Furthermore, as I already explained, there is incriminating information about Hiss written during a time where the KGB and GRU were still reporting to the same agency (the KI). Moreover, you don't think that the GRU would keep the KGB at least minimally informed about a high-profile matter like Hiss?

CJK (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

As he has done earlier, CJK has proposed a compromise that is not a compromise at all. It's the same two points proposed in the RFC, just slightly reworded. Furthermore it's time to put to rest the idea that someone cannot be considered an historian merely because they hold an advanced degree in journalism and not in history. Jeff Kisseloff, who's name you seem pointedly determined not to spell correctly, is a expert on the subject and his books on history are cited in many Wikipedia articles. Years ago, the book Case Closed by Gerald Posner was nominated for the National Book Award. Many people cite it as the most important book on JFK's assassination in some years. The fact that Posner is an attorney and not a PhD in History does not make it "Fringe." (It's actually a terrible book, but that's not the point.) Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: you don't think that the GRU would keep the KGB at least minimally informed about a high-profile matter like Hiss?

For me to guess what GRU/KGB reporting practices were would be speculative. However, I did write my Russian history thesis on just such a "information sharing" topic between Tsarist agencies... & it was not perfect. So I see no reason to assume they got any better over 100 years & under Stalin's purges.

Perhaps the GRU did keep the KGB informed, perhaps they didn't. So far the only witness is what Vassiliev CHOSE to put in his notes. Rather than the KGB documents themselves. We have no idea what he left out. By his own words, Vassiliev was not a student of American espionage issues, so how would he know what was important or not. This stuff is VERY difficult to follow.

Plus you seem to assume Hiss was a big fish & therefore KGB would be paying attention. Why do you assume the KGB would see Hiss as high profile? Perhaps GRU played things down to throw KGB off the scent & keep their source. We just don't know. If GRU & KGB were buddy-buddy & sharing information, why was KGB confused about who White was? He was MUCH further up the food chain from Hiss. All kinds of unanswered questions. DEddy (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

To Joe: It is a big compromise because the language no longer says Hiss is guilty, which had been a sticking point. Kisseloff is not a scholar in the Cold War, the McCarthy era, American Communism, or espionage. He is a journalist who happens to have a heavy interest in the Hiss-Chambers case and runs a website solely dedicated to the defense of Hiss, something that an actual objective scholar in that field would not do. I have no doubt he knows a ton about the case, just like I know a lot about certain subjects in history. But I am not a scholar, and he is not a scholar in that field. Moreover, even Kisseloff takes the notes seriously, going to great lengths to try to offer alternative interpretations of them instead of simply dismissing them as unworthy of consideration because they were gathered by one person.

If I got a degree in oral history, became a freelance journalist, and started a website solely dedicated to proving Hiss's guilt, would you consider my views worthy of consideration in this article, and call me a "historian"?

To Deddy: Hiss became a high-profile issue in August 1948 when Chambers made his accusations, and there are three explicit references of Hiss being an agent after that.

CJK (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: would you consider my views worthy of consideration in this article, and call me a "historian"?

Dubious. I'm still amazed you continue to hold your position based on a single book. I know this is a silly question, but what do you know of the politics of Washington in that time? DEddy (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, Again, there is no "incriminating information about Hiss written during a time where the KGB and GRU were still reporting to the same agency (the KI)." That the GRU would keep the KGB informed about Hiss is your conjecture, not what the sources say.

And yes, if you had books on history published by academic publishers and managed a site about Hiss on the New York University website, then I might consider you an historian.

TFD (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

":If I got a degree in oral history, became a freelance journalist, and started a website solely dedicated to proving Hiss's guilt, would you consider my views worthy of consideration in this article, and call me a "historian"?"

If you did these things, and like Jeff Kisseloff, had done decades of investigative work on the Hiss case, and were the the author of several well-regarded books on American history, and your work was cited in many Wikipedia articles, then YES, I would call you an historian and consider you a reliable source for this article. Here's some news: historians are allowed to draw conclusions. John McAdams has created a well -known web site based on debunking JFK assassination conspiracy theories. He's not considered "unobjective" simply because he doesn't say, "Here are a few facts, draw your own conclusions." Joegoodfriend (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"If I got a degree in oral history, became a freelance journalist" This is not accurate. Kisseloff has an advanced professional degree in regular journalism from an Ivy League university (Columbia) and became a writer of oral history -- now recognized as an academic field not least because of pioneering work by people like himself. HIs works are published and re-published by Penguin and by several university presses. So, yes, he is a researcher and historian. According to the American historical association It is perfectly ok for historians to have biases and run websites, provided they openly acknowledge their biases. CJK's unremitting denigration of and careless "mistakes" about Kisseloff are a disgrace and reminiscent of McCarthyism. It should not be the province of wikipedia to declare Hiss guilty or innocent. The only thing we have here that is closed is the epistemic closure of Haynes, and co. 173.77.75.95 (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Dubious. I'm still amazed you continue to hold your position based on a single book.

I have a fact, and I am sourcing this fact to a single book.

CJK, Again, there is no "incriminating information about Hiss written during a time where the KGB and GRU were still reporting to the same agency (the KI)."

The December 1948 document, written before the GRU had completely split off from the KI, is quite incriminating.

If you did these things, and like Jeff Kisseloff, had done decades of investigative work on the Hiss case, and were the the author of several well-regarded books on American history, and your work was cited in many Wikipedia articles, then YES, I would call you an historian and consider you a reliable source for this article.

Kisseloff is not a scholar of the fields that are relevant to this article. I am not sure what is so difficult about you accepting this. A historian on the American Revolution is not going to be cited for his own independent theories on World War II, no matter how much he knows about World War II. This is standard practice for encyclopedias for literally hundreds of years: use credentialed experts in the subject in which you are talking about.

CJK's unremitting denigration of and careless "mistakes" about Kisseloff are a disgrace and reminiscent of McCarthyism.

