Talk:Alger Hiss

The Most Amazing Thread On Wikipedia

I have never seen such an archive of disputes. This huge talk page must be some kind of record; it should have an article of its own. It could also be cited in Cold War articles to show how polarising certain issues were and are, even today. That is my suggestion to improve several articles.

So, now that it's all over, why not just admit that Hiss was guilty? :-] 2.25.46.76 (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not up to us to "admit" anything, just report what sources say. I think the significance of the case to the Right is that they believe Hiss' guilt justifies many of their actions, from opposition to the war, appeasement of Hitler, mistrust of the UN, the post-war arms build-up, and hatred of the "elites", while liberals have mostly forgotten the case. TFD (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you just mention Hiss' guilt? Good of you, especially as you say it's not up to you. Still I suppose we are not supposed to discuss the case really, or re- hash discredited old lefty talking points, like the US starting an arms build-up against Stalin's peace-loving Soviet Union. Contributions to improve articles are what is needed. I will be contributing references to this thread to other Cold War Wiki articles, including a recommendation to read certain contributors to it as a way to understand the passions of a previous generation. I will not need to come back here for that, but do keep contributing, as it serves the purpose. 2.25.46.76 (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Why don't some "editors" like 2.25.46.76 just admit they have nothing to contribute? Joegoodfriend (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This just in: Pravda Headline: Vassiliev Pawn of Capitalist West

Sorry... just couldn't resist.

callous dismissal of Vassiliev is utterly inappropriate.

Let us not forget this is where the Vassiliev saga began. Hopefully a book in itself. Story I heard was that Weinstein's publisher paid the KGB retirement fund a large sum for access to KGB files. I remember pictures of Weinstein toasting to bunch of KGB guys. And then things went down hill. When did all that start? It was for Haunted Wood right? Did Weinstein's notes ever make it to public access? I remember these was a lot of controversy over "inaccessible" reference sources.

Last I knew, when you pay writers—even professional journalists—they write. Is this still an accurate understanding of how things work?

CJK... you're the Spies Chapter one expert here... what do H&K say about the Vassiliev deals? DEddy (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If you have sources to back up the idea that Vassiliev's notes are unreliable you can present them at any time. Otherwise your original research is of no importance.

CJK (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll cut and paste the long list of people (noted on this page many times) who have called Vassiliev's notes and conclusions unreliable, then you remind me that they are all unreliable and/or non-notable -OR- you say it's not enough for them to question the reliability of the notes or Vassiliev's conclusions, they must say point blank, "the notes are fake." Wash, rinse, repeat.

Ok. Sources to back up the idea that Vassiliev's notes are unreliable: Lowenthal, Kisseloff, Guttenplan, Amy Knight, Labusov, Kobyakov, Navasky, Bird and Chervonnaya.

Right, that's your cue. You remember your lines don't you? Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You conflate two separate issues, whether the notes are accurate and whether the interpretation is accurate.

CJK (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK - If you have sources to back up the idea that Vassiliev's notes are unreliable

Easy. Are there corroborating sources? Sorry, VENONA naming Ales/Hiss doesn't count since much of that was public in 1995 & the sole Russian language version VENONA cable on Ales appeared in 2005. That's more than adequate time for Vassiliev to weave tantalizing tidbits into his discoveries.

Hard fact... Elizabeth Bentley's 1945 statement to FBI made no mention of Occupation Currency plates. Likewise her 1948 testimony (under oath, but so what) made no mention of the Occupation Currency plates. By 1954 Harry Dexter White was safely dead the McCarthy witch hunts raged. Now Bentley suddenly told the story—10 years after the actual events in 1944—that Moscow/Stalin had commanded Harry Dexter White to deliver the plates & out of his loyalty to the cause (entirely opposite to Chambers' description of White being his worst agent). Events had indeed happened... now it's time to spin up an interesting story from a stew of actual facts & incriminating spin. Who'll know, much less care about the actual details. Pretty much the same as the cries of: "FDR knew the Japanese were coming & suppressed the information." Easy to say on December 8, 1941 & find an eager audience that lives by Rapture theories.

That raises an interesting issue... I wonder what Spies says about the Occupation Currency plates story. Pretty sure it's not in chapter one. You're the expert here, can you save me the effort & tell how H&K handle Bentley's tale? DEddy (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

So yeah, I guess that means you have no sources.

