Talk:Alger Hiss

Archives
/Archive 1: to 26 Aug, 2006 /Archive 2: 26 Aug, 2006 to 11 Apr, 2007 /Archive 3: 11 Apr, 2007 to 23 Aug, 2007 /Archive 4: 23 Aug, 2007 to 27 Dec, 2007

Birth Dates Are Incorrect

The bio box with birth dates says Hiss' birthday is November 11, 1904, but it shows his children as "Bosley Hiss (1898-1926)" and "Mary Ann Hiss (c1900-1930)." Shawn D. (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the obviously incorrect "Children" info and the suspect "Parent" info for now. RedSpruce (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words in use

"Some reliable sources have suggested that those who believe in Hiss's innocence are in the minority of scholarly opinion."

This is clearly a weasel statement. Thus it does not belong. The previous sentence mentions the controversy. This statement following serves one purpose, and one purpose only: to color and characterize the article in favour of Hiss being a spy. The writer probably wanted to imply Hiss's conviction was justified when clearly the evidence did not support it. I personally think he probably was a spy, but I have a big problem with people trying to re-write history, particularly in the case of these witch hunts. If there is so much controversy on this particular statement, then the appropriate way to deal with this is to make a request for comment to the community. I can't imagine this statement will survive this process, none-the-less, if you think it belongs here then feel free to make the request. When I deleted it, I specifically pointed out that this should be the appropriate response, not reverting it. I tried to find the appropriate discussion as suggested on the page. All I found was a jumble of barely cogent arguments and contributing there would come to nothing but a revert war which I assume was what happened previously. It is possible I wasn't able to find the discussion you are referring to. Feel free to provide directions there and I'll look at it, but as it stands, this statement just does not fit wiki criteria. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.66.156 (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If you will read the archives, you will find that this sentence is a consensus compromise achieved after months and months of arguments, with literally tens of thousands of words exchanged on the talk page by the editors, some of whom have been contributing to the article for years. Have a look

here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Joegoodfriend (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The statement "some reliable sources have suggested that those who believe in Hiss's innocence are in the minority of scholarly opinion" is unnecessary. While it is true that less than 50% of scholarly opinion supports Hiss's being innocent, isn't it enough to simply present the story of his life?Flyte35 (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

My friend, you're preaching to the choir. However, the sentence was arrived at by compromise after a nine month edit war that started in March of '07 and lasted through December. To summarize it as politely as possibly, an editor introduced the edit 'Most scholars have concluded that Hiss was guilty.' The editor would not be dissuaded by myself and others, and the compromise was reached. Have a look at the archives. Joegoodfriend (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the archives first to understand why such a silly sentence was in the article. The fact that it's a compromise doesn't make it any less ridiculous, but I guess it's not really worth trying to fix again if it'll trigger a lot of anger.Flyte35 (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That type of silliness is exactly why I suggested submitting it to the community for comment. Under such a process, a consensus with willing editors not invested in this particular article will be reached, and anyone attempting to color the piece with their raging bias will have no option but to accept it. In my opinion it is clearly a weasel statement. They are not allowed on Wiki. Period. The article has done in my opinion a surprisingly excellent and unbiased job of presenting both sides of such a controversial topic. I was expecting a mess after reading this ridiculous statement. The fact that the article manages to rise above such low expectations from the introduction is one reason this statement should be removed. The entire introduction and article are completely colored by this one out of place statement. If Mr. O'Reilly, or Hannity, or Ms. Coulter or whomever it is that insisted on this statement originally, returns to the mix, he/she will have to accept the community consensus, rather than bully others into accepting what is ultimately unacceptable. It is unfortunate you had to devote 9 months of arguing over something as silly as this when there are processes in place to deal with this type of vandalism/bullying.

RfC: Appropriateness of controversial statement in the introduction

Is the statement introduced by "some reliable sources" in the "Introduction" an appropriate Wiki statement?

I think this is clearly a weasel statement. Other editors on this page are loath to remove it because it is the result of a ridiculously long fight with an intransigent editor, who may not even be around to fight with any longer. While no one is involved in a revert war at the moment and this may seem a rather sedate issue to submit for comment because of this, considering the history on this page, I thought this would be the quickest, easiest, and least painful method of fixing this page. Apart from this statement in the introduction, I was shocked to find an article on such a controversial subject with two viewpoints at extreme odds with one another in very good shape. Perhaps the risk of disturbing the calm by opening old wounds is contributing to the unwillingness to make what I think is an otherwise obvious edit. Cheers.