Talk:Alger Hiss

RfC: Appropriateness of controversial statement in the introduction

This continues the June 2008 discussion.

The last sentence in the introduction currently says "Various reports suggest that those who believe in Hiss's innocence are now in the minority of scholarly opinion." This statement is still weasely as the quoted sources do not clearly support it. I removed it last night, but it was restored within an hour. I have rephrased it to be more objective to "Several journalists and academics [3] believe that only a minority of opinion still thinks Hiss was innocent.". There are still two dead links in the references in [3]. FYI, I was very moved by Orlando Figes´s recent brilliant book The Whisperers, so you can guess what I think of Soviet communism. Alistair99 (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alistair99 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The long-standing version of the sentence—which happens to be grammatically correct, unlike your proposed substitution—is clearly supported by the six sources referenced in the citation; it has been restored. The dead links have been dealt with (one replaced by a cached link, the other simply eliminated as unnecessary—the reference is to a well-established print publication).—DCGeist (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Order of the Red Star

William Bennett claims (America, the Last Best Hope 2007, page 250) that Hiss traveled to Moscow after Yalta and secretly received the Order of the Red Star. The secrecy would seem to imply something.Student7 (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If Hiss actually did secretly receive the Order of the Red Star, both the receipt of the medal and the secrecy would imply something. The same claim was made earlier by Jerrold and Leona Schecter in Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History(Washington: Potomac Books Inc., 2002) ISBN 1574883275. Both of these claims are probably based on information from the Venona project - if so the claim belongs in that section. If there's a source not based on Venona for the claim, it would probably be one which would conclusively prove that Hiss was a Soviet agent, and some scholar would write a book or article about it, and then we would rewrite the Hiss article to say "Hiss was a Soviet spy" rather than "Hiss was accused of being a Soviet spy..." CruiserBob (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Bennett did have a footnote for his remark about Hiss. It was Weinstein, Allen and Alexander Vassiliev, The Haunted Wood:Soviet Espionage In America - the Stalin Era, Random House 1999, page 259. I am just quoting. I know nothing about the book nor the authors nor even whether the book was quoted correctly or not. I do not have access to a copy. Student7 (talk) 15:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions have surfaced concerning Weinstein's objectivity and truthfullness. With regard to Weinstein's book on the Hiss case, "Perjury," Victor Navasky reported that he wrote to seven of Weinstein's "key sources" and six of the seven "responded that they had been misquoted, quoted out of context, misrepresented, misconstrued, or misunderstood." Weinstein countered that the sources were only recanting their previous statements. One of Weinstein's sources, Samuel Krieger, sued Weinstein for libel in 1979. Weinstein settled out of court by promising to correct future editions of Perjury and paying Krieger an undisclosed sum. Although he has said several times that he would make his files and interview tapes available to other investigators, to date Weinstein has not done so.Blindjustice (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Romerstein and Breindel's Venona Secrets claims (p.512) that Hiss was one of "several NKVD agents who served in the United States during the war" who received the Order of the Red Star. Unfortunately, the authors contradict themselves by also claiming that the reason why there is no record of Hiss in KGB/NKVD archives is that (p.140) "Hiss was an agent not of KGB (NKVD) but of military intelligence (GRU)." They can't even keep their accusations straight, much less put some evidence on the table. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The last paragraph of criticism mentions Vassiliev & "The Haunted Wood" - I think there might be something to the claim, but I'm not confident enough in any of the sources to make make an edit myself that says "Hiss was a spy" or "Hiss was falsely accused of being a spy" - the sources are just way too mutually contradictory. If you want to list Bennett or Vassiliev & Weinstein as a reference and put the claim in there, I think you should do it - the information is certainly there and adds yet another pro argument log onto the fire. CruiserBob (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The Bennett quote is derivative and therefore would not qualify. I do not have access to the Vassiliev reference. Student7 (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Bennett's claim is ultimately based on Venona, which someone apparently doesn't like. I'm not sure we will again get a peek into KGB files at least for another 50 years - future Russian Freedom of Information! No one will care by then, I suppose. Student7 (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

New Book Released Purports to "Prove" Alger Hiss was a Criminal Spy and Liar

It seems the pages of this Wikipedia entry for Alger Hiss are locked, but could someone please update it with the newest information just released in the book by John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, and Alexander Vassiliev. Title: Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America.

(New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 2009) ISBN: 978-0-300-12390-6

The Hiss case is covered extensively in the Introduction and is the complete focus of Chapter 1.