CJK (talk) 22:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK - I guess that means you have no sources.

Wow. Trapped again. Should have seen that one coming.

BTW... despite there being 60+ index references to Elizabeth Bentley in Spies there appears to be nary a mention of the Occupation Currency plates. Not under "Occupation," "Currency," "Plates," "Germany" & likely several other various others I tried. Any suggestions? Maybe H&K were too busy vetting Vassiliev's work? DEddy (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

consensus

I can't believe we have spent 3 mos. arguing about the supposed need to say "there is a consensus" and "most historians agree" when we have always had three or four quotes in the footnotes stating just that! Do people even know how to read!! Geez. 173.77.76.189 (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC) That's in addition to the quote in the opening paragraph. How many times do we have to say it? 173.77.76.189 (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

we have always had three or four quotes in the footnotes stating just that!

Quotes that say what? There is or is not a consensus? A "consensus" quote coming from a William F. Buckley biographer is hardly likely to be acceptable as Wikipedia POV in a Hiss discussion.

I initially thought that "Carl T Bogus" was a pen name, but his web page at least appears to be serious.

The one thing we're missing in this consensus or not is a list of legitimate historians who actually so. The folks I've spoken to wouldn't touch Wikipedia with a ten foot pole & specifically instructed me to not refer to them since they fear being inundated by trolls like CJK.

The standard of consensus here is if 3 of 5 professional, legitimate, know the Hiss affair in depth historians are willing to say so either publicly or in their published books that Hiss was/was not a spy? Do they have to embrace to 100% accuracy of the Vassiliev notebooks? What if they haven't read the Vassiliev material? What if they say Vassiliev materials are interesting & possibly useful, certainly worthy of additional study, but not conclusive at this point? Hardly what I'd call a consensus for such a complex subject. DEddy (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You do not get to decide the terms for there being a consensus.

CJK (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK You do not get to decide the terms for there being a consensus.

My! Ok, so what is "a consensus?" One of the nice things about dictionaries is there are so many definitions to choose from. I'm going to take a wild guess here & assume the dictionary & definition you use isn't what I use. Since you've indicated you have a firm grip on the consensus issue, you go first. What is your definition of "consensus?" More specifically what do you consider to be consensus in the context of the affair Hiss?

Or—perhaps I missed it—are you conceding you do NOT have a definition for consensus? DEddy (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

"'Quotes that say what?"' You know how to read, don't you, CJK? Go to the article and look at the footnotes for yourself. If you can't do that, I really think you should withdraw from this discussion. Tying up the article for several months without even having read it is too much. And yes, the Bogus quote ads nothing and will have to go. Mballen (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You quoted Deddy, not me. Try to keep that in mind next time you have the insolence to accuse someone of not reading something.

CJK (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

to CJK

I's till waiting for your definition of what consensus is? Not that it'll help much I'll go first. My OAD says: general agreement. A bit fuzzy. After all these months can we point to a general agreement here? Ball's in your court. DEddy (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

CJK if you would be more courteous and follow protocol and indent your posts and signatures, there would have been less chance my failing eyes woul have mistaken what you said. Nevertheless, we do have in footnote 2 several quotes supporting James Barron's statement, so what I said still applies. (And it applies to myself as well, since I didn't re-read them, and probably to all of us.) You appear not to be satisfied with Olshinsky and Barron and even Chervonnaya saying there was agreement right here in the article. You want the editors to assent in that agreement and call those who don't agree "fringe", but that is not our job, especially when it is not true.

The more I have worked on this article the more I see that, in fact, it is skewed away from Hiss and his life, which is what it should be about, and toward Haynes and his co-authors, who receive far far too much space. It contains hardly any direct quotes from Hiss's autobiography, for example. Moreover there is nothing about Julian Wadleigh, who really did take documents, viewing it as not anti-American, but as anti-Nazi activity. And who was later blackmailed by Chambers for small sums. But if the article, even in its present flawed state presents Hiss to brightly for CJK and too darkly for others, an impartial person would probably judge that it presents him fairly. Mballen (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

GSN53 (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Nixon's Statements on the Hiss Trial Efforts: "Typewriter" or "Piper"?

