Talk:Joseph McCarthy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joseph McCarthy article.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Peer review Joseph McCarthy has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is part of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin.
Joseph McCarthy is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, which collaborates on the United States Congress and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, visit the project page for more information.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Joseph McCarthy as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Swedish language Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives








Contents

[edit] Right Wing Authors

Over the next couple days I will try to add the Adjective "Left Wing" to journalist and authors included in the article where appropriate, so that people know who attacked and still attacks McCarthy.Mantion 06:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Debate over. (not)

For months I have been pointing out obvious flaws in the entire article. I have tried to Fix the lead. I will be removing the bias that currently exist. The article will be based on facts about the man and not attacks made by people appose to the man. I will start with the lead and go from there. If you have a problem with my changes you are free to DISCUSS THEM. I suggest that you review previous archives before commenting on changes. I am not going to repeat myself anymore and have my points ignored.Mantion 06:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


Hey, Mantion. Looks like you finally had a chance to get to the library. Were you able to verify regalseagull's famous claim: "Almost EVERY SINGLE charge he [McCarthy] made has been verified!"? If we can evidence that from reliable sources, alteration in the lead would certainly be called for. I was also wondering about your thoughts about getting Arthur Herman's perspective into the article.—DCGeist 07:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Whoa! What happened there, Mantion? I thought we were about to make some real progress...but then there's this assault on the lead that hardly seems aimed at composing an inviting, accessible introduction to the subject and his significance. What got into you? Calling Herblock "left wing"? He's about as middle-of-the-road as they come...maybe slightly liberal from today's perspective, but still...have you ever read a single historian or any sort of scholar who called old Herblock "left wing"? A lot of the changes you made were also completely ungrammatical--it's like you lost your temper all of a sudden and started making edits without really thinking them through...let alone discussing them. I thought you were going to report the fruits of your research, so we could figure out how best to bring in well-sourced, fact-based alternative perspectives into the article. What happened with that? The quote from the Milwaukee Journal, by the way, is great, and certainly has a place in the article in discussing reactions to McCarthy's death, but it's not really authoritative enough to center the lead around, is it? I'm also totally in favor of referencing Herman, but I think it can be done much more powerfully in the body of the article. For instance, you cited him to support the statement that McCarthy "continued to speak out against communist but was largely ignored"--the statement's not controversial, but the transcript of Herman's interview doesn't actually give a basis for it. Anyway, there are things that Herman has stated explicitly that may well be worth quoting directly.—DCGeist 09:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


