Talk:Alger Hiss/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

The notes

The IPs version in regards to the notes is totally unacceptable. It stuffs all the relevant facts into a footnote, while deceiving the reader into the idea that this is merely Weinstein's opinion. It is a historical fact that Hiss initially denied writing the note in question and it is a historical fact that Sayre, not just Weinstein, saw it as utterly unrelated to Hiss's duties. This is noted in Weinstein's book.

CJK (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

In the grand jury testimony made public after Weinstein wrote his book, Sayre testified that Hiss briefed him every morning on the news of the day. This is a matter of public record, irrespective of what Sayre told the FBI under hostile questioning. And the "Fake Passport" ring was big news of the day, as is shown upthread here. Svetlana Cheronaya writes (yes, on her self-published website) that in the US archives she had seen an entire folder of such handwritten memos made by Hiss for the purpose of briefing Sayre on the news. So it is her word and Sayre's (and physical evidence, provided Cheronaya is correct) against Weinstein's wild guess. Furthermore, and even more important, Weinstein provides no evidence at all for his supposition that Hiss must have written the note with the intention of sharing the contents of the telegram with the Soviets. 173.77.75.221 (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

That would be true regarding general matters, but in regards to this specific note in question Sayre did not believe it was any of his or Hiss's business. The material was not merely "the news" it was an exact copy of confidential information from the wife of an American intelligence officer.

CJK (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

She was the widow of a deceased intelligence officer and had sent the telegram to Russia from Washington, D.C. where she was living at the time. She was remembering the arrested man from 10 years earlier. She proved subsequently to be an anti-Semitic nut case. It was a more or less exact copy because it was only two lines long. It was entirely insignificant & forgettable. The FBI theorized, erroneously, for a time, that the arrested man had been a double agent, as I recall. But they dropped this theory. He was not, he was a committed Communist and also a forger. 173.77.75.221 (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You admit the information was "entirely insignificant & forgettable" so why did Hiss write it down?

In any event, Sayre indicated that he saw no reason for Hiss to bring it to his attention. This is ignored in your version. Your version stuffs everything relevant into a footnote, pretending that the issue was a dispute over passports. Even if that was true, it still had nothing to do with Hiss or Sayre.

CJK (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Duh, he wrote it down because it was in the news at the time and concerned passport fraud (the State Department), That was his job; assessing its importance was not his job. That was Sayre's job. Later, both of them forgot it. If you admit it was trivial why do you think, with Weinstein, it proves Hiss was a spy? Do you think the Latvian and was a double agents working for the US that Hiss betrayed? If so, why did the Soviets later rehabilitate him? 173.77.75.221 (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Um, no, the information he copied word-for-word was not in the news at the time.

There is no evidence that Hiss or Sayre were concerned with passport fraud, which was not the underlying issue anyway.

Why do I think it provides evidence that he was a spy? Because Sayre himself stated:

that he was always disturbed by the Robinson cable [the Mary Martin wire transcribed by Hiss] as the handwritten note on this cable [Hiss's transcription] seemed to be of a personal nature an he could not understand why he was on the distribution list for this cable or why a note would be made on it or especially why an exact copy should be made.

In any event, it isn't about your or mine opinion, it is about stating the relevant facts which you have chosen to conceal from the reader. How would like it to be phrased?

CJK (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You are being Jesuitical CJK, the so-called Robinson affair was definitely headlines news, even if the exact words of the cable were not. What Sayre said 10 years later is neither here nor there, since he said different things to the grand jury than to the FBI, who thought they were tracking down a double agent at the time they grilled him. Surely his grand jury testimony is just as relevant as what he said to the FBI. Unless you think, as I do, that readers should be sent to the sources instead of Wikipedia reproducing every jot and tittle of this complicated story. I am sure Sayre was "disturbed" -- he knew he could also have been a suspect. He never implicated Hiss. 173.77.75.221 (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If it was "headline news" why would Hiss have to inform Sayre about it? Surely Sayre read the newspaper. The arrests were in December 1937, were they not? The date of the cable was January 28, 1938.

Sayre did not say "different things" to the grand jury. He told the grand jury that Hiss might make notes when he [Hiss] wanted to refresh his memory later when telling Sayre something related to his job. But regarding this specific note Sayre saw no reason for Hiss to have copied anything because it did not concern him. It was not Hiss's job to make notes of everything he saw. Sayre told Hiss's attorney, not the FBI, that

"he does not recall it was Alger's duty to 'sift' cables and digest them and make oral report on [their] contents...."

CJK (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Where is your citation from CJK? Because according to Chervonnaya,:

Sayre gave, as a “possible explanation,” when faced with a daily “stack of cables,” Hiss would distill them after reading the original:

"… so that he could tell me in a few words what the memorandum contained. Not that he would show me or pass to me those specific memoranda, but possibly that he would digest it for his own purposes, so that in handing me a stack of telegrams he might just glance at his little digest and say, “Well, this telegram is about so-and-so; I don’t think you have to read that,” “This telegram is about so-and-so; perhaps you better get after that,” and so on and so forth."

When asked if he would be interested in matters not directly involved with the economic and trade matters that his office was handling, Sayre explained that he “had to be interested in everything that pertained to developments going along, …” 7 However puzzling the “Mary Martin” note may have seemed in late 1948, in early 1938 the circumstances behind it were at the center of a diplomatic crisis threatening serious deterioration of Soviet-American relations. Given the fact that the 1937 Soviet-American Trade Agreement was due to be renewed in August 1938, the development of this crisis would have been of immediate concern to Francis Sayre’s office. http://www.documentstalk.com/wp/the-%E2%80%9Cmary-martin%E2%80%9D-note-in-alger-hiss%E2%80%99s-handwriting

So you see, Sayre himself referred to the handwritten note as a "memorandum". As for why the State Department was interested in late January, when the arrests were in December, according to Chervonnaya, the State Department had been trying for a month to get Soviet permission to interview the American-born wife in jail, since she was a US citizen. They were given permission in early February. Chervonnaya claims that Weinstein made a complete botch of the story. Other authors say it was not the only thing he botched. His footnotes are a complete mess. 173.77.75.221 (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My source is Perjury P. 248.

Again, Hiss might have made notes for himself regarding things of interest to Sayre, but regarding this specific cable Sayre had no interest, and there was no reason for an exact copy if he had any.

Beyond the general news of the arrests and fallout, which Sayre could have simply followed in the newspaper, the specific details of the incident, particularly the information in the cable, had nothing to do with Sayre's office even if it might have concerned others in the State Department. Sayre himself admitted this. So why are you trying to hide it?