You mean by "McCarthyism", making factually accurate charges about Communists and their dupes and enablers?

It should not be the province of wikipedia to declare Hiss guilty or innocent. The only thing we have here that is closed is the epistemic closure of Haynes, and co.

Like, Andy, you just haven't bothered reading what I actually wrote, if you did would notice that I am not declaring Hiss guilty under this new compromise.

Yes, Haynes and co. are clearly the ones suffering from epistemic closure, not the guy saying that the Soviets determined Hiss was their spy by taking American HUAC proceedings at face value, with no effort at corroboration whatsoever. Clearly his argument makes more sense. So why don't you let me state the raw facts, "Hiss is repeatedly identified as a Soviet agent in notes taken from multiple documents in the KGB archives." and let the reader determine for themselves whether or not that genius argument is credible.

CJK (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: CJK's unremitting denigration of and careless "mistakes" about Kisseloff are a disgrace and reminiscent of McCarthyism.

You mean by "McCarthyism", making factually accurate charges about Communists and their dupes and enablers?

I knew that was coming. One book. One fact. One Truth. "I accuse..." and that's plenty. Facts simply don't count. Kangaroo courts & all that.

Actually I was thinking McCarthyism that purged the State Department's China Hands who accurately reported that if we wished to remain in China after WWII, we'd better find a new horse (not Chiang Kai-Shek). With the knowledge vacuum in State, we stumbled blindly into Vietnam, one alleged "reason" being that Vietnam was a puppet of China, whereas in reality the Vietnamese were more leaning to the US than their long time rival, China. DEddy (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Quoting directly from Wikipedia policy

From WP:RS:

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users.

...

Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

From WP:V:

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[7] Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.[9] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

CJK (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to erect walls of text. No one is suggesting using self-published books or personal websites. TFD (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Great, then Kisselhoff can be removed. As can Guttenplan given that he flat-out admits that he is not a scholarly source for the subject of this article.

CJK (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

ROFL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Ordinarily, I would accuse Andy of inappropriately responding to a straightforward complaint, but given that there is no evidence that he actually reads anything that I write anyway, I will withhold judgment.

CJK (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: Great, then Kisselhoff can be removed.

Negative.

He knows far more about the Hiss affair than the single book "Spies." DEddy (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No, the material cannot be removed, for reasons stated above. TFD (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Voroshilov, Molotov, Stalin, with Nikolai Yezhov.jpg File:The Commissar Vanishes 2.jpg "Kisselhoff can be removed". AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I find it fascinating that none of you guys can actually substantively rebut the charge in question, namely that a self-published "expert" like Kisselhoff is an inappropriate source, yet remain absolutely positively convinced that you must be right regardless. The absolute disdain for facts, reality, and common sense is truly shocking.

CJK (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Well if you really want to make a complete fool of yourself, take it to WP:RSN and ask whether Wikipedia policy permits you to remove those who refuse to comply with your view of reality from articles... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: :I find it fascinating that none of you guys can actually substantively rebut the charge in question

It's always a little hard to follow precisely what charge you refer to here.

Do you mean rebut your assertion that as presented in "Spies" using the Vassiliev notebooks, Hiss is 100% without a shadow of a doubt a spy? That's easy. You base your charge on a single book written by a tag team—Haynes & Klehr—with a long standing political spin. You are expecting that in a long running, highly complex, highly charged domain as these McCarthy era charges, a single book 100% proves the accusations? I'm speechless at the logic.

What are the odds that someone else will be able to look at the KGB archival materials Vassiliev claims to have had access to? Probably pretty low. This was one of the major objections to Weinstein's "Haunted Wood." No one else had access to the materials. I'm not sure just how that played out. At one point he was to put his materials (early Vassiliev notes?) into an accessible place. Not sure if that ever happened.

As far as I know you're basing your accusation on the single book "Spies." If it were a book that 100% exonerated Hiss, I'd be suspicious of it until others had offered their analysis. You say because others haven't rebutted Vassiliev this is therefore proof that Vassiliev is correct. I'd say others haven't weighed in for a variety of reasons. Probably the biggest being they cannot have access to the materials Vassiliev claims to have based his notebooks on. DEddy (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

If Andy bothered to do minimal research, he would himself know that Kisseloff is a self-published "expert" not in the field in which he is talking about. As such, his inclusion is a brazen violation of WP:RS and WP:V.

Deddy, my proposal no longer includes the statement that Hiss is guilty. Your rebuttal is based on a position I dropped in the previous section in a good-faith attempt to compromise, which has not been reciprocated in the slightest.

CJK (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, it is evident that nobody else supports your bizarre interpretations of policy. Either ask at WP:RSN, start another RfC, or drop the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Jeff Kisseloff is a journalist whose expertise is in oral history, not the Cold War, not espionage, not the McCarthy era, nor American Communism. He runs a self-published website in which he defends Hiss, but has not contributed his ideas about Hiss in any "reliable third party publications". As such, it is a straightforward violation of WP:RS and WP:V.

I have absolutely no questions about this, you seem to be the one who needs to ask them seeing that you refuse to give any explanation yourself, apart from simple mockery of me.

CJK (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No one has introduced material from self-published sources. TFD (talk) 21:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Kisseloff's website is self-published. He is being used to rebut the notes. Are you unaware of these facts, which have been discussed to death on this very page?

CJK (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"Oral history" is not a subject. It is a method. There can be oral history (interviews) on any topic, including the Cold War, espionage, and the McCarthy era. CJK is just digging himself deeper into a pit of error, ignorance, and bigotry. 173.52.247.217 (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, Jeff Kisseloff has a self-published website, but it is not used in this article. TFD (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: Kisseloff's website is self-published.

I think it would be pretty easy to argue that Vassiliev's notes are self published.

