Talk:G. David Schine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Cohn rumor

Wasn't he Roy Cohn's lover in the 1950s?

Doubtful--the rumor made for good gossip, but in actuality it's very unlikely. Read the G. David Schine and Army-McCarthy Hearings articles for details.

[edit] Disputed: weasel words

This article seems somewhat subjective and written by someone with a vested or bias stance. Please see the following items which appear to be subjective:

"Schine and Cohn have long been suspected by historians and gossip mongers as having had an alleged sexual association, although there has never been any conclusive proof and it is 'in direct contradiction to Schine's early reputation as a wealthy playboy, contrary to his actual dating life during the same period, and again would seem contradictory to what Schine did soon after departing from McCarthy and company."

This entire section is in dispute. There are no citations, and appears to be moving the reader in a specific direction.

"Based on all the known facts, it was most probably never more than a friendship, in spite of all the attention brought to the topic." http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png Your signature with timestamp Based on what facts? Where is the citation?

"By today's standards, the whole question seems somewhat inconsequential, even if it were true, and ironically it would be considered politically incorrect, perhaps even unlawful, to have pursued the issue in the same manner."

This whole sentence is completely irrelevant and lack objectivity.

All issues above have been addressed and the article has been edited accordingly. Wikipikiliki 04:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Wikipikiliki edits

Re. [1]: the fact that "a reference... cannot be found online" is not a valid complaint. Printed references are specifically preferred by WP:Attribution guidelines.
Re. [2]: The content added here represents a view that is not shared by any notable scholar in the field. It comes from an extremist right-wing website, a type of source specifically discouraged by WP:Attribution#Using questionable or self-published sources.
Re. [3]: The Army-McCarthy hearings found no wrongdoing on the part of the Army, Adams or Stevens with regard to the issue of Schine. There were complaints about the Army's handling of security issues, but these findings were unrelated to Schine. If these other findings of the hearings are going to be mentioned, the fact that they had nothing to do with Schine has to be made clear.
RedSpruce 13:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


Re. [4]: the link to http://catalog.loc.gov/ doesn't function as a link to the book itself; the Library of Congress site doesn't allow URLs to link to the entry for a particular book.
Re. [5] "See for example" serves to indicate that the same information is available from many other sources.
Re. [6]: repeating the almost universally discredited word of "McCarthy's researchers" without a counter opinion from a contemporary scholar is POV.
Re. [7]: considering that this is in the context of alleged homosexuality on Cohn and Schine's part, it is not in the least "irrelevant."
Re. [8]: There is nothing in the least "ambiguous" about the footnote removed.
Re. [9] The added information is not irrelevant to Schine, since it stands as the primary reason for his fame; the reason why he has a Wikipedia article.
RedSpruce 14:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