My problem is that the article currently says:

“Cold War historian John V. Fleming disagrees, arguing that on the White House tapes Nixon never says anything that would have corroborated Colson's statement to John Dean about forging a typewriter in the Hiss case. Fleming and others maintain that the indistinct phrase during a conversation with John Dean that sounded to certain transcribers like "we made a typewriter" is actually a reference to Hiss's legal team.[59]"

I'm not on board with this more modern interpretation of Nixon's wording in his February 28, 1973 Oval Office discussion with John Dean (why do we need to insert Colson?). The original White House transcript said "we got the typewriter," while some, like Mr. Fleming, maintain the newer, higher-quality House Judiciary version says “We got Piper” (Hiss’s legal team, Piper & Marbury).

It’s tough to hear it clearly – that’s why there’s still disagreement. But I believe he said “typewriter” because it makes much more sense than “Piper” in the context of the entire paragraph. Nixon was talking about getting evidence – to throw Hiss’ law firm name into a list of evidence that Nixon and other investigators were “getting” without help from FBI or DOJ makes little sense to me.

Here’s the original White House wording (2/28/73, p.71), which I feel should be inserted in the article so that readers can compare the two interpretations and decide for themselves:

“When you talk to Kleindienst – because I have raised this with (inaudible) thing with him on the Hiss Case – he has forgotten, I suppose. Go back and read the first chapter of SIX CRISES. But I know, as I said, that was espionage against the nation, not against the party. FBI, Hoover, himself, who’s a friend of mine said ‘I am sorry I have been ordered not to cooperate with you’ and they didn’t give us one (adjective omitted) thing. I conducted that investigation with two (characterization omitted) committee investigators – that stupid – they were tenacious. We got it done.

Then we worked that thing. We then got the evidence, we got the typewriter, we got the Pumpkin Papers. We got all of that ourselves. The FBI did not cooperate. The Justice Department did not cooperate.”

Here’s the subsequent House Judiciary Committee version of the second paragraph (insert “typewriter” or “Piper” in the blank – that’s the primary issue here):

“But we broke that thing…without any help. The FBI then got the evidence which eventually—See, we got ______ who—We got the, the, the, oh, the Pumpkin Papers, for instance. We, we got all of that ourselves…. The FBI did not cooperate.”

As I said above, Nixon was listing things they “got” by themselves. They did not “get" Piper, Hiss’s law firm. It’s simply makes no sense. You can argue that the word isn’t “typewriter,” but it sure isn’t “Piper.”

There’s also an obvious problem with the HJC version in that it creates an absolute contradiction. The HJC has Nixon saying:

“The FBI then got the evidence...."

The original has him saying:

“We then got the evidence…”

Nixon’s whole point was that the FBI refused to help them in any way. Why would he say the FBI got the evidence when he says, two sentences later, that “the FBI did not cooperate?” Again, it makes no sense. I believe the original version makes much more sense in the context of the paragraph.

I’ve never started a talk topic before, so I’m not sure of the protocol for agreeing on changes to articles.

But what I’m proposing is that these discrepancies in the wording be explained thoroughly, as I’ve done here. As it now stands, the reader is left to believe that the matter of Nixon saying typewriter was incorrect, and that it’s now accepted that he said “Piper.” They should understand there are still two camps on this issue.

I don’t want to start drafting suggested text revisions until I see some member buy-in, but I’ll take a stab at it if it’s agreed that these revisions are desirable.

--GSN53 (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Your original research is very impressive. Perhaps if you were to get it published in a reliable source it could be used here at wikipedia. Ordinarily we try to refrain from original personal interpretations of primary source materials. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Capitalismojo, thanks for your spot-on response to my initial post. I'm brand new to this, so I'm a bit clueless (is that like being a little pregnant?) as to how to approach it.

I apologize if my presentation gave the impression that I was interjecting any personal interpretations of primary source materials. All but one of the interpretations I presented have already appeared in materials published by very prominent and respected sources. My problem is that I didn't cite any sources, so you and the other members here can't tell what's coming from where.

I assure you the only original "research" (not really research - it's just an observation I've never seen before) I presented was that it was silly for the HJC to revise the original transcript and assert that Nixon said "the FBI got evidence" when Nixon's whole point was that the FBI refused to help. Perhaps someone has recognized and published this before, but I'm unaware of it. Everything else I've regurgitated from previously-published materials - but having absorbed all those materials, I felt the Hiss article had some shortcomings in this area.