CJK (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I looked at Perjury, too. It is Weinstein's summary (therefore his opinion). He does not reproduce the FBI interrogation transcript. Just a lot of summaries by an FBI agent and "see transcript", then Ibids. As far as the telegram "not being a summary". The passport telegram was two (puzzling) lines and plausibly easier to copy than to summarize. Incidentally, Weinstein uses the word "memo" repeatedly, I don't know why CJK balks at that word. Then, as proof that the note, was sent to Russia, Weinstein amazingly quotes at length Chamber's article "The Faking of Americans", which said it wound up in Soviet hands -- even though Chambers also said he had broken with the Party by then and kept it! Also, Weinstein fails to mention that Chambers' "article" remained in manuscript and was never published anywhere. It he had published it, Chambers would have been exposing classified material! Weinstein also goes on and on about how sensational the passport case - was at the time. Incidentally, Chamber's friend Solow concluded his article, which was published, the dark suggestion that the files of the State Department were filled with of all kinds of information about espionage that was being kept from the public (as I recall). Mballen (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

reversion

Capitalismojo has reverted my reversion of CJK's reversion of the paragraph about Weinstein on the ground that it is being discussed on RS page. But what is being discussed is another paragraph, and that is not really being discussed, but rather is being stonewalled by CJK, who refuses to provide references. I believe he is a serial disruptive editor.173.77.75.221 (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe Capitalismojo should give another more valid reason for reverting the paragraph. 173.77.75.221 (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Capitalismojo gave a misleading reason for reverting the passage. Please give a valid reason. 173.77.75.221 (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@Capitalismojo:, 173.77 seems to have explained his edit, now it is your turn. OccultZone (Talk) 06:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is the deal. We don't talk about the motivations of other editors. Calling someone a "serial disruptive editor" does nothing to improve an article or collegiality. Then attacking yet another editor for giving a "misleading reason" really is inappropriate. If you have a problem with CJK, talk it over on his talk page. If that doesn't work, there is a panoply of ways to mediate disagreements. (As an aside, I'd also strongly recommend getting a username.) Capitalismojo (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

On to the edit I reverted. I don't think this edit is an improvement. I'd like a thoughtful reason from the anon IP to include this in an already larded up article. I believe this article needs aggresive pruning for clarity, hence adding yet more is not helpful. The ordinary reader would get seriously lost in the weeds on this article. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@Capitalismojo: Sometimes we just forget that there is no deadline. Don't take it too seriously. OccultZone (Talk) 14:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think CJK's edits are improvements and therefore I reverted what, by consensus, had stood for over a year. I agree that the article needs pruning. It is seriously overweighted with references to Haynes and Klehr, for one thing. It is important to make clear that Weinstein's book was written before the Grand Jury testimony was released, and, despite having been updated is out of date. For Weinstein the Robinson telegram was proof that Hiss was a spy but this hypothesis caused by a confusion of dates. What is really needed is a separate wikipedia article on the affair itself. 173.77.75.221 (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Your statement the grand jury testimony would have altered what Weinstein wrote is, at minimum, flagrant original research on your part. I have already pointed out that the two statements are fully compatible.

CJK (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I made no such statement. I merely said his book is out of date. Readers should be allowed to see Sayre's other statement and decide for themselves. Anyway it was not my statement. Take it up with Svetlana Chervonnaya. 173.77.75.221 (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

His "other statements" are not contradictory. As has been explained, he said that Hiss might make notes for himself to convey Sayre certain relevant information. Regarding the Martin cable specifically he said there was no reason for it to have been copied. That is what we are discussing, the Martin cable Hiss initially denied writing, not Hiss's note taking in general.

CJK (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

To whom did he say there was no reason for it to be copied? To the Grand Jury or the to FBI? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.75.221 (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we could take it from the top, and clarify so that other editors can comment in a productive way. What is being argued here please? What changes to the article are proposed, and what exactly are the points of contention? Thank you gentlemen. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why it matters who he told. Do we have any complete transcripts of the Grand Jury testimony?

My version says:

Chambers retaliated by claiming Hiss was not merely a Communist but also a spy, a charge he had not made earlier; and, on November 17, 1948, he produced to support his explosive allegations physical evidence consisting of sixty-five pages of re-typed State Department documents plus four handwritten notes in Hiss's own handwriting summarizing the contents of State Department cables. These became known as the "Baltimore documents." Chambers claimed Hiss had given them to him in 1938 and that Priscilla had retyped them (Hiss could not type) on the Hisses' Woodstock typewriter to pass along to the Soviets. One of the handwritten notes copied the contents of a telegram related to the arrest of an American and her Soviet husband in Moscow, it was unrelated to Hiss's duties at the State Department which concerned trade matters. Hiss initially denied writing it but expert analysis would later confirm it was in his handwriting.

The IP's version says:

Chambers retaliated by claiming Hiss was not merely a Communist but also a spy, a charge he had not made earlier; and, on November 17, 1948, he produced to support his explosive allegations physical evidence consisting of sixty-five pages of re-typed State Department documents plus four handwritten notes in Hiss's own handwriting summarizing the contents of State Department cables. These became known as the "Baltimore documents." Chambers claimed Hiss had given them to him in 1938 and that Priscilla Hiss had retyped the State Department documents (Hiss could not type) on the Hisses' Woodstock typewriter to pass along to the Soviets. As for the the handwritten notes, one of them concerned a telegram addressed to the U.S. State Department Chargé d'Affairs in Moscow. It was from the widow of a former US diplomat to Riga and concerned the widely reported case of an American woman and her Latvian-born husband who had been arrested in December 1937 while traveling to the Soviet Union under false passports, a crime in both the US and the Soviet Union.

And he stuffs the following "information" into the footnote:

According to Allen Weinstein, Hiss initially denied writing the note, but expert analysis later confirmed it was in his handwriting. Weinstein argues that the matter of the fake passports was unrelated to Hiss's duties at the State Department, which were limited to international trade (although passports manifestly fall under the purview of the State Department). Weinstein speculates that Hiss must have informed the Soviets about the telegram and this proved Hiss had been a spy.

CJK (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Originally someone else had inserted the reference to the Robinson telegram, stating erroneously that it came from Lithuania, that was why the reference was in there. It was originally a correction. The sender was not from Lithuania, the telegram originated in Washington, whence it was sent to Moscow. If looks weird to have the contents of only one of the telegrams mentioned, because then you would have to explain why the others were or were not significant. I would be OK with not mentioning the Mary Robinson affair at all or just linking it to a separate article. If you are going to mention it. Then you have to explain it., including the varying opinions about it.

And, the more I think about it the more I think an improvement might be to have a separate article for the Robinson affair to which readers can be referred. I would say simply the four telegrams "appeared to FBI agents as unrelated to Hiss's duties", rather than flatly denying that it was related to his duties, since opinions differ on that point. (Chervonnaya thinks it was related.) There is no need to get into Sayre's testimony. It would be better to have a separate article on the trial.

Hiss's bio, should just say that a preponderance of mainstream historians think he did spy for the Soviets, a few suggest he may have been a spy but received a trumped up, kangaroo trial; and still others think he may have been innocent. Then give representative examples minus derogatory labeling of any of them as "fringe" (especially his son!!!) along with links and suggestions for further reading. 173.77.75.221 (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I think CJK's edit is concise and to the point. "support his explosive allegations physical evidence consisting of" - just want to point out there's a typo here. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason for another article to be made, that would resemble a POV fork.

