Talk:Alger Hiss

Alger Hiss article

This article is one of the reasons Wikipedia is widely considered an ultimately unreliable source of information. From start to finish, the entire piece reads as if it were written by verbal contortionists straining mightily, in George Orwell's words, "to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

— C.W. Crouch, An occasional Wikipedia user —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.152.58 (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have recently touched it up, with the intention of clarifying it and making it more encyclopedic in tone. Some key facts still seem to be missing here, however: The mention of the obscure warbler that convinced the jury that Chambers really had known the bird-watching Hiss, for example.

Other missing info includes:

The fact that Vassiliev brought a libel suit in England against Hiss defender John Lowenthal and not only lost in front of a jury but also was reprimanded by the judge for trying to exert "a chilling effect" on scholarship.

The fact that Victor Navatsky interviewed people that Weinstein had interviewed and a substantial number claimed to have been drastically misquoted, and one of them even subsequently sued Weinstein, who settled the case out of court.

The fact that the KBG reportedly received a cash donation from Vassiliev's publisher, Random House, to set up a pension fund for retired KBG agents after the fall of the USSR (would Vassiliev had gotten such a pension?) If true, this might have affected the candor of General Dmitry Antonovich Volkogonov in appearing to retract his earlier exoneration of Hiss (as former head of the KBG would Volgonov have also received a "pension" from Random House?).

The fact that Vassiliev and Weinstein have now quarreled (are they suing each other, too?)

The fact that George McGovern (also a historian) weighed in in the 1990s with the opinion that Hiss was probably railroaded.

The fact that in the early 1990s Anthony Lake was denied confirmation as head of the CIA when he suggested that the Hiss case might still be unsettled, which shows that a chilling effect is already in operation, if a person's career can be derailed for expressing honest doubt. Have any of those who claim Hiss was a spy ever weighed in on Stephen Salant's FOIA research? I couldn't find any evidence of this.173.56.166.84 (talk) 00:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)173.56.166.84 (talk)(was it really a "pension" and did it really come from Random House?)

Bluntly put, this article is a joke - Most Wikipedia matters with vocal constituencies are getting like this

Several years ago, I posted changes, together with the citation, that put to bed the idea that Alger Hiss was not a spy. In "The Sword And The Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive And The Secret History Of The Kgb" it was revealed that Alger Hiss had been a formal spy. End of story. Now, I see that that has been removed. And it has been replaced with references to instances when formal requests were made and responded to. These references are ridiculous. They are more meaningless as formal denials by the CIA. Mitrokhin was he chief archivist for the KGB. He brought the copied documents.

I and most others who have real knowledge about these matters, people who are not members of the "axe to grind" crowds, don't have time to fix things over and over. The result is that Wikipedia is becoming more revisionist than old Soviet History Books.

You can tell Jimmy Wales that this is why I am not going to give money to Wikipedia. This needs to be fixed, and in this respect, Wikipedia is moving farther and farther toward miserable failure. It is worse because young people mostly go to Wikipedia for information. They have no idea how completely wrong what they are reading actually is.

           69.108.3.197 (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)BPH

Agreed. The article does not need to be locked, as now, it needs to be scrapped. --173.79.116.9 (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, not scrapped perhaps. But it is a sad day when Conservapedia has a more reliable article than Wikipedia.71.126.186.190 (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"Bluntly put, this article is a joke" Actually the joke is anonymous contributors who are supposedly going to wow us with their superiority, but who aren't even aware that new talk threads go at the end of this page, not the beginning.