Admittedly, I'm way out of my realm here. As an absolute newbie (even though I'm about to turn 60), my goal was to promote a discussion among knowledgeable and experienced members in the "talk" section before getting involved with extensive documentation and citation. Perhaps they can save us all some trouble and explain to me why I'm way off base. It wouldn't surprise me!

If it's essential that I link all of my statements to previously-published materials before we can have a discussion, I will try to do so.

Again, thanks for your swift and complimentary response. To tell you the truth, I was concerned that all I would get was silence.

GSN53 (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

We mention both the original and the Judiciary Committee version, and point out that the second is considered more reliable. If subsequent scholarship says that Nixon said "typewriter", then you need to provide a source in order for us to include it. We mention Dean because he said Nixon told Colson he forged the typewriter and researchers thought Dean was referring to the conversation in the transcript. TFD (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes the original and HJC versions are both mentioned, but why not provide exact passages for the readers? And, yes, there is universal agreement that the HJC is considered more reliable because of improved technology, but the record is clear there is still disagreement as to whether Nixon said "typewriter" or "Piper." Or perhaps neither.

In fact, the current article is thoroughly unconvincing on this point - all it says is "Fleming and others maintain that the indistinct phrase during a conversation with John Dean that sounded to certain transcribers like 'we made a typewriter' is actually a reference to Hiss's legal team." So the current Wikipedia article admits that, even in the second (improved?) version of the transcript, the wording in question is an "indistinct phrase." To me, "indistinct" means that no one is sure exactly what words were uttered. That's why I'm suggesting that the article be revised to present both views of the wording.

My personal opinion that "Piper" makes no sense is irrelevant to the need to alter the article to present both views. That's my whole point. I'm not lobbying for revising the article to say that Nixon said "typewriter" and not "Piper." I'm lobbying to make it clear to the readers that the wording is still an unsettled matter.

I can't imagine a valid reason for refusing to present both the original White House transcripts and the subsequent HJC transcripts - and thus allow readers to decide (regarding an acknowledged "indistinct phrase") for themselves. This is a matter of presenting all versions of the original evidence - not personal interpretations.

GSN53 (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The article presents both views. While I think it is more likely Nixon said or meant to say "typewriter", we must give more weight to "Piper." I posted links to policies on your talk page which may help you follow the requirements for article content. TFD (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

This is quite frustrating. I'm not asking that the article present both "views" or give more weight to one view over another. I'm asking that both versions of the transcripts be presented. The transcripts are historic evidence. Present them verbatim and let the readers decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSN53 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It is in the footnote. What is important I believe is that neither of the versions say, "We forged the typewriter." TFD (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Footnote 59 quotes the later HJC transcript, but I see don't see the full original White House transcript (the 2 paragraphs I quoted above) anywhere. Neiter version talks of "forging" anything, but many researchers have given the same meaning to "we got the typewriter," because, as you know it was Hiss's wife that eventually "found" it, not the investigators.

96.234.185.90 (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The text is only important because of John Dean's 1976 claim that Nixon said, "The typewriters are always the key. We built one in the Hiss case." In 1996, when a tape was released where Nixon and Colson discussed the Hiss case, it was assumed that was the conversation. As you can see, Nixon made no such claim and no source interprets it that way. It does not matter whether he said Piper or typewriter If you think it does, then you need to provide a source that says it does. TFD (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Um, @96.234, I never read anywhere that Hiss's wife found the typewriter. Every source I have looked at said that Hiss's defense team (i.e. Horace Schmahl, private detective), found it. Can @96. 234 provide a source for the assertion that Mrs. Hiss found it?

Also, in the article there is a quotation from a certain Professor Irving Younger, "To leave the counterfeit Woodstock lying about for the defense to pick up and examine would serve only to expose the whole scheme to the risk of discovery—and for no reason." I looked up the source given for this, Allen Weinstein, but Weinstein gives no date or source for this statement. I can only guess that Irving Younger (who was the prosecutor who brought charges against Pete Seeger, and later a law professor at Cornell) may have said this in the 1970s (?) in an article published in Commentary magazine (a source hostile to Hiss), in response to the successful FOIA brought about by the defenders Hiss, and in particular Steve Salent, of but it is unclear why it is here, in the section about 1952. Weinstein's footnotes tend to all be of this alarmingly vague nature. This fact, and the fact that the people he interviewed for his book denied ever having said what Weinstein wrote they had said and he even lost a lawsuit about it, makes it very understandable why other scholars demanded Weinstein make public his notes and other source material (a demand he refused) and why R. Bruce Craig said Weinstein's work as a historian ought to be consigned to the trash. In fact, I don't see at all why Wikipedia should consider Weinstein a reliable source. Sam Tanenhaus's biography of Chambers, which faithfully adheres to the Trotskyist scenario outlined by Weinstein. appears to be some kind of an attempt at a clean-up of Weinstein's work, since it is biased, but written more clearly and properly written and footnoted. 173.52.252.7 (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC) 173.52.252.7 (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You're all complicating this unnecessarily. My concerns would easily be addressed by inserting the original WHITE HOUSE transcript of the 2/28/73 discussion between Nixon and Dean (hopefully with an explanation as to the continuing controversy):