RedSpruce, I am noticing a pattern of apparent bias--you are quickly reversing some edits that are incidental or grammatical corrections, keeping out things that are a simple reporting of relevant facts and undisputed, yet trying to assert things which aren't especially relevant to this article, and essentially blocking a natural progression of this article. Perhaps you should stop editing this article from this point and let others handle it who have a more open mind and can present a better article. This is supposed to be an article about Schine, not strictly a summary of his brief affiliation with McCarthy with details that belong in the existing separate articles for McCarthy, Cohn, and Army-McCarthy. I find this whole article to be badly lopsided and in need of an overhaul; another day, maybe I'll tackle it. Have you contributed one bit of information to this article that didn't involve McCarthy or Cohn? You seem to not know anything about Schine outside of 1954, and then only how it relates to McCarthy or Cohn, and even in that context a fairly narrow scope. It sounds like you have read from primarily old references or maybe read newspapers at the time, because your account reads like a column from the 50s. Things change, new opinions are formed. You seem to be stuck in 1954 and it is showing. Please review all of the above, somewhat arbitrary changes you've undone lately and find some compromises, otherwise you and I will be going back and forth a long, long time. Wikipikiliki 19:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I have explained my reversions of your edits point-by-point above, and as you can see, none of them are "arbitrary." If you object to any of my edits, respond to my points, rather than simply claiming that i"m not "open minded" enough. As for the Cohn/McCarthy connection, I believe that that connection is the primary reason Schine is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. You can prove me wrong on that by showing that there are as many WP:Reliable sources that mention Schine outside of the context of his relationship with Cohn and McCarthy as there are that mention him within that context. RedSpruce 20:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
No, you have not explained all of your revisions--the above is just a partial listing of the many edits you've undone lately, with many unrelated edits often being undone by you in the same sweep, with no explanation at all, making them entirely arbitrary. With each edit I've made, I write an edit summary and you can find my notes in the edit history. And regardless of Schine being known the most for the Army-McCarthy hearings, he had a life before it, outside of it during the same period, and afterwards--this article doesn't cover it very well and seems unbalanced. Wikipikiliki 21:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
RedSpruce, is this your full time job? You are posting in every single article associated with McCarthy. Not that I blame you, but man you really keep yourself busy. I wish I had your time. Anyway, please cut out the nonsense about calling James Drummey's article non-citable as a reference when you know that it is citable. It's already being used in the McCarthy article. Your claim that, "The content added here represents a view that is not shared by any notable scholar in the field. It comes from an extremist right-wing website, a type of source specifically discouraged by WP:Attribution#Using questionable or self-published sources" is utterly absurd. That website has better fact-checking than a lot of the absurd anti-McCarthy books and articles you cite. Here's one article critical of McCarthy that is listed yet also fits the description you use against Drummey's article:[10]. Didn't see you complain about that nonsense. Oh, and yes, I have every single major McCarthy book ever written now. I'm just reading over all this trash so I can see exactly what you guys are using to attack the late Senator. Fred Cook's book is pure garbage. The fact-checking is trash. He claims that books were burned when that is in fact a LIE. Arthur Herman makes that clear. It took me two minutes to find that lie, give me some time and I'll clean up the mess on the McCarthy page by using your own sources. I don't have time tonight but I'll counter each of your other points in this article as well. In the meantime, what the heck does this have to do with Schine directly:
But the exposure of McCarthy and his methods before a television audience is considered by many as being key to his downfall from his former position of power and influence.
Nothing. It can be used as part of the Army-McCarthy hearings or in the Joseph McCarthy article, but it has no relevance to Schine so, say "bye-bye". Jtpaladin 02:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Jtpaladin, the sentence you quote about McCarthy is entirely relevant to this article, because it points out the primary reason why Schine is famous enough to have an article in Wikipedia. As for your personal opinions about the reliability of various sources, you're welcome to them, but they're not relevant. The consensus view among scholars is what it is, and that's what WP articles are obliged to reflect.
RedSpruce 10:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
RedSpruce, no that line is completely beside the function that Schine played in this article. This article is about Schine and not McCarthy. You are taking this too far out. What happened to McCarthy because of this has no relevance to Schine. In fact, the Army-McCarthy hearings had no bearing on McCarthy in the manner in which you spoke. Ike wanted McCarthy out and put together a bunch of gullible Senators to do the hack job. This had nothing to do with Schine. I did remove the part about Schine being exonerated because I didn't have a quote for it but nevertheless, he was not found complicit in some scheme of which the anti-McCarthy hate-mongers accused him of being. Jtpaladin 13:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Schine is famous only for the indirect role he unwittingly played in the downfall of McCarthy. If you want to argue against this, simply show that there are a number of reliable sources that mention Schine outside of that context comparable to the number that mention him within that context. Your fantasies about history aren't relevant here; if you could resist the urge to share them with us, you'd save yourself some typing. RedSpruce 14:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Again with the "fantasy" nonsense? Man, you really aren't playing with a full deck. I am focusing on one line that has nothing to do directly with Schine. That's it. And that line states, "But the exposure of McCarthy and his methods before a television audience is considered by many as being key to his downfall from his former position of power and influence." Where in that line does it mention Schine? What relevance does this have to do with Schine? None. This is beside the point that "McCarthy's methods" are merely some point of view because McCarthy was defendant in this kangroo court and the format of the proceeds were dictated by the Committee, not McCarthy. But again, this is completely superfulous to the subject of the article.
I might as well start adding in references to Owen Lattimore and other crap which clearly do not belong there. Can't you get it through your head that this is an article about Schine and that not everything in the 1950's was about McCarthy? That line has nothing at ALL to do with the Army-McCarthy hearings, as you said, Schine was not addressed as the subject of the inquiry (only that improper favoritism was alleged), Schine was not in the findngs of the Committee, Schine had nothing to do with McCarthy's "donwfall" or with the condemnation of McCarthy. You need to prove a tangible association between David Schine's biography and McCarthy's power and influence. You haven't even bothered to find one of your anti-McCarthy sources to make the claim that Schine was somehow responsible for McCarthy getting condemned, which is what you allege is connected to Schine. The fact is that you are over-reaching in an article that has nothing to do with Schine's problems and McCarthy's problems. Jtpaladin 13:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Without Schine, the Army-McCarthy hearings wouldn't have happened. The Army-McCarthy hearings are widely credited with bringing about the downfall of McCarthy. This is the reason why Schine is famous. RedSpruce 14:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is about Schine. Not about McCarthy and the Army-McCarthy hearings. It is not about how the Army-McCarthy hearings impacted McCarthy. It is not relevant how the hearings impacted Schine's mother either. The Army-McCarthy hearings are just another element in wrecking McCarthy's ability to probe the government for security risks. It does not stand alone as being the sole reason for his "downfall". In fact, even though the press harbored an intense hatred for McCarthy, remember that McCarthy was actually vindicated in this hearing, had a solid base of supporters, and if the idea of censure or condemnation had not been pushed by a coalition of Communists, fellow travelers, Eisenhower Republicans, left-wing Democrats, and the left-wing media, it would have been business as usual for McCarthy. Now, all this is beside the point of David Schine. You and I both know that Schine was not the reason for the Army-McCarthy hearing, it was just another attack on McCarthy, this time being orchestrated directly by the White House. If not Schine, then something else would have come up.
That statement you keep trying to include is inappropriate because not only is it not correct but it deals with a subject unrelated to Schine. It is not true that the Army-McCarthy hearings were "key to his downfall from his former position of power and influence". What was "key" was the actual passing of the condemnation resolution which did not have any basis in the Army-McCarthy hearings. Heck, you even removed the findings of the Army-McCarthy committee which actually are relevant in this regard. But you seem to care more about attacking McCarthy than dealing specifically with the Schine article. If you can find a way to attack McCarthy and keep it relevant to the article, feel free, but this isn't it. Jtpaladin 20:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. Regardless of what you personally believe about the "real reasons" for the Army-McCarthy hearings, Schine was the focus of the Army's charges against McCarthy and Cohn.
  2. Regardless of what you personally believe, all McCarthy biographers, even the ones who support McCarthy as a hero, say that the Army-McCarthy hearings was one of the most important events in his downfall.
  3. And no one contests that the hearings and their outcome for McCarthy are the primary reason why Schine is famous.