One thing about Vassiliev's notes. I noticed an absence of "marginalia" in the pages that I looked at (certainly did not look at every page). To connoisseurs of such materials, the marginalia is often more important than the document itself since the marginalia will show who read the documents & who thought what about a particular document. What are the possibilities here? I can think of two. One, the KGB documents were devoid of marginalia. Or two, Vassiliev consciously ignored the marginalia. Again, since no one else has—or likely will—seen the KGB originals we can only wonder.

Since I know you've looked at ever single page of the notes, can you point me to where there is marginalia. Vassiliev's style of noting a cover name for a real person is not original routing/commentary marginalia.

Do I remember correctly that "Spies" makes no mention of this detail? DEddy (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

"Oral history" is not a subject. It is a method.

Exactly. So there is no basis for pretending he is a credentialed expert in the fields actually relevant to this article.

CJK, Jeff Kisseloff has a self-published website, but it is not used in this article.

Please indicate what you are talking about. Is not the website that he reviews Spies on self-published? What is it then?

I think it would be pretty easy to argue that Vassiliev's notes are self published.

???? I think you are comparing apples to oranges.

CJK (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Jeff Kisslehoff is managing editor of "The Alger Hiss Story", which is on the New York University website. "[It] has been created with grants from The Alger Hiss Research and Publication Project of the Nation Institute and from a Donor Advised Fund at the Community Foundation for Southern Arizona.... The site has been compiled with the assistance of New York University Libraries, with participation from members of the Hiss family, including Tony Hiss, a visiting scholar in N.Y.U.'s Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service." TFD (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Even the site's address has not been without controversy. An N.Y.U. spokesman said that after the online magazine Slate published a column about the Hiss site in March, the university asked Tony Hiss to use a different Web address to designate it more clearly as a personal site rather than an academic one. The spokesman, John Beckman, said that the university felt that the old address, www.nyu.edu/hiss, suggested that the site was sponsored by the university.

"It wasn't a judgment about content," Mr. Beckman said. "The issue was whether it was official work of the university's." Because "my understanding is that he doesn't teach anything with regard to his father's case," the spokesman added, "this is a matter of personal scholarship, and it belongs on a personal home page."

...

Given its passion and point of view, how can the Hiss site be viewed? In publishing the column about the site in March, Slate had Sam Tanenhaus, the author of "Whittaker Chambers: A Biography" (Random House, 1997), look it over. "I think this belongs in the 'it's a free country' category, and Hiss's supporters have every right to push his case by whatever means pleases them," Slate quoted him as saying. "My only concern would be that the academic/institutional aegis, and the educational angle, might mislead some into supposing this is a balanced, scholarly Web site." [3]

CJK (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Which shows that the website is significant and therefore we have reported in summary the opinions expressed in it. It is certainly rs for the opinions of its authors, which is the only way it is used in the article. TFD (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

From WP:V:

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.[7] Take care when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.[9] Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

CJK (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Link to the Slate article mentioned above: [4]. Regardless of any reservations about the impartiality of the website (which doesn't appear to claim to be impartial), Slate seems to accept the academic credentials of Jeff Kisseloff and Tony Hiss. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

So Slate can determine who Wikipedia regards as a reliable, verifiable source? Can you please point out where you found this policy? I must have been too ignorant and bigoted to locate it.

CJK (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather rely on the Slate's opinion on the matter than yours - but as I've already pointed out, WP:RSN is where to go if you wish to get answers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I already have the answers. You, on the other hand, seem to be making stuff up out of thin air.

CJK (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, it is not self-published, the authors have been published elsewhere, including by academic publishers and it easily meets rs for Statements of opinion. Your walls of text are disruptive. You appear to have a rigidity in what is true and false, but most subjects have shades of gray. Unless you accept that you will continue to come into conflict with other editors. TFD (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

From WP:V: whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

If it doesn't meet that criteria, then his opinion is no more noteworthy in this article than yours or mine. It certainly cannot be used to attack Spies or draw any other conclusion if it is not a verifiable, reliable source.

CJK (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you even have a clue about the words you are using? Of course it is verifiable - it is online, and anyone can see it. And yes, it is reliable too - as a source for the author's opinions. As for whether the opinions are notable, that is of course another issue - but since both the Slate and the NYT seem to think the website is worth discussion as a source for the minority view on Hiss, I see no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't too. Unless of course the objective is to deny the existence of the minority view... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, You are misrepresenting both the nature of the source and policy. TFD (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like CJK will go to any almost length to keep the public from finding out what Kisseloff might have to say. 173.77.12.81 (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Not only is Kisseloff fully qualified as an academic historian and reliable source, according to wikipedia standards; he also was the first to bring in and collaborate with Chervonnaya, no? Didn't they both participate at the conference at the Wilson Center in 2009? So he is both a reliable source as an author and also a key player in the story, mentioned in newspaper articles, and so on. The attempt to blacklist him as a non-person is really ridiculous. 173.77.12.81 (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

So, its reliable and verifiable because "it is online, and anyone can see it." And Slate mentioned it once. And because you say so, so I should just shut up. Got it.

To the IP: the only reason we are talking about Kisseloff right now is because Andy deliberately misrepresented my compromise proposal by saying that I was saying that Hiss was guilty. Kisseloff is cited in this article as someone who does not believe that.

CJK (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Since we are using the source for Kisseloff's opinions, V requires that we are confident that it is an accurate source for his opinions. If we were using as a source for facts about the case, then V requires that we are confident that it is an accurate source for facts. I have no doubt that the opinions attributed to Kisselhof accurately reflect what he wrote, and therefore it is rs for what he wrote. If you think that the articles attributed to Kisselhof were not written by him, then you could challenge it on RSN. We are not using it as a source for facts - it does not present any facts that do not appear in other sources. TFD (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence on WP:V: In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source.

If it doesn't meet WP:RS and WP:V his opinion is not suitable for inclusion in the article.

