" 

 == Summarizing the problems identified so far == 

 1. There is no source for the claim that Chambers had previously denied under oath that Hiss was a spy. Moreover, this is misleading considering the fact that Chambers identified Hiss as a secret Communist back in 1939. 

 2. Lead fails to make clear the important nature of the evidence against Hiss (the notes in particular), and the consensus against Hiss. 

 3. No source is provided for the claim that Hiss's work at Yalta was confined to the U.N. 

 4. The testimony of Bullit and Weyl seems unimportant to the case against Hiss. 

 5. Nixon is quoted out of context regarding how he handled in the investigation, which was not about convicting Hiss in court. Taped evidence that Nixon believed that Hiss and Chambers were Communists is ignored. 

 6. No sources are provided for the following POV pushing: Unlike the FBI, Military Intelligence had extensive experience forging typed documents, since every agent behind enemy lines during World War II required phony documentation to support his cover story. Moreover, with its special agent initiating the search for Hiss's typewriter while disguised as Chief Investigator for the Hiss defense, Military Intelligence could have planted forged evidence without arousing suspicion. Thus, the judges' reasons for disregarding forensic evidence of forgery do not apply to Military Intelligence. In the future, some of the misconduct previously attributed to the FBI by Hiss and his defenders may turn out to have been the work of Army counterintelligence. 

 7. Kobyakov is quoted as saying that Hiss never had a relationship with SVR predecessor organizations. This is fundamentally misleading to the reader because Hiss was accused of being with the GRU.  

 8. The statement In 2007, Svetlana Chervonnaya, a Russian researcher who had been studying Soviet archives since the early 1990s, stated that Hiss' name was absent from Soviet archives. is false. She said that the documents that she reviewed (mainly ""publicly accessible files"") do not show Hiss's name. 

 9. The section on Noel Field fundamentally misleads the reader by not mentioning the fact that Field was not being tortured and was in fact being ""rehabilitated"" at the time he implicated Hiss. In 1957, Field personally wrote Hiss a letter affirming his belief in the latter's innocence is POV pushing in the extreme considering that if Field was a Communist in league with Hiss he would never have admitted it on paper. Also ignores the fact he chose to remain in Communist Hungary for the rest of his life.  

 10. There is no business for giving Hiss's lawyer so much space on Venona, especially when much of his argument was discredited back in 2005.  

 11. The section on Oleg Gordievsky is unclear whether he got the information about Hiss from Venona or just the codename ALES.  

 12. Guttenplan admits he is not a scholar of the Hiss-Chambers case, rendering his speculations quite irrelevant considering the widespread acceptance of the notes.  

 13. The use of Kisseloff violates Wikipedia policy regarding self-published sources. 

 14. Non-existent ""other historians"" are used to push original research.  

   "