As you know, what you believe to be "true" has no bearing here. The issue is what WP:reliable sources have to say. Do you have any reliable sources that contradict any of my three points above? RedSpruce 10:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) edits

RAN, I've removed some footnote-quotations from cited articles that seemed to me to be either irrelevant to the text they're attached to, or just an unnecessary distraction for the reader. If you disagree with this, please discuss this issue here. Thanks. RedSpruce (talk) 17:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is one example from that article: "Schine and Cohn were rumored to have a sexual relationship, although there has never been any proof of this. More recently, some historians have concluded it was a friendship and that Schine was heterosexual. [5]" Well what exactly have some historians concluded? Hence the actual quote from the article, placed in the reference, using the quote=parameter. The actual quote was: "But so far as Mr. Schine is concerned, there has never been the slightest evidence that he was anything but a good-looking kid who was having a helluva good time in a helluva good cause. In any event, the rumors were sizzling away ..." Why remove it and make the next person buy and reread the entire external article by Tom Wolfe till they find the exact reference again. I had to read the whole article to find it. Once you buy the article you cant just use the search function for the word "heterosexual" or "homosexual" because Wolfe doesn't use those words. The quote parameter is there just for this reason, its the same reason why Google uses snippets of text from web pages, and why books use quotes in references. No one is served by removing the quotes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You seem to think that an article's references need to do more than point to a source. They don't; just pointing a reader at the place where some likely-to-be-challenged statement is documented is enough. Look at the footnotes in any book; sometimes a quote from the source is included in the footnote, but rarely. When a quote from the author of some outside source is important to the article, then the quote should be put in the body of the article.
The only imaginable use the quote you mention above has is that it proves the source says what the article claims it says. And it doesn't even "prove" that, since if the article is lying about where the information can be found, it could just as easily be lying about the quoted content. So the quote serves no purpose at all. And including text that serves no purpose in an article makes the article look amateurish and badly written.
And other quotes you include don't even serve the purpose of (not) proving that the reference is honest. The one I removed here for example. How does it fit in with the article text it's attached to? What does it add to the article? What does it document? RedSpruce (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The RAN-style ref serves the purpose of saving the reader the trouble of tracking down the secondary source. A reader could pull up a WP page and then view it offline with this method. It is harmless to add the secondary source text, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
How does it save the reader the trouble of tracking down the secondary source? I already covered this point above. If the user believes and accepts what the footnote says, then there's no reason for them to look it up and check it. If for some reason they don't believe it, then the added quote doesn't give them any reason to believe it. If they just want to read the secondary source for overall information about the subject, then again the quote doesn't serve any purpose.
And you don't address the other issue: quotes that don't document or confirm what the footnote says, but just consist of some random copied and pasted text from the source. All of these edits do harm by reducing the overall quality and professionalism of the article. Admittedly they don't do huge harm, but user RAN obsessively, ritualistically inserts near-random quotes like this into every article he comes across, almost always lowering the quality of the article. When challenged, he repeated refuses to discuss his edits, or engages only in dismissive and meaningless discussion.
I don't know what you mean about pulling up a WP page and then view it offline; could you expand on that? RedSpruce (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
If I understand your point, you don't see the relationship between the secondary source direct quote included in the ref and the footnoted text in the article. This is a problem. Presumably the direct quotation supports the footnoted text. That is the purpose. Is this your contention?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
If the quoted text that RAN inserts supported the footnote, then the quoted text would merely be unnecessary, and letting him insert it would be a relatively harmless concession.
Here's some article text:
Among their other anti-communist activities, Schine and Cohn conducted a highly publicized, and widely ridiculed,[2] tour of Europe in 1953, examining libraries of the United States Information Agency for books written by authors they deemed to be Communists or fellow travelers.[3]
And here is footnote #3, with RAN's added quote:
Ward, Geoffrey C.. "Roy Cohn", American Heritage Magazine, 1988. Retrieved on 2008-03-12. "His single stated regret was that he and his young fellow-counsel, G. David Schine, had ever undertaken their celebrated 1953 trip to Europe to purge United States Information Agency libraries of 'more than thirty thousand works by Communists, fellow-travelers and unwitting promoters of the Soviet cause."
"His single stated regret"? What's that doing in there? What does that have to do with the text of the article? What does most of the quote have to do with the article text? For whatever reason, RAN feels a need to find some text somewhere, that in some way, however indirect and confusing, supports something in an article, and he then pastes a quote into a footnote. As here, the result is often rather bizarre. RedSpruce (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think having quotations is problematic. If they illustrate which aspect of the source being cited is especially relevant to the main text, it's no problem and I don't think they make the footnotes look overly cluttered. I say keep 'em. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restoration

I have restored the quote parameter to the references. You can reread what I wrote above, or I can cut and paste it again. The quote parameter is there to use. Your counterargument appears to be that original author may be lying in what they wrote, so we should not use the quote function. You wrote: "The only imaginable use the quote you mention above has is that it proves the source says what the article claims it says. And it doesn't even "prove" that, since if the article is lying about where the information can be found, it could just as easily be lying about the quoted content. So the quote serves no purpose at all." I don't buy it as a valid argument, Wikipedia isn't about truth its about verifiability. I suggest you reach consensus here on the talk page before you delete my additions again. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to reach a consensus here. If you would respond to my points, as I have responded to yours, that might help us make progress. To reiterate, my overall point is that just shoveling irrelevant and out-of-context words into an article doesn't make it better. It makes it worse. If you can explain how your added quotes are relevant, how they add something useful or interesting to the article, then I'll withdraw my objection. As it is, all you've said is that "the quote parameter is there to use." This isn't a test where you'll be marked down for not filling in a blank; because the parameter is there doesn't mean you have to fill it in. You also said "Wikipedia isn't about truth its about verifiability." I don't understand how this applies--your additions don't make the article any more "verified"--so perhaps you could expand on that. RedSpruce (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

Consensus is made here on the talk page, then changes are made on the article page. You are making the changes, rationalizing them, then calling it consensus, you have it backward. All I can do is cut and paste what I have already written. We are just going in circles, there is no way to counter your argument that the author may be lying when they write material, except to remind you about the difference between truth and verifiability. The quote may not be the truth but it is verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you say I am calling anything a consensus; I have never said anything remotely like that.
You still haven't addressed my point: That the quotes you add are not useful or informative or helpful. Some of them are just out-of-context "noise". Yes, the quotes are verifiable. So are the footnotes without the quotes.
Here is a suggested compromise: If you would agree to the removal of the quoted I removed here, and refrain from adding any more footnotes or quotes to the article without discussing your edits first, then I'll drop my objection to these two quotes: The quote attached to the footnote "Crash Kills G. David Schine, 69, McCarthy-Era Figure". and the quote attached to the footnote "The Self-Inflated Target", Time (magazine), March 22, 1954. I still believe that this last one is just useless "noise", but in the interest of compromise I'll drop my objection to it.
If you don't agree to dropping that one quote, then please answer the simple and direct questions I asked above: How does it fit in with the article text it's attached to? What does it add to the article? What does it document? These are simple questions. If you can't answer them, then you can't justify including the quote. RedSpruce (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership issues