CJK (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

CJK, merely repeating the same arguments is clearly getting you nowhere, and is approaching on tendentious editing in my opinion - see WP:REHASH. I have repeatedly suggested that if you feel we are misinterpreting policy, you raise the matter at the relevant noticeboard (i.e. WP:RS). Again, I suggest you do so, or accept that your arguments have failed to gain agreement and move on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

This is an advocacy website

No, matter how funded and with whom affiliated, this site is clearly an advocacy website ("Search for The Truth" on front page and many other statements). It is managed by relatives of this article subject. This site received independent 3rd party RS coverage as an unreliable advocacy source [5]. Jeff Kisseloff is "Web site's Managing Editor" [6]. Therefore I suggest to completely ignore anything that comes directly from Mr. Kisseloff or this website, given a large number of good secondary RS on the subject. I checked a couple of them (two books by C. Andrews - one with Gordievsky and another with Mitrokhin). Both books not only tell that he worked for GRU more than 10 years, but what exactly he did; how this influenced certain high-stake negotiations, such as the fate of Poland after WWII, and so on. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion of whether Hiss was guilty or not is of no bearing on a discussion as to whether a source is of sufficient note to merit discussion in the article. And yes, the site advocates a position. So do all the other sources cited, including those who argue that Hiss is guilty. That is how academia works. Academics are expected to have opinions, and to argue the case for them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I never said it was my opinion, but referred to a couple of serious books by the top historian of intelligence. As about advocacy websites by academicians, no, this is something people never do, at least in the area of research I am familiar with. Yes, they create personal websites or "neutral" educational internet resources, but never something to establish "The Truth" (as this site claims). My very best wishes (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

On websites

Darting in with a quick comment, don't obsess too much on whether something is published on a website or as a book. There are polemic books and polemic websites; there is good scholarship in books and good scholarship on websites. Often these things overlap — both good scholarship AND polemics in the same exact place (as I feel probably describes the case both of the Nation-sponsored website and the work of Haynes & Klehr, etc.) Concentrate on the scholarship, don't spend time, effort, and words trying to play "gotcha" trying to toss out sources altogether in order to skew towards one side or the other. And again — do try to hunt up journal articles, which tend to be slightly less tied up with the "game behind the game" and more concerned with matters of actual historical evidence. Carrite (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

A personal or a group website per se is merely WP:SELFPUB. It may be more reliable if developed by a respectable institution (e.g. UniProt), but still not a very good source. It may provide links to actual RS. If so, one should use such RS directly per policy. My very best wishes (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The key thing is accuracy, not source-worship. This is a matter of history, not a game of "I can cite Wikipedia doctrine better than the other team." Carrite (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not about quoting the policy. Having an internet newspaper with editorial oversight is one thing; having a self-identified advocacy/propaganda website (such as one discussed here) is something very different. Same can be said about printed media - I agree. As a note of order, I am not a member of any "team" and never was a member of any "team", but always acted in my own capacity. My very best wishes (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A novel idea

How about instead of just automatically rejecting everything I have to say, one of you guys might be able to advance a compromise proposal of your own.

CJK (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Will you accept any compromise that allows the article to make clear that there are still a minority of academically-qualified people who consider Hiss to be innocent, or at least don't consider the evidence that he is guilty sufficient to prove the matter beyond reasonable doubt? And will you accept - following on from this - that the article cannot state definitively that Hiss's guilt has been proven? If you can concur with this, compromise seems entirely possible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. In fact, I already accepted that formulation under the heading "Possible compromise" but what I said was ignored.

CJK (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You mean the formulation "Hiss is repeatedly identified as a Soviet agent in notes taken from multiple documents in the KGB archives"? How does that suggest that Hiss's guilt might be in doubt? It looks to me like an outright assertion that he has been proven guilty. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That is simply reporting the straight up facts. How it happens to "look" to you is quite irrelevant.

CJK (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

So your earlier assertion that you had offered a 'compromise' regarding the issue we have been discussing for weeks is in fact an outright lie. No surprise there. Yet further proof of your tendentious editing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about. My original proposal was to say outright that the notes "have confirmed" Hiss's guilt. In the compromise proposal I no longer say that. That is a concession on my part, since no longer am I saying that Hiss is guilty.

CJK (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, how about a compromise: "According to the majority academic consensus, Hiss is repeatedly identified as a Soviet agent in notes taken from multiple documents in the KGB archives". This doesn't say that Hiss is guilty - but you claim it didn't before anyway. Do you have any objections to the added phrase, which merely makes clear that you didn't intend this to be an absolute assertion of guilt? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Consensus" rather implies "majority" ... I know of no "minority consensus" floating around on any topics <g>. And you can drop "repeatedly" as well, as it is rather concomitant with "multiple." Collect (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah - we can tidy up the wording - it is the intent that matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

When I said Hiss is "identified" I meant identified by the Soviets, not identified by academics. I'm saying that the Soviets/Soviet sources themselves in the notes on the documents identify Hiss as a spy. I let the reader make their own judgment regarding guilt.

CJK (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want the readers to make their own minds up, what is wrong with informing them that not everyone agrees that these notes confirm Hiss's guilt? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that the notes confirm Hiss's guilt.