The issue is that this particular note is different from the other three. Firstly, unlike the other three, Hiss denied writing it until it was confirmed to be in his handwriting. This is a historical fact and not something made up by Weinstein, as you insinuate. Secondly, Sayre (not Weinstein or the FBI) stated that he saw no reason for Hiss to have copied its contents (an issue which also did not apply to the other three).

Maybe an acceptable formulation would be One of the handwritten notes copied the contents of a telegram related to the arrest of an American and her Soviet husband in Moscow. Sayre, whom Hiss was assisting at the time, believed that the copied information was unrelated to his or Hiss's duties at the State Department which concerned trade matters. Hiss initially denied writing it but expert analysis would later confirm it was in his handwriting.

CJK (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

No go. You have to say "Under interrogation, Sayre told the FBI ... [citation and date of testimony] Weinstein believed this constituted proof of espionage [citation date (1978?)]." But Sayre in testimony that was only made public in 1998, also told the Grand Jury, ... [citation and date of testimony]. [No interpretation, leave that to the reader.]

The Fake Passport Scandal was a historical occurrence. It was in the news and had repercussions in the Hiss trial. Chambers wrote an article about it that he didn't publish and that revealed the contents of the Passport telegram (which would have been disclosing a state secret, had it been published). Weinstein's book gives the erroneous impression that Chambers did publish it. In any case, the whole affair is is too long and involved to fit in Hiss's wiki bio. 173.77.75.221 (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about Weinstein's views. I am merely using him as the source for the fact that Hiss denied writing the note and Sayre saw it as unrelated to Hiss's duties.

I simply do not see how his testimony to the Grand Jury contradicts that specific point, and in any case you would need to provide a complete transcript for anyone to arrive at that judgment. The only portions I've seen are excerpts posted on Tony Hiss's propaganda website.

I am not trying to discuss Chambers's activities, which would only add more unnecessary wordiness to the article, which is already quite long.

CJK (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You do not see it. Others do. The testimony is a matter of public record and I don't have to supply it. If you are interested, I am sure you can find it and read it and publish a paper on it. All that has to be done is to say that another scholar quotes a passage from the grand jury testimony and and maintains that it does contradict what Sayre said to his FBI interrogators. Wikipedia doesn't have to endorse what the scholar said, it is only required to report it that there is disagreement at this time. Readers can use their own judgement, just as you have used yours. Soon other, more up-to-date books will come out and perhaps you will find support for your views in them. 173.77.75.221 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

If you don't have a complete transcript, then how do you know your version is correct?

Based on the incomplete record you provided, his Grand Jury statement appears to only cover the three notes where Hiss made summaries. The Martin telegram on the other hand was an exact copy. I believe that neither Weinstein or Chervonnaya's opinion is relevant here, only Sayre's.

CJK (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Another scholar maintains that it is correct -- if you want to produce evidence from another RS calling the except incorrect or taken out of context, great. In the meantime at least one other author maintains that not only Sayre but also Stanley K. Hornbeck, for whom Hiss subsequently worked, confirmed that it was Hiss's practice to make little handwritten memos, which would be either attached to documents when they were filed, or thrown out. 173.77.75.221 (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC) 173.77.75.221 (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC) (typos)

The only thing I'm trying to insert is the fact that Sayre said the copying of the Martin note specifically was unrelated to Hiss's duties. The scholarly debate over this is beside the point.

CJK (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

CJK's version says of the passport scandal telegram note: "it was unrelated to Hiss's duties at". Then he says "it is a historical fact that Sayre, not just Weinstein, saw it as utterly unrelated to Hiss's duties" (my emphasis). So Sayre testified under FBI interrogation that the telegram was utterly unrelated? Utterly? Isn't this not a fact but just an inference by (or opinion of) Weinstein? Again, CJK maintains just above that Sayre said there was "no reason" for Hiss to have copied the telegram. Did Sayre say "it was unrelated to HIss's duties"? Or did he say "there was no reason for Hiss to have copied it". Or did he say it was utterly unrelated? Just what did he say? The reason that this is interesting is that a photocopy of a fragment of the actual Grand Jury transcript appears online for everyone to see in which Sayre, with memorable eloquence, affirms that Hiss customarily briefed him every day both on things related to trade and also on things that may have been unrelated to trade but were nevertheless important to know. 173.77.75.221 (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The information is as follows:

According to Sayre, he did not remember discussing military information with Hiss, had little interest in such matters, and did not understand why copies of departmental cables on the Robinson-Rubens case--in which he had no interest whatsoever--had been sent to his office. On the last point Sayre told the FBI "that he was always disturbed by the Robinson cable [the Mary Martin wire transcribed by Hiss] as the handwritten note on this cable [Hiss's transcription] seemed to be of a personal nature an he could not understand why he was on the distribution list for this cable or why a note would be made on it or especially why an exact copy should be made." (Perjury p. 248)

You claim that the Grand Jury transcripts show that as a general matter Hiss might make summaries for himself (not Sayre) to convey information to Sayre. The point I am trying to make is that regarding this note specifically Sayre said he had absolutely no interest, and did not understand why it was copied.

CJK (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

As I read it, the FBI summary quoted by Weinstein says that Sayre maintained, "he had no interest whatever" in the Robinson-Rubens [fake Passport] case and the telegram [which used a several first names] seemed of a personal nature and he did not understand why it had been sent to his office. (He is also reported as saying he had no idea what it was all about, no?) These are the words of an FBI agent, not of Sayre. I know, other historians were upset with Weinstein for refusing to make his sources available for independent inspection -- I don't know if this was one of the instances. Because of this they protested en masse when George Bush named him U.S Archivist. Who knows, perhaps the documentary evidence against Hiss was even more damning, but as it stands, this is Weinstein's interpretation of an FBI summary. This is fine, but it has to be identified as that, not as "historical fact." Unless there is a transcript in the appendix, or something. 173.77.75.221 (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Correction, the phrase "no interest whatever" (my emphasis) is Weinstein's and is not identified as direct quotation from the FBI agent. 173.77.75.221 (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what is so hard about this. Sayre told the FBI that a) the Martin cable was of no concern to him (it was of a "personal nature") and b) he could not understand why an "exact copy" of it was made. What part of those facts are disputed by you?

CJK (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions

tran·scribe [tran-skrahyb]

verb (used with object)

1.

to make a written copy, especially a typewritten copy, of (dictated material, notes taken during a lecture, or other spoken material).

2.

to make an exact copy of (a document, text, etc.).

memo see mem·o·ran·dum [mem-uh-ran-duhm] noun, plural mem·o·ran·dums, mem·o·ran·da [mem-uh-ran-duh]

1.

a short note designating something to be remembered, especially something to be done or acted upon in the future; reminder.

2.

a record or written statement of something.

3.

an informal message, especially one sent between two or more employees of the same company, concerning company business: an interoffice memorandum.

4.