I use the quote: "But so far as Mr. Schine is concerned, there has never been the slightest evidence that he was anything but a good-looking kid who was having a helluva good time in a helluva good cause. In any event, the rumors were sizzling away ..." You use the combination of a quote with a comment: "On the other hand, author Tom Wicker refers to Schine as 'Cohn's boyfriend'" From my point of view, you are just deleting what you don't add. You disparage the quote parameter, and use subjective rationalizations to delete mine. But use it when it pleases you. Its there to please the general reader, not one editor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 11:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Your point of view about "ownership" is incorrect, and your persistence in making this accusation is a personal attack. I don't care about that and I'm not complaining--I'm just pointing it out. You can continue to call me any name you like if it makes you feel better.
About the Tom Wicker quote I inserted, it's usefulness and relevance is perfectly obvious. The footnote could have been written without the quote, but the most direct and clear way to convey Wicker's opinion here was to include that two word quote. The quote adds something to the article. If it was removed, it would have to be replaced with something else or the footnote wouldn't make sense. Is that true of the quotes you are adding? RedSpruce (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
"Ownership" isn't a name, names are nouns. I can't be discussing ownership issues and call you a name, I would have to be using a noun. Remember you called me a "moron", thats a noun. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comments

[edit] Here we go again

Someone must be in need of extra Wiki stimulation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see again, RAN. Now that you're here, perhaps you could give some reasons for keeping those footnote quotes. Although we've discussed the issue before, you never did manage to give anything resembling a reason. RedSpruce (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quote parameter

Please see previous discussions on this topic:
Obviously, neither of the above are "previous discussions on this topic". RedSpruce (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It is the same argument, just moved to a new venue. Your tactics haven't changed, and your still using your favorite moniker. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again, more wasted time and effort deleting and restoring, rather than creative research and writing. Some people get their stimulation by tearing down, others by careful research and detailed writing. Finding new information is hard work, deleting other peoples additions seems to provide the same stimulation with less effort. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you don't, and have never, given any valid reason for the inclusion of the unnecessary, repetitious, distracting and pointless quotes in your footnotes, I assume you have no such reason. Here you don't even attempt to present an argument, but instead entertain yourself with paranoid fantasies about other editor's motivations. My motivation, in fact, is to make this article look less like it was written by someone with a communication disorder.
Now let's move on from name-calling. Either present a reason for your edit, or acquiesce to its removal. RedSpruce (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's my position: When you put text in front of a reader, that reader has a right to expect that the text will serve a purpose--that it will impart useful information, in the case of an encyclopedia article. Repetition does not impart useful information. The way the article is constructed with your quotes, it flows like this:
  1. [article makes a statement of fact]
  2. [footnote tells reader where the statement can be verified]
  3. [footnote quote repeats the statement of fact, with different wording, often with off-topic and/or out-of-context text included]
My contention is that step 3 doesn't make sense, and is detrimental to the reader's experience. It makes the article look like it was edited by someone who doesn't understand the purpose of a footnote, and doesn't know how to communicate in a meaningful manner with the reader.
RedSpruce (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, please reread any of my previous statements over the past month or so, since the time you have been deleting my additions to the article. I understand you enjoy filibustering, rather than adding content, so here it goes again: Quote parameter is here to use, it contains the "exact" wording, not the phrasing I used. Read the previous two or three times I talk about Schine's alleged homosexuality/hetersexuality. What "exactly" did people say, well, look, there it is in the reference.
Do you really think that by retyping your position a dozen times, or deleting what you don't like a dozen time, my position is going change? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact that something is "there to use" is not, as I have explained to you before, a valid reason for misusing it or using it indiscriminately. You assume that there is some necessity to show "exactly" what people said. Sometimes there is, but in the vast majority of cases there simply isn't. Look at the dif. Which of these quotes clears up some ambiguity that the article text left open? Point out the ones that give the reader useful and important information.
Thanks for your response, BTW. I'm sure you find this discussion tiresome, but by the policies of Wikipedia, you're going to have to stick with it. As long as you continue to participate in discussion, I won't RV your latest RV.
And if you want to make this process a little less tiresome, you might try leaving out the part where you keep making up new insult-fantasies about my motivations. That will at least save you some typing. If you find me irritating, just call me a jerk or a moron; that would be more honest, less childish and it requires less typing. RedSpruce (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe you called me a "moron" see here, thats your style, not mine. Based on your edits, you are just guarding your contributions to a few articles. I have moved on to creating new content. I find it much more productive than this filibuster type endless debating. You will not convince me, I will not convince you. My speculation was that this type of endless debate and edit deletions were easier than creating new content, and it is providing the same stimulus that others get from creating new content, I still stand by that guess. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. If you continue to RV my attempts to improve this article without meaningful discussion, we'll have to move on to further levels of conflict resolution. Please note, however, that all forms of conflict resolution require that you either participate in discussion or withdraw your resistance to other people's edits. RedSpruce (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I am only reading the diff you pointed for whether it improves or detracts from the project. I use a lot of refs and don't use the quote feature. Take an article like Jack Kemp that I have worked on and that is huge. The quote feature would blow up the article beyond normal bounds. However, in this case, the quotes add value to the article by providing the reader with extra context and detail that might not be germane to the article. I would retain this detial.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • TonyTT, saying that the inclusion of information that isn't germane to the article is an improvement seems like a contradiction to me. However, I'm willing to accept any of these quotes if someone can show me how it's an improvement. Could you point out the ones you think add something to the article and explain what useful information they provide? RedSpruce (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • My opinion is a mixed bag. But I've formulated my comments on two principles (1) Adding a quotation to a a reference is not standard practice. 99% of references will rightly lack a quote. Most information should go in the article. If a reader wants more information, they can read the reference for themselves. Quotes, however, are used in exceptional circumstances when further clarification is needed or exceptionally helpful but too disruptive to be included in the body text. This is hard to define, but we kind of use the porn test with it - we know it when we see it. A corollary of that is that it is easier to identify something that isn't porn (or a necessary quote) than something that is. (2) As a rule of thumb, quotations are most helpful when they say something that is actually not said explicitly in the text, but would help clarify. For example, in an article on boat travel in the Caribbean, you might have a sentence that says "Compasses were used for centuries as a reliable (for the most part) navigational device." The "for the most part" might be the most concise phrasing in context of the paragraph, but a discerning reader may wonder why that part was added. So a footnote may include a quote from a source showing that there are reports of navigational aberrations in the region of the Bermuda Triangle. Do you get my point? That is clearly helpful and aids the text, but for stylistic reasons should not be included in the main text. However (extending the example) a footnote that includes the quote "Navigation was largely limited to compasses during much of the 15th Century" would serve little value, since we essentially just said that. That said, I've seen both kinds of quotes in this article. I will respond to each quote footnote individually:
    • "At the start, the focus was on G. David..." - redundant; no discernible value
    • "J. Myer Schine, 79, founder and chairman of Schine..." - no value. We aren't trying to prove that he died, just what his name is, which is already in the body text
    • "In 1957, he turned over the title of president..." - redundant; no discernible value
    • "Also killed in the crash were Mr. Schine's wife..." - redundant; no discernible value
    • "His single stated regret was that he..." - helpful, although I'd probably integrate this information on the body text under the "After the Army-McCarthy hearings" section.
As a side note, I am continually disheartened by the incivility you two show to one another. Flat out name calling, lack of assumption of good faith, refusal to discuss changes made or be open to critique. There are other admins who would probably temporarily ban both of you for the behavior I've read above. I would highly recommend that you all stop working on the same articles, take a wikivacation, pray, whatever to return to some level of objectivity and civility.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 13:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment, Esprit15d; your position on these quotes pretty much matches mine. RAN, If you don't post any objection here, I'll edit the article per Esprit15d's recommendation. RedSpruce (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference

I don't see this reference supporting the sentence, Am I missing something? He remained active in the private sector as a businessman and an entrepreneur, working in the hotel, music, and film industries, and he was a founding member of the Young Presidents' Organization.[1]

  1. ^ McNees, Pat. YPO: The First 50 Years.
I'd say you're not missing anything. Contrary to some of your various insult/fantasies above, I haven't contributed very much to this article and I don't claim "ownership." I wasn't the one to insert this text and footnote and I don't know anything about the YPO. I seem to remember checking this reference in the past, so its content may have changed since it was inserted.
BTW, your change to the lede is in poor and awkward English, misuses a comma and suggests that Schine was an army private throughout his life, or at least his adult life. The earlier version was better and more correct. RedSpruce (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible reference

Note to self: Here is a possible reference, it will have to wait until I buy another subscription to the archive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

  • New and Encouraging Developments Looking Toward ... $3.95 - New York Times - Jun 6, 1954

... current exhibition and the recent symposium of the Young Presidents Organization. ... Fuller Brush Company, and (Pvt.) G. David Schine of Schine Hotels. ...

[edit] Edit war

Instead of just getting your jollies reversing my additions, why don't you actually vet the references used in the article. All your reversing of my vetting of the article, didn't spot the incorrect reference used in the article. I was the one that spotted it, by actually reading each reference to see if supported the text, and adding the proper quote if the text was supported by the citation. Isn't that be a better use of time, and a better service to Wikipedia readers. Instead you are just guarding your version of the article, and endlessly filibustering over aesthetics, instead of fact checking. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for your continued exercise in moronic insults, RAN. You are a bastion of consistency in an otherwise turbulent world. RedSpruce (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Please avoid using words like "moronic." Wikipedia is a community and while members of this community may disagree, please do not escalate tensions by using confrontational terms. Thank you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The short form of WP:No Personal Attacks is "Comment on content, not on the contributor." RAN has been flouting this guideline with relentless persistence in his insult/fantasies about my motivations in opposing some of his edits. Note here, here, here, here, here and (immediately above) here. If you're going to complain about incivility, please do not take sides and only complain about one party (in this case, the far-less-guilty party). Thank you. Sincerely, RedSpruce (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel word removal and restoration of unsubstantiated fact as compromise

That isn't an example of a WP:Weasel word, or at least not any more so than your replacement "many errors." And "compromise" isn't the right word for finding a reference to an unreferenced statement. It's a tricky lil' ol' thing, trying to write in comprehensible English, isn't it? You should stick to copy-and-pasting.
Some might call "riddled with errors" "unencyclopedic writing," but there wouldn't be much of a case for that viewpoint. But "many errors" is almost as good, so I don't object to that. If I revert it in the future, it will only be because 1) it isn't an improvement, and 2) I'm reverting other aspects of your edits; i.e. the ones that are detrimental to the article according to arguments which I have presented and to which you have never responded. RedSpruce (talk) 13:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Hello! I did a search on Academic Search Complete. Anyway, the search turned up the following: Crash Kills G. David Schine, 69, McCarthy-Era Figure. By: LAWRENCE VAN GELDER. New York Times (1/1/1985 to present), 6/21/1996, p25, 0p; (AN 29573395); Crash kills G. David Schine, 69, McCarthy-era figure. By: Gelder, Lawrence van. New York Times, 6/21/96, Vol. 145 Issue 50465, pA25, 1bw; (AN 9609114065). Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand the purpose of this comment. The article isn't lacking in references around Schine's death. RedSpruce (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That's why I didn't just go ahead and add it myself; I thought I might indicate it here should anyone think it better than the current ones or if anything in the article can be used elsewhere. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] non-footnote-quote issues