Mantion, I support your efforts to bring true fairness to this article. I once posted Buckley's book from the 1950's as a source and someone removed it!! That is a key source for this article yet someone didn't want that listed. I guess showing McCarthy was correct was a problem for that "editor". Anyway, do you have a copy of the executive sessions of McCarthy's committee? Because I have it in PDF format and would glady send it your way if you want it. I'm looking for the Public sessions on-line but have had no luck. If anyone has those sessions, I would appreciate getting a copy in some format. Again, I hope you can get the job done on this article. Let me know if I can help in some way. Jtpaladin 01:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Jtpaladin. You certainly sound like a man on a mission. When you talk about getting "the job done" on the article, what exactly is the "job" you've got on your agenda? Is it too much to hope that it's supplying the evidence that the charges that made McCarthy one of the best-known political figures in American history were actually supported by the facts? If it is, I must say I'm very excited. Can you please provide us with your well-researched sources that demonstrate that McCarthy was, as you put it, "correct" in his accusations? That'd be great. We can finally get this vital, fact-based information into the article! Indeed, "true fairness," no less or more, is what we're asking for. All the best, comrade.—DCGeist 01:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, DCGeist. I'm on a mission but it's only in hoping others can fix the issues with this article that it needs. I simply don't have the time and, all my best materials are locked in storage because of a recent move. But you don't have to look far for the answers. Alot of the material is listed. You simply have to look at what was said and what the facts are, even though in some cases, it has taken years for the clarification. The article lists a number of people who the Senator mentioned and the fact that were identified at one point or another as security risks. The reality that security risks existed in the U.S. govt. is not a novel question. It's a fact. It has been firmly established by various sources. Surely you don't question that much? Buckley's book from the 1950's has many of the facts in question. When I first came to this article, oddly enough that book wasn't even listed as a source!! Odd, that it wouldn't be, don't you think? Certainly a well documented book by a well known author and intellectual couldn't possibly have been mistakenly overlooked? Could it? Even after I listed it, some devious comrade in his agenda to deception, decided to remove it. Proving once again to what level enemies of the truth are willing to stoop to maintain a vicious and deceitful perspective of the Senator. So please, do not feign a desire to document the facts when such clear verifications to the truth are eliminated with the click of a mouse button. Or, perhaps I'm wrong and I've missed your outrage at such dereliction of duty to honesty. Clearly, I don't know you or your intentions but your initial communication to me in such a delightful and witty style only serves to alert one to skepticism or perhaps even malice in your intentions regarding the truth of the Senator's profile. Of course, in a gesture of optimism, courtesy, and even intelluctual obligation, I will assume that your interest is nothing more or even less than documenting the truth that such a critical profile so dearly requires. So, I too, wish you all the best and success with this endeavor. Jtpaladin 20:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Jtpaladin, when you get your copy of Buckley's "McCarthy and His Enemies" out of storage, you might want to try reading it. You'll see that its premise (made at excruciatingly tedious length) is that yes, there were security risks in the State Department, but that McCarthy lied about his lists of "card carrying Communists" (Buckley, in an attempt to apologize for McCarthy, calls it "an egregious blunder" as if it was an accident), that McCarthy "deserves to be censured" (this in reference to acts long before the Army-McCarthy hearings), that he "smeared Drew Pearson", that some of his charges "had no apparent foundation whatever", that he "was "guilty of a number of exaggerations, some of them reckless", some of them "reprehensible."
Is this the book that shows that "McCarthy was right", and whose alleged removal as a reference was such an deceitful act of "enemies of the truth"? You've been waving this book around like McCarthy waving around one of his lists, hoping that the act of waving it around and proclaiming that it held some momentous "truth" would be sufficient to impress your audience. But like McCarthy with his lists, it doesn't say what you claim it says. KarlBunker 22:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Karl, I have the 1995 version of the book in hand. Give me the page numbers of those quotes and let me look at them in context. Nevertheless, you still ignore the reality of that book being deleted on purpose from the list of sources. I would very much enjoy you addressing that at your earliest opportunity. Jtpaladin 21:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Jtpaladin, I don't know or particularly care when or if that book was removed from the list of references. I'm not personally responsible for every edit in the history of this article. The fact is it doesn't matter, because this book isn't considered a particularly important source by McCarthy scholars. It was originally written in 1953, and no one since then has pointed to this book and said "well, I guess that wraps up all the debate about McCarthy, because the whole truth is right there in Buckley's book." Even Arthur Herman, in his arch-conservitive biography of McCarthy, only cites McCarthy and His Enemies 7 times out of roughly 700 references. Rather, most scholars seem to agree with Richard Rovere when he called the book "a masterpiece of irrelevance."
As for the page numbers of the quotes I mentioned, I don't have them. I didn't take notes when I read the book, and I got those particular quotes from here (note that the source of this article is National Review; the conservative magazine founded by Buckley). If you skim the book yourself, you'll see that it contains a great many criticisms of McCarthy. I can tell you that the Rovere quote I give above is repeated by Buckley in his 1995 preface to the book, on page viii. KarlBunker 23:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Karl, I guess you missed the point that I made which was that a book relevant to this topic was removed because it supported McCarthy. And there's no way I would call Herman's book "arch-conservative" either. I have read Buckley's book and although there are reasonable criticisms, Buckley still points out that the Senator was basically correct, more so than his contemporaries who did much to discourage his work. I appreciate you posting the article reviewing Buckley's book but it was not helpful in putting those few words in their proper context. I'm eagerly awaiting the upcoming McCarthy book to be released in 2007 written by M. Stanton Evans. Jtpaladin 01:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Jtp. I'm sorry for the way my hermetic sense of humor got in the way of my being clearly understood. Your latest message raises a number of questions that I, and I'm sure many others, are very interested in getting the answers to...so I'll try to phrase them as clearly and straightforwardly as possible:
  • When you say that Buckley's book "was removed because it supported McCarthy," how do you know that? Could you provide the date of the edit that removed it, so we can at least determine what editor did that and if he or she explained the decision in the edit summary?
  • When you say that Buckley establishes that McCarthy "was basically correct," does that mean that he shows McCarthy was basically correct about one of his most famous charges, made in February 1950, that there were 57 known Communists working at the State Department? Who does Buckley say they were (or, whatever the "basically correct" number would be--who 50 of them were)?
  • When you say that Buckley establishes that McCarthy "was basically correct," does that mean that he shows McCarthy was basically correct about another of his most famous charges, made later in February 1950, that there were in fact 81 known Communists working at the State Department? Who does Buckley say the additional 24 (or, let's say 20) were?
  • When you say that Buckley establishes that McCarthy "was basically correct," does that mean that he shows McCarthy was basically correct about another of his most famous series of charges, those he made against Dorothy Kenyon, Esther and Stephen Brunauer, Haldore Hanson, Gustavo Duran, Owen Lattimore, Harlow Shapley, Frederick Schuman, John S. Service and Philip Jessup at the Tydings Committee hearings? I don't expect you to go into detail on each case at the moment--just let us know how many of those ten American citizens Buckley adduces evidence against that demonstrates McCarthy was basically correct in their case. Could you provide page numbers, please?
  • When you say that Buckley's book "was removed because it supported McCarthy," how do you know that?
  • When you say that Buckley establishes that McCarthy "was basically correct," does that mean that he shows McCarthy was basically correct about another of his most famous charges, that diplomat John P. Davies had attempted to "put Communists and espionage agents in key spots in the Central Intelligence Agency"? What evidence does Buckley adduce?
  • If Buckley does not, in fact, show that McCarthy was "basically correct" about his most famous charges, how does he define what McCarthy was truly saying and demonstrate that he was "basically correct" about it and that his critics were, I assume, basically incorrect?
Thanks very much. I'm sure the answers to those six questions will go a long way toward making the article truly fair. Best, Dan—DCGeist 10:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
DCGeist, I have answers for all your questions but as I mentioned to Karl above, I'm going to help update this article in 2007 after Evans' book is released. I have lots of info but very few footnotes to go with them. I hate when people post info without citations so I don't want to be accused of the same thing. If you will be patient with me until that time, I promise to answer all your questions. Otherwise, if you don't need citations now, I can do my best to answer your questions without footnotes.
  • When you say that Buckley's book "was removed because it supported McCarthy," how do you know that?
Simply because if your read the book, it takes every allegation that McCarthy made up until the book was published and compared it with the record. Buckley found McCarthy's statements on the whole accurate, considering that he did not have the benefit of the F.B.I. and the Venona documents to back him up.
  • Could you provide the date of the edit that removed it, so we can at least determine what editor did that and if he or she explained the decision in the edit summary?
I'm not as good as searching my way through background history than perhaps you might be. All I can say is that I added it as a source in the appropriate section and it was subsequently removed.
  • When you say that Buckley's book "was removed because it supported McCarthy," how do you know that?
Process of elimination. Why remove a book that was essential reading for understanding what McCarthy said and what he did not say? Why else would someone remove such a valuable book?
  • When you say that Buckley establishes that McCarthy "was basically correct," does that mean that he shows McCarthy was basically correct about one of his most famous charges, made in February 1950, that there were 57 known Communists working at the State Department? Who does Buckley say they were (or, whatever the "basically correct" number would be--who 50 of them were)?
Let me quote James Drummey on the question of numbers: In the Wheeling speech, McCarthy referred to a letter that Secretary of State James Byrnes sent to Congressman Adolph Sabath in 1946. In that letter, Byrnes said that State Department security investigators had declared 284 persons unfit to hold jobs in the department because of communist connections and other reasons, but that only 79 had been discharged, leaving 205 still on the State Department's payroll. McCarthy told his Wheeling audience that while he did not have the names of the 205 mentioned in the Byrnes letter, he did have the names of 57 who were either members of or loyal to the Communist Party. On February 20, 1950, McCarthy gave the Senate information about 81 individuals - the 57 referred to at Wheeling and 24 others of less importance and about whom the evidence was less conclusive.
  • When you say that Buckley establishes that McCarthy "was basically correct," does that mean that he shows McCarthy was basically correct about another of his most famous series of charges, those he made against Dorothy Kenyon, Esther and Stephen Brunauer, Haldore Hanson, Gustavo Duran, Owen Lattimore, Harlow Shapley, Frederick Schuman, John S. Service and Philip Jessup at the Tydings Committee hearings? I don't expect you to go into detail on each case at the moment--just let us know how many of those ten American citizens Buckley adduces evidence against that demonstrates McCarthy was basically correct in their case. Could you provide page numbers, please?
That's pretty detailed stuff and some of your answers I believe are on the website article. I'll better answer that when I get more of my notes and documents in 2007. As for the Tydings Committee, let me respond by using the conclusion reached by Buckley: "The Committee's hearings and its Report demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the Tydings Committee - determined from the first to vindicate the State Department - consciously set out to destroy McCarthy and make of him an example for all who, in the future, might feel tempted to agree that the Democratic Administration was jeopardizing the national security by harboring loyalty and security risks in sensitive agencies." That is the essence of the attacks on McCarthy. First, under the Democrat Administration and then under the Republican Administration.
There's a lot of great info in that book and would love to get into greater detail but time and resources are limited and would like to do greater service to your inquiries when I have all my sources. Thank you for taking the time to discuss these issues with me. Jtpaladin 15:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Jtpaladin, I took a few minutes and found the edit where your addition of Buckley's book was reverted. See here. I removed it in the process of reverting an edit of yours that violated WP:NPOV, WP:Reliable sources and WP:Copyright violations. Removing the Buckley book was an unintended bit of collateral damage, but not an important one, since, as I've pointed out above, this book is not considered an important reference by McCarthy scholars.