“When you talk to Kleindienst – because I have raised this with (inaudible) thing with him on the Hiss Case – he has forgotten, I suppose. Go back and read the first chapter of SIX CRISES. But I know, as I said, that was espionage against the nation, not against the party. FBI, Hoover, himself, who’s a friend of mine said ‘I am sorry I have been ordered not to cooperate with you’ and they didn’t give us one (adjective omitted) thing. I conducted that investigation with two (characterization omitted) committee investigators – that stupid – they were tenacious. We got it done.

Then we worked that thing. We then got the evidence, we got the typewriter, we got the Pumpkin Papers. We got all of that ourselves. The FBI did not cooperate. The Justice Department did not cooperate.”

You say you "refer to" the original transcript. But why not present it?

You're asking for some type of published support. The transcript is a part of the historical record. It's the original White House transcript. My concern is that Wikipedia is presenting the "typewriter" vs. "Piper" wording as a settled matter - that . I don't see any such agreement - and I can't prove a negative.

Reference to a John Dean/Charles Colson conversation that took place years after the White House tapes were recorded is a classic red herring. The transcripts reflect a direct conversation between Nixon and Dean - Dean's years-later recollections about something Colson told Dean about what Nixon said should be given much less weight - if any at all - in this controversy. It's classic hearsay. The Dean/Colson conversation should have no relevance.

If Wikipedia would rather pretend it's a settled matter that Nixon said "Piper" instead of "typewriter" (or some other unidentified wording), even in the face of common-sense viewpoints that "Piper" makes no sense, so be it. Heaven forbid that certain historical matters be presented as no longer in doubt simply because "Cold War historian John V. Fleming disagrees." — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSN53 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

You need to read the links I provided you on your talk page. Policy does not say we should provide all the evidence and let readers decide, but to present different views in proportion to their acceptance and to avoid basing the article on source documents. In order for you to pursue this, you need to find a reliable secondary source that says it is important. TFD (talk) 06:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I was the one who originally cited John V. Fleming, in accordance with the required model "some secondary sources say this ... others say that." I would be quite happy if someone could substitute another secondary source for Fleming. 173.52.252.7 (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

For a reliable secondary source, please consult Frederick Rasmussen's article in the Baltimore Sun dated 6/11/11. Rasmussen recounts his attendance at a 1974 speech by Hiss in which he referred to new evidence (the Watergate transcripts I'm trying to make sure are given adequate weight here) that Nixon admitted having acquired the typewriter. Link: http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-06-11/news/bs-md-backstory-alger-hiss-20110610_1_alger-hiss-watergate-controversy-spy

Rasmussen wrote:

"Conflicted over Hiss' guilt or innocence, his Baltimore attorney, William P. Marbury, told The Baltimore Sun years later, 'When people ask me what I think, I say I don't know what I think.'

I recall the Shriver Hall audience warmly greeting Hiss as he walked across the stage.

In his 45-minute talk, Hiss commented on the release of a 1973 transcript of a White House conversation between Nixon and his counsel, John W. Dean III, when the president referenced the Hiss case.

It proved, Hiss told his audience, that the ambitious Nixon wished to gain as much political traction as possible from a case that was stalled and about to die from lack of evidence.

'Then we worked that thing,' Nixon told Dean. 'We then got the evidence, we got the typewriter, we got the pumpkin papers. The FBI did not cooperate. The Justice Department did not cooperate.'"

Another reliable secondary source: the First Edition of Nixon's 1962 book "Six Crises," which makes the same claim about the Hiss typewriter. The language about the typewriter was removed in subsequent editions. Eleven years apart - same language, similar subsequent revisions.