Law. a writing, usually informal, containing the terms of a transaction.173.77.75.221 (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Schrecker, Weinstein, and The Haunted Wood

I have just reverted a good-faith edit by IP 173.77.75.221 that said Schrecker did not mention The Haunted Wood in her article "The Spies Who Loved Us?" in The Nation, 24 May 2014. The article, was, in fact, a review of The Haunted Wood. That is not readily discernible by the facsimile article, but it is in the archived article, which, unfortunately, is behind a paywall. It was on p. 28-31. Here's the beginning of it:

The Spies Who Loved Us?

ELLEN SCHRECKER

THE HAUNTED WOOD: Soviet Espionage in America--The Stalin Era

By Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev. Random House, 402 pp. $30.

I still kick myself for not having saved the short story I wrote for composition class in seventh grade in which I described how the Russians took over my small suburban community. The story ended with a knock on the door and the secret police dragging my father out of the house, chanting, ‘‘NKVD, NKVD . . ."

Yopienso (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

the secret police dragging my father out of the house, chanting, ‘‘NKVD, NKVD . . ." You mean "FBI, FBI…" right? Do you know the meaning of "two mature agents?" How about: "Do not interview suspect in presence of his lawyer"? Or… would you like to see how FBI minions squirm when they're referred to a "national police?" Which they obviously were. DEddy (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize you are a newbie. I've answered your question about edit histories on my talk page. I suggest you delete your comment just above and mine here, since your comment doesn't make any sense. I was copying and pasting from Schrecker, which you really should have noticed: you shouldn't weigh in with opinions if you haven't informed yourself on the issue. Don't worry; you'll catch on! Yopienso (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I was copying and pasting from Schrecker, which you really should have noticed: I'm supposed to know where you've cut & pasted from? It's signed by you. I assumed it was your comment. Excuse my Wiki ignorance. DEddy (talk) 02:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't doubt your information that it was a review. She does mention Weinstein and Vassiliev. Curious that she does not mention or engage with the book at all in her review, only the circumstances of its composition. 173.77.75.221 (talk) 05:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the collegial response. Typically, academic book reviews are written like this one, with the book title and info only in the heading. Whoever reproduced the article must not have realized that, because omitting the heading made the review fairly incomprehensible. Because I'm familiar with the title and the three authors, I surmised the article was a review and looked it up through a university library. But now it occurs to me you could find it in World Cat, and here it is! If you click on the title, you should find more information and nearby libraries that hold it. Yopienso (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Double check this but it looks like Schrecker's book was published in 1999 & "Haunted Wood" in 2000. DEddy (talk) 06:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You may have seen a paperback or other later edition copyrighted 2000; the initial copyright is 1999. (And it's likely Schrecker read it pre-publication.) You can see the copyright on this Google books snippet. At the bottom of this Kirkus review page, the publication date is given as Jan. 1, 1999, and the date of Kirkus's review as Nov. 1, 1998. Schrecker's review in The Nation was May 24, 1999.

I'm fine with a question, DEddy, but we don't generally delete others' comments from a talk page. Yopienso (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

If it appears I deleted something, it was entirely accidental. What appears to have been deleted? DEddy (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

(And it's likely Schrecker read it pre-publication.) Based on what information? Speculating on who read what when in the book/article publishing process strikes me as low order SWAG. DEddy (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Check the history. I'll gladly accept your apology should you tender one.

Yes, pure speculation. Somehow I can see Dr. Schrecker receiving an advance copy to review easier than I can see her browsing the neighborhood Barnes & Noble, spying an interesting-looking book, and then offering to review it. Notice that the Kirkus review was published before the book was. But I'm only explaining my speculation, not arguing that I'm right. Cheers! Yopienso (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

DEddy, it is true that review copies are typically sent out in advance. Also the column appears under the rubric "Books". And the date of the copyright of Weinstein, et al is indeed 1999. So .... I added a second review from Schrecker, this time of Haynes, and co. which essentially (and more forcefully) makes similar points. 173.77.75.221 (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Should the final lines of the lede, with due citations, be:

In 2001, a report in the New York Times identified a "growing consensus that Hiss, indeed, had most likely been a Soviet agent". However, since many relevant files continue to be unavailable, the Hiss controversy will continue to be debated. Yopienso (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as proposing editor. There is no need to name the writers--who are insignificant to the topic--in the lede; their thoughts are the important things. They are duly credited in the refs. Including too much detail is distracting, redundant, and contrary to policy. "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article." Yopienso (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Since opinions expressed under bylines do not necessarily represent the opinions of the newspaper, they should be attributed to the reporter who wrote them. The question then arises why this reporter's opinions are significant. But I think RfC is the wrong place for your question. Since is about "In-text attribution", you should bring it up at a notice board. TFD (talk) 05:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment. The one time I went to a notice board--quite recently--I was instructed to create a RfC instead. Sorry, but this is my best effort at finding consensus. Yopienso (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose In 2001, James Barron of the NYT offered an editorial comment, without any supporting data, suggesting this "consensus". If this is to be referenced in the lede, it should not be referred to as "a report in the New York Times" like it's the product of investigative journalism or something. Furthermore, it would be best if Barron's comment were not mentioned at all. This biographical article it not improved by speculation from various sources as to what "most" historians believe. This text was added to the lede as a compromise following months of bitter debate. The editors should not have to keep re-arguing this from scratch every few months. Respect the outcome of the many, many previous discussions on the subject. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's a particularly good source, myself, in this context. (It's a fine xource for Tony Hiss's website.) Would you support replacing it with a quote from Greenberg? (He's quoted by Barron wrt to Hiss's guilt.) Schrecker? Oshinsky? Kutler? Weinstein? All of them are respected historians who are not "speculating" but who know the state of their field. Yopienso (talk) 06:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I open to discussing any other source and text you want to suggest. I don't even know who changed the old "various sources suggest" compromise text to Barron specifically. Joegoodfriend (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I oppose it as well. For the very good reasons mentioned by Joegoodfriend. 173.52.252.213 (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm satisfied that there is a clear understanding among involved editors and am closing this RfC. Thank you for your participation. Yopienso (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A *story* in the NY Times

I was going to make the same change as Joe Goodfriend. It was not an editorial emphatically "declaring" "THE TRUTH" -- as a previous editor would have had it, it was a news story on the conference by a reporter. 173.52.252.213 (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

And I was going to revert his edit.

• He is mistaken that "One reporter's editorial comment unsupported by hard data is not a 'report by the NYT.'" There's lots of hard data that there is "a growing [scholarly] consensus that Hiss, indeed, had most likely been a Soviet agent." See footnote 2. It's important that Barron said "growing consensus," showing an increasing opinion, not an irrefutable determination.
• Barron is a NYT reporter; whatever he writes in the Times is, by definition, "a report by the NYT." The assertion In 2001, a New York Times report stated that there was "growing consensus that Hiss, indeed, had most likely been a Soviet agent" is entirely true and verifiable.
• In 2001, James Barron, a staff reporter for the New York Times, identified what he called a "growing consensus that Hiss, indeed, had most likely been a Soviet agent" is, on the one hand, too much detail for the lede, and, on the other--which is Joe Gf's intention--marginalizing the report. It appeared on page 1 (continued on p. 4) of Section G, "Circuits," dealing mainly with Tony Hiss's website. No need to try to ascribe a growing consensus to a lone reporter. Yopienso (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

"There's lots of hard data that there is "a growing [scholarly] consensus that Hiss, indeed, had most likely been a Soviet agent." No, there's a lot of opinion that there is a growing scholarly consensus. Hard data would be a scientific poll of historians on the subject. Take a look at the TALK achive; we spent about a year arguing this.