The evidence there is irrefutable and apart from many other parallel sources and confirmations also covered, includes direct quotations from KGB archives with Alger Hiss named specifically not only by his code name but also by his actual name.

The idea that it is somehow "controversial" that Alger Hiss was a KGB agent who betrayed the United States should be put to rest once and for all. One need only examine the extensive evidence assembled in this book.

I hope this locked page on Wikipedia is not run by the same persons who operate the Alger Hiss web site at New York University because if it is, then this Wikipedia article is biased and can not be trusted to be objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eroche (talk • contribs) 02:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If what you say about the new evidence provided by this book is true, it will be a significant addition to the Hiss story. Why don't you provide us with some quotes or excerpts from the book? Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's going to be much "new" evidence in this book. My understanding is that it's built on the release of the Weinstein/Vassiliev papers from "The Haunted Wood" published (paperback) in 2000. So any "new" information is going to be at least 10 years old. I'm curious to see if Venona cable #1822 in both English & Russian will be included. As far as I know #1822 is the only Venona cable to be completely released (late 2005). DEddy (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a great deal in the new book, and it goes far beyond the Weinstein Vassiliev book Haunted Wood. The documents are being presented May 20 and 21, 2009 at a seminar at the Wilson Center for International Studies in Washington, D.C. The Information is not 10 years old as you say. The book is in the stores now, so why don't you read it. I'll be watching the seminar today and look for relevant quotes. The owner of the NYU Alger Hiss web site is in the meeting and is sure to provoke an argument and discussion. We will see how it goes. Nevertheless, your comment of *nothing new* definitely is wrong. The three authors have correlated numerous sources and made an iron-clad case. If you can read Russian, you can download all of the notebooks yourself, along with the concordance that shows the linkages between code names and actual U.S. persons. Hiss was a spy and a liar. Eroche (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If after all these years/words/gallons of ink H, K & V can produce an "iron-clad case" that will be quite the accomplishment. A thing that always bothers me with Hiss discussions is that since he was in the State Department how could he have known anything of value to the Soviets? State was so irrelevant to FDR's objectives to supply lend-lease & keep the Soviets in the war against Germany (it took us 3 years to get into the war in Europe) that he (FDR) largely went around State. DEddy (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"The three authors have correlated numerous sources and made an iron-clad case."

Great, then you can settle this Hiss case for us right now. You've read the book, right? Then you don't need quotes from the seminar. Just give us the bullet points of the brand new evidence that shows Hiss was definitely guilty. You've already got the "irrefutable" evidence underlined in your copy of the book, right? So it should be easy for you. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

At the seminar today to discuss the results of the book, there still were arguments. It is probably better to wait for the academic journal articles that summarize these points. These articles will be published in a few months. One problem is that the Alger Hiss apologists are using a legal type standard of "proof beyond any reasonable doubt". The data presented is complex and involves correlation between (at a minimum) the (1) Vassiliev notes, (2) the Venona transcripts, (3) testimony of the FBI investigators of the Hiss case, (4) transcripts of the Grand Jury proceedings, (5) trial testimony, (6) a large set of Hungarian-language documents published in Germany, and (7) several other sources. So it is better to wait until the academic articles are completed. If someone really is interested, then my suggestion is to get the book and read it. Also, the seminar at the Woodrow Wilson Center are online and can be viewed, and all of the Vassiliev notebooks can be downloaded for free.

In terms of the Wikipedia article, we need a re-write to take away the impression that the idea that Hiss was an agent of the GRU still is *controversial*. For some people, the issue will *always* be controversial and never settled. The preponderance of the evidence goes definitively against Hiss.

The comment above that being in the U.S. Department of State is not important is off base and irrelevant. If Hiss was providing information to the GRU then he was a traitor. Information from the U.S. Department of State, particularly from a person who was close to the Secretary of State, would be considered extremely high-level intelligence, and certainly not irrelevant. The statement "State was so irrelevant to FDR's objectives" is not accurate, and actually seems absurd. Eroche (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I take it you're not a native Washingtonian, familiar with the normal "intrigues" of day-to-day political maneuvering? Specifically in the context of Soviet relations, FDR did NOT like State. As a legacy from the Allied occupation of Russia post WWI, there was a (now senior by WWII) cadre of State officials who, quite justifiably having seen/experienced the horrors of the Bolshevik revolution up close & personal, were strongly anti-Soviet. In order to accomplish his lend-lease objectives, FDR simply went around State. I have to assume there were many bruised egos in State.

re "giving information to the GRU makes Hiss a traitor." Not necessarily. Given the ways of Washington politics, it is entirely possible that he was "encouraged" to open a communications back channel with the Russians. Remember the TV show "Mission Impossible"? It always opened with a voice over: "And Mr Phelps, if you or anyone on your IM team is caught, the Secretary will deny all knowledge." That's how the game is played. Nothing written down. Plausible deniability & all that.