CJK (talk) 00:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to propose another compromise. Since, as WP:Consensus(!) makes clear, any agreements regarding article content do not have to to unanimous, and since CJK is clearly going to continue with his endless repetitive tendentious behaviour until the cows come home, I propose that the rest of the contributors to this talk page just ignore him, and try to reach a compromise between us. It seems to me that Collect for one is willing to make moves in this direction, and I suspect that others may well see this as the best way to break the impasse too. I'll leave this proposal for others to think about for now, and return to the topic tomorrow. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Speaking to the larger question,Yes as a matter of fact I have been thinking of writing up a possible compromise. Good suggestion and thank you for making it. I have limited Internet access this week and can't give this full attention. Peace. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that's a good idea Andy.Capitalismojo (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion Andy! As a wise man once said, “Never wrestle with a pig -- You'll both get dirty, but the pig will like it. Never try to teach a pig to sing -- It wastes your time and it annoys the pig” 76.182.40.135 (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

New source: FYI

Just got this via H-Net for the Historians of American Communism List. I haven't seen the book, don't know the author, just For Your Information:

From: lewishartshorn@gmail.com

To: H-HOAC@h-net.msu.edu

Sent: Mon, Jul 8, 2013 4:41 AM PDT

ALGER HISS, WHITTAKER CHAMBERS and the CASE THAT IGNITED MCCARTHYISM by Lewis Hartshorn has been published by McFarland & Co., Inc. Publishers. http://www.mcfarlandbooks.com/book-2.php?id=978-0-7864-7442-4

My goal is to illustrate that in a case long considered closed and picked clean, history may not always be what we so confidently believe. -- Lewis Hartshorn

Judging by the blurb, further evidence that "growing historical consensus" is right and "historical consensus" is an overstatement of the current situation. Carrite (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The very page you link to say "This is a consensus challenging history of the Alger Hiss-Whittaker Chambers controversy of 1948 to 1950, a criminal case in which Hiss was convicted of perjury after two long trials."

So yes, there is a consensus.

CJK (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I note that you haven't queried the validity of the source, CJK. Do you think that "an independent scholar" is necessarily qualified to make such assertions? As for the book itself, I'd be inclined to suggest that it probably isn't WP:RS for anything but the author's opinions, until we have evidence to the contrary - and there doesn't seem to be any obvious grounds for considering the author's opinions noteworthy for now either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Meh, that's a book blurb. An ad. Carrite (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Meh, Hartshorn's so independent I can't find him at all in hard copy or in the digital archives of my institution or on Google Scholar. Neither can I find a review of this book. Zip. Yopienso (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Book is a new release. Carrite (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

He must be newly released, too; can't find a single paper or other book he's written. He doesn't even turn up on regular Google except wrt this book. My point: I question how reliable he is as a source, not because of what he wrote, but because of what he hasn't written. Yopienso (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Author appears to be not an academic researcher at all. This is his only book at Amazon. [7] has a lengthy colloquy with Hartshorn, and it clear that this is a "labour of love" for him, and that he has zero academic credentials at all. He has been cited by absolutely no one at all" per Google Scholar. See NYT [8] giving his blog post:

Lewis Hartshorn, Sugar Land, Tex. : McCarthy was emboldened by the success of Richard Nixon and the House Committee on Un-American Activities in capturing Alger Hiss. McCarthy’s “205 Communists” speech was delivered two weeks after Hiss’s perjury conviction in 1950. To this day there is not a shred of evidence that Hiss or his wife or brother Donald ever belonged to the Communist Party. Hiss’s sole accuser was Whittaker Chambers who, as foreign news editor of Time magazine in 1944-45, threw away the dispatches of Teddy White from China and John Hersey from Moscow, just to name two, in his campaign to promote his rightwing vision of the world and who often told his colleagues the truth doesn’t matter. Where was Murrow when Communist hysteria was really raging? McCarthy was a pathetic buffoon — even Chambers thought so. He could have been knocked off by Walter Winchell. George Kennan once said that it is the greatest error to suppose that historical myths cannot actually be created by design. Few journalists realize that, and Murrow was not one of them.

Which I rather think places his book on the utter outer corner of WP:FRINGE. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It is correct that the only evidence presented that Hiss was a member of the CPUSA came from Chambers. TFD (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It is also a fact that the CPUSA deliberately kept no open membership records, and that Chambers provided information to the FBI in 1947 (HUAC testimony). The problem is that the KGB records rather substantially corroborate Chambers' testimony. That is irrelevant to the obvious fact that the source mentioned in this section is absolutely "fringe." Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The CPUSA did keep membership records and you can access some of them online at the US archives here. It is not fringe to say that the only evidence Hiss was a member of the CPUSA came from Chambers. BTW I am having difficulty following your criteria for rs. Over at Mass killings under Communist regimes you are arguing that a paper presented at a political conference is rs, here you are arguing that a book from a reputable publisher of academic and nonfiction books is not. TFD (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

A few offices kept partial membership records. That is not the same as generally keeping any records. As for you asinine assertion that a paper presented at a conference supported by "right wing governments" ceases to be a reliable source - beggars belief. See [9] etc. It is conceded by Respondent and the evidence establishes that some portion of its membership was and is concealed. Party members active as labor union leaders, mass organization leaders, members of professions, and others have concealed their party membership from the general public or from the organizations in which they worked or in which they were members. The degree of concealment varies with Respondent's current policy regarding its activities. So much for "membership records". Collect (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not say that the fact that organization was endorsed by three right-wing governments in Eastern Europe meant it ceased to be a reliable source. Rather I challenged the claim that their support made the paper reliable. I already explained that to you btw and do not understand why I should have to explain it to you a second time. You are off on a tangent with the CPUSA membership. The author said that the only evidence presented that Hiss was a member was presented by Chambers. There is nothing fringe about that statement. TFD (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth

Trying to come up with a section of the lead that would be amenable to CJK has generated this:

"...On the basis on newly published transcripts generated by the top-secret Venona program, documents examined in hitherto sealed Soviet archives, and the testimony of a contemporary, a consensus among scholars of Cold War counterin elligence that Alger Hiss was indeed guilty of providing information to the Soviet Union has emerged in recent years. This conclusion, while supported by an overwhelming majority of serious scholars, is not universal..."

He's still not okay with it, but I will float that here as possible compromise language. Use it or don't — I've got no dog in the fight. It strikes me as a very fair NPOV summary of the state of the scholarship. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The transcripts of the Venona cables were made publicly available almost 15 18 years ago, so it is not accurate to call them "newly published." Why not use real dates instead of vague generalities? 69.120.68.165 (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

All that I'm asking is that a brief statement be made that Hiss is identified as a spy in the notes.