"Barron is a NYT reporter; whatever he writes in the Times is, by definition, "a report by the NYT."" Disagree. The Congressional Budget Office releases "reports" on data analysis. Editorial comments are not "reports." Barron has no data. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

• Your disagreement defies logic. Surely you aren't suggesting that only statistical reports are "reports"? Please review the definition of "report".
• Barron wrote a report (a written account of something that he had investigated) about Tony Hiss's website in the NYT. The report refers to the consensus on Hiss. There can be no disagreement that, "In 2001, a New York Times report stated that there was 'growing consensus that Hiss, indeed, had most likely been a Soviet agent'." This does not say there is no on-going debate by die-hards, as we discussed back in the archives.
• Methinks you haven't actually read all of Barron's report. Otherwise you would not make the claim that he has no data. Yopienso (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with 173.: Barron's opinion is not a "report." I've stated my reasons and I'm not going to keep arguing the point ad nauseam.

"Methinks you haven't actually read all of Barron's report. Otherwise you would not make the claim that he has no data." I've read the article[1] and I don't see any data. Why don't you tell me what I'm missing? Joegoodfriend (talk) 07:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It was reportage -- re·port·age [ri-pawr-tij, -pohr-, rep-awr-tahzh, -er-] noun

1. the act or technique of reporting news.

That is to say, it was news story in the New York Times written by a reporter, reporting what someone had said (oral history -- nothing wrong with that!) at a conference. It was not a scientific or official report, nor yet was it an editorial pronouncement. 173.52.252.213 (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

And I would add that the fact that it was by James Barron who has his own wikipedia page and has written a book on the story of the Steinway piano, is of no little interest. (Disclosure, I am a tremendous fan of the Steinway). 173.52.252.213 (talk) 07:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• I can't make out what 173's second sentence means. (Referring to the first post in this section. I was writing when 173 made their second post. I was replying to Joe.)
• Your personal definition of "report" does not trump the OED and other respected English dictionaries.
• Oh, I understood you to mean "facts" when you said "data." If you mean scientific polls, no, of course there are none; academic consensus is not so measured. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with historiography.
• Here's a statistical fact from Barron: "So far his site has recorded more than 10,000 visits." Here's Barron's factual report that Professor Greenberg stated the opinion: "'It's the best defense mustered of Hiss by the dwindling band of those who believe in Hiss,' said David Greenberg, a historian at Columbia University . . ." Here's Barron's factual report that Prof. Greenberg further opined: "'I don't think anyone is going to treat this site as the repository of truth, except for those who have already made up their minds that Hiss was innocent,' Mr. Greenberg added."
• Again, I suggest you read footnote 2. Apparently a Schrecker quote has been removed from the article: "There is now just too much evidence from too many different sources to make it possible for anyone but the most die-hard loyalists to argue convincingly for the innocence of Hiss, Rosenberg, and the others." When major historians agree on something and assert that "the vast majority of modern American historians" agree on something, that indicates an academic consensus. Barron is on firm footing; you are not. Yopienso (talk) 08:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It is presented as an opinion in the article, by putting it in quotes and using in-text citation. It is incorrect to attribute the opinion to the NYT, since it is clearly the opinion of its reporter. If it had been presented in the leading article, which is the editorial presented by the editorial board, then we could say it was the opinion of the NYT. TFD (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The present sentence is too detailed and marginalizes the report. The cleaner sentence that has been removed says, In 2001, a New York Times report stated that there was "growing consensus that Hiss, indeed, had most likely been a Soviet agent". Barron's write-up of his investigation is properly called a "report." The OED defines "report": NOUN: A spoken or written description of an event or situation, especially one intended for publication or broadcast in the media. VERB: Give a spoken or written account of something that one has observed, heard, done, or investigated. The report was published in the NYT. Ergo, it was reported in the NYT that [etc.].

No claim is made that the editorial board made the statement. However, the editors did publish it, which does, in fact, imply they concurred. But that's a moot point.

We could rearrange the words thusly: In 2001, a report in the New York Times stated that there was "growing consensus that Hiss, indeed, had most likely been a Soviet agent", which means exactly the same thing. Both statements are 100% true and verifiable, and do not reflect Barron's independent opinion, but the consensus of the academy, which he merely reported. Yopienso (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact that someone published something does not mean that they concur with the opinions expressed. See for example the Historical Dictionary of Journalism, p. 38. It has been "argued that bylines were first developed to make newspaper readers aware that the story they were reading was written by a specific individual with person biases and values."[2] Or in a book about Carl Sandburg, p. 13, bylines were given "to set off a writer's opinions from the official policies of the paper."[3] The term "growing consensus" is problematic. Either there is or there is not a consensus. I assume he means that belief in Hiss' guilt is approaching a consensus. But it is unencyclopedic to use a newspaper article for the state of academic opinion. Do you think for example that any of the scholars whose works are cited in this article would cite a reporter's opinion as an expert opinion on an academic subject? TFD (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

First you argue what I called a moot point. Then you demonstrate you don't understand "consensus" or how a consensus grows. Then you make a reasonable assertion and ask a reasonable question. My answer is, No. I myself prefer the Schrecker quote. Or Oshinsky's. Or Kutler's. Or even quotes from Weinstein, Haynes, or Klehr. Yopienso (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Barron's 13-year-old article (from 2001, when the NYT was very suspicious and even hostile to the internet) leaves the impression that the debate was still ongoing but that scholarly opinion leaned in the direction of Hiss's guilt. This strikes me as accurate reporting. A quick google search reveals that "a growing consensus" is a term that is used frequently, especially by those trying to "push" a consensus. 173.52.252.213 (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

For a long time, the compromise text in the lede was, "Some reliable sources have suggested that those who believe in Hiss's innocence are in the minority of scholarly opinion."[4] This compromise was the result of a year-long edit war over how we know what "most" historians believe. I don't see why we ever had to change it. Joegoodfriend (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, maybe because it's vague and understates what the sources it cites to actually say? Should be, "The academic consensus is that Hiss was most likely guilty." Yopienso (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The old compromise version is factually accurate. Your version, as long as it remains unsupported by data, is speculative. One more thing. The lede didn't used to say anything at all about who thinks Hiss was guilty. Agreeing to allow it at all was part of the compromise. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's accurate, in a mealy-mouthed way.

Please stop using the word "data," as it does not apply to the subject. My version is amply supported by the evidence as reported in the RSs. Look at footnote 2. (Why do I have to keep saying that?) Also at the footnote of your cherished version.