And once again... WHAT information did Hiss hand over? Do Vassiliev's notes speak to that? DEddy (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There's an excellent new BBC/PBS show "WWII: Behind Closed Doors." It points out that the Soviets lost 16 million civilian dead to repel the Germans. There are also details about FDR working to meet with Stalin alone, explicitly without Churchil. Plus... since we could offer nothing of substance to the Russian war effort other than material supplies, Stalin was extremely suspicious of American/British intentions. From his point of view it was entirely plausible to believe the Allies were holding back waiting for the Germans & Russians to exhaust themselves. In that context--plus one brief tantalizing passage in "Haunted Wood" that mentions in passing an effort by Henry Morgenthau (presumably ok'd if not initiated by FDR) to reach out to Soviet intelligence in July 1941--it would be entirely within the bounds of how FDR operated to encourage people to covertly offer useful information to the Soviets... since that was about all they were going to get from us until our war effort got up to speed. Many, many complexities. DEddy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC).

Whether or not one believes that FDR secretly reached out to Soviet intelligence via Morgenthau is irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of A. Hiss. Eroche (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Au contraire. FDR positively loved going around the existing bureaucracy in Washington. He created the OSS as as counter balance to the FBI & existing Army/Navy intelligence agencies. Much organizational jealously which clearly exists to the present. What I'm trying to say here is that assuming FDR understood that the Soviets preferred to get their information via back-channels then that fit perfectly his penchant for "handling" people by privately telling them what they wanted to hear. It would not be a great leap for underlings such as Hiss to notice FDR's style for back-channel communications & try to use it on their own. DEddy (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"One need only examine the extensive evidence assembled in this book." Let me get this straight. You haven't actually read the book?! If Amazon publishes a few glowing reviews of the new book The Moon is Made of Green Cheese, will you, without reading the book, edit the article on Earth's natural satellite to read, "While it is unclear whether the moon is composed primarily of Stilton or Gorgonzola, there is no question that is consists of proteins and fat from milk."? Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This comment regarding whether or not the moon is made of cheese is irrelevant to the guilt of A. Hiss. Also whether or not I have read the book (I have of course) also is irrelevant to the guilt of A. Hiss. Both days of the Wilson Center seminar on the Vassiliev notebooks can be viewed online. These seminar have very spirited discussion, including some hard-hitting questions from minority opinion pro-Hiss supporters, and also from supporters of Isidor Feinstein (who changed his name to I.F. Stone). These seminars are well worth watching, along with taking a read of the book, and for those of you who know Russian, you can download the complete Vassiliev notebooks to study. Eroche (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

JoeGoodFriend... I think your comment is directed at Eroche & not me, but here's my response. So far I have not read the new HK&V book. I expect I'll get around to reading it, but it's certainly not on my top-ten list yet. I've read their prior works & understand their perspective. Unless they've done an 180 degree about-face, they will be once again taking the position that there was a SUCCESSFUL massive Soviet/Communist espionage effort undermining the American government & way of life. Makes for great headlines, TV drama & "intelligence" agency appropriations, but there is minimal basis in reality.

The book and Venona decrypts also identify the 18-point propaganda campaign launched by the KGB to convince public opinion of the innocence of the Rosenbergs. These points created by the KGB were very effective, and still are repeated even today by persons who cling to the illusion of innocence of these traitors.Eroche (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I'm having a good time with a second read of Richard Gid Powers's Broken

Towards the end of yesterday's Woodrow Wilson seminar someone raised what I see as the essential issue (both 70 years ago & even more-so today with all this computerized noise)... even when there is excellent intelligence, does it successfully get thru the many layers of organizational filters & become actionable knowledge for leaders. Prime example of course being the excellent intelligence collected on German invasion intentions & Stalin's utter refusal to believe it. I would offer the WMD intelligence fiasco as example that this problem is still very much alive today... field intelligence says one thing, but the leaders want to do something else.