Something like:

"...On the basis of transcripts generated by the top-secret Venona program released in the 1990s, the private testimony of Noel Field released in 1992, and notes of documents that explicitly identify Hiss as a spy in the sealed KGB archives, a consensus among scholars that Alger Hiss was indeed guilty of providing information to the Soviet Union has emerged in recent years. This conclusion, while supported by an overwhelming majority of serious scholars, is not universal..."

CJK (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

'All you are asking' is that Wikipedia asserts as fact something which is not agreed by all the 'serious scholars' - that Hiss is explicitly identified in the notes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Please show me one "serious scholar" who does not agree that Hiss is identified by the Soviets as a spy in the notes.

CJK (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

...and off we go again. Given the fact that your definition of a 'serious scholar' is 'one who states that Hiss is guilty', there is no point in discussing this with you further. As I pointed out before, there is no requirement that consensus on this talk page be unanimous, and if we can reach agreement without you, and break the impasse that way, that is clearly the best way to proceed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Given the fact that your definition of a 'serious scholar' is 'one who states that Hiss is guilty

No, it isn't. It is based on Wikipedia's own guidelines as explained explicitly in WP:RS and WP:V. You seem to believe you are above the law with regards to this matter.

I should note, though, that even Kisseloff agrees that Hiss is identified as a spy by the Soviets. He merely argues that they got their information by taking American newspaper reports of the HUAC proceedings at face value, rather than using any reliable information of their own.

CJK (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No questions that Hiss is identified in Vassiliev's notes. Nor for that matter does anyone question that he is identified in Vassiliev's books. And that is clearly mentioned in this article. TFD (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

We are talking about the lead right now. The lead doesn't make that clear

CJK (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

TO CJK: Please show me one "serious scholar" who does not agree that Hiss is identified by the Soviets as a spy in the notes.

Are we talking of the notes that no one else has seen the source for?

Are we talking of the notes that somehow have no distribution list nor marginalia? DEddy (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

DEddy, the notes are accepted as a RS by scholars. Your opinion of their reliability is moot. Yopienso (talk) 16:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Your source says, "The recent public release... of notes from the KGB archives has received a surprisingly muted response from historians." That could be because whether or not Hiss spied for the USSR has little historical significance. Interesting too that your source is George Mason University. TFD (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Release of notebooks
Posting chronologically here instead of under the mistaken assertion above ( 69.120.68.165 (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2013): The notebooks weren't publicly released until 2009. Announcement. Digital archive. Wikipedia.Yopienso (talk) 16:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

to Yopienso Your opinion of their reliability is moot.

I'm not expressing an opinion. It is eyeball observable fact they are NOT original source & they do NOT have routing/marginalia on them. Take a look at them.

So precisely who are these scholars? Max Holland, Eduard Mark, John Fox, Gregg Herken, and Steve Usdin? If Kisseloff is unacceptable, you're saying this list is "scholars?" DEddy (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Even Kisseloff isn't actually dismissing the notes. As I said above, he merely argues that the Soviets were so incompetent that they simply took the American public proceedings at face value without any independent corroboration.

CJK (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to quote Kisseloff directly to prove my point:

The authors say a list compiled by Anatoly Gorsky entitled "Failures in the USA (1938-1948)" is further evidence of Hiss's guilt because the third name under the first heading in the report, "Karl's Group," is "Leonard—Alger Hiss."

At the risk of sounding like a tape loop, this list seems extremely damaging to Hiss – on its surface – but once examined more deeply, which the authors, you will perhaps not be surprised to hear, again decline to do, it is obvious that much of this list, rather than reflecting firsthand knowledge or extensive archival access, was simply compiled from multiple – including public – sources.

As to the list itself, Vassiliev's notes say it was compiled in December 1948, but the heading on the actual list shows that it was dated December 1949 (a fact that took some time to establish because, when Vassiliev's transcription was originally scanned, the top lines where the date appears were accidentally cut off, a fact reported here in 2006). This is important and not a quibble because the short-lived formal unification of Gorsky's KGB and the GRU (the two groups were in fact competitors, and did not actually share archival information) had ceased by February 1, 1949. Therefore, a supposition that Haynes and Klehr are relying heavily on here – that Gorsky wrote his report solely using GRU records – was after that date chronologically impossible as well as operationally unattainable. While Gorsky did obtain some information (most notably the numeric codenames) from the GRU, at the same time it's clear that most of the information related to "Karl's Group" [36] did not come from information from any records being held by the "neighbors" (the GRU). Instead, he was likely relying on names that had been mentioned in American press reports the Soviets were monitoring and other sources. This seems clear from the many internal contradictions in the report, which are discussed at length elsewhere on this site. Typically, Haynes and Klehr do no such analysis. [10]

So that's his case, he doesn't dismiss the notes as fraudulent or say we can't believe them. Note, however, that he completely ignores a separate document clearly marked December 1948 (i.e. before the February 1949 cutoff date) that names Hiss as an agent. His selective interpretation of the evidence is a good example of why people who do not meet WP:RS standards should not be used as sources.

CJK (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: So that's his case, he doesn't dismiss the notes as fraudulent or say we can't believe them. Note, however, that he completely ignores a separate document clearly marked December 1948 (i.e. before the February 1949 cutoff date) that names Hiss as an agent. His selective interpretation of the evidence is a good example of why people who do not meet WP:RS standards should not be used as sources.