Yes, consensus can change at WP as well as in academia. It is inappropriate for WP to fail to reflect mainstream thought. Yopienso (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Your idea of "data" is "several sources have expressed this opinion, so the opinion is fact." Disagree. "consensus can change at WP." Yes, and on this subject it's taken the form of 6 to 12 month edit wars, followed by hard-won compromises, followed by new editors coming to the table and forcing everyone to re-argue everything from scratch. Thanks a lot. Joegoodfriend (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Please let's avoid using "data," which you previously limited to the results of scientific polls. Historians generally rely on evidence, and sometimes facts. But we're talking about consensus, for which we must rely on what historians say about themselves and the state of the field.

I was there. Whoops, shoulda signed this Yopienso (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yopienso, what exactly do you mean by "mealy-mouthed"? The fact that since 2001 at least four books with varying opinions have come out on the case (not to mention several lawsuits), would indicate that there is no consensus. 173.52.252.213 (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

By "mealy-mouthed" I mean the sentence says "Some reliable sources have suggested that those who believe in Hiss's innocence are in the minority of scholarly opinion." While true, the more straightforward statement would be, "The academic consensus is that Hiss was most likely guilty." Whoops, shoulda signed this as Yopienso (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, I did not insert a "personal" definition of "report" but a definition of "reportage" taken from dictionary.com. If you are interested, I have a collection of dictionaries here, and the OED (unabridged) defines the meaning of report as "gossip" (as used by Chaucer). Tsk, tsk. Consensus building. Civility. 18:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.252.213 (talk)

In the edit conflict, you missed that my post was addressed to Joe Gf, who denied Barron's report is a report. (Barron's opinion is not a "report.") Please do not digress into how Chaucer used the word; it's off-topic and unhelpful. Yopienso (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yopienso, you were the one who alleged that someone was trying to "trump" the OED. You obviously don't understand how the OED works. It is not a digression to bring that up. But it is a digression to avoid answering the question: 'What do you mean by "mealy mouthed?'. What do you mean by it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.252.213 (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Joe was trying to trump the OED by refusing to accept it's definition: The OED defines "report": NOUN: A spoken or written description of an event or situation, especially one intended for publication or broadcast in the media. VERB: Give a spoken or written account of something that one has observed, heard, done, or investigated. He categorically denied that what Barron wrote is a report. I do understand how the OED "works." It is a digression to introduce the way Chaucer used the word "report" into this discussion.

Please see my response above about what I meant by "mealy-mouthed." Sorry I forgot to sign it, which is probably the reason you missed it. I'm adding the sig and correct time stamp now. Yopienso (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yopienso, I did think you were accusing Mr. Barron, not the wiki article, of being "mealy-mouthed". I have to agree with Joe Goodfriend that Mr. Barron's news report is not the ultimate source, but I think it was accurate in that it was a qualified, rather than a dogmatic, statement. This is the very thing that you dislike about it, however. As I see it, there are scholars who have always been very vocal in their opinion that Hiss was guilty and allege there has been a vast liberal academic conspiracy -- a veritable tide of former New Deal supporters, whose ranks promote the damnable and heretical suspicion that Hiss might have been innocent. And that these pernicious liberals ought to be hounded out and shamed and punished, yea, stamped out unto the very last generation. And there is Ms Schrecker, who had come around, apparently, to admitting that there were more spies in FDR's gov. than she previously thought. And Ms. Jacobs Jacoby, who rightly objects to the bullying atmosphere deployed against anyone conveying the slightest hint of agnosticism. Meanwhile books continue to be published, demonstrating that there is no consensus at all. 173.52.252.213 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 173.52.252.213 (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, 173, I think we're both commenting here in good faith and can collegially discuss the question, which is whether we should revert to the version of the lede that mentioned a NYT report or if we should identify James Barron as its author. Another possibility is to completely rephrase the disputed sentence.

You misunderstand what I dislike. I dislike:

1. unnecessary clutter in the lede (i.e., naming a specific journalist) and
2. Joe's attempt to marginalize Barron's statement that there is (more precisely, there was in 2001) a growing consensus that Hiss was most likely a Soviet agent.

Barron reported:

"Bucking the trend of scholarship on the Hiss case in the 1990's -- a growing consensus that Hiss, indeed, had most likely been a Soviet agent -- the new site, homepages.nyu.edu/~th15, rises to his defense."

Barron also reported:

"So far his site has recorded more than 10,000 visits. 'It's the best defense mustered of Hiss by the dwindling band of those who believe in Hiss,' said David Greenberg, a historian at Columbia University who is working on a book about Nixon and his place in American culture.

"'I don't think anyone is going to treat this site as the repository of truth, except for those who have already made up their minds that Hiss was innocent,' Mr. Greenberg added."

I totally agree with Barron. Yopienso (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@ 173, wrt to your statement, "The fact that since 2001 at least four books with varying opinions have come out on the case (not to mention several lawsuits), would indicate that there is no consensus."

I missed the titles of those books and the parties to the lawsuits. Can you please provide them? Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 22:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The lawsuits were initiated by Vassiliev. He lost all of them in a court of law. The books were by Klehr, Jacoby, Tony Hiss, Lewis Hartshorn, and there is one more whose author and title I forget, published in Belgium. Not to mention Kai Bird and Svetlana Chervonnaya, "The Mystery of Ales (expanded version)," The American Scholar, Summer 2007, which I guess is not a book but which created a considerable stir. Books by Lowenthal and Bruce Craig (whom I gather thinks Hiss was guilty) are forthcoming. All of these, except the Belgian one, are mentioned in our article. If there were a consensus there would not be so much activity. 173.52.252.213 (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Vassiliev lost all two of his lawsuits, which are irrelevant to the topic.

You seem to be misinformed on the content of the books.

• Klehr believes Hiss was a spy.
• Jacoby believes Hiss was a spy.
• Bird and Chervonnaya acknowledge that most historians think Hiss was a spy.

Tony Hiss does argue that his father was innocent; see Barron's (and Prof. Greenberg's) take on that.

Lewis Hartshorn is not a scholar; the publisher's blurb calls his book a "a consensus challenging history." Hmmm.

Lowenthal died over 10 years ago.

The existence of a consensus does not preclude passionate activity against it. See, for example, Global warming controversy. Regards, Yopienso (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I did not mean Lowenthal, but Jeff Kisseloff. Here we go again -- Of course if you are going to only consider Harvey Klehr, Allen Weinstein, and Vassiliev to be bonafide scholars, that does narrow the field. By that criterion you should consign James Barron and Sam Tanenhaus, mere reporters, to the trash. Daniel Moynihan, how does he qualify as a scholar? Kai Bird? Haynes, a librarian, is he a scholar? And so it goes. Pulitzer Prize? Forget it. The only scholars are those Yopienso thinks are scholars. Because they think as he (or she) does. 173.52.252.213 (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me for not remembering you said four books with varying opinions; I was responding under the impression you were citing all the books as arguments for Hiss's innocence. Can you see the consensus now?