This isn't going to qualify as an additional source (because I haven't yet confirmed its publication), but by way of background - I happen to be in temporary possession of numerous boxes of the files kept by Richard H. Popkin, a JFK assassination, Watergate and Ellsberg researcher who began his work in the mid-60's. Popkin is undeniably a "reliable source" - he wrote, and had published, "The Second Oswald" in 1966. There is a file containing January and February 1974 correspondence between Popkin, Hiss and Robert Freidman of the University Review in NYC. Popkin regarded Nixon's comments on "getting the typewriter" as an admission that the evidence against Hiss was contrived. (I have no way of transmitting these documents to Wikipedia, nor, apparently, would they matter.)

A few months later, we see Hiss speaking at Hopkins in Baltimore, as recounted by the Rasmussen article, quoting the new transcripts as evidence that he was framed. Does this not make the exact wording of the White House transcript something important to include in Wikipedia?

GSN53 (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Files are not acceptable as sources. While Popkin wrote books that would be reliable sources, his writings on Oswald were not published in academic books and gained no recognition in the mainstream. In any case the article mentions the issue and it has little significance to the case. TFD (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And with that you dismiss the Rasmussen article and the First Edition of "Six Crises"? I offered Popkin only as background. Your response reveals your non-neutrality. I only seek equal citation of the original White House transcript with the same prominence as your preferred (but silly) "Piper" verbiage, but you're fighting tooth and nail. I'm beginning to see why people scoff at Wikipedia.

Furthermore, to say that Popkin's "writings on Oswald were not published in academic books and gained no recognition in the mainstream" is balderdash. "The Second Oswald" was published in 1966, and the bizarre "appearance" of Oswald in Mexico City has been an intrinsic part of mainstream conspiracy theories ever since.

Who are you, and what authority do you have here on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSN53 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm beginning to sense I'm being railroaded and marginalized, not by some neutral Wikipedia editor with some authority, but by an individual member with an agenda. This "TFD" responds to my posts within minutes, presenting only vague objections and roadblocks to my points. I'm starting to think he's only a standard Wikipedia member, with an agenda, who's hyperactive. I would appreciate other members weighing in with their objective views. GSN53 (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"In any case the article mentions the issue and it has little significance to the case." And this statement - are you serious? How can you possibly believe that the possibility of government investigators planting the typewriter has little significance to the case? It was the heart of the case. Hiss and his defense team believed so strongly that finding the typewriter would prove his innocence - it was the centerpiece of their defense. How could the prospect of Nixon's multiple admissions of "getting the typewriter" have "little significance to the case?" Please explain yourself further.

GSN53 (talk) 04:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the argument here. That the official transcript was amended is a fact (reported by Fleming, who is just as good a reference as anyone else). If Mr. Popkin thought the emendation implausible, that information could be added to the footnote, with citation from the newspaper article, though I don't think it adds anything to the footnote. Popkin is mentioned by Weinstein, as it happens, in conjunction with Weinberg's belief that in his opinion (and that of Popkin?) liberals in the 1970s allegedly considered Hiss a precursor of Daniel Ellsberg--something equally or even more absurd IMO -- but that is neither here nor there. It's clear enough from the article that Hiss and his lawyers did believe the typewriter was faked and so did a lot of other people. 173.52.252.7 (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC) 173.52.252.7 (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, Nixon was listing things they “got” by themselves. They did not “get" Piper, Hiss’s law firm. Hiss got Piper. It simply makes no sense. You can argue that the word isn’t “typewriter,” but it sure isn’t “Piper.” Doesn't it strike you as odd that the HJC transcript revision made 10 years down the road (removal of the word "typewriter") repeats nearly the exact same revision made after the First Edition of "Six Crises?"