In the lede, making "...was the chief consultant to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations..." part of the first sentence is silly. He held this position for only a few years out of his life, and it arguably wasn't even a "real" position or title. "...was a wealthy heir to a hotel chain fortune..." makes more sense, since this is what he was, before and after his involvement with Cohn & McCarthy and throughout his life. Being a wealthy heir is much more the "defining aspect" of who he was. Also in the lede, "Although the pamphlet contained many errors, he had a copy placed in every room of his family's chain of hotels" strongly implies that Schine knew his pamphlet had errors, but used it anyway. It would make more sense to attach the "Although the pamphlet contained many errors" to the fact that it led to his being introduced to Cohn. RedSpruce (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

While Schine held the position for "only a few years out of his life", it is probably the defining characteristic that makes him notable. It's hard to imagine that he would have been viewed as anything other than a minor notable if all he was known for was his role as heir to a hotel chain fortune (though Paris Hilton might be making a case for an exception or two.) Adding details regarding his status as a hotel heir to the lead (without removing other details)would be appropriate. The details regarding the pamphlet should be reworded to make it clear that the errors were not deliberate. Alansohn (talk) 16:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
With some people "who they were" and "what they're notable for" aren't the same thing. This is especially true with people like Schine, who come to wide attention only briefly, due to a single incident in their life. The lede as I wrote it made the reason for his notability clear by continuing the first sentence: ...who received national attention when he became a central figure in the Army-McCarthy Hearings of 1954." RedSpruce (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
And BTW, your latest update to the text around the pamphlet uses a whole lot of awkward, choppy sentences and misuses a semicolon. RedSpruce (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Alansohn, your latest word tweak ...in his role as the chief consultant to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations is inaccurate. Schine's role in the Army-McCarthy hearings had nothing to do with the fact that he was a McCarthy "consultant". It had to do only with the fact that he was Roy Cohn's friend. RedSpruce (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
If we are looking for consensus, I agree with Alansohn, and will restore the lead and its references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This is more a matter of documented fact than one where a consensus of opinion is relevant. If you read histories if the incident, it's clear that Schine's position as a consultant for McCarthy had little to do with the whole affair. It was his friendship with Cohn that led to Cohn's bizarre behavior, which in turn led to the Army-McCarthy hearings.
On the other hand, the language "in his role as chief consultant..." is sufficiently vague so that the error doesn't really jump out at the reader. It's just one little bird-dropping of dis-improvement among dozens that have been added to the article lately. RedSpruce (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I think your confusing truth with verifiability. Truth exists in a person's mind, verifiability is what we source from other writers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not confusing those points. I'm saying that this matter is made perfectly clear in all of the reliable sources that cover the issue, and the current content of this sentence is in error because it is contrary to what those sources say. RedSpruce (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Now you're just using "trust me" as your rationale. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
No; the various online sources that you have looked at yourself in working on this article are sufficient to verify what I'm saying. The phrase in question is: "...he became a central figure in the Army-McCarthy Hearings of 1954 in his role as the chief consultant to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations." This strongly implies that he acted as a chief consultant during the Army-McCarthy Hearings, and that this made him a central figure in those hearings. It also unequivocally states that his position as a chief consultant was key to the part he played in the hearings. In the work you've done on this article, you've seen material that shows both of these points to be incorrect. RedSpruce (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] footnotes 1, 2 & 3

As I pointed out in an edit summary, footnote #2 contains two unrelated quotes and is used in two places in the article. Therefore in both places, half of the quote content is completely irrelevant to the footnoted text. The solution to this is to make the footnote into two footnotes. The first of the two quotes: "He hired Roy M. Cohn as Chief Counsel to the Subcommittee..." is of course completely unnecessary, as it only repeats what the article states. The second quote: "[Schine] confused Stalin with Trotsky, Marx with Lenin, Alexander Kerensky with Prince Lvov, and fifteenth-century utopianism with twentieth-century Communism. ...” is useful and should be kept, as it expands upon and adds detail to the footnoted text.