Ummmm... the precise same statement can be said and proved about "Spies." Would you like the page reference? DEddy (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I am confused. Who was responsible for scanning Vassiliev's notes with the dates cut off? Is this the information that CJK doesn't the public to know about? And just how many times does the name Hiss (not an alias but his actually name), turn up in Vassiliev's material -- not inserted by him or Weinstein, once or twice? 173.77.12.77 (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, I understand that Venona materials were released to the public in 1995. Obviously, this does not mean they were published on the web. But could not any citizen request to see them, or did you have to be a scholar writing a book to have access to them? Also, once it was pointed out (in 2006) that Vassiliev's notes were scanned incorrectly, was the mistake then corrected and the truncated documents re-scanned, and if not why not? Surely, it would be neither difficult nor expensive to re-do them properly. 173.77.12.77 (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

DEddy, at WP we go by what RSs say, not by the interpretation (opinion) of an editor. What scholars? you asked. Look at this round-table discussion: Tom Maddux, John Ehrman (an eminent historian, though not of the Cold War), Benjamin B. Fischer, Richard Gid Powers, Ellen Schrecker.

In Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America (2009), Hayne and Klehr have been joined by Alexander Vassiliev, who provided the most important new source -- notebooks that Vassiliev made from documents in the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service Archive. In recognition of the importance of Vassiliev’s notebooks, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and the Cold War International History Project (CWIHP) hosted a conference in May on the notebooks and in its summer issue the Journal of Cold War Studies (JCWS) offered most of the presentations from the conference which explored significant aspects of Vassilev’s notebooks and Spies overall contributions to the study of Soviet espionage. [. . .]

We close by noting that while we have made extensive use of Vassiliev’s notebooks . . . Other researchers will find in the notebooks much to write about that we did not deal with and may recognize matters of importance that missed us entirely. We are confident that a number of dissertations and books and many journal articles will use of Vassiliev’s notebooks.

Here is some marginalia. Yopienso (talk) 22:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

To answer the IP's question: Vassiliev, Haynes, and Klehr do not believe that the date was wrongly cut off. They believe the heading showing the 1949 date was from a totally separate document. The list is of agents compromised "1938-48" not "1938-49" and is dated December 1948 on the bottom. However, my point is that even if it was really written in 1949, there is still another document unambiguously written in December 1948 that says Hiss was an agent. Hiss turns up by name 3 times and by an alias explicitly identified as Hiss (in the documents) separately 2 other times. I believe the Venona material was published online.

CJK (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't find these answers to be very clear and in some cases my questions have been ignored. Can anyone else give it a try? 173.77.12.77 (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

to Yopienso: Here is some marginalia. Yopienso

That is NOT marginalia. Those are notes by Vassiliev to himself.

Marginalia is the various initials & notes written in the margins of the original documents (which we're highly unlikely to ever see) that shows who has seen a document & perhaps comments on what they thought. In American IC documents I've see either a cover sheet or a stamp with various peoples names, often in hierarchal order. DEddy (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes; I see I missed your point.

You are quick to point out my error. How quick are you to acknowledge that reputable scholars consider the notebooks to be reliable sources? And, that their consensus trumps your opinion? Yopienso (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

to Yopienso: Thank you for the H-DIPLO reference.

Are we taking bets on whether or not any of those scholars notice the absence of marginalia? Certainly the CIA historian should know of the significance of marginalia. DEddy (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome.

Whether they do or not (off-topic here), they accept the notebooks as RSs. NB that the subject here is Vassiliev's notebooks, not the original documents. Vassiliev did not photocopy the originals; his notes are exactly that--notes he took from/on the Soviet files. Yopienso (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

to Yopienso: Vassiliev did not photocopy the originals; his notes are exactly that--notes he took from/on the Soviet files.

I understand they are hand written copies of selected materials. We have no idea what he left out, what he wasn't shown, or what he made up. That's why they are not solid enough to declare they are 100% unassailable proof that Hiss was a spy. More indications in that direction, yes. Iron clad proof, no. Too many open questions. DEddy (talk) 01:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Not a lot of copying, as I understand: His notebooks contain summaries of documents, transcriptions, and his own notes. (From the Wilson Center. Disclaimer: I have not studied the notebooks. I have studied the Cold War.) Yopienso (talk) 02:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

to Yopienso: I have studied the Cold War.

That's certainly more than we ever got out of CJK who seems to base his certitude on a single book.

Thanks ever so much for that link to the H-DIPLO(?) round table. http://www.h-net.org/~diplo/roundtables/PDF/Roundtable-XI-9.pdf

Surprise, surprise, one of the more interesting observations from that paper/discussion is that the Russian language (Russian intelligence jargon?) is far richer & nuanced than American English. So CJK's position that agent = spy are without question direct synonyms is probably not accurate. Details to follow.

I'll have to double check, but none of the panelists (2 CIA & one FBI historian) took the position that "Spies" absolutely nailed the Hiss case. Useful contribution, yes. Totally closed, not so much. DEddy (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess I have to quote the entire document in question to dispel any last shred of doubt that Hiss is referred to as a spy. The December 1948 document, written by P. Fedotov (deputy chairman of the KI) and K. Kukin to the chairman of the KI reads as follows:

The station’s proposal to manufacture and publish documents in our newspapers about the fact that the traitor Chambers is a German agent, conducted espionage work in the USA on assignment from the Gestapo, and on German instructions, infiltrated the CPUSA – cannot be accepted. The publication of such "documents" would undoubtedly have a very negative effect on our former agents who were betrayed by Chambers (A. Hiss, D. Hiss, Wadleigh, Pigman, Reno) and oth., because, knowing that they had worked for us, but having ‘turned’ into German agents, these people could, for example, choose to cooperate with the authorities, give them candid testimonies, etc. Moreover, the transformation of these individuals from alleged Sov. intelligence agents into established agents for a country that had been at war with the USA would certainly not help them from a purely legal standpoint. The station’s proposal to manufacture and publish documents incriminating certain leaders of the ‘Committee on the Investigation of un-American Activities’ and Federal Court Justices as Gestapo agents should be studied and considered with care.

It can't get any more blatant than that.

