Talk:Alger Hiss

Archives
/Archive 1: to 26 Aug, 2006

Reorganized article

I just did a major reorganization of the article, putting the content into a rational order, removing lots of duplication, changing the format of the footnotes, removing footnotes that no longer connected to any part of the article, copyediting for clarity, etc. Apart from duplicate material, I didn't add or remove any significant amount of material, though I did remove a paragraph or two that I couldn't make sense of. I didn't check every fact stated in the article, though I did check every reference to make sure it was valid and in fact supported the point it was supposed to support. A controversial topic like this one should have its facts checked and should have a lot more citations, so there's a project for anyone who's interested. KarlBunker 23:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Article intro

To merely state in the introduction that Hiss was convicted of perjury, and to omit the illegal actions by the U.S. government in obtaining his conviction is POV by omission. Hiss' partial exoneration by the state bar in Massachusetts cast major doubt on his guilt, and he was readmitted to the bar without the usual confession of guilt or expression of remorse which are nearly always required when a disbarred lawyer is readmitted to the bar. The case against Hiss was always flimsy. The only witness with first person knowledge to testify against Hiss was Chambers, an admitted perjurer, who changed his story several times. First Chambers said Hiss wasn't a communist, then Chambers said he was. First Chambers said Hiss was not a spy, then Chambers said he was. There was enough doubt about Hiss's guilt to result in a hung jury at first trial. The main reason Hiss was convicted, according to jury interviews after the trial ended, was the jury member’s belief in the FBI’s honesty; that is, they believed the FBI witness who committed perjury when he said it was impossible to forge a document by typewriter. Hiss may have been completely innocent. He may also have been guilty. The important thing is to present both sides of the story, starting at the introduction. Later revelations of FBI misconduct in the COINTPRO program before the Senate Church committee (so named for its chairman, Senator Frank Church of Idaho) demonstrate that the FBI did judicially frame innocent people; and people died due to government misconduct, such as Fred Hampton and actress Jean Seberg (see:

http://www.saintjean.co.uk/politics.htm

for information about the FBI's campaign to destroy Seberg.) If the government used illegal means to deny Hiss a fair trial, ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN DOCUMENTS obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, then subsequent accusations of Hiss' guilt, such as Venona, are also suspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.90.152 (talk • contribs) ; 17 September 2006

All the relevant points you mention are not omitted; they are in the body of the article. The introduction to the article confines itself to the most basic facts, as it should. The body of the article presents arguments and evidence on both sides of the issue, as it should. The introduction notes that Hiss was convicted, but doesn't suggest that this conviction was either just or unjust, and it notes that there is controversy around the conviction. To present one side of the issue in the introduction is, in effect, to declare that side the "winner," and to insert a POV. KarlBunker 10:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

All information which indicates Hiss innocence has been purged. Article now completely biased against Hiss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.90.152 (talk • contribs)

That is not correct. However, if you think some specific piece of information is missing, by all means research it, get a reference for it, and add it to the article. That would be a more constructive approach than vandalizing the article. KarlBunker 01:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

68.174.90.152, I owe you an apology. I was just reading through the article and realized that a large block of it had been deleted by some past vandal. I don't know how I missed this vandalism when it happened, but I did. I've been basing my responses to your complaints on content that I "knew" was in the article, when in fact much of that content wasn't in the article. Mea culpa. The content has been restored, and as you'll see, it covers those points you said were missing from the article. KarlBunker 02:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Typewriter evidence

This article is simply terrible. It keeps trying to imply that the typewriter was forged, and that that was "proven," but the forged-typewriter theory is laughable. You can leave this misnformation in if you like, but I reserve the right to put in the evidence that shows how untrue this is. The desperate Hiss dupes have got to grow up.

The article doesn't state that any forged-typwriter theory is "proven". It did, however, come close to saying that, using wording which I don't believe was supportable. I RV'd your edit because it was non-neutral and removed valid information, but I did change the wording in question. KarlBunker 01:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Just in case anyone wants to know, there were FBI files released through the Freedom of Information Act that contained addmissions on the part of the FBI to presenting experts that deliberatley committed perjury to cover up the fact that, yes, a typewriter could be forged in the way that the Hiss defense alleged. This is a well known fact of history and if the person who started this post doesn't know this, then, well, that's his own problem.Rlh 1984 06:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

According to John Dean, Nixon admitted in front of witnesses that the typewriter was fabricated. Joegoodfriend 16:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hiss in Minsk

I'm rather amazed this individual still has defenders from those in the Old Left in America. Here's an interesting path some might wish to follow... In Minsk, there is the house where the 1st Congress of the RSDLP met. This became somewhat of a Mecca for worldwide Communists and Soviet sympathizers to visit. A visitor's log was maintained. In the mid-90's during one of my visits to Minsk, I came upon Hiss's signature in that log. I'm not sure whether the log remains available to the public these days given that the Lukashenko regime is pro-Soviet and has tried to whitewash everything Soviet (including Stalin and Dzherzhinsky), but it might be a worthwhile angle to investigate for scholars, at least those seeking the truth. Avraamrii 05:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Avraamrii, man, you're brilliant. In your sly, satiric way, you've exposed exactly what sort of standard of proof today's right-wing pseudo-scholars subscribe to: if it can be shown that Hiss visited a historical site that a lot of Soviet sympathizers also did, OBVIOUSLY he was a spy! You're Wikipedia's own Stephen Colbert! Much love, comrade. Best, Dan—DCGeist 06:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