Also, there are currently 3 footnotes to the opening sentence of the article. This seems excessive, since this sentence says nothing that is likely to be challenged, and says nothing that isn't expanded upon, with sufficient references, later in the article. Per the guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead section#Citations, no footnote at all is required here, and 3 is clearly out of line. RedSpruce (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been continuously challenged by you. I think you have removed it four times. The more it is challenged by you, the more effort goes into referencing the fact. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The matters documented by these references have never been challenged by me; I have never questioned that Schine was a chief consultant for McCarthy; you are misreading my comments. Perhaps it would help if you went back and reread them RedSpruce (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
There are some simple and straightforward issues left open here and in the section above which have not been responded to. The article makes a factually incorrect statement and is contrary to Wikipedia style guidelines. Please address these open issues rather than claiming a "consensus" exists thanks to the support of your part time meat puppet Alansohn. If you go back to your old pattern of refusing to discuss edit conflicts, then I'll add that issue to the Arbitration Request currently open on you. RedSpruce (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The simple and straightforward issues have all been responded to and addressed. The article has been changed several times to accommodate your never-ending set of demands. If you can support what part of this article is "contrary to Wikipedia style guidelines", you might be more likely to find changes that would meet even your satisfaction. If you continue to try to push your demands in this manner, your continued incivility will be added to the Arbitration Report open regarding your actions. Alansohn (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Alansohn, I'm afraid I don't see where the points I've raised have been responded to. In my first comment in this section I raised some issues. RAN's response addressed nothing in my comment, but simply went off on a tangent, incorrectly stating that I had "challenged" something that I have never challenged. That summarizes the entire content of this section. Where is the part where my issues have been responded to? What you call my "demands" is to make this article better by removing nonsense and misinformation, and I don't see any reason to stop that. So please do go ahead and add this outrageous conduct to your list of charges at the Arb Request RedSpruce (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, Alansohn, I should point out that you're arguing against your friend RAN here: RAN said the excessive footnotes were added because I was "challenging" the sentence in question. I pointed out that he was mistaken about what I was challenging--certainly not the facts that were documented in those footnotes. So by RAN's own reasoning, those footnotes don't belong there. RedSpruce (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The material quoted in the reference support the citations being made. The material being referenced is still in the article, so the sources need to be there. If you would clearly and concisely state the latest version of your demands, it may be possible to reach consensus to address them. If you believe that sourced material added to the article is "nonsense" or "misinformation" you will need to clearly document why the material must be removed. Other than that, removing sourced material without valid justification is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Alansohn (talk) 06:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the improved tone, Alansohn. There are about four ongoing issues with this article, but to keep things simple, I'll restate only one here: There are currently 3 footnotes to the opening sentence of the article. These all document one fact: that Schine was "chief consultant" for McCarthy. This point has not been challenged, is not likely to be challenged, and in any case is well-documented elsewhere in the article. Per the guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead section#Citations, no footnote at all is required here, and 3 is clearly out of line. These footnotes can and should be removed. Please let me know if any part of that is unclear to you and I'll try to explain further. RedSpruce (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If that is your entire issue with this article, there seems to be a rather clear case of confusion here. Schine's notoriety, and the fact that there are readers who may find it difficult to reconcile his hotel heir status with his role as Chief Consultant, the possibility of a challenge is far from non-existent, as evidenced by repeated challenges to these issues that you have made. Contrary to your persistent claim that there is some sort of Wikipedia policy violation here, the relevant policy clearly states that this is an issue that "should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus". Your opinion on this matter is simply your own personal bias. I would suggest that an extremely easy solution to an issue that you have escalated beyond all reasonableness would be to ignore the little numbers in little brackets that represent sources in the lede paragraph and that seem to offend your sensibilities. Alternatively, you will need to demonstrate that consensus of editors dealing with this article supports your personal position. These footnotes can and should remain. Alansohn (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

←As I said, that is one of about 4 issues this are currently being discussed regarding this article. As I've stated 3 times previously, I have not challenged the issue that is documented in these 3 footnotes, nor is anyone likely to. It's a simple matter of unremarkable fact that Schine was chief consultant. There is nothing there to "challenge". It is not my personal claim that a Wikipedia style guideline applies here; it is a fact available to you by clicking Wikipedia:Lead section#Citations. Since you haven't presented any argument for keeping these footnotes, and since they are against WP style guidelines, I'm removing them. Would you like to move on to my next issue for discussion now? RedSpruce (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

  • In responding to my reply, you edited my response to replace an asterisk with a colon. No Wikipedia policy requires removal of asterisks and replacement with colons. Why did you do it? Because you felt the need to impose your personal bias on indentation procedures onto my post, a great metaphor for your actions here. Again, you need to read the guideline you're citing, Wikipedia:Lead section#Citations, which I had already quoted above states that "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." I do believe the issue at hand is contentious, and there is no argument that the subject is extremely controversial. As such, I believe that Wikipedia policy strongly justifies inclusion of the footnotes in the lead paragraph, right where they are. This justification I have made constitutes a rather clear argument for keeping these footnotes, yet you simply ignore it and demand that they be removed. They are clearly NOT against Wikipedia style guidelines; they simply don't meet your own personal bias as to how the article should be formatted. You cannot remove these citations without obtaining the "editorial consensus" mandated by Wikipedia:Lead section#Citations. Please read my entire response and the entire Wikipedia policy we are both citing before coming back with a reply that disregards both. Alansohn (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Whether or not Schine was a consultant for McCarthy is not controversial or contentious. You say that it is, so please point me to some place where you have seen this controversy being debated. As for consensus, as has been well documented by now, Alansohn/RAN count as one person in edit conflict like this, so there is no consensus.
    • From Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Characteristics of problem editors:
    • Seemingly an unrelated style issue, tendentious editors often do not indent their talk page comments. While threading discussions (by indenting your replies to others' posts) is not strictly required, it is standard practice and highly recommended since it makes discussions easier to follow. Failing to do so may be interpreted as inexperience with Wikipedia conventions at best, and as inconsiderateness or arrogance at worst.
    • RedSpruce (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I have been indenting, with asterisks, rather than colons as you demand must be used. Arrogance is a rather weak word to describe the way you have been trying to impose your arbitrary and irrational demands. "I have decided, equally arbitrarily, that I count as seven people and you count as none. Therefore this argument is closed." would be roughly equivalent to the "logic" you have been using. Deal with the issues and deal with the relevant Wikipedia policy. If you can't demonstrate consensus for removing the sources, you have no standing here. Alansohn (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You can keep your asterisks, just as you can keep playing tag-team reverter with RAN. I expect that the Arbitration Committee will have something to say about the latter point eventually, but by all means continue while you can.
Now, if we could get back to the article, I said: Whether or not Schine was a consultant for McCarthy is not controversial or contentious. You say that it is, so please point me to some place where you have seen this controversy being debated.
Please respond to that point. RedSpruce (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no argument that Schine is a controversial subject. As per Wikipedia:Lead section#Citations, "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." The problem with your most recent edit, as with many previous such edits on your part, is that you have removed the sources from the article in their entirety, not just references in the lead. The fact that you are not even following the policy that you claim to be enforcing undermines the credibility of your personal issue. Your edit summary "rm unneeded footnotes, per style guidelines" is simply false. There is no style guideline that requires removal of these sources from the article, only your personal opinion and refusal to cooperate. If you are challenging Schine's status as a controversial subject and can back that up, you might help your case here. As you cannot demonstrate the "editorial consensus" required for their elimination, your repeated removal of these sources is improper, at best. Alansohn (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  1. The footnotes in question document nothing other than the fact that Schine was a chief consultant for McCarthy.
  2. There is nothing controversial and nothing to be challenged about this point. It's a trivial point, and it's well documented in the body of the article,
  3. Therefor it doesn't need to be documented with 3 footnotes in the lede.
Please name which of the above you disagree with, and why. RedSpruce (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Lead section#Citations states that "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." It is the subject of the article that is controversial. As such, the statements made in the article need more thorough sourcing, including in the lead. I guess I disagree with statements 1, 2 and 3. Alansohn (talk) 03:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
If you're saying that every trivial fact in the article should have 3 footnotes, just because some incidents in Schine's life were controversial, then my response is that that's silly, and you know it's silly, and anyone reading this will know it's silly. If your point in quoting that guideline passage is that you and RAN have a "consensus" here, and therefor you don't have to engage in discussion, then my response is that that's just fine, but why didn't you say that about 10,000 words ago, and save yourself a lot of typing?
If you aren't saying either of those things, then you need to show what it is about 1 or 2 that is incorrect. Just saying "I disagree" isn't an answer. RedSpruce (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I am engaging in a discussion, even if you ignore everything I have specified about Wikipedia policy on this matter. Wikipedia:Lead section#Citations states that "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." Even you cannot argue that the subject of the article is not controversial. The fact that he had a major role in the McCarthy Hearings is not a "trivial" fact; It's one of the defining characteristics of his notability. If he and McCarthy had never hooked up, a hotel heir who married a former Miss Universe would be an easy target for deletion. Nor does every fact in the article, trivial or otherwise, have three sources. My point in quoting policy is that the use of these references is fully supported by Wikipedia guidelines. If you can rebut the justifications I have made, please do so. Please don't just say you disagree. If you cannot demonstrate the "editorial consensus" required to remove these references, you cannot remove them. Alansohn (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Your repeated copy-and-paste of the same passage in bold really doesn't make you look like you're trying to be rational here Alansohn. Schine's association with McCarthy is trivial in the sense that as a point requiring a footnote, it's trivial. There is nothing controversial or contestable or challengeable about it. Whether or not Dwight D Eisenhower was a president isn't trivial, but that fact by itself doesn't need referencing. So my 3 points above still stand. Do you have any further response to them? RedSpruce (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Dwight D. Eisenhower is not a controversial subject; G. David Schine is. There are few people who don't know about Eisenhower or how he went from General to President; There are few people who know of Schine or how he went from hotel heir to Chief Consultant on one of the most important governmental bodies of his time. Given the controversial nature of the article's subject, the fact needs more thorough sourcing, and needs it in the lead. I can keep on rewording my responses, and you can keep on ignoring them, but the relevant Wikipedia policy completely supports the use of sources in the lead in such circumstances. I therefore continue to reject all three of your points. Alansohn (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