CJK (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not the role of editors to draw conclusions from copies of original documents, but to report how scholars have reported them. Neither is it our role to question how these scholars have interpreted them. We are supposed to report merely what scholars have said. TFD (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct TFD. In the proposed edit I am reporting what Haynes and Klehr, scholars in the field of American Communism, are reporting about the notes.

CJK (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

to CJK: In the proposed edit I am reporting what Haynes and Klehr, scholars in the field of American Communism, are reporting about the notes.

Let me get this right... you are basing you position that Hiss was absolutely 100% a spy on a single book, "Spies." Hiss was a spy because H&K say so. Do I have that right? DEddy (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The Four Deuces: We are supposed to report merely what scholars have said.

Take a look at that H-DIPLO discussion (http://www.h-net.org/~diplo/roundtables/PDF/Roundtable-XI-9.pdf) of "Spies" & how it sounds to you. Certainly didn't sound like a consensus of "Case Closed" to me. But I'd like to see opinions from other readers. DEddy (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I have repeatedly said in regards to the new proposal that I am not trying to assert Hiss's guilt. Instead, I am proposing to say that Hiss is identified by the Soviets as a spy in the notes, which is a fact. Whether or not that means Hiss was guilty can be judged by the reader.

CJK (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Other opinions and impressions? It sounds to me like the NSA has always believed in Hiss's guilt -- according to the website for PBS's Nova program on spies (2002): "Analysts at the National Security Agency have gone on record asserting that Ales could only have been Alger Hiss." The FBI (if Prados is to be believed) has always had doubts. And the CIA, too. In addition, the larger historical community has different perspectives and values than the small, prosecutorially inclined and hermetically sealed world of Cold War historians, placing more value the big picture (context) and the small (precision and nuance).

Alexander Vassiliev, whose adventurous career includes publishing, working as a TV presenter, and writing novels, strikes me as something of an unpredictable "colorful figure." A far cry from the dull and dogged plodders who constitute the majority of the other protagonists in this affair -- with the flamboyant exception of Whittaker Chambers. I would like to see a wikipedia entry on the publishing history and fortunes of his notebooks, as they passed from one co-author to another, a story that is too long and complicated to be included here. 173.77.11.154 (talk) 09:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's hilarious how you cite "FBI doubts" about Hiss being Ales when the entire premise of the Hiss defense is that the FBI conspired to frame Hiss. Your opinion of Vassiliev is totally irrelevant.

CJK (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It is not necessary to believe there was a conspiracy in order to believe there was insufficient evidence. Ironically it is necessary to believe there was a conspiracy in order to believe that Hiss was a spy. TFD (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The evidence was the typewriter. The Hiss defense claims that the FBI made a fake typewriter. In any case, we shouldn't get off topic.

CJK (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I never claimed to believe the FBI framed Hiss. I think it is on record that various members of the FBI believed that there was insufficient evidence for a jury to find Hiss guilty of espionage under American law (not to mention that the statute of limitations a. had expired and b. There was no law against lobbying for another country or advocating another economic system at the time when Hiss was alleged to have consorted with communists.) Nixon himself said repeatedly that the trial had to be conducted "in the press" rather than in the courtroom because there was insufficient evidence. 173.77.11.154 (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hiss was convicted of perjury, not espionage. And Nixon made perfectly clear in the White House tapes that he thought Hiss did it.

CJK (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No doubt Nixon believed it and thought that Hiss was "fair game". He was a prosecutor, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.11.154 (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The Hiss defense does not depend on the typewriter being a forgery, merely it not being the same typewriter that was owned by Hiss or, it were the same typewriter, not having been used by Priscilla Hiss. It is fairly standard in criminal cases that the accused does not have to proof someone else's guilt, merely to show that the evidence does not necessarily prove his guilt. Again, it is not up to us to weigh the evidence and determine guilt or innocence, merely report what sources say. Incidentally, the fact that Nixon believed Hiss was guilty (Nixon was after all a conspiracy theorist) is not proof that he believed all the evidence against Hiss was true. TFD (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The entire appeal of Hiss's lawyer was based around the idea that the typewriter was a fake, the only way it would have been indistinguishable from Hiss's old typewriter is if it had been tampered with. The judge pointed out that Chambers could not have made a fake typewriter and ever since then it has been portrayed by Hiss partisans as an FBI-military conspiracy. This is laid out in the article quite plainly.

After doing some further research, it seems clear that Nixon is being grossly mischaracterized when he said that the Hiss case was "won" in the papers. He didn't mean that a conviction was obtained due to a media frenzy, he meant that it spurred the government to take action against Hiss at a time it seemed unwilling to do so.

CJK (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Not really, he was explicitly saying that he won the HIss case by using smear tactics and leaks [i.e., the so-called "politics of personal destruction", otherwise known as character assassination] to influence public opinion, and that these tactics should also be used against Daniel Ellsberg, using illegally obtained (burgled) information. This has nothing to do with government action. 173.77.11.154 (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC) edited 173.77.11.154 (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

That technique is of course fairly standard in high profile U.S. cases. TFD (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The quote provided in this article says:

We won the Hiss case in the papers. We did. I had to leak stuff all over the place. Because the Justice Department would not prosecute it. Hoover didn’t even cooperate... It was won in the papers. I leaked out the papers... I leaked out the testimony. I had Hiss convicted before he ever got to the grand jury... Go back and read the chapter on the Hiss case in [his book] Six Crises and you’ll see how it was done. It wasn’t done waiting for the goddamn courts or the attorney general or the FBI.

It seems clear that he was talking about using leaks to compel the government to take action against Hiss, as detailed in a publicly released book. When he said he "won" the Hiss case he meant "won" as in getting the government to look into it in the first place. "It wasn’t done waiting for the goddamn courts or the attorney general or the FBI" clearly indicates that he is talking about the preliminary phase.

CJK (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It all hinges whether you define "won" -- as "getting the government to look into it" or as stirring up a lynch mob. 173.77.11.154 (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)