---

I didn't know encyclopedias had opinions! Do encyclopedias serve as lawyers? This one seems to be very skilled at bending the truth. How can honest, balanced information seem so opinionated in its attempt to exonorate Alger Hiss? Stick with the facts, or risk losing (what's left of your) credibility! --regalseagull 10/30/06

Word UP, my brother! "How can honest, balanced information seems seem so opinionated in its attempt to exonorate Alger Hiss?" Wait! Could it be?! Could it be because honest, balanced information DOES exonorate Alger Hiss?!?! You and I are SO on the same page nobletern--where IS the beef?!?—DCGeist 06:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory riddled minds everywhere applaud your unyielding paranoia, Mr. Geist... There is -- and never has been a right-wing conspiracy against Mr. Hiss. He did it all to himself, and is lucky he didn't get charged with treason. I just want to know why this entry is so biased. Every single section defends Hiss (as if from the encyclopidia's point of view)... Did you know him or something? --regalseagull 11/02/06

You presumably meant to say "There isn't -- and never has been..." but I'll let that pass. The word conspiracy gets thrown around a lot to discredit people. I certainly don't believe in a right-wing conspiracy against Hiss, but I do believe that many people in the anti-communist movement were very unscrupulous and careless in their actions. (Remember the case of the cleaning woman who was called up before McCarthy's committee because her name was the same as that of an alleged spy?) Why are so many people shocked, shocked, at the suggestion that a politician is self serving and lacking in scruples? -- MiguelMunoz 23:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Hiss Slant

After reading this article, it's hard for me not to conclude that it was written by someone with a slant towards Hiss. "Hiss supporters" are cited repeatedly, and almost all the evidence against him is rebutted, but the evidence in support of him isn't. My other readings on the matter suggest that the ongoing debates on the matter are inconclusive. The conviction of Hiss still stands. Yet, according to this Wikipedia article, Hiss is almost always given the benefit of the doubt. I don't think that squares with accepted facts or judicial findings. Joe Descartes 03:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether it "squares with accepted fact" depends on who's doing the "accepting." It's true that the pro-Hiss side gets the last word in most of the sections of this article, but that's largely an artifact of the nature of the debate. Each section necessarily takes the form of "here is the evidence against Hiss, and here are the problems with that evidence." I believe that this article is clear that the case is inconclusive, and I believe it shows where doubt validly exists without giving Hiss "the benefit of the doubt." However, I'm personally open to the idea that the article may have an overall slant in Hiss's favor. If you can point to any particular examples where the writing seems biased or where some anti-Hiss evidence isn't given due coverage, I'd be interested in hearing about it. KarlBunker 11:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason Hiss is given the benefit of the doubt is because, ultimately, his perjury conviction has nothing at all to do with whether he engaged in espionage. Hiss was shown a picture of Chambers, who had gained fifty pounds, gone bald and shaved his mustache in the ten years since Hiss had known him. Hiss’ response was that he would have to meet the man in person to know whether or not he had known him in the past, and said of the matter, “I have never known anyone who had the relationship with me that this man has testified to.” HUAC decided that merely because it could prove that Hiss and Chambers had known each other, they could then prosecute Hiss for perjury. A jury agreed and Hiss served four years. Some may call that justice, but I don’t. Joegoodfriend 20:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hiss identified as ALES

The article claims that "Several analysts identified Hiss as ... ALES," but it's supporting evidence is of several people who accepted that identification as correct, which is not the same thing. FBI Special Agent Robert Lamphere apparently identified Hiss as ALES, but it's not all all clear that anybody else independently came to the same conclusion. It's fine to point out that many people believe this identification to be correct, but the phrase "several analysts identified Hiss as ALES" is misleading. One analyst identified Hiss as ALES. Several others agree. Perhaps the sentence should start "A footnote in the Venona transcripts identifies Hiss as ..." I haven't made this change yet because I want input from opposing views, but I have restored the "citation needed" to the word "several." -- MiguelMunoz 21:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. If no one comes through with a citation to back "several", remove it. Joegoodfriend 22:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, excellent catch. This is the sort of common, little slippage in language that can easily be picked up and become accepted as historically accurate--which, as you've clearly explained, it almost certainly is not. Really good work.—DCGeist 23:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; I've changed the wording. Of course it would be difficult for anyone to independently come to the same conclusion, since the "probably Alger Hiss" comment has been attached to the Venona document since long before it was made public. In the reference I added, with the well-known Venona image plus commentary by Douglas Linder, Linder states that "'ALES' is assumed by most scholars to be Alger Hiss." I wonder how correct this is -- if anyone had a head count of "scholars" on this issue. KarlBunker 03:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I like the new wording, especially since it has Lamphere's important qualifier "probably." It's amazing how easily "probably" can transform into "certainly" when nobody is watching. -- MiguelMunoz 22:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

and then?

What did he do the last 50 years of his life? did he work again?