This is true, but for the consideration of guilt of A. Hiss is not relevant. Eroche (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The State Department in WWII was an excellent example... a cadre of senior (by WWII) Foreign Service Officers had been stationed in Russia during the horrors of the Bolshevik revolution. Roll forward to WWII & these folks were in the "tit for tat" school of diplomacy (e.g. you only give something when you get something). FDR, having a broader view of the situation (e.g. it would be years before the US spun up to fighting ability), wanted to give the Soviets whatever material goods we could, just to keep them in the war. Just remember something between 50 and 60 Russians died for every dead American. Look around you... of the next four people you see, one of them would not exist since their Russian parents died in the war.

Everyone is sorry the Russians bore the brunt of the assault by the Nazi scum, but this is not relevant to the question of the guilt of A. Hiss.Eroche (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You allow no room for the possibility that some folks with foresight understood that there was another European war coming (regardless of our isolationist leanings), that the Russians would be crucial to defeating the Germans & that it just might be useful to feed the Russians back-channel information to encourage them about our often less-than-clear intentions? DEddy (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Now just what was the information that Hiss allegedly passed to the Russians? DEddy (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

DEddy asks an interesting question. There does not seem to be any evidence except that he was an agent of the GRU. The Russian archives are sealed for 75 years, and may never be opened to find out these details. The evidence that A. Hiss was a traitor and spy does not seem to be based on identification of the information he supposedly handed over, but only on the repeated mentions in the KGB archives of him being an agent. In a court of law, at least in the U.S., this would never be enough evidence to convict because his supporters and apologists could argue that he was listed as an agent but never actually did anything. This sideways argument might be enough to raise doubt in the minds of the jurors. As of today, all we have to go on is the KGB documentation plus the numerous other points raised in the analysis in the Spies book.Eroche (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Does the new book offer any wisdom on why Hiss--in the State Department--was being "controlled" (I love that mind control image... like a Harvard Law School graduate is under GRU "control".... right) by Soviet MILITARY intelligence. That just doesn't sit right.

Also... why is the code name for State Department, BANK? Shouldn't that be for Treasury? The code names, at least as presented by the entirely un-identified folks who cracked them tend to have a rather whimsical connection to who the real person was. BANK for State just doesn't fit. DEddy (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

My comments are not directed at you, DE. And we know what top secret information Chambers produced in the Pumpkin Papers: The Navy documents that could be developed dealt with such matters as the color to paint government fire extinguishers. No wonders Hiss asked Chambers to hide the film (along with some blank film). Imagine if the Russians had gotten ahold of that stuff! Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

What Chambers produced in the Pumpkin papers, although interesting, is not relevant to the guilt of A. Hiss.Eroche (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the latest (poorly styled) anon addition of material from the new Spies and am placing it here until we can get page number verification:

In the 2009 book Spies: the Rise and Fall of the KGB in America, (Yale,2009) Vasiliev and co-authors John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr report that Vailiev's research in KGB archives in the early 1990's close the case on Hiss's spying. Hiss is specifically identified by name as an agent in KGB reports as an agent of the sister agency the GRU, while another document lists Hiss by name together with his code name, Jurist.

—DCGeist (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to jump in here. The contents of Vassiliev's notebooks make it very difficult to believe that Hiss was innocent. In particular, White Notebook #3, page 118 discusses a report from Nigel (Michael Straight) noting that Hiss is "very ideologically progressive." It goes on to mention that Straight's contact does not want to betray any interest in Hiss to Straight, for fear that Straight "will figure out that Hiss is a member of our family." In addition, Black Notebook p. 77 contains a transcription of a memo by A. Gorsky listing failures in the US (1938 - 48). This memo lists Alger Hiss by name as a member of Chambers's group. The code name listed here for Hiss is "Leonard," his code name in 1948. In addition, p. 82 lists "Leonard" as the chief of a main division of the State Department, and notes that he was convicted in the beginning of 1950. Case closed - Hiss was a spy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.46.225 (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The entry anon was mine, but I'm going to leave it to others to make the actual official entry and agree that it is useful to have details of the page numbers, and possibly a summary of the multiple point correlation the authors did proving the guilt of A. Hiss. My suggestion is to wait for the journal articles to be published summarizing the analysis point by point. These articles will be published in only a few months.Eroche (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hiss's code name was Jurist? Huh? DEddy (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected... I've come across a source that says the Vassiliev notes April-May 1936 list "Jurist" as the cover name for Hiss. First time I've seen that claim. One of the accusations I've seen is that when an "agent" has multiple cover names, that proves their importance to the Soviets. Another argument is that the cover names are simply refreshed on an ongoing basis. DEddy (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the code name of Hiss was Als.Eroche (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If you were at all familiar with the claims of the authors in question, you would know that they are accusing Hiss of having had several different code names, including Ales not Als. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Writing in the CIA Library Center for the Study of Intelligence webpage[1] page, author Johh Ehrman notes that during the Cold War there was concern to prevent the emergence of a Dreyfus-like movement that could have potentially united American and foreign intellectuals around the figure of Hiss as an innocent martyr wrongly persecuted, basically for having had leftist friends and liberal ideals in the 1930s (when the Popular Front included progressives of many beliefs including Communists, who had made common cause to together to "prematurely" oppose the menace of Nazism, which at that time was supported by large U.S corporations and mainstream religious orgnanizations). The argument, he maintains, is really about whether Communism in the thirties (when it was not illegal) should be seen as merely another form of dissent (as it was in countries such as France and Italy). Ehrman notes that Anthony Lake, whom President Clinton had nominated as head of the CIA in the 1990s, had to withdraw his nomination because of the furor that ensued after, in an unguarded moment, Lake let slip that the question Hiss's guilt or innocent was inconclusive. Ehrman maintains:

This debate, like the original Hiss controversy, has high stakes. For the left, in particular, vindication of the role of Communism in American life would almost automatically make respectable a host of organizations and movements, such as the nuclear freeze, peace, and antiglobalization groups, now in disrepute. It appears almost inevitable that someday a public figure will make an offhand remark and, like Lake, find himself drawn into this mess as one side tries to use his words to gain a political advantage over the other. John Ehrman, "A Half-Century of Controversy: The Alger Hiss Case".

My impression from his article is that Ehrman believes that if Hiss's innocence were admitted, it would throw many aspects of U.S security policy during the Cold War into doubt. Also revealing is Ehrman's admission that for security reasons it is desirable that the intellectual be divided in order to bring populist movements such as anti-globalization into disrepute. Divide and conquer, in other words. This seems like pertinent information to me -- if someone would like to find a way to add it to the article.71.167.71.129 (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The rhetoric around this is that anyone who still has an open mind has a "blind spot" (as Lake was accused of having) or is "in denial", and should be isolated and stigmatized as a "diehard", or a "dead-ender". As the Commentary crowd has it, the "case is closed" and anyone who thinks otherwise has "impossibly" high standards of "innocent until guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt". This is not the language historians use, Legitimate historians respectfully acknowledge the arguments of their opponents and do not indulge in namecalling, rather it is the language of propagandists and political crusaders. Indeed, it appears almost self-defeating.71.167.71.129 (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

These are interesting observations. Please become a registered editor and continue to contribute to wikipedia. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The writer Walter C. Uhler remarks that the authors of Spies undermine their own book why they admit that the word of former professional spies is not to be trusted. (the Cretan paradox?), they conclude:

"Espionage is a secretive business. It is rare that the agents engaged in it or the agencies they serve speak honestly and openly about what they've done because the incentives to lie, dissemble, and continue to deceive are so strong for all concerned" [Spies p. 541]

Vassiliev and Chambers were in fact career spies.173.52.250.241 (talk) 05:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

For extra points... who was code name Jurist?

Also... for double extra points, Ales is pronounced close to "Alice", not ales (as in beer). DEddy (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"Spies" Edits