As for the rest of your response, citing valid sources is indeed a requirement for the article. When one evades that requirement, as you do in your response, it allows you to quote the misinformation and opinions of a John Birch Society writer (James Drummey), to use your own language to present the "conclusions" of William Buckley, and to give other misrepresentations, opinions and evasions when you've been asked for facts. KarlBunker 17:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "dwarfs" vs. "dwarves"

In Joseph_McCarthy#Censure_and_the_Watkins_Committee the direct quotation "Snow White and the 6 dwarves" was recently changed to "Snow White and the 7 dwarfs."

The statement needs a citation. Without a citation it is difficult to be sure what spelling was actually used. Since this is a direct quotation, it should use whatever spelling was used in the media or by McCarthy at the time.

The edit comment "this was presumably before Tolkien invaded the English language" is silly, as both "dwarfs" and "dwarves" are legitimate U. S. usage today according to the American Heritage Dictionary, and I am reasonably sure they were in the 1950s as well. It is not possible to guess which spelling was used, nor is it proper. The source should be cited, and the spelling used in the article should accurately reflect the spelling that was actually used in the source. If the source says "dwarves" and if someone has good reason to believe this usage was incorrect, the proper action is to change it to "dwarves[sic]," not to falsify the direct quotation.

Of course, if the original source says "dwarfs," so should the direct quotation. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the source I found and cited, it was indeed "dwarfs." KarlBunker 22:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evil

I agree - he was, simply put, a scummy witchhunter who deserved to be tried for crimes against humanity (violating the right of a person not to be persecuted or accused of actions on a whim).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.110.109.214 (talk • contribs) 12:51, December 5, 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this page is for discussing improvements to the Joseph McCarthy article, it is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. KarlBunker 15:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Karl, thanks for your comments. My understanding is that what SENSAY911 said is vandalism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism. If so, should those remarks be removed? If you're not sure, let me know and I'll either remove the comments myself citing vandalism or ask an Administrator to handle it. Thank you for your help. Jtpaladin 16:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Jtpaladin, SENSAY911's comments obviously aren't vandalism. Some might characterize them as trolling; but then, some might say the same about your comments on this page. KarlBunker 16:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/s/Talk%7EJoseph_McCarthy_3272.html"