Talk:Joseph McCarthy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Please consider reading the frequently asked questions for this article before asking any questions on this talk page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Joseph McCarthy article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Good article Joseph McCarthy has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
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] Discussion of FAQ page

If you have any comments regarding the Talk:Joseph McCarthy/Frequently asked questions page, please post them here.


[edit] "Extreme anti-communist suspicion"

Lets get this settled once and for all, because it has been driving me crazy for a long time. First question; where in the article is this asserted, after all the lead is a summary of the articles contents. And second, what is meant by this? The suspicion was extreme? The decade was extreme? The people being suspicious were extreme? Republicans, McCarthy, who does this refer to? I'm not being sarcastic either, I really want this cleared up. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the language is so difficult to grapple with. I read "a period of extreme anti-communist suspicion" as serviceable shorthand for "a period marked by extreme anticommunist sentiment and fear of leftist subversion." The sentence is followed by a citation referencing three excellent sources supporting the description.
In answer to your other basic question, there are many elements in the article that support the description. Here's just one paragraph:
At the time of McCarthy's speech, Communism was a growing concern in the United States. This concern was worsened by the actions of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe, the fall of China to the Maoists, the Soviets' development of the atomic bomb the year before and by the recent conviction of Alger Hiss and the confession of Soviet spy Klaus Fuchs. With this background and due to the sensational nature of McCarthy's charge against the State Department, the Wheeling speech soon attracted a flood of press interest in McCarthy.
The wording of the lead sentence in question might possibly be reworded along the sort of lines I've suggested for greater clarity, but it doesn't seem a major concern.—DCGeist (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
No I agree, its not, but I think you should add a bit more clarity along the lines that you described. How would "intense" work instead? That way it is "extremely" clear. :) I want to get this cleared up because I believe it has improved tremendously since its last FA nom, has a robust section on the reassessing of McCarthy, very well referenced throughout, and if we can just get a different adjective, I would give my full support to a new FA nom. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
"Intense anti-communist suspicion" seems okay to me. It doesn't seem to do any harm, anyway. RedSpruce (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's accurate enough and potentially less contentious.—DCGeist (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Cue the choirs of angels, muuuuuch better, thank you for being fair minded and understanding. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA nom?

What would need to be done to get this article ready for another FA candidacy? As I said above, it looks very good, very NPOV now, so it seems star-worthy, that's why I ask. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It could be nominated as-is, via Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, or a Wikipedia:Peer review could be initiated to see what comments that generates. For various reasons (laziness prominent among them), I'm reluctant to take these steps myself, but anyone can do so. RedSpruce (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
This article is terrible, it reflects a view that has long been shown inaccurate by a large number of experts. So if you want to make it a FA candidate, I think you should delete it and write it based on the current view of current experts on the subject, not the bias view of his opposition.Mantion (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New York Times

I don't see how the New York Times is erroneous in reporting his death. If it was they would have reprinted a retraction. Why are you deleting it? What exactly is "erroneous" as you wrote in your edit summary? That he died on that date, or that he died of a "liver ailment", or the age of 47? Or do you just not like the New York Times as a reference? [1]

  1. ^ "Senator McCarthy Is Dead of a Liver Ailment at 47", New York Times, May 3, 1957. Retrieved on 2008-03-19. "Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, who built a global reputation on antiCommunist investigations, died tonight of a liver ailment at the age of 47." 
Joseph McCarthy died at the age of 48.—DCGeist (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, the footnote is unnecessary. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources: "Quotations and material challenged or likely to be challenged need a reliable source." No one will have any reason to challenge the date (or fact) of McCarthy's death. Also, the footnote quote is redundant and pointless, as it simply repeats (except where it's inaccurate) the information already in the article. If the NYT obit was available online without a subscription, then it would make an excellent "external link," but it isn't. RedSpruce (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't all the footnotes repeat what is in the article? Isn't that their raison d'etre. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Um.... no, they don't (except for most of the ones you add to Wikipedia, that is). The purpose of a footnote is to give additional information, often for clarification of the footnoted text. In the case of Wikipedia, their primary purpose is to add references that show a reader where certain statements can be verified. Since the bulk of your many thousands of contributions to Wikipedia are in the form of adding footnotes, it's just a teensy bit surprising that you have so little understanding of what a footnote is supposed to be. Perhaps you should stop adding them until you've educated yourself on this point. RedSpruce (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you are confusing a footnoted reference citation vs. a footnote factoid. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. What is a footnote factoid? RedSpruce (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Footnoted references use the "{{cite" transclusion, a "footnoted comment" or "footnoted factoid", or a "footnoted additional fact", also goes to the bottom of the page but only uses the "<ref" html coding, both appear at the foot of the article, yet, are used for different purposes. The footnoted additional fact introduces new material, the footnoted reference citation doesn't introduce new material, it uses the actual quote from the cited material. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a footnoted reference citation usually does not introduce new material, and no, I was not confusing the two. Saying that a reference citation "uses the actual quote from the cited material" is your own bizarre practice, however, and is not at all a part of standard citation practice (as I've tried to point out to you many times before). It obviously should not be done when the quote serves no purpose, and merely repeats information already in the main text. It should only be done when when you are combining the two forms of footnote you describe. That is, you are both providing a reference citation and introducing some new information that clarifies or expands upon the main text. Sometimes this clarification and expansion is done with a quote from the source. But if you aren't using the footnote to introduce new information, you don't need a quote from the source.
The general rule here is a simple one: The reader doesn't need or want to have the same information thrown at him twice. If you're repeating information, you're doing something wrong. RedSpruce (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
In this case, by moving the encyclopedic fact to the text of the article and properly using the footnote, this becomes a properly attributed encyclopedic fact.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
What is the "encyclopedic fact"? That an NY times typesetter hit the wrong key? I don't think you'll find that trivia covered in any McCarthy biography. RedSpruce (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Funny section

"McCarthy died in Bethesda Naval Hospital on May 2, 1957, at the age of 48. The official cause of death was acute hepatitis; it is widely accepted that this was brought on by alcoholism."

I think that the correct expression is not alcoholism, but murder, or hurry into doing suicide. --Mazarin07 (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carlos Peralta

umm... I'm not sure but I don't think Carlos Peralta is Sen. McCarthy's brother... (see Early Life section) this looks like a prank edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.58.32 (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)