I eliminated only Hartshorn as not a scholar. Please tell me what you think of his credentials.

I am entreatable and prefer you not ascribe to me thoughts that I've never had, as in your last two sentences. Thanks. Yopienso 00:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you guys trying to weigh "consensus" by just counting all the authors you can find? That violates Wikipedia:No_original_research. Joegoodfriend (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I wondered the same about 173. As I told you above, "But we're talking about consensus, for which we must rely on what historians say about themselves and the state of the field." They are crystal clear on this point: the consensus is that Hiss was a spy. Consensus does not imply unanimity. Yopienso (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yopienso, there is nothing dishonorable whatsoever in being an independent scholar. On the contrary. It is sometimes more reputable than being a credentialed, paid, think-tank shill. Hartshorn's book was considered good enough for a reputable publisher to publish it. And that is good enough for wikipedia and good enough for me. (I have not read the book and so cannot judge whether it was good or bad). Joe, all I am saying is that opinions vary. And they will probably still vary after Craig and Kisseloff's new books are published. As long as that is so, one cannot say that agreement (consensus) has been reached. One can only say, so-and-so thinks this and so-and-so thinks that. 173.52.252.213 (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Not at all dishonorable; just outside the academy. Your attack on academicians is not helpful. You apparently do not understand consensus, so please stand down on the topic. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Bad comparison. It is not possible to argue that global warming is not real and pass peer review. Global warming sceptics chanllenge specific conclusions of mainstream science, then their conclusions are magnified in popular media. For example, a sceptic may write a paper claiming that sunstorms cause 0.1% of global warming. Then the echo chamber publishes "Global warming may be caused by sunspots."

In this case all the evidence presented came from someone who claimed to be a Soviet spy and lied under oath, coming 10 years after the event. That does not mean he was not telling the truth, but it does make his credibility questionable.

Once the US and Russian intelligence services release their files, a consensus will grow tout suite, and only conspiracy theorists will continue to argue Hiss was/was not guilty.

TFD (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, Yopienseo, I didn't have any "academic" historian in mind, but now that you mention it, the Hoover Institute is a prime example of a nest of shills and bought-and-paid-for ideologues. The deplorable Kennedy Institute comes in a close second. 173.52.252.213 (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

"Talk is bogged down." Not at all. You just haven't gotten the editors to agree with you. Please do not change the lede without getting consensus. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• Sure it's bogged down. First, you disputed what a "report" is. Then we got off into discussing academic consensus. Look at TFD's last comment; it has nothing to do with naming or not naming Barron in the lede. Now the IP's gotten into first general and then specific attacks on academicians.
• I don't mind you reverting my good-faith bold edit. I do mind you calling it vandalism, though. Please apologize for that.
• IP, can you please tell us your opinion about naming Barron (and Summers, while we're at it) in the lede? I haven't been able to find it in the bog. Thanks. Yopienso (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why the names of James Barron and Anthony Summers need be omitted. They are both serious, careful, and interesting writers. I suggest removing the footnote reference to Ron Rosenbaum's rather ephemeral piece from Slate, if you must remove something. It doesn't add much at this late date. 173.52.252.213 (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It would be constructive if you would care to comment below at the RfC. Yopienso (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

So the editors spend months hammering out a consensus on the lede. You propose to change it and everyone commenting disagrees. So you go ahead and change it any way. And you want an apology for me? That'll be the day. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:VAN. Yopienso (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Joegoodfriend, you seem to have a different definition for "consensus" at WP than you apply to the academic consensus wrt Hiss; there has never been a 100% agreement about the wording in the lede. I did not propose the change, I merely brought it to talk. CJK initially made the change on Feb. 24 and was quickly reverted by 173 on the grounds, "no reason given for these changes." I restored CJK's, giving as a reason for the changes, "Rmv unnecessary detail in lede, which is still preserved in the notes. Agree edit summaries should be made!" My edit stood for six days through four subsequent edits, including one that tweaked that very sentence, until you reverted it on March 2. Those six days and edits indicate consensus, which you took upon yourself to overturn.

I've made clear that I respect the editing process at WP. As I already said, I want an apology from you, not for reverting my edit, but for calling it vandalism. Policy: Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Yopienso (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I should make clear that I recognize the current consensus, which is different from the one from Feb. 25-Mar. 2. I am not opposing that, but addressing your behavior. Yopienso (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This is all "Monday morning quarterbacking." The editors have not agreed to changing the lede. I'm sorry you feel you've been treated unfairly. The discussion is over. Joegoodfriend (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Yes, it was libel

Like I said before, and I quote "It is about there being tangible evidence - a newspaper, a recording, television documentary. If there had been a recording of the radio programme, then it would be a different matter. However, compulsory (by law) routine recording or aired programmes to be kept for a period determined by the regulator came only much later. So if this was on radio it would not be libel, as I have been saying all along. So it turns out that this was not on radio, but on television. Meet the Press migrated from radio to television in 1947, the Chambers-Hiss incident was in 1948. Television programmes were recorded for a number of reasons - either because they were not broadcast live; for archival material for rebroadcasts etc. If I am not mistaken, this is an excerpt of the programme in question. I can't subscribe to view the whole video, keep getting an error. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Slander v libel

An editor has changed the statement that Hiss sued Chambers for "libel" with "defamation", saying "Libel is in the form of the written or pictures; if this was on radio, cannot be libel."[5] He then provided the Libel#Types as a source.

However, the sources, both early and recent, all use the term "libel." See for example "The Hiss-Chambers Libel Suit" in the Maryland Law Review.[6] See also "Defamation Law - Guide to Libel and Slander Law" from HG.org, a network of U.S. lawyers: "Libel is defamatory statements and/or pictures published in print or writing; or broadcast in the media, such as over the radio, on TV or in film."[7] The distinction could determine such things as limitiation period for filing, proofs required and the extent of damages.

TFD (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so you come here to get the opinion of others and you illustrate different possibilities, as the rules of good cooperation would have us do. Thanks for that. However, first your knee-jerk solution was to revert - before asking for opinions, which tells me you are determined to have it your way. So please do. You totally miss the point that defamation is always correct, it cover libel, slander, crimen injuria, etc. So you are replacing a term that can never be wrong for one that is specific to certain contexts - libel is always defamation, defamation is not alwys libel. It is about there being tangible evidence - a newspaper, a recording, television documentary. If there had been a recording of the radio programme, then it would be a different matter. However, compulsory (by law) routine recording or aired programmes to be kept for a period determined by the regulator came only much later. It certainly was not around when this happened. The distinction is not always made in popular discourse, but if you consult legal dictionaries you will see. Therefore newspapers for mass consumption will often use the term most common with the public, even if wrong. It is like the thousands of newspaper articles about "the common cold". Any health authority will tell you that there is no such thing. But, what do I know. I have only worked for 15 years with freedom of expression, freedom of the press/ media, working with such organisations as Article 19, Open Society, IFEX, PEN International,UNESCO, etc.. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Everyone wins. "This case is a private civil suit for alleged slander and libel." Hiss v. Chambers, 8 F.R.D. 489 (D. Md. Dec. 28, 1948) (Chesnut, J.). Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That is part of an interim order by the federal judge hearing Hiss' civil suit. It would be helpful to have a copy of the statement of claim, so we could see which elements of statute and common law Hiss used. I am not versed in U.S. defamation law as it stood in 1948, which is when the suit was filed. The current U.S. code provides a definition of defamation only. Here however is link to Ontario's "Libel and Slander Act." It says, "Defamatory words in a newspaper or in a broadcast shall be deemed to be published and to constitute libel." Did federal U.S. law in 1948 have a similar definition?