"I and most others who have real knowledge about these matters...don't have time to fix things over and over." So you have time to contribute your criticism, but no time to do any actual research and contribute to the article? How convenient. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Seriously Mr. anonymous URL? You offer nothing about the TOPIC? You can only snark about location? Yeah, I put this at the top for a GOOD REASON! The article is junk because it specifically removed the primary source that closed the Alger Hiss case. So I WANTED ONE OF YOU GENIUSES to NOTICE IT! Yeah, you noticed it. But you are so incapable of functioning in English that you STILL COULDN'T FIX IT! Either that or you are so emotionally immature that you are all sulking now, and you are going to show me by refusing to make the fix. Grow up. Yeah, I know that half of you "editors" are still in primary or secondary school. 69.229.121.134 (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)BPH

Yes, all you people who puff up your ideas about yourselves by calling yourselves "editors" - I am not going to go back in and install the reference again, cut the article length in half, and then come back and see it has all been removed by some anonymous person for god only knows what reason. That battle is for YOU all to do. YOU have the time. I don't. 69.229.121.134 (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)BPH

It seems "Joegoodfriend" is unable to find THE NAME OF THE BOOK to that was posted! It's in the FIRST SENTENCE! This sort juvenile drivel from "editors" is why Wikipedia is turning into junk. You seriously call yourselves "editors" but you can't comprehend English to so much as find a BOOK TITLE in the first sentence of a paragraph. 69.229.121.134 (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)BPH

It's a joke. A complete joke. It's not just this article - it's the whole wikipedia so-called "system". Sorry Jimmy, but your encyclopedia has to grow up now or it is going to end in well deserved ignominy. 69.229.121.134 (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)BPH

What, only four insulting responses? I was expecting more than that. As the Sex Pistols would say, "It's another swindle!" Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hahahahahahahahaha. The comment about it being a sad day when Conservapedia has a more reliable article than Wikipedia, as if Wikipedia is not hopelessly riddled with insanely biased entries, is fuc*ing hilarious, to say the least. Good lord, there is hardly a single entry on a prominent left-wing figure that is not sanitized to a laughable degree. That the authors of this entry seem to be trying to make it look as if the jury is still out regarding Hiss's guilt tells you all you need to know about this supposed encyclopedia. Who wrote this entry, Victor Navasky?

Poetry

Where is the attribution that Chambers published poetry under the name Crosley? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.59.183 (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Answer: Thy Neighbor's Wife by Gay Talese, (New York: Harper Perennial Book, 2009) p. 102. In fact, publisher Samuel Roth submitted a sworn affidavit to Hiss's defense team that Chambers had submitted poetry to him under the name of Crosely. But Hiss's lawyers declined to put Roth on the stand because he had been jailed on multiple occasions for publishing or sending through the mail obscene material.173.77.99.104 (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Chambers admitted to Hiss's lawyers that he had used the name Crosley as a pen name. He had published erotic poetry in his own name with Roth before. According to Tony Hiss, Crosley represented himself to Alger Hiss as a freelance writer who was working on a book about the Nye Committee in which Hiss had played a role. This was the reason why Hiss was so generous to him. All this information is available on the web and is not controversial.173.77.99.104 (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hissites

DC Geist states that the term "Hissite" does not appear in John V. Fleming's The Anti-Communist Manifestos: Four Books That Shaped the Cold War. However, the opening sentence of Fleming's discussion of the revelations of the Nixon tapes (page 292, beginning of the last paragraph), states:

Page 292 …case, one of which [of the tapes], produced in exultation by the Hissites

Fleming's designation "Hissites" for those who believe that Nixon said "we made a typewriter in the Hiss case" is clearly derogatory. Fleming, a Nixon defender, then attempts to show at some length that the tape is "garbled" and that Nixon didn't say "we made a typewriter' but "[...?] piper". That is Fleming's opinion, and he might equally be called a "Nixonite". See http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Communist-Manifestos-Four-Books-Shaped/dp/0393069257/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1309544229&sr=1-1#reader_0393069257 It is not unreasonable to point out to the reader that Fleming uses partisan terminology. For this reason, I recommend that DC Geist's erroneous correction be reverted or re-written.173.77.99.104 (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