Eroche's recent edits violate a number of wikipedia editing conventions. First of all, an edit has to respect the idea of consensus. An editor cannot make changes to long-standing, agreed upon text without creating a new consensus among the editing community, if a new edit is controversial. Second, an edit cannot make sweeping conclusions regarding a controversial subject and as citation to the conclusions simply cite the boilerplate claims of a single book. Specific, factual, non-subjective evidence from the book must be cited. Third, when challenged about an edit on the talk page of an article, the editor in question cannot simply ignore the challenges and start an edit war. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it appears that all of the edits magically disappeared! Here is my question: If there is never any "consensus", then what do we do? Suppose, for example, that one of the people in the "editing community" keeps disagreeing. For example, if they keep ignoring the evidence from the recent KGB archives. Then what happens? What "consensus" are we talking about? What makes the people here better than the academic community that presented the papers at the Wilson center? The barrier set up in joe's comments above is not surmountable. It is too much of a burden to "create a new consensus among the editing community". I am in the editing community, and the stuff written there arguing he was innocent seems false to me. So I'll try one more time by taking "specific factual non-subjective evidence from the book and will cite it. I assume we can work to avoid putting in any opinions providing the opinion is different from the opinion that the issue still is "controversial". Finally, no one has "challenged" the edits, they have simply erased them and then made a bunch of sideways comments. In any case, most of the editing rules you cite are simply made up as a way of thwarting editing you don't like. So, to repeat, I'll try one more time to add factual information from the book and the seminar. So I'm assuming that if factual non-subjective information is added, someone won't come along and just erase it because they don't like it. Also, if you don't mind, I would appreciate it if you would just wait for the edits to see if they match your sanitized criteria before blah-blahing this particular discussion paragraph. Eroche (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is never consensus, we compromise. That is how we got the "Various reports suggest that those who believe in Hiss's innocence are now in the minority of scholarly opinion" text. It was the only way to end a year-long edit war started by another editor doing what you are trying to do: change the text to add sweeping conclusions as to Hiss's guilt. Stop telling me Hiss was guilty, present evidence. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've decided to give up on making any changes to this. Other people can make the needed entries to put in the data from the Vassiliev papers. I don't know enough about how Wikipedia works, or the editing conventions to make the type of useful contribution possible if written by those directly concerned..Eroche (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

DCGeist and Joegoodfriend are Hiss apologists who refuse to acknowledge the fact they are increasingly offside the consensus of professional historians with every passing year. Last year I listed DOZENS of sources indicating that the Hiss case is effectively settled, and that list could now be extended significantly.Bdell555 (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

HCUA vs HUAC?

HCUA... huh? Where did that come from? It's always been HUAC (pronounced "hew ack"). Google produces 22,800 refs for HCUA & 227,000 for HUAC. By your reasoning, IBM would "correctly" be IBMC. Acronyms are a popularity contest, not a correctness contest. DEddy (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. Making the change.—DCGeist (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Felon?

Hiss was convicted of perjury which I do not think is a felony (I'm NOT a lawyer). He could not be tried on espionage charges since the statute of limitations had expired. DEddy (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a felony - see Perjury.John Z (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there some POV here?

In the main article I find the statement:

Alger Hiss (November 11, 1904 – November 15, 1996) was an American lawyer, civil servant, businessman, author, lecturer, and Soviet spy

Yet later on I see:

Various reports suggest that those who believe in Hiss's innocence are now in the minority of scholarly opinion

If this latter point is true, there would appear to be some doubt. Indeed looking at this talk page the largest section is devoted to a discussion about whether he was or wasn't a spy. However, the first statement is fairly categorical and to my mind somewhat POV to the point of not being correct if the second is true. Since there appears to be much controversy over the point, perhaps we should not be so positive about being a soviet spy.

I have no particular axe to grind here, since I come from the UK and this is of intellectual interest only not explicitly political as it would appear to be in the USA. Which is it? Soarhead77 (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

An anon changed the longstanding wording today. Thanks for noticing.John Z (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks a lot closer to the truth now! Thanks Soarhead77 (talk) 08:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Historians and Hiss: Request for mediation of dispute

A dispute has exited for the past two and one-half years as to whether the lede of this article should (1.) include a statement regarding the opinions of historians on Hiss' guilt or innocence and (2.) exactly how this statement should be written.

More than two years ago, editor Bdell555 suggested in this talk thread that the dispute should be officially mediated. He was right. So let's do it.

I've never submitted a dispute resolution before. Does anyone have any insight on the best way to kick this off? Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Within the next day or two I'll post to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard asking for general comment on the appropriateness of using Navasky (or the Nation) as a source for the conclusion that Hiss' espionage is not certainly or almost certainly established. It would also be appropriate to select the strongest source (or two or three) for a more or less definitive statement that "the Hiss case" is closed or settled for the vast majority of historians and ask for general comment on the appropriateness of using that. The appropriate step after that would be to post to WP:RFC under the "history" and/or "politics" section asking those Wiki users who follow those topics to congregate here so that it is not the same usual suspects. If you think that some other source other than or in addition to Navasky should be cited I would suggest adding that to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

This year's publication of Klehr, Haynes and Vassiliev's book, together with the reviews, comments and responses to it that have appeared in a variety of sources, has led me to conclude that this article's summary of the state of expert thinking on the subject is more untenable and inaccurate than ever.Bdell555 (talk) 04:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Um. This is nuts. Historical accuracy is not determined by majority vote.24.105.152.153 (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)