Was it possible at the time to sue for slander in a federal court, or did it come under state jurisdiction? Did Hiss make a claim for slander? If so, did the allegations if true constitute slander or were they libel? Were the damages claimed consistent with slander or libel? Had Hiss failed to prove libel, could he have sued for slander? Were there separate procedures (such as limitations) that would have allowed a libel case, but precluded a slander case? Would calling someone a Communist Party member constitute libel but not slander? These are all issues that we expect secondary sources to resolve.

The fact is that the overwhelming majority of reliable sources use the term libel in relation to the suit, not slander or defamation. It seems that rather than resolving these issues ourselves, we just go with what reliable high quality secondary say.

Contrary to what "Rui Gabriel Correia" writes, mass media are more likely than academic sources to refer to the claim as "slander", which is "term most common with the public, even if wrong." The source I presented was from Hiss's lawyer, William Marbury, and published in a law journal. Presumably he would be in a position to know whether or not the claim was for alleged libel.

TFD (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I had hoped you would comment also on the fact that the term "defamation" already covers "libel". Calling it "defamation" resolves the issue, whereas it does not detract one iota from the content of the text. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we need a reason to use a broader term when a more precise term is available. We would do not say for example that Hiss sued Chambers for a tort or civil wrong, although it is correct. We do not describe Obama as "an elected official," but as president, which is a type of elected official. The policy we should follow is WP:WEIGHT - use the description that reliable sources normally do. I do not know why the sources choose to use the term libel rather than defamation. It could be that they wanted to highlight the distinction with slander. For example, it could be they could not sue for slander in federal court, or had to file earlier for libel or would receive higher damages for libel. But our role is not to question what reliable sources say, but to rely on them for the most accurate and precise information possible.

Your original objection was that "Libel is in the form of the written or pictures; if this was on radio, cannot be libel." IOW you thought that the use of the term libel was incorrect. Since your original objection was wrong, you need to provide another reason to use the term "defamation", which you have not done. Why should we depart from the description normally provided in reliable sources?

TFD (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Some of the sources, such as the article by William Marbury cited above, say "libel" (this is a highly authoritative source as Marbury was Hiss's lawyer in the civil action). Other sources, such as Perjury by Allen Weinstein, say "slander" (this too is a highly regarded source with strong foundations in the archival documents).

There were actually two suits, which were consolidated, one of which dealt with the radio program and the second with another oral statement Hiss made. None of the sources I've come across parse things this finely, but it's quite possible the first case (the radio show) alleged libel, and the second slander; when they were consolidated the case because a suit for both slander and libel. Equally possible is that the original complaint alleged libel and slander in the alternative, which is what many careful lawyers would do out of an abundance of caution if the question of which defamation tort would apply to a radio broadcast was not authoritatively settled under Maryland law in 1948. (Slander and libel are state-law torts; the case was in federal court under diversity jurisdiction because Hiss and Chambers were citizens of different states.)

I think the quotation from the court opinion that I located is sufficient for our current purposes, but if people think the point material, I will arrange to pull the original complaint from the National Archives and we can all take a look at what tort was alleged—except that someone will probably accuse me of "original research" if I do so.

All that said, this disagreement is of purely secondary and pedantic importance. The importance of the distinctions between "slander", "libel", and the broader term "defamation" that indeed covers both, in the context of this article, can be regarded only as slight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, Newyorkbrad. I am getting the feeling that they had a more liberal (loose) attitude towards the use of the terminology back then. FWIIW, the university of Missouri-Kansas City says "slander" is this archival chronology of Hiss's life. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

See the Maryland Tort Law Handbook, §6.5 "Libel": "Defamatory matter spoken in or on television, motion pictures, tape recordings, radio and the like is libelous rather than slanderous."[8] "Libel" is more precise than defamation, it is more serious than libel, most sources, including those most likely to be familiar with Maryland tort law (including Hiss's lawyer) call it "libel", and legal sources say that actions in Maryland for words spoken on television are libel, not slander. While I appreciate that some if not most people may think that spoken defamatory words are and only can be slander, that is no reason to change "libel" to "defamation."

Newyorkbrad. Thanks. It would be interesting to see the original complaint. However it could be seen as OR. It sometimes happens that the basis of a claim is misstated. For example, an action to collect on a foreign judgment may be phrased as suing on a judgment, which is a specialty debt, when in fact it is an action on a simple debt. If the case is dismissed for nul tiel record then we would say it was an action on a judgment. But if the judge made an award, then we would say it was an action on a debt. For example in Walker v. Witter (1778), cited in Hilton v. Guyot, Lord Mansfield wrote, "The [defendant's] plea of nul tiel record was improper. Though the plaintiffs had called the judgment a record, yet, by the additional words in the declaration, it was clear they did not mean that sort of record to which implicit faith is given by the courts of Westminster Hall."

TFD (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) This is getting truly esoteric. Either "libel" or "defamation" works fine in this article and the distinction between them will not be important to one in one hundred thousand readers. Although off-point, TFD, your analogy employs medieval or archaic legal concepts and terminology and is therefore difficult to follow. I have been a practicing litigation attorney for 27 years and for a practitioner am extremely well-versed in legal history, yet I have never once encountered the term "nul tiel record," nor any distinction between a "specialty debt" and a "simple debt." Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I suppose they are terms no longer used in U.S. law but continue in other common law jurisdictions, particularly in cases involving statute of limitations defenses. See for example the Limitation Act 1980, s. 8.[9] A specialty is a record such as a deed or court judgment. Nul tiel record is a defense that the document required to prove the case is not a valid record.

I still do not see why since we know Hiss sued for libel and not slander, and most sources say that, we should say defamation instead.

TFD (talk) 02:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that link on British limitations law. Who says Wikipedia isn't educational? Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The State of Maryland also still keeps much of the wording of the English limitation law. See § 5-102. Specialties.[10] TFD (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad writes above: Some of the sources, such as the article by William Marbury cited above, say "libel" (this is a highly authoritative source as Marbury was Hiss's lawyer in the civil action). Other sources, such as Perjury by Allen Weinstein, say "slander" (this too is a highly regarded source with strong foundations in the archival documents).

It is because of inveterate sloppiness such as this, that Allen Weinstein's work is not highly regarded by some other historians. Bruce Craig, for example, thinks it ought to be relegated to the garbage. Libel is the term of art.108.54.227.81 (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)