Yes, it's clear that a lot of people thought the typewriter was faked. The point here is that an admission by Nixon (twice) lends that view more credibility, and therefore the earlier version of the transcript (the 2 paragraphs I quoted several days ago) containing the word "typewriter" should be inserted in the article. Further, the passages revised between the first and second editions of "Six Crises," to which Nixon himself referred to in the first of those 2 paragraphs, should be added as well. GSN53 (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The section from Fleming in the footnote is a direct quote from the transcript. Therefore, we do have a direct quote from the transcript and do not need to add more. If you have page numbers for the references to the different editions of Nixon's memoir (and also precise references to different editions of the transcripts with page numbers), you should go ahead and add them also, I think. The problem is that if you say "it adds credibility" that is editorializing, which wikipedia cannot do. I happen to believe that it does indeed add credibility, but one would need a secondary source that says those words because there is a very vocal and dedicated contingent of editors on wikipedia who profess not to believe it adds credibility (incredible as that may seem) and who will delete such a statement as POV or find some other objection to it. 173.52.252.7 (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks 173.52.252.7, very thoughtful. Several points to address:

1. Yes, the Fleming footnote has a direct quote from the WH transcript, but only 4 words: "We got a typewriter." And it's a footnote; unless a reader checks the footnote, he/she is unlikely to ever see even those 4 words.

At the same time, the full HJC-revised paragraph is quoted verbatim right in the body of the article, and indented as well, so that the reader will not miss it.

My proposal is to add at least the entire matching paragraph from the WH transcript, not just 4 words, right in the body of the article, indented just as the HJC version is. So this would be added:

"Then we worked that thing. We then got the evidence, we got the typewriter, we got the Pumpkin Papers. We got all of that ourselves. The FBI did not cooperate. The Justice Department did not cooperate."

This would allow the reader to absorb the context of the original passage. I would be perfectly willing to have any of the "vocal and dedicated" editors control the explanation that the older version was developed using inferior audio technology. But, again, we're still talking about an "indistinct phrase" in the newer HJC transcript, as the article acknowledges. Why not explain all this to the reader in one focused spot?

In addition, I would suggest that the preceding WH paragraph citing the "Six Crises" statement be included as well. But, given the resistance to revisions I'm seeing, this is undoubtedly pie-in-the-sky.

2. Here is all the information that is needed for the wording in the first edition of "Six Crises." This is a section from Lowenthal's 6/26/76 article in "The Nation." It includes a verbatim quotation from the first edition, along with Lowenthal's discussion of the subsequent changes:

"Richard Nixon wrote in his 'Six Crises' (Doubleday, 1962) that the FBI found the typewriter two days before Hiss was indicted:

On December 13 [1948] FBI agents found the typewriter.

'On December , the critical last day [of the Grand Jury's term, and the day they indicted Hiss, an expert from the FBI typed exact copies on the old Woodstock machine and had them flown up to New York as exhibits for the members of the Grand Jury to see to see....The evidence was unanswerable. (P. 60.)

When it was pointed out to Nixon that the defense, not the FBI, was supposed to have found the old Woodstock, Nixon promptly disavowed that part of his book as 'a researcher's error,' and changed the passage in subsequent editions. Whether or not it was a researchers error, it and the other known assertions that the FBI or HUAC found the typewriter, and Newsweek's identification of the typewriter as 'an aged Woodstock, No. 200194 (July 24,1961, p. 20, col. 2). remain unexplained and provocative challenges to the authenticity of Woodstock No. 230,099 and the candor of the Government.'"

Link: https://files.nyu.edu/th15/public/lowenthaltyp.html

Lowenthal's passage provides the relevant page number in the "Six Crises" first edition - p. 60. I see no evidence of any dispute that Lowenthal's quotation is accurate. I have ordered a copy of a subsequent edition; I'm not sure I see the need to quote the revised wording, but will provide it if necessary.

3. My point about adding credibility was not aimed at having the article say something to that effect. It was my attempt to respond to your query that you didn't understand my (or "the") argument. I.e., it was only a discussion I thought we were having here in "talk." Thus, the "vocal and dedicated contingent of editors" would have nothing to delete in this regard.

GSN53 (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, but I am talking about things you could add to improve the article not the talk page. It's true, though, I didn't quite understand what you were getting at on the talk page, which is supposed to be about what can be done to improve the article. 173.52.252.7 (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Now I am reading more slowly and trying to take it in. One reason you will not see Lowenthal or The Nation quoted here very much is there are very vocal editors who object to any citation of Lowenthal and The Nation, whatsoever, on the grounds that it these sources are biased in favor of Hiss, as though this was beyond the pale and the equivalent of being a holocaust denier or a proponent of flying saucers. Weinstein, in fact, accuses all who mention the possibility of the typewriter being faked of being wild-eyed, off-the-wall conspiracy theorists, and he puts scare quotes around what they say. 173.52.252.7 (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