173 is correct. Google Books, which I was employing, misses "Hissite," but Amazon Search Inside catches it. Having discovered that, on initial appraisal, I didn't think it all that informative to include Fleming's reference to "Hissite" in our article, but on further consideration, 173's observation that it "is not unreasonable to point out to the reader that Fleming uses partisan terminology" is well-taken. I have no problem if 173 or anyone else wants to reinsert the properly contextualized mention of "Hissite."—DCGeist (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I tried to fix this. I've come to agree, after checking a few more sources, that DC Geist is correct that taking about "Hissites" probably is just confusing. In any case, other writers have "We got a typewriter" not "we made a typewriter". In fact Fleming's book itself doesn't really add anything to the article, though the disagreements over Nixon's words are interesting. Hiss and his supporters really did seize on Nixon's words, which were subsequently changed to something that made little sense, "We got Piper"??! Unless Nixon was going to say that "We got Piper to employ Horace Schmall to find the typewriter," which seems a little far-fetched! 173.77.99.104 (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

additional citation

I would suggest adding (perhaps to footnote 29) a citation to th SJC decision where Hiss was reinstated to the Massachusetts bar. It contains the discussion (referenced elsewhere in the article) about reinstatement following a felony conviction. The citation is: "Matter of Hiss," 368 Mass. 447, 333 N.E.2d 429 (1975). Onesius (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

no subtance to the discussion of spying

So what did Hiss actually do as a Soviet spy? What secrets did he pass along? Whose lives did he endanger? There aren't even allegations as to any of this.

His only action regarding the Soviets, it seems, was at Yalta, to argue *against* their position on U.N. voting.

Other than that, all we have in this article are issues as to whether he was or was not a Communist, or a spy, or whether he lied about it or not. 24.44.225.248 (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)captcrisis

You are correct in your analysis 24.44. Until more evidence is produced there can be no certainty that Hiss was a spy. That is why so many people are agnostic on this topic.173.77.111.82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC).

Until more evidence is produced? What, is this some kind of fuc*ing joke? Most people are agnostic on the issue? Seriously, you need to leave the cave you have clearly been living in for the past few decades. The only people agnostic on Hiss's guilt are the same imbeciles still claiming there is not enough evidence to prove the Rosenberg's were guilty of espionage. In other words the only people who claim Hiss isn't guilty are a bunch of left-wing cranks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.155.6 (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Something I've never seen mentioned much less discussed... if all these folks—Hiss, White, Currie, Duggan, Lee, etc., etc.—were spies, how come J Edgar Hoover's vaunted FBI had to rely on walk-ins—primarily Bentley & Chambers—to get a clue when many of these baddies were literally right under Hoover's nose? DEddy (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Not only that, the people who believe Hiss is guilty also believe Harry Hopkins was a Communist spy! I kid you not. (Probably also Roosevelt, Eleanor, and Eisenhower, not to mention Jefferson and Lincoln).173.52.248.214 (talk) 03:50, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

DEeddy, As far as Hoover, a bio of Hoover from my reading I gather that Hoover did not believe Hiss to be guilty of espionage but disliked the idea of the United Nations so much that he was willing to see him "taken out" - as an example to others. I forget where I read this, but I could probably still find it. As the Cold War accelerated anyone who believed in peace (or racial integration) was considered a risk to the security state.173.77.98.180 (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

For example Curt Gentry recounts in J. Edgar Hoover, the Man and the Secrets, that Hoover put a wiretap on Hiss for 21 months from 1945 to 47 and found nothing incriminating. This could mean that Hiss wasn't a spy, or that if he ever had been a spy in the 1930s he no longer was. But Hoover did consider Hiss's ideas subversive was anxious to get him out of government.

http://books.google.com/books?id=cVzNFWV_rvEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=J+edgar+hoover+the+man+and+the+secrets&hl=en&sa=X&ei=s0MaT_O_O6OU0QGbwtXgCw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Hiss&f=false 173.77.98.180 (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)