←Okay, I guess we're done here. It's obvious that no matter how absurd and irrelevant your statements have to be to avoid answering me, you'll just keep typing them out. I could continue this just for the entertainment value of watching you squirm in place like a speared fish, but that would be uncharitable. RedSpruce (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I ain't squirmin'. I have answered every single one of your demands and demonstrated they are incorrect and not supported by Wikipedia policy. You in turn have responded to none of mine. As you have failed to demonstrate the editorial consensus required your latest unexplained edits will be reverted. It's a shame that you refuse to acknowledge that consensus does not support your actions. Alansohn (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I added more references, because the statement that he was a consultant was deleted multiple times. The references were to show the deleter that the fact was true, and each time it was deleted, I felt a need to strengthen the fact with more references, since it was being challenged by it being deleted. Its ipso facto controversial since it has been deleted multiple times. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
So you're saying two things here, RAN:
1) You can't understand or don't care about the fact that I ("the deleter") have explained to you no less than 5 times over that I was not questioning whether Schine was a consultant for McCarthy's committee, and
2) You think that this: "he became a central figure in the Army-McCarthy Hearings of 1954 in his role as the chief consultant to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations." is nothing more than a "statement that he was a consultant".
RedSpruce (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Starting over

I'm going to RV this article to my preferred version. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), if you wish to discuss changes you would like to make, please do so and I'll be happy to respond. Alansohn, your only involvement with this article and the discussion here has been to support RAN by filibustering with nonsense, word games, circular arguments, pretended obtuseness, non-sequitur, etc., etc. If you continue in that fashion, I'll add the evidence to what has already been amassed against you in the ongoing ArbCom hearing. RedSpruce (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect and repetitious use of footnotes

A user has requested comment on biography for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCbio list}}.
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.

There is a lengthy but pointless pretense of "discussion" of these issues above; made pointless (and laughable) by the fact that two of the parties had no goal other than obstructionism. To briefly restate one of the issues, there are currently 3(!) footnotes attached to the opening sentence of the article, and none of them serve any purpose. They document the trivial and uncontested fact that Schine was a consultant for Joseph McCarthy. Meanwhile, there is no reference to support a contestable and arguably misleading statement in this sentence: that Schine came to notoriety "in his role" as consultant to Senator McCarthy. RedSpruce (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources added in the lead section directly support statements made therein. It is astonishing that User:RedSpruce would persist in his abusive WP:OWNership issues and false attacks claiming that the addition of reliable and verifiable sources is "pointless (and laughable) by the fact that two of the parties had no goal other than obstructionism", when these claims were rejected by ArbCom. There is plenty of room for discussion here; There is no more room for abuse. Alansohn (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Accusing me of having ownership issues and making false attacks is itself a form of abuse, Alansohn, so you seem to have found "room for abuse" somehow. And I said that your pretense of a discussion was laughable, not the footnotes. And your first sentence is incorrect, for the reasons I point out immediately above. If you want to "discuss" Alansohn, you're off to a bad start. RedSpruce (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)