You have an admirable ability to frame your "talk" section comments as informally as a discussion over dinner while remaining very exacting and communicative. I anticipated your point about Lowenthal; that's why I emphasized the value of his direct quote from the first edition of "Six Crises." This presents a dilemma for a newbie like me: I can't simply introduce the verbatim language from "Six Crises" (that would be original research?), but I also can't hope to utilize a Lowenthal article citing the book's language? Any advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSN53 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Censorship - Deletion of Talk Topic

Over the last week, I've made numerous posts regarding the controversy over Nixon's wording in the Watergate transcripts - regarding the Hiss trial, did he say "they got the typewriter" or "they got Piper?" After numerous back-and-forth posts, I'm suddenly seeing that the entire topic - the #5 topic under "talk" - has been deleted. Is this the way things really work here on Wikipedia?

This is disappointing - I had hoped that Wikipedia was an honest voice reflecting common knowledge and honest disagreements.

Now I'm starting to worry it's a controlled medium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GSN53 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

No one has deleted your comments, you can check the record.[1] TFD (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I think I know what happened. User GSN53 attempted to insert a new topic line and it didn't show up because it was not on a separate line. It's still there, though. The formatting on wikipedia is very tricky. 173.52.252.7 (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The topic line I created last weekend was akin to "Nixon Wording on Hiss Evidence: 'Typewriter' or 'Piper?'" It showed up until yesterday. The subject title is now gone and the discussions (all of them, as TFD points out) have been rolled into "concensus."

Please pardon my "newbieness." GSN53 (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

GSN53, I deeply sympathize with anyone who is confused by wikipedia's formatting. It is especially bad when, like me, you suffer from incipient cataracts and need new glasses! I can go in and try to insert your new section for you.

When you say: "As it now stands, the reader is left to believe that the matter of Nixon saying typewriter was incorrect, and that it’s now accepted that he said 'Piper'. They should understand there are still two camps on this issue." I don't quite agree with you. That is I agree with you that there are two camps. I also agree that the reader is left with the impression that "piper" is the "official" version. It's the official version, all right, according to Richard NIxon! Res ipsa loquitur. That's what the reader should understand. And I think that the astute reader will understand it, at least I hope so. That even Judge Younger, who was manifestly hostile to Hiss, agreed that Nixon probably said "typewriter", is very interesting, if true, but I am not sure how we can fit that into the article. If you read the transcripts from conferences on the subject on the History net referenced on the talk page, you will see that some of the historians who are experts on this case (including at least one from the US intelligence community) believe that the answers to what really happened will come out when the files in the USA, not those of the Soviet Union, as others are trying to argue, are finally opened. 173.52.252.7 (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the 'missing' section properly. Nothing had been deleted, but someone had added text prior to the start of the section header, which messed up the formatting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That was me. Was trying to do it in two stages, but probably didn't know how to do it correctly. Also, forgot to sign. Thanks, Andy. 173.52.252.7 (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

173.52.252.7 says: "And I think that the astute reader will understand it, at least I hope so." Admirable, but until a week ago I believed Wikipedia's #1 goal was to accurately and thoroughly inform the average reader, not to hope that astute readers would be able to read between the lines. The brick wall I'm sensing here is daunting and disappointing. I fully agree with you on the US files coming out. Who would have guessed 25 years ago that we'd get full access to the USSR files on these matters long before we'd get access to our own? GSN53 (talk) 02:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

GSN53, you have to understand that the article you see here is the result of a prolonged and painful compromise -- there are pages and pages of bitter disputes recorded in the talk page. I participated in some of these disputes, but right now I don't remember them in detail. I can't speak for other editors, but I myself would have no problem with your inserting the information about the different versions of Nixon's memoirs, say, right after the account of the 1952 appeal. My one concern is that it should be short, because the article is in danger of getting overly long. I also think it is ok to refer to primary sources under some circumstances, if it is clear and unequivocal to the reader and they can check them. Unless they are very precisely documented and easily verifiable they are likely to be deleted. It is depressing, in a way, but I think this situation holds for most wikipedia articles about events that are highly contested and controversial.173.52.247.35 (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I now understand more about how Wikipedia works, and I see the battles here are just as bitterly fought as those in print, in person and on radio & TV. Perhaps moreso, since editors here are relatively anonymous. I will return when I can document the language in the two versions